Bay 12 Games Forum

Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 05:43:00 pm

Title: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 05:43:00 pm

IT'S OVER

As of 11:30PM-ish EST on November 6th, President Barack Obama was reelected to a second term, and by a considerably larger margin than almost anyone expected (besides Nate Silver).  Former Governor, used car salesman, and all around great guy Mitt Romney will go back to being one of America's wealthiest unemployed people, Congressman Paul Ryan and his abs will go back to the House, Vice President Joe Biden will go back to his bubble bath and probably run for mayor of his hometown in 2016, and Barack Obama will stay up for about three days trying to figure out what the Hell he's going to do now.

(http://i.imgur.com/mTPta.png)

The Results

Republican incumbents Wicker (MS), Heller (NV), Barrasso (WY), Bob Corker (TN), Orin Hatch (UT) reelected, joined by Flake (AZ) and Cruz (TX) retaining Republican seats.  One Republican pickup in Nebraska for Deb Fischer from the seat of retiring Democrat Ben Nelson.

Democratic incumbents Feinstein (CA), Carper (DE), Ben Nelson (FL), Cardin (MD), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Anne Klobuchar (MN), Claire McCaskill (MO) in a fiery race, Jon Tester (MT), Menendez (NJ), Gillibrand (NY), Brown (OH), Casey (PE), Whitehouse (RI), Cantwell (WA), and Joe Manchin (WV) reelected, joined by Murphy (CT), Hirono (HI), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Heinrich (NM), Tim Kaine (VA) and Tammy Baldwin (WI) the first openly gay woman in Congress retaining Democratic seats.  Two Democratic pickups for Joe Donnelly (IN), and Elizabeth Warren (MA) who is sure to be a very closely watched race.

Two "Independent" victories, with Bernie Sanders (VT) retaining his well-worn spot, and a surprise for Angus King (ME) who defeated two serious challenger for Olympia Snowe's vacant seat, running on the promise of breaking the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives went from 242 Republican / 193 Democrat to a number so incredibly similar I'm not going to wait around to update it.

Exit polling showed that the largely Democratic arguments about income disparity, preserving the social welfare system, and your various "equality" issues largely led the day, along with average-person support for things like the auto-industry bailout and the President's response to Hurricane Sandy just a week before the election.  Voter turnout was bigger than almost anyone expected, with people under 30 making a slightly larger proportion of the electorate than they even had in 2008.  Meanwhile, the House of Representatives stayed exactly the same, proving the old adage that most voters might want to throw the bums out, but almost never their own bums.

Well, it was another one for the history books, and proof that all the money in the world can only do so much for a challenger.  It will make and break rules and be studied for a generation.  It was a wild ride, and now it's all over but the crying.

So long, and thanks for all the memories.  See you next time around folks.

Please enjoy the rest of the OP, a nice little time capsule from early March when the Republican primary was still underway but pretty well locked.  Stay in touch Romney, we'll miss you.

---

The greatest and most powerful country in the history of the human race (that's America btw) is head over heels into its contest for who will be the next Leader of the Free World.  This is going to be a very old thread by the time it's closed.  Likely, it will abandoned for a few months between the end of the votes and when Mitt Romney picks a Vice candidate.  An informed electorate is the key to a healthy democracy and all that jazz, so Americans and the world ought to have some idea of who's in the running to next be the most powerful person on Earth.  So without further ado...

Kukulkan's Revenge: The 2012 American Federal Elections
Let's Get Presidential

Obviously, this mostly concerns the Republican Presidential nomination, since the Democratic candidate is kind of a lock; not that I'll exclude any noteworthy third-party candidate either.  2012 has proven to be a bit more contentious that the 2008 Republican primary was, because the national Republican party switched from a winner-take-all delegation system to a proportional count, meaning every percentage in every state counts for a candidate, even as quite a few early states temporarily invalidated themselves by caucus systems and party rules.  It's still likely that one guy will have an obvious and growing lead before too long, but we can all hope some for entertainment.

For some godforsaken reason, the first primary up is Iowa, because it's the only thing Iowa has in life to feel important.  By January 3rd, campaign and political advertising spending records had been broken by an order of magnitude, mostly in the form of "unaligned" PAC money spent on Mitt Romney's behalf to discredit Newt Gingrich, whilst Ron Paul and Rick Santorum suddenly climbed in opinion polling.  Further wounding any credibility the Iowa caucus system is supposed to have for picking Presidents, the votes originally totaled after election night were not the "final" count - it took over two weeks for the state party to announce the results, because eight precincts (out of 1766) lost their ballots and never returned the home office calls.

Spoiler: Iowa “Results” (click to show/hide)

On January 4th these were the believed results:
25% each - Romney declared victor by photo finish over Santorum with 30,015 to 30,007 votes.
21% - Paul got the single best result he's ever had in a primary.
13% - Gingrich takes defeat with incredible grace, really.
10% - Perry set the record at $480 spent for each vote he got.
5% - Bachmann decided it was all said and done, and called it quits the next day.
1% - Huntsman has the patience of a mountain.
58 votes for the ghost of Herman Cain.
31 people joined the Buddy Roemer bowling league.

On January 20th, after two weeks of waffling about the answer, the Iowa Republican Party certified these results:
25% each - Santorum "actually" had about thirty votes over Romney.
Everybody else was exactly the same.  Go fig.

The best part is that it doesn't even really matter – the Iowa delegation doesn't apportion itself until April, and it doesn't have to pay attention to the votes.

New Hampshire followed on January 10th, for the exact same pageantry and criticisms.  Romney and Paul entered with commanding first and second places, making the state a contest for margins and a race for third between Huntsman, Santorum, and Gingrich.  Most notable for Santorum's poorly-received insistence on discussing the need for greater social restrictions in law, and the introduction of Romney's career as a venture capitalist being a point of attack for his opponents, especially "I like being able to fire people." (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/why-you-cannot-say-you-like-firing-people/251123/)

Spoiler: New Hampshire Results (click to show/hide)

39% - Romney continues his inevitable march to success over well-funded slings and arrows.
23% - Paul will be President when New Hampshire secedes to form The Real America.
17% - Huntsman might finally get his dad to turn lose his money on something besides orphans.
10% each - Gingrich beat out Rick Santorum by less than 200 votes, but neither placed enough to earn a delegate.
1% - Perry hustled onward to court the true Republicans in South Carolina.
0.4% - Buddy Roemer just bumped up the party by a thousand people.

Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Fred Karger, Gary Johnson, and a few dozen other people got like a hundred votes each, because New Hampshire lets anyone put their name on the ballot.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney back in December, putting one more log under her 35% Approval rating fire.  Senator Jim DeMint also predicted a Romney nomination without actually encouraging such.  Gingrich and Romney spent more money on ads than the entire 2008 South Carolina primaries combined, in Gingrich's case thanks to all of one donor.  With Romney's business history suddenly a point of contention, Fox News stepped up to defend him at all costs.  And one week prior, Jon Huntsman bowed out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/jon-huntsman-quits-endorses-romney?newsfeed=true), pledging Romney his "support", not impressing Rick Santorum (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rick-santorum-says-jon-huntsmans-backing-of-former-foe-mitt-romney-would-just-be-moderates-backing-moderates/) who had himself just received the endorsement of a national coalition of evangelical pastors.

In the week of January 15 to 21, South Carolina suddenly because the House of a Thousand Daggers, as perfunctory winner Mitt Romney who was set to win an unprecedented Triple Crown of the leading primaries found the world caving in on him.  Half of the Republican party named him the pariah of "vulture capitalism" while the other half said they were defending him on principle, not on substance; he gave some hilariously choked up answers about releasing his tax returns, before admitting he pays about 15% total, would not provide any more disclosure than the law demands, has a few mil stashed in the Cayman Islands just because, and considers $370k in speaker fees chump change.  Meanwhile, Rick Santorum won the coordinated endorsement of 150 evangelical pastors as the Anti-Romney, and was post-facto declared the "winner" in Iowa; Newt Gingrich received multiple standing ovations in debates for attacking the media after his second ex-wife gave a scathing interview about him and introduced the term "open marriage" to Presidential politics, and started rocketing in the polls as millions were dumped into his PACs; Stephen Colbert launched a "formal" run for President under the name of Herman Cain who was totes cool with it, and polled as the most likable candidate in the race; and Rick Perry finally got bored and resigned his race, endorsing Gingrich for some reason.

Spoiler: South Carolina Results (click to show/hide)

40% - Gingrich earned his fourth or fifth shot at political relevance.
28% - Romney is probably thinking its time to take off the gloves.
17% - Santorum wondered where all those church guys went.
13% - Paul finds himself in familiar territory.
6300 votes went to Herman Colbert.  I'm sure he's crushed.

South Carolina's delegates were in a weird position, because it's Winner-By-District and Gingrich won every district, but the state was penalized a few seats because they violated the National Republican Party's nomination calendar.  Whatev.

January 30th was supposed to be make or break time, especially after the business in South Carolina, but wound up swinging right back to early-race polling with Romney in a commanding lead.  In total, Romney alone (and his "unaligned" PACs) spent 50% more money than the whole Republican field did in Florida in 2008.  According to media watchers, 99.2% of campaigning airtime was given to "negative" ads, designed to discredit an opponent more than boost the title man.  And most of it was aimed straight at Gingrich, who still got a solid second place, but in Florida close doesn't count.  He vowed to fight on regardless.  Possibly the most telling exit poll of all: Santorum was ranked far and away the most "likable" of the candidates, but Romney ranked marginally more "electable" than anyone else, and you can see where they all went.  Negative campaigning at work?

Spoiler: Florida Results (click to show/hide)

46% - Romney gets a commanding lead, with less than 10% of delegates awarded.
32% - Gingrich vowed to come back swinging.
13% - Santorum doesn't want to Just Be Friends.
7% - Paul has heard this song before.

Feb 4th was the Nevada primary.  This one will be a real test of organization, because after John Ensign, Jim Gibbons, and Sharron Angle, the Nevada Republican Party doesn't really exist anymore, just voters cut loose in the void.  Made for a largely uneventful blowout Romney victory, possibly but probably not by him personally accepting the endorsement of Donald Trump (New Jersey casino tycoon), trouncing Gingrich's backer Adelson (Vegas casino tycoon, go fig).  Also considerably lower turnout than 2008, following a trend of Romney winning states in 2012 with less votes than he got in 2008.

Spoiler: Nevada Results (click to show/hide)

50% - Romney rules the desert.
21% - Gingrich swears he's going all the way to the Convention.
19% - Paul trucks along with the entire Libertarian turnout.
10% - Santorum blah blah blah.

Feb 7th was supposed to be the first of the Super Tuesday multi-primary days, with Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri.  Except the Republican Party said if they held their primaries that early, they would be penalized half of their delegates.  This was the same thing that happened to ever prior state, but they just went with it (which is why South Carolina has fewer delegates than Alaska).  These three states still "voted", they'll just hold real caucuses later in the year.  Until then, it was purely a popularity contest which turned into a Santorum blowout, I mean a Santorum tidalwave, I mean an explosion of Santorum, I mean... You get the idea.  Keeps him in the race at least, when he finally convinced some conservative billionaire to pour money into his SuperPAC.

Feb 11th was Maine's primary... then shenanigans happened. One county postponed due to the weather and was told it wouldn't count, any county was invalidated after the precinct captain called in to report the vote and was told the vote was already counted, another was thrown out when the paper ballots and computer records showed mirror opposite totals for Romney.  Ron Paul, then everyone else, cried foul and demanded a recount.  The state pulled some hasty moves and got a new “fair” and transparent vote, counting up less than 1% of the registered voting populace.  And Romney still won anyway.

Spoiler: Maine “Results” (click to show/hide)

39% - Romney is really glad nobody gives a shit about Maine.
35% - Paul is going to get all the delegates anyway, because caucuses are insane.
18% - Santorum could not have cared less about Maine.
7% - Gingrich has enough syrup in his system anyway.

Maine is another state that won't actually allocate its delegates until May.  So it was meaningless, except for Ron Paul's (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-delegate-strategy-threatens-to-undermine-will-of-gop-voters) and his delegate strategy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/maine-caucuses-provide-a-window-into-ron-paul-delegate-strategy/2012/02/12/gIQARNbC9Q_blog.html).

Feb 28 was Michigan and Arizona, with actual primaries awarding actual delegates.  Capping his legacy of fantastic campaign decisions, Senator John McCain endorsed Romney, and for other reasons (including Mormons) he was expected to win Arizona handily.  Michigan was the real contest - it's (one of) Romney's home state(s), his father was a governor there, and look at all that money.  Conversely, he's spent the last two years devising new ways to defend his opposition to the federal aid to the car companies back in 2009.  A week before the election, Santorum was on top in every county except Romney's house.  Then, in the way of Election 2012, Santorum started talking...

Spoiler: Arizona/Michigan Results (click to show/hide)

Arizona
47% - Romney can make friends with anyone.
27% - Santorum might work on that.
16% - Gingrich, eh whatever.
8% - Paul keeps waiting for that frontiersman surge.

Michigan
41% - Romney really likes those important friends.
38% - Santorum really likes talking about sex.
12% - Paul wishes every state was a caucus.
7% - Gingrich... who?

Michigan was going to split its delegates evenly to Romney and Santorum because of the close margin, but awarded two at large seats to Romney because... just because.

Then Wyoming and Washington held completely non-binding votes.  Hooray!  Stay tuned for the first Super Tuesday.

Spoiler: The Republican Nomination Delegate Totals (click to show/hide)

Because of the way party nominations work, actual vote totals don't elect the candidates (same as they don't directly elect the President, if for different reasons).  The party nominees are chose by "delegates" at the party's convention in autumn - each state has some number of delegates roughly proportional to their population, and whichever candidate can seat the most delegates is the nominee.  Ordinarily this would be meaningless, since there's usually one very clear winner anyway.  The important thing to remember here is that since 2008, the Republican parties in most states switched from a Winner-Take-All nomination process to a semi-proportional caucusing count.  Not all, but most, meaning it is conceivable that the state by state votes could be split up enough that multiple non-winners could band together in a coalition at the end to nominate a candidate over whoever actually got the most delegates.  Probably not going to happen though.

Mitt Romney - 118 - New Hampshire 7+2, South Carolina 2, Florida 50, Nevada 14, Arizona 29, Michigan 16
Newt Gingrich - 29 - South Carolina 23, Nevada 6
Rick Santorum - 17 - Nevada 3, Michigan 14
Ron Paul - 8 - New Hampshire 3, Nevada 5
Jon Huntsman - 2 - New Hampshire 2, Pledged to Romney

Meanwhile, there are some delegates around the country who apparently have the power to nominate whoever they want, unbound by the calendar of races.  I have not included these delegates, since they could theoretically change their support at any time.

In case you're worried, yes this thread is certainly for more than just the Republican Presidential race.  There's just not much to say about particular House and Senate races until around September, except high-profile cases like Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.

---

Hail To The Possible Chief

Feel free to profile any of these candidates at your leisure, that's why the thread's here.  I'll certainly try to later on, depending on how many of them stay in the race.

Spoiler: In The Democratic Corner (click to show/hide)

Barack Obama

And that's it.  There is no serious contender or even possible challenge to Obama's automatic renomination, and you can safely ignore the rumors that he'll pick a new Vice President for that matter.  You can have whatever opinion you want on that, and Lord knows a lot of Democratic-leaning voters have their misgivings about Obama's stewardship, but he's the only guy running.  If you want a synopsis, look absolutely anywhere.

Electoral Strengths: Has craploads of campaign money to spend, and is likely to set new records again this time.
Has a seemingly ironclad 47% approval rating, despite some of the hottest party and intramural opposition of any administration in living memory.  Historically, he's in line with Gallup polling trends for a reelection.  There's a significant block of the country that will not give up on him, but whether they'll turn up to vote is another question.

Electoral Weaknesses: Bad economies kill reelections, and the best his supporters give Obama credit for is keeping a sinking ship from sinking completely.  His entire campaign will essentially be grounded on two posts – proving the negative, that things would have gotten worse without him; and that his opponents would do worse in the future.  Not an easy sell.

And Then All The Republicans – In Alphabetic Order

Spoiler: ”I welcome this kind of examination.” (click to show/hide)

Newt Gingrich

The former Speaker of the House, who made his name with the 1994 Contract With America (as seen in TV Guide) and the impeachment trial against Bill Clinton (wherein he divorced his second wife for his third mistress), before being expelled by the House for monetary ethics violations.  Has been pretending to run for President for the past twelve years as a job, selling books and his presence at conventions.  Is definitely not a dumb guy, but seems to be obsessed with nerdy shit like neutron bombs and mega-infrastructure.

Electoral Strengths: Certainly has the campaign cash and experience at running for offices.
Has some of the highest name recognition of anyone running, at least with people over 30.
Has the single-minded bravery and dedication of a kamikaze pilot.
Has a couple millionaires (and one billionaire) who are willing to keep funding him on principle, no matter how badly he does.

Electoral Weaknesses: Most of the Republican party establishment hates his guts, and knows what a spectacle he can make of himself, so you get the unusual sight of the national party campaigning against its highest profile candidate.
Crazy rich-guy shit like the Greek cruises and millions of dollars in jewelry.
Is not actually on the ballot in Virginia, because his campaign totally spaced and didn't get enough signatures; some take this as a sign that he wasn't seriously running for President until he suddenly starting polling well.

Spoiler: ”There's gold in them thar hills!” (click to show/hide)

Ron Paul

You know him, you love him, your cousin in college worships the ground he walks on, he's never come close to winning a race outside of his Congressional district.  The closest thing to a genuine “Libertarian” the Republican party still has running, and a constant figure in every race.  The media thinks he's joke, and the Republican party establishment hates his guts because he's always the only guy on stage who actually believes and practices all that “small government” and “non-intervention” hooplah the party is supposed to espouse.  Is already in danger of rendering the Iowa primary irrelevant for ever.  What a shame.

Electoral Strengths: Has an actual voting record in line with the theoretical Republican party platform.
Plenty of recognition, and a dedicated army of hotblooded supporters.
Is actually “winning” some delegates for the first time in his career, so he can at least make a nuisance of himself at the Convention, instead of hosting his own across the street like last time.

Electoral Weaknesses: Has a dedicated army, but has never cracked 20% in the many primary races he's been in (until Maine anyway).
All that Gold Standard and Personal Freedom stuff starts to scare people when he goes into detail.
Aforementioned lack of respect by the media and his own party.

Spoiler: ”Who let the dogs out, who who.” (click to show/hide)

Mitt Romney

He looks like a 1970's gameshow host, and says so himself.  He's Mormon, but don't ask him what exactly that means.  He's a multimillionaire former governor and son of a governor, but don't ask him how he made his money and don't call him a “politician”.  He's had a lot of different positions on a lot of different political issues, but don't bring that up either.  He's kinda robotic, which is alright, but don't ask him to be spontaneous.  Has so far defined the Republican contest as being the guy everyone wants to prove they're not.  Which is the biggest proof itself that he'll probably win.

Electoral Strengths: Has the begrudged and exhausted support of the national party, and aligned outlets like Fox News subsidiaries.
Campaign money like you wouldn't believe, let alone anonymous outside spending.
Manages to remain the “sane person's candidate”, no matter what goofy stuff escapes his mouth.

Electoral Weaknesses: Pick a political issue, any one you care to, and there's video of him espousing diametrically opposed viewpoints on it, at least one of which is antithetical to Republican doctrine.
He looks like the Efficiency Expert who gets paid a million bucks to fire you, and that was basically his last real job.  What's amazing is that his fellow Republicans have seized on this as a criticism.
Being a starchy patrician millionaire from Massachusetts worked great for John Kerry, didn't it?  Now take that to other side.
Despite running for President for six years now, he has very little campaign infrastructure in most states.

Spoiler: ”Please don't Google it.” (click to show/hide)

Rick Santorum

A former Senator from Pennsylvania, post facto since 2006, who made a name for himself with some of the most strident anti-gay rhetoric ever to grace the halls of Congress.  Doesn't have a lot else going for him except a strong core of culture warrior voters, although for whatever reason supposedly he's about to be the last guy to get the anti-Romney support bump, as the last man standing (who isn't Paul or Huntsman).  He certainly has some tenacious confidence.

Electoral Strength: You want culture war, he will deliver in spades
A surprisingly effective public speaker, even if people don't always like what he has to say.
Picked up a loony throwback billionaire willing to buy him into relevancy, even if he has no idea what Santorum actually stands for.
Has an actual voting record as a member of Congress to run on.

Electoral Weaknesses: It's not that great of a record really, especially on spending.
Scares the crap out of a lot of people when he starts saying contraception should be illegal and college education is brainwashing.
Don't Google “santorum”.  Seriously don't, even though I know you're going to anyway.  Done?  Yeah, now you get it.  That was indeed a concentrated campaign by some gay-media support group, but what is is, and anybody who's curious about the guy is greeted by Internet in its finest form.

Spoiler: And the people who gave up. (click to show/hide)

Rick Perry

His Imperious Majesty and President For Life of the Independent Christian Republic of Texas.  As one of his erstwhile subjects, I am so glad the rest of the world finally got to experience his presence, and I am so so sorry.  Perry rocketed to the top of the polling when he showed the nation that he is the seminal and fire-forged epitome of the “God, guns, and gays” brand of cultural Republicanism along with a “record” of economic achievement as a four-term governor.  Then he started talking and it all went downhill from there.  His "oops" bit and drunken displays in New Hampshire will go down in history as some of the best acts in a President debate.  After losing Iowa and New Hampshire, he said the "real" Republicans in South Carolina would rally to his cause, but as the day approached and it was obvious he was going to lose by magnitudes to Colbert/Cain protest votes, he returned to the promised land of Texas, where he shall reign for a thousand years.  Endorsed Gingrich for some reason, but by definition, no one cares.

Jon Huntsman

A man of considerable government experience, most recently President Obama's appointed ambassador to China, possibly the toughest job in the State Department. Certainly a man with some punch up his sleeves, and some intriguing background like his motocross championships and his rock band “Wizard”.  Also the only guy on this list who has yet to see an inexplicable rise-and-fall in national polling – his “support” doubled from 1% to 2% after appearing on The Colbert Report.  Oh yeah, and he's another Mormon.  As South Carolina approached after a third-place in New Hampshire, and he started turning up in opinion polling below a write-in return for Stephen Colbert, and his billionaire dad said he wasn't going to turn lose his charity money for an election, Huntsman figured it was time to relax.  Endorsed Mitt Romney on his way out, to no great surprise.

Michelle Bachmann

A Congresswoman from Minnesota, who nobody ever heard of until she appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews in 2008 to call for reinstating the Anti-American Activities Committee to prosecute Democrats for the crime of being Democrats.  There was a brief time of contention between her and Sarah Palin, since they were competing over the exact same constituency until it was clear Palin wasn't actually running.  They're definitely cast in the same mold.  Also has a really creepy husband who runs a “gay curing” “clinic”.  But hey, she was an actual female Republican candidate.  Turned out though, she couldn't raise money to save her life, and after betting her soul on Iowa and getting a single-digit return, Backmann decided to pack it in.

Tim Pawlenty

Former governor of Minnesota (what is it about Minnesota) who dropped out almost as fast as he got in, when he discovered nobody gave the slightest flip about him and probably weren't going to with so many more exciting people to watch.  May have folded too early but who knows.  Has since lent his “support” to a couple people, Santorum last I remember.  Might be the Vice Presidential nominee.

Sarah Palin

The former nobody governor of Alaska until John McCain's campaign adviser picked her to be his Vice Presidential running-mate in 2008, and you could see the pain and fear in his eyes as it happened.  It said a lot that he appeared as himself on Saturday Night Live alongside Tina Fey doing a routine as Palin trying to sink his campaign.  After that legendary debacle, she quit the governorship to spend two years selling her autobiography, and traveled the country in a bus with the Constitution painted on the side.  Then she didn't run for President, and everybody immediately stopped paying attention to her.  Supposedly, she still exists, and is still the real-life version of Peggy Hill.

The Trumpmeister

A shame the Republican party is still trying to avoid talking about, television personality and not-that-great-of investor Donald Trump was an early favorite of opinion polling, whose “campaign” was entirely founded on his TV show and insisting Barack Obama wasn't born in America.  Then Obama released a birth certificate while roasting Trump's ass at a dinner and giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, and that was the end of that.  He's still threatening to run a third-party campaign, but it's not going to happen, he's in it for the money.

The Cain Train Has Left The Station

Quote from: Karlito on December 30, 2011, 06:37:00 pm

Herman Cain was (in my opinion) the most delightfully crazy of the bunch. From quoting a song from a Pokemon movie during a speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtaHdJFw77E&feature=related) to his Sim City tax plan (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/10/14/herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-straight-out-of-simcity/) he's provided plenty of laughs over the last couple months. Of course, his campaign was probably just a publicity stunt designed to sell his copies of his book, and never genuine to begin with. He even used money raised from campaign contributions to buy copies of his book (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-campaign-buying-lot-herman-cain-books/43802/), helping it to jump up the bestseller lists.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

Possible Other Guys – In No Particular Order

Spoiler: ”What's being rich have to do with it?” (click to show/hide)

Michael Bloomberg

The multi-billionaire media mogul and current mayor of New York City has been propositioned as a non-party candidate for a few years now.  Theoretically he would plant himself on the legendary “Socially-Liberal Fiscally-Conservative” middleground of American politics, squeezed between the two parties. Realistically, he's smart enough to know it'd be pointless to run if he wasn't confident in winning, and that he continues to say he won't is a pretty good indicator of his chances.

Electoral Strengths: Would be the first guy in history who could drop a billion out of pocket on a campaign, and would certainly have wealthy supporters.
Has no ideological objections from any significant quarter, a genuine moderate.

Electoral Weaknesses: Running as “I'm rich so I know what I'm talking about” didn't work for Steve Forbes either.
Running as the mayor of New York didn't work for Rudy Giuliani either.
Being a billionaire media tycoon might actually be a better job than President.

Spoiler: ”I'm taking my ball and going home.” (click to show/hide)

Gary Johnson

Former governor of New Mexico and formerly of the Republican nomination until December 28th, when he finally got tired of not being invited to the debates.  Now running for the Libertarian Party nomination, and he's probably going to get it, because their primaries have more candidates than voters.  There's another thread about him (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98186.0) already if you're interested.

Spoiler: ”Strong teeth, for a strong America.” (click to show/hide)

Vermin Supreme

He is the voice of a generation. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzcSnnU0xsc)  A boot in every pot and two ponies in every garage.  Fairy dust for all, whether you want it or not.  Vote early, vote often, vote sideways, vote Vermin.

---

And there's plenty more to discuss and add, which I invite all to do, and invite the many non-Americans here to comment and question.  Informational links are especially appreciated.  What will be the effects of unlimited anonymous corporate campaign spending?  How will world politics factor into the race?  What will the nation do as Congress essentially shuts down for a year of campaign posturing, as they're threatening to do?  Will Joe Biden say something hilarious in his one debate?  Stay tuned.

IMPORTANT: I know this is a politics thread, but let's try to have too many politic arguments, okay?  It's inevitable, but I'd like to keep everything civil here, and the horserace of electioneering is more than enough to keep everyone entertained without a firestorm of pointless ideological debates.  I'm driving this thread, and I'll turn right around if anybody starts pulling hair or throwing things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2011, 06:07:38 pm

Posting to watch, ha. I think my goal for this election is to not see a single bit of it on TV, because gods only know that would do naught but incite me to rage.

Also registered democrat, so I don't think the republican primary means much to me, in a participation sense. *twiddles thumbs, waits for something to do*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 30, 2011, 06:08:59 pm

Posting to watch and join in - as a Citizen of a rural part of the UK I hope to offer a veiw from the outside looking in on the ensuing crazy of US political shenanigans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 30, 2011, 06:10:01 pm

I know Obama is going to win this one, since the competition is generally the same rank-and-file republican candidates we see every four years. But I know for a fact that the Citizens United decision is going to be rearing it's ugly, poorly-thought-out, head into this. It happened in the previous mid-terms, and I don't see this election being any different. We're going to be seeing "anonymous" (corporate) funding in the billions this year.


There will be negative ads.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 30, 2011, 06:15:19 pm

Excellent summaries of the candidates. You especially nailed Rick Perry. You must also be from Texas.

I agree that Mitt Romney is most likely to get the Republican nomination. It's a strange sight to see that the self-contradicting candidate is the strongest one. That says everything that needs to be said about the Republican party. In my opinion, Obama will get reelected, no matter who gets the Republican nomination. The Republican party is too divided due to in-fighting between the wackos to have much of a chance at the White House this time around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 30, 2011, 06:20:56 pm

Looks like the circus has rolled onto the world stage! Hold on folks, this shit is topical!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 30, 2011, 06:34:10 pm

Doesn't Herman Cain deserve a spot on the "people who've given up" list?  It's a pretty awesome summary though.

Is it still the case that "generic Republican" (ie a poll of Obama vs unnamed Republican candidate) would do far better than any of the actual candidates?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 06:35:32 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 30, 2011, 06:34:10 pm

Doesn't Herman Cain deserve a spot on the "people who've given up" list?  It's a pretty awesome summary though.

Aw Hell no, I knew I forgot somebody.  How could I have possibly overlooked the Hermanator?  I mean, I've still got his book sitting on my desk.

And I guess Sarah Palin deserves mention too, since she was theoretically a candidate until around May or so.

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 30, 2011, 06:34:10 pm

Is it still the case that "generic Republican" (ie a poll of Obama vs unnamed Republican candidate) would do far better than any of the actual candidates?

Until recently yes, opinion polls (in which I have little faith) typically showed a "generic Republican" beating Obama for reelection by more than the margin of error, but any particular candidate considerably lower.  I think the latest Gallup polls and such actually show Obama beating a generic Republican, but especially this far out that's basically meaningless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on December 30, 2011, 06:37:00 pm

Herman Cain was (in my opinion) the most delightfully crazy of the bunch. From quoting a song from a Pokemon movie during a speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtaHdJFw77E&feature=related) to his Sim City tax plan (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/10/14/herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-straight-out-of-simcity/) he's provided plenty of laughs over the last couple months. Of course, his campaign was probably just a publicity stunt designed to sell his copies of his book, and never genuine to begin with. He even used money raised from campaign contributions to buy copies of his book (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/herman-cains-campaign-buying-lot-herman-cain-books/43802/), helping it to jump up the bestseller lists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on December 30, 2011, 06:38:42 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 06:35:32 pm

And I guess Sarah Palin deserves mention too, since she was theoretically a candidate until around May or so.

Nah, she never announced. She just raised funds by pretending she might run. There was never actually any risk of that though. Way more profitable and less work this way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 30, 2011, 06:47:55 pm

Quote from: palsch on December 30, 2011, 06:38:42 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 06:35:32 pm

And I guess Sarah Palin deserves mention too, since she was theoretically a candidate until around May or so.

Nah, she never announced. She just raised funds by pretending she might run. There was never actually any risk of that though. Way more profitable and less work this way.

She learned her lesson in 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nilocy on December 30, 2011, 06:53:48 pm

As a crazy European, I need to ask probably a rather simple question. If this is a presidential election vote, then why are there so many candidates for one party? I'm used to one party, one candidate system from the UK. It seems rather odd to split your entire voter base up. And if (god forbid) they do elect a republic president, who gets to be it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on December 30, 2011, 06:57:16 pm

Those candidates are running to be the Presidential nominee. We go through this absurd many-months long process of primary voting, and then a Republican candidate will be chosen at the Republican National Convention, and then the real race and election begins.

Only one of those Republican candidates will end up running against Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: UltraValican on December 30, 2011, 07:00:47 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 30, 2011, 06:34:10 pm

Doesn't Herman Cain deserve a spot on the "people who've given up" list?  It's a pretty awesome summary though.

Is it still the case that "generic Republican" (ie a poll of Obama vs unnamed Republican candidate) would do far better than any of the actual candidates?

I'm sorry, but, I have to do this.
Herman Cain Cancels Politics: Interrupted by penis and lack of self control I live in the U.S, but I'm not old enough to vote.
90% sure I would vote democrat.
-edit
Didn't see the other guys question.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 07:00:50 pm

Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Newt Gingrich deserve their own discussion of this new phenomenon, of people running for offices including the Presidency as a personal business decision and self-promotion vehicle.  It's a bizarre and I think frightening development, but at least it's apparently over and done with by the time voting starts.  I wonder what the next race will look like.

Quote from: Nilocy on December 30, 2011, 06:53:48 pm

As a crazy European, I need to ask probably a rather simple question. If this is a presidential election vote, then why are there so many candidates for one party? I'm used to one party, one candidate system from the UK. It seems rather odd to split your entire voter base up. And if (god forbid) they do elect a republic president, who gets to be it?

Here's the confusion: This is how the parties pick the one nominee.  I don't know how it works in any particularly European country, but I get that in parliamentary democracies it's typical for the party to choose its nominees within itself?  Well, that's how America used to do it, but it was eventually phased out (mostly) by law (mostly) for a popular vote system.  In this case, each state holds its own primary elections, which determine how many delegates (votes basically) each party gives to each of their candidate at their conventions in August, which determines which one candidate is each party's nominee for that office.  Then we get the actual election between candidates.  It's simpler than it sounds, I swear, it's just a long and noisy process.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 07:02:18 pm

EDIT: God I hate this forum sometimes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 30, 2011, 07:05:59 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 07:00:50 pm

Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Newt Gingrich deserve their own discussion of this new phenomenon, of people running for offices including the Presidency as a personal business decision and self-promotion vehicle.  It's a bizarre and I think frightening development, but at least it's apparently over and done with by the time voting starts.  I wonder what the next race will look like.

Quote from: Nilocy on December 30, 2011, 06:53:48 pm

As a crazy European, I need to ask probably a rather simple question. If this is a presidential election vote, then why are there so many candidates for one party? I'm used to one party, one candidate system from the UK. It seems rather odd to split your entire voter base up. And if (god forbid) they do elect a republic president, who gets to be it?

Here's the confusion: This is how the parties pick the one nominee.  I don't know how it works in any particularly European country, but I get that in parliamentary democracies it's typical for the party to choose its nominees within itself?  Well, that's how America used to do it, but it was eventually phased out (mostly) by law (mostly) for a popular vote system.  In this case, each state holds its own primary elections, which determine how many delegates (votes basically) each party gives to each of their candidate at their conventions in August, which determines which one candidate is each party's nominee for that office.  Then we get the actual election between candidates.  It's simpler than it sounds, I swear, it's just a long and noisy process.

Actually it's just as convoluted as it sounds, when you factor in primaries vs caucuses and open vs closed vs blanket primaries (which I think are now extinct because American political parties hate the thought of their members having a chance to voice their opinions about the other party's candidates).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on December 30, 2011, 07:44:15 pm

Quote from: Nilocy on December 30, 2011, 06:53:48 pm

As a crazy European, I need to ask probably a rather simple question. If this is a presidential election vote, then why are there so many candidates for one party? I'm used to one party, one candidate system from the UK. It seems rather odd to split your entire voter base up. And if (god forbid) they do elect a republic president, who gets to be it?

Well after the primaries are over, the Republicans will be left with one candidate.  I think some of the political parties here have a vaguely similar system.  For example, Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in a strange AV vote where 1/3 of the result came from MPs, 1/3 from unions and 1/3 from Labour party members.  Yes, if you belonged to multiple categories you got multiple votes.  If you belonged to multiple unions you could have up to 7 votes.  The American system does seem more logical in this regard, although obviously having a presidential rather than a parliamentary system makes it different.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on December 30, 2011, 08:03:49 pm

I agree the "gave up/flamed out" list is lacking quite a few names.

I have to give Palin credit. She's not as stupid as most people wanted to believe she was. I sort of wonder where she'll be in three-ish years: milking book tours and speaking engagements for all they are worth? Milking her paycheck from Fox News until she stops being relevant/sexually enticing to their viewer base? A run for the House? Or has she slipped into the background of the Republican party, where the actual decisions get made, and actually accumulated some political power? I hate being curious about it and yet I can't help myself. I thought she was headed for a total meltdown during the primary campaigning season.

My money is on Romney. The parallels between him and Kerry are so strong it's almost scary, like we're coming full circle just in time for the Mayan calendar to do the same. A candidate who generates less enthusiasm from the base than a door stop, who has lost credibility by giving every answer to every question, and who will ultimately win by default. Kerry looks like a shriveled up version of Romney. Even the similarities between the loathing held for Bush by Democrats and the loathing held for Obama by Republicans are the same. Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: fqllve on December 30, 2011, 08:05:35 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 07:00:50 pm

I wonder what the next race will look like.

In 2015 reality TV star Mr. Boston will simultaneously declare his candidacy and announce his upcoming show Kickin it with Boston in DC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 08:37:36 pm

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on December 30, 2011, 08:38:30 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 08:37:36 pm

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

Wasn't the turnout still under 50% last presidential election?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: fqllve on December 30, 2011, 08:46:28 pm

Presidential? No. They were for the 2010 midterm elections though (they always are for the midterms).

But that doesn't mean 60% is an ideal turnout.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ggamer on December 30, 2011, 09:23:25 pm

Ron paul sounds good, but has the problem of being fucking crazy.

"Mr. Paul, what is your stance on poverty?"
"w-w-whell, I remember one day Ronald Reagan was talking to me and he said 'Ron. America.' CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR AMERICA?!"
"Mr. Paul, that has nothing to do with poverty."
"W-thank you."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 09:44:37 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 08:37:36 pm

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

Have to convince me that there's a candidate worth voting for first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 09:54:28 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 09:44:37 pm

Have to convince me that there's a candidate worth voting for first.

The Problem With Modern Democracy, article 32.

For real though, even if you truly believe that all candidates are awful, and you 'refuse to vote on moral grounds', then you are self contradicting.   By taking no action at all, you're saying that "I'm morally superior to the candidates, so I'll let less scrupulous people decide."  If you truly believe in voting as a tool of moral imperative, then you should do the needful and vote for the most justifiable candidate, regardless of if they're only a little bit less terrible than the next guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on December 30, 2011, 09:57:30 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 09:44:37 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 08:37:36 pm

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

Have to convince me that there's a candidate worth voting for first.

At least vote in your local elections. The things your governor and state legislature do can potentially have a much greater impact on your life than anything in the President's limited powers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 09:59:53 pm

Yeah, I'm not even going to pose an argument as to why voting in your local elections is hugely important, because it's so apparent.

So yeah, be registered to vote, and spend a bit of time becoming educated on the issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 30, 2011, 10:06:35 pm

Registered non-partisan, posting to watch :)

Love the nominee summaries, but who's the last one? It goes straight into the summary without his/her name.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: freeformschooler on December 30, 2011, 10:08:28 pm

As for national election, I'm undecided, but as for local elections, whoever seems the least likely to mandate ripping apart the largest road in town for eight solid weeks to add a minimal amount of parking places. That was crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 30, 2011, 10:09:43 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 09:59:53 pm

spend a bit of time becoming educated on the issues.

Insert this thread. I normally hate talking about politics, but talking about politics with reasonably intelligent people (as opposed to fundamentalist Republicans in the United Christian Nation of Texas) is pleasant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on December 30, 2011, 10:10:58 pm

Quote from: ggamer on December 30, 2011, 09:23:25 pm

Ron paul sounds good, but has the problem of being fucking crazy.

"Mr. Paul, what is your stance on poverty?"
"w-w-whell, I remember one day Ronald Reagan was talking to me and he said 'Ron. America.' CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR AMERICA?!"
"Mr. Paul, that has nothing to do with poverty."
"W-thank you."

You forgot that he also has to yell about "states' rights" at some point, and also call the department of education "preposterous" and "unconstitutional" or something like that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 30, 2011, 10:12:27 pm

Ooh how I wish I could save myself the trouble and show apathy towards politics. How I long for the magic of the right to be so irresponsible! To have an election swing past and not give but a single fuck! Non compulsory voting truly is the greatest of all luxuries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 10:14:45 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 09:54:28 pm

By taking no action at all, you're saying that "I'm morally superior to the candidates, so I'll let less scrupulous people decide."  If you truly believe in voting as a tool of moral imperative, then you should do the needful and vote for the most justifiable candidate, regardless of if they're only a little bit less terrible than the next guy.

I understand why the issue is interpreted this way by many candidates, but I believe there are other ways to look at it.

First and foremost, I don't believe in the lesser of two evils argument.  The way I see it, I'm being asked how I want to be screwed.  I'm not going to dignify the question with a response.  I will vote for third party candidates if I actually believe in them.  I voted for Nader, knowing that I was "throwing my vote away".  For this election, I'm not aware of any that I would support.  So I'm left with a range of choices, all of which involve continuing the trend of eroding my rights.  I can vote for the person who I believe will erode my rights the least over the course of the next four years, but what about next election?  Am I just going to do the same thing?  In the long run, the losses are basically the same no matter who I vote for.  So what's the point?  This has been a continuing trend since before I was old enough to be aware of politics.  I think it's absurd that everyone is aware of and unhappy about this long-running trend, and yet I'm encouraged to continue engaging in the exact same course of action that has been producing these exact same results over and over again.  If the end result is going to be the same, then I think it's actually more productive to cease explicit support for the repetition of this process.  Voting is a form of approval and I refuse to grant approval to my own ongoing exploitation.  Quite frankly I don't care if my attitude poses a problem for the system, because the system is not going to change unless it is thrown into crisis.

Quote

so I'll let less scrupulous people decide

I find this tidbit especially dangerous, because it implies that voting is the only power that I have and I become powerless by forfeiting my vote.  The implications of this are just... painful.  The statement doesn't even really make sense, if you think about it.  When I vote for someone who I know to be unscrupulous, I am by definition granting that unscrupulous person my approval to make decisions for me in a far more clear cut manner than if I don't vote at all.

But I admit, I DO need to be more involved in my local politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 11:00:50 pm

Re:  Unscrupulous:

I was saying that you're letting people who are less cognizant of politics/morality make decisions by not voting, simply by giving their votes more proportional value.  How can you say you refuse to participate in a bad system when refusing to interact with that system bolsters the problems inherent to it?

Edit:  Unless you're basically an accelerationist, I can't see how it adds up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Hitty40 on December 30, 2011, 11:04:03 pm

Quote from: Max White on December 30, 2011, 10:12:27 pm

Ooh how I wish I could save myself the trouble and show apathy towards politics. How I long for the magic of the right to be so irresponsible! To have an election swing past and not give but a single fuck! Non compulsory voting truly is the greatest of all luxuries.

This. This is how I feel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 11:10:30 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 11:00:50 pm

Re:  Unscrupulous:

I was saying that you're letting people who are less cognizant of politics/morality make decisions by not voting, simply by giving their votes more proportional value.  How can you say you refuse to participate in a bad system when refusing to interact with that system bolsters the problems inherent to it?

Edit:  Unless you're basically an accelerationist, I can't see how it adds up.

I would agree with you, except that my choices are restricted to the same choices that those who are less cognizant of politics/morality are going to make.  The range of candidates forces me to make the same choices as those I disagree with.  You say that I am allowing other people to make problems worse, and telling me that the proper response is to do exactly the same thing as those other people.

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on December 30, 2011, 11:13:28 pm

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 30, 2011, 11:15:25 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on December 30, 2011, 11:13:28 pm

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself :P

I'll go ahead and give what I believe would be his response to this, as well as most Americans' response:

I don't have enough <pick one or more: money, popularity, influence, political knowledge> to run.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 11:16:56 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 11:10:30 pm

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

You also don't have an alternative.  You can vote, you can not vote, and from here that's about it.  I get this argument and your misgivings, but what else is there to say about it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 11:20:48 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 11:16:56 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 11:10:30 pm

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

You also don't have an alternative.  You can vote, you can not vote, and from here that's about it.  I get this argument and your misgivings, but what else is there to say about it?

Yeah.  There's not much else to say.  I just felt the need to balance, since one side of that issue had already been thrown out there.

Quote from: Mego on December 30, 2011, 11:15:25 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on December 30, 2011, 11:13:28 pm

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself :P

I'll go ahead and give what I believe would be his response to this, as well as most Americans' response:

I don't have enough <pick one or more: money, popularity, influence, political knowledge> to run.

If I was going to respond, it would only be to say "you're funny."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Hitty40 on December 30, 2011, 11:22:02 pm

Quote from: Mego on December 30, 2011, 11:15:25 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on December 30, 2011, 11:13:28 pm

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself :P

I'll go ahead and give what I believe would be his response to this, as well as most Americans' response:

I don't have enough <pick one or more: money, popularity, influence, political knowledge> to run.

I don't have enough faith in my country, bro. Too many <Insert dumb reasons: immigrants, corrupted politicians, not enough Subways>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 30, 2011, 11:26:37 pm

Voting is a small way to affect change on a system with many flaws, yes, but it is still a way.  I mean, you could use "it's a corrupt system and I'll have nothing to do with it" as a way to basically ignore interacting with anything from school to work or anything else.  Saying that you want to work to improve 'the system' but you don't want to vote is like saying you want to be a teacher but that you think the school system is irredeemable and beyond repair.  Yes, you can be disenfranchised to that point, but that doesn't make giving up entirely the best option.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: fqllve on December 30, 2011, 11:37:28 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 11:16:56 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 11:10:30 pm

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

You also don't have an alternative.  You can vote, you can not vote, and from here that's about it.  I get this argument and your misgivings, but what else is there to say about it?

I suppose you could try to influence the populace, and more importantly legislators, to enact changes that would improve the system, but largely those are <really hard work/impossible/violations of corporations' first amendment rights>.

You could try to actively thwart the voting process? You know, mislead people into voting for the worst candidate, encourage people to be apathetic about the system, lie to people about where campaign donations go. But that's getting way too close to what could be considered terrorism for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 30, 2011, 11:42:58 pm

That depends on what you're voting for.  If I were able to vote directly on the nature of the system through policy or courses of action, then I would agree.  If I'm voting for a person to influence the nature of the system for me, and every option I'm given to vote for is a person who will worsen its flaws, then I don't understand the significance of effecting change in that manner.

A teacher has a position within the educational system far more meaningful than a voter within the political system.  They may not have direct influence over the design of the curriculum and policy they're expected to execute, but it's still up to them to execute it.  That is some measure of power.

A better analogy would be if my child's school announced that they were going to staff the next year according to parent's vote, and I could expect to receive a roster of candidates along with a ballot in the mail.  I get the package, and every teaching candidate is listed as having a history of child molestation.  At that point, it's time for some serious protest, or get your kid into a different school.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on December 31, 2011, 12:16:50 am

If you are unsatisfied with the candidates that run in national elections and you do not participate in primary elections for either party, you have only yourself to blame.

I find it weird that people think that a crazy republican nominee somehow means that Obama can't lose re election.  Crazy candidates do win elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:18:29 am

Well... You guys did elect Bush. Twice. I'm pretty sure that insanity helps your chances if anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on December 31, 2011, 12:19:53 am

Bush wasn't insane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:20:43 am

If he was then he would have gotten a third term.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:25:50 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:18:29 am

Well... You guys did elect Bush. Twice. I'm pretty sure that insanity helps your chances if anything.

Once. Gore won the first time.

I will be an eligible voter just three days (I think) before voting occurs, so I'm actually in this one. At the moment my preference is, 'Not Republican'. Not necessarily because of partisanship, but because they are batshit insane. I'm happy with some things that Obama did, and he hasn't fucked up too much of anything else yet. I'll probably vote for him, but I'm not happy about it. I want a president that will do the right thing, not one that tries to make Congress happy.

In another 17.5 years, I might try running. I feel that if you need something done right, you should at least try to solve it yourself. Maybe I'll try being a Senator or Representative first, but someone needs to knock some sense into the government. (And that's why I'll probably never get elected. The established government does not like naive idealists.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bdthemag on December 31, 2011, 12:26:33 am

I'm not a big fan of any of the candidates, but maybe that's because I'm still holding out for C'thulhu to announce that he is running for president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:27:39 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:25:50 am

Once. Gore won the first time.

Explain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Hitty40 on December 31, 2011, 12:27:43 am

Quote from: Bdthemag on December 31, 2011, 12:26:33 am

I'm not a big fan of any of the candidates, but maybe that's because I'm still holding out for C'thulhu to announce that he is running for president.

This.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on December 31, 2011, 12:28:50 am

Spoiler: Old Politics is Old (click to show/hide)

Bush was shrewd enough to suddenly learn an accent when he started running for office, so intelligence he had. Sanity, I'm not so sure of, but only in the colloquial (read: inaccurate) sense. I doubt he had anything clinically wrong with him.

At any rate, I'm so disillusioned with the current candidates that I'm considering my options for using my vote for ultimately-futile trolling, but if I don't do that then I'll still certainly be casting it in favor of the candidate I dislike least. Mostly I need to figure out whether I want to vote in the Republican primaries or not, since I'll certainly not be voting for that party given the candidates available so far. So the only use it'd have would be supporting an ultimately doomed candidate in the hopes of making my later, actual vote more meaningful. And ultimately pointless because I'd give 9 to 1 odds in favor of Obama winning, because I have no concern for statistical rigor and choose to use this format to say that I think he's very very likely to win.

Need to investigate more 3rd parties, though. Even the pointless ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 12:31:26 am

The reason why Obama has such a good shot at winning a second term is because almost every single one of the Republican candidates have said or done something so nutty that it alienates the swing voters. Could you imagine a moderate conservative voting for someone who wanted to cut government benefits to the needy because "suffering is a part of life and is good for you" (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/18/372693/santorum-americans-should-suffer/)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: fqllve on December 31, 2011, 12:40:02 am

It's somewhat disingenuous to summarize all the GOP candidates with Rick Santorum. Like Newt. He's certainly crazy, but he's not hardcore Republican crazy, he's rich person crazy.

I think Romney is pretty likely to pull some voters away from Obama, particularly those disenfranchised with the the president, but it's unlikely he'll rile up the Republican base.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:45:50 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:27:39 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:25:50 am

Once. Gore won the first time.

Explain.

Gore had more of the popular vote, meaning he had more numerical votes, meaning that the populace chose him. The Supreme Court decided to stop the recounts when Bush was declared 'ahead'. It went to the Supreme Court because of the system of the 'Electoral College', an outmoded system giving states a 'point value' based on the number of senators (2) and representatives (1 or more, based on population) in the state. Bush had more of the Electoral College, and Gore had the popular vote. The Supreme Court (then primarily Republican) pretty much chose Bush on their own accord.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:47:21 am

Ooh... Well that is pretty fucked. Your system is fucked. Not that ours isn't fucked, but fuck yours is really fucked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 12:47:48 am

Rich-person crazy is still crazy. If you want, I'll find some scary-crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on December 31, 2011, 01:00:27 am

Quote from: fqllve on December 30, 2011, 11:37:28 pm

You could try to actively thwart the voting process? You know, mislead people into voting for the worst candidate, encourage people to be apathetic about the system, lie to people about where campaign donations go. But that's getting way too close to what could be considered terrorism for me.

... it, uh. Isn't that what the political parties do? I'm trying to think of a kinder way of putting it, but misleading people to vote for largely-incompetent people, encouraging people to be apathetic toward the process (by abusing it, leading people to feel they have no true influence), misleading -- if not outright lying -- about campaign donations? They, uh. They do that. All of that, right? Am I mischaracterizing things, here?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on December 31, 2011, 01:11:49 am

I don't think you are, sadly

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 01:38:10 am

Quote from: ggamer on December 30, 2011, 09:23:25 pm

Ron paul sounds good, but has the problem of being fucking crazy.

"Mr. Paul, what is your stance on poverty?"
"w-w-whell, I remember one day Ronald Reagan was talking to me and he said 'Ron. America.' CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR AMERICA?!"
"Mr. Paul, that has nothing to do with poverty."
"W-thank you."

Ron Paul only sounds good until you realize what he actually believes. He isn't an actual libertarian. He is an anti-federalist. He does not care about giving people liberty, only in neutering the federal government. He would be very happy if individual states had a party and took away peoples rights.

"We the People Act": http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2011/09/1949/ That is strait from the horses mouth.

See section 3. It boils down to forbidding the US supreme court from hearing cases on the constitutionality of state laws based on religion, abortion or sexual orientation discrimination. If it were in effect, each state could ban abortion in violation of roe vs wade or make homosexuality a felony. States could ban atheists, muslims, jews, mormons, catholics or even protestants from serving in public office without federal challenge among many many other backwards theocratic and anti-constitutional edicts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 01:40:00 am

That sounds bad... You guys should avoid him.
Or move to Canada!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 01:42:38 am

Sounds a bit like this thing Newt Gingrich put together. (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76090650)

tl;dr, he wants to protect freedom of religion - by claiming that things like evolution and homosexuality are religions and thus should not be discussed in public schools. He plans to put together a special commission to do the job.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 31, 2011, 01:43:23 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:45:50 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:27:39 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:25:50 am

Once. Gore won the first time.

Explain.

Gore had more of the popular vote, meaning he had more numerical votes, meaning that the populace chose him. The Supreme Court decided to stop the recounts when Bush was declared 'ahead'. It went to the Supreme Court because of the system of the 'Electoral College', an outmoded system giving states a 'point value' based on the number of senators (2) and representatives (1 or more, based on population) in the state. Bush had more of the Electoral College, and Gore had the popular vote. The Supreme Court (then primarily Republican) pretty much chose Bush on their own accord.

You just became my new favorite person to talk to about politics. Not that I like Gore more than Bush, or vice-versa, but I dislike the Electoral College in its very principle, for 3 reasons:

Spoiler: Electoral College Rant (warning: contains math) (click to show/hide)

1. The electoral votes from a state are given 99% of the time on a winner-take-all basis, the only exception in the history of the country being Nebraska in the 2008 election. That means, if 51% of California votes for Obama in the next election, he gets all 55 of the votes. That's over 10% of the total electoral votes won by a margin of about 280,000 votes (assuming 100% voting turnout, with a population of about 28 million eligible to vote according to the 2010 census). Expanding on this by taking the top 11 states with the most electorates (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Caroline, and Virginia), 50% of the electoral votes (249 out of 538) can be won with just 1% margins in each state. 1.3 million people have the opportunity to swing the presidential election, provided they live in the right states. That's under 0.5%. Compare that to the 2% necessary to swing an election by direct vote.

2. The Electoral College was part of the 3/5ths Compromise that was reached during the drafting of the Constitution. It was created because, if the presidential election went by popular vote, the North could easily out-vote the South, due to slaves not being able to vote. Instead, with the 3/5ths Compromise, Southern states gained 3 population for every 5 slaves in the state, which meant increases in representation in the House of Representatives, which meant more electoral votes. The compromise balanced the North and South in terms of voting power. There is one glaring flaw with the Electoral College's continued existence. That's right, slavery has been illegal for 145 years. The Electoral College, for no reason whatsoever, is the only part of the 3/5ths Compromise that was kept after the 13th Amendment. Slavery is no longer an issue in the United States. Every citizen 18 years of age or older has the right to vote. Direct election is possible now without one ideological group overpowering its opposition by an unfair margin due to unbalanced numbers of eligible voters.

3. Americans WANT direct election. According to a 2001 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans supported direct election of the president. A 2004 Gallup poll showed that there was still a majority in favor of direct election. If you went and took a poll today, there would STILL be a majority. This change has been desired by a majority for at least 10 years. If the Senate and House could get 67% approval, then the 75% of state legislatures would be no problem. But, what Congress has done for the past 10 years instead of listening to what Americans want in this matter is a whole different discussion.

You thought I would accidentally the Rick Perry on #3, didn't you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ayoriceball on December 31, 2011, 01:43:38 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 01:40:00 am

That sounds bad... You guys should avoid him.
Or move to Canada!

Not just him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 01:47:18 am

Quote from: ayoriceball on December 31, 2011, 01:43:38 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 01:40:00 am

That sounds bad... You guys should avoid him.
Or move to Canada!

Not just him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

Gotta love how they blocked comments. This may be common practice for campaign ads, but it still doesn't hide that like/dislike bar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 31, 2011, 01:49:05 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 01:47:18 am

Quote from: ayoriceball on December 31, 2011, 01:43:38 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 01:40:00 am

That sounds bad... You guys should avoid him.
Or move to Canada!

Not just him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

Gotta love how they blocked comments. This may be common practice for campaign ads, but it still doesn't hide that like/dislike bar.

Like uPolitic pointed out a few weeks ago, that ad has a worse like/dislike ratio than Rebecca Black's Friday. Rick Perry is not going to be elected president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ayoriceball on December 31, 2011, 01:50:19 am

Quote from: Mego on December 31, 2011, 01:49:05 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 01:47:18 am

Quote from: ayoriceball on December 31, 2011, 01:43:38 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 01:40:00 am

That sounds bad... You guys should avoid him.
Or move to Canada!

Not just him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

Gotta love how they blocked comments. This may be common practice for campaign ads, but it still doesn't hide that like/dislike bar.

Like uPolitic pointed out a few weeks ago, that ad has a worse like/dislike ratio than Rebecca Black's Friday. Rick Perry is not going to be elected president.

Damn straight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 01:50:47 am

Quote from: Frumple on December 31, 2011, 01:00:27 am

Quote from: fqllve on December 30, 2011, 11:37:28 pm

You could try to actively thwart the voting process? You know, mislead people into voting for the worst candidate, encourage people to be apathetic about the system, lie to people about where campaign donations go. But that's getting way too close to what could be considered terrorism for me.

... it, uh. Isn't that what the political parties do? I'm trying to think of a kinder way of putting it, but misleading people to vote for largely-incompetent people, encouraging people to be apathetic toward the process (by abusing it, leading people to feel they have no true influence), misleading -- if not outright lying -- about campaign donations? They, uh. They do that. All of that, right? Am I mischaracterizing things, here?

Many right wing radio hosts have been saying over the last year or so that we should stop all these "get out the vote" campaigns because it only leads to more young and "urban" people voting. And those are not the type of people they want to be voting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 01:50:58 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 01:42:38 am

Sounds a bit like this thing Newt Gingrich put together. (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76090650)

tl;dr, he wants to protect freedom of religion - by claiming that things like evolution and homosexuality are religions and thus should not be discussed in public schools. He plans to put together a special commission to do the job.

Oh that is right, evolution is still on trial over there in the United States of RETARDATION. How are you guys even allowed to have nukes? That is like a three year old with a shot gun!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 01:53:18 am

Alright, that's it.  Enough cynicism for one thread.  Keep it on the candidates and the election, enough country bashing and this whinging about the futility of voting.

Thread's not even twelve hours old, okay guys?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 01:56:04 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 01:50:58 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 01:42:38 am

Sounds a bit like this thing Newt Gingrich put together. (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76090650)

tl;dr, he wants to protect freedom of religion - by claiming that things like evolution and homosexuality are religions and thus should not be discussed in public schools. He plans to put together a special commission to do the job.

Oh that is right, evolution is still on trial over there in the United States of RETARDATION. How are you guys even allowed to have nukes? That is like a three year old with a shot gun!

I'm going to assume that you're going off of a badly outdated stereotype of the States here, cause that was just idiotic.

By Supreme Court decision, public schools teach evolution, present it as the theory (SCIENTIFIC USAGE OF THE WORD HERE) it is, and forbid creationism or intelligent design or whatever they call it these days. The problem comes from private schools, most of which are religious in nature and aren't bound by the decision, and home-schooling, which all too often results in overly-religious types indoctrinating their youngsters. Most educated Americans accept evolution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:10:27 am

Anyone feel we should make a campaign for willful anti-voting (give people the choice to not choose)? I mean, first off, I never thought of voting to really matter anyhow. No matter what, those in power will skew everything into their preference; and even if they fail to obtain their initial goal (enough votes against what they want), they can always bring up another bill or something to exploit it.

But where it's more relevant; nobody likes any of the candidates on any side, so why do we bother voting at all in the first place? It's like Alien vs. Predator here, "No matter who wins, we lose.". I think ballots either need a '[ ] None of the Above' option, or people should just stop voting for just one election year, and see if the numbers really do get rigged after all. I mean, for one election year, everybody just does not vote. How will Congress react, corporate backers, and so forth? If a dense enough number of voters just stop voting, I'm curious just how big of a gap they'll have to "fill" *cough*rig*cough* to place another ass in the White House chair.

I dare America to not vote for just 1 election year, just to see what happens. I bet it would be entertaining to watch. Of course, as a willing non-voter (my choice to not choose) myself, it would be especially fun to watch.

EDIT:
An idea has always come to my mind whenever election season rolls around. Just modify/photoshop an AvP movie poster to suit an election campaign poster (red, white, and blue, and the many other election/"patriotic" cliches), but keep the quote "No matter who wins, we lose.". Spread that across the internet to start, and see how society reacts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on December 31, 2011, 02:17:19 am

I'm pretty sure even one person voting would be enough for them. Although it would cause recounts in my state for the next 64 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on December 31, 2011, 02:17:58 am

You would have to get literally everyone to not vote. If one person voted for one candidate, that candidate would win. Anything less and you just have news articles about 'high voter apathy'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 31, 2011, 02:21:08 am

There could be some sort of independent effort to gather signatures from everybody who is purposely abstaining.  Even if you disagree with people who do that, it would be useful to get some idea of how many people are simply not making the effort vs who is truly expressing no confidence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:24:13 am

But that's the thing. Just look at the numbers; despite any victories (regardless who wins), I think all the "news" organizations will show the usual numbers, but somebody will eventually leak (to Wikileaks, for starters) actual voter numbers, ballot lists when something doesn't add up.

One year, 1.4 billion-odd people voted (just an example), Fox News says 1.7 billion. Another year, 678 million voted, Fox News says 1.5 billion voted. Wait, what? And then somebody in the officies that actually has a sense of free will will try to investigate what the hell just happened, and what the meaning is behind this; fast-forward, he puts his neck on the line to leak the voting information the bean-counters that count the votes didn't bother counting, or added from the obituaries. I didn't know my grandfather was a fan of Obama. If he were alive today... Oh right, he was dead since before I was born. Funny that.

Same would apply with Bush and Clinton. You understand what I mean, right? An anti-voting campaign can help force their hand. They over-react/over-compensate for the sudden lack of votes, we struck a nerve. Either they'll react, or an honest person somewhere inside will.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 02:27:30 am

Quote from: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:24:13 am

One year, 1.4 billion-odd people voted (just an example), Fox News says 1.7 billion. Another year, 678 million voted, Fox News says 1.5 billion voted. Wait, what? And then somebody in the officies that actually has a sense of free will will try to investigate what the hell just happened, and what the meaning is behind this; fast-forward, he puts his neck on the line to leak the voting information the bean-counters that count the votes didn't bother counting, or added from the obituaries. I didn't know my grandfather was a fan of Obama. If he were alive today... Oh right, he was dead since before I was born. Funny that.

Same would apply with Bush and Clinton. You understand what I mean, right? An anti-voting campaign can help force their hand. They over-react/over-compensate for the sudden lack of votes, we struck a nerve.

No, I don't understand what you mean.  That entire paragraph was pure gibberish.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:29:59 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 02:27:30 am

Quote from: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:24:13 am

One year, 1.4 billion-odd people voted (just an example), Fox News says 1.7 billion. Another year, 678 million voted, Fox News says 1.5 billion voted. Wait, what? And then somebody in the officies that actually has a sense of free will will try to investigate what the hell just happened, and what the meaning is behind this; fast-forward, he puts his neck on the line to leak the voting information the bean-counters that count the votes didn't bother counting, or added from the obituaries. I didn't know my grandfather was a fan of Obama. If he were alive today... Oh right, he was dead since before I was born. Funny that.

Same would apply with Bush and Clinton. You understand what I mean, right? An anti-voting campaign can help force their hand. They over-react/over-compensate for the sudden lack of votes, we struck a nerve.

No, I don't understand what you mean.  That entire paragraph was pure gibberish.

Simply put, They will have to make up for a ton of missing people on the list. The media will lie saying nothing was missing. Someone on the inside will eventually call BS on them one way or another by leaking their information to the public.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 02:30:41 am

He means to imply that your election is rigged. Most likely by Fox.

... I think?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on December 31, 2011, 02:31:59 am

There are no where near 1.5 billion people in this nation.  Hence gibberish.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 02:32:31 am

Okay, rule number three I guess, no moonbat conspiracy theorizing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:32:39 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 02:30:41 am

He means to imply that your election is rigged. Most likely by Fox.

... I think?

Close. Consider that everyone in politics is a member of a secret society of sorts, and these shmucks run the show. I don't think anything we do as a public matters whatsoever. Voting gives us a false sense of security that we're making a difference, or have a choice.

EDIT:
And like I was saying in the example. It's an example. Not actual numbers, but something to show what I mean; albeit, exaggerated.

The million/billion difference, I was hoping would show it best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 02:33:20 am

Quote from: mainiac on December 31, 2011, 02:31:59 am

There are no where near 1.5 billion people in this nation.  Hence gibberish.

We're not even near half a billion. You'd need to go to India or China for those kinds of numbers, and I don't even think they can boast 1.5 billion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 02:35:58 am

Quote from: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:32:39 am

Consider that everyone in politics is a member of a secret society of sorts, and these shmucks run the show

I'm going to be honest with you here. You sound like a paranoid conspiracy nutter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on December 31, 2011, 02:36:04 am

I am actually 1.2 billion people.

Dammit, Aqizzar. You beat me by approximately 1 second.

At any rate, as I said before, my money is on Obama to win, Romney to win the nomination because lukewarm is better than "Holy shit, really? That's who they're going with?" followed by endless laughter on the part of the Democrats. There will be endless (read: ending in November) news reports suggesting that Romney actually has a chance of winning, and if he actually does (by some miracle) it'll have been entirely due to self-fulfilling prophecy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:38:17 am

I'll be honest, politics was never my strong suit anyway (also why I willingly choose not to vote as well; even I know I'm unfit for it). I'll abstain from this topic from now on. But I still say voting is pointless. My final note is, just think of politics like high school politics. They really don't look that different when you come and think of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 31, 2011, 02:40:49 am

Quote from: Itnetlolor on December 31, 2011, 02:38:17 am

I'll be honest, politics was never my strong suit anyway (also why I willingly choose not to vote as well; even I know I'm unfit for it). I'll abstain from this topic from now on. But I still say voting is pointless. My final note is, just think of politics like high school politics. They really don't look that different when you come and think of it.

...what?

I'm having trouble forming sense from this. Are you saying national politics are a big popularity contest?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 31, 2011, 02:41:54 am

Yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 02:48:18 am

I know I'll probably get chewed out for this one, but I'll probably be backing Ron Paul for the primaries. Hardcore, anti-big government conservative right here.

As for the actual presidential election, I have to put my faith in swing voters and more conservative democrats being disillusioned with Obama to get anybody else into office. Incumbents (think I'm using that word right) are notoriously difficult to run against.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 02:48:53 am

If you don't think voting matters, you would be better off campaigning for voting system reform.

eliminating the electoral college is an option.

Instant runoff is an option.

So is negative voting: you have 1 vote, you can vote for the guy you like most, or against the guy you like least.

So are any number of alternative voting systems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 02:53:35 am

Quote from: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 02:48:18 am

I know I'll probably get chewed out for this one, but I'll probably be backing Ron Paul for the primaries. Hardcore, anti-big government conservative right here.

As for the actual presidential election, I have to put my faith in swing voters and more conservative democrats being disillusioned with Obama to get anybody else into office. Incumbents (think I'm using that word right) are notoriously difficult to run against.

Gotcha, so you like suicidal economic policy that will end America as a world power and will put the US on equal footing with nations like Uganda, and you also worship the constitution as it was originally written and any further amendments like the bill of rights were a horrible idea and at best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 02:56:44 am

Quote from: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 02:48:18 am

I know I'll probably get chewed out for this one, but I'll probably be backing Ron Paul for the primaries. Hardcore, anti-big government conservative right here.

As for the actual presidential election, I have to put my faith in swing voters and more conservative democrats being disillusioned with Obama to get anybody else into office. Incumbents (think I'm using that word right) are notoriously difficult to run against.

Honestly, at the moment I'm just glad that you're actually voting :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on December 31, 2011, 02:57:13 am

Can anybody explain to me why having conservative views is a good thing? I mean no need to change what isn't broken, but keeping everything the same just because 'That's how it has always been!'
I fail to see the positive side...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 03:02:08 am

Okay, yeah, whoa.  See, this is the kind of aetherial academic debate I don't want people fighting over in my thread.  If you want an explanation on what a specific candidate has espoused, or think you have one (without insulting anybody in the thread that is), feel free to explain.  I don't want another "Everybody talk about your personal political beliefs and try to pick apart everyone else's" thread.  We have and have had plenty of those already, okay?  Okay.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 03:06:19 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 02:57:13 am

Can anybody explain to me why having conservative views is a good thing? I mean no need to change what isn't broken, but keeping everything the same just because 'That's how it has always been!'
I fail to see the positive side...

Well, sometimes things aint broke and don't need fixing. At this point I don't know what that might be.

You also need a skeptic that makes progressives really stop and think through and test the changes they want for validity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 03:06:38 am

Here is some healthy content:

I am probably going to be voting for Obama despite him not living up to expectations.  All of the Republican forerunners at this time are varying shades and degrees of lousy, and while Obama has proven himself to be something of a lame duck, I would rather have that than some of the reforms proposed by his opponents.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on December 31, 2011, 03:08:26 am

Spoiler: Redundant (click to show/hide)

That seems like an unnecessary post, Nadaka. In the absolute worst case, I think you could argue that he supports things that could lead to those things, without having considered all of their implications - which is what you would want to make an effort to illustrate. If I were to say, "I think Wal Mart provides a valuable service to society with its affordable prices", it'd be rather obnoxious to attack me for supporting what amount to viciously exploitative hiring practices. That's not what I said I supported, and it's entirely possible that I am naive and so didn't consider that, believe that the prices can be maintained without this necessity, or am even asserting that there are tradeoffs and think that the exploitation is a lesser evil (but still evil), all of which are distinct from "Yeah this is actually a pretty great way to treat employees".

Basically, try to make sure people are actually saying what you think they're saying before you rip into them. After the OP tried to keep the thread calm.

EDIT: I'll just defer to Aqizzar since he's the OP and even if he weren't he'd still be speaking more to something relevant to it than I did. Is the spoiler tied directly enough to the derail that I should delete it, or can I keep it up there?

Anyway, so yeah, echoing many of the other posters. I'll take a better 3rd party candidate if one arises, but otherwise going to vote Obama out of "Meh. Good enough. I guess. Compared to the competition, anyway."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 03:09:38 am

Spoiler: In retrospect, spoilered for quite likely at least somewhat inflammatory rebuttal. Don't like, don't read. (click to show/hide)

Quote from: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 02:53:35 am

Quote from: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 02:48:18 am

I know I'll probably get chewed out for this one, but I'll probably be backing Ron Paul for the primaries. Hardcore, anti-big government conservative right here.

As for the actual presidential election, I have to put my faith in swing voters and more conservative democrats being disillusioned with Obama to get anybody else into office. Incumbents (think I'm using that word right) are notoriously difficult to run against.

Gotcha, so you like suicidal economic policy that will end America as a world power and will put the US on equal footing with nations like Uganda, and you also worship the constitution as it was originally written and any further amendments like the bill of rights were a horrible idea and at best.

Oh boy, here we go.

Do you know how North America got to be so profitable for England before we ran off on our own? Hands off federal government. Pure capitalism made this country what it is, and was the primary reason colonists got so worked up over taxes. They'd been promised no taxation, got it, got used to it, and then etc etc world power yadda yadda.

As far as I'm concerned, a lot of things that the federal government sticks their noses in could be handled better by smaller, local government, or even private company. Running a country is a business, and if government can't keep a rail line out of the red without bailing it out, I want them to be removed from every aspect they possibly can. At least local government can be more sympathetic to the needs of a particular region without screwing over the rest.

I need to go over the amendments again, I'm pretty sure there were a few I didn't care for, yeah, but several that I haven't the slightest problem with.

As for suicidal economic policies... I think our current economic state (and my State in particular, which only recently got out from under a Democrat governor) is evidence enough for me to take my vote somewhere else.

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 02:57:13 am

Can anybody explain to me why having conservative views is a good thing? I mean no need to change what isn't broken, but keeping everything the same just because 'That's how it has always been!'
I fail to see the positive side...

It isn't necessarily good or bad, it really depends on what you started with. To me, well. I think I've already made my position clear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on December 31, 2011, 03:10:53 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 02:57:13 am

Can anybody explain to me why having conservative views is a good thing? I mean no need to change what isn't broken, but keeping everything the same just because 'That's how it has always been!'
I fail to see the positive side...

Extreme conservativism says that we already changed it, and it sucks. Groups like the Libertarian party want, for the most part, to revert political ideology to what the Founding Fathers intended, with some minor changes to address issues the Fathers never imagined would come up, like abortion and gay rights.

Moderate conservativism, like what you get from the Republican party, does embrace the "don't fix what isn't broken" philosophy, wanting only changes in areas that they feel need change.

Contrast that with liberalism like what you see in the Green and Democratic parties. Their philosophy is more towards "this is broken, let's fix it, and while we're at it, let's fix all this other stuff too."

None of this applies to individual candidates, for the most part, but rather trends in ideology the parties uphold. As far as candidates go, Obama certainly believes in being a fixer and a changer, as made evident by his 2008 campaign. The Republican candidates this year range from extreme conservatism to near-liberalism.

Interpret this how you wish. I'm being deliberately neutral in this post to avoid contributing to any more flare-ups.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 03:15:01 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 03:02:08 am

Okay, yeah, whoa.  See, this is the kind of aetherial academic debate I don't want people fighting over in my thread.  If you want an explanation on what a specific candidate has espoused, or think you have one (without insulting anybody in the thread that is), feel free to explain.  I don't want another "Everybody talk about your personal political beliefs and try to pick apart everyone else's" thread.  We have and have had plenty of those already, okay?  Okay.

C'mon dudes. Chill out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 03:17:02 am

Quote from: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 03:09:38 am

Oh boy, here we go.

Spoiler: Aqizzar, please forgive me, but I can't let this slide (click to show/hide)

If you're going to refer to history for guidande:  The last time the US tried hands off federal government, it was called the Articles of Confederation.

That sure worked out well.

Further, running a country is not at all like a business because of macroeconomics being a zero-sum system, while microeconomics, as you'd see in an actual business, is not. 

But yeah, let's all discuss the topic at hand, as I've made an effort to do above.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 03:20:39 am

Okay, I'm going to stick to the actual topic for the rest of the thread before I get into a full blown internet argument.

...Which means I probably won't post much more until either after the primaries, or the roster changes.

So, I won't respond to the esteemed Capn's response. Even though I really want to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on December 31, 2011, 03:22:40 am

Quote from: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 02:48:18 am

I know I'll probably get chewed out for this one, but I'll probably be backing Ron Paul for the primaries. Hardcore, anti-big government conservative right here.

Then you probably shouldn't be supporting Ron Paul, since he's extremely in favor of allowing your state and local government to control your life in ways that the federal government could only dream of. If you want the government out of your life, Ron Paul is a terrible choice. If you do want to support Ron Paul, then be prepared to support someone who wants your state and local government to be able to tell you which sex acts you can't do and which religion you can or can't believe in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 31, 2011, 03:24:06 am

You're all about as divisive as our esteemed politicians. I still think you're mostly missing out on the real issue of supreme corporate/private influence in these elections, as opposed to certain issues in candidates (and ideologies)...

Not that I'm saying a Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't be appreciated, but weak leadership worries me less then power-hungry middlemen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 03:24:45 am

Quote from: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 03:20:39 am

Okay, I'm going to stick to the actual topic for the rest of the thread before I get into a full blown internet argument.

...Which means I probably won't post much more until either after the primaries, or the roster changes.

So, I won't respond to the esteemed Capn's response. Even though I really want to.

Thank you for being mature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 03:27:13 am

I'm going to come out and say that I feel that Obama is perhaps the candidate with the least psychological issues.  He is also, seemingly, aware that he is a person who can, has, and will make mistakes. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on December 31, 2011, 03:30:00 am

We need a Teddy Roosevelt again. Someone to stand up to the huge corporations and banks who will try to give everyone a square deal. Someone who could start a Bull Moose party and (at least nearly) win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 03:32:29 am

A charismatic, hardworking, intelligent human being with empathy for the underclass?  Like many of the exotic animals he shotgunned to death and stuffed with wads of newspaper, they simply don't exist anymore!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 03:33:44 am

Okay, I think I fucked something up.  Nothing to see here, move along.

Anyway, everybody be cool.  I will lock this thread until there's news to discuss if people can't stay civil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Little on December 31, 2011, 03:39:14 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 03:33:44 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 03:30:00 am

We need a Teddy Roosevelt again. Someone to stand up to the huge corporations and banks who will try to give everyone a square deal. Someone who could start a Bull Moose party and (at least nearly) win.

After the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed, the first prosecution the Roosevelt administration brought with it was against the American Railway Union to stop worker strikes.  Just so you know your history.

No matter who wins Iowa, both candidates are corporate pawns representing the two wings of the American Capitalist Party. The two-party system is really, really, stupid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on December 31, 2011, 03:43:12 am

I do recall that there were some downsides, yes. I didn't mean to say we need the same Teddy Roosevelt, I meant we needed someone who acted like he did politically without all of the imperialism of the era. The breakup of the Pullman Workers' Strike and others shouldn't have happened, but the other effects of the law actually did get something positive done. (Namely the breakup of Northern Securities, the American Tobacco Company, and Standard Oil, amongst others.)

In contrast, the Dodd-Frank act, toted as a 'Bank-Regulation' law, does absolutely nothing except increase the volume of paperwork that must be done.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 03:48:16 am

Quote from: Little on December 31, 2011, 03:39:14 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 03:33:44 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 03:30:00 am

We need a Teddy Roosevelt again. Someone to stand up to the huge corporations and banks who will try to give everyone a square deal. Someone who could start a Bull Moose party and (at least nearly) win.

After the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed, the first prosecution the Roosevelt administration brought with it was against the American Railway Union to stop worker strikes.  Just so you know your history.

No matter who wins Iowa, both candidates are corporate pawns representing the two wings of the American Capitalist Party. The two-party system is really, really, stupid.

So vote for a third party. No-one's stopping you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on December 31, 2011, 03:49:53 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 03:48:16 am

So vote for a third party. No-one's stopping you.

Pretty much the entire American political machine works to prevent third parties from being feasible options, whether a few people here and there vote for them or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Little on December 31, 2011, 03:52:28 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 03:48:16 am

Quote from: Little on December 31, 2011, 03:39:14 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 03:33:44 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 03:30:00 am

We need a Teddy Roosevelt again. Someone to stand up to the huge corporations and banks who will try to give everyone a square deal. Someone who could start a Bull Moose party and (at least nearly) win.

After the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed, the first prosecution the Roosevelt administration brought with it was against the American Railway Union to stop worker strikes.  Just so you know your history.

No matter who wins Iowa, both candidates are corporate pawns representing the two wings of the American Capitalist Party. The two-party system is really, really, stupid.

So vote for a third party. No-one's stopping you.

I'm actually Canadian!  :P

On a more serious note, I think Bachmann will drop out after she fails in Iowa and go for her Congress seat, same with Perry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 03:52:51 am

Quote from: G-Flex on December 31, 2011, 03:49:53 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 03:48:16 am

So vote for a third party. No-one's stopping you.

Pretty much the entire American political machine works to prevent third parties from being feasible options, whether a few people here and there vote for them or not.

There are two independent politicians in the Senate right now. They may be at a disadvantage, but they can still get voted in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on December 31, 2011, 05:09:12 am

7 minutes on why you should never consider Ron Paul a human being, much less a candidate for presidency: (skip the first 20 seconds of some silly intro)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXms-dobP6w

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 05:14:00 am

Quote from: Tilla on December 31, 2011, 05:09:12 am

7 minutes on why you should never consider Ron Paul a human being, much less a candidate for presidency: (skip the first 20 seconds of some silly intro)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXms-dobP6w

Oh good lord, Paul.
*facepalm*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blade Master Model 42 on December 31, 2011, 05:17:07 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 31, 2011, 05:14:00 am

Quote from: Tilla on December 31, 2011, 05:09:12 am

7 minutes on why you should never consider Ron Paul a human being, much less a candidate for presidency: (skip the first 20 seconds of some silly intro)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXms-dobP6w

Oh good lord, Paul.
*facepalm*

Welp. Damn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heliman on December 31, 2011, 05:18:03 am

Go go Ron Paul.

Keep America American.


_pffft.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 05:19:48 am

Yes, the "Ron Paul Newsletter" and all the same articles came up when he ran in 2008 too.  He insisted then and continues to insist now that he didn't write any of the content, exercised no editorial control over the newsletter bearing his name in the title, and never read any of the stuff until the national media brought it to his attention a decade later.  And that's usually about when he takes off his microphone and leaves the interview.

Best case scenario, that's some terribly incompetent management of your own name as a politician.  I don't need to describe any worse scenarios.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on December 31, 2011, 05:22:01 am

I think the worst part is that his story changed significantly over the 20+ years since the newsletters actually came out. First he said they were simply out of context even, and that he did write them. Now he claims he doesn't even know who wrote them and never read his own newsletters which is frankly completely absurd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on December 31, 2011, 05:25:13 am

He did, however, write his own book. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/12/ron-paul-on-sexual-harassment/)

Quote

    “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.” -Ron Paul, from his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege.

And purely for comedy value, the wingnut's wingnut, Steve King, calling Ron Paul dangerous. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/30/rep-steve-king-tells-politico-that-ron-paul-is-dangerous-audio/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on December 31, 2011, 05:36:40 am

Quote from: Tilla on December 31, 2011, 05:22:01 am

I think the worst part is that his story changed significantly over the 20+ years since the newsletters actually came out. First he said they were simply out of context even, and that he did write them. Now he claims he doesn't even know who wrote them and never read his own newsletters which is frankly completely absurd.

And it's not even just a newsletter published by him. It's a newsletter published by him, with his name plastered all over it, written in the first person from his own perspective. So it's less "I didn't pay any attention to what the writers for my newsletter have written" and more "I didn't pay any attention to what my ghostwriters of my own writings for the newsletter bearing my name in large print have written". It's pretty hilarious.

Quote from: palsch on December 31, 2011, 05:25:13 am

He did, however, write his own book. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/12/ron-paul-on-sexual-harassment/)

Quote

    “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.” -Ron Paul, from his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege.

This is pretty great. I love the phrase "so-called harassment", as if he doesn't believe that sexual harassment is even a thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 31, 2011, 07:07:27 am

So, let me get this straight. America has its most liberal and progressive president for a LONG time, and he is trying to set in action changes that should do long term good (e.g. healthcare reform). His policies help endear your nation to the more liberal nations that make up the core of Europe, repairing much of the damage done by Bush and his "yeehaa invade of oli" actions, and he does his best against pretty much the worst economic conditions since just after the 2 world wars. This however simply sets the scene for a mad raving bunch of right wing nutcases to come out of the woodwork to oppose him?

Only in America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 07:30:42 am

Well, you see, he's just not doing enough for 'Corporations' and massaging 'job creators'.   We need someone to put the focus back where it belongs:  Helping the Rich

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on December 31, 2011, 07:40:15 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on December 31, 2011, 07:07:27 am

So, let me get this straight. America has its most liberal and progressive president for a LONG time, and he is trying to set in action changes that should do long term good (e.g. healthcare reform). His policies help endear your nation to the more liberal nations that make up the core of Europe, repairing much of the damage done by Bush and his "yeehaa invade of oli" actions, and he does his best against pretty much the worst economic conditions since just after the 2 world wars. This however simply sets the scene for a mad raving bunch of right wing nutcases to come out of the woodwork to oppose him?

Only in America.

It's all about the Benjamins. If the economy wasn't royally hosed, Obama would probably have a 70% approval rating, with the naysaying being relegated to the culture wars. Instead of all the candidates yelling about jobs, they'd still be yelling about birth certificates and gays and immigrants.

Besides, you're also talking about a constituency for whom getting the approval of other countries is a BAD thing. They want a President who's going to piss off most of the rest of the world, because obviously that means they're doing it right. </GOPtrolllogic>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 31, 2011, 08:02:37 am

Quote from: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 07:30:42 am

Well, you see, he's just not doing enough for 'Corporations' and massaging 'job creators'.   We need someone to put the focus back where it belongs:  Helping the Rich

Right, that makes sense, as the rich fund your politicians through bribes donations dont they?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 31, 2011, 08:07:59 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on December 31, 2011, 07:07:27 am

So, let me get this straight. America has its most liberal and progressive president for a LONG time, and he is trying to set in action changes that should do long term good (e.g. healthcare reform). His policies help endear your nation to the more liberal nations that make up the core of Europe, repairing much of the damage done by Bush and his "yeehaa invade of oli" actions, and he does his best against pretty much the worst economic conditions since just after the 2 world wars. This however simply sets the scene for a mad raving bunch of right wing nutcases to come out of the woodwork to oppose him?

Only in America.

Doesn't exactly help when considering he still extended the PATRIOT Act and pretty much everything else Bush did ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on December 31, 2011, 08:53:58 am

Capitalism is the enemy, from here, to there. America seriously needs some proper red politics.

Spoiler: Capitalism (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/9J0ym.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 10:08:08 am

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/30/how-candidates-fared-truth-o-meter-Iowa11/

Here's some neat data to look at.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on December 31, 2011, 11:12:01 am

Quote from: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 10:08:08 am

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/30/how-candidates-fared-truth-o-meter-Iowa11/

Hell no, that site is a load of crap.  They named their "lie of the year" democratic statements that republicans "want to end end medicare as we know it." 

Now I'll agree that one can debate this statement.  The debate is over whether the vouchers proposed by Paul Ryan represent ending medicare or not.  That is debatable but one can see the value to the statement.  "End medicare as we know it" is a lot punchier then explaining how cost shifting would likely make the voucher proposal prove inadequate after two decades.  And that's even ignoring the large number of republicans who are on record as opposing medicare and wanting to end it.  There is room for debate but the statement is no whopper.

Compare that to some of the other stuff that we've heard this year.  We've heard that President Obama isn't an American citizen and is socialist or a Muslim.  We've heard the Herman Cain's tax proposals were revenue neutral.  We've heard that vaccines cause autism for god's sake.  These things are all patently false, moonbat crazy false.  And they came from people who were leading the republican primary race at the time they said them.  This is even leaving aside the countless wallbangers like Romney's health care bill not being the exact same thing as Obama's or Obama cutting defense spending or Obama raising taxes.

"Politfact" chose a statement that is basically true (if polemically worded) in a year where there has been so much batshit insane stuff being said.  They are a worthless organization.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on December 31, 2011, 11:16:06 am

I'm watching you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on December 31, 2011, 12:54:24 pm

I don't know if any of you guys have heard of this (http://www.americanselect.org/), but it's an effort to put a third party candidate on the national ballot for President, which will be totally awesome if it works, though I do have my doubts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 01:01:39 pm

Quote from: Karlito on December 31, 2011, 12:54:24 pm

I don't know if any of you guys have heard of this (http://www.americanselect.org/), but it's an effort to put a third party candidate on the national ballot for President, which will be totally awesome if it works, though I do have my doubts.

I've read about this elsewhere.

It is funded by hedge fund managers and other big money bankers and is simultaneously not a political (so it can shield the identity of its donors) and a political party (so it can get on the balot in certain states). Its "democratic" aspects are also a sham because they are non binding and those at the top can override every decision if they want. I wouldn't put any faith at all in the idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on December 31, 2011, 01:04:31 pm

The Libertarians already have national ballot status in all 50 states. And the Greens and Reform Party have had it in the past. The two-party system is just incredibly entrenched into the electoral system.
 
FWIW, I'd love to see Gov. Brian Schweitzer make a run (maybe in 2016?).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on December 31, 2011, 01:15:21 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 01:01:39 pm

Quote from: Karlito on December 31, 2011, 12:54:24 pm

I don't know if any of you guys have heard of this (http://www.americanselect.org/), but it's an effort to put a third party candidate on the national ballot for President, which will be totally awesome if it works, though I do have my doubts.

I've read about this elsewhere.

It is funded by hedge fund managers and other big money bankers and is simultaneously not a political (so it can shield the identity of its donors) and a political party (so it can get on the balot in certain states). Its "democratic" aspects are also a sham because they are non binding and those at the top can override every decision if they want. I wouldn't put any faith at all in the idea.

Actually I hadn't looked at the site in a few months until today, and aside from some awful site design, the fact that the top three trending public figures are already in the race kind of makes it pointless effort. I'm currently looking through their bylaws to verify your last claim. If there's a news article you could point me to with verification, that'd be cool.

EDIT: Yeah, a cursory glance at the bylaws shows that the board of directors appoints itself and they pretty much retain exclusive power over the organization. Oh well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on December 31, 2011, 01:35:05 pm

Quote from: Karlito on December 31, 2011, 12:54:24 pm

I don't know if any of you guys have heard of this (http://www.americanselect.org/), but it's an effort to put a third party candidate on the national ballot for President, which will be totally awesome if it works, though I do have my doubts.

That site.
My laptop is not an iPod, thank you very much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 01:39:24 pm

Quote from: Karlito on December 31, 2011, 01:15:21 pm

EDIT: Yeah, a cursory glance at the bylaws shows that the board of directors appoints itself and they pretty much retain exclusive power over the organization. Oh well.

Yeah, they've managed to score a few appearances on TV to talk about themselves, with a pretty slick stable of paid spokesmen.  Needless to say, "third party activism" is on the verge of being the next sellout industry.  When there's demand for a product, a product will be delivered.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on December 31, 2011, 01:55:49 pm

I think McCain/Palin was a forerunner of that, what with Maverick(TM) speeches and YouBetcha rallies. All the pre-packaged grassroots support you could ask for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 31, 2011, 05:07:33 pm

They seem to think that Bernie Sanders opposes gay marriage... I don't recall hearing anything remotely suggesting that from him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 07:11:03 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 31, 2011, 11:12:01 am

Quote from: Capntastic on December 31, 2011, 10:08:08 am

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/30/how-candidates-fared-truth-o-meter-Iowa11/

Hell no, that site is a load of crap.  They named their "lie of the year" democratic statements that republicans "want to end end medicare as we know it." 

The site seems to be an aggregator for all sorts of "is this thing true?" stuff, so it's not really wise to dismiss an entire site of perhaps vaguely unrelated people because you disagree with the aim of one of the articles- especially when the statistics they're using are laid bare.  I'm not familiar with the thing you're talking about though- it would be a nice good faith gesture for you to link it instead of telling others how they should feel about it, sight unseen!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on December 31, 2011, 07:38:59 pm

One idea floating around is that they named that their "lie of the year" partly to offset perceived bias on their part in terms of them assigning "lie of the year" status to mostly conservative/republican lies in recent years. I'm not sure, though.

Of course, the problem with any site whose idea it is to discern truths is that they can be wrong just like anyone else, or at least have a perception of things that not everyone shares.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on December 31, 2011, 08:07:45 pm

So did I miss the necessary Ron Paul appreciation/hate gush?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on December 31, 2011, 08:10:00 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on December 31, 2011, 08:07:45 pm

So did I miss the necessary Ron Paul appreciation/hate gush?

yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on December 31, 2011, 09:30:19 pm

Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on December 31, 2011, 10:06:30 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 31, 2011, 09:30:19 pm

Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/)

Leaves me equal parts despairing and enraged, yaay :-\
E: Especially considering previous discussion on how Mr. Paul is mostly the way he is because he wants to effectively rape us on the local level instead of nationwide. Wheefrakdamnthisfecalmateraltohadesarglebargle

I think I'm going to take a nap, then try to come back to actually trying to get invested in the election process in a couple days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jackrabbit on December 31, 2011, 10:31:22 pm

Aqizzar made a political thread? I know what I'm reading tonight! I know bugger all about pretty much anything, so I'll just post this for the updates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on December 31, 2011, 10:41:58 pm

As soon as Aqizzar is of eligible age for presidency, he will have my vote from that time onward.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on December 31, 2011, 11:10:36 pm

I'd vote for him. He knows his stuff.

(Let me know if you run for office anywhere that I can vote. I don't plan on going to Texas anytime soon, but if you come up to Washington...  :P)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on December 31, 2011, 11:33:40 pm

Or Michigan. We could use a leader who's both competent and not horrifically corrupt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bdthemag on December 31, 2011, 11:55:45 pm

Or Minnesota, we seriously need less crazy politicians up here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 01, 2012, 12:00:59 am

Nonono, Aqizzar is running for governor of Texas first. We need somebody intelligent to fill the void that is Rick Perry. He'll be out of a job soon, anyway. There is no way he'll get reelected as governor after how thoroughly he has proven that he is an imbecile.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 01, 2012, 12:18:57 am

Quote from: Mego on January 01, 2012, 12:00:59 am

Nonono, Aqizzar is running for governor of Texas first. We need somebody intelligent to fill the void that is Rick Perry. He'll be out of a job soon, anyway. There is no way he'll get reelected as governor after how thoroughly he has proven that he is an imbecile.

You say that as if being a moron hurts his chances.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 12:47:03 am

So we've successfully concluded that Ron Paul sucks less than the other Republicans and about the same as Obama? Good, I'm all caught up.

Also, if I were American I would probably vote Aqizzar too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 01, 2012, 12:55:59 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 12:47:03 am

So we've successfully concluded that Ron Paul sucks less than the other Republicans and about the same as Obama? Good, I'm all caught up.

We have determined that all of the Republicans are batshit insane, but Ron Paul is crazy in a different way. I haven't heard any comparisons to Obama yet.

Let's do that. Which candidate stands the best chance of actually beating Obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 01:03:26 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 01, 2012, 12:55:59 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 12:47:03 am

So we've successfully concluded that Ron Paul sucks less than the other Republicans and about the same as Obama? Good, I'm all caught up.

We have determined that all of the Republicans are batshit insane, but Ron Paul is crazy in a different way. I haven't heard any comparisons to Obama yet.

That was in the link recently posted. It was a good read.

Quote

Let's do that. Which candidate stands the best chance of actually beating Obama?

Unfortunately one of the batshit insane social republican ones. *shudder*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 01, 2012, 01:08:00 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 12:47:03 am

So we've successfully concluded that Ron Paul sucks less than the other Republicans and about the same as Obama? Good, I'm all caught up.

Ron Paul is explicitly against reproductive rights, sexuality rights, and makes no effort to disguise his vision for America as a Christian Nation.  Those, and the Ron Paul newsletter linked previously, should indicate to you that he is quite a bit worse than Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2012, 01:18:38 am

I used to be planning to vote for Obama, but that was before he turned traitor on his constituency and lied about everything for the past three and a half years. These days I'd instantly support any initiative to impeach him.

Of course, I'm not a fan of any of the Republican candidates because they'd do the same things Obama did, except more enthusiastically.


So I'm not sure what I'll do come election day. Maybe nothing. There's no point to it, it's not like my vote matters. No one's does, really. At least McCain wouldn't have surprised me when he put this country on the path to becoming a police state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 01:24:58 am

Ron Paul worse than Obama, to wit:

-indefinite detention of American citizens signed into law
-systematic extra-judicial killings with civilian deaths
-wall street bailout saving corrupt execs from prosecution

I think the point of the article is that they both suck, but you have to decide which one sucks less:

Quote

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Source: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

It's a very good read and thank you to whoever posted it originally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 01, 2012, 01:32:14 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2012, 01:18:38 am

So I'm not sure what I'll do come election day. Maybe nothing. There's no point to it, it's not like my vote matters. No one's does, really. At least McCain wouldn't have surprised me when he put this country on the path to becoming a police state.

Yes it does. As more people vote, each one is worth slightly less, but only asymptotically. It still sends a message, as well as counting numerically. Gore only won by ~200 votes, too, so there's that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 01, 2012, 01:49:24 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 01:24:58 am

Ron Paul worse than Obama, to wit:

-indefinite detention of American citizens signed into law
-systematic extra-judicial killings with civilian deaths
-wall street bailout saving corrupt execs from prosecution

Ron Paul wants to systematically destroy the FDA and EPA, which would wreak havoc with so many basic safeties.  He also wishes to erode away safety nets and further reduce the standard of living of the already shrinking middle class.  On top of that, deregulating corporations and letting them do whatever they want, while weakening federal oversights.  It's almost literally a roadmap to turn the United States into a 3rd world country.

As for indefinite detention:  Your assertion of that, in regard to his character, is false, hopefully just through you being misinformed on the subject. (http://wigmund.tumblr.com/post/15098544867/cognitive-dissonance-breaking-obama-signs-ndaa-with)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 01, 2012, 01:52:10 am

The big difference between the way that Obama sucks and Paul sucks is that Obama sucks in a conventional way and Paul sucks in a different way. Obama's kind have been in power before, and while he is indeed terrible, the amount of regression possible under him is fairly limited. If Paul gets what he wants, the damage done would most likely be irrecoverable because many of the things he wants to undo took a civil war to put in place (like the 14th amendment).

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of voting for Obama and really wish that there was a legitimate liberal candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2012, 01:53:09 am

Edit: Alright, fine. I'll take my depression at our political system elsewhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 01, 2012, 01:54:22 am

I'm voting Gary Johnson, because I'm willing to sacrifice social programs and economic regulations if it means an end to the drug war and foreign interventionism. I'd honestly putting "not actively and intentionally ruining an enormous number of lives" as above "helping people out and trying to achieve a more balanced society" on the governments priority list.

He's like Ron Paul without being insane (on the monetary front, he manages to be merely mostly misguided, and actually has a few decent ideas), racist, homophobic, extremely pro-life or, and/or completely incapable of delegating to people who aren't going to continually and repeatedly push those sort of arguments and policies. (Choosing people to lead is one of the primary presidential responsibilities, after all!)

I'm honestly not sure why anyone would support Paul when Johnson seems superior in every conceivable way (although I DO understand why people would support Obama over Johnson, since, ya'know, priorities)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 01, 2012, 01:57:58 am

I don't think Obama deserves half the hate he gets. Yes, he's made an assload of bad decisions, but considering he has been dealt the political version of the hand of death and trying to work a compromise with a group of people that litterally hates every fiber of his being, I say he's done okay with what he has to deal with.

Just to pick another topic, I feel like we haven't slung mud discussed Gingrich enough. I think I link in the progessive rage thread about something he did, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 01, 2012, 02:07:26 am

MSH, the statement that you are not free is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I am free. As far as I know, aside from damaging or taking property or adversely effecting the health of another living creature, there is very little I cannot do. If the government orders the military to start shooting civilians like what's happening in Syria, I will fight to defend my freedoms. I keep an eye on the Senate and House logs to find out what they're doing. I have beef with it. That's why I plan on running for office in the future, so that I can change the situation somewhat. If I find the system to be flawed, I'll try to expose that. If you give up now and do not even try to make change, you do not deserve freedom. Surrender is not an option.

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on January 01, 2012, 01:57:58 am

Just to pick another topic, I feel like we haven't slung mud discussed Gingrich enough. I think I link in the progressive rage thread about something he did, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was about.

I was under the impression that Gingrich was pretty much out at this point. The Republican party as a whole seems to hate him almost as much as the Democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 01, 2012, 02:08:55 am

The problem with Obama is that the Democratic party can't get its act together and be a politically manipulative and abusive as the Republicans- he keeps compromising and they keep pulling the football away.  He's not a terrible person, he's made some decisions I don't agree with, but if you think that this awful term he's had is his fault alone, and not hugely influenced by the floods of opposition he has on every single move, then you just aren't seeing the whole picture. 

Politics is what gets in the way of Government Getting Shit Done.

Edit:  MSH, settle down and either have normal discourse like we're trying to attain, or take your rants elsewhere.  Aqizzar has stated that he's truly averse to such derails, and I'd hate for this thread to get locked.  No matter how bad America is right now, living here is still hugely better than North Korea or China.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 01, 2012, 03:09:46 am

That last posted article really did put into perspective all the things that Obama has done that I don't approve of. It doesn't make me want to vote for Ron Paul, but it does make me glad that he is out there with a different view point. His apparent racial politics (or his inability to manage what the hell he makes himself part of) is really repugnant, and it's what makes his anti-federal stance disturbing to me instead of inspiring.

It's unfortunate that his speaking out against important issues isn't going to be remembered at all during the election year, and that there isn't another candidate who can take up the issues. I'd honestly vote for a progressive instead of Obama. They'd just have to be free of racism and a rabid desire to dismantle the Federal government brick by brick. Regardless of the extension of executive power under Obama and all that has entailed, I still count the Federal government as doing more to protect rights than destroy them. To me the fact we have a Federal government with power isn't the problem, it's always the people we hire to run it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 01, 2012, 03:21:26 am

Quote from: nenjin on January 01, 2012, 03:09:46 am

That last posted article really did put into perspective all the things that Obama has done that I don't approve of.

Regardless of the extension of executive power under Obama and all that has entailed,

Are you referring to the article I linked that explains why he signed that extension or something else?  It does not excuse the situation, but it explains how it came to be, and how it's not his 'fault.'  You're acting as if you only read the first half, which was included to explain the common misconception about the situation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 01, 2012, 03:32:26 am

My bad for not quoting it.

Quote

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

Quote

You're acting as if you only read the first half, which was included to explain the common misconception about the situation.

You should wait for me to answer your question before you try to stick me for my answer :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 01, 2012, 03:36:45 am

The last posted article was his, not Zrk2s. The words you said left zero chance of it not being Capntastics article.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 01, 2012, 03:39:00 am

So, in summation, a codification of the smoke-and-mirrors legalese Alberto Gonzales cooked up was written into the Defense Authorization bill, because that has to pass or else the military suffers serious infrastructural shocks, and Obama signed it with a writ saying he won't enforce parts of it under his administration.  It will just still be there, unless another bill changes it before he leaves office.  That's pretty much par for the course with how this Congress has treated critically important ongoing authorizations, so yeah.

Anyway.  I'll get back to this thread tomorrow, and try to give a breakdown of what's going to happen in Iowa.  As long as I'm driving, I might as well give my own bullshit prognostication.  I can say this for now though - Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entedre).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 01, 2012, 03:49:36 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 01, 2012, 03:39:00 am

Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entendre).

Link? All I get is Urban Dictionary, and you know for what.

I just looked at Iowacausus.biz, and holy shit those polls. Is Ron Paul winning?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 01, 2012, 03:51:17 am

I'd buy he's a warlock. I think he'd view having tiger blood as being un-American though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 01, 2012, 03:53:40 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 01, 2012, 03:49:36 am

.biz

What's with the .biz?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 01, 2012, 03:56:09 am

Corruption is a business, and it's booming.

More seriously, I have no idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 01, 2012, 04:07:59 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 01, 2012, 03:49:36 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 01, 2012, 03:39:00 am

Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entendre).

Link? All I get is Urban Dictionary, and you know for what.

I'd love to find one for you, but I'm too knackered right now.  Point is, he gave an interview about a week ago, about how the candidates, the Iowa caucus goers, and the media are likely to look at the results.  There are basically three different Republican primaries taking place in the same vote, one for each arm of the trifecta of the conservative alliance the party has relied on since 1980.  There's the Libertarian Republican Primary, which consists of basically just Ron Paul; the Cultural Republican Primary, between Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry; and the Executive Republican Primary, of Gingrich, Romney, and Huntsman.  In other words, the three different wings of the party constantly pulling in their favor, producing the somewhat disjointed conception of "Republican" as "government by and for business that's 'small' in all ways except preemptive war and enforcing the New Testament as law".

Realistically, what he was getting at is that the actual plurality winner of the Iowa caucus won't be quite so important as the order and margins of the first, second, and third places.  At the moment, there's a strong suggestion it could be Paul-Romney-Santorum.  It'll all be chicken entrails on the wall on January 4th anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 01, 2012, 04:09:59 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 01, 2012, 04:07:59 am

and enforcing the New Testament as law".

Unless there's jots and tittles of the Old Testament they can use to reinforce their worldview.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 01, 2012, 04:30:36 am

Posting to watch, like I often do with these US political threads. Your political system is insane, (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, just that it seems to often work counter to it's stated goals, and is thus either deceptive or delusional) but damn me if it doesn't make an entertaining case study.
That said, anything is more interesting than modern Australian politics; it basically comes down to minimal corruption, fair bit of backroom politicking, absolute shit-tons of boredom.

Earlier comments on this thread about electoral reform caught my eye though; what exactly would be required to transition the system from electoral college to direct representation? It seems to me that that might go a long way to restoring some confidence in the system with ordinary voters... at the very least, it would increase the transparency of the system to a slight degree.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2012, 04:36:17 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 01, 2012, 03:49:36 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 01, 2012, 03:39:00 am

Rick Santorum actually had one of the most prescient descriptions of how people will view the Iowa Caucus results, right before he suddenly exploded in daily tracking (if you'll pardon the entendre).

Link? All I get is Urban Dictionary, and you know for what.

I just looked at Iowacausus.biz, and holy shit those polls. Is Ron Paul winning?

You're a bit late there. Ron Paul has not only been winning in the past month, but his lead has actually expanded.

By the way, why do people like Gary Johnson but not Paul? They have almost exactly the same views.

Quote from: Capntastic on January 01, 2012, 01:49:24 am

Ron Paul wants to systematically destroy the FDA and EPA, which would wreak havoc with so many basic safeties.  He also wishes to erode away safety nets and further reduce the standard of living of the already shrinking middle class.  On top of that, deregulating corporations and letting them do whatever they want, while weakening federal oversights.  It's almost literally a roadmap to turn the United States into a 3rd world country.

Because corporations have zero power at all right now. Yeah, they definitely don't have the power to influence anything like SOPA.

And you know, it's not like you could just not buy from the fucking corporations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 01, 2012, 04:42:45 am

I've been without internet for a while. When I left it was Newt.

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 01, 2012, 04:30:36 am

Earlier comments on this thread about electoral reform caught my eye though; what exactly would be required to transition the system from electoral college to direct representation? It seems to me that that might go a long way to restoring some confidence in the system with ordinary voters... at the very least, it would increase the transparency of the system to a slight degree.

Constitutional amendment. I believe 2/3rds of all the states would have to ratify it. It's not common, but it can be done. Here's how it can be done:

2/3rd of the House and Senate would have to draft it, and then it goes out to the states for possible ratification, requiring 3/4ths.
2/3rds of the State legislatures get together to make one, and then it goes to Congress for a 3/4ths ratification in both divisions.

The States have never called an amendment convention, IIRC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2012, 04:50:44 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 01, 2012, 04:42:45 am

I've been without internet for a while. When I left it was Newt.

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 01, 2012, 04:30:36 am

Earlier comments on this thread about electoral reform caught my eye though; what exactly would be required to transition the system from electoral college to direct representation? It seems to me that that might go a long way to restoring some confidence in the system with ordinary voters... at the very least, it would increase the transparency of the system to a slight degree.

Constitutional amendment. I believe 2/3rds of all the states would have to ratify it. It's not common, but it can be done. Here's how it can be done:

2/3rd of the House and Senate would have to draft it, and then it goes out to the states for possible ratification, requiring 3/4ths.
2/3rds of the State legislatures get together to make one, and then it goes to Congress for a 3/4ths ratification in both divisions.

The States have never called an amendment convention, IIRC.

There's also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact), which is an interstate compact.

And individual states can choose to go proportional for the electoral college. 2 states have adapted something vaguely proportional (Maine/Nebraska).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 01, 2012, 06:30:20 am

Quote

By the way, why do people like Gary Johnson but not Paul? They have almost exactly the same views.

Because the few views they have that differ are really rather major, and Paul has shown either a severe racist+homophobic streak OR he's shown an inability to delegate to responsible people (interpret his newsletters however you wish, no reasonable interpretation reflects well on his abilities as president.

Paul has also made it quite clear he's willing to overrule the supreme court on any issue near and dear to his heart, and he's obsessed with getting back on the gold stadard.

So, I'm going to turn this around:
How can people support Paul when Gary Johnson has practically the same views but without the worst parts of them?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 01, 2012, 06:50:27 am

Posting to watch this as well. Seems like the lack of actual political parties doesn't mean you have a lack of people to vote on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 01, 2012, 06:56:59 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2012, 04:50:44 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 01, 2012, 04:42:45 am

Constitutional amendment. I believe 2/3rds of all the states would have to ratify it. It's not common, but it can be done. Here's how it can be done:

2/3rd of the House and Senate would have to draft it, and then it goes out to the states for possible ratification, requiring 3/4ths.
2/3rds of the State legislatures get together to make one, and then it goes to Congress for a 3/4ths ratification in both divisions.

The States have never called an amendment convention, IIRC.

There's also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact), which is an interstate compact.

And individual states can choose to go proportional for the electoral college. 2 states have adapted something vaguely proportional (Maine/Nebraska).

Hmm, so given the difficulties of achieving a nationwide change, you would be better suited to lobby your state's... senate(?... Whatever the state-level governing body is called) to change to a proportional method, and aim to update the system piecewise. To all you apathetic types, here's something you can work on without having to vote for anyone, while still doing your bit to help the country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 01, 2012, 07:03:09 am

Wikipedia is a bit vague about it. What exactly is the practical difference between electoral college and 'normal' elections?
I remember something about a US president who had less vote than his adversary but still won. Is this because of electoral college?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bdthemag on January 01, 2012, 07:10:55 am

Basically the more people in congress a state has, the more electoral votes they have. Usually those electoral votes will go towards whoever won the popular vote in that state, although I believe there are a few states which don't have to do that.

Bigger states have more electoral votes, so that's why you'll see presidential candidates only going to the bigger states. And yes, when Al Gore was going against George W. Bush, Al Gore got the popular vote but George W. Bush got more electoral votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 01, 2012, 07:12:55 am

To build on Bdthemag's summation, from earlier in the thread, Barbarossa and Mego's posts give a pretty good rundown of the effects.

Quote from: Mego on December 31, 2011, 01:43:23 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:45:50 am

Quote from: Max White on December 31, 2011, 12:27:39 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on December 31, 2011, 12:25:50 am

Once. Gore won the first time.

Explain.

Gore had more of the popular vote, meaning he had more numerical votes, meaning that the populace chose him. The Supreme Court decided to stop the recounts when Bush was declared 'ahead'. It went to the Supreme Court because of the system of the 'Electoral College', an outmoded system giving states a 'point value' based on the number of senators (2) and representatives (1 or more, based on population) in the state. Bush had more of the Electoral College, and Gore had the popular vote. The Supreme Court (then primarily Republican) pretty much chose Bush on their own accord.

You just became my new favorite person to talk to about politics. Not that I like Gore more than Bush, or vice-versa, but I dislike the Electoral College in its very principle, for 3 reasons:

Spoiler: Electoral College Rant (warning: contains math) (click to show/hide)

1. The electoral votes from a state are given 99% of the time on a winner-take-all basis, the only exception in the history of the country being Nebraska in the 2008 election. That means, if 51% of California votes for Obama in the next election, he gets all 55 of the votes. That's over 10% of the total electoral votes won by a margin of about 280,000 votes (assuming 100% voting turnout, with a population of about 28 million eligible to vote according to the 2010 census). Expanding on this by taking the top 11 states with the most electorates (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Caroline, and Virginia), 50% of the electoral votes (249 out of 538) can be won with just 1% margins in each state. 1.3 million people have the opportunity to swing the presidential election, provided they live in the right states. That's under 0.5%. Compare that to the 2% necessary to swing an election by direct vote.

2. The Electoral College was part of the 3/5ths Compromise that was reached during the drafting of the Constitution. It was created because, if the presidential election went by popular vote, the North could easily out-vote the South, due to slaves not being able to vote. Instead, with the 3/5ths Compromise, Southern states gained 3 population for every 5 slaves in the state, which meant increases in representation in the House of Representatives, which meant more electoral votes. The compromise balanced the North and South in terms of voting power. There is one glaring flaw with the Electoral College's continued existence. That's right, slavery has been illegal for 145 years. The Electoral College, for no reason whatsoever, is the only part of the 3/5ths Compromise that was kept after the 13th Amendment. Slavery is no longer an issue in the United States. Every citizen 18 years of age or older has the right to vote. Direct election is possible now without one ideological group overpowering its opposition by an unfair margin due to unbalanced numbers of eligible voters.

3. Americans WANT direct election. According to a 2001 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans supported direct election of the president. A 2004 Gallup poll showed that there was still a majority in favor of direct election. If you went and took a poll today, there would STILL be a majority. This change has been desired by a majority for at least 10 years. If the Senate and House could get 67% approval, then the 75% of state legislatures would be no problem. But, what Congress has done for the past 10 years instead of listening to what Americans want in this matter is a whole different discussion.

You thought I would accidentally the Rick Perry on #3, didn't you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 01, 2012, 07:13:24 am

Yeah. Basically, the practical difference is that with the electoral college, whoever wins the state wins all the votes. If it's a 51/49 split, because of the way that college bit tends to work, that 49% goes toward supporting whatever the 51% voted for.

Gets me frankly riled up some days, because it can mean that not only is your vote not counting for what you wanted it to, it's actually counting against your intent.

Also ninja'd, of course. More detail above :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bdthemag on January 01, 2012, 07:16:37 am

Yeah, the Electoral college is pretty stupid. Hell, most people I know don't even know what it is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 01, 2012, 07:31:19 am

Thanks for the explanations.
Any reason why it hasn't been changed yet? Besides the fact that change is scary and evil and communist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 01, 2012, 08:05:50 am

Quote from: Dutchling on January 01, 2012, 07:31:19 am

Thanks for the explanations.
Any reason why it hasn't been changed yet? Besides the fact that change is scary and evil and communist.

Broadly? This. (http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=985)

Because EC votes are assigned by your congressional delegation and the smallest possible delegation is 3 people (2 senators, 1 representative) even a state with a tiny population get a voice. Wyoming there only accounted for 0.17% of the US population in the 2004 election. They sent 0.55% of the electoral votes.

The argument is without the EC allowing even low population states to have a voice like this, presidential candidates would only need to campaign in or appeal to major population centres and metropolitan areas.

It also keeps a lot of authority over elections within the state. Methods, recounts, etc. are all within the purview of state government. Moving to a popular vote system would require standardisation and probably federal oversight.

And then there is the fact that it props up the two party system. Hard to abolish the thing that keeps those in charge of abolishing it in power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 01, 2012, 03:45:34 pm

As it is, presidential candidates only need to campaign in states where the electorate is closely split, i.e. "battleground states". California is basically guaranteed to vote Democrat, so it's much more important to campaign in states like Ohio and Nevada.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 01, 2012, 03:55:40 pm

I'd prefer if all states functioned like Nebraska when it comes to EC votes. I don't recall if there's any tangible downside to proportionality, except for the smallest states. But even then it's the difference of getting three votes for one candidate or two for one and a single vote for their opponent. The "winner takes all" attitude of most state delegations is part of the reason people feel like their vote doesn't mean squat at the end of the day. At least in a proportional state the record accurately reflects how the state's population voted, instead of lumping states into one of the two parties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 01, 2012, 04:05:07 pm

I think the states themselves should be brave enough to make the electoral college work for them. Unlike others here, I don't hate it or think it should be abolished, I think it holds a lot of potential if only the states would use it.

But then, I'm not really a fan of how countries practice democracy in general, and my views are... fairly unique, so a direct vote or proportional split is probably a lot better than the likely alternatives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on January 01, 2012, 10:04:19 pm

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ)
This really puts into perspective the whole idea that Liberals are the ones who spend  too much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 01, 2012, 10:12:05 pm

The oft repeated comparison is tax and spend liberals versus don't tax and spend anyways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 11:49:30 pm

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html) -Ron Paul

Fuck. And here I thought it was hyperbole. Okay, off the RP train, who was that Libertarian nominee?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 12:01:52 am

(trolling removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 02, 2012, 12:09:15 am

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 12:01:52 am

I agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, but I disagree with his views on foreign policy and taxes. Rick Perry has Joe Arpaio's support, so he's definitely the best candidate.

Having never heard of this Joe fellow, why's his approval what you're looking at?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 02, 2012, 12:15:15 am

@Zrk2 - The best part is when he said the founding fathers were all devout Christians. Just like Thomas Jefferson, the guy who wrote this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 02, 2012, 12:15:20 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 02, 2012, 12:09:15 am

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 12:01:52 am

I agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, but I disagree with his views on foreign policy and taxes. Rick Perry has Joe Arpaio's support, so he's definitely the best candidate.

Having never heard of this Joe fellow, why's his approval what you're looking at?

Joe Arpaio is the Sheriff of a county in Arizona, famous for rigorously enforcing the new law allowing police to arrest people on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant, even in violation of a court injunction against it.  And things like training his own band of vigilante border-watchers and advocating military-scale border security.

Yeah, he's a fan of Perry and Perry's a fan of him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 02, 2012, 12:26:11 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 02, 2012, 12:15:15 am

Just like Thomas Jefferson, the guy who wrote this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible).

Hey, neat. I've been wondering for a while what something like that would look like. Thanks for the link. Knew someone would have had to have done it (strip out the dross) at some point, but I don't think I was expecting Jefferson. Though I'm not exactly surprised. Sharp fellow, he was.

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 02, 2012, 12:15:20 am

Joe Arpaio is the Sheriff of a county in Arizona, famous for rigorously enforcing the new law allowing police to arrest people on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant, even in violation of a court injunction against it.  And things like training his own band of vigilante border-watchers and advocating military-scale border security.

Yeah, he's a fan of Perry and Perry's a fan of him.

... ah. Someone I would have rather not (known) existed, then. Still kinda' curious why one would base one's preference for presidential candidate on the opinion of someone like that, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 02, 2012, 12:34:48 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 02, 2012, 12:09:15 am

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 12:01:52 am

I agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, but I disagree with his views on foreign policy and taxes. Rick Perry has Joe Arpaio's support, so he's definitely the best candidate.

Having never heard of this Joe fellow, why's his approval what you're looking at?

Joe Arpaio is the guy running concentration camps in Arizona.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 02, 2012, 12:46:44 am

I can only hope Dr.Feelgood was being sarcastic, with this new information on the identity of this man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 01:12:47 am

Yeah, siding with Arpaio even jokingly is in extremely poor taste, since the man is actually evil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 02, 2012, 01:16:42 am

Quote from: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 01:12:47 am

Yeah, siding with Arpaio even jokingly is in extremely poor taste, since the man is actually evil.

The fact that this is being said on a forum where we regularly find new ways to weaponize babies makes it even more serious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 02, 2012, 01:18:23 am

No.

No it does not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 02, 2012, 01:29:20 am

Quote from: Mego on January 02, 2012, 01:16:42 am

The fact that this is being said on a forum where we regularly find new ways to weaponize entirely fictional babies makes it even more serious.

An important distinction.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 02, 2012, 01:33:01 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 02, 2012, 01:29:20 am

Quote from: Mego on January 02, 2012, 01:16:42 am

The fact that this is being said on a forum where we regularly find new ways to weaponize entirely fictional babies makes it even more serious.

An important distinction.

Yes, thank you for that, I neglected to put that in there.

Still, many Bay12 forumgoers will willingly admit to being twisted. For one us to say that a man is truly evil has a bit of weight to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 01:41:46 am

No, again, I know you're trying to play off of the twisted magma cat-drowner elf-murder persona a lot of DFers cultivate for laughs, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Joe Arpaio is actually an evil human being.  That it comes from me or anyone else in no way modifies the fact itself.  Both a child with a toy telescope and Neil Armstrong are equally correct in saying that the Moon exists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 02, 2012, 01:43:52 am

No. No it does not.

No one here is outside the normal range of twisted.

Or at least the normal range when you take the number of people and account for the main demographic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 01:48:26 am

(An aside, but it's not exactly a secret that some people mistake a sense of humor with being able to repeat permutations of the same handful of 'jokes' endlessly.  This is apparent to anyone who's seen the Internet, obviously- outside of those with this affliction.)

Has anyone here done any work at polling places before?  A good buddy of mine has done so for the last few years and generally descibes it as a mixed bag of emotions, tending towards the depressing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 02, 2012, 02:47:04 am

Quote from: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 01:48:26 am

Has anyone here done any work at polling places before?  A good buddy of mine has done so for the last few years and generally descibes it as a mixed bag of emotions, tending towards the depressing.

Do you mean an opinion polling agency?  Or a polling location, i.e. for voting day?

Last year I was a volunteer poll-watcher in my district, sitting there to observe the staff and note any funny business like people being given Provisional Ballots or over-eager campaign people within so many feet of the door.  I'd heard there was some intimidation and such in another part of town, but my job was completely superfluous and incredibly boring.  Everything was above-board all day, the staff were great people, the electronic ballot reader had to be fixed in the first hour, the touch-screen was just abandoned completely, and exactly 330 voters out of a district of about 3000 turned out to vote.  Interesting experience I guess, but not much to talk about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 02, 2012, 03:17:45 am

Quote from: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 01:12:47 am

Yeah, siding with Arpaio even jokingly is in extremely poor taste, since the man is actually evil.

Yeah... I read a story a while back about a prison he was in charge of, where a woman held on prostitution charges was left in a metal cage outside for most of a day without any water or anything in glaring sun and intense heat.  She was found burnt to a crisp.  Comments on the news article indicated this was not an unusual thing for Joe Arpaio.  Definitely an evil guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 02, 2012, 03:33:42 am

Looking over his wikipedia page...


Now now, anyone who likes pink boxers can't be all bad. Letting inmates sign up for organ donation doesn't sound half bad either, though of course that opinion is completely flipped if its "voluntary" instead of voluntary (and based on his record, wouldn't surprise me).


So yeah, mostly evil. Plenty of atrocities by dude, and he should probably be locked up in one of his own jail cells (or tents?). But pink boxers! I can't hate that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 02, 2012, 05:54:38 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 02, 2012, 03:33:42 am

Looking over his wikipedia page...


Now now, anyone who likes pink boxers can't be all bad. Letting inmates sign up for organ donation doesn't sound half bad either, though of course that opinion is completely flipped if its "voluntary" instead of voluntary (and based on his record, wouldn't surprise me).


So yeah, mostly evil. Plenty of atrocities by dude, and he should probably be locked up in one of his own jail cells (or tents?). But pink boxers! I can't hate that.

I feel a little weird trivializing it like this.

That being said, I'd rather criticize a man's actions and figure out what caused them than dehumanize the person and call him "evil"; all that accomplishes is denial that other people, normal people, might be capable of the same under the right circumstances.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 02, 2012, 06:14:36 am

Yeah, I voted for McCain last election because I liked his enthusiasm for nuclear power and I've liked him since he ran for primaries in 2000.

But this latest flavor of Republican canidates are raging morons and ideologically bankrupt neoconservatives. I'll probably vote for Obama, just because I know he isn't likely to do as much damage to the country as any of his alternatives.

Better the devil you know...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 02, 2012, 07:17:39 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 02, 2012, 03:17:45 am

Yeah... I read a story a while back about a prison he was in charge of, where a woman held on prostitution charges was left in a metal cage outside for most of a day without any water or anything in glaring sun and intense heat.  She was found burnt to a crisp.  Comments on the news article indicated this was not an unusual thing for Joe Arpaio.  Definitely an evil guy.

How is this guy not in jail?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 02, 2012, 07:32:01 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 01, 2012, 11:49:30 pm

Fuck. And here I thought it was hyperbole. Okay, off the RP train, who was that Libertarian nominee?

Gary Johnson. Like I said, Ron Paul but without all the insanity and denial of reality (and that's one of the areas where he differs, right there)

Quote from: Lysabild on January 02, 2012, 07:17:39 am

How is this guy not in jail?

Because people there probably support him. Since he's only evil towards "bad guys", he's okay, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 07:55:53 am

(trolling removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on January 02, 2012, 07:58:35 am

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 07:55:53 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 02, 2012, 12:09:15 am

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 12:01:52 am

I agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, but I disagree with his views on foreign policy and taxes. Rick Perry has Joe Arpaio's support, so he's definitely the best candidate.

Having never heard of this Joe fellow, why's his approval what you're looking at?

http://voices.yahoo.com/i-nominate-sheriff-joe-arpaio-president-the-622202.html

To sum it up, Joe is tough on crime and illegal immigration.

Quote from: G-Flex on January 02, 2012, 05:54:38 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 02, 2012, 03:33:42 am

Looking over his wikipedia page...


Now now, anyone who likes pink boxers can't be all bad. Letting inmates sign up for organ donation doesn't sound half bad either, though of course that opinion is completely flipped if its "voluntary" instead of voluntary (and based on his record, wouldn't surprise me).

So yeah, mostly evil. Plenty of atrocities by dude, and he should probably be locked up in one of his own jail cells (or tents?). But pink boxers! I can't hate that.

I feel a little weird trivializing it like this.

That being said, I'd rather criticize a man's actions and figure out what caused them than dehumanize the person and call him "evil"; all that accomplishes is denial that other people, normal people, might be capable of the same under the right circumstances.

Joe, like Jack Bauer, does what's needed to be done.

He might be a little harsh, but the people of Arizona adore him. Arpaio has been reelected 4 (soon to be 5) times in a row. America has grown soft, and we need more folks like Joe Arpaio.

Y'all need more folks like Joe Arpaio in prison is what y'all need.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 02, 2012, 09:36:37 am

Four years ago today. Anyone care for an update? (http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/01/the-gop-primary.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 02, 2012, 12:32:28 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 07:55:53 am

He might be a little harsh, but the people of Arizona adore him. Arpaio has been reelected 4 (soon to be 5) times in a row. America has grown soft, and we need more folks like Joe Arpaio.

What.

Quote

She was found burnt to a crisp.

The man has no respect for the law. There is no sentence in Arizona or elsewhere that can get you tortured. You have to kill someone to get the death penalty. This man is the worst sheriff I have ever heard of. We have a justice system for a reason, you know. Cruel and unusual punishment is strictly forbidden in the bill of rights, and this man went and did it anyway. This man should be in prison, not running one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 02, 2012, 12:41:59 pm

Y'know, inconsiderate jerks who take the last slice of pizza are a problem, too. We should have them drawn and quartered. Maybe that sounds a bit harsh, but how else are we supposed to deter people from being rude? I mean, okay, sometimes there are as many people as there are slices of pizza, or somebody's just not eaten all day. But I feel like these are niche cases. America has gotten too used to accommodating them - we're letting all sorts of people get away with this travesty as a result. It's time we, as a society, toughened up and started doing justice with our pizza etiquette.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 02, 2012, 12:45:09 pm

To be fair, Marcia Powell didn't die in Arpaio's prison. There are plenty of other cases to point to but not that one.

The biggest problem with him is he loves high profile, political bullshit and totally ignores actual law enforcement or, you know, the law.

Like not bothering to chase up sex crimes (https://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/05/381749/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-failed-to-investigate-over-400-sex-crimes-including-molestations-of-undocumented-children/) or entirely ignoring civil rights legislation (https://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/15/390264/despite-stonewalling-doj-uncovers-rampant-lawbreaking-by-sheriff-joe-arpaio/) while making headlines for pink underwear and creating a celebrity rich posse.

Quote

In El Mirage alone, where Arpaio’s office was providing contract police services, officials discovered at least 32 reported child molestations — with victims as young as 2 — in which the sheriff’s office failed to follow through, even though suspects were known in all but six cases. [...]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Svarte Troner on January 02, 2012, 12:52:43 pm

Ooh, I'll be able to vote this year, is Ralph Nader running? I guess not, dammit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 02, 2012, 04:24:11 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 07:55:53 am

Joe, like Jack Bauer, does what's needed to be done.

He might be a little harsh, but the people of Arizona adore him. Arpaio has been reelected 4 (soon to be 5) times in a row. America has grown soft, and we need more folks like Joe Arpaio.

Are you seriously suggesting that law enforcement officials should exercise what amounts to vigilante justice in order to torture and sometimes result in the death of inmates regardless of what their sentence actually says? Is this what you're suggesting, or are you just trolling us?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 02, 2012, 04:32:11 pm

I think "Show Posts" will tell you all you need to know on that front.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: fqllve on January 02, 2012, 04:34:52 pm

I remember him admitting to trolling in the Capital Punishment thread after saying all drug users should be executed. I'd link to one of the posts, but the relevant ones were deleted about a week ago, it seems.

Here's someone quoting the relevant post, though.

Quote from: Phmcw on August 01, 2011, 09:14:23 am

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on August 01, 2011, 09:12:21 am

I thought being a Mötley Crüe fan and advocating executions for drug users (while winking...) would have tipped you guys off that I was joking. Or that my 1st post in this thread advocated killing juveniles and the mentally ill, while praising Vlad the Impaler and Draco.

I've read FSTDT too much. Nice troll, though, you got me.

Plus... Joe Arpaio.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on January 02, 2012, 04:41:13 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 02, 2012, 04:32:11 pm

I think "Show Posts" will tell you all you need to know on that front.

I'll be honest, on that front:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-stupid.jpg)

Because I've talked with people who honestly believe stuff as bad or worse than that. OTOH, the lack of posts on these topics before 23 Dec makes me suspect the former.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 02, 2012, 06:38:14 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on January 02, 2012, 04:41:13 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 02, 2012, 04:32:11 pm

I think "Show Posts" will tell you all you need to know on that front.

I'll be honest, on that front:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-stupid.jpg)

Because I've talked with people who honestly believe stuff as bad or worse than that. OTOH, the lack of posts on these topics before 23 Dec makes me suspect the former.

Yes I do know people who advocate far worse seriously. And Fox News has been gushing over Arpaio and who he would endorse in the presidential race.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 10:02:00 pm

(trolling removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 10:16:41 pm

How do you feel about supporting an openly racist embezzler?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 02, 2012, 10:18:14 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 10:02:00 pm

And are you seriously calling inmates being made to wear pink underwear and watch the weather channel torture?

I really don't think that's what anyone here is talking about.


I can't even bring myself to respond to the rest of what you said. Not at the moment, anyway. Apparently you're not much of a fan of civil rights of the accused, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 10:24:49 pm

Some people just think that anyone who breaks any law should be dehumanized and tortured.  Obviously its not correct, but it's just how some people think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 02, 2012, 10:27:04 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 02, 2012, 10:18:14 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 02, 2012, 10:02:00 pm

And are you seriously calling inmates being made to wear pink underwear and watch the weather channel torture?

I really don't think that's what anyone here is talking about.

Personally, I was referring to sticking someone out to 'burn to a crisp' when that wasn't what they were sentenced to. (Because that is unconstitutional.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 02, 2012, 10:28:31 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 10:24:49 pm

Some people just think that anyone who breaks any law should be dehumanized and tortured.  Obviously its not correct, but it's just how some people think.

Except it's also unconstitutional on a number of fronts, and since he was talking about "police", he presumably means people only suspected of having broken the law as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 10:31:46 pm

Oh of course it is unconstitutional, immoral, whatever.  It's just that some people truly have that mindset.  Hence Joe Arpaio not beIng tried for his crimes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 02, 2012, 10:32:40 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 10:31:46 pm

Oh of course it is unconstitutional, immoral, whatever.  It's just that some people truly have that mindset.  Hence Joe Arpaio not beIng tried for his crimes.

The same people also tend to call themselves "pro-life". But that's for another thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 10:37:27 pm

Regardless, if someone truly believes that prison is about punishing and torturing more than it is about rehabilitating criminals, to the point that dehumanizing and allowing inmates to die in actual prison camps, they are not someone you should revere or put in a position of authority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 02, 2012, 10:38:43 pm

Oh, I agree. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 02, 2012, 10:41:29 pm

No worries.  I am posting from my phone so things are kinda stilted on my end.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 03, 2012, 01:14:28 am

I always thought the justice and prison system should be more about prevention rather then punishment. I reckon crime would drop if you had televised executions for the worst criminals, Like child molesters and rapists. Make it into a game show. or something like gladiators or takeshi's castle.
"I'm sorry the correct answer is ohio. HANG HIM."

I'm joking of course, but still, If you want to threaten people into being nice you gatta use BIG threats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 01:17:40 am

Quote from: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 03, 2012, 01:14:28 am

I always thought the justice and prison system should be more about prevention rather then punishment. I reckon crime would drop if you had televised executions for the worst criminals, Like child molesters and rapists. Make it into a game show. or something like gladiators or takeshi's castle.
"I'm sorry the correct answer is ohio. HANG HIM."

I'm joking of course, but still, If you want to threaten people into being nice you gatta use BIG threats.

Yeah, that doesn't actually work. They've checked with, yanno', years and years of research. Be nice (in a sense) if it did, because then we'd have a fairly straightforward way of going about it.

Back to the candidacy stuff. Anything particularly mindbogglingly ridiculous happen in the last day or so?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 03, 2012, 01:24:23 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 01:17:40 am

Back to the candidacy stuff. Anything particularly mindbogglingly ridiculous happen in the last day or so?

Ron Paul hasn't been smote by lightning yet, that's mindboggling by itself

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 03, 2012, 01:27:42 am

Only proves that if there is a God, He is smart enough to keep out of politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 03, 2012, 01:38:16 am

Not that I've seen on the news, but who knows. When does the caucus actually occur?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 03, 2012, 02:00:54 am

Later today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 03, 2012, 02:15:18 am

Posting to watch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2012, 02:27:24 am

Quote from: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 03, 2012, 01:14:28 am

I'm joking of course, but still, If you want to threaten people into being nice you gatta use BIG threats.

The "Vlad the Impaler" view of the justice system has been shown by research and experience to only work in extreme circumstances. For example, you could probably get results from such a strategy in Somalia, but not in the United States.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on January 03, 2012, 02:28:20 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 01:17:40 am

Quote from: Monkeyfacedprickleback on January 03, 2012, 01:14:28 am

I always thought the justice and prison system should be more about prevention rather then punishment. I reckon crime would drop if you had televised executions for the worst criminals, Like child molesters and rapists. Make it into a game show. or something like gladiators or takeshi's castle.
"I'm sorry the correct answer is ohio. HANG HIM."

I'm joking of course, but still, If you want to threaten people into being nice you gatta use BIG threats.

Yeah, that doesn't actually work. They've checked with, yanno', years and years of research. Be nice (in a sense) if it did, because then we'd have a fairly straightforward way of going about it.

Back to the candidacy stuff. Anything particularly mindbogglingly ridiculous happen in the last day or so?

Nah, it has been proven to work.
It doesn't work very well, but it still works to some degree, although there are far better and more effective means to reduce criminal activity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 02:52:02 am

Quote from: lemon10 on January 03, 2012, 02:28:20 am

Nah, it has been proven to work.
It doesn't work very well, but it still works to some degree, although there are far better and more effective means to reduce criminal activity.

Ah, sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. From what I remember (fairly well, it's only been a few months) that kind of action doesn't actually have much impact on the sort of crimes Monkey was talking about; child molestation, rape, murder, etc. Generally threat of punishment, even great punishment, doesn't even register to the folks committing that sort of act (especially when they're crimes of passion, not premeditation.). There certainly isn't (or wasn't, again, a few months ago) enough statistical correlation to even remotely support it as a viable and effective means to deal with the crimes themselves.

It might work in a few isolated cases (This is what we call an outlier, folks~), but that's (terrifyingly) insufficient for moral justification (And we've got problems if we're basing our justice system off something else.). By that same sort of reasoning, it'd be a good idea to murder literally everyone, because it'd prevent a few crimes. After all, mass murder prevents crimes, right? Bound to kill a few (eventually) guilty folks in there, sooner or later.

... but I'll stop now, I think. I've seen this argument gone over a couple times on this board already :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 03, 2012, 03:36:07 am

Punishment as a deterrent works just fine. The question is, how much punishment is needed before further punishment no longer really adds further deterrent?

From what I remember of those studies, adding additional jail time past ~9 months stopped having a meaningful effect. If you're willing to risk 3/4 a year of your life for something, then it's probably important enough that you're willing to risk it no matter what (or its a situation where you don't consider the risks; aka crime of passion). 8 months or 80 years both register as a really long time to be staring at a wall.


So yes, punishment as a deterrent works, it's just that you need far less punishment than most people realize. Sitting in a corner on "time out" worked as a deterrent for you as a kid despite it only lasting an hour, after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 03:37:56 am

Quote from: lemon10 on January 03, 2012, 02:28:20 am

Nah, it has been proven to work.
It doesn't work very well, but it still works to some degree, although there are far better and more effective means to reduce criminal activity.

No actually it doesn't. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=139x5743)

His brutal human rights abuses are ineffective, and this is fact. (http://americasvoiceonline.org/research/entry/the_notorious_record_of_maricopa_county_azs_sheriff_joe_arpaio)

So please, when you say 'it has been proven to work', what did you mean, exactly?  Further, let's propose a highly theoretical situation: how can you accept literal psychological and physical abuse, racism, and instilling terror into communities, even if it had been proven 'effective'?  Are you actually going to say that letting a sociopath tyrant abuse his authority to ruin people as he sees fit is alright if he 'gets the job done'?  Are you truly going to weigh crimes against another in that fashion?  Are you going to weigh theft and drug use and 'being brown skinned' against over one hundred million dollars worth of taxpayer money being misused, actual concentration camps, actual negligent deaths, actual racism, actual civil rights abuse, actual fraud, and actual psychological torture? Can you really judge him favorably in that scenario, even if he had reduced crime statistics?

Can you step back, and take that information in, and realize that he has done all of that and crime statistics in his jurisdiction have rocketed upwards?  That he has made his county a racially segregated zone?  That he has brought terror and sorrow to his community?

Can anyone honestly do that and not think that Joe Arpaio is nothing to be respected, and everything to be despised?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 03, 2012, 03:49:52 am

Quote

Can anyone honestly do that and not think that Joe Arpaio is nothing to be respected, and everything to be despised?

I still think the pink boxers are awesome, despite being ridiculous and irrelevant.



Silly things aside, there's invariably something to be respected about him and something to be despised. You know, like everyone. I'll probably join you in calling him "evil," but assuming there's absolutely nothing good about the guy is plain presumptuous. Remember, half the things he's guilty of come from his own being presumptuous. Do stay away from absolutes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 03:54:55 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 03, 2012, 03:36:07 am

So yes, punishment as a deterrent works, it's just that you need far less punishment than most people realize. Sitting in a corner on "time out" worked as a deterrent for you as a kid despite it only lasting an hour, after all.

Color me facepalmed, that actually reminded me of that bit. Thanks!

What's good to take away is that th'hyper-punishment deterrent concept is basically broke, really, and that the stuff folks are actually trying to deter with it (The big crimes, which tend toward crimes of passion.) aren't really influenced by it.

Quote from: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 03:37:56 am

Can anyone honestly do that and not think that Joe Arpaio is nothing to be respected, and everything to be despised?

If it's possible, I can't see how. Only possible out for someone supporting him would be to deny the veracity of the source material (and more importantly, what it cites), which, uh. I don't think you could, looking at it. Definitely not in the entirety, and even in part that info paints a pretty bad picture. Nasty bastard, that fellow.

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 03, 2012, 03:49:52 am

Silly things aside, there's invariably something to be respected about him and something to be despised. You know, like everyone. I'll probably join you in calling him "evil," but assuming there's absolutely nothing good about the guy is plain presumptuous. Remember, half the things he's guilty of come from his own being presumptuous. Do stay away from absolutes.

Ehn, I kinda' feel for what you're saying, but living in a community of really nice (So long as you're the right color, right religion, right etc.) bigots leans me more toward from where Cap's coming from. Yeah, he's probably got some bits to him that's not rotten, but what's showing through is heavily tainting the rest of it and th'good innit outweighing the bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 03:57:27 am

We're not talking about 'maybe he can write poems well' or something.  In his official capacity, he is indisputably altogether ineffective, violates human rights, and has shattered the community it was his responsibility to protect.

To defend him simply because he isn't as bad as he could be is ridiculous.   I've indicated his crimes against humanity and failures both in his career and as a person, and nothing more.  What would make you leap to his defense and say I'm being presumptuous?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 03, 2012, 04:00:39 am

Referring to punishment as deterrent, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who commit crimes don't think they're going to get caught in the first place, so they don't even consider the consequences if they do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 03, 2012, 04:26:38 am

Quote from: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 03:57:27 am

We're not talking about 'maybe he can write poems well' or something.  In his official capacity, he is indisputably altogether ineffective, violates human rights, and has shattered the community it was his responsibility to protect.

You should probably specify that you're only making claims about his capacity at his job, then. I probably wouldn't be replying to you in such a manner if that were the case.

Quote

To defend him simply because he isn't as bad as he could be is ridiculous.

That has not been my reasoning at all. Any "defense" of him I'm doing is strictly toward that which is irrelevant to the crimes he has committed. I do NOT defend the concentration camps. I do NOT defend the racism. 

Quote

I've indicated his crimes against humanity and failures both in his career and as a person, and nothing more.

This is what I'm arguing about, because you absolutely have accused him of failures elsewhere by using absolute language.  That is why I "leap to his defense and accuse you of being presumptuous." Calling someone "altogether evil" leaves no room for anything else. That's what "altogether" means.



Really dude, I largely agree with you about the guy. I just find such attitudes dangerous. I feel that making assumptions about people's character beyond the evidence which you have is plain not justifiable in any case whatsoever. I will not argue about claiming he's bad at his job. I will not argue about him being a racist, or someone who does not respect human rights. It's claims about things beyond his crimes against humanity which I raise an eyebrow about. There are numerous ways prejudice of that sort can be abused and I don't care if it supports my viewpoint or not. In this case, I will be completely honest and say it strikes me as a dehumanization tactic. Maybe that's not the case, but it's the vibe I'm getting from you. That's why my pedantry about your word choice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 04:54:39 am

Well, if we're going to be calling each other out on minor technicalities- I can sort of understand the idea of being a pedant to keep the discussion intellectually pure, but you should be a bit more forgiving about when a man who's entire record is composed of abhorrent, unjustifiable, indefensible shit.
 
To say this is not dehumanizing him- it is merely stating truth.  There is no conceivable situation in which Joe Arpaio should be consulted about how a government should be run.

So yes, he is not 'pure evil' in the most technical sense, but it should be understood that he is in any other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 08:58:59 am

Last I checked, Maricopa Joe wasn't on the ballot, so let's re-rail.

It's Iowa Caucus Day! For political junkies like me, this is like the first game of the season...we've seen (and taken part in) all the discussion of who's strong this season, who's weak, what sort of free agent moves have been made, but now it's time for the rubber to meet the road, and start recording some actual wins and losses.

For my part, here's my projected 1-2-3 finish for Iowa:

1. Ron Paul
2. Rick Santorum
3. Mitt Romney

Paul benefits from the caucus format, because he has a hardcore of enthusiastic supporters who will gladly tell you why he is the Second Coming until your ears fall off. People will wind up supporting Paul just to get their damn caucus meeting over with.

Santorum has been placing well in recent polls, because he's more or less lived there for the last year (100+ days in the state since the campaign pre-season began). He'll be the choice for the social conservatives, having put more ground game into the state than Bachmann or Perry, and committed far less publicly-noticed gaffes. And obviously he has supporters in Iowa who never use Google (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/rick-santorum-salad_n_1179929.html). xD

Romney will take third because not everybody in Iowa is insane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 03, 2012, 11:51:26 am

ACLU civil liberties report card. (https://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf) (.pdf)

I would note that they are measuring Obama's achievements in the face of strong congressional and establishment opposition in a few of those areas (notably abortion and GTMO/detention). I'd have given him an extra point in each of those areas based on his efforts, although admittedly their rankings are accurate given the overall effects. I doubt that any of the other candidates would see greater success in those areas either way.

I do look forwards to a more expansive look at more areas of civil liberty significance. These are ones I'd expect Johnson and Paul to do better in; other than gay marriage they are all negative liberty areas where libertarian types should default to the right answer. Looking towards voting rights, gender/racial rights and other positive liberty areas I'd expect to see a distinct advantage to Obama, with maybe Johnson keeping pace.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 03, 2012, 12:27:22 pm

For the lazy at total torch count (with ?s defaulting to 2) is as follows:

Bachmann: 0
Gingrich: 2
Huntsman: 14
Johnson: 21
Paul: 18
Perry: 2
Roemer: 7
Romney: 0
Sanotum: 0

Surprise, Johnson is okay and Paul is like him, only with a random hatred on reproductive rights and gays, sorta odd, that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 03, 2012, 12:46:09 pm

You missed Obama at 16 torches.

Crazy political question for everyone: Would you vote for Richard Stallman? Why? Why not?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 02:21:47 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 08:58:59 am

Last I checked, Maricopa Joe wasn't on the ballot, so let's re-rail.

Alright, thank you, that was getting a little ridiculous.

So anyway - some food for thought.  Super PACs who have either declared or been reasonably judged to be aligned with Mitt Romney have spent $17 Million on various advertising in Iowa, a state with about 1.2 million households.  And that's just Romney, a few others like Perry, Gingrich, and Paul combined are bringing it close to $30 Million total, but it says volumes that over half the ad-buying in the state is from Romney (and his PACs that he totally has nothing to do with) who swore early in the debates that he probably wouldn't even compete in Iowa because he was sure he wouldn't do well there anyway.

Commercials are on every channel at every hour, especially high-viewership stuff like news and sports.  Every residential phone in the state is ringing off the hook with recorded autodialers.  And some places like MediaMatters and such have calculated that about 85% of the negative campaign ads, i.e. the ones denouncing another candidate, are targeted at Newt Gingrich, who's perhaps understandable but laughably crying foul.  And of course, it's worth noting that probably 90% of the money being spent is from those new Super PACs, meaning they don't have to disclose who they are or where they get their money, and nobody believes there is genuinely no communication between S-PAC directors and the campaigns they're pushing for.  Of all the people in the world that opponents of the Citizens United decision could have gotten for an ally, you can now count in Gingrich.

Meanwhile, early turnout has been surprisingly low compared to previous years.  The Iowa Caucus isn't a pull-the-level ballot, everybody participating has to go to a location around the same time later in the day, but all the same it's a noteworthy.  Nobody has any reliable "exit" polling yet, so who knows why.

Also meanwhile, the Obama reelection campaign is out in full force in Iowa, even though he's literally the only name on the ballot.  Mostly, because they're using the primaries as training grounds for their Presidential campaign, in terms of building organizations of supporters to roust people to vote later on.  And to try (vainly) to put a lid on the inevitable Fox News story that low Democratic primary turnout (for a one-name ballot) means Democrats are disgusted with him or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 03, 2012, 02:46:13 pm

Oh FOX news, sometimes I don't even know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 03:17:31 pm

Interesting bit about the Dems using Iowa as a dress rehearsal. There was a lot of buzz that they used North Carolina (particularly Wake County) as a dry run during the off-year elections last November, and I think there's some weight to that. Dems took the mayor's office by a crushing margin, and retook the school board in a clean sweep of 5 seats up for bid, including unseating the current chair. Although oddly, my wife (who is a granola-muncher blue Democrat) never got any kind of phone calls, mailers, etc. urging her to vote. Maybe it was only in targeted districts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 03, 2012, 03:33:26 pm

That's my guess. Democratic candidates aren't going to spend an excessive amount of money in an largely Democratic area, because they're simply preaching to the choir. Same reason the Republican nominee (whoever it turns out to be) probably won't spend much time in super-conservative areas. It's the swing districts that will receive the most attention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2012, 03:55:03 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 03:17:31 pm

Interesting bit about the Dems using Iowa as a dress rehearsal. There was a lot of buzz that they used North Carolina (particularly Wake County) as a dry run during the off-year elections last November, and I think there's some weight to that. Dems took the mayor's office by a crushing margin, and retook the school board in a clean sweep of 5 seats up for bid, including unseating the current chair. Although oddly, my wife (who is a granola-muncher blue Democrat) never got any kind of phone calls, mailers, etc. urging her to vote. Maybe it was only in targeted districts.

My family never got any calls either....

I've heard some talks that North Carolina is going to be a political battleground in the 2012 elections because of Obama's unexpected victory in a southern state with a fairly large number of electoral votes back in 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 03:57:59 pm

Well, where we live isn't particularly blue. It's just that we had no open races of note on our ballot. Cary mayoral race (which is small fish compared to Raleigh), and no school board races. And the school board races had achieved national prominence, with over $500,000 poured into the races from both sides--unheard of in a school board race. There was one runoff race, and the outside contributions for the runoff campaign was over $125,000. Just crazy.

@MSH: Yeah, it's going to be an interesting campaign season. I expect we'll see a lot of Obama and Biden. If the Republican nomination goes down to the wire for some reason, I expect we'll get the travelling circus o' nuts too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 03, 2012, 04:35:57 pm

I'm hoping for less Biden, personally. He's like that loud uncle you wish would stop talking. Yes Uncle Harry, we've heard that joke before and we're tired of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 03, 2012, 07:03:06 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 03, 2012, 12:27:22 pm

Surprise, Johnson is okay and Paul is like him, only with a random hatred on reproductive rights and gays, sorta odd, that.

I thought it was already pretty clear that Gary Johnson was the only decent (now former) Republican candidate, and that Paul's basically "good enough" in relation to him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 03, 2012, 07:29:44 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 03, 2012, 12:46:09 pm

Crazy political question for everyone: Would you vote for Richard Stallman? Why? Why not?

God no. The man has a very tenuous connection with political and social reality. He's the kind of guy who's nice to have around because he represents some nice/interesting ideas, but he runs off a cliff with them, and seems to exist primarily inside his own head.

There's also the fact that he has no social grace whatsoever. How many people here remember that video of him picking something off his foot and eating it during a lecture? I would prefer my president to be at least as socially presentable as your average eleven-year-old.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 03, 2012, 07:48:00 pm

If we're talking about hypotheticals, how about George Clooney? He's politically aware, doesn't come across as insane in the interviews he's had re: political issues, and has an unholy level of charisma.

Or, assuming a complete overhaul of the whole 'American born' rule, Arnold Schwarznegger? Fidelity issues might plague him, but from what I hear, he's been an effective governator willing to work with both sides. Also, California is freaking huge, it's practically a country in it's own right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 03, 2012, 07:53:58 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 03, 2012, 07:48:00 pm

If we're talking about hypotheticals, how about George Clooney? He's politically aware, doesn't come across as insane in the interviews he's had re: political issues, and has an unholy level of charisma.

Or, assuming a complete overhaul of the whole 'American born' rule, Arnold Schwarznegger? Fidelity issues might plague him, but from what I hear, he's been an effective governator willing to work with both sides. Also, California is freaking huge, it's practically a country in it's own right.

I don't know anything about Clooney's politics, so no comment there.

Schwarznegger? I don't think so. He wasn't a terrible governator, but I don't think he could make a good president. I'd rather have him than Bachman or Perry, but that really isn't saying much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 03, 2012, 07:58:14 pm

Clooney's a Dem, quite progressive on most social issues (e.g. gay rights, abortion, civil rights etc.), can't remember his financial views, but he seems smart enough to take sensible economic advice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 07:59:19 pm

As a Californian with multiple relatives who work for the state, I can tell you that Schwarzenegger had a few alright gambits, but in trying to be a big charismatic leader, had a few huge schemes involving not-paying-state-employees that nearly bankrupted quite a few families.  Of course, CHP officers were immune to furloughs and such, because [whatever reason].

(An anecdotal aside, Arnold raised sales tax by about a penny on the dollar, which only went out of effect in the last few months.  It was widely hailed as a needed concession in these tough economic times.  Jerry Brown is planning on bringing it back, and everyone I've talked to about it is throwing a fit about tax and spend liberals ruining the working man.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 08:21:16 pm

Caucus voting is underway in Iowa.  Entrance polling suggests people under 30 are about 2-in-3 for Ron Paul, but are massively outnumbered by people over 30.  Still way too early to call.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 08:29:42 pm

CNN entrance polls are projecting a Paul-Romney-Santorum finish, which is pretty close to my projection. Of course, these are entrance polls so it's a little like projecting the game based on the halftime score.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 03, 2012, 08:41:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 08:29:42 pm

CNN entrance polls are projecting a Paul-Romney-Santorum finish, which is pretty close to my projection. Of course, these are entrance polls so it's a little like projecting the game based on the halftime score.

More like predicting the winner of the Super Bowl based on the first day of camp.

I'm expecting Paul and Romney to be close. It's not too important to me, because I won't be voting on that side of the ticket anyway, but it's still interesting to watch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 08:56:38 pm

Going into an hour after the beginning of voting, reported caucuses are almost straight 23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney - still can't be called officially.  Which says Bachmann and Perry are almost certainly underwater in a state they were both heavily banking on, and Gingrich and Huntsman will be looking to New Hampshire and South Carolina for vindication.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2012, 09:02:31 pm

Some OWS supporters went to Romney's speech and yelled at him. I don't think it worked very well.

Guardian Article (Video is strangely irrelevant) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/03/mitt-romney-heckled-iowa-caucuses)

Recording of the event. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ3wIFfMkrk&feature=youtu.be&t=2m45s)

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 08:56:38 pm

Going into an hour after the beginning of voting, reported caucuses are almost straight 23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney - still can't be called officially.  Which says Bachmann and Perry are almost certainly underwater in a state they were both heavily banking on, and Gingrich and Huntsman will be looking to New Hampshire and South Carolina for vindication.

Quote

Going into an hour after the beginning of voting, reported caucuses are almost straight 23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney -

Quote

23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney

Quote

23%/23%/23%

....That.....that's not.....

This is going to be a very interesting election cycle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 03, 2012, 09:05:15 pm

They'll just have to fuse into one horrifying monster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 09:06:07 pm

Bear in mind this is with 10% of the caucuses in, and the earliest concluding caucuses return first.  In 2008, Romney had a lead early in the count because of his organization before he dropped into a distant second.  Paul had the good organization this time, so who knows.

With the same count, Gingrich is at 13% (not bad really, considering he gave up on the place), Perry is at 9% and Bachmann at 6%, and Huntsmann at 1%.  I know that doesn't add up to 100%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bouchart on January 03, 2012, 09:06:41 pm

Yeah, I don't know how much we can gleam out of this caucas, since there's a large number of candidates with considerable voting blocs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2012, 09:08:27 pm

Bachmann should not ever be beating Huntsman, even if they're both going to lose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 03, 2012, 09:09:55 pm

All we need is a Howard Dean-esqe video segment from one of the candidates to really complete this circus.

HYAA!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2012, 09:13:24 pm

They say that in the cold, dark mists of the Iowa caucus, you can still hear Ol' Dean screaming his lungs out on a stormy night. But if you hear him crying, then stay far away dear boy. No one who's ever looked upon him then has ever come back...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 09:29:33 pm

A very interesting tidbit to me.  Some entrance/exit polling suggests about 60% of Iowa caucus goers identified themselves as (white) evangelical Christians, same as 2008.  Who they said they voted for is the key: 30% Santorum, no surprise, but about 20% for Paul and 15% for Gingrich (really?), with Perry, Bachmann, and everyone else below that.  What it suggest is that in 2012, this year of all years, even self-identifying evangelicals are by plurality leaning towards a hard-social-conservative like Santorum, but are in sum total are going more for economic-oriented candidates like Paul and Gingrich.  That's going to be a vital detail in every other state for the Republican nominee.

22% of caucuses in, still 23%/23%/23%.  Stay tuned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 03, 2012, 09:36:04 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 03, 2012, 09:05:15 pm

They'll just have to fuse into one horrifying monster.

Vote Paultorumney for all your rightest wingiest political flavors!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 09:36:37 pm

The other way to look at that: Christian evangelicals are staying the hell away from the Mormon candidates. It's an issue, even if they don't want to admit it up front.

But we really need to wait for the cross-tabs on any exit polling to see if that's a real problem or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2012, 09:57:16 pm

Now I'm actually curious about what number of Mormons are actually going to support Romney. I have no idea if he's actually popular among his own religious group or not. I guess we'll see soon enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 10:00:00 pm

There's only 23,000 Mormons in Iowa. They can only do so much...

The county breakdowns are interesting too. It's not that geographically clustered. While much of the western part of the state is going solidly for Santorum (including the county I was born in...geez, I've never been gladder I didn't grow up there), it's not a solid swath. The more eastern counties are going for Romney, but Ron Paul seems to be taking many of the more urban counties, especially the college counties like Johnson (University of Iowa), Des Moines (Drake University), and Black Hawk (University of Northern Iowa). Because Ron Paul is one of those popular college things like unprotected sex or doing a kegger the night before a big exam -- it sounds like a good time, but oh the potential consequences...  ;)


EDIT: Another question: Will Bachmann drop out after this? She's a Midwesterner who should have been expected to do better in a nearby state. The fact that she's in distant 5th and hasn't won a single county (Gingrich is at least leading in two counties) should be a sober wake-up call to her campaign. I don't see her doing anything in South Carolina or New Hampshire either. Gingrich should stay in because he'll probably have a better time of it in South Carolina. Huntsman will stay in until New Hampshire, and barring a top 3 finish there, he'll probably drop out and endorse Romney after that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 10:04:30 pm

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/it_seems_to_me_he_lives_his_li034469.php

The issue with Romney is that he will latch onto a stance, even if he is against it, to get ahead in the polls.

In this particular case, outlined above, he is pro-life, meaning he sees abortion as literal murder.  And yet he claimed support of it, solely to eke out some extra votes in that area.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 10:37:16 pm

Also...Herman Cain has 26 votes (I guess there are some people in Iowa who really do live under rocks), and Buddy Roemer has 21. Who the hell is Buddy Roemer?

Per Google, he was Governor of Louisiana (and his campaign site still refers to him as Gov. Roemer) TWENTY years ago. At least his tweets are amusing:

Quote

BuddyRoemer: I almost have enough votes in Iowa to start a bowling league. #Roementum

Quote

BuddyRoemer: BREAKING: Somebody who died in 1987 is beating me in Iowa. #invisibleman #LetBuddyDebate

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 03, 2012, 10:38:40 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 10:37:16 pm

Also...Herman Cain has 26 votes (I guess there are some people in Iowa who really do live under rocks), and Buddy Roemer has 21. Who the hell is Buddy Roemer?

Per Google, he was Governor of Louisiana (and his campaign site still refers to him as Gov. Roemer) TWENTY years ago. At least his tweets are amusing:

Quote

BuddyRoemer: I almost have enough votes in Iowa to start a bowling league. #Roementum

Quote

BuddyRoemer: BREAKING: Somebody who died in 1987 is beating me in Iowa. #invisibleman #LetBuddyDebate

I gotta appreciate someone who can make fun of themselves like that :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 03, 2012, 10:40:55 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 10:37:16 pm

Also...Herman Cain has 26 votes (I guess there are some people in Iowa who really do live under rocks), and Buddy Roemer has 21. Who the hell is Buddy Roemer?

Per Google, he was Governor of Louisiana (and his campaign site still refers to him as Gov. Roemer) TWENTY years ago. At least his tweets are amusing:

Quote

BuddyRoemer: I almost have enough votes in Iowa to start a bowling league. #Roementum

Quote

BuddyRoemer: BREAKING: Somebody who died in 1987 is beating me in Iowa. #invisibleman #LetBuddyDebate

iirc, he's the guy who shows up once in a while to talk about getting big money out of USA Politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bouchart on January 03, 2012, 10:43:02 pm

How many votes have been cast for Lizard People?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 10:44:26 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 03, 2012, 10:38:40 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 10:37:16 pm

Also...Herman Cain has 26 votes (I guess there are some people in Iowa who really do live under rocks), and Buddy Roemer has 21. Who the hell is Buddy Roemer?

Per Google, he was Governor of Louisiana (and his campaign site still refers to him as Gov. Roemer) TWENTY years ago. At least his tweets are amusing:

Quote

BuddyRoemer: I almost have enough votes in Iowa to start a bowling league. #Roementum

Quote

BuddyRoemer: BREAKING: Somebody who died in 1987 is beating me in Iowa. #invisibleman #LetBuddyDebate

I gotta appreciate someone who can make fun of themselves like that :D

Iknorite? Here's some more:

Quote

Have to be careful with these iPhone when signing my name. The "N" is dangerously close to the "B" #nuddy

Quote

Much to the chagrin of my Twitter volunteer, I will never be the guy that says "true dat" or "buh-bye" #oldmanproblems

Quote

My staff has a unique sense of humor today. #kittens pic.twitter.com/w78byASq (http://pic.twitter.com/w78byASq)

Plus, he's refusing any contributions over $100 (which is why his fundraising is laughably low) and he supports the Occupy movement. And he's been on the Daily Show and been plugged by Colbert. Hell, I'll vote for him in the NC primaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bdthemag on January 03, 2012, 10:46:46 pm

He has a good sense of humor, likes the Occupy Movement, and has a kitten picture? Damn, probably the only presidential candidate I'd support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 10:53:37 pm

Alright, so with about 90% of the vote in (and Bay12's server trying to stymie me), Santorum and Romney are within 1% of each other, tied at 25% each.  Ron Paul has sunk back to third with 21%, and is probably numerically stuck there with so few votes left to count.  Gingrich still at 14%, Perry 10%, Bachmann 5%, Huntsman nowhere.

And I have to go to work in twenty minutes, so they better hurry up and finish counting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 10:56:42 pm

As the results fill in, it's looking less optimistic for Ron Paul. Seems assured of a 3rd place finish at this point. Won several counties, but didn't take the college counties, splitting the vote instead and placing behind Romney. Romney did best in the eastern part of the state and the urban centers (although Santorum is at this time winning Woodbury, where Sioux City is). Santorum winning the rural cornfields and western half of the state. Absolutely crushed the vote in the northwest corner of the state, taking anywhere from 45-61% in those counties. Gingrich didn't win any counties, but came in 2nd in a handful. Looks placed to take 4th. Perry actually won a couple of counties in the southwest, took 2nd in several counties in the south, and paced 3rd in a wide number of counties. Should place a close 5th behind Newt. Bachmann came in 2nd in two counties, 3rd in two counties, and....yeah, she's toast. Huntsman placed approximately 117th, just behind "Jed, the Hobo King of Decatur". Seriously, he didn't even crack the top 4 in *any* county.


EDIT: Just looked at another map, and geographically...Iowa is a frothy sea of Santorum. Man, I am *not* going back to visit anytime soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 11:00:28 pm

... was there actually someone running on the ballot as Jed, Hobo King of Decatur?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 11:01:31 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 11:00:28 pm

... was there actually someone running on the ballot as Jed, Hobo King of Decatur?

I have no idea. But if they did, they placed higher than Jon Huntsman.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 03, 2012, 11:03:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 11:01:31 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 11:00:28 pm

... was there actually someone running on the ballot as Jed, Hobo King of Decatur?

I have no idea. But if they did, they placed higher than Jon Huntsman.

Yeah, he and Buddy Roemer should start a traveling roadshow.  And I should add Roemer to the OP list, how thoughtless of me, he has an interesting campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 11:09:27 pm

Looks like Bachmann still has a little more crazy in the tank. Word is she's hanging on till at least South Carolina. Admittedly, the fact that South Carolina has a female Republican (and Tea Partier) governor (the first in state history) who even looks a little like Bachmann....who knows? Personally though, from what I know of South Cackalacky....it ain't happening.


Interesting statistic (haven't fact-checked for accuracy):

Money spent per vote received in Iowa:

Santorum: $1.65
Bachmann: $8
Romney: $113.07
Gingrich: $139
Paul: $227
Perry: $817

Looks like Santorum's decision to basically live in Iowa the last few months paid off. Now...can that momentum carry over to South Carolina? Didn't realize Bachmann had spent so little in Iowa, but then she's only raised about $4 mil compared to the $10-15 mil the top-tier guys have.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 03, 2012, 11:39:43 pm

I found this whole thing very interesting. Sucks that Ron Paul didn't shake up the Iowa and make it irrelevant for all future generations

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 11:42:26 pm

Ahaha, there's days I hate the way I look at things. I see that list, and go... okay. Romney and Gingrich could have fed a person for a month, per vote. Paul, two people. Perry, eight.

... how many hungry people are in Iowa? *grumblemutter*

Now I kinda' want go convert campaign expenditures into a "Could have fed this many people instead" list, just to see how it goes.

There a list of total campaign money spent in Iowa, broken down by candidate? I'm guessing yes, but if someone's got it on hand...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 11:48:33 pm

To be fair, money spent in campaigns does enter back into the economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 11:48:43 pm

Well, think of it this way...it did go to feed people: signmakers, printing shops, campaign staffers, coffee shops to feed and fuel those staffers, etc.

It's not like campaign expenditures vanish into some abstract void. If nothing else, the Iowa campaigns have meant a net inflow on funds from out-of-state into their economy. It's like a weird sort of tourism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 03, 2012, 11:49:05 pm

Technically, that money didn't just disappear as it was spent.  It went to someone.  Probably not people who desperately needed it, but still... it's people/entities who have tons and tons of money and just hoard it that are the biggest problem.  Yeah, it's money being spent on frivolous bullshit, but at least it's passing from the hands of the rich asshat candidate to people who are getting an opportunity to make some sort of living off from it.

Ninja'd!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2012, 11:51:10 pm

Of course, most of those people strongly support Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, etc. Which leaves me ambivalent about the whole "trickle-down benefit" part.

It's like saying "Oh, well the Dark Lord isn't THAT bad...I mean, he pays his henchmen well..."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 03, 2012, 11:52:47 pm

Yeah, those thoughts do tend to occur after the initial 'that could have been food' reaction. S'just the 'food' comes first. Comes from converting pretty much all expenses into 'this could have fed me for X period,' yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 03, 2012, 11:57:04 pm

My understanding is that a lot of low level staff in any campaign is equally likely to be a die-hard supporter of their candidate or just some guy doing a job.  And even those two aren't mutually exclusive.  Not that I'm saying the money wouldn't be better spent creating clean water infrastructure in the third world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Powder Miner on January 04, 2012, 12:01:38 am

If people want to be charitable with their money or make advertisements with it, it's their choice. and the people who receive the money don't just carry it around and keep it forever, you know, they spend it.

Anyway, a money per vote graph is skewed based on the number of votes one gets...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 12:11:17 am

Yeah.....that's kind of the point. It's a measure of the effectiveness of your campaign.  ???

Anyways, I forgot that NH comes before SC. So Huntsman will probably fold before even SC, as I don't see him even placing in NH. And if he can't get a top-3 finish there (note: he can't), there's really no hope for him anywhere outside of Utah or possibly Nevada.

Perry and Bachmann will be unlikely to even break single digits in NH. It'll come down to Romney v. Paul with Gingrich and Santorum as the outsiders looking in. I'd project Romney-Paul-Gingrich-Santorum for the 1-4 finish in NH, but we'll have to see how much more exposure this race gets Santorum.

Ya gotta hand it to the guy. Santorum can't be accused of outspending his opponents or even any heavy-duty smear tactics or negative ad blitz. He won the old-fashioned way, by getting out there and pressing the flesh (perhaps an unfortunate metaphor in his case). Dude went door-to-door, kissed those babies, judged those Best Pig contests, and met with every Ladies' Rotary from Sioux City to Davenport.

Problem is, you can only do that intensively in *one* state at a time. He ain't got time to match that level of ground action in New Hampshire and South Carolina. At this point, he's just gotta pray that voters are so disenchanted with the field that they'll jump on anybody who seems to have the slightest momentum. Which, considering the field...is altogether possible. If he can crack the top 3 in NH (a place far more fiscal conservative than social conservative), he's got a legit shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 04, 2012, 12:13:52 am

Huntsman has been spending all his time in New Hampshire, and from what I can tell it's been going swimmingly. John McCain did it and got the nomination, he might yet pull it off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 04, 2012, 12:15:01 am

When I turned off the TV during MSNBC's coverage they were talking about a Perry announcement that he was suspending his campaign. So... now he's semi-officially out I guess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 12:21:33 am

Quote from: Bouchart on January 03, 2012, 10:43:02 pm

How many votes have been cast for Lizard People?

Buddy Roemer has got your back.

Quote

#BuddyRoemer Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. "@fivethirtyeight: 6 votes for Lizard People just counted in Allamakee County”

Yeah, I saw that about Perry "re-assessing" his campaign. Typical....all hat, no cattle. I suppose he could still pull a Ross Perot and jump back in if neither Santorum nor Romney win New Hampshire.

Admittedly, it should be noted that the last Republican to win Iowa and then actually win the nomination was Bob Dole back in 1996. And he did it with a painfully low margin of 26%. Which is one point more than either Santorum or Romney is projected to get (whichever one wins...they're less than 100 votes apart at this point).

@BSG: Looking at the latest polling, Huntsman's still in 4th place in NH. I don't see his supporters peeling off to follow Santorum, so I dunno...maybe he takes 4th after all. Still won't be enough to really give him a reason to stay in. He'll be invisible in the SC results. Don't get me wrong, I *wish* Huntsman were doing better, I halfway like the guy. Hell, he's fluent in Mandarin, how can I not like that? But I fully recognize that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning with the GOP in the condition it's in these days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 04, 2012, 12:33:30 am

Quote from: BBC News

Preliminary results from the Iowa caucuses show Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney locked in a tie, with Ron Paul finishing third.

With 98% of votes counted, they are separated by 41 votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Powder Miner on January 04, 2012, 12:44:33 am

Current margin that I'm aware of is five votes. Wow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 12:45:27 am

Quote from: Powder Miner on January 04, 2012, 12:44:33 am

Current margin that I'm aware of is five votes. Wow.

I hope Buddy Roemer tweets that he played spoiler tonight. xD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 12:47:02 am

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 04, 2012, 12:33:30 am

Quote from: BBC News

Preliminary results from the Iowa caucuses show Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney locked in a tie, with Ron Paul finishing third.

With 98% of votes counted, they are separated by 41 votes.

Now where are all those people who said that they wouldn't vote because their votes wouldn't count? Part of me wants to wave this in their faces a little <_<

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 04, 2012, 12:59:07 am

It gets better.

Quote from: Associated Press

Preliminary results from the Iowa caucuses show Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney locked in a tie, with Ron Paul finishing third.

With 99% of votes counted, Mr Santorum led by five votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 04, 2012, 01:10:25 am

I wasn't expecting Santorum to make any kind of a comeback, but hey, it's not like Iowa's been very indicative in these recent decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 04, 2012, 02:35:47 am

'Final' announcement has Romney winning by 8 votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 04, 2012, 02:45:31 am

Well I'm not 8 people, so my vote wouldn't count.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 04, 2012, 02:50:36 am

Here's the link btw (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_CAMPAIGN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-04-02-24-07).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 04, 2012, 02:55:56 am

What would have happened if they ended up on the same number of votes?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 04, 2012, 02:59:56 am

Hell would freeze over, Ragnarok would begin, Christ would return again, and so on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on January 04, 2012, 03:13:31 am

Quote from: Glowcat on January 04, 2012, 02:45:31 am

Well I'm not 8 people, so my vote wouldn't count.  :P

Dammit, I'm 10 people, so if I just went to the iowa caucus I could have turned it around. :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 04, 2012, 03:47:09 am

Quote from: scriver on January 04, 2012, 02:55:56 am

What would have happened if they ended up on the same number of votes?

Pretty much exactly what happens now.

The delegate count is proportional so they are getting 11 each either way. And technically these votes don't count anyway.

Each of the precinct caucuses has now (or should have) selected delegates to be sent to the county conventions to represent their votes. Those delegates will then select representatives to go to the district conventions, who then select representatives to go to the state convention. The state convention then selects the delegates to send to the Republican National Convention. Those delegates are then expected (but not forced) to vote along the lines originally suggested by the caucus votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 04, 2012, 08:09:34 am

Actually, from what I understand, they are forced to vote according to the caucus/primary results for the first vote, but if there is not a clear majority then, for subsequent votes they can vote for whomever they like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 08:17:04 am

Isn't American democracy such a great system? I don't know why other countries aren't more happy to receieve it from us whether they like it or not....


Anywho...wow. 8 votes. Buddy Roemer got more than that. Hell, Hermain Cain got more than that. Lizard People got more than that. Obviously, this is all a plot by the lizard people to deny Rick Santorum his rightful victory.  :P

In a related tweet:

Quote

BuddyRoemer : Five votes separate Buddy Roemer from Lizard People. #notkidding

Buddy Roemer is rapidly becoming my favorite politician EVER.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 04, 2012, 08:17:23 am

Quote from: Mego on January 04, 2012, 08:09:34 am

Actually, from what I understand, they are forced to vote according to the caucus/primary results for the first vote, but if there is not a clear majority then, for subsequent votes they can vote for whomever they like.

Nope. It's the honour system all the way. It kinda helps that it's your neighbour's views you are representing, so not standing by them is usually a dumb thing to do.

I remember that back in 2008 the Clinton campaign were doing their whole desperate flailing thing, letting all the Obama delegates know they could really vote for whoever they wanted. One person who had been an Obama supporter in a Clinton district, but ended up a delegate when no-one else volunteered, wrote in to say thanks for the reminder. Have to try to find that.

EDIT: Article on the Clinton campaign targeting pledged delegates. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html)

RBC post on the wider strategy. (http://www.samefacts.com/2008/02/uncategorized/the-faithless-delegate-strategy/) Note that it applies at every level of the presidential process, from caucus delegates up to electoral college electors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 04, 2012, 08:22:06 am

Aiee! They chose Romney?

I mean, sure, that wasn't unexpected; he's the one guy who knows not to say really stupid things. And that's the problem.

Sigh. I'm going to go live under a rock until the fundies shut the fuck up. I don't need to experience somebody making my belief in God look like divinely sanctioned bigotry.

Wake me up when the Religious Left becomes a viable movement. *closes hatch*

Also, Buddy Roemer for president, yo.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 04, 2012, 08:36:28 am

Exit polls make for interesting reading. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls)

If I were working the Santorum campaign (FSM forbid) I'd be emphasising the party affiliation numbers, then making the whole campaign an anti-abortion, values based pile of pabulum about morals. And then slitting my wrists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 08:45:47 am

Well....25% of people chose Romney. 75% chose Anyone Other Than Romney, in varying flavors. That still doesn't bode well for Mitt's chances. He should do a lot better in New Hampshire, cause it's home turf and less inclined towards the social conservatives. What I'll be watching is to see where he places in SC. A really sour showing in SC (and say, a really strong one for Santorum) could indicate that it's shaping up into a two-way battle between Romney and Santorum as the Anti-Romney. My take is that a large part of the GOP is desperate for an Anti-Romney, but every time they think they've found one, he (or she) opens their mouth and after a massive collective facepalm, they search for the next one. Romney has stayed where he is by basically not saying a damn thing. Which is smart from the standpoint of "when your rivals are committing political suicide, step aside and let them" but it's also why his polling percentages among the GOP haven't changed in *four years*. He's polling about 23% now, he was polling about 23% before the 2008 Iowa primaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 04, 2012, 08:50:09 am

Go Go Santorum, then. (for the primaries). I'm a socialist and I approve this message.

Actually, when you think about it, this is why the American electoral system is absurd; a socialist is supporting Rick Santorum in the primaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 09:01:25 am

Not really. Even in a Parliamentary system, the top PM candidate is generally known before the election. If the Tories in England decided to pick a complete and utter rotter as their man for PM, you can't tell me Labour wouldn't be thrilled.

I suppose the difference is that in the US states with open primaries, you can cross the line and *try* to get the most unpalatable candidate elected. Which is why many states don't have open primaries or make you have been registered with a given party for X amount of time before you can vote in their primary. Used to be, as an Independent in NC I couldn't vote in ANY primaries. Thankfully that was changed, and now I can wreak all the havoc I want! Muhahahahaha.....

....except that we're nearly the last in the nation on the primary schedule. So the races are usually decided by the time they get here. Clinton/Obama was a rare exception and it felt good to actually make a difference in that one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 04, 2012, 09:06:33 am

Now, aren't the Iowa caucus delegates going to be winner-take-all, so that Romney and Santorum basically split delegates?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 09:16:58 am

See above. Yes, no and probably. In theory, they'll split the delegate pool, but in practice anything is possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2012, 10:05:50 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 09:01:25 am

Not really. Even in a Parliamentary system, the top PM candidate is generally known before the election. If the Tories in England decided to pick a complete and utter rotter as their man for PM, you can't tell me Labour wouldn't be thrilled.

Well in pretty much every case you have to have been at least a Minister or Shadow Minister before you get voted to the top spot.  So anyone who's completely and utterly crazy would have probably had a career wrecking scandal long before they could go anywhere near the vote for their party leadership.  I mean, not that the results are necessarily great, but I don't think we see anyone on Michelle Bachman levels running for party leadership here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 10:58:51 am

Word is out that Bachmann is holding a press conference in a few minutes to announce she's "suspending" (i.e. quitting) her campaign. Guess I was right after all.


EDIT: A friend of mine theorizes this was all mainly to raise her profile in order to make a run at the House Speaker's seat after the November election. She's trying to make a name as the Anti-Boehner. As he so eloquently puts it, "If she gets a Republican president in Romney, she can drag him right. If she gets President Obama again, she is perfectly positioned to gnaw on his dangly bits for a couple of years and make another run."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 04, 2012, 11:25:23 am

I'm listening to Bachmann talk, and it's making my head hurt

And she's out!

Yay!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 11:32:48 am

Redking... That Bachman/Obama imagery was disturbing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 11:38:56 am

You'd have to know this friend. It's the sort of imagery he revels in.

Just think...whatever imagery he comes up with that involves Santorum is likely to be far, far more disturbing.



And then there were six: Santorum, Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman and Roemer. Okay, so really there were four.

Santorum: The social conservative with a poor fiscal conservative record.
Romney: The fiscal conservative with a poor social conservative record.
Paul: The pseudo-libertarian with the WTF record.
Gingrich: Yeah, I don't even know how to classify Newt. The guy who thinks he's the diehard conservative, even as most GOP'pers don't want to touch him and his baggage with a ten-foot-pole?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 04, 2012, 12:18:55 pm

Got to love the endorsement game. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/disgraced-pastor-ted-haggard-says-hes-a-newt-gingrich-fan-66091/)

Quote

“I am a Newt Gingrich fan partially because he models resurrection to me. He has been married three times, he has gone through his own infidelity, his own growth process, and his own repentance and renewal of faith so I trust him because of that,” Haggard told FOX 411.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 12:39:27 pm

Holy crap, an endorsement by Ted Haggard?  Yeah, somebody put him up to that to tank Gingrich.  Why I don't know, because he's probably tanked now anyway.


Okay, I updated the OP.  Breaking news: reversing everyone's predictions, Michele Bachmann drops out of the race (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57352112-503544/michele-bachmann-drops-out-of-gop-race/), while Rick Perry stays in.  No word yet on who she'll endorse, but if she's any kind of savvy (debatable) she'll wait until the last possible minute to lend her "support" to whoever's probably going to win anyway and then claim credit for it, because that's what you try to do.

Also, Newt Gingrich is burning the ground Romney walks on, by hand instead of by PAC.  See you in New Hampshire kids.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 01:14:10 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 04, 2012, 12:18:55 pm

Got to love the endorsement game. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/disgraced-pastor-ted-haggard-says-hes-a-newt-gingrich-fan-66091/)

Quote

“I am a Newt Gingrich fan partially because he models resurrection to me. He has been married three times, he has gone through his own infidelity, his own growth process, and his own repentance and renewal of faith so I trust him because of that,” Haggard told FOX 411.

HA! He's been married three times and cheated at least once. JUST LIKE JESUS.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 02:11:09 pm

John McCain at this moment is endorsing Mitt Romney in New Hampshire (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20220104after_iowa_win_romney_bags_mccain_endorsement/srvc=home&position=0) - sometimes being a maverick means dancing on your own grave.  McCain of course won the New Hampshire primary in 2008 and 2000, and he's John McCain.  So there's that.

---

Apparently, I was originally mistaken about how much ad-money was spent in Iowa.  I originally heard that it was $17Million by Romney and about $30Million total.  Apparently either I wildly misheard something, or there's a crapload of money out there I can't find documentation of.  I'm leaning towards me being wrong.

With that, it was about $17Million total, and numerically, it was Rick Perry who spent the most money (hence the $480 for every one of his thirteen thousand votes), not Romney, and it didn't work for him.  Historically, whoever spends the most wins stuff, but Iowa was completely flipped around in terms of dollars-per-vote, especially with Santorum's breakout near-win.

Spoiler: Here's a good linked graphic - not sure what counts as "Other". (click to show/hide)

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/1/3/14/enhanced-buzz-30516-1325620414-29.jpg) (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/-480-the-price-rick-perry-paid-for-each-iowa-caucus-vote/250859/)

I said earlier that I was investing a lot of prediction in how Santorum described the likely results in December, that the primary would really be a contest between the different wings of the Republican party (something I've been saying for years).  It's not about ideological competition between them, they all mostly adhere to the same general notions of conservatism, so much as competing over who gets to drive.  You have the Executives (Gingrich, Huntsmann, Romney), the Culturals (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum), and the Libertarians (Paul).

Especially with Romney being the focal point of the race this whole time, as the guy everyone was competing to prove they could beat, the Cultural wing adopted a lot of support from Republicans in general who didn't want Romney.  The real question will be whether the general voting number in each wing will gravitate to one candidate as people peal out of the race.  With Bachmann out completely and Perry looking like he'll quit if he doesn't come back strong in South Carolina, it's possible Santorum will pick up their supporters, since he's offering practically the same ideological platform.  Certainly anyone who voted or would vote for Bachmann for instance would be much more inclined to Santorum than Romney.

The other question is the money - Santorum achieved a statistical tie with a little over 10% of Romney's money.  Then again, Romney barely acknowledged Iowa until right before the end, while Santorum had been living there for almost two months.  Within their Cultural league, Bachmann had pocket change while Perry spent piles of cash, mostly direct from his campaign.  Obviously, Santorum can't repeat the shoe-string campaign he made in Iowa elsewhere, because there's only so many days in a week for him to live in a state.

So the question becomes, will support aggregate over time?  Will his darkhorse near-victory in Iowa give Santorum the recognition and credential he needs to get the attention of Cultural Republican voters in the next few states, and suggest that he's the good bet over Perry?  And if that happens, will he gain Perry's money inflow as the would-be Perry supporters move towards him in votes?

The same question is on the Executive side.  If Gingrich flames out in a hurry, as he looks likely to do, will his support in votes and money go towards Romney?  How much of the Gingrich faction would prefer a Cultural candidate over Romney?

Provided Santorum doesn't completely disappear in the next couple states, certainly if he gets a good showing in South Carolina, this could easily become a two-man race by the end of January as the two major wings of the Republican party line up behind the last choices they've been given.  Three-man race if you want to be generous to Ron Paul, who is at least in the running for once, I have to give him credit.  I think the real question is what will happen to the money stream, since there's an awful lot of Republicans who would take absolutely anybody over Romney (even a few people in the editorial-column intelligentsia saying they'd rather have four more years to beat up Obama than have a Romney Presidency), while apparently most of the Super PAC money (being mostly business money) is going towards the only Executive who looks like he could win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 04, 2012, 02:24:36 pm

Probably not for the first time, the problem with a 2 party system seems to be that within that party, there is a lot of room for political opinions of a wide ranging spectrum, which probably isnt that good a thing for a coheisve or united approach.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 02:30:23 pm

Okay--looking at that money graph, I'm totally onboard with my buddy's analysis that Bachmann was just in this for the lulz and to get her name out there in order to get something else. Even though she was behind 4-to-1 in fundraising, she raised $3+ million in the last quarter and only spent $24,000 in the entire first race, the state of her birth???


So...really, what I should be hoping for is for Gingrich to hang around a good long while to deny Romney those resources, while Santorum absorbs the defeated armies of Perry and Bachmann, and this turns into a 3-way Mexican standoff down the line. End result, whoever gets the nom only has about 33% support across his own party's base, which he'd have to pull up by a good 20-40% before the general election and then generate good turnout from a fractured and less-than-enthused base.

Then again, who knows? Early on in 2008, it looked like Clinton was the heir apparent and the GOP was going to knife-fight until August. Then suddenly McCain wrapped it up and the Dem race became the never-ending Bataan death march to the White House (thank you Daily Show for the metaphor). Smart money said that the long and bitter primary fight benefitted the GOP, but it didn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 03:01:39 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 02:30:23 pm

Then again, who knows? Early on in 2008, it looked like Clinton was the heir apparent and the GOP was going to knife-fight until August. Then suddenly McCain wrapped it up and the Dem race became the never-ending Bataan death march to the White House (thank you Daily Show for the metaphor). Smart money said that the long and bitter primary fight benefitted the GOP, but it didn't.

Mostly because people don't care that much about primaries.  At their best, you're looking at 15% turnout, and this time around it will be inherently lower since there's no real Democratic primary.  Then again, the Iowa Republican turnout wasn't particularly great, even with acknowledged Democrats turning up to pick a Republican candidate.

The main reason why the 2008 Republican primary was so locked down after actual votes started being cast was that it was a winner-take-all delegation.  Once McCain started winning a few populous states, he picked up from there and it was pretty much over by the end of February.  Apparently in recognition of that, the Republican party switched to a proportional system, so even though Romney just won Iowa by eight votes, he and Santorum will have the same number of delegates (I understand anyway, it certainly won't be a difference of more than one).  So this thing just keep dragging on, depending on how close each state is.

The 2008 Democratic primary wasn't as extraordinary as it may have looked, historically.  The 1988 and 2004 Democratic primaries were the same way, where a bunch of guys were knife-fighting all the way into summer before the party leadership used the Super Delegates to coronate the long-time party man.  Apparently, Clinton was behind by enough in 2008 that they managed to convince the system to take a gamble with Obama for once.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 03:11:49 pm

I don't remember 2004 being that close, but okay. Kerry had it wrapped up after he crushed Edwards on Super Tuesday in early March, but he'd already been kind of the heir-apparent for a while. I distinctly remember detaching with disgust from the political sites I was on at the time, remarking that the Democrats had just given George Bush another four years (in the interest of full disclosure, I supported Dean, then Clark, then threw up my hands because I didn't like Kerry or Edwards).


Didn't realize the bit about the GOP going full-on proportional. So this thing could really drag out?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens8834841_1262925303montgomery-burns.gif)
Excellent.

I'm really bummed nobody is publishing a list of the 117 "Other" votes. I want to see what sort of hilarity ensued. (For instance, how many votes for Cthulhu?)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 03:28:23 pm

It is wrong for me to proselytize Gary Johnson to the libertarians I know even if I don't approve of him based on his economic policies?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 03:41:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 03:28:23 pm

It is wrong for me to proselytize Gary Johnson to the libertarians I know even if I don't approve of him based on his economic policies?

That's a matter between you and Ayn Rand's vengeful ghost.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 03:47:22 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 03:41:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 03:28:23 pm

It is wrong for me to proselytize Gary Johnson to the libertarians I know even if I don't approve of him based on his economic policies?

That's a matter between you and Ayn Rand's vengeful ghost.

Ayn Rand's ghost doesn't believe in the afterlife, but it would conflict with her philosophy of self interest if she refused to benefit from it.

Seriously though: I just had a lengthy facebook discussion where I vigorously argued that Gary Johnson was a better libertarian than Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 04, 2012, 07:15:34 pm

In case you guys haven't heard Bashmann's out (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/bachmann-ends-presidential-run-20120104).

And Gary Johnson is a better Libertarian than RP, see: Gay rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 04, 2012, 07:43:13 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 04, 2012, 09:06:33 am

Now, aren't the Iowa caucus delegates going to be winner-take-all, so that Romney and Santorum basically split delegates?

Delegates are split 7-7-7 between Romney, Santorum, and Paul.

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 04, 2012, 07:15:34 pm

In case you guys haven't heard Bashmann's out (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/bachmann-ends-presidential-run-20120104).

And nothing of value was lost.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 07:51:00 pm

So, I'll be eligible for election in the 2020 election...who's with me?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 07:51:12 pm

Meanwhile, Rick Perry's response to events?

"Man, screw Iowa. We're headed for South Carolina, where they have actual primaries and actual Republicans." (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/perry-trashes-iowa-as-he-vows-not-to-quit-race-20120104?mrefid=mostViewedurl)

That's that good ol' Texas charm shining bright...like when he made the comment (in Texas) that he'd had roadkill that tasted better that Carolina barbecue. Sure, he was just playing to the crowd, but this is the 21st century. We're gonna hear about that. And lemme tell ya, if there's one uniting factor that works across partisan lines round here, it's barbecue. You insult our 'cue, you best pack your shit up and head back to Brisketville, son.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 07:54:56 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 07:51:12 pm

Meanwhile, Rick Perry's response to events?

"Man, screw Iowa. We're headed for South Carolina, where they have actual primaries and actual Republicans." (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/perry-trashes-iowa-as-he-vows-not-to-quit-race-20120104?mrefid=mostViewedurl)

Which is still retarded, because South Carolina is an open-primary state, so his core argument that he lost because Iowa lets Democrats and Independents into the Republican caucus is nonsensical.

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 04, 2012, 07:43:13 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 04, 2012, 09:06:33 am

Now, aren't the Iowa caucus delegates going to be winner-take-all, so that Romney and Santorum basically split delegates?

Delegates are split 7-7-7 between Romney, Santorum, and Paul.

Is that true?  Mathematically, I figured it'd be 6/6/5, but I haven't seen a real story.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 08:02:28 pm

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

MaxZero, I'd support you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on January 04, 2012, 08:10:27 pm

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 08:10:51 pm

Stupid and alienating seem to be par for the course for Perry.


I saw something that said it would be a 50-50 split for Santorum and Romney, Based on congressional districts won. +1 delegate to Romney for the outright win, because they have an odd number of pledged delegates to award. Paul supposedly gets zilch because despite his ~21% share, he didn't win any Congressional districts. I'll have to hunt for that piece...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 08:13:20 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 07:51:00 pm

So, I'll be eligible for election in the 2020 election...who's with me?

It's 35 to run for president, right? Suppose that I can lend you my support, then. 28, though. That'll be my year.


However, with campaigning starting earlier every cycle, don't you think that your exploratory committee is a bit behind the power curve?



Anyway, I'm going to hold out hope for a Ron Paul victory, just on the reasoning that it'll certainly change all sorts of stuff. And for the sheer hilarity of it _{and with hope that I might get some really awesome deal to get cut loose from the army when he cuts it with a chainsword.}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2012, 08:15:51 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 08:02:28 pm

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

I dunno, No True Scotsman is effectively retroactively editing a statement to defend it (so "People with brown hair never do bad things" can easily be made into one by claiming that true brown haired people don't do bad things, turning your statement from a testable one into an expression of a weird definition).  This is more like "Waaaah!!  You guys suck.  These guys are cool though, so I'll just go hang out with them!  Screw you."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 04, 2012, 08:16:23 pm

I'd love to run for President someday, but the fact that I am a socialist (and wed this with Christianity no less), as well as my very open rejection of patriotism outright, make victory unlikely.

But I might run just to make people think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 08:18:38 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 04, 2012, 08:15:51 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 08:02:28 pm

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

I dunno, No True Scotsman is effectively retroactively editing a statement to defend it (so "People with brown hair never do bad things" can easily be made into one by claiming that true brown haired people don't do bad things, turning your statement from a testable one into an expression of a weird definition).  This is more like "Waaaah!!  You guys suck.  These guys are cool though, so I'll just go hang out with them!  Screw you."

It is kinda retroactive. Perry spent money in the Iowa campaign, probably hoping to get the nomination or at least place highly enough to still have good odds. Iowa obviously wasn't impressed, so the "actual Republicans" comment is basically a screw-you to Iowa.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 04, 2012, 08:20:29 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 04, 2012, 08:15:51 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 08:02:28 pm

Aqizzar, he's basically making a No True Scotsman fallacy. The people of Iowa didn't support him, so they aren't TRUE Republicans. The people of South Carolina, who (may) support him, ARE True Republicans. It's stupid and alienating, but it seems to be a favorite tactic among certain politicians.

I dunno, No True Scotsman is effectively retroactively editing a statement to defend it (so "People with brown hair never do bad things" can easily be made into one by claiming that true brown haired people don't do bad things, turning your statement from a testable one into an expression of a weird definition).  This is more like "Waaaah!!  You guys suck.  These guys are cool though, so I'll just go hang out with them!  Screw you."

Ahh, so the NTS is gonna show up after Perry gets thrashed in SC?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 04, 2012, 08:21:22 pm

Quote

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

Wait. Is this a bad thing for some reason? Because I'm honestly not seeing why. If anything, this is a plus in my book. And it's not something that's uncommon, I know plenty of people who do it.

Also, MaxZero, you have my support. I don't know your policies, but you have my support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 08:22:38 pm

I doubt it. Probably more along the lines of "I'm taking my ball back to Texas. Screw you guys! Until I can go lend support to someone or something."



Crud. I'm in Texas, aren't I?

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 04, 2012, 08:21:22 pm

Quote

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

Wait. Is this a bad thing for some reason? Because I'm honestly not seeing why. If anything, this is a plus in my book. And it's not something that's uncommon, I know plenty of people who do it.

I've got a book that details the cooking of it on my shelf right in front of me. I've certainly eaten worse things than roadkill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2012, 08:40:12 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 04, 2012, 08:20:29 pm

Ahh, so the NTS is gonna show up after Perry gets thrashed in SC?

"The people who voted in this round weren't true South Carolineans."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 04, 2012, 09:16:47 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on January 04, 2012, 08:10:27 pm

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

It's perfectly fine, and actually pretty awesome. My county has the highest absolute and per capita deer-roadkill rates in the country. We get teams of people to go clean them up, butcher what's clean, make sure it's sterile, and then give it to the food bank. It's allowed us to not only keep the food bank open, but feed people what can be really good venison.

I don't even know about the Republicans right now. Huntsman is about the only one I would consider voting for. Maybe Gary Johnson. My main complaints about the leaders:

Romney: His stance is 'get elected at all costs', and he gets most of his funding from Super PACs. (Businesses.)

Santorum: I cannot agree with a social conservative. Sometimes fiscal conservatives, but not this guy.

Paul: This man would dump us into the Great Depression and call it 'good for building character'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 04, 2012, 09:18:34 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 09:16:47 pm

Santorum: I cannot agree with a social conservative. Sometimes fiscal conservatives, but not this guy.

Wait. There are Republican candidates who aren't socially conservative?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 09:20:38 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 09:16:47 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on January 04, 2012, 08:10:27 pm

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

It's perfectly fine, and actually pretty awesome. My county has the highest absolute and per capita deer-roadkill rates in the country. We get teams of people to go clean them up, butcher what's clean, make sure it's sterile, and then give it to the food bank. It's allowed us to not only keep the food bank open, but feed people what can be really good venison.

See, maybe that's what its like where you live. Around here, roadkill = cats, dogs, and the occasional rodent that are frequently in two pieces. Not exactly the most appetizing thing in the world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 04, 2012, 09:21:44 pm

What? Possum isn't high-quality roadkill fare?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 09:25:00 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 04, 2012, 09:21:44 pm

What? Possum isn't high-quality roadkill fare?!

We don't have possums. Think squirrels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on January 04, 2012, 09:25:24 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 04, 2012, 08:16:23 pm

I'd love to run for President someday, but the fact that I am a socialist (and wed this with Christianity no less), as well as my very open rejection of patriotism outright, make victory unlikely.

well, most Americans support socialist ideas, but are just afraid of the word socialism, because of the enormous effort conservatives have made in the last 70 years or so to associate it with the USSR. I think it's only a matter of time before people wake up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 09:27:57 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 04, 2012, 09:18:34 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 09:16:47 pm

Santorum: I cannot agree with a social conservative. Sometimes fiscal conservatives, but not this guy.

Wait. There are Republican candidates who aren't socially conservative?

Yeah.  In some ways, Ron Paul for instance has a few really socially progressive concepts (end the drug war, etc). 

Edit:  Of course, the whole anti-gay, anti-choice, Christian Nation ideology complex doesn't really he make him 'socially conservative' outside of a few things like that above.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 09:28:58 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 09:27:57 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 04, 2012, 09:18:34 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 09:16:47 pm

Santorum: I cannot agree with a social conservative. Sometimes fiscal conservatives, but not this guy.

Wait. There are Republican candidates who aren't socially conservative?

Yeah.  In some ways, Ron Paul for instance has a few really socially progressive concepts (end the drug war, etc).

How does he plan on ending it? There are a few theories on how to get that done, and I wouldn't call all of them progressive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 09:30:32 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on January 04, 2012, 09:25:24 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 04, 2012, 08:16:23 pm

I'd love to run for President someday, but the fact that I am a socialist (and wed this with Christianity no less), as well as my very open rejection of patriotism outright, make victory unlikely.

well, most Americans support socialist ideas, but are just afraid of the word socialism, because of the enormous effort conservatives have made in the last 70 years or so to associate it with the USSR. I think it's only a matter of time before people wake up.

That's a gross oversimplification at the best. Accurate saying would be that most Americans believe that a completely unregulated capitalism isn't a good thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on January 04, 2012, 09:33:35 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 09:16:47 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on January 04, 2012, 08:10:27 pm

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Rick Perry apparently openly eats roadkill.

It's perfectly fine, and actually pretty awesome. My county has the highest absolute and per capita deer-roadkill rates in the country. We get teams of people to go clean them up, butcher what's clean, make sure it's sterile, and then give it to the food bank. It's allowed us to not only keep the food bank open, but feed people what can be really good venison.

It's just not a thing that happens here Down Under, and I suppose my comment is somewhat supported by Perry himself implying that it's not good. Anyway, back on topic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 09:35:04 pm

A) I've eaten roadkill, and if cooked properly and found fresh, it's not so bad. It's just meat, after all.
B) I'll go ahead with the exploratory committee, say that I've been running it for four years, and go from there. Isn't that what they all do? :P
C) I'm an extreme liberal, to the point where some of my leanings wrap completely around back into conservative areas, but that's to do mostly with the government not putting their noses where they don't belong. Any further questions can be asked via PM (as if anyone actually has them), as to avoid flamewars.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 09:40:32 pm

Holy shit, I just had the weirdest sense of deja-vu reading that post. Have you copy-pasted that from another of your posts, Max?  :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 09:41:22 pm

Erm...no? Maybe I've talked politics before, but I don't recall.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 09:57:21 pm

My mother insisted I take this poll she found while netsurfing at work.  It's actually kinda interesting (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game), by weighting your interest with responses to five-choice questions about ten issues, and tells you which Presidential candidates (including Obama, but no extra parties) you most align with.  If you're informed about issues (or can recognize silhouettes), you'll probably know where each answer is going.  If not, you might learn something.  The results could surprise you - my grandmother got Ron Paul, and she's a lifelong Democrat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2012, 09:59:51 pm

In the interest of full disclosure, I've actually had roadkill too. Rabbit a la VW Beetle. (My first few years were spent with mother, and she had the whole white trash thing going on big-time).

But I believe what Perry was referring to would likely be sun-dried armadillo nuggets with a road-tar glaze.

BTW, here's an excellent LA Times article (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/09/opinion/la-oe-moss-barbecue-20111009) about the whole BBQ fooferaw, complete with a brief history of the connection between barbecue and politics in the South.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:07:04 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 09:57:21 pm

My mother insisted I take this poll she found while netsurfing at work.  It's actually kinda interesting (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game), by weighting your interest with responses to five-choice questions about ten issues, and tells you which Presidential candidates (including Obama, but no extra parties) you most align with.  If you're informed about issues (or can recognize silhouettes), you'll probably know where each answer is going.  If not, you might learn something.  The results could surprise you - my grandmother got Ron Paul, and she's a lifelong Democrat.

Apparently, I don't agree with Bachmann or Santorum on anything. Not that I'm terribly surprised, mind you, but still.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 10:08:39 pm

Is Romney on that survey in some sort of quantum state?

(I got Obama, though with a low percentage.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 10:11:33 pm

Judging by the general tenor of the thread, I imagine a lot of people are going to get Obama for their highest percentage.  It's how your Top Three line up that's supposed to be noteworthy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:12:37 pm

A) Obama. B) Newt Gingrich!? C) Ron Paul.

 :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 04, 2012, 10:14:16 pm

Quote

B) Newt Gingrich!?

You must have answered "As often as possible" to the "Marriage?" question.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 10:14:31 pm

I dislike that survey because its options range from the absurdly pro-corporate to the mildly pro-corporate.  Under the energy question, each one was a different flavor of "increase oil production".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 10:17:45 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 10:14:31 pm

I dislike that survey because its options range from the absurdly pro-corporate to the mildly pro-corporate.  Under the energy question, each one was a different flavor of "increase oil production".

The scary part is when you mouse down, and realize that every option given to you is one espoused by a candidate, including the incumbent President, and includes no positions that are not being espoused besides "None of the above".

That might be the most illuminating part.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:18:34 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 04, 2012, 10:14:16 pm

Quote

B) Newt Gingrich!?

You must have answered "As often as possible" to the "Marriage?" question.

Well, I would be polyamorous if my wife would let me. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 04, 2012, 10:19:06 pm

Quote

I dislike that survey because its options range from the absurdly pro-corporate to the mildly pro-corporate.  Under the energy question, each one was a different flavor of "increase oil production".

That's because each candidates stance is a variation of "increase oil production", obviously.

Ninja Edit: Ninja'ed, damn.

I got, and color me amazed:
Romney(47.5%), Paul(47.5%), Obama(45%), in that order.

Each of them managed to score less than 50% though, so that will probably tell you something. I'd be willing to bet if Johnson were on here, you'd have seen him get significantly higher.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 10:19:27 pm

I came up with Mitt, Obama, Huntsman, but I'm fairly sure I'd get different results if I did it again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 04, 2012, 10:20:22 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:18:34 pm

Well, I would be polyamorous if my wife would let me. :P

Even if it went toward polyandry? You'd probably have better luck convincing her of that :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 04, 2012, 10:20:41 pm

Also, folks! Remember to adjust your sliders on the side to mirror importance of issues!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 04, 2012, 10:21:01 pm

I got Obama-Paul-Perry. None of them any significant synergy, though.

Note that I have absolutely no clue about half of the subjects there and gave somewhat haphazard answers to those.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Svarte Troner on January 04, 2012, 10:22:14 pm

Quote from: Darvi on January 04, 2012, 10:21:01 pm

I got Obama-Paul-Perry.

Me too. I could never imagine myself agreeing with anything Rick Perry says though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on January 04, 2012, 10:22:41 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 09:30:32 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on January 04, 2012, 09:25:24 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 04, 2012, 08:16:23 pm

I'd love to run for President someday, but the fact that I am a socialist (and wed this with Christianity no less), as well as my very open rejection of patriotism outright, make victory unlikely.

well, most Americans support socialist ideas, but are just afraid of the word socialism, because of the enormous effort conservatives have made in the last 70 years or so to associate it with the USSR. I think it's only a matter of time before people wake up.

That's a gross oversimplification at the best. Accurate saying would be that most Americans believe that a completely unregulated capitalism isn't a good thing.

Medicare/Medicaid are supported by a majority. The interstate highway system is socialist in nature. Unemployment benefits and social security are socialist. Foodstamps are socialist. Hence why I said most Americans support socialist ideas, not necessarily full blown socialism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:24:17 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on January 04, 2012, 10:22:41 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 09:30:32 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on January 04, 2012, 09:25:24 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 04, 2012, 08:16:23 pm

I'd love to run for President someday, but the fact that I am a socialist (and wed this with Christianity no less), as well as my very open rejection of patriotism outright, make victory unlikely.

well, most Americans support socialist ideas, but are just afraid of the word socialism, because of the enormous effort conservatives have made in the last 70 years or so to associate it with the USSR. I think it's only a matter of time before people wake up.

That's a gross oversimplification at the best. Accurate saying would be that most Americans believe that a completely unregulated capitalism isn't a good thing.

Medicare/Medicaid are supported by a majority. The interstate highway system is socialist in nature. Unemployment benefits and social security are socialist. Foodstamps are socialist. Hence why I said most Americans support socialist ideas, not necessarily full blown socialism.

I use public parks as an example. Who doesn't like parks? But they're socialist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:25:31 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 04, 2012, 10:20:22 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:18:34 pm

Well, I would be polyamorous if my wife would let me. :P

Even if it went toward polyandry? You'd probably have better luck convincing her of that :P

That'd be fine with me, too. She wasn't interested either way, though.

Apologies for the doublepost, but it was just moving pretty quickly in here. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: freeformschooler on January 04, 2012, 10:29:15 pm

Bachmann-Gingrich-Perry.

Really?

REALLY?

WHAT DID I DO WRONG!?

Perhaps it was how I took the "none of the above" option a few times. And my answer to Afghanistan wasn't "GET EVERYONE OUT RIGHT NOW." Either way, those guys are nowhere near as liberal as I.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 10:29:54 pm

For some reason, taking an online survey like this makes me think of those horrid "WHICH CHARACTER ARE YOU" surveys, and the frightening truth that a completely apolitical character that I dislike would have supremely more agreeable stances on issues than many of the candidates.  I would vote for Goku over Rick Perry.

Edit:  Let me clarify, I'm not even talking about if Goku were real.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr.Feelgood on January 04, 2012, 10:32:03 pm

(trolling removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 04, 2012, 10:35:32 pm

If Goku were a real candidate, presidential elections would take 4 years to get through all the dialog and the country would be a smoking wreck by the end regardless of who wins.

Actually, that's getting pretty close to the way it is now. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 04, 2012, 10:35:47 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 04, 2012, 10:32:03 pm

I got Michele Bachmann (66.7%), Rick Santorum (66.7%), and Rick Perry (60.1%).

/me runs screaming from Dr. Feelgood.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2012, 10:41:03 pm

I got Obama-Paul-Gingrich. That said, I had to "none of the above" a lot of issues. Not a single candidate that supports same-sex marriage in 2012, when a majority of the public polls in support of it...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 10:42:59 pm

I'd imagine no one's going to be openly pro-rights in that regard until someone else steps up to do so.   It's easier to hide that sort of ignorant stance when everyone else has the same one- voters won't feel split on the issue until someone makes a stand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 10:45:50 pm

There's also that while a majority of the country may support the idea of making gay-marriage legally recognized nationwide, most people in "support" of it do not consider it important.  Whereas people opposed to it often consider it vitally important.  Ergo, this is little real electoral, monetary, or (in the Congress) legislative support to be gained by being in favor of genuine legal gay marriage, but there's a lot to loose in it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 10:48:06 pm

Huntsman is kinda openish in that regard. Legal civil unions, anyway. In my mind, marriage as a word should be a mostly religious type thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 04, 2012, 10:51:50 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 10:48:06 pm

In my mind, marriage as a word should be a mostly religious type thing.

So freaking much would be fixed if marriage was nixed as a legal entity and it was (the exact same sort of) civil unions for everyone. So very, very much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 10:53:02 pm

Yeah, until that happens, we're fall back on the whole "seperate but equal" fallacy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 04, 2012, 10:54:47 pm

Marriage is a fundamentally religious thing.  Civil unions, however, are not.  So I say that anyone can marry anything as long as they get a licence from the local wherever.  Whatever ceremonies that are employed to formalize said union are up to the people concerned.

I wish this could stop being an issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 04, 2012, 11:00:59 pm

Results: Obama 60%, Huntsman 45%, Romney 11%. Note that Romney was only on there for the increase of nuclear power. I do not agree that we should increase oil production, so that probably doesn't count.

Results when I selected my least favorite: Bachmann 66.7%, Perry 64.8%, Santorum 64.8%.

On the other hand, I got 100% for myself. I should run for president. See you all in 2028 or 2032, depending on what day my birthday falls that year. We need a slogan!

I actually have a license to perform marriages as an ordained minister of the Atheist church. If anyone wants to get married, I can test that out. I got my own certificate and everything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2012, 11:03:31 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 04, 2012, 10:54:47 pm

Marriage is a fundamentally religious thing.  Civil unions, however, are not.  So I say that anyone can marry anything as long as they get a licence from the local wherever.  Whatever ceremonies that are employed to formalize said union are up to the people concerned.

I wish this could stop being an issue.

No, marriage is not a fundamentally religious thing in the current legal climate. Our government, which is by law a secular entity, hands out licenses for legal marriages and the privileges that come with it. Ceremonial marriages in churches and the like are religious, but they have no legal binding whatsoever. Only a marriage license has legal binding, and those are issued by the government.

This allows for the whole "civil union" idea to deprive same-sex couples of the legal benefits of a marriage (See: Defense of Marriage Act) while acting as if they have been granted legal equality to opposite-sex couples. The only way granting civil unions is acceptable is if that applies to all legally binding unions, and the government does not actually get involved in "marriages" at all. For the moment, that is not the case.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 11:09:35 pm

Alright, just because I gotta leave and won't be here to police the thread, can I not come back to five pages of vitriolic argument about marriage, religion, and homosexuality?  Okay?  Cool.

Keep calm and carry on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 04, 2012, 11:13:54 pm

The idea of binding yourself to one spouse in they eyes of God is a religious thing.  That's what I meant by "Marriage is a fundamentally religious thing."  The idea of binding yourself to one spouse in the eyes of the state is not a religious thing, but can be motivated by religious beliefs.  I believe that the latter idea should be extended to everyone and thing, as I have pointed out.  The former thing is up to the various institutions.

But I'm off topic. 

I hate Romney with the passion of a thousand suns, but I like him better than his GOP opponents.  Santorum is really the only electable one besides Romney, but I don't think anyone I know knows Santorum actually exists.  Obama is fine, and I'll probably vote for him unless he screws up/one of the Republicans proves himself to me.  If they all disqualify themselves in my eyes, I'll write Barbarossa in.

Edited for clarity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2012, 11:19:37 pm

I've noticed a strange trend. I've seen people swearing left and right that either "Only Ron Paul has a shot at defeating Obama!" or "Only Mitt Romney has a shot at defeating Obama!". None of the same for Santorum. Regardless, there seems to be an emerging conflict about the idea of nominating the "one person" who has a shot of defeating Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on January 04, 2012, 11:24:02 pm

Took the survey:

Obama, 69.6%
Paul, 34.9%
Bachmann, 30.6%

Now, back to my lurking in this thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 11:42:31 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 04, 2012, 09:57:21 pm

My mother insisted I take this poll she found while netsurfing at work.  It's actually kinda interesting (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game), by weighting your interest with responses to five-choice questions about ten issues, and tells you which Presidential candidates (including Obama, but no extra parties) you most align with.  If you're informed about issues (or can recognize silhouettes), you'll probably know where each answer is going.  If not, you might learn something.  The results could surprise you - my grandmother got Ron Paul, and she's a lifelong Democrat.

The crapping hell? I answered none of the above for most, but I was ranked gingrich, perry, bachman!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 04, 2012, 11:47:57 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on January 04, 2012, 11:24:02 pm

Took the survey:

Obama, 69.6%
Paul, 34.9%
Bachmann, 30.6%

Now, back to my lurking in this thread.

How do you go about lurking in a thread like this? Seems to move faster than I'd be willing to keep up with. I know that when I go to bed and wake up in the morning, I'm not going to be reading through five pages of vitriolic debate about the virtues of civil unions versus marriage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 11:49:44 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on January 04, 2012, 10:29:54 pm

For some reason, taking an online survey like this makes me think of those horrid "WHICH CHARACTER ARE YOU" surveys, and the frightening truth that a completely apolitical character that I dislike would have supremely more agreeable stances on issues than many of the candidates.  I would vote for Goku over Rick Perry.

Edit:  Let me clarify, I'm not even talking about if Goku were real.

I would vote Vegeta over Perry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 04, 2012, 11:53:10 pm

Took the quiz/survey thing

Obama: 70.1%
Bachman(?!): 50.1%
Gingrich: 45.1%

I already knew I was going to be voting for Obama, but I didn't want to have anything in common with Bachman. Whyyyyy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2012, 12:11:08 am

How is it even possible to get both 70% Obama and 50% Bachman? I didn't think they had any real policy overlap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:13:36 am

Hey, don't ask me. I didn't make this thing. It might be because my policies are a little here-and-there, plus I don't have any experience with things like Medicaid so I couldn't provide a good answer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 05, 2012, 12:16:43 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 11:00:59 pm

Atheist church

Anyone else see a problem here?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 05, 2012, 12:20:46 am

None at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 12:22:05 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2012, 11:49:44 pm

I would vote Vegeta over Perry.

Friend, I would vote Frieza over Perry. And Frieza has an established track record of destroying actual planets when they get uppity. Also, spoiler alert.

Wait, unless we're talking about the fermented pear beverage. That would totally get my vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:23:44 am

Quote from: Mego on January 05, 2012, 12:16:43 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 11:00:59 pm

Atheist church

Anyone else see a problem here?

You mean aside from the fact that atheism does not have a clergy, holy texts, divine laws, ceremonies, or anything that the term "church" could imply?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 05, 2012, 12:25:13 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:23:44 am

Quote from: Mego on January 05, 2012, 12:16:43 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 04, 2012, 11:00:59 pm

Atheist church

Anyone else see a problem here?

You mean aside from the fact that atheism does not have a clergy, holy texts, divine laws, ceremonies, or anything that the term "church" could imply?

That, and the fact that "the Atheist church" (note the definite article) sort of implies that atheism is tied to a specific organization.

A church or religion can be atheistic, as theism is not necessary for faith or religion, but "the Atheist church" is a bit nonsensical.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 12:26:26 am

To be fair, he didn't say Church of Atheism. There's a subtle difference! What we simply have here is a group of people that gather, presumably in some sort of stadium or web site, and worship no god. They may also have charities and similar outreach programs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:28:52 am

Call it a club or a society then. "Church", at least in my mind, implies religious beliefs, which atheism by definition lacks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 12:30:12 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:23:44 am

You mean aside from the fact that atheism does not have a clergy, holy texts, divine laws, ceremonies, or anything that the term "church" could imply?

Sounds to me like it'd be pretty easy to be an atheist priest, then.

Quote from: G-Flex on January 05, 2012, 12:25:13 am

That, and the fact that "the Atheist church" (note the definite article) sort of implies that atheism is tied to a specific organization.

Naah, just that there's some organization calling itself "the Atheist church." Could be a supermarket, for all we know, that just happened to file whatever paperwork's needed to ordain ministers. I'm not actually sure what you need to be able to ordain ministers.

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:28:52 am

Call it a club or a society then. "Church", at least in my mind, implies religious beliefs, which atheism by definition lacks.

As G-Flex notes, not true. It's possible to have religious beliefs without theistic beliefs.

But, uh, can we rerail now, or is the train just shaking in the wind a bit?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 05, 2012, 12:30:52 am

Quote from: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 12:26:26 am

a group of people that gather, presumably in some sort of stadium or web site, and worship no god.

Damn Sithisists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:32:37 am

I'm not sure how you can "have religious beliefs without theistic beliefs", but fine. Let's get this train back on the tracks, I want to hear some more facepalm-worthy election news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 05, 2012, 12:35:39 am

See Confucianism, etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 05, 2012, 12:36:10 am

Quote from: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 12:26:26 am

To be fair, he didn't say Church of Atheism. There's a subtle difference! What we simply have here is a group of people that gather, presumably in some sort of stadium or web site, and worship no god. They may also have charities and similar outreach programs.

Yeah, but the fact that he used the definite article ("the Atheist church") normally would imply that it is the church of Atheists.

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:32:37 am

I'm not sure how you can "have religious beliefs without theistic beliefs", but fine.

Religion doesn't necessitate gods. See: Some flavors of Buddhism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:39:07 am

I said

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:32:37 am

Let's get this train back on the tracks, I want to hear some more facepalm-worthy election news.

C'MON PEOPLE! D:

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NobodyPro on January 05, 2012, 01:01:46 am

I'm not American but those comments below the quiz make me a sad panda. Happy 2012, Bachman's going to nuke the moon and then send all the homosexuals there. Ugh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 01:16:03 am

Jeez. Some Christian she is. If those are both things that have to happen, the merciful thing to do would be to reverse the order. Unless sufficient equipment for likely survival on the moon is to be provided, I suppose, but considering who we're talking about here, the biggest concession in that direction will probably be a burlap sack filled with air and/or potatoes, and a megaphone to help overcome the problems with speaking in an airless environment. There will be several hours of nationally televised debate over whether or not this is feasible survival gear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 05, 2012, 01:23:00 am

Well, there are these special unscientific comments by Santorum: " I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance"

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-no-one-has-ever-died-because-they-didnt-have-health-care/politics/2011/12/06/31304

Then there's the whole controversy with being entirely strictly anti-abortion and ended up having his wife undertake what might be construed as an "abortion" for her safety.

I don't blame him for anything regarding going through with the abortion, I do blame him for seeking to deny others that opportunity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 01:43:59 am

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 05, 2012, 01:23:00 am

Well, there are these special unscientific comments by Santorum: " I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance"

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-no-one-has-ever-died-because-they-didnt-have-health-care/politics/2011/12/06/31304

Welp, there's my rage quotient for the week. It apparently is possible to be that frakking blind. I'm not entirely sure how it's possible, but it's apparently possible.

How can someone say that, really? What combination of factors results in saying something like that, that flies completely in the face of reality? I mean, we're not talking somewhat understandable, such as religiously fueled self-deception or possibly contestable axioms; death due to the inability to access or afford health care is an absolute fact in the US. Shit, I've known a few people, if somewhat indirectly, that's died because they couldn't afford care. And this sumbitch fellow is telling me it didn't happen? I cannot properly express in English how this makes me feel. Some sort of indignation raised to a factor of N, I guess. If it was more personal, as in I'd heard that in person, rage would be an appropriate descriptor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 01:48:45 am

Better not visit Fundies Say the Darndest Things (http://www.fstdt.com). If that ^^^^^ stuff raises your blood pressure, the stuff on that site would probably kill you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2012, 01:50:51 am

Do not click that link. Sirus is not kidding, FSDT will at some point make your head explode.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 05, 2012, 01:52:23 am

Here's another great one that's on-topic.

Rick Santorum quote (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/): “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.”  “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SirAaronIII on January 05, 2012, 01:54:43 am

I read a few of those. Just a few.

My knees and shoulders are already twitching uncomfortably.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 01:57:49 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2012, 01:50:51 am

Do not click that link. Sirus is not kidding, FSDT will at some point make your head explode.

You just need to build up your immunity. Start with some of the classic, hilarious ones, or maybe the conspiracy theory section. Don't visit the racist section until you're truly prepared; some of the quotes in there will make strong men (and women) weep.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2012, 02:08:18 am

Quote from: SirAaronIII on January 05, 2012, 01:54:43 am

I read a few of those. Just a few.

My knees and shoulders are already twitching uncomfortably.

Your body is trying to forcefully immobilize you in order to escape FSDT. That's Stage One. Your head will violently explode at Stage Five. Don't bother asking about Stages Two, Three, or Four, because you will know if you progress. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 05, 2012, 02:12:11 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 12:30:12 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:23:44 am

You mean aside from the fact that atheism does not have a clergy, holy texts, divine laws, ceremonies, or anything that the term "church" could imply?

Sounds to me like it'd be pretty easy to be an atheist priest, then.

I can clear this up right now. I am an ordained minister of the official, definite-articled First Church of Atheism. (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/) It is extraordinarily easy, it took less seconds than I can count on my fingers. (In trinary using my knuckles.)

Rick Santorum seemingly does not know how healthcare works. This is unfortunate for him, as he's campaigning to lead a country transitioning to more widespread healthcare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 02:14:43 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 05, 2012, 02:12:11 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 12:30:12 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:23:44 am

You mean aside from the fact that atheism does not have a clergy, holy texts, divine laws, ceremonies, or anything that the term "church" could imply?

Sounds to me like it'd be pretty easy to be an atheist priest, then.

I can clear this up right now. I am an ordained minister of the official, definite-articled First Church of Atheism. (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/) It is extraordinarily easy, it took less seconds than I can count on my fingers. (In trinary using my knuckles.)

So would this mean that I wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore? :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 05, 2012, 02:15:17 am

I ran Obama-Paul-Gingrich on that survey, but I answered none of the above for many of the questions, and everyone was below 40%. I don't really care for increasing fossil fuel production, or securing the Mexican border, or denying people equal marriage rights, and frankly the issues with the entitlement programs are too complicated for me or most of the public to hold any kind of informed opinion on them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 05, 2012, 05:20:49 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 02:14:43 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 05, 2012, 02:12:11 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 12:30:12 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 12:23:44 am

You mean aside from the fact that atheism does not have a clergy, holy texts, divine laws, ceremonies, or anything that the term "church" could imply?

Sounds to me like it'd be pretty easy to be an atheist priest, then.

I can clear this up right now. I am an ordained minister of the official, definite-articled First Church of Atheism. (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/) It is extraordinarily easy, it took less seconds than I can count on my fingers. (In trinary using my knuckles.)

So would this mean that I wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore? :D

I'd be okay with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ed boy on January 05, 2012, 06:34:36 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 01:43:59 am

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 05, 2012, 01:23:00 am

Well, there are these special unscientific comments by Santorum: " I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance"

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-no-one-has-ever-died-because-they-didnt-have-health-care/politics/2011/12/06/31304

Welp, there's my rage quotient for the week. It apparently is possible to be that frakking blind. I'm not entirely sure how it's possible, but it's apparently possible.

It's because there is nothing more powerful than the ability of someone to rationalize their prejudices.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 05, 2012, 08:22:50 am

FSDT just makes me laugh for some reason. It's stupidity taken to such a WTF level that all you can do is laugh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 05, 2012, 10:07:28 am

This has helped clarify a few things I've been trying to get straight in my head for a while. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/04/duverger-kushner-bonhoeffer/)

Quote

Moral purity and moral perfection will not be on the ballot.

Those seeking moral purity and moral perfection pleasure themselves by imagining that theirs is a superior ethical responsibility. But this is delusional — an embrace of irresponsibility. It’s the claim that one is not responsible for any outcome, consequence or action in this world apart from maintaining, above all, one’s own impotent but unsullied moral purity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 11:06:44 am

(trolling removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 11:11:53 am

Regardless, is it the sort of thing that a government should be producing legislation on? It seems to me that looking out for its citizens in such a specific and invasive way is far more indicative of a nanny state than any degree of social welfare.

More importantly, though, there is something stopping people from visiting an emergency room - you are, in fact, charged for it. Many people, particularly those who are uninsured, can't afford that extra debt and will put off visits until the condition is critical as a result (which will make it more expensive, but if they're lucky it'll just go away). Not to mention people with chronic conditions. I'm not given to understand that insulin is exactly cheap, you know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 05, 2012, 12:07:39 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 11:06:44 am

I agree with Santorum. Contraceptives are immoral to use. Abstinence is sin-free and 100% effective.

May as well throw in a Yee-Haw for good measure, old timer.

Those poor, poor abused condoms. Nothing is worse than a society that limits it's production of offspring.

You know, not that the lack of contraceptives in third-world Africa and the widespread starvation of unsupported children/spread of sexual diseases is directly correlated. Get a grip.

Quote from: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 11:11:53 am

Regardless, is it the sort of thing that a government should be producing legislation on? It seems to me that looking out for its citizens in such a specific and invasive way is far more indicative of a nanny state than any degree of social welfare.

The only legislation related to contraception should be a worldwide ban on religious doctrine having any type of effect on political and social policies on them. That is my stance. Religious types tend to ignore actual facts as a rule of thumb.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 01:18:04 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 11:06:44 am

Abstinence is sin-free and 100% effective.

I'll give yeh the first one, because its truth or lack of truth is utterly irrelevant, but do you have the numbers to back that second one up? I've yet to see news of any area pushing abstinence based pregnancy prevention actually have a drop in unplanned pregnancies. Most everything I've seen and heard shows a fairly direct correlation between abstinence programs going into effect and unplanned pregnancies rising.

It make it a bit more clear, I can understand how you can say that's true on an individual level, but on a policy or wide-spread level, the latter half of that statement has been fairly well proven to be completely wrong.

On the flip side, there's a pretty direct correlation between the rise of contraceptive availability and the decrease of unplanned pregnancy. For a policy maker trying to reduce the prevalence of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, the better point of policy is pretty obvious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 05, 2012, 01:25:18 pm

Feelgood, the only source for the "immorality" for contraceptives come from the papists, certainly not from the bible or any non-heretical sects of Christianity. Assuming you're a Christian at all, and not just pulling that from somewhere else.

Lending money, however, IS a sin, is in the bible, and we still allow people to do that, don't we? For the good of society? And conservatives seem to argue it should be unregulated, but Jesus was pretty clear on the whole situation.

Finally:
Abstinence (choosing not to have sex) is not 100% effective, even when considering "perfect use" instead of "typical use" (and numbers you'll find for every other contraceptive method on the market are based around typical use, so that's the most fair comparison). Even at perfect user, it's effectiveness rate as actually slightly lower than perfect use of oral contraceptives, which also protect against instances of pregnancy due to rape. As always combining contraceptive methods (abstinence+oral contraceptive, in this case) is the best way to avoid pregnancy. Fallbacks, you know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 05, 2012, 01:28:16 pm

I got Obama-Paul-Gingrich (in something like 65-30-20% respectively).  Paul's contribution comes almost entirely because his "state's rights" position happens to correspond to the least homophobic and he's up for cutting military spending.

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 11:06:44 am

People die because they are sick or injured not because they're "uninsured". There's nothing stopping people from visiting an emergency room if they need to.

So America has the worst maternal death rate in a developed country because... uh... its hospitals are just fundamentally awful?  Socialism is killing mothers of the newborn?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 02:19:04 pm

(trolling removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 05, 2012, 02:21:58 pm

And obstructing that end by not copulating is different?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 05, 2012, 02:26:06 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 02:19:04 pm

And modern oral contraceptives are the product of early witchcraft.

This argument is truly amazing.  You might find me quoting it at random every now and again.

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 02:19:04 pm

Women most commonly die during pregnancy or childbirth of infection, pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, sepsis, and obstructed labor. How does not having insurance cause these deaths?

Because those things can usually be prevented/treated by having access to healthcare.  And apparently almost every other developed country, even ones far, far poorer than America manage to prevent them a lot more.

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 02:19:04 pm

It's likely that America's high maternal death rate is caused by our complacency towards childbirth.

I'm gonna need an explanation on this since I have no idea what you mean.  Bear in mind that this "complacency" has to be able to explain having, for example, twice the maternal death rate of the UK.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 05, 2012, 02:29:49 pm

Quote

The act of sex was ordained by God for the purpose of procreation. It’s immoral to obstruct that end by deliberate action. Acts that go against the natural ways of things is considered grotesque by the lord. And modern oral contraceptives are the product of early witchcraft.

You're really going to have to be more specific about your source for these claims. It really does sound a lot like your coming from either a papist or Heretical source here, and I fear for your soul if that's the case.

Quote

Acts that go against the natural ways of things is considered grotesque by the lord.

I suppose this explains your stance against health insurance, then, and I suppose I agree. After all, medicine as a field is predominantly focused on denying the will of the Lord. The act of dying is the Lord's way of returning the faithful to the fold, and it is why I am opposed to emergency measures to save people's lives. (I do not believe more basic medications are the same sort of thing, a cast for a broken leg is okay for example).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 05, 2012, 02:30:48 pm

I didn't want to resort to reaction images, but you guys are starting to force my hand.

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

This is what I'm coming back to in my thread?  Nuh uh.  Decrying religion is for the Lets Argue About Religion thread, Dr. Feelgood is a self-acknowledged provocateur, and FundiesSayTheDarndestThings really?  Y'all *****s be linkin' to a troll site.

Whether the government is going to outlaw condoms is kind of a general topic of an election maybe, but will only really become more so provided Rick Santorum is still in the Top Three for the Republican nomination come the end of January.  Let's keep it in the here and now for the time being, eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 02:32:45 pm

Attention Bay 12:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://x0f.xanga.com/b2d8256234330269640904/b145550923.jpg)

Thank you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 05, 2012, 02:41:15 pm

The religion stuff is mostly a derail, but the healthcare stuff is directly relevant to a recent claim made by a man who is currently second place in the Republican candidacy rate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 02:44:30 pm

How is FSTDT a troll site?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 02:46:36 pm

(trolling removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ILikePie on January 05, 2012, 02:50:43 pm

I just noticed this thread. I can't be assed to read the whole thing, especially not when the last set of comments are about how it's turned into a religion thread.

Anyway, posting to say that I'm with Gingrich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 05, 2012, 02:55:50 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 02:44:30 pm

How is FSTDT a troll site?

Probably because its sole purpose is to get people who disagree with fundamentalism to go, "Oh man, it's so true" and revise their stereotypes even more slightly toward the cartoonishly awful than the real thing, while antagonizing anybody who actually is a fundamentalist toward adopting a more aggressive attitude toward everyone in the thread. Because it's obvious nobody sympathizes anyway, which ultimately leads to reinforcing the stereotype even further because here's another fundamentalist unwilling to listen to reason (because linking the site already showed that people were bashing fundamentalism because it's fun to do, not because it's reasonable).

Linking to that site and expecting a response other than indignation or cliquish agreement is hilariously shortsighted.

Of course, with Dr.Feelgood, you can't tell whether he's trolling us by making ridiculous claims he doesn't believe, or by making claims he does believe followed by a ridiculous disclaimer that he was "trolling us all along".

That said, I already made the only contribution I currently can to the thread way back at the beginning when I declared my likely voting patterns. If I find a 3rd party candidate I agree with, hooray. If I don't, it's either Obama or pointless write-ins, depending on how close things seem (I lean heavily toward pointless write-ins since I'm still confident it's as close to an automatic win for Obama as anything can be, but with this much time for the economy to go even more to shit, you can't be entirely certain).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 05, 2012, 02:56:23 pm

Quote from: ILikePie on January 05, 2012, 02:50:43 pm

I just noticed this thread. I can't be assed to read the whole thing, especially not when the last set of comments are about how it's turned into a religion thread.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't try.  Do tell us about your support of Gingrich though, you have my open invitation to expound (objectively) on why you believe he is the best running candidate for President.  And my express assurance that I will try to shut down any improprietous arguments with you provided you stay cool.

Quote from: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 02:44:30 pm

How is FSTDT a troll site?

Because it's (almost) nothing but people intentionally posting ridiculous shit so they can then link to it or see who responds.  It's like ConservaPedia, 90% of the crap was put there as a joke, to watch the five people who take it totes srs burst into flame from commenting on everything.

---

Let's talk New Hampshire.  Early polling suggesting Romney getting ready to run away with it, after Jon Huntsman has banked his entire effort there.  Aq's Prediction: Everyone will swear New Hampshire is meaningless from now to January 9th, it will be The Deciding Election on Jan 10th, and everybody but Romney will swear New Hampshire is meaningless from Jan 11th in perpetuity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 03:07:34 pm

So Santorum's statement about wanting to invalidate gay marriage (including already existing marriages) was nothing more than a ploy to get quoted on FSTDT? (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=85467) The guy wants a constitutional ban on them. Plenty of quotes are the real deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 05, 2012, 03:10:21 pm

Quote from: Dr.Feelgood on January 05, 2012, 02:46:36 pm

Thomas Aquinas.

Nothing better than basing your modern beliefs (a.k.a. opinions that ignore statistics&factual evidence) on the dogma of an 18th century Catholic. Hah.

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 05, 2012, 02:30:48 pm

Let's talk New Hampshire.  Early polling suggesting Romney getting ready to run away with it, after Jon Huntsman has banked his entire effort there.  Aq's Prediction: Everyone will swear New Hampshire is meaningless from now to January 9th, it will be The Deciding Election on Jan 10th, and everybody but Romney will swear New Hampshire is meaningless from Jan 11th in perpetuity.

That's the Primaries for you. It's mostly a horse and pony show until the convention anyways. Mitt will be the winner by the end of this, the rest of the candidates are either too insane to elect (Santorum, Paul&company) or TOO evil, ala Rick and Gingrich.

All in all, each of them are very weak Presidential candidates no matter how you slice it up, though. I couldn't see any of them doing a satisfactory (not good, good presidency is a thing of the past) job, in any scenario.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 05, 2012, 03:17:20 pm

Yup - There's a new one going around reddit right now:

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU)
-Rick Santorum

See, the thing is that he is almost as ridiculous as Bachmann and Cain, but he just hasn't had his chance to melt under the "anyone but Romney" media spotlight yet.

Romney, being somewhat smart, is keeping his mouth shut while everyone implodes around him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Toady One on January 05, 2012, 03:23:34 pm

(Dr.Feelgood has received a 2 week mute for trolling.  This isn't the first time he has pretended to be an extremist, by his own admission, and he edits his old admission posts to cover his tracks.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 05, 2012, 03:28:26 pm

And here I was, excited at the prospect of Toady giving his thoughts on the subject...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ILikePie on January 05, 2012, 03:44:43 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 05, 2012, 02:56:23 pm

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't try.  Do tell us about your support of Gingrich though, you have my open invitation to expound (objectively) on why you believe he is the best running candidate for President.  And my express assurance that I will try to shut down any improprietous arguments with you provided you stay cool.

Nothing too serious, I just like his opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am Israeli by the way, so there's nothing objective in that :-P.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 05, 2012, 03:45:48 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 05, 2012, 03:17:20 pm

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU)

I...fuck...last time I checked that was how traditional conservatives viewed the world. Unless of course he means social conservatives, then fuck that shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 05, 2012, 03:53:29 pm

Conservatives only want to be left alone when it's their money or their religious beliefs. When it's all about crushing some minorities right to equal treatment, why, bring on the Federal Gov't!

That's why I can't stand the small gov't crap. At least Dems stand behind the value of gov't for good or ill....Republicans want their cake and they want to eat it too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 05, 2012, 04:07:01 pm

Quote from: ILikePie on January 05, 2012, 03:44:43 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 05, 2012, 02:56:23 pm

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't try.  Do tell us about your support of Gingrich though, you have my open invitation to expound (objectively) on why you believe he is the best running candidate for President.  And my express assurance that I will try to shut down any improprietous arguments with you provided you stay cool.

Nothing too serious, I just like his opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am Israeli by the way, so there's nothing objective in that :-P.

Gingrich only really supports Israel because he is an evangelical christian and the state of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital is a prerequisite for the apocalypse that he prays for.

Hmm. You edited...

Ok? The only way to get a single state solution to the conflict would be to ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians. And Gingrich is fine with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 05, 2012, 04:18:23 pm

Good old Israel, the most likely reason for WW3. I don't see why Pan-Arabism didn't catch on, it'd solve a plethora of issues in the middle east. Especially considering how the borders for a majority of the Non-european world was drawn by people with no control over their own lands..

Being a quarter Jewish in blood, it may strike some as odd that I take such a stance. But IF Pan-Arabism wasn't Anti-Semetic in nature, I could back it completely.

Too bad the ethnicities involved are too deeply rooted in their bitter hatred to give a damn about reasonable solutions. I'm looking at you, Netanyahu.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on January 05, 2012, 04:25:33 pm

I took the quiz but it was frankly completely stupid. I was able to answer maybe three of the questions without 'None of the Above'. Boy America sure is out of ideas if that is all they have to offer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 05, 2012, 04:30:47 pm

Quote from: Tilla on January 05, 2012, 04:25:33 pm

I took the quiz but it was frankly completely stupid. I was able to answer maybe three of the questions without 'None of the Above'. Boy America sure is out of ideas if that is all they have to offer.

Those are positions of candidates, and since the least right wing candidate in this election is Obama, them sure most of those positions are going to be very similar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 04:33:53 pm

I think it should be a rule that if you answer "none of the above", then you should post what solution YOU think is best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ILikePie on January 05, 2012, 04:36:00 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 05, 2012, 04:07:01 pm

Gingrich only really supports Israel because he is an evangelical christian and the state of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital is a prerequisite for the apocalypse that he prays for.

Well support is support, and besides, Bush is an evangelical christian and we (Israel) loved him as a president.

e, Honestly I don't care if it's him, Romney or any other pro-Israel republican. Romney sounds less radical, which is a Good Thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 05, 2012, 04:38:25 pm

Yeah, but he wasn't President of Israel. Something like 75-80% of Americans hated him by the time he left office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 05, 2012, 04:41:23 pm

Quote from: ILikePie on January 05, 2012, 04:36:00 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 05, 2012, 04:07:01 pm

Gingrich only really supports Israel because he is an evangelical christian and the state of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital is a prerequisite for the apocalypse that he prays for.

Well support is support, and besides, Bush is an evangelical christian and we (Israel) loved him as a president.

e, Honestly I don't care if it's him, Romney or any other pro-Israel republican. Romney sounds less radical, which is a Good Thing.

Obama is actually more pro Israel than Gingrich because he advocates a peace process that isn't likely to result in the self destruction of Israel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 05, 2012, 07:36:22 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 05, 2012, 03:53:29 pm

Conservatives only want to be left alone when it's their money or their religious beliefs. When it's all about crushing some minorities right to equal treatment, why, bring on the Federal Gov't!

That's why I can't stand the small gov't crap. At least Dems stand behind the value of gov't for good or ill....Republicans want their cake and they want to eat it too.

It's only the Republican "small" government that's really that bad. They don't actually support small government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: timotheus on January 05, 2012, 08:37:44 pm

I'm registered Independent, so I can't vote in the primaries. Still, posting to follow topic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 05, 2012, 11:09:56 pm

I...America, we need to have a talk. (http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-joins-bachmann-pledges-ban-porn-same-sex-214900881.html?fb_action_ids=10150479820857409%2C10150466760262341&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQCgQ20ktW6YrB8J7QoMOuZ7DE0OF4VOvIt3XXtdGfCKM6Bp7zZsZ9_m8jZkw0-llVl1IrCGyBWuaDKMbr_1wgrXxcZWwWi0pIzEBn1WEuSPGJ21XmiANVtXeeo8p_snWHU1TkL8P2Q0I3MTcWEPShoTvbxFs-Fk0B3Gv8wM6UOPmX6XDSc85sVJ9rMK0z3xUmtujLlHqmW4npr0XqdGbmj-#base_domain=yahoo.com)

TL;DR: Santorum wants a constitutional amendment makes marriage legally only marriage when between a man and a woman, and to ban porn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 05, 2012, 11:15:10 pm

"Look, government needs to back off and let businesses and people do what they want!  Let's shut down the porn industry to prevent people from enjoying themselves or marrying who they choose!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 05, 2012, 11:18:23 pm

The thing that strikes me is that at this point a lot of the candidates are just spouting off what they think people want to hear, and only Ron Paul, that I know of, has worked towards his ideals consistently since before the campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 05, 2012, 11:24:43 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 05, 2012, 11:09:56 pm

I...America, we need to have a talk. (http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-joins-bachmann-pledges-ban-porn-same-sex-214900881.html?fb_action_ids=10150479820857409%2C10150466760262341&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQCgQ20ktW6YrB8J7QoMOuZ7DE0OF4VOvIt3XXtdGfCKM6Bp7zZsZ9_m8jZkw0-llVl1IrCGyBWuaDKMbr_1wgrXxcZWwWi0pIzEBn1WEuSPGJ21XmiANVtXeeo8p_snWHU1TkL8P2Q0I3MTcWEPShoTvbxFs-Fk0B3Gv8wM6UOPmX6XDSc85sVJ9rMK0z3xUmtujLlHqmW4npr0XqdGbmj-#base_domain=yahoo.com)

TL;DR: Santorum wants a constitutional amendment makes marriage legally only marriage when between a man and a woman, and to ban porn.

And the sad part is that the latter is going to get more of a spark out of people than the fromer

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 05, 2012, 11:40:35 pm

Perry was popular until he started screwing up his debates.
Cain was popular until it was revealed that he's a deceitful lecher.
Gingrich was popular until people realized that he's corrupt and horrible at hiding it.

I'm hoping that within a week or two, I can add this one.

Santorum was popular until he tried preaching inequality and the banning of porn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 11:53:07 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on January 05, 2012, 11:24:43 pm

And the sad part is that the latter is going to get more of a spark out of people than the fromer

Nngh... because the latter is a multi-billion dollar industry with gods only know how many lobbyists. That's basically the sole reason banning it's more unlikely than the former.

So, question. Anyone have any thoughts as to what this Santorum fellow is actually doing? It's reached the point where every few hours this thread is giving another display of him committing political (and social, really) suicide; if that's even remotely representative of what's going down in wider media, the dude's basically dead. I, personally, have trouble believing that the fellow is genuinely that mindbogglingly stupid; I think I genuinely don't buy that someone that's managed to rustle up millions worth of backing can be an actual, full blown, idiot. It just doesn't seem to follow. I'm not even saying the guy might not believe what he's saying; I'm saying he's not stupid enough to not know what the public reaction to those kind of statements would be. Either him or his handlers (for sake of my sanity :-\) have to be aiming for something else.

I mean, yeah, people are people and people can be stupid, but it'd seem to me that the writing's not just on the wall, it's been painted on with rapidly flashing neon/florescent paint, that's screaming out its message in every language on earth and about fifteen invented specifically for that moment, while tap-dancing Morse code on the guy's skull and massaging braille into his rectum. This isn't stuff you just miss.

So. Any conjectures as to what the actual intent could be? Is it just trying to go down in flames? Drawing attention from something else? Just trying to add to the media furor so actually important shit gets drowned out? Trying to make the other candidates look better? Something else? Without going into full blown conspiracy madness, is there any conceivable reason to be taking this sort of path? The path to the presidency doesn't seem to be something you'd just... go and do, willy nilly. There's gotta' be intent, somewhere in there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 06, 2012, 12:18:05 am

I'm gonna go with a bad case of stupid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 06, 2012, 12:25:09 am

He's probably trying to attract all the crazies to him so that when he does go down, he can gift them to the candidate of his choosing and maybe make someone the Republican candidate.  Or kill their chances completely.  Who knows?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 12:25:56 am

Ahem.

Quote from: Howard Dean

H'YAA!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 06, 2012, 12:40:32 am

Well, Frumple, consider this. Rick Santorum basically lived in Iowa for five months, campaigning all the while. He has done almost nothing anywhere else. This caused him to do so well that he lost to Mitt Romney, who had done almost nothing by comparison. He was high up because everyone else fizzled out and those who supported the other candidates had to pick someone if they wanted to vote. Santorum was drowned out by the other idiots, but then he was thrown into the limelight. It just so turns out that he's got a bad case of vampire skin, and not the sparkly kind.

Quote from: Canalan on January 06, 2012, 12:25:09 am

He's probably trying to attract all the crazies to him so that when he does go down, he can gift them to the candidate of his choosing and maybe make someone the Republican candidate.

The cynic in me agrees with you. on this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 06, 2012, 12:42:41 am

Quote from: Frumple on January 05, 2012, 11:53:07 pm

Just trying to add to the media furor so actually important shit gets drowned out?

I hadn't thought about this much before your post, but if I had to guess, I'd say this one is probably it. If there's one thing you can count on in this situation*, it's attempts to use emotional appeals and manufactured controversy to distract from the major issues in the campaign this year (which I'd wager are primarily economic), along with unhealthy doses of nonsequitur-based reasoning (like the kind that asserts that homosexuals are responsible for economic problems).

*The non-incumbent party has no particularly charismatic candidates willing to risk running in this race, and nearly every legitimate issue they could bring up (mostly based on Obama's failure to accomplish goals he's set out) is fairly obviously a result of their own obstruction in the legislature. Obstruction which has been extremely public, more importantly. Most things that Democrats dislike about Obama, which is the primary group that Republicans might want to count on, are actions that echo the policies of the Republicans or which the Republican candidates would otherwise like to do themselves, so they can't exactly campaign on the basis of things like the expansion of the Executive Branch's power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 06, 2012, 06:44:11 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://img.ie/351c6.jpg)

woops, forget to spoiler this before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: olemars on January 06, 2012, 07:11:40 am

Newsies around here (http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/01/06/nyheter/politikk/utenriks/19687956/) are saying that according to Santorum, the new axis of evil is Iran, Egypt and Poland. Can't seem to find any mention of this elsewhere though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: DJ on January 06, 2012, 07:24:35 am

Their sausages are a cornerstone of the gay agenda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 06, 2012, 08:55:26 am

Just a couple links for now

Roemer's AMA. (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/o4gxr/iama_2012_gop_presidential_candidate_i_believe_in/)

Secular coalitions scorecards on religious intrusion/separation of church and state. (https://secular.org/content/secular-coalition-fails-most-2012-presidential-candidates-religiously-intrusive-issues)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://secular.org/files/scorecard.png)

As for Santorum, no-one took him seriously before his late surge simply because he isn't someone who should be taken seriously. He was a Senator who got stomped to the tune of 17% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_United_States_Senate_election,_2006) (710,204 votes), the largest defeat of any incumbent Senator since 1980, who is grossly out of tune with the current popular rhetoric in the Republican party, who has been a joke on the internet since 2003. People haven't needed to do anything other than point and laugh since 2006.

I'd love it if he does stay high in the polls for a while, simply because there are so many more stories about him that haven't had enough time in the spotlight yet. Like his take on the Catholic sex abuse scandal (blame liberals (https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30)). Or his lending his name to a Dicovery Institute written Intelligent Design pushing amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment). Or going Godwin over the Democrats using the filibuster. Or saying that Terri Schiavo was executed. Or how (just last year) he said how John McCain doesn't understand torture enhanced interrogation techniques (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55140.html). Or him being about the only person to maintain the US found WMDs in Iraq. Or his inserting of a multi-billion dollar tax credit (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1167738,00.html) for synthetic (coal based) fuel oil into a bill otherwise concerned with aid for Katrina victims. Or his proposal to block the national weather service from publishing any weather information that might compete with commercial sources. Or why he is commonly referred to as 'man on dog' Santorum (which is somehow worse since Dan Savage had his way with his name). Or how he blames radical feminism for making it "more socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children."

This just from a quick skimming of his wiki page for stories I remember.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 09:06:44 am

Quote from: olemars on January 06, 2012, 07:11:40 am

Newsies around here (http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/01/06/nyheter/politikk/utenriks/19687956/) are saying that according to Santorum, the new axis of evil is Iran, Egypt and Poland. Can't seem to find any mention of this elsewhere though.

Huh. Yeah, I'm not finding any mention of that in the US media. And I'd think a gaffe (even a relatively minor one like criticizing the wrong East European country) would be jumped all over on this side of the pond. What I *am* finding though, is plenty of stories that Santorum just isn't going over that well with NH Republicans. Many of them are pro-choice and in favor of civil unions at minimum, if not outright allowing gay marriage. New England Republicans tend to be the remnant of the pre-1980s Republican Party, when they were about a strong military, limited government and low taxes, and that's it. They're not interested in the culture wars.

EDIT: The more I think about this, the more I want Santorum to stay in this thing a while. Yes, by all means let's make this race about the culture wars. Because the GOP will distinctly be on the losing end of that discussion, as evidenced when Santorum was booed by a NH college campaign event when he equated same-sex marriage with polygamy. It will also paint the GOP in general as the party of the 19th century, helping lead to losses in the Senate and House. I'm curious to see if Obama can redeem himself if he can get a Congress he can work with (and hopefully majority leaders in both chambers who have spines that aren't made of Nerf.)

Of course, if the R's get trounced in the House elections, they're liable to think the lesson learned is "We need to be MORE conservative!" and they'll make Bachmann their new House leader and barricade themselves in a heavily-armed compound.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Miggy on January 06, 2012, 09:53:18 am

Quote from: palsch on January 06, 2012, 08:55:26 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://secular.org/files/scorecard.png)

Wait wait wait wait... Is it true that only 3 out of 8 of your presidential candiates accepts evolution?

I mean, I knew there were some religious nutheads who didn't but... Really? I'm blown away of how insanely retarded that is.

Sory if that's offensive but... Wow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 10:03:22 am

Quote from: Miggy on January 06, 2012, 09:53:18 am

Quote from: palsch on January 06, 2012, 08:55:26 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://secular.org/files/scorecard.png)

Wait wait wait wait... Is it true that only 3 out of 8 of your presidential candiates accepts evolution?

I mean, I knew there were some religious nutheads who didn't but... Really? I'm blown away of how insanely retarded that is.

Sory if that's offensive but... Wow.

At least 40% of Americans believe the earth is 5000 to 7000 years old because the bible says so (it doesn't). Nearly all of them have been voting exclusively republican since at least 1980.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 06, 2012, 10:06:13 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 05, 2012, 03:45:48 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 05, 2012, 03:17:20 pm

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU)

I...fuck...last time I checked that was how traditional conservatives viewed the world. Unless of course he means social conservatives, then fuck that shit.

That is the traditional liberal positions. Traditional conservatism has always been authotitarian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 06, 2012, 10:09:12 am

Conservatism and Liberalism are both relative terms.

Since a large part of that has been around since the countries founding, it really is conservative.

Of course it would be authoritarian in Europe - Europe's traditions tend to be authoritarian.

Not so much so in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 06, 2012, 10:15:31 am

Quote from: Miggy on January 06, 2012, 09:53:18 am

Quote from: palsch on January 06, 2012, 08:55:26 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://secular.org/files/scorecard.png)

Wait wait wait wait... Is it true that only 3 out of 8 of your presidential candiates accepts evolution?

I mean, I knew there were some religious nutheads who didn't but... Really? I'm blown away of how insanely retarded that is.

Sory if that's offensive but... Wow.

Generalisations won't get you anywhere. And where do the letters stand for?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 06, 2012, 10:18:32 am

That would make socialism conservative in Sweden. It doesn't work like that. Yeah, what is considered "liberal" or "conservative" varies from country to country, but the traditional/classic definition does not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 06, 2012, 10:23:24 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 10:03:22 am

At least 40% of Americans believe the earth is 5000 to 7000 years old because the bible says so (it doesn't). Nearly all of them have been voting exclusively republican since at least 1980.

Depends on your bible. I picked up a gorgeous 1896 study bible ("With paragraphs!") that included both the Ussher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) (creation at 4004 BC) and Hales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hales) (5411 BC) dates for each event. I've seen Ussher's dates included in bibles as late as the 60's at least and they have been included since 1701, so hold a lot of authority in certain circles. I've even seen one bible (an American KJV study text, can't remember the date) with Lightfoots "October 23, 4004 B.C at nine of the clock in the morning" (which isn't Lightfoot's and comes from a misquote around the time my edition was at the printers).

Quote from: Dutchling on January 06, 2012, 10:15:31 am

And where do the letters stand for?

The letters are grades. There is a lot more at the link in the original post.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 10:28:46 am

The worst thing possible for any republican candidate may have just happened.

I don't know how many people remember it, but last year there were a number of the new breed of tea party republicans that said they were willing to destroy the economy in order to ensure that Obama was forced out of the white house in 2012.

http://news.yahoo.com/unemployment-rate-falls-8-5-pct-hiring-surges-140336279.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 10:31:26 am

They were willing to what?

... why do they keep on with their acts and don't already bring out their supervillain doomsday devices already?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 06, 2012, 10:39:42 am

Quote

That would make socialism conservative in Sweden. It doesn't work like that. Yeah, what is considered "liberal" or "conservative" varies from country to country, but the traditional/classic definition does not.

One: You said traditional, not classical. Traditional by definition varies depending on the traditions - you can't just remove the context and expect is to have any meaning. Classical is all about preserving the power of the aristocracy and monarchy, sure, I'll give you that, because classical, in modern parlance, is just a synonym for "European". This makes it completely irrelevant to any discussion of the American conservatism which comes from a very different tradition. So if when you say "traditional" conservatism, what you mean is "classical european conservatism", which is very different from traditional chinese conservatism or traditional american conservatism, you might want to just use that name instead when dealing with people from a different tradition. Basically: You're Eurocentrism is showing. Sorry, but you're continent isn't the center of the world, and you don't get exclusive rights on history or tradition.

Two: Even by that definition, it's stupid, because "Traditional" in a conservative european context still represents two distinct movements - the French and British "classical conservatism" are quite different.

Three: Its perfectly possible for conservatism to advocate socialism. Why wouldn't you think that was possible? Socialism has little to do with the liberalism/conservatism divide. In fact, by your claim as the previous quote being the traditional liberal definition, well.. socialism certainly isn't liberal!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 10:55:33 am

Quote from: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 10:31:26 am

They were willing to what?

... why do they keep on with their acts and don't already bring out their supervillain doomsday devices already?

They have. It was called "the US debt default". They basically threatened to let the government default (and all the *world* financial ripple effects that would have caused) unless they got a budget pared down to the bone. And Obama, unable to send superheroes to stop them, basically caved. I'm not faulting him that harshly because I don't know what I'd have done in that situation either, but the problem is that by acceding to their demands, he validated that kind of shit as a tactic.

Now every time they want to push through some crazy-ass measure that they know won't pass the Senate, they just hold a gun to the country's head by refusing to compromise on critical budgetary measures -- the kind of day-to-day shit that keeps things running.

(Incidentally, that's why I would make a terrible President. I'd have filled the Capitol gallery with Special Forces snipers and informed both them and the Congress that these particular snipers will be part of the necessary layoffs if Congress refuses to pass the budget/debt ceiling/whatever.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 10:57:11 am

Unfortunately my political vocab is non-existent and I have no idea what terms like "default" and stuff mean.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 11:10:09 am

Quote from: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 10:57:11 am

Unfortunately my political vocab is non-existent and I have no idea what terms like "default" and stuff mean.

It would have meant the US government would officially be saying "Sorry guys, we're broke and can't pay you."

Oh, we'd still have lots of money, just not enough to actually pay everyone we legally owe money to, when we legally owe it to them.

More pressing would be that the credit rating of the US would plummet, interest rates would skyrocket, and it would get that much harder for companies to get credit at a time when credit is already tight because of the recent financial disasters. Other countries and banks which have large chunks of US debt would also then be suspect.

Of course, Michele Bachmann was all good and ready to push that red button, because she didn't "believe" anything would actually happen. After all, the only people saying that are a bunch (and I mean a BUNCH) of egghead economists, fiscal policy experts and bankers. God didn't whisper it into her ear, so it can't be true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 06, 2012, 11:19:07 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 06, 2012, 10:39:42 am

One: You said traditional, not classical.

I guess it comes down to different ideas on how the word "traditional" is used.

Quote

Three: Its perfectly possible for conservatism to advocate socialism. Why wouldn't you think that was possible? Socialism has little to do with the liberalism/conservatism divide. In fact, by your claim as the previous quote being the traditional liberal definition, well.. socialism certainly isn't liberal!

It's possible for conservatives, like liberals, to advocate socialistic ideas. It is not possible for either to be socialist, there is a fundamental difference in values.

And yes, socialism certainly isn't liberal. There is a reason politic philosophy is often simplified into a socialism - liberalism - conservatism spectrum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 06, 2012, 11:23:46 am

Is there actually a definition of Traditional other than "historically true within the confines of the culture being discussed" or  "based on a culturally transmitted system or idea that has been passed on from one generation to another"?

:::goes to look it up:::

I'm not finding one, so I'm not really sure what definition you'd be operating under in this case. Clarification?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 06, 2012, 11:30:08 am

I use/read it as "calling back to how it used to be" be based on the use of it's Swedish relative "traditionellt".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 06, 2012, 11:45:34 am

Of course, depending on your context, liberalism is pretty damn vague, too. This is why neoconservative ideas in the US, like spreading democracy by liberating dicatorships (you'll have to give me a minute here to finish laughing), are suspiciously liberal, in that they require the government to take significant action to achieve a vaguely defined, but strongly believed-in, good. Now, I doubt many of the politicians that support such ideas do so because they share them, but that's because I'm a cynic when it comes to political motivations.

Perhaps we need a fixed set of definitions that we can all refer to? Or is that the sort of pointless pedantry that demonstrates the thread has already wandered into irreversible bickering?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 12:43:38 pm

I don't think it's bickering, so much as one of the recurrent problems in political science: it's full of technical jargon which is often at odds with the "popular" use of the same words.

Classical liberalism espoused democracy, the power of laissez-faire capitalism, and called for destratification of society. Of course, it frequently did so while only looking at white males with enough wealth to have any kind of interest in politics to begin with. This was contrasted with the conservatism of the period (18th/19th centuries), which argued for the retention of monarchy and the landed gentry as the arbiters of power in society.

The problem, according to Marx and others, was that while the liberal democracy was more free than serfdom, it was still inherently an unfree system because you merely traded dominance of a ruling class based on heredity to a ruling class based on wealth, rather the sort of egalitarian democracy that it hoped and claimed to be. I think you don't have to look around too hard today to admit that Marx had a pretty good argument. He also argued that capitalist democracy was a necessary stage in the progression of a society, and that socialism would arise once liberal democracy had burned itself out and created such a class inequity that it was not all that different from the monarchies it overthrew. This would lead to the "rise of the workers' proletariat", etc. (Lenin's problem was that he wanted to accelerate the timeline and skip the liberal democracy stage altogether.)

Conservatism in the strictly political science sense, isn't really tied to democracy or capitalism as core values. What we have in the US are two "classic" liberal parties, one which is socially conservative, and one which is socially moderate-to-liberal (by US standards). The former prefers "classical economics", which is to say supply-side economics; while the latter prefers Keynesian economics, particular during economic downturns. But as time marches on, it's difficult to say what a truly "conservative" party in the US would be. We never had dominance by a landed gentry or the Church the way that many European countries had, so there's no core segment there to resist change. Instead, we have people who have reconstructed an America-That-Never-Was: where brave, white Christian (typically Protestant) males conquered a savage wilderness and fought off all their enemies and made prosperous, moral livelihoods for themselves. And that's what they want to "return" to.

But because the actual history of the US (and unfortunately, the version I mock above is more or less the version that gets taught to most of our children) is considerably more colorful, nuanced and amoral/immoral....there's nowhere to return to. And if you dare to point that out (or to suggest that perhaps the best way for a country is to look forwards, rather than trying to regress 250 years), you're a goddamn pinko commie socialist f*g who hates America.

So yeah. That's why politics in this country can be so effed-up that we have a majority of Republican candidates denying evolution and global warming and thumping their Bible all the way to the ballot box. Because they think (and more importantly, a sizable portion of their constituents think) that that's what ol' George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have wanted.

Ben Franklin, meanwhile, would have bitchslapped these people into next Tuesday. (Although he might have had a soft spot for Gingrich and Cain...Franklin liked the ladies too.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 01:23:46 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 06, 2012, 08:55:26 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://secular.org/files/scorecard.png)

Wow, Bachmann did better than I expected.

Miggy, the problem is that most of the Republican candidates are religious nutheads.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 06, 2012, 01:39:08 pm

The only article so far about the upcoming American elections in the newspaper I read (NRC) is about how stupid Bachmann is.
Guess they are right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: olemars on January 06, 2012, 02:45:27 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 09:06:44 am

Quote from: olemars on January 06, 2012, 07:11:40 am

Newsies around here (http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/01/06/nyheter/politikk/utenriks/19687956/) are saying that according to Santorum, the new axis of evil is Iran, Egypt and Poland. Can't seem to find any mention of this elsewhere though.

Huh. Yeah, I'm not finding any mention of that in the US media. And I'd think a gaffe (even a relatively minor one like criticizing the wrong East European country) would be jumped all over on this side of the pond.

Yeah, the story's been retracted now, a journo messed up his summary of the speech or something. What Santorum said about Poland was that Obama should have been more heavy-handed with them when Poland refused the ABM missile shield.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 02:48:13 pm

So you may have heard that John McCain has thrown his support behind Romney and went to SC to stump for him.

It's going swimmingly. (http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/in-48-hours-john-mccain-praises-president-obama-and-destroys-ronald-reagan)  :P

To sum up, he accidentally praised President Obama and said Romney would lead from the front, not "from behind, like Ronald Reagan".

Two cardinal sins in one day is pretty impressive, even if they were accidents. I'm half-expecting the Romney camp to say that McCain was mistaken and he's actually throwing his support behind Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 03:08:39 pm

Senility can be a big political liability :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 06, 2012, 03:36:23 pm

I could say many things about that sod. Reagan is a terrible role model for anyone planning to administrate anything, let alone the United States.

I'm very confused as to how he 'accidentally' said Obama will turn the country around. Maybe his circuits are wearing? Someone get another GOPbot in there.

Also: He's old, not senile. Mccain is a pretty sharp man, he just sits under the GOP's thumb. Being in the actual military+holding political office for a near quarter century isn't likely to lead to senility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 03:39:38 pm

My pet theory (which may or may not be completely unsupported) is that McCain is a plant or turncoat. He knows that the Republican candidates, or most of them, are crazy and should not be in charge of the country. He "accidentally" supports Obama while making things difficult for the candidate he's supposed to be praising.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 03:52:07 pm

McCain used to be something of a "Maverick" as a moderate republican occasionally willing to compromise with democrats until he had to spin up doom machine to win the primary in 2008. His old political persona was more like Obama's current one than any of the republican candidates right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 03:57:40 pm

Meanwhile, my gut feeling that somebody was going to slap the "Manchurian Candidate" tag on Jon Huntsman turned out to be right.

Care to take a guess who? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/huntsman-objects-to-paul-ad-featuring-adopted-daughters/2012/01/06/gIQATO7xeP_story.html)

His campaign has disavowed it, of course. Just like all good campaigns do. Even as they reap the benefit on the ground. It's the exact same kind of slimy shit that Karl Rove pulled on McCain in SC back in 2000. The good part is that they did this in NH, where it'll probably backfire and give Huntsman MORE support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 06, 2012, 04:06:21 pm

I really start to like Huntsman. Maybe it's only because of the contrast, but he looks like the kind of guy I'd vote for over Obama (Of course, since I hail from Belgium I cannot vote for your prez, but he's supposed to be "Leader of the Free World" and shit so I must pay attention to the guy.

Does he have his dark side as well?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 04:07:54 pm

Well, I want to know the reason for those N/As on his scorecard. What do they represent?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 06, 2012, 04:08:23 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 03:57:40 pm

His campaign has disavowed it, of course. Just like all good campaigns do. Even as they reap the benefit on the ground. It's the exact same kind of slimy shit that Karl Rove pulled on McCain in SC back in 2000. The good part is that they did this in NH, where it'll probably backfire and give Huntsman MORE support.

Good. I hope these (S)PACs will take a lesson and stop trying to turn everything into a distraction. Maybe use a real issue as campaign fodder, as opposed to using fodder as fodder? It irritates me that they have the money to spend on an advertisement calling him out for adopting children that are happier and, more importantly, alive, thanks to people like him that adopt and don't go out of their way to have their own kids, further seperating the 'first world' populations from the less fortunate located elsewhere.

I wish I had millions to waste on a nil point.

I would spit on the producer of it. I bet Paul is pissed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 06, 2012, 04:09:32 pm

The fact that whoever made the card couldn't find out enough data about him. It's easier to find stuff about religion and Santorum that about religion and Huntsman.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 04:15:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2012, 04:06:21 pm

I really start to like Huntsman. Maybe it's only because of the contrast, but he looks like the kind of guy I'd vote for over Obama (Of course, since I hail from Belgium I cannot vote for your prez, but he's supposed to be "Leader of the Free World" and shit so I must pay attention to the guy.

Does he have his dark side as well?

He has the usual conservative dark side. Cut taxes for the rich, increase govornment spending (in wealthy owned businesses) and that god will balance the budget for you somehow. He is anti-choice and against the gays, but not as much as most of his competitors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 04:16:11 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2012, 04:06:21 pm

I really start to like Huntsman. Maybe it's only because of the contrast, but he looks like the kind of guy I'd vote for over Obama (Of course, since I hail from Belgium I cannot vote for your prez, but he's supposed to be "Leader of the Free World" and shit so I must pay attention to the guy.

Does he have his dark side as well?

Well, he's Mormon. Yeah, I know that shouldn't matter and I'm a horrible bigot for thinking it does. Tough shit, it does. As I've said before, IMHO Mormonism is 19th-century Scientology: a con game that went a little too far and outlived its creator.

Beyond that, not much that I can find. These are some negatives according to RonPaulForums.com:

- comfortable with individual health mandates
- pro cap and trade
- supported instate tuition for illegal immigrants
- said stimuls not big enough [sic...I assume they meant stimulus]
- avoids his Mormon heritage
- says China not a threat

Oh wait, he avoids his Mormon heritage? Ok, screw it. I'm in for Huntsman. I'm sure I would find areas of policy disagreement if I really dug, but they'd be just that--disagreements. It'd be "Y'know, I can see your point but I think this would be a better alternative" rather than "Seriously? WTFBBQ are you doing?"


EDIT: Another con, courtesy of the same source:

Quote

Con: The mainstream media has been pushing him hard. Huge red flag.

Paulian logic at its finest.
Mainstream media: "More and more people are asking themselves, 'Hey this Jon Huntsman guy sounds halfway sane! Why haven't we heard more about him?'"
Ron Paul followers: "IT'S A TRAP!"  ::)

Seriously....if occasionally remembering to mention "oh, and Jon Huntsman was also there" constitutes pushing him hard, I'd hate to see what they'd call Santorum's exposure now.


DOUBLE-EDIT: I don't mean to be piling onto Paul here, but checking out that forum (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?347204-‘Stupid’-Huntsman-Reacts-to-Pro-Ron-Paul-Ad-Painting-Him-as-‘Manchurian-Candidate’) just confirms my worst fears about his camp. Their initial reaction to this story is to blame Huntsman of running a false-flag operation in what must obviously be a conspiracy against Dr. Paul. Interspersed with this are banner ads reading:

"Support Ron Paul By Buying Ammo!"
"The Top 10 Things You Need To Know About Precious Metals"
"The Ron Paul Chocolate Bar Is Here!" (is every bar as chock full of nuts?)

So the base message is conspiracy, ammo and buy up gold? Is this Ron Paul or just Glenn Beck with a tasty treat?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 04:31:38 pm

Notice how all the "I'm so and so and I approved this message" has vanished since the Supreme Court ruling? Political attack ads have always been vile, but at least we weren't in the position where candidates take money from SPACs, accept their ads, then disavow any of the values portrayed in them. While still taking the money.

I don't know what is slimier in my book. The ads themselves or the campaign staff who have to repeat the mantra of "this doesn't reflect our campaign and we don't know who did it." If it doesn't reflect your campaign, quit accepting donations from people you can't or won't vet.

How is any American voter supposed to know where a candidate stands when they say one thing and their ads say something different? And the candidates just get to float on by that little inconsistency, all the way to White House, or at least, a few lucrative book tours.

In Ron Paul's case it pisses me off the worst, as he desperately tries to shed all his self-inflicted baggage yet all the psychos he's drawn to him keep the fires burning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 06, 2012, 05:17:47 pm

Rick Santorum is apparently a much more intelligent speaking than people might give him credit for.  As he does a lightning tour around New Hampshire, he's becoming famous for giving hour-long Socratic symposiums about whatever issues people ask him about, or about topics he gets by asking the crowd.  He has the intellectual bent and poise of a professor, much more so or at least more obviously so than the infamous Professor Obama we used to see.  He also has strong and remarkably detailed and well developed stances and explanations for just about issue you pitch at him.

His problem is, Santorum's ranking of what issues are important and who they're relevant to comes from another planet.  Touring around libertarian, economically obsessed New Hampshire, he can and does spend an entire hour in front of college students explaining why "Small Government" does not mean the government does not have a role in defining acceptable and unacceptable sexual acts, and indeed exactly why it should do so.  When asked about the unfair practices of insurance providers by a cancer survivor, he gives the academic equivalent of "them's the breaks kid" and wanders off into a twenty minute lauding the meritocratic underpinnings of premium calculation.

So he's an impressive non-factor in New Hampshire, and would probably be better served preparing for South Carolina early.  He raising exponentially more money than he was before Iowa, but it's something to $2million to Romney's dozens.  At any rate, for the first time in seven years, if you Google his name you actually get his campaign website instead of UrbanDictionary (it's still on the first page).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 05:31:47 pm

Santorum 2012: From Ass Juice to the White House.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 06, 2012, 05:38:57 pm

I would give so many arms and legs to see that become the official campaign slogan, you have no idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Powder Miner on January 06, 2012, 07:14:42 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 04:15:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2012, 04:06:21 pm

I really start to like Huntsman. Maybe it's only because of the contrast, but he looks like the kind of guy I'd vote for over Obama (Of course, since I hail from Belgium I cannot vote for your prez, but he's supposed to be "Leader of the Free World" and shit so I must pay attention to the guy.

Does he have his dark side as well?

He has the usual conservative dark side. Cut taxes for the rich, increase govornment spending (in wealthy owned businesses) and that god will balance the budget for you somehow. He is anti-choice and against the gays, but not as much as most of his competitors.

Yeaaaaaaah no that's not what Republicans want. We favor a less progressive system of axes, with low for everyone, not "Oh goody our good buddies the rich people get no taxes everyone else gets 100% hurr." Also we aren't for spending government money in corporations.
Although Obama certainly has done that to a massive scale.
We believe that if you make it so that the government isn't spending every cent it doesn't have, then it'll help balance the budget.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 07:19:46 pm

When the gov't is hardly taking in any money because everyone and their dog gets a tax break, especially corporations, it's hard for the gov't to do much of anything, isn't it?

I respected the conservative stand on the bail outs, even agreed with it. But I disagree that freeing business from any taxes and huge subsidies to support American industries that don't need it, isn't effectively putting money in their pocket, by refusing to accept any limitations on their activities.

But most conservatives I know think the gov't's job is literally to run our wars and the Justice department. Anything beyond that is an abuse of their powers in their book. I take the opposite view, that without gov't and its power to enforce change, we'd still be in the 1950s on civil rights, to name just one important function it served.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 06, 2012, 07:20:35 pm

Really? So conservatives, as a group, would be opposed to say...massive government subsidies to the energy industry? Or agribusiness? Or the financial sector?

Because that sure as shit ain't how they've voted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 06, 2012, 07:23:37 pm

Quote from: Powder Miner on January 06, 2012, 07:14:42 pm

Yeaaaaaaah no that's not what Republicans want. We favor a less progressive system of axes, with low for everyone, not "Oh goody our good buddies the rich people get no taxes everyone else gets 100% hurr." Also we aren't for spending government money in corporations.
Although Obama certainly has done that to a massive scale.
We believe that if you make it so that the government isn't spending every cent it doesn't have, then it'll help balance the budget.

• Speak for yourself, please.
• A low tax rate for everyone does mean that the tax burden disproportionately lies on the backs of the poor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 06, 2012, 07:30:28 pm

Everyone has flat expenses (food, rent, etc), so an equal percentage tax takes away far more from the poor than the wealthy, especially for those in the poverty level. When 90% or more of your paycheck goes simply to staying alive, a 5% tax on your income eats a huge amount of your spare cash that could go to things like recreation or investment in your future. Whereas on the other end of the scale where all the base expenses are paid with a trivial amount of your paycheck (the rest going to luxuries), a 5% tax is a drop in the bucket. Everyone in between is, well, in between.

The poorer you are, the worse a flat percentage tax is for you. True flat taxes (food taxes, etc) that don't count income are even worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 06, 2012, 07:52:37 pm

Calls for lower taxes on corporations despite many paying 0% in taxes, attempts to incite anger against the impoverished whose income in too low to pay federal taxes while suggesting their taxes should be raised, refusal to support a tax cut for the middle class until they started getting major crap for it (at which point they pretended the idea was theirs all along), and at least one instance that I can think of where state Republican legislators increased taxes on the Middle/Lower Class to make up for tax cuts they gave to the wealthy. Yes... the Republicans stand for lower taxes on everybody... yep... because they say it and it's in their rhetoric, it must be true.

I don't know why I haven't taken up drinking yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 06, 2012, 07:58:02 pm

In all fairness, you're judging the voters by the actions of the corrupt politicians. There are similar charges to be leveled at Democrats, although not so many and none so grievous, to my mind. It's not an excuse, exactly, but it really is important to keep in mind when determining your approach the differences between malice, stupidity, and naivety.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 06, 2012, 08:00:02 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on January 06, 2012, 07:58:02 pm

In all fairness, you're judging the voters by the actions of the corrupt politicians. There are similar charges to be leveled at Democrats, although not so many and none so grievous, to my mind. It's not an excuse, exactly, but it really is important to keep in mind when determining your approach the differences between malice, stupidity, and naivety.

Well, I did have the politicians in mind when I said that. Most voters probably believe they stand for lower taxes on everybody even though the things they support end up only favoring what becomes an elite of society.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on January 06, 2012, 08:35:01 pm

Powder Miner, I suggest you take a good long look at your party's actions and not their rhetoric/lies for a moment. What you're describing is a fantasy they have assembled to maintain control of their uneducated masses, but the voting records do not support it. At all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 06, 2012, 08:44:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 04:15:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2012, 04:06:21 pm

Does [Hunstman] have his dark side as well?

He has the usual conservative dark side. Cut taxes for the rich, increase govornment spending (in wealthy owned businesses) and that god will balance the budget for you somehow. He is anti-choice and against the gays, but not as much as most of his competitors.

From what I've read in TIME and that Secular scorecard thing from a ways back in this thread, he is in fact against pro-choice, but he does support civil unions. (Better than most of them by far.) He's also exposited on the fact while he has his own faith, not everyone agrees with it so it shouldn't be a focal point of governance. A pretty smart assertion, I reckon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 08:46:38 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 06, 2012, 08:44:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 04:15:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2012, 04:06:21 pm

Does [Hunstman] have his dark side as well?

He has the usual conservative dark side. Cut taxes for the rich, increase govornment spending (in wealthy owned businesses) and that god will balance the budget for you somehow. He is anti-choice and against the gays, but not as much as most of his competitors.

From what I've read in TIME and that Secular scorecard thing from a ways back in this thread, he is in fact against pro-choice, but he does support civil unions. (Better than most of them by far.) He's also exposited on the fact while he has his own faith, not everyone agrees with it so it shouldn't be a focal point of governance. A pretty smart assertion, I reckon.

That last statement sounds downright reasonable to me. One's religion shouldn't have an effect on one's candidacy after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 08:48:11 pm

Quote

That last statement sounds downright reasonable to me. One's religion shouldn't have an effect on one's candidacy after all.

Which he begins undercutting with non-religious voters when he goes on long speeches about what god means to him and everything else. I know he's (probably?) doing it to connect with the evangelicals, but it makes secular-minded people nervous that it's the pre-show to a religious bias when in office.

To my mind, it's unnecessary. No American president has been elected without stating and supporting SOME religion. Sort of like every American president has had a nuclear family. It's one of the assumed litmus tests every candidate has to pass. So when candidates harp on it, to me, it'd be the same thing as an atheist presidential candidate denigrating religion. Which would freak religious voters right the hell out.

If he wants to practice what he preaches, I'll be all for it. But so far, he's done quite a bit of talking about his relationship to god on the campaign trail. Seems more like an issue of saying what potential voter wants to hear. "Religion doesn't factor into my presidential aspirations. (Don't worry though, I'm really religious.)"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 06, 2012, 08:52:47 pm

I kinda doubt the religious bias, considering he and his family apparently celebrate Diwali  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diwali)with his daughter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 08:57:46 pm

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what a cursory search other candidates supporting religious pluralism would turn up. Because I'm guessing several would have one or two examples to cite of their own tolerance of religion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 06, 2012, 09:00:06 pm

I remember when Obama drew a ton of flak from conservatives for saying that he's would represent atheists as president as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 09:01:44 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 06, 2012, 09:00:06 pm

I remember when Obama drew a ton of flak from conservatives for saying that he's would represent atheists as president as well.

IIRC, they used it as proof that he was secretly a fascist Muslim from Kenya. And was also a Nazi.

Ok, that was mostly the likes of Ann Coulter, but someone out there must have believed it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 06, 2012, 09:02:04 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 08:48:11 pm

Which he begins undercutting with non-religious voters when he goes on long speeches about what god means to him and everything else. I know he's (probably?) doing it to connect with the evangelicals, but it makes secular-minded people nervous that it's the pre-show to a religious bias when in office.

Eh, I'm rather used to being tossed under the public relations bus with speeches which favor the Christian majority. If I were a Republican I'd never hope to get a candidate who shares my views on religion, and even with a Democratic president the best I can hope for is inclusion in an address about... well... inclusiveness. Which immediately receives a media backlash spearheaded by right-wing pundits...

Most non-believers I've heard seem to feel the same. It's only when a politician begins talking about the crazy beliefs he or she wants to implement via government that I start to get worried.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 06, 2012, 09:02:28 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 08:48:11 pm

To my mind, it's unnecessary. No American president has been elected without stating and supporting SOME religion.

If by "SOME religion" you mean Christianity, yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 06, 2012, 09:03:33 pm

Weren't some of the early presidents Deists? Or were none of those elected?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 06, 2012, 09:05:17 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 06, 2012, 09:03:33 pm

Weren't some of the early presidents Deists? Or were none of those elected?

Jefferson was an unabashed Deist. I vaguely recall evidence of George Washington having Deist inclinations as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 06, 2012, 09:06:37 pm

Is it just me, or does Romney argue with reporters a lot? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7c7m37geI&feature=player_embedded#!)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 06, 2012, 09:12:07 pm

Romney will fight like a madman to keep the perception that his fellow candidates are the only ones making such faux pas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 09:13:58 pm

Deism =/= atheism. It was an outgrowth of the rejection of the established churches. Jefferson and Washington were both very religious men, but they were of the kind produced by the enlightenment, where they had as much respect for the natural world as they did for God. They weren't, however, big fans of established religion like the Anglican and Catholic Churches.

And sorry if that came across as lecturing or agressive, I may have misinterpreted someone's point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 06, 2012, 09:17:01 pm

Well yeah. Just brought it up due to the claim every president was a Christian, which isn't quite the case.

Deism's pretty much "God made the universe, went to get a soda, and never came back."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 06, 2012, 09:17:51 pm

It really depends on what approach he takes later in the game.

Mormons seem to have two extreme options when it comes to their faith in politics.

The first is JFK's approach (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600). At the time Catholicism had a similar status to Mormonism today so I do think the two cases are analogous. JFK confronted voters fears and mistrust head on while also emphasising that there should be absolute separation of church and state and a rejection of religious tests. He asked people to judge him on his record, not his faith.

The second is Romney's. Fred Clark outlined this brilliantly (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/12/the-toady.html) in the last election. Romney had given a very high profile speech that basically insisted that it was faith that mattered, and he hated atheists just as much as the evangelicals did.

Quote

Romney's gambit here comes straight from the school yard. As a Mormon, he is an outsider, getting picked on by the bullies of the religious right. Instead of standing up to the bullies, he sucks up to them, trying to prove his loyalty and win their approval by acting like them and picking on the other outcasts and outsiders. "You guys want to pretend that 'secular' and 'profane' are synonyms? I can do that. Look, I'll even beat up this atheist kid for you. See? I'm just like you guys!"

This desperate, canine obsequiousness infuses his sniveling speech with fearfulness and flopsweat. Romney is pleading, begging to be allowed to serve as the bullies' toady. As far as that goes, he has probably succeeded. Eager-to-please toadies can come in handy, so the bullies will probably be willing to accept him in that capacity.

But as useful as they may sometimes be, toadies are never liked, respected or admired by the bullies. Nobody likes or respects or admires an unprincipled coward. And the characteristics of a successful toady don't fit with anybody's notion of the characteristics of a potential president. A toady can't get elected president (the best he can hope for is a Connecticut senate seat).

He was arguing for a message that only appeals to people who would use that very argument to disqualify him from the presidency.

***

As for the early presidents/found fathers being deists, I'd go more with the theistic rationalist (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/the_definition_of_theistic_rat.php) view of them. The definition can get a bit nit-picky, but in general a theist prays and a deist doesn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 09:25:30 pm

That's seems like a pretty apropos comparison for today's candidates. I'm tired of Theists, I want Deists. People who respect religion but don't turn to it as a solution for anything (governance, "guidance", vote mongering.) I'd prefer a Deist to an Atheist president, because I think an atheist can be just as abusive in the opposite direction. Maybe that's me going with the Golden Mean fallacy, but someone who acknowledges God but refuses to bring it into secular governance seems like the safest bet for all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 09:26:05 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 06, 2012, 09:02:28 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 08:48:11 pm

To my mind, it's unnecessary. No American president has been elected without stating and supporting SOME religion.

If by "SOME religion" you mean Christianity, yes.

Kennedy was the first non-protestant president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 09:33:45 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 06, 2012, 09:26:05 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 06, 2012, 09:02:28 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 08:48:11 pm

To my mind, it's unnecessary. No American president has been elected without stating and supporting SOME religion.

If by "SOME religion" you mean Christianity, yes.

Kennedy was the first non-protestant president.

And Catholics are Christian too. I may be suffering from reading comprehension failure, but are you seriously implying that they aren't?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 06, 2012, 09:36:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 09:25:30 pm

That's seems like a pretty apropos comparison for today's candidates. I'm tired of Theists, I want Deists. People who respect religion but don't turn to it as a solution for anything (governance, "guidance", vote mongering.) I'd prefer a Deist to an Atheist president, because I think an atheist can be just as abusive in the opposite direction. Maybe that's me going with the Golden Mean fallacy, but someone who acknowledges God but refuses to bring it into secular governance seems like the safest bet for all.

During the French Revolution, a Deist government was just as bad as any religious or non-religious government, though perhaps that was more a product of the Revolution's country-wide insanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 06, 2012, 09:48:50 pm

I've seen a lot more news about Huntsman recently. I hope that's a sign of the future of this campaign, because its current state is unacceptable to me. Every article I've read in the past has said that he would make a good moderate candidate, that he could get bipartisan support, and that he's qualified, but also that it's just impossible for him to get the nomination because of his poor name recognition. Now I see such things as http://2012.republican-candidates.org/ (http://2012.republican-candidates.org/)'s summary.

Quote

Hardly a convincing choice as the Republican nominee for next year’s presidential election now, is he? But if one were to look deeper, the affable Huntsman may very well turn out to be the savior of the Republicans comes 2012.

...

Huntsman is a contradiction, an enigma, a complex personality; and because of his personal fortune, has never been beholden to anyone. His term as the Governor of Utah saw him maintaining a consistently, ridiculously high approval ratings in excess of 70%. In fact, he won reelection for his second term by capturing an incredible 77.7% of the vote – an almost unheard of figure in modern top-tier politics. The respected Pew Center on the States cited Utah as the best managed state in the country during his tenure.

His time in the Republican administration of the 80’s and early 90’s saw him rising from an ordinary aide to the United States Ambassador to Singapore (the youngest ever at 32) within a few short years. Huntsman is a formidable man indeed. But the most frightening thing about the father of seven is, he appears to have no skeletons in his closet; and that just might prove to be the clincher for the Republican voters and delegates in the coming months.

Even if civil unions (what he supports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXSxWbJCYA&feature=player_embedded)) aren't quite marriage, they're (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3PXANu7mUc) better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y10iURFWpbQ) than (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzzDrOR30U8) the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzONeK1OwQ&feature=related) opposition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHjynwtERTE). Seriously (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqgKhGEueFk).

I'd vote for an atheist president, so long as she/he didn't try to force his/her ideology on me or anyone else, just as I would vote for a Christian who does not force his/her religious views on me or anyone else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 09:56:23 pm

I would probably also support somebody who adheres to the second and seventh condiments.

Unlike other people <_<

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 06, 2012, 09:58:14 pm

Quote from: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 09:56:23 pm

I would probably also support somebody who adheres to the second and seventh condiments.

I'm trying to figure out whether this was an intentional delicious typo.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 06, 2012, 10:00:53 pm

I get how the second one is like ketchup, but how is the seventh like wasabi?

The more I hear about Huntsman, the more I like him.  Lots (comparatively to his competition) of his positions gel with mine.
We shall see how far this man goes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 10:02:38 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on January 06, 2012, 09:58:14 pm

Quote from: Darvi on January 06, 2012, 09:56:23 pm

I would probably also support somebody who adheres to the second and seventh condiments.

I'm trying to figure out whether this was an intentional delicious typo.

Intentional, and that wasn't a typo.

You can also call them the 8 "I'd really rather you wouldn't"s

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 06, 2012, 10:06:48 pm

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

Please prove to me that you guys can be cool.  I'm begging you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 10:18:17 pm

What? Compared to how these things normally turn out, we're doing pretty good. Doubledown Man hasn't shown up yet, at any rate.

You just need to spend more time posting stuff for us to ponder. Get on that chief.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 10:25:51 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 06, 2012, 10:06:48 pm

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

I laugh at that image every time :D

Sadly, I haven't heard any news. I mostly rely on this thread, tbh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 06, 2012, 10:27:59 pm

We could always do a "Who on B12 is deserving of votes based on their stances"...but I'm afraid of the volcanic eruption that may occur... :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 10:37:56 pm

Somehow inviting the forum to project its political thoughts on to other forum members seems like a bad idea......

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on January 06, 2012, 10:41:36 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 06, 2012, 10:25:51 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 06, 2012, 10:06:48 pm

(Spoiler'd for size.)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

I laugh at that image every time :D

Sadly, I haven't heard any news. I mostly rely on this thread, tbh.

I agree on both counts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 06, 2012, 10:45:05 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 06, 2012, 10:37:56 pm

Somehow inviting the forum to project its political thoughts on to other forum members seems like a bad idea......

Yeah, the idea initially sounded like fun, but then my brain went, "No, you moron! The internet is made of straw, and that many flames would kill us all!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 07, 2012, 01:57:25 am

I dunno, if I had have voted in the 2008 election I probably would have voted Mccain because his ideas seemed better. In reflection though I would now have voted for Obama in 2008.

This election my vote would probably be

Paul
Huntsman
Obama

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: antymattar on January 07, 2012, 04:50:38 am

Screw everybody else. If Ron paul wins, America has some hope. If he does not... well... Blame yourself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 07, 2012, 05:00:27 am

You know what makes that belief totally ironic? The other thread you started.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 07, 2012, 05:17:35 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16434859

An intersting take on it for us outsiders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on January 07, 2012, 12:49:42 pm

Quote from: antymattar on January 07, 2012, 04:50:38 am

Screw everybody else. If Ron paul wins, America has some hope. If he does not... well... Blame yourself.

Ron Paul wants to gut the federal government to the point where "you wouldn’t need the income tax. " That would mean an end to most welfare programs, many of which are the only things keeping a large portion of the population out of poverty. Say medicare is privatized, which under a Paul presidency, it inevitably would be: prices go up, because the insurance companies that run it are only concerned with making money. They are amoral constructs designed for that sole purpose. If prices go up, many retirees, who had planned for the continuation of medicare until the end of their lives, won't have the money to pay insurance premiums. If they get in an accident, they go bankrupt. If they get a chronic illness, which they almost inevitably will, they may well die much earlier for lack of money to pay for treatment. Any ideology that causes death to prevent theft(or what hardcore libertarians view as theft) is wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 07, 2012, 02:51:13 pm

Just because something is privatized, doesn't mean prices automatically go up.

Also, if you don't like those prices, then don't pay them. It's a free market for a reason.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 07, 2012, 03:05:07 pm

A free market implies that the government has no hand in business. It's not really "free" when corperations keep getting tax breaks and bail outs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 07, 2012, 03:22:18 pm

Erm, what? (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/the_new_yorker_ranks_the_repub.php)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 07, 2012, 03:33:22 pm

Yeah, and go without insurance. Plus, private insurance are there to make a profit, you need to pay all those CEO and billionaires. Risks is also higher for private insurers that for the State, because the pool is smaller. There is a reason why you Americans pays much more than any European country in health care and still have a large proportion of people that have no access to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 07, 2012, 05:07:26 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on January 07, 2012, 03:05:07 pm

A free market implies that the government has no hand in business. It's not really "free" when corperations keep getting tax breaks and bail outs.

Which is why what we have now does not qualify as a free market. Bail outs for corporations are NOT part of a free market. You make other points which are valid, but please make sure you know what is actually meant by the words you use.

I'm sorry if that sounds rude but I cannot think of a more polite way to phrase it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 07, 2012, 05:14:52 pm

I think you should be arguing with ECrown, not Luke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 07, 2012, 08:03:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 07, 2012, 05:14:52 pm

I think you should be arguing with ECrown, not Luke.

AFAIK everything he said is correct, even if only technically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 07, 2012, 08:17:43 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 07, 2012, 02:51:13 pm

Also, if you don't like those prices, then don't pay them. It's a free market for a reason.

So in the case of healthcare... die?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 07, 2012, 08:27:21 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 07, 2012, 02:51:13 pm

Just because something is privatized, doesn't mean prices automatically go up.

No it doesn't.  But anyone who has even a cursory exposure to healthcare systems around the world knows that privatization leads to much higher prices.  So seeing as this was in the context of healthcare privatization does mean that prices go up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 08, 2012, 03:58:06 am

So who watched the debate?

Who did you guys think won?

I thought Huntsmen did a great job, Romney sounds like a used car salesman.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 08, 2012, 04:16:20 am

Aye, his comments about how Utah actually did well when he was governing (in response to Romney's criticism of his stance on the stimulus) seemed to shut Romney up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 08, 2012, 04:18:36 am

I missed it, which is pretty bad since I'm supposed to be on top of this stuff, but my brain likes to cash out while listening to people talk over long periods.  I know the highlights will be all over the TV on Monday, and it'll get plenty of mention on the talk shows tomorrow.  I'll catch up and jot down some thoughts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 08, 2012, 04:42:58 am

Ron Paul pimpslapped Gingrich hard on his military deferrals, "I had a wife and two kids and i still served" when Newt was stumbling to answer about his military service.

Rick Perry says that if he were president he'd send troops back into Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5qZ9GrBf4w&feature=g-all-u&context=G282e371FAAAAAAAABAA). Yeah, pack it in, he's done.

EDIT: I will refrain from any actual "winning" comments because there wasn't a clear victor. Romney's still the guy to beat though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 08, 2012, 01:08:59 pm

Is it wrong of me to think of American Politics as comedy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 08, 2012, 01:09:45 pm

Tragicomedy would be a better comparison imo.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 08, 2012, 01:25:12 pm

He also either fails at science or thinks the Iranians have discovered light speed travel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 08, 2012, 01:28:56 pm

The funny part is that if he's right, the Iranian to control of the whole of Iraq some when between his first and second syllable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 08, 2012, 01:50:00 pm

We'll know the Iranians have moved "back" in when their lightspeed movement causes massive disruptions to the atmosphere, causing implosion effects in Tehran. Not to mention if they're not careful and don't take into account the curvature of the Earth, the Quds Brigade will end up somewhere in low Earth orbit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 08, 2012, 01:57:19 pm

*Imagines the doppler shifting in the ululating noise of several thousand Iranian infantry passing by at 95% of c*...

He seriously said he wanted troops sent back in? He actually wants to get elected doent he, or is it one big piss take? Or, does no one credible fancy taking on an incumbent president with with the economy as shafted as it is just incase they win?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on January 08, 2012, 02:12:47 pm

I think the issue is that Perry is just stupid. He doesn't seem to understand that the whole country hasn't been gerrymandered to provide power to the far right like texas..

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 03:24:11 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 08, 2012, 01:28:56 pm

The funny part is that if he's right, the Iranian to control of the whole of Iraq some when between his first and second syllable.

Did you by accident a word or two?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 08, 2012, 03:26:27 pm

No more posting after studying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 08, 2012, 03:52:22 pm

In all honesty, Perry has no political experience. With the way Texas's government is set up, the office of governor is little more than a figure head. The Texas legislature is where all the action goes on. Perry consistently proves this void whenever he opens his mouth.

Remind me again why he's still in the race.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 08, 2012, 04:29:19 pm

In all seriousness, because god told him so.

In backdoor sinuous circumstances, he makes other conservatives, namely Romney, look less ludicrous in comparison.

Going back to what we discussed earlier: Has Obama waged a War on Religion? (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion?sc=fb&cc=fp)

Read the whole thing, it's full of greatness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 08, 2012, 04:31:16 pm

After watching the debates

I like Huntsman the best

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 08, 2012, 05:16:16 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 08, 2012, 04:29:19 pm

Going back to what we discussed earlier: Has Obama waged a War on Religion? (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion?sc=fb&cc=fp)

Read the whole thing, it's full of greatness.

Edit: What are you trying to say with this article?  I'm seeing homophobic people/ institutions complaining about laws against homophobia?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: micelus on January 08, 2012, 05:22:18 pm

I think the message was, "Don't care what the other side does, just do what you want to do."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 05:25:40 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 08, 2012, 04:29:19 pm

Going back to what we discussed earlier: Has Obama waged a War on Religion? (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion?sc=fb&cc=fp)

And this is where things get complicated.

Bear with me here, I think I'll arrive at a point at the end.

1. The constitution is for the most part structured to support "negative" rights, ie. the right to free speech, it means you cannot be censored by the government for saying what you believe. A notable exception to this is the right to bear arms, but it still fits as it does not obligate others to aid you in exercising these rights. The idea of "negative" rights is favoured by most classical liberals such as Objectivists (But please let's leave them out of this, they're only an example) and Libertartians.

2. Following the civil rights movement of the 60s and the passage of the various civil rights bills people now have "positive" rights, which are the right to do certain things. ie black people have the right to be treated the same as white people. This view is endorsed by the "progressive" movement which wants the government to guarantee equality, not protect rights.

3. This is where the problem emerges, people have the right not to be forced to work for all people if they don't wish to. ie a store can refuse to sell to black people. They can do this because it does not violate any "negative" rights because traditionally one did not have the right to eat at a certain restaurant. However civil rights legislation says you do, which leads to fun in the supreme court as the libertarians and progressives argue over which side has primacy on this issue.

4. And that is what we see in the above article. The church has freedom to follow its religious requirements, but according to the law the people also have the right to get contraception from their counselors.

So can a church be compelled to violate its' religious beliefs to make certain that the people have access to contraception?

If Obama says yes then he is violating their right to freedom of religion, unless there is a ruling somewhere like the one we have here in Canada that you have the right to freedom of religious belief but not to religious action. However if he does not guarantee said people access to contraception then he comes under fire from the progressives who elected him. In short he chose to further alienate those who dislike him, instead of those who are voting for him.

There is also mention of pulling government funding for these programs. Is this a problem? Not in my opinion. The government is looking to make sure all the services they want are provided, and if a church cannot provide them then the government should find someone else to do it. However if they are dropped because of their religion then it is an issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 08, 2012, 05:27:48 pm

More of that. There's the saying that both sides are taking away the liberties of the others, then the "If you don't want to serve the public, don't open a business saying you will serve the public" -the conservatives whining because they won't get federal money to discriminate against gays and abortions... and finally the inference of the article which is "No, Obama is not having a War on Religion you stupid dumbasses".

@Zrk2: See what you say is right, the problem is that they have had federal funding, which was then revoked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 08, 2012, 06:03:53 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 05:25:40 pm

If Obama says yes then he is violating their right to freedom of religion, unless there is a ruling somewhere like the one we have here in Canada that you have the right to freedom of religious belief but not to religious action.

There is, in fact, exactly such a ruling. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 08, 2012, 06:13:11 pm

Well... that's gotta be a pretty obvious ruling.  Otherwise you could have people sacrificing children to their god legally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 08, 2012, 06:17:27 pm

Or polygamy, which is the reason Utah took so long to become a state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 08, 2012, 06:21:21 pm

And yet there are still polygamists. Does the law just not care, or has polygamy become legal since that ruling?

Fake Edit: Actually, probably not the place to discuss that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 08, 2012, 06:35:56 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 08, 2012, 06:21:21 pm

And yet there are still polygamists. Does the law just not care, or has polygamy become legal since that ruling?

Fake Edit: Actually, probably not the place to discuss that.

No it isn't, but to answer your question in a purely factual sense, polygamy is still illegal in the United States and how much the law cares varies by region.

Moving on...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 06:58:29 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 05:25:40 pm

3. This is where the problem emerges, people have the right not to be forced to work for all people if they don't wish to. ie a store can refuse to sell to black people. They can do this because it does not violate any "negative" rights because traditionally one did not have the right to eat at a certain restaurant. However civil rights legislation says you do, which leads to fun in the supreme court as the libertarians and progressives argue over which side has primacy on this issue.

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sneakey pete on January 08, 2012, 06:59:44 pm

Considering how much the republican candidates are going on about Iran, it would be funny if by the time the actual election comes around all the sanctions have finally had their effect and the situation is completely over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 08, 2012, 07:15:11 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 06:58:29 pm

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place :P

I'm sure you also wouldn't want to go to a hospital or school staffed by racists, even if it's the only (adequate) one in your area.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 07:34:37 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 08, 2012, 07:15:11 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 06:58:29 pm

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place :P

I'm sure you also wouldn't want to go to a hospital or school staffed by racists, even if it's the only (adequate) one in your area.

It's usually implied that there's more than one restaurant in a specific area. Obviously, it's different for public services.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 07:38:03 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 06:58:29 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 05:25:40 pm

3. This is where the problem emerges, people have the right not to be forced to work for all people if they don't wish to. ie a store can refuse to sell to black people. They can do this because it does not violate any "negative" rights because traditionally one did not have the right to eat at a certain restaurant. However civil rights legislation says you do, which leads to fun in the supreme court as the libertarians and progressives argue over which side has primacy on this issue.

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place :P

As a white guy I wouldn't go to a restaurant run by racists either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 07:41:14 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 07:38:03 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 06:58:29 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 05:25:40 pm

3. This is where the problem emerges, people have the right not to be forced to work for all people if they don't wish to. ie a store can refuse to sell to black people. They can do this because it does not violate any "negative" rights because traditionally one did not have the right to eat at a certain restaurant. However civil rights legislation says you do, which leads to fun in the supreme court as the libertarians and progressives argue over which side has primacy on this issue.

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place :P

As a white guy I wouldn't go to a restaurant run by racists either.

Well, obviously not. Though the original example was a black guy being refused service.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 08, 2012, 07:45:33 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 07:34:37 pm

It's usually implied that there's more than one restaurant in a specific area. Obviously, it's different for public services.

Yes, but a) what if the other restaurants in the area are also run/ attended by racists and b) being excluded from various private (but supposedly open to the public) businesses can quickly cause wider social exclusion and resentment among people.  They may even campaign for this exclusion to be made illegal.  Kindof like they did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: UltraValican on January 08, 2012, 08:07:29 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 08, 2012, 06:13:11 pm

Well... that's gotta be a pretty obvious ruling.  Otherwise you could have people sacrificing children to their god legally.

AWWW MAN, I wanted to become part of the skull throne.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 12:05:28 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOq3O8g1xw4

Way to read the Constitution, Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 09, 2012, 12:16:00 am

What. I don't know how he has gotten this far without reading the Constitution. It's required of all high school sophomores, why do politicians get to skip that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 12:23:36 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 09, 2012, 12:16:00 am

What. I don't know how he has gotten this far without reading the Constitution. It's required of all high school sophomores, why do politicians get to skip that?

What's really scary is how he plays it off as a fucking joke and the audience just laughs at it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 12:28:27 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 08, 2012, 07:38:03 pm

As a white guy I wouldn't go to a restaurant run by racists either.

Would you as a white person buy products made by companies that hire child workers, gather information on their employees for the authoritarian regimes, destroy essential farmland and water sources and poison people with pollutants that could be controlled for an affordable price?  Because I'll bet you dollars to yuan that in the past month you have bought products that were at least made in China in exactly that fashion.  And I don't blame you, such products are difficult for you as a consumer to avoid.  The right thing to do is for the government to ban such practices and for our government.  Boycotts can be effective but only on particularly salient points because boycotts don't spring from nothing.


If the government hadn't made white's only restaurants illegal back in the 60's, you would eat at them unless it was a particularly high profile social issue or you were particularly committed.  People in the past fought and won these battles and you dismiss them because they are already won.

So when people say this...

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 06:58:29 pm

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place :P

They are just being ignorant as to where our modern tolerance came from.  Black people don't need to patronize racists anymore because people fought those battles already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 12:44:59 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 12:28:27 am

If the government hadn't made white's only restaurants illegal back in the 60's, you would eat at them unless it was a particularly high profile social issue or you were particularly committed.  People in the past fought and won these battles and you dismiss them because they are already won.

So when people say this...

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 08, 2012, 06:58:29 pm

If I was a black guy, I wouldn't really want to go to a restaurant managed by racists in the first place :P

They are just being ignorant as to where our modern tolerance came from.  Black people don't need to patronize racists anymore because people fought those battles already.

What "battle" is that though? What "victory" was taken? The victory of being able to go to a restaurant run by racists? Oh, what fun!

It's not "patronizing" anyone, because you wouldn't go there regardless of whether or not you COULD, knowing it was run by racists.

Whether or not you go near a racist, they're still a fucking racist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 12:50:02 am

The victory of the country no longer being full of racist institutions.  Are you unaware of pre-civil rights america?

You get on a high horse about not suffering defects that aren't even an issue because of the battles fought by previous generations.  Are you also proud about never burning witches?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 01:09:58 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 12:50:02 am

The victory of the country no longer being full of racist institutions.  Are you unaware of pre-civil rights america?

You get on a high horse about not suffering defects that aren't even an issue because of the battles fought by previous generations.  Are you also proud about never burning witches?

Because a restaurant really matters that much to the country. I'm not talking about a school or hospital, or any public institution, I'm talking about a single restaurant. In fact, let's throw out the restaurant, let's say it's someone's house. They're both private property, so they're somewhat comparable. I guarantee to you a racist isn't going to stop being racist in their house.

And are you seriously saying that racism is "[not] even an issue"? In case you didn't notice, racism still exists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 09, 2012, 01:11:30 am

I'm not sure what's going on here. Is ECrownofFire saying it's actually not important at all that businesses can't refuse clients based on race?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 01:39:41 am

I wasn't clear, I meant that racism no longer exists as a social controversy.  It takes no courage to say "I'm not a racist."

How did we get that way?  Well we got that way because there were laws to grant equal rights.  The exact same rights that you are mocking as unimportant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 01:44:33 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 01:39:41 am

I wasn't clear, I meant that racism no longer exists as a social controversy.  It takes no courage to say "I'm not a racist."

How did we get that way?  Well we got that way because there were laws to grant equal rights.  The exact same rights that you are mocking as unimportant.

I just don't think that the right to go to a restaurant run by a very obviously racist person is really all that much of a right.

Would you actually go to a restaurant run by a racist? Probably not. And if you would, then you're probably a racist too. Even if they couldn't disallow people of the "wrong" race, they're still racist.

The only difference that it makes is putting racism out of sight and out of mind. As long as it's not public, it doesn't exist as far as most people are concerned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 01:51:59 am

Racism is no longer a social controversy.  It takes no courage to shun it.  Why do you keep insisting on doing so?

Are you really so naive that you think this just happened spontaneously?  Cuz it didn't.  It's the result of centuries of struggle for equality.  And now you sit here on this perch that brave people before you built with sweat, blood and courage.  And from that perch you dismiss their labors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 02:03:32 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 01:51:59 am

Racism is no longer a social controversy.  It takes no courage to shun it.  Why do you keep insisting on doing so?

Are you really so naive that you think this just happened spontaneously?  Cuz it didn't.  It's the result of centuries of struggle for equality.  And now you sit here on this perch that brave people before you built with sweat, blood and courage.  And from that perch you dismiss their labors.

Yeah, you just keep building your straw-man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 09, 2012, 02:05:07 am

As interesting a topic as that is, I found a video that Huntsman is planning on airing as an ad soon. Here (http://jon2012.com/tv-ad-fund) is the link. I couldn't find it on YouTube, so you'll have to bear with the proselytizing below. It was pretty good, up until the seemingly unnecessary "DEFEAT OBAMA!" message at the end. Maybe he's trying to rally extra super-duper support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 09, 2012, 02:10:41 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 01:51:59 am

Racism is no longer a social controversy.  It takes no courage to shun it.  Why do you keep insisting on doing so?

Are you really so naive that you think this just happened spontaneously?  Cuz it didn't.  It's the result of centuries of struggle for equality.  And now you sit here on this perch that brave people before you built with sweat, blood and courage.  And from that perch you dismiss their labors.

Racism is still a major social issue.

Don't buy into the "we elected Obama therefore racism is over!" camp. It's clearly false.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 09, 2012, 02:14:11 am

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 09, 2012, 02:10:41 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 01:51:59 am

Racism is no longer a social controversy.  It takes no courage to shun it.  Why do you keep insisting on doing so?

Are you really so naive that you think this just happened spontaneously?  Cuz it didn't.  It's the result of centuries of struggle for equality.  And now you sit here on this perch that brave people before you built with sweat, blood and courage.  And from that perch you dismiss their labors.

Racism is still a major social issue.

Don't buy into the "we elected Obama therefore racism is over!" camp. It's clearly false.

I'll buy it when people stop telling me to "Go back to Mexico/Somewhere in the Middle East." Fuck you, asshole people, I'm of Native American descent. If anyone had a right to say, "Go back from whence ye came," it'd be the Natives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 09, 2012, 02:22:28 am

To be fair, at this point you'd have to exhume quite a few wombs for people to make good on that demand. It just doesn't seem feasible. Probably need a shrink ray to cram people into corpses into corpses into corpses and so on before shipping them back overseas. It's really never really made sense to me to tell somebody to go back where they came from if they're already in the nation of their birth. Or at all, really, but even moreso for that case.

EDIT: I mean, really, humanity. Is it that hard to tell the difference between a person and a culture? Are we still so dumb that we think that's a legitimate generalization? Are we going to start stoning kids because their parents stole a loaf of bread or something?

EDIT: Actually don't answer that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 09, 2012, 02:23:05 am

Aqizzar is going to image us again if we sidetrack onto racism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 02:26:20 am

I did not say that racism doesn't exist.  I said it's not a CONTROVERSY.  It's not a controversy because the civil rights forces won.  Hence "It takes no courage to shun racism."

Never at any point did I say electing Obama meant racism is gone forever. ???

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 02:03:32 am

Yeah, you just keep building your straw-man.

What straw man?  You keep saying that people would shun racist places in response to me saying that civil rights legislation is important.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 09, 2012, 02:41:32 am

The point is not in going to racist restaurants. The point is in not allowing people to discriminate others as a principle. In restaurants or elsewhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 09, 2012, 02:49:59 am

Mainiac, you are attacking ECrown's example of the struggle between "positive" and "negative" rights (as they were called by someone on the previous page) and completely missing the point of the example. The issue has literally nothing to do with civil rights. The quality of the example is not important. The argument that he poses is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 03:59:49 am

Careful, we're gonna get the frowny dog again!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 09, 2012, 04:00:16 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2012, 01:44:33 am

I just don't think that the right to go to a restaurant run by a very obviously racist person is really all that much of a right.

Would you actually go to a restaurant run by a racist? Probably not. And if you would, then you're probably a racist too. Even if they couldn't disallow people of the "wrong" race, they're still racist.

The only difference that it makes is putting racism out of sight and out of mind. As long as it's not public, it doesn't exist as far as most people are concerned.

Do you have any grasp of American history or racial integration?

Imagine being in a town where virtually no restaurants, banks, or other businesses allowed you in, because you were the wrong skin color. This was, at one point, very much the case. Imagine that, then tell us again how legalizing racial desegregation/criminalizing discrimination doesn't involve actually important rights.

And yes, it is an important step in actually curbing real racism. If you force more integration via legislation/amendments like that, you force more commingling of races in general, cultural and socioeconomic barriers start falling, and people of different races get more used to being around one another. It is not an empty gesture.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 09, 2012, 04:50:45 am

Yes, mainiac, you say that racism as a social controversy is over. It is not. Racial discrimination is still everywhere.

To tie it into this thread: Herman Cain, former Republican presidential candidate made comments about muslims needing to do a special "loyalty oath" under his administration. Newt Gingrich actually said "black people should get off food stamps and demand paychecks" (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/3608) as if insinuating that black people are welfare bums increases his elect-ability among a certain electorate.

Racism is still a hot-button issue and the battle against it must be continued to be fought.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2012, 05:34:06 am

And yet, if you go and ask them, they'll deny being racists, inventing some weird and stupid excuse. Racism and racists still exists, and I doubt they'll ever disappear entirely, but you cannot just say "I'm racist and proud of it." anymore. And that's a victory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 05:52:09 am

A bit of light hearted news for America. Free ponies! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 09:42:31 am

Okaaaay....so, how 'bout them primaries?!

[monster truck announcer voice]
TUESDAY TUESDAY TUESDAY!! It's the 2012 GOP New Hampshire Primaries!
The state where "Live Free Or Die" isn't just a threat, it's a motto!

SEE.....the Rominator, fighting to defend his home turf!
SEE.....Rick "Frothy" Santorum, as he brings his Christian Sharia tour to face the Ring of Syrup!
SEE.....actual Jon "Bigfoot" Huntsman sightings!
SEE....."Nitro" Newt Gingrich trying to remain relevant!
SEE.....Rick "F**k all y'all Yankees, I'm in South Carolina" Perry.....or not, because he's not even bothering to show up.
[/voice]

Seriously though....this is where the culture wars get put on the side burner for a day and we get to see what the semi-sane remnant of the GOP thinks. There's still plenty of people who've bought into the BS and hate Obama for reasons they just articulate, but at least it's not about God, guns and gays to them.

Latest aggregate polling numbers, courtesy of RCP:
Romney: 38.8%
Paul: 19.8%
Huntsman: 11.2%
Santorum: 11.2%
Gingrich: 9.2%
Perry: 1%

Obviously, Romney is expected to win NH and win big. There lies the danger of expectations. If things tighten suddenly and Romney only wins with say, 25% like he did in Iowa, it'll be seen as a sign of weakness and even though he wins, it'll be a strategic loss. I think he needs to pull at least 33% to satisfy expectations. It would be stunning to see a 5 point drop in a single day, but polls and votes don't always correlate neatly. And Romney, as the established front-runner is now the main target in the King-of-the-Hill type scenario that a primary creates. he's also made a few gaffes, such as comments that suggested only rich people should run for office (although I don't think that was the intent of the comments), and for saying that he knows what it's like to worry if you're getting a pink slip (http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1394408&position=1). I think the "pink slip" comment could hang around and haunt him for a while, but it may be too late for it to do any real damage in NH.

Ron Paul appears to have a good hold on the #2 position, which will keep him in the thick of things going forward. Two consecutive top-3 finishes is a better-than-expected result for Paul at this point in the race, to be honest.

The interesting bit will be the knife-fight between Santorum and Huntsman for the #3 spot. Huntsman HAS to place in the top 3 here, or he might as well pack it up. NH is the sort of state tailor made for his style of (relatively) moderate, pragmatic Republicanism. if he loses the #3 slot to a Rick Santorum that has been regularly booed at campaign stops in the state, that's just not a good sign.

For Santorum on the other hand, this is his shot to prove that he has some kind of appeal beyond the social conservative wing. A top-3 finish validates the legitimacy of his campaign. A #4 finish in double-digits wouldn't be a bad thing either. If he winds up in single-digits, especially if he ends up behind Gingrich....I think that brings up serious questions of how far he can go beyond being a "niche" candidate in an overcrowded niche.

The big story may be the beginning of the end for Newt Gingrich. A month ago, Gingrich was polling 25% in NH, and closing in on Romney. Just a week ago, Gingrich was at least looking at a top-3 finish in NH, based on polls. Now he's in single digits and fading fast. Social conservatives in Iowa rejected him, now fiscal conservatives are rejecting him. If he fails to place here, and then fares poorly in South Carolina (where you'd hope he could at least count on his regional ties to boost him, but has plummeted in recent weeks and is now trailing Romney by 12 points) then he might go truly unhinged and we'll see another meltdown like we did early on where his campaign staff deserted him, fundraising dried up, etc.

Rick Perry....I think he's decided not to bother campaigning north of the Mason-Dixon. Considering he's only pulling 5% in South Carolina....sorry Aqizzar--you're getting your governor back.

So to sum up:
Romney has to win big to meet expectations
Santorum vs. Huntsman to stay alive
Gingrich and Perry probably dead men walking

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 09:46:07 am

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 09, 2012, 04:50:45 am

Yes, mainiac, you say that racism as a social controversy is over. It is not. Racial discrimination is still everywhere.

Did you not read my repeated clarifications here?  Racism still exists.  However it is nearly universally agreed that it is bad behavior.  Thus racism as a controversy is over.  There is no controversy over racism, (nearly) everyone agrees that it is bad.  This is in contrast to things like homophobia or nativism where many people consider them valid viewpoints.

Contrast this to 60 years ago.  If 60 years ago you said "I wouldn't ever eat at a whites only lunch counter" you would be seen as taking sides.  In some areas of the country, this would lead to being a social outcast or even getting lynched.  60 years ago, we weren't raised to be tolerant, racism was actively taught to children.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 09:53:54 am

Guys, seriously...progressive rage thread is a GREAT place to talk about this. Election thread....not so much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2012, 11:14:35 am

(http://tnypic.net/18358.png)



Honestly, I'm hoping for four more years of Democrats in the US regardless of the Republican candidate. You may not realize it, but it has a solid effect on how politics play out up here regardless of how effective it is to have in your own country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2012, 11:17:13 am

You canadian? Can You expand?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on January 09, 2012, 11:22:11 am

Yes, I'm Canadian. Basically, the US is our largest trading partner whether we like it or not. Right now, keeping our economy going requires large amounts of trade with the US, and this requires Stephan Harper to remain on good terms with the US administration. So long as the Democrats are in office, I'm only tangentially concerned about the demands being placed on us. If, however, the Americans elect a Republican government, I have no doubt that Canada is going to take an even sharper turn right as well.

And then all the people who will joke about moving here are going to be in for one hell of joke themselves.

By the way, stop making us try to adopt crazy copyright measures, please/thank you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 09, 2012, 11:33:20 am

Don't blame the Americans - our country is just the first country the big media companies conquered - mostly because they knew they could use it as such an effective stick against all the others.

Seriously, why do other countries think listening to the US government is actually a good idea? I mean, those countries that basically tell us to ship off on the copyright front all seem to be doing alright.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 11:34:40 am

I figure Canadian politicians can always just point at America and say, "Look folks...do you want to be like that? Do you? That's what I thought, eh."

Which creates two main groupings: people that want more America in their Canada, and people who want less America. The Conservatives seem to be the former group and the Liberal/NDP as the latter. But that's a very gross oversimplification obviously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 09, 2012, 02:16:39 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 05:52:09 am

A bit of light hearted news for America. Free ponies! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE)

People not voting for this guy is not doing their duty to their country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 09, 2012, 02:18:39 pm

As a Canadian I can tell you that that is correct. Interestingly enough the Conservatives won the last election with a majority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 09, 2012, 02:37:01 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 05:52:09 am

A bit of light hearted news for America. Free ponies! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE)

Ah, actually looked at that. I must say, regardless as to what he was actually saying (I had sound muted), that one has the best hat I've seen yet. Snappiest dresser, too. This thing'd be a whole lot more interesting if that was the official uniform of all presidential candidates. Also be easier to actually evaluate people on what they're saying than the pony show they're trying to run, as pretty much no one would look respectable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 02:41:44 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 09, 2012, 02:37:01 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 05:52:09 am

A bit of light hearted news for America. Free ponies! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE)

Ah, actually looked at that. I must say, regardless as to what he was actually saying (I had sound muted), that one has the best hat I've seen yet. Snappiest dresser, too. This thing'd be a whole lot more interesting if that was the official uniform of all presidential candidates. Also be easier to actually evaluate people on what they're saying than the pony show they're trying to run, as pretty much no one would look respectable.

He basically stated that he would be a benevolent dictator. With mandatory tooth-brushing laws.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 02:59:11 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 09, 2012, 02:37:01 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 05:52:09 am

A bit of light hearted news for America. Free ponies! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE)

Ah, actually looked at that. I must say, regardless as to what he was actually saying (I had sound muted), that one has the best hat I've seen yet. Snappiest dresser, too. This thing'd be a whole lot more interesting if that was the official uniform of all presidential candidates. Also be easier to actually evaluate people on what they're saying than the pony show they're trying to run, as pretty much no one would look respectable.

....there may be something to that idea. During campaign season, all candidates must appear at all public events in the same ridiculous looking outfit. Possibly an orange prison jumpsuit?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 03:03:40 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 02:41:44 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 09, 2012, 02:37:01 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 09, 2012, 05:52:09 am

A bit of light hearted news for America. Free ponies! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE)

Ah, actually looked at that. I must say, regardless as to what he was actually saying (I had sound muted), that one has the best hat I've seen yet. Snappiest dresser, too. This thing'd be a whole lot more interesting if that was the official uniform of all presidential candidates. Also be easier to actually evaluate people on what they're saying than the pony show they're trying to run, as pretty much no one would look respectable.

He basically stated that he would be a benevolent dictator. With mandatory tooth-brushing laws.

Listen to what he actually says, he perfectly parodies modern politics in a nutshell.
Clinches? Check. Stupendous attire? Check. False promises to targeted voters? Check. Appeal from controversial topics? Check.

What can this guy not do?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 09, 2012, 03:06:59 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 02:59:11 pm

....there may be something to that idea. During campaign season, all candidates must appear at all public events in the same ridiculous looking outfit. Possibly an orange prison jumpsuit?

The best one I've heard is a jumpsuit with sponsor logos, like NASCAR or F1 drivers.

In other news;

Mitt Romney's teenage Vietnam protest photos have been brought to light. (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/172731/mitt-romney-loved-vietnam-draft-he-purposefully-avoided/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 09, 2012, 03:39:25 pm

Holy. Crap.  Mitt Romney cosplaying a hippie, carrying pro-draft signs?  Y'know, I might start to believe him when he says he's not really a politician, he clearly didn't expect to be one until 1994.

Quote from: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 09:42:31 am

Okaaaay....so, how 'bout them primaries?!

[monster truck announcer voice]
TUESDAY TUESDAY TUESDAY!! It's the 2012 GOP New Hampshire Primaries!
The state where "Live Free Or Die" isn't just a threat, it's a motto!

SEE.....the Rominator, fighting to defend his home turf!
SEE.....Rick "Frothy" Santorum, as he brings his Christian Sharia tour to face the Ring of Syrup!
SEE.....actual Jon "Bigfoot" Huntsman sightings!
SEE....."Nitro" Newt Gingrich trying to remain relevant!
SEE.....Rick "F**k all y'all Yankees, I'm in South Carolina" Perry.....or not, because he's not even bothering to show up.
[/voice]

So to sum up:
Romney has to win big to meet expectations
Santorum vs. Huntsman to stay alive
Gingrich and Perry probably dead men walking

Couldn't have put it better myself, especially the contest for third-place between the high-concept standard bearers of Huntsman and Santorum.  I don't even know who to root for - Huntsman deserves the respect, but I'd love to see Santorum stay on stage.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see one of them knock Ron Paul down into third-place - New Hampshire has always been Paul's blossom orchid, not least because if you go there and look around, most of the Paul supporters you'll find don't live in the state.

I suspect if Huntsman manages to stay in the top-three, especially if he upsets Paul, he'll become the new Anti-Romney as Gingrich supporters flee to him in droves.  Santorum will still be in the race going into South Carolina, as the last cultural conservative standing now that even the rest of Dixie has come to see what an ass he is.  But if Santorum blocks out Huntsman, he'll be gone, and Gingrich will keep fighting to stay alive in South Carolina as the race rapidly narrows into Romney, Santorum, and Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 04:34:22 pm

I have a hard time picturing Huntsman becoming the Anti-Romney, simply because from what I can tell most of the social conservatives see him as Romney Lite. Or possibly Romney without the flip-flopping. I don't think the social conservatives will ever cleave to Huntsman just to ward off Romney. If it came down to that, they'd just abstain all together and start railing about how God is going to rain down fire and brimstone after the election because the GOP has lost its way or some shit (I'll leave it to Pat Robertson to come up with the specifics).

Huntsman's only real hope is that he can draw enough of the Gingrich and Romney camps that are fed up with those candidate's own respective baggages and see him as a "close enough" version of what they liked about Gingrich/Romney in the first place. I don't think you'll see too many Ron Paul supporters switch over, as Paul steadily tacks towards the xenophobia/isolationist stance and Huntsman stakes out a much more engaged foreign policy stance. Jon's really screwed in that respect -- he'll never be able to get much draw from the social conservatives or the libertarian/paleoconservatives. He's got to rely on the fiscal conservatives, moderates and independents, who aren't exactly the strongest faction of the party of late. Meanwhile he has to also hope that the Santorum and Paul camps remain at arm's length and don't form an unholy alliance against him (Romney has to worry about this as well, but he's got a much bigger cushion in the polls to help absorb any attacks).

It's definitely going to be interesting. If Romney cleans house here and then wins SC with 30% or better, this thing could be over before it really got started. Which might actually be good for the Democrats in a way -- if the primary race seems to be over after the first 3-4 states, there's going to be a LOT of disenchanted Republicans who are going to feel like they got Romney foisted on them thanks to a small handful of people without their having any say in the matter. Might be a good time for Ron Paul to make a 3rd party bid or even (longshot, but...) some kind of social conservative rebellion within the party leading to a 3rd party bid by the likes of Santorum under a "Tea Party for Jesus" banner. Wouldn't THAT be a hoot?

Also....AM radio host Mark Levin and some other conservative activists reportedly have a message for Ron Paul:
Make a third-party bid, and we'll leave a horse's head in your son's Senate race. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/02/levin_threatens_to_campaign_against_rand_paul_if_ron_paul_runs_third_party.html)  :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 09, 2012, 04:40:18 pm

I'd love for Paul to start making third party bids. The Republicans might actually consider switching to an AV system at that point. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 09, 2012, 04:46:21 pm

So uh... I take it that Mark Levin is massively popular and influential in Kentucky, and that his threat will leave Rand Paul quivering in terror and not shaking his head in slight bemusement?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 05:01:15 pm

I don't see this race ending quickly.  Suppose Romney sweeps N.H. and South Carolina.  Well that means a lot of candidates will drop out, leaving only Romney, Paul and one tea party guy like Sanatorum or Perry.  With all the crowding out in the republican field ended, the most conservative candidate should start shooting up in the polls.  Not saying that Romney isn't the favorite, but I really don't think this will end at South Carolina or Florida.  There will be at least 1 or 2 competitive primaries after that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 09, 2012, 05:03:56 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 09, 2012, 04:46:21 pm

So uh... I take it that Mark Levin is massively popular and influential in Kentucky, and that his threat will leave Rand Paul quivering in terror and not shaking his head in slight bemusement?

IIRC he is a Tea Party anti-establishment figure with some clout. A bit like a localised Glen Beck. Alone he wouldn't take him down. Alongside a more broad based attack... it wouldn't help.

Thing is the actual establishment are pretty much guaranteed to do the same thing if Rand was to support his dad in a third party run. It's one of the reasons a few people have speculated over Ron setting up for Rand in 2016/20. Rand holds a more high profile position with considerably more party clout, as well as real clout, as a Senator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 05:05:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac

Sanatorum

i c wat u did dere

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 05:05:58 pm

Y'know, it just dawned on me exactly how Rick Perry could revive us campaign, particularly in the Bible Belt:

Claim Defender of the Faith title for Protestants. (EU3 reference)

Seriously, look at who's left:

Romney (Mormon)
Huntsman (Mormon)
Santorum (Catholic)
Gingrich (he might pander to using his religion as a selling point, but that's not his style. Plus the whole divorce/affair things...)
Paul (generally wants to stay out of pushing religion as a Federal government responsibility)

Rick Perry is the last hope of the WASPs. If he really wanted to burn those bridges, he could even insinuate that without him, it'd be a contest between a non-Christian and a non-Christian.  :P

This really is a big deal though. It could be the first time that the Republicans nominate a non-Protestant (although I suppose that's a point of contention. Nixon and Hoover were Quakers, Taft was a Unitarian).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 05:06:21 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 05:05:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac

Sanatorum

i c wat u did dere

Spelled badly?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 09, 2012, 05:06:43 pm

I honestly think that a cultural WASP would be perfectly happy with a Catholic, as long as he says everything they want to hear.  It's not the 1950s anymore, and Cathoic is "generally Christian" enough for just about anyone in America.  Certainly a lot more than Mormon, or what people generally think of as Mormon.

Quote from: RedKing on January 09, 2012, 04:34:22 pm

I have a hard time picturing Huntsman becoming the Anti-Romney, simply because from what I can tell most of the social conservatives see him as Romney Lite. Or possibly Romney without the flip-flopping. I don't think the social conservatives will ever cleave to Huntsman just to ward off Romney. If it came down to that, they'd just abstain all together and start railing about how God is going to rain down fire and brimstone after the election because the GOP has lost its way or some shit (I'll leave it to Pat Robertson to come up with the specifics).

Huntsman's only real hope is that he can draw enough of the Gingrich and Romney camps that are fed up with those candidate's own respective baggages and see him as a "close enough" version of what they liked about Gingrich/Romney in the first place.

That was what I was going for, but I didn't really think about the Romney-Lite aspect, and you are correct.  In my hypothetical, Huntsman becomes the "moderate" alternative to Romney, for "moderates" who want an all-business candidate and don't want Romney.  Obviously that would leave pretty much all of the cultural wing of the party out in the cold, which is how Santorum would survive.  If Huntsman comes out of New Hampshire in third or second, it'll be a very fractured four-way race.  If it's Santorum, it'll narrow to two (and Paul) pretty much immediately.

I just remember the other reason South Carolina will be an interesting watch.  Governor Nikki Haley there rode into office as a Tea Party poster-girl, and endorsed Mitt Romney (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/mitt-romney-nikki-haley-endorsement-/1) back in mid-December and is catching a lot of crap for it.  There's a lot of ways you could read that: A pragmatic politician reading the likely future, a case-study of the "Tea Party" ethos being bought out, or maybe just an honest tone-deaf personal decision.  I doubt it'll ultimately matter for much in the primary, but it's another fascinating intellectual battleground for the Republican soul.  It's worth remembering though that for all of Mitt Romney's financial backing, he's yet to secure the nod from corporate giants like the Koch Foundation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 09, 2012, 05:08:13 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 05:06:21 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 05:05:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac

Sanatorum

i c wat u did dere

Spelled badly?

Humorously, any misspelling of Santorum is actually less insulting than spelling it correctly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 05:10:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 09, 2012, 05:06:21 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 09, 2012, 05:05:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac

Sanatorum

i c wat u did dere

Spelled badly?

Never mind, I was thinking of the wrong word.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 09, 2012, 05:11:02 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 09, 2012, 05:03:56 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 09, 2012, 04:46:21 pm

So uh... I take it that Mark Levin is massively popular and influential in Kentucky, and that his threat will leave Rand Paul quivering in terror and not shaking his head in slight bemusement?

IIRC he is a Tea Party anti-establishment figure with some clout. A bit like a localised Glen Beck. Alone he wouldn't take him down. Alongside a more broad based attack... it wouldn't help.

Thing is the actual establishment are pretty much guaranteed to do the same thing if Rand was to support his dad in a third party run. It's one of the reasons a few people have speculated over Ron setting up for Rand in 2016/20. Rand holds a more high profile position with considerably more party clout, as well as real clout, as a Senator.

And also less baggage, I presume?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 09, 2012, 05:15:59 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 09, 2012, 05:11:02 pm

And also less baggage, I presume?

Sure. Rand can still be tagged with the racist accusations for some of his ideological stands (cf. Maddow interview, civil rights act) but he doesn't have the whole history of pandering to militia types in all their paranoid and racist flavours.


Everyone seen the Newt backed anti-Romney trailer? (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/01/09/will-the-bain-attacks-hurt-mitt/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 09, 2012, 07:17:34 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 09, 2012, 05:15:59 pm

Everyone seen the Newt backed anti-Romney trailer? (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/01/09/will-the-bain-attacks-hurt-mitt/)

Yes, and it says volumes about the future of the election.  Newt Gingrich has apparently decided to do what he does best, scorch the earth behind.  It's not hard to picture him still showing up at the Republican Convention to "endorse" Romney should he win the delegation, but it's not going to mean anything to be sure.  He's going out in a blaze of glory and leaving his party behind, because if Romney is the nominee, all President Obama has to do is take that ad, put his name on the end, and air it 24/7.  Gingrich is basically saying, "If it's not me, let it be anybody but Romney."

It's also going to give some Republican spindoctors like Frank Luntz the workout of a lifetime, when Romney eventually hires to prove that he's simultaneously not a bad guy for firing people, and that Bain-style "efficiency expert" venture capitalism isn't exactly what the Republican party has been selling for thirty years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Africa on January 09, 2012, 07:26:35 pm

I have to assume Romney will end up winning, because the entire Republican establishment, realizing he's their only hope for 2012, will pour everything they have into making sure he gets elected. Given the evidence indicates the electorate is retarded enough to bounce from Bachmann to Perry to Cain (and so on) in such a short period of time, they shouldn't be that hard to sway. Hell, just pay Fox News to advertise Romney as the sole protestant candidate in a sea of Mormons and Catholics. I bet a lot of people would believe it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 09, 2012, 09:11:41 pm

Que? (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/09/1053143/-Chris-Christie-responds-to-protester-with-gibberish,-Republicans-swoon)

Quote

    When a heckler yelled, "Christie kills jobs," Christie was ready with a response - New Jersey style.

    "Really?" Christie replied. "Something may go down tonight but it's not going to be jobs, sweetheart."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Realmfighter on January 09, 2012, 09:14:57 pm

Is it weird that I read that as a poor quality sexual innuendo?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 09, 2012, 09:20:07 pm

Quote from: Realmfighter on January 09, 2012, 09:14:57 pm

Is it weird that I read that as a poor quality sexual innuendo?

No. Of all the options, that makes the most sense. What a horrifying world we live in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 09, 2012, 09:54:49 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on January 09, 2012, 09:20:07 pm

Quote from: Realmfighter on January 09, 2012, 09:14:57 pm

Is it weird that I read that as a poor quality sexual innuendo?

No. Of all the options, that makes the most sense. What a horrifying world we live in.

I had assumed this, as well as (from the name) that Christie was a female politician in the mould of Palin.

Then I clicked the link.

Severe cognitive dissonance followed. Also, I think I need some brain bleach.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 09, 2012, 10:01:14 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 09, 2012, 09:54:49 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on January 09, 2012, 09:20:07 pm

Quote from: Realmfighter on January 09, 2012, 09:14:57 pm

Is it weird that I read that as a poor quality sexual innuendo?

No. Of all the options, that makes the most sense. What a horrifying world we live in.

I had assumed this, as well as (from the name) that Christie was a female politician in the mould of Palin.

Then I clicked the link.

Severe cognitive dissonance followed. Also, I think I need some brain bleach.

Let me know if you find any. I'm fresh out after listening to Rick Perry's latest bigotry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 09, 2012, 10:35:42 pm

I found it's best to just watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaEmCFiNqP0) on loop until your brain is mush.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 10, 2012, 09:10:04 am

Quote from: palsch on January 09, 2012, 05:15:59 pm

Everyone seen the Newt backed anti-Romney trailer? (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/01/09/will-the-bain-attacks-hurt-mitt/)

Wow. Yeah, like Aqizzar said, Obama'll have a field day with that one.

Well done Newt; liberals everywhere salute you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 10, 2012, 09:13:15 am

Best candidate for president so far (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 09:16:13 am

The Gingrich anti-Romney ad is also the newest test case of the effects of Citizens United. Why? Well pull up a seat, childrens, and Ol' Brer RedKing will tell y'all a tale about the Poor Elephant and the Rich Elephant.


The Poor Elephant's name was Newt, and he was in a fight something fierce for the Best Elephant in America contest, but he done spent all his money and people were all ignorin' him and looking at this real fancy elephant named Mitt. Well, a Rich Elephant by the name of Sheldon (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us/politics/sheldon-adelson-a-billionaire-gives-gingrich-a-big-lift.html?_r=2&hp) was a friend of Newt's, and he come up with a plan. By the rules, he couldn't give Newt any more money. But he could give money to a group of people who would go out and sing "We Love Newt, Newt is neat, Newt is the best elephant on the street!" and "Mitt is ugly, Mitt has a cough, Mitt made his money laying people off" all day long. So this group went on down to South Carolina and put a singer on every street corner. And that's how the Rich Elephant tried to buy a whole state for his good friend the Poor Elephant.


No shit. Sheldon Adelson, casino tycoon and friend of Gingrich, dropped a cool $5 million into a Gingrich-aligned SuperPAC, which then turned around and spent $3.4 million in ad buys in South Carolina. According to the numbers I heard, that means the average TV viewer in South Carolina will see their ad some 70 times a day. For some comparison, Adelson put in $5 million in one go into the SuperPAC. Bachmann didn't raise that much money in an entire quarter. And Adelson's maximum personal contribution to the Gingrich campaign proper was $5,000. So he's only getting around it to the tune of 1000x his contribution limit.

Of course, the Gingrich camp would claim that it's only fighting fire with fire, as Romney-aligned SuperPACs were partly responsible for Gingrich's recent plummet in the polls with the ad blitz they ran in Iowa and New Hampshire. But as far as I'm aware in those instances, there wasn't a single contributor that was so dominant the way that Adelson is here. This is remarkable. In theory, somebody with the pockets of a Bill Gates (or a Rupert Murdoch) could single-handedly finance a candidate, support them with a monster SuperPAC, and in return expect that candidate to be a literal mouthpiece for their views.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2012, 09:25:50 am

Honestly, you guys should just go the extra miles and edit your constitution so that you can buy votes directly from the government. At least you could fund your debt that way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2012, 10:05:48 am

...Didn't Gingrich recently say he had lots of dirt on yhe others, but wasn't going to use it? ;D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Maggarg - Eater of chicke on January 10, 2012, 10:10:33 am

Rick Santorum is amazingly crazy. Reading some of the things he says is a right hoot, I tells you. In the UK, we only get that from the parties that get like 3000 votes in an election and occasionally pop up in an article where they deny how insane one of their aides is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 10:18:43 am

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 10:05:48 am

...Didn't Gingrich recently say he had lots of dirt on yhe others, but wasn't going to use it? ;D

He also said "till death do us part" 3 times. At least twice he was lying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 10, 2012, 11:41:03 am

Quote from: Maggarg - Eater of chicke on January 10, 2012, 10:10:33 am

Rick Santorum is amazingly crazy. Reading some of the things he says is a right hoot, I tells you. In the UK, we only get that from the parties that get like 3000 votes in an election and occasionally pop up in an article where they deny how insane one of their aides is.

Seems like Nick Griffin might be well liked by some sectors of US politics. [/irony]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Maggarg - Eater of chicke on January 10, 2012, 12:08:22 pm

much as I hate to say it, Nick Griffin seems too sensible to be a republican candidate, besides which the BNP have some ostensibly environmentally friendly policies which I imagine wouldn't go down too well in some places.

England First and the EDL and whatever's left of the National Front might be mad and fascististic enough though.

Speaking of fascism, isn't it ironic how Mr. Santorum decries "islamic fascism" whilst calling for people to be monitored in case their sex life is too risque or they use contraceptives? tbh I'm quite glad that he's unelectable - he looks quite high in the polls but as far as I know, Americans generally don't like much government interference in their lives so a man as batshit insane as Santorum really has no chance, I think his position in the polls is just a large blip.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 10, 2012, 12:21:30 pm

He's high in the polls among registered Republican voters, and even then he's only at about 20%, still behind Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 12:21:47 pm

Problem is, to the sort of folks who are inclined towards Santorum government morality policing != "intrusive government" (as long as it's Christian morality).

But yeah, he's got a snowball's chance in Hell of actually being elected. If the GOP were to derp hard enough to nominate him, Obama would have the biggest landslide victory since Reagan-Mondale.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 10, 2012, 12:23:47 pm

Which is why I really really hope he gets the nomination. Nothing would do more to turn out the liberals and independents than the threat of a President Santorum, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 12:37:26 pm

Latest NH polls are intriguing:

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-01-10-Blumenthal-NHchart201201102.png)

Romney has had about about an 8-point drop in the last couple of days, not enough to put the race in doubt for him, but certainly a sign that the attacks on him are starting to actually have an effect.

Paul has dropped a couple of points, possibly backlash for the Paul-aligned PAC's ads calling Huntsman "the Manchurian Candidate".

Santorum and Gingrich have each gained a point or two, but the big story is Jon Huntsman. He's nearly doubled his number in the Granite State in the last 3 days, from around 8-9% to 16.6%. He's within less than a percentage point of Ron Paul, who is sitting at 17.4%. Given the time-delay between poll results and the actual reality on the ground, there's a very good chance that Huntsman overtakes Paul and grabs 2nd place in New Hampshire.

It will also be key to see where Romney's final numbers end up. If that trend holds, he could wind up with a lukewarm win in the low 30s, which would make him look weak and give encouragement to all the other candidates to stay in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 10, 2012, 12:39:38 pm

Is this the beginning of Huntsman's turn at being Not-Romney? I certainly looks like a possibility!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 12:55:28 pm

Well and the other big thing is that this is the first real drop we've seen for Romney. All the previous Anti-Romney surges have come mostly at the expense of the previous contender(s) for the Anti-Romney title. Now we're starting to see not only Huntsman jump, but mild jumps for Gingrich and Santorum. Now, we also may be seeing just a normalizing of support for Romney, because he got a boost in most state polls after Iowa. That boost may be wearing off and reversing now. You'll know he's in real trouble if/when his support in those states drops below the pre-Iowa levels. You're also seeing an uptick in the severity of attacks from Huntsman on Romney, with him recently calling Romney "unelectable" as a candidate. That's going to make for awkward family gatherings (Huntsman and Romney are 3rd cousins once removed, in case you didn't know).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 10, 2012, 01:30:08 pm

Is that a bad thing, or is there another non-insane candidate? Or was Romney just the least insane of them?
I'm not keeping track of all the candidates but Romney was one of the few that came on the Dutch news when the reporter listed a few. It was basically moderate Romney, extremist Ron Paul and some other person.

And awesome Bachman of course. Is she still in the race? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 10, 2012, 01:59:34 pm

Rick Perry accidentally accurate about his SC campaign. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/rick-perry-south-carolina-the-alamo_n_1192915.html)

Also the 538 forecast for NH. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/new-hampshire-primary-overview-and-forecast/) They don't mention Buddy Roemer who has shown similar levels of support to Perry. He isn't included because, well, he had to ask nicely to even be included in the polls. He is polling 1-3% (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NH_108.pdf) depending on the poll. Perry is at 1-2%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 10, 2012, 02:22:54 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on January 10, 2012, 01:30:08 pm

And awesome Bachman of course. Is she still in the race? :P

Nope.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 02:25:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 09:16:13 am

The Poor Elephant's name was Newt, and he was in a fight something fierce for the Best Elephant in America contest, but he done spent all his money and people were all ignorin' him and looking at this real fancy elephant named Mitt. Well, a Rich Elephant by the name of Sheldon (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us/politics/sheldon-adelson-a-billionaire-gives-gingrich-a-big-lift.html?_r=2&hp) was a friend of Newt's, and he come up with a plan. By the rules, he couldn't give Newt any more money. But he could give money to a group of people who would go out and sing "We Love Newt, Newt is neat, Newt is the best elephant on the street!" and "Mitt is ugly, Mitt has a cough, Mitt made his money laying people off" all day long. So this group went on down to South Carolina and put a singer on every street corner. And that's how the Rich Elephant tried to buy a whole state for his good friend the Poor Elephant.

That's goin' in the OP.

Quote from: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 09:16:13 am

No shit. Sheldon Adelson, casino tycoon and friend of Gingrich, dropped a cool $5 million into a Gingrich-aligned SuperPAC, which then turned around and spent $3.4 million in ad buys in South Carolina. According to the numbers I heard, that means the average TV viewer in South Carolina will see their ad some 70 times a day. For some comparison, Adelson put in $5 million in one go into the SuperPAC. Bachmann didn't raise that much money in an entire quarter. And Adelson's maximum personal contribution to the Gingrich campaign proper was $5,000. So he's only getting around it to the tune of 1000x his contribution limit.

This isn't even all of the context you could give it.  The 2008 Democratic primary was the biggest funded primary ever in South Carolina.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each spent about $1.5Million.  Newt Gingrich, who isn't anywhere close to the lead, is prepared to drop more than both of them combined thanks to one guy, who we only even know about because he was willing to say so of his own accord.

There's already a feeling out there that it may be exactly this kind of dynamic that finally gets a more solid law or even a genuine amendment (or at least a serious attempt at one) for controls of campaign spending at least, if not donations and PACs.  Not necessarily because of the inherent shadiness of it, but the inanity.  This cycle around, it's looking like both the Democratic and Republican campaigns and their aligned PACs are likely to spend around a billion dollars each on advertising.  Five million bucks is buying Gingrich enough airtime for the Nielsen average viewer to see "his" messages that don't even have his name on them seventy times a day.  There's a point of diminishing returns that was already seen in Iowa - there's only so many times you can advertise a candidate, especially with non-TV methods like mailers and autodialers (the average Iowan was getting something like six calls a night by the end) before you've not only saturated the market, but you start pissing off voters, especially your all-important swing voters who may decide to not vote at all.

In the end, it might not be principle or honesty that brings controls on American elections, but irritation and disgust when the Silent Majority says, "Enough is enough, stop with the goddamn ads."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 03:16:38 pm

Happy to help.  :D

And yeah, I gotta think after 70 times a day the ads are not only going to lose their impact, they're going to become meme fodder.

I can't decide which would be better:
1. Gingrich STILL got steamrolled in South Carolina by Romney, thus hopefully sending a message that massive influxes of cash can't fix a broken candidate, or
2. Gingrich rebounds huge, thus demonstrating what a corrupting influence allowing that kind of SuperPAC shenanigans has on elections and hopefully encouraging politicians to fix it quick. Cause otherwise future races will be all about who can get enough various uber-rich kingmakers on their side. The "little guy" won't amount to squat.



EDIT: Epic LOL on the Perry Alamo thing. Cue "WHAT? We lost that one? Uhh..I meant...it's like that 300 movie where them Greek fellas fought off like a zillion I-ranians and that big freaky dude."  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2012, 03:40:54 pm

#2 would be awesome. The US would turn into some weird medieval-capitalist hybrid. Cue a game of thrones!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 10, 2012, 03:46:42 pm

The key is that if those ads are ATTACK ads, and your name isn't associated with them, guess who's going to end up getting the negative impact from them becoming frustratingly common or even being frustratingly bad?

Actually, I wonder how long it will take the super pacs to start running campaigns FOR a (opposed) politician that are so bad people decide not to vote for them because of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 03:59:37 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 03:40:54 pm

#2 would be awesome. The US would turn into some weird medieval-capitalist hybrid. Cue a game of thrones!

Yay for Feudal Capitalism. It'd kind of be like the Sengoku, where daimyo needed the support of the growing merchant classes to feed and equip their armies. Only instead of samurai fighting it out in awesome katana duels, we'd have spin doctors and pundits yelling at each other on cable TV news programs. Way less cool.

@GlyphGryph: According to Ron Paul supporters, those anti-Huntsman ads in NH are exactly what you're describing -- a false-flag operation running a commercial so patently offensive that it's designed to backfire. Who knows? Thanks to the joke of campaign finance reform and the nature of Youtube, it's the Wild Motherfuckin' West now. Hell, I could hack together some clips of Santorum to make it look like he's saying "I love to take it in the ass" and then slap on Vote Romney at the end.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2012, 04:15:44 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 03:59:37 pm

Yay for Feudal Capitalism. It'd kind of be like the Sengoku, where daimyo needed the support of the growing merchant classes to feed and equip their armies. Only instead of samurai fighting it out in awesome katana duels, we'd have spin doctors and pundits yelling at each other on cable TV news programs. Way less cool.

You know what needs to be done. Introduce melee to the debates. A challenge of both wit and weaponry!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 04:21:13 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 04:15:44 pm

You know what needs to be done. Introduce melee to the debates. A challenge of both wit and weaponry!

"I believe my esteemed opponent fights like a dairy farmer."

"How appropriate then that the gentleman fights like a cow."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 10, 2012, 04:22:24 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 03:59:37 pm

Hell, I could hack together some clips of Santorum to make it look like he's saying "I love to take it in the ass" and then slap on Vote Romney at the end.

Do It!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2012, 04:24:10 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 04:21:13 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 04:15:44 pm

You know what needs to be done. Introduce melee to the debates. A challenge of both wit and weaponry!

"I believe my esteemed opponent fights like a dairy farmer."

"How appropriate then that the gentleman fights like a cow."

It will be great fun untill somebody brings a gun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 04:25:59 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 04:24:10 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 04:21:13 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 04:15:44 pm

You know what needs to be done. Introduce melee to the debates. A challenge of both wit and weaponry!

"I believe my esteemed opponent fights like a dairy farmer."

"How appropriate then that the gentleman fights like a cow."

It will be great fun untill somebody brings a gun.

And then, say hello to President Perry.  Suddenly this doesn't seem like such a hot idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2012, 04:33:10 pm

You simply need to add bullet-cleaving to your Elite Liberal Katana Training Programme.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 10, 2012, 04:36:07 pm

Well, it is New Hampshire primary season, and if things carry on like early voting - Obama is the real winner of the Republican primary. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/01/10/in_dixville_notch_its_a_romney_huntsman_tie/)

No shit. In a "useless" race where Obama is running unopposed in the Democratic primary, he is still drawing more votes than almost all the Republicans combined in the open primary. Most Independents are voting Republican to actually have a say. Obviously New England is typically liberal territory, but this doesn't bode well for the Republican chances up north.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 10, 2012, 04:42:47 pm

I'd like to see how the results look when more than 23 votes are cast, but it's no secret that Obama is using this time to build up his organization. I'm not sure what effect Citizens United will have on the main race, but if Obama can attract the kinds of money and grassroots support he had in 2008 then he'll have no problem with the upcoming election, especially if the Republicans keep trying their hardest to burn each other to the ground.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 04:51:22 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 10, 2012, 04:36:07 pm

Well, it is New Hampshire primary season, and if things carry on like early voting - Obama is the real winner of the Republican primary. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/01/10/in_dixville_notch_its_a_romney_huntsman_tie/)

No shit. In a "useless" race where Obama is running unopposed in the Democratic primary, he is still drawing more votes than almost all the Republicans combined in the open primary. Most Independents are voting Republican to actually have a say. Obviously New England is typically liberal territory, but this doesn't bode well for the Republican chances up north.

I've been seeing a number of  reports that primary turnout is way down compared to 2008. Dunno if it's a sign of voter apathy about the field of candidates, or resignation that Obama is getting four more years (thanks to the field of candidates).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 10, 2012, 05:58:52 pm

Melee debates makes an MZ-for-president scenario much more likely. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2012, 06:13:03 pm

I imagine it to go something like:

"And to decrease the economic deficit I will introduce measures such as FACEPUNCH!"

...and then you suddenly find a sword in your stomach.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 10, 2012, 07:39:50 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 04:51:22 pm

I've been seeing a number of  reports that primary turnout is way down compared to 2008. Dunno if it's a sign of voter apathy about the field of candidates, or resignation that Obama is getting four more years (thanks to the field of candidates).

Iowa was slightly up (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-09/iowa-turnout-barely-tops-2008-number-as-voter-enthusiasm-muted.html). I can't find any extrapolated numbers for NH yet (given the polls aren't all closed yet), but predictions were record turnout thanks to global warming unseasonably good weather. There were a few rumours that confused rumours about voter ID laws might chase some people away.

Of course, Iowa was predicted to have massive turnout which is why the article treated a record high as a fizzle. If that happens in NH as well it could set up a nasty narrative. It's all about expectations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 07:52:00 pm

It's game time! As the above poster mentioned, CNN is saying record turnout. Guess people waited till the afternoon to get their vote on.

With 7% reporting (so basically, just pissing in the wind and readin' tea leaves here), it's:

36% - Romney
25% - Paul
15% - Huntsman
11% - Gingrich
10% - Santorum
1% - Perry
Free drink w/ purchase of next Happy Meal - Roemer


Interesting developments today as Ron Paul came out defending Romney's recent comments about "liking to fire people" and his record at Bain Capital. Gentleman's agreement to band together against Gingrich, Perry et. al?


EDIT: Also, New Hampshire only has 10 counties, so this should be a mercifully short period of punditry and number-crunching. At least until the "what does it all mean?" phase. Which will go on from the end of the vote count until at least South Carolina.


DOUBLE-EDIT: It is also worth knowing (okay, not really) that there are 30 candidates on the primary ballot in NH, plus the write-in option. Who the hell are all these people? Well, let's just say they make Buddy Roemer look like Kim Kardashian in terms of name recognition (http://www.cabinet.com/cabinetcabinetnews/945434-308/milford-man-among-gop-primary-candidates.html). Hell, if I'd have known it was that easy, I'd have gotten on the ballot myself. There is one guy from North Carolina running, but considering his platform is essentially "I'm an Anti-Semite, and I approve this message, you commie Jewbag" (http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=90) I'm really glad nobody knows about that fact.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 08:08:12 pm

As we wait for the New Hampshire vote to come in (last polls closed a few minutes ago, early count showing Romney under 40%, Huntsmann in a commanding third), I think we should all take a moment to reflect on the incredible explosion of people attacking Mitt Romney for his history with Bain Capital.

Everyone, absolutely everyone, was expecting that the main thrust against Romney from his fellow Republican candidates would be the Massachusetts healthcare mandate, and his relatively moderate history in the one office he's held.  In the last few days, it's been his career as a venture capitalist, culminating in what could be two of the defining creations of this election.  One is the half-hour video produced by a pro-Gingrich PAC interviewing people who worked at companies Bain Capital bought, who were subsequently laid off.  It could be a production by MoveOn for the tenor.

And the other was Romney's response to it.  Speaking to the local Chamber of Commerce (businessmen all), Romney was trying to make an argument against state-ist economics, and the virtues of the free market, about how business thrives when you have the power to refuse a supplier and take your business elsewhere (specifically insurance providers).  And in the middle of this, the section of Romney's brain that wants him to sound agreeable and ingratiating at all times no matter how inappropriate made him glibly blurt out, "I like being able to fire people." (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/why-you-cannot-say-you-like-firing-people/251123/)  He meant "fire" an insurance company from supplying a business, but all context disappears when you hear it said, and Google already relables it "I like firing people".

What makes it significant is how the rest of the Republican field has reacted to it.  Rick Perry's campaign released a ringtone of the line on repeat, labeling him a "vulture capitalist"; Santorum said nobody wants to vote a guy who reminds you of your boss; fake "Pink Slips" being handed out around the state, and the rest of the field have been bashing away in time, especially Gingrich.  For anyone who's had the slightest conception of American politics prior to Wednesday, this is jawdropping.  It makes sense in the moment of course, since especially in a bad economy no candidate wants to sound they're in favor of firing people; talk job-creation job-creation all day long (whatever it may be code for that day).  But firing people is inherent to the process of management, especially venture capitalism.  In any other time, any of these same candidates, if they weren't running against Romney, would be lauding him for his appreciation of the hard realities of running a business, declaring it a fine mark of executive experience and that America needs a realistic President like that.  Objection would be met with the reminder that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and calling into question any element of venture capitalism, down to its philosophical underpinnings of efficiency, would be called singing the praises of Chairman Mao.

In this of all years, in this of all races, we're seeing Republican candidates piling onto one of their own for, essentially, being too business savvy.  Somewhere in Zuccotti Park, there's a shiftless art-major reading the story on his iPhone and thinking, "Are we winning?"  This is going to be a wild race, especially if this becomes Romney's Dean-Scream.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 08:13:18 pm

Iknorite? Cue the delicious, syrupy irony of Republicans savaging Romney for being....a capitalist.
 
Oh. My. God. We....we finally did. We got the GOP to go so fucking over the edge that they came out the other side. If Santorum and Perry sing Kumbaya while knitting sweaters out of organic hemp, imma lose it.

14% reporting now. AP has called the race for Romney (big surprise there), but his share is settling in around 35%. Ron Paul around 24-25% with a solid grip on 2nd. Huntsman with 17.5%, solidly in 3rd. Gingrich is barely in double-digits, leading Santorum by about 300 votes. How the #4 spot spins out could be interesting but I don't see a big shift happening there.

So far, here's my take:

Romney performing pretty much about where he's expected to (although I saw Gingrich making a laughable attempt to inflate the expectations by telling CNN that anything below 50% should call into question Romney's front-runner status). Ron Paul continues to establish himself as a legitimate contender (and continues to net some delegates). Huntsman's expected top-3 finish gives him some momentum and a chance to get into the national spotlight finally. Gingrich, if he stays above 10% and finishes above Santorum, keeps himself alive at least until South Carolina. Santorum....meh, no real loss because he wasn't expected to do all that hot anyways. Perhaps a slight underperform versus the recent polls. Perry...he's too busy remembering which side won the Alamo.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 10, 2012, 08:14:22 pm

The big reference as far as I care;

Romney, 2008;
75,546 votes, 32.17%

From Iowa;
2008: 30,021 votes, 25.19%
2012: 30,015 votes, 24.55%

Right now he really should see a decent increase in both percent and vote total. If he doesn't then the easy narrative is that he simply can't convert any new voters even with four years campaigning and massive investment.

Right now he is around 35-6% and it looks like that might stick. I'd have said that's a poor result, particularly compared to the predictions. The 538 projection, based on the best analysis of the polls was 38.5%. More than two percent down on that is a horrid performance and suggests that the end trend in the polls was massively significant.

And MSNBC have just projected Ron Paul as second. Big boost for Romney if that holds.

CNN told that Huntsman won't drop out even though he came third in his big target state. SC is probably his second chance. Some interesting discussions about coalitions, with something about a discussion between Santorum and Gingrich that I didn't catch entirely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 08:31:41 pm

I think the other interesting comparison with 2008 might be whatever Santorum ends up with vs. Mike Huckabee's 11.1% in 2008. Santorum is essentially running unopposed as the social conservative up here what with Perry's no-show.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 08:37:48 pm

With 22% reporting, no real movement for the top 3, but Santorum has closed to within less than 100 votes of Gingrich. If Santorum takes #4, that's a victory for him and a real psychological blow to Gingrich's campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2012, 08:38:12 pm

It really is sad about Buddy Roemer. If he were the GOP's candidate for President I would seriously consider voting for him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2012, 08:41:12 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 08:08:12 pm

In this of all years, in this of all races, we're seeing Republican candidates piling onto one of their own for, essentially, being too business savvy.  Somewhere in Zuccotti Park, there's a shiftless art-major reading the story on his iPhone and thinking, "Are we winning?"  This is going to be a wild race, especially if this becomes Romney's Dean-Scream.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Interesting. I know what I'm gonna bring up whenever I talk to my fellow Swedish pseudointellectuals about the Amelection next.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 08:41:30 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2012, 08:38:12 pm

It really is sad about Buddy Roemer. If he were the GOP's candidate for President I would seriously consider voting for him.

He's at least beating all write-in votes for right now. And Bachmann and Cain (he actually lost to Cain in Iowa). I'm still hoping he can beat Perry.

EDIT: Santorum is within 70 votes of Gingrich, apparently in part due to the small town of Roxbury (pop. 229) where he took a walloping 56% of the vote (or...50 votes). Note to self: Roxbuy is on the list of scenic New England towns I do *not* want to set foot in...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 10, 2012, 08:43:09 pm

Interesting looking ballot paper. (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/01/10/the-pb-nighthawks-new-hampshire-thread/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 08:58:27 pm

(response to troll removed)

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 08:41:12 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 08:08:12 pm

In this of all years, in this of all races, we're seeing Republican candidates piling onto one of their own for, essentially, being too business savvy.  Somewhere in Zuccotti Park, there's a shiftless art-major reading the story on his iPhone and thinking, "Are we winning?"  This is going to be a wild race, especially if this becomes Romney's Dean-Scream.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Interesting. I know what I'm gonna bring up whenever I talk to my fellow Swedish pseudointellectuals about the Amelection next.

Well, before you go telling anyone in Europe that the American right-wing is about to become ideologically protectionist, I would say that it's probably not that deep a change in thought.  It's about winning an election first and foremost, and when the leading candidate says something that exemplifies amoral capitalism (not immoral, amoral) at a time when a lot of people are mad at "big business" for being out of work or losing benefits, your instinct is to pounce.  He basically said something so easy to attack that even a plutocrat like Gingrich has to make what would be by any measure a rabidly populist economic appeal.

How long it lasts is more a question of Romney's polling than the Republican party's platform, but certainly if Romney does become the Republican nominee (as it looks likely he will), and people's perceptions of the economy don't change between now and November (including the rather strong majority of people who blame "business" and "wall street" and "republicans" over President Obama for their economic insecurities), Romney is going to have his work cut out for him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 09:04:19 pm

Exit poll time! (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire/exit-polls)

Rather that detail out what you can read yourself, let me just sum up:

Voters picked Romney because they want to beat Obama, think the economy is the issue to do it on, and think Romney would be the best to do that to him.

Ron Paul got the younger,  first-time voters who think *he* can beat Obama (he can't).

Huntsman got a lot of crossover Dem support and anti Tea Party support, and people picked him because they think he had the experience that the others lack (and they're not thrilled with the GOP field and are probably looking to him as yet another last best hope)

Santorum got votes purely for one thing: abortion rights (or the hope for the lack thereof).

Gingrich seems to have gotten the bulk of his votes from people who consider themselves staunch conservatives who likely just don't see Romney as conservative enough.

Perry got votes from....people who like brisket and guns? Hell if I know, he didn't get more than 3% of *any* crosstab.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 10, 2012, 09:05:38 pm

Nate Silver on the turnout. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results/live/2012-01-10#sha=2ded46a0a)

Quote

With 85 of 301 precincts reporting, 52,191 voters have cast a ballot in the Republican primary so far. That projects to about 185,000 votes statewide, as compared with about 240,000 votes in the Republican primary in 2008.

The drop-off in turnout looks worse for Republicans since a higher fraction of voters - about half this year, compared to 37 percent in 2008 - are independents. That means that turnout among registered Republicans could alone be off by nearly 40 percent from 2008.

And just above that, Perry still refusing to drop out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 09:20:51 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 10, 2012, 09:05:38 pm

Nate Silver on the turnout. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results/live/2012-01-10#sha=2ded46a0a)

Quote

With 85 of 301 precincts reporting, 52,191 voters have cast a ballot in the Republican primary so far. That projects to about 185,000 votes statewide, as compared with about 240,000 votes in the Republican primary in 2008.

The drop-off in turnout looks worse for Republicans since a higher fraction of voters - about half this year, compared to 37 percent in 2008 - are independents. That means that turnout among registered Republicans could alone be off by nearly 40 percent from 2008.

And just above that, Perry still refusing to drop out.

No big surprise there. NH isn't even on Perry's radar (then again, neither is reality...) He'll bow out after South Carolina, or Florida at the latest. If he keeps running after drawing single-digits in both states (which he would) then the man is certifiably insane or just really, really damn stubborn and happy to burn other peoples' money.

Romney's share has gone back up to 37.3%, mostly at the expense of Ron Paul, who's down to 23.5%. I think he can make an argument of meeting expectations successfully.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Toady One on January 10, 2012, 09:24:53 pm

(bouchart muted, troll derail removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 09:56:02 pm

With 59% reporting, Santorum has pulled ahead of Gingrich by about 150 votes, although both are just under the 10% threshold. If that holds, that's a major blow to Gingrich. Santorum has already shrugged NH off (he spent $0 ad money in the state, sticking to his shaking-hands-and-kissing-babies strategy from Iowa) and headed for SC. Gingrich, on the other hand, dropped some coin in the state. If he's still in the back of the pack after all that...but at the same time I think he's too stubborn and spiteful to drop out. He'll stay until at least Florida (unless he gets absolutely waxed in South Carolina).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 10, 2012, 09:56:47 pm

So Ron Paul one the first time atheist voters. Surprise! Also, Aqizzar, I like that you made the distinction between amoral and immoral, it's small but important and often overlooked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 10, 2012, 10:08:38 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 10, 2012, 09:56:47 pm

So Ron Paul one the first time atheist voters. Surprise! Also, Aqizzar, I like that you made the distinction between amoral and immoral, it's small but important and often overlooked.

Well. I am not surprised. Ron Paul doesn't really get the chance to advertise is theocratic tenancies in debates.  Plus he has had the 4chan trolls advertising him so reliably for the past few years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sensei on January 10, 2012, 10:38:59 pm

Wooo! Just got me a voter's card! Time to join the clusterfuck!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 10:40:36 pm

Romney up over the 38% mark now. I think it's a pretty solid win for him. Gingrich and Santorum are in a statistical dead heat and both look to finish below 10%. Decent but not stellar night for all involved other than Gingrich and Perry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 10, 2012, 10:44:04 pm

Ron Paul has had a strange sort of following. Some of his ideas are so radical and he gathers to him anarcho-federal-government libertarians, conspiracy theorists, Constitutionalists, and those just sick of the wars. He commands a good portion of the very old and very young, disenfranchised-feeling voters that zealously spam his presidential ability all over the internet that the bolded RON PAUL is now a meme.

Honestly, it's depressing that a moderate like Huntsman doesn't stand a chance, and mildly funny that a Mormon who looked over the precursor to "Obamacare", and allowed gay marriage most of his life is the Republican frontrunner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2012, 10:49:16 pm

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/01/10/text-mitt-romney-new-hampshire-primary-victory-speech/F370b8iPihWLJB1uf7pagL/story.html

"I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it."

Romney... No. Just no. Stop that right now, dammit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2012, 10:50:34 pm

If I were a Ron Paul supporter, which I am not, but if I was, I would do so under the logic that he'd be unable to push through his more insane ideas, and that his better ones would be more plausible goals for him to pursue. Of course, that's a gamble.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2012, 10:54:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2012, 10:50:34 pm

If I were a Ron Paul supporter, which I am not, but if I was, I would do so under the logic that he'd be unable to push through his more insane ideas, and that his better ones would be more plausible goals for him to pursue. Of course, that's a gamble.

That's pretty much why I support him :P

He's by far not the best, but he's better than all the other jokers (at least the ones that have a chance).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 10:57:04 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 10, 2012, 10:44:04 pm

Honestly, it's depressing that a moderate like Huntsman doesn't stand a chance, and mildly funny that a Mormon who looked over the precursor to "Obamacare", and allowed gay marriage most of his life is the Republican frontrunner.

I'm not sure it's depressing so much as confusing.  If the "Republican base" is so disgusted with Romney, why is he suddenly running away in the actual votes?  Are they voting for him because of his history (as a wind-shifting moderate) or his promises (a religious-devotion to conservative principle)?

At any rate, I knew the sudden, mindblowing spectacle of people like Perry and Gingrich beating up on Romney as a callous business mogul or something wouldn't last long without a response.  South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is not endorsing Romney really he's not (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/10/demint-predicts-romney-win-in-sc/) but is predicting him to win in his home state, and had some unkind things to say about the criticisms of his business background.  Not nearly as much though as the caustic explosion due to be lobbed at Newt Gingrich from Republicans not so much interested in any particular principle or even political office so much as securing Republican influence for its own sake.  Namely, the Media branch of the Republican party, like Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter, who according to the New York Times are preparing to sacrifice Gingrich on the altar of Ayn Rand.

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2012, 10:49:16 pm

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/01/10/text-mitt-romney-new-hampshire-primary-victory-speech/F370b8iPihWLJB1uf7pagL/story.html

"I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it."

Romney... No. Just no. Stop that right now, dammit.

Wait, is he running to be President, or Caesar Augustus?  I must have missed that part of the speech.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2012, 11:07:16 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 10:57:04 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2012, 10:49:16 pm

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/01/10/text-mitt-romney-new-hampshire-primary-victory-speech/F370b8iPihWLJB1uf7pagL/story.html

"I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it."

Romney... No. Just no. Stop that right now, dammit.

Wait, is he running to be President, or Caesar Augustus?  I must have missed that part of the speech.

He's running to be Emperor Palpatine.

"Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station." - Mitt Romney

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 10, 2012, 11:14:22 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire

"Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station." - Mitt Romney

Sigged with extreme prejudice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 10, 2012, 11:19:49 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 10:57:04 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 10, 2012, 10:44:04 pm

Honestly, it's depressing that a moderate like Huntsman doesn't stand a chance, and mildly funny that a Mormon who looked over the precursor to "Obamacare", and allowed gay marriage most of his life is the Republican frontrunner.

I'm not sure it's depressing so much as confusing.  If the "Republican base" is so disgusted with Romney, why is he suddenly running away in the actual votes?  Are they voting for him because of his history (as a wind-shifting moderate) or his promises (a religious-devotion to conservative principle)?

Exit polling from Iowa, and I imagine NH, points at the fact that more Republicans think Romney has the best chance at beat Obama. Which is fairly interesting given the "purge the unclean" rhetoric and typical radical notions of party primaries. What's the big deal hardly anyone's talking about? The Tea Party really lost here. Their favourite bowed out after one state. Despite all the the money and effort sank into the fringe Tea Party, the voters have anchored themselves into the old battle between the "safe choice moderate party establishment" and "old school social conservatives". With Romney in the lead, most voters are throwing a vote behind Romney because they think others will find him a palpable choice next to Obama, regardless of what they think.

So Republicans are slashing and burning everything, including each other, for the win. The question is can they reunite themselves to overcome a dispirited Democratic base, which still grinds under the most finely-tuned political organisation we have ever seen? Seems like a bit like "Anyone but Bush" to me while subbing Romney in for Kerry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 10, 2012, 11:22:03 pm

Quote from: Sensei on January 10, 2012, 10:38:59 pm

Wooo! Just got me a voter's card! Time to join the clusterfuck!

Registering soon! My opinions matter now!  :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 10, 2012, 11:27:31 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 10, 2012, 11:19:49 pm

Exit polling from Iowa, and I imagine NH, points at the fact that more Republicans think Romney has the best chance at beat Obama. Which is fairly interesting given the "purge the unclean" rhetoric and typical radical notions of party primaries. What's the big deal hardly anyone's talking about? The Tea Party really lost here. Their favourite bowed out after one state. Despite all the the money and effort sank into the fringe Tea Party, the voters have thrown anchored itself into the old battle between the "safe choice moderate party establishment" and "old school social conservatives". With Romney in the lead, most voters are throwing a resigned vote behind Romney because they think others will find him a palpable choice next to Obama, regardless of what they think.

It's also a notion that can fall apart if that Firing People line really does take off.  If Romney's theoretical "electability" versus Obama in a general election is all he really has going for him in Republican primaries, how do the bizarre and uncomfortable things he says off-script fit into that?  In Iowa, he had to memorize "America The Beautiful" and recite it like a first-grade book report in lieu of actually talking.  If he gets a Dean-Scream, and Republican primary voters in the next couple states think he'd be a real liability versus winning the Presidency, what else does he have?  Heck, people around Gingrich are starting to sound like George Will and Bill Buckley Jr. and saying they'd rather have their Obama punching-bag for four more years than see Romney as the standard bearer of the party.

I'm not sure if I want to see the future and find out the South Carolina result right now, or if I want to savor the uncertainty forever.

I'll update the OP tomorrow morning, when I get back and the AP has an official vote tally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 10, 2012, 11:33:48 pm

I was just watching the daily show and a friend of Ron Paul was on, and this guy was advocating the purer libertarian view as if it was Ron Pauls position. Even citing the 14th amendments role in preventing states from infringing on civil liberties and saying government should stay out of your bedroom.

He neglects to mention that Ron Paul does not believe in the 14th, and has attempted to bypass it in the past. And that Ron Paul is very interested in seeing states become involved in your bedroom. It is this kind of duplicitous deception that makes me think really think that Ron Paul is just as slimy, corrupt and dangerous as the rest of the field.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nilik on January 10, 2012, 11:45:25 pm

So tell me if i've got this right as a non-American with only a passing knowledge of what the hell is going on:

Romney - Big business type, likes to fire people. Probably going to win even though no-one really wants him to.
Paul - Ayn-Rand wannabe, wants to gut the government, including cutting what little remaining welfare there is
Huntsman - Moderate, might make a good president but seen as not "Republican" enough
Gingrich - All-round horrible person (was this the guy who divorsed his wife while she was in a coma or something?)
Santorum - Religious nut-job
Perry - HAY U KNOW WUT WE NEED? MORE MILITARY SPENDING LOL!

From an outside perspective, that's what I'm getting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 10, 2012, 11:55:38 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2012, 10:54:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2012, 10:50:34 pm

If I were a Ron Paul supporter, which I am not, but if I was, I would do so under the logic that he'd be unable to push through his more insane ideas, and that his better ones would be more plausible goals for him to pursue. Of course, that's a gamble.

That's pretty much why I support him :P

He's by far not the best, but he's better than all the other jokers (at least the ones that have a chance).

I've seen a lot of people saying basically this.  I only know one hardcore Ron Paul supporter (he doesn't believe all the stuff about his racist, homophobic, and religious backgrounds to be anything but propaganda).  I know several more who don't agree with the full extent of his ideology, but they think the limits on presidential power would be enough to allow him to turn American politics in a direction they see as more favorable, without being able to go too far.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 10, 2012, 11:59:25 pm

Quote from: Nilik on January 10, 2012, 11:45:25 pm

Perry - HAY U KNOW WUT WE NEED? MORE MILITARY SPENDING LOL!

Perry is really more similar to Santorum by your description, but with a healthy dose of Texas thrown in the mix.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 11, 2012, 12:34:05 am

It's 92% reporting now, and Romney is up at 39.3%. This may actually be an outperform win, considering his polling numbers weren't even that high in the last couple of days. Paul has slipped slightly to 22.9% but still a good showing. Huntsman has settled in at 16.9%, not the #2 win I'm sure he was hoping for but certainly enough to make him relevant and hopefully open up the fundraising and media channels a bit. Gingrich is back on top of Santorum by 150 or so votes, but both are below 9.5% now. Poor showing for Gingrich, modest showing for Santorum (but again...with no ad spending it's probably a B- result).

Poor Buddy Roemer still couldn't crack 1%, but at least he managed to beat "write-in" and the other 23 "who in the hell?" candidates.

I do think the high amount of crossover votes for Huntsman is a double-edged sword for him. On the one hand, it shows he might have a serious chance to draw disenchanted Dems and independents in a general election. OTOH, it confirms the conservative view of him as a "donkey in an elephant suit". If the GOP weren't so obsessed with ideological purity in the ranks, they could have found a candidate to give Obama a run for his money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 11, 2012, 01:00:20 am

I signed up for the email lists of all the major candidates, just to see what they were saying to their target audiences. Not so much a fan of Huntsman anymore, what with his preaching about how he would implement the Ryan plan as soon as he could. Still better than the social conservatives, but damn. Is there anyone out there [Republand] who likes healthcare?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2012, 01:28:51 am

-Aww, it got deleted.-

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 11, 2012, 02:27:53 am

Goddammit Bay 12. I've been offline for less than 24 hours. Why'd you jump 10 pages? There's no way I'm reading all of that  >:(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 11, 2012, 06:43:25 am

From the Romney speech:

"He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth."

And then you're wondering why the rest of the world dislikes/hates you? :p That sound like something Bush could have said.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 11, 2012, 07:30:56 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 11, 2012, 02:27:53 am

Goddammit Bay 12. I've been offline for less than 24 hours. Why'd you jump 10 pages? There's no way I'm reading all of that  >:(

Switch to 50 posts per page and it's only 6 pages.

Quote from: Sheb on January 11, 2012, 06:43:25 am

"He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth."

That's like a double dose of pretentiousness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 11, 2012, 08:56:54 am

3 pages, actually. I think the standard is 15.

I think it's strange how people think our image is being hurt by Obama apologizing when we screw up. From what I recall, pretty much no country but Israel liked us under Bush II.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 11, 2012, 09:09:51 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 11, 2012, 02:27:53 am

Goddammit Bay 12. I've been offline for less than 24 hours. Why'd you jump 10 pages? There's no way I'm reading all of that  >:(

Primary yesterday....thread tends to grow a bit when there's actually things occurring to talk about.


My father-in-law is the same way. He's generally a moderate New England Republican (he grew up in New York and Connecticut), but he's incensed at the thought of a President apologizing to another country for some reason. Maybe they see it as a sign of weakness. The Republican notion of foreign policy seems to be that America is the giant honey badger of the world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 11, 2012, 09:16:57 am

Hell, I'd vote yes for changing the national animal to honey badger. Honey badgers don't get stuck in airplane intakes. Airplanes get stuck in honey badger intakes.

Basically they're vicious little bastid creatures, and I'd support re-imaging ourselves off of them. Give people a better idea of what to expect, anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 11, 2012, 10:44:16 am

Georgia also liked Georges Bush quite a lot (The main highway from the airport to Tbilisi is Georges Bush Boulevard or something). I don't know if this is still true after he didn't do a thing during the 2008 war (not like he could nuke Russia anyway).

They also love McCain because he went to Tbilisi and did a "We're all Georgian" speech.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on January 11, 2012, 11:04:12 am

Posting to follow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: dwarfhoplite on January 11, 2012, 12:11:43 pm

"The greatest and most powerful country in the history of the human race (that's America btw) is kicking into its regular cycle to see who will be the next Leader of the Free World."

Seems very arrogant and ignorant from my point of view. Also, mentioning USA and freedom in a same sentence disgusts me (Iraq, Guantanamo, Indians etc.)

What kind of democracy is it that candidate that got most votes won't be elected?

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 11, 2012, 12:20:54 pm

Quote from: dwarfhoplite on January 11, 2012, 12:11:43 pm

"The greatest and most powerful country in the history of the human race (that's America btw) is kicking into its regular cycle to see who will be the next Leader of the Free World."

Seems very arrogant from my point of view. Also, mentioning USA and freedom in a same sentence disgusts me (Iraq, Guantanamo etc.)

What kind of democracy is it that candidate that got most votes won't be elected?

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

(http://tnypic.net/497b7.gif)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 11, 2012, 12:44:06 pm

Quote from: dwarfhoplite on January 11, 2012, 12:11:43 pm

"The greatest and most powerful country in the history of the human race (that's America btw) is kicking into its regular cycle to see who will be the next Leader of the Free World."

Seems very arrogant and ignorant from my point of view. Also, mentioning USA and freedom in a same sentence disgusts me (Iraq, Guantanamo, Indians etc.)

Somebody needs to tune up their sarcasm detector.  Or get a helping of this site's other fine attractions.

Quote from: Toady's Devblog

It's sort of a half day, because as you might have guessed from Liberal Crime Squad, we feel compelled to witness certain political events in full.

I often wonder why those guys put up with so much crap on their forum, and I never remember obvious stuff like this.

Anyway, updating the OP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 11, 2012, 01:13:24 pm

Yeah, Ron Paul always confused me with his stance on abortion and whatnot, since it doesn't really mesh with libertarian ideology. Then I found out he used to be an obstetrician and personally delivered an absurd number of babies in his career, so I figure he is really just personally biased.

I used to like him more then I do now, libertarianism is a nice ideal, but such a system of governance would be disasterous. People would struggle, wealth would concentrate in an elite minority, and without compulsory education and a basic safety net, you'd literally have a new underclass of illiterate peasants and fuckin' brigands or whatever roaming the countryside. I think George Carlin sums up the reality, think of how stupid the average person person, and 50% of people are stupider then that. A free society would be a cut-throat society, a libertarian government would have a disasterous impact in this modern age and we have to have a system that works for everyone, or you'll have a society you won't actually want to live in.

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else. That way people have a greater choice in what policies they want to live under. If they don't like paying taxes to provide food stamps they can go move to Alabama or whatever. If you want to smoke pot legally, move to California. It's basically what we already have, but the trends of late have been increased federal authority stepping on state's rights. I think the federal government should lean toward a hands-off libertarian policy while the individual states should lean more progressive, or theocratic policies, whatever floats your boat, that'd be the state you move to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 11, 2012, 01:16:55 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 11, 2012, 12:44:06 pm

Quote from: Toady's Devblog

It's sort of a half day, because as you might have guessed from Liberal Crime Squad, we feel compelled to witness certain political events in full.

I often wonder why those guys put up with so much crap on their forum, and I never remember obvious stuff like this.

I'm confused.

Quote from: dwarfhoplite on January 11, 2012, 12:11:43 pm

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

The answer is because they do, of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 11, 2012, 01:42:00 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 11, 2012, 01:13:24 pm

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else.

There are two way this could take place, both of them bad:
1) Fiscal guarantee at a Federal level.  This is basically what we have now.  The states run a lot but the federal government covers a large part of their essential functions.  This means that no state can screw things up too badly because there will always be the federal government to keep people from dying in the streets in large numbers and keep the biker gangs from taking over major cities.  But if you give the badly performing states more leway to screw things up, you just make them a bigger strain on the system.  Right now backwater places like Alabama get by on federal handouts which protects them from the harsh realities of how fucked up they are.  If you give them more leway to screw things up, they will do so and drag places like California and New England down even more.
2) No Fiscal guarantee at the Federal level.  This is what Europe is currently going through.  The problem with this system is that all the states have the same currency but don't share a budget.  This means that there can't be a currency exchange rate correction for economic balances between the states.  So just like we are seeing governments like Spain and Ireland in real trouble in Europe despite them having behaved very responsibly, we would have states get into serious debt crises in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 11, 2012, 02:19:43 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 11, 2012, 01:13:24 pm

Yeah, Ron Paul always confused me with his stance on abortion and whatnot, since it doesn't really mesh with libertarian ideology. Then I found out he used to be an obstetrician and personally delivered an absurd number of babies in his career, so I figure he is really just personally biased.

I used to like him more then I do now, libertarianism is a nice ideal, but such a system of governance would be disasterous. People would struggle, wealth would concentrate in an elite minority, and without compulsory education and a basic safety net, you'd literally have a new underclass of illiterate peasants and fuckin' brigands or whatever roaming the countryside. I think George Carlin sums up the reality, think of how stupid the average person person, and 50% of people are stupider then that. A free society would be a cut-throat society, a libertarian government would have a disasterous impact in this modern age and we have to have a system that works for everyone, or you'll have a society you won't actually want to live in.

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else. That way people have a greater choice in what policies they want to live under. If they don't like paying taxes to provide food stamps they can go move to Alabama or whatever. If you want to smoke pot legally, move to California. It's basically what we already have, but the trends of late have been increased federal authority stepping on state's rights. I think the federal government should lean toward a hands-off libertarian policy while the individual states should lean more progressive, or theocratic policies, whatever floats your boat, that'd be the state you move to.

The thing is (and this really holds true for almost any "If you don't like X, then move" arguments)...it's just not that simple to pick up and move. Even if you're a single twenty-something in an apartment, it's not that easy. You need a cushion of money to make the transition possible. You need a job (or certainly the prospects of a job) in the new location. You need a place to live.

If you have a family and a house, it's a freakin' nightmare. You have to sell your existing house (meaning you have to find somebody who wants whatever it is you're trying to get away from) you have to find and purchase a new house (or at least a new apartment) which means either buying sight unseen or shuttling back and forth several times before actually moving. If you have a family, it's essential that you have a new job lined up before you move or else you have a nice fat 6-months-of-living-expenses lined up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 11, 2012, 03:06:57 pm

And on top of all that, both the place you're leaving has to allow you to leave, and the place you're going to has to let you come in to begin with. There's place in the world getting out of isn't a small thing, even if you have the resources to survive once you get out, and (many more) other places that aren't very happy about letting new folks come in, regardless of what you bring to the table, especially if you're "X" (X being whatever.).

And all that, on top of everything, assumes adulthood of some degree, physical capability, so on, so forth. If you don't like X, you should move, is the way to say it. Should implies can, and the can innit always there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 11, 2012, 03:09:34 pm

Mind you, the US was originally based on "if you don't like where you are, you should move HERE. Let's make it easy for you!", which was pretty cool and an absolutely huge component of their present day success. That, obviously enough, did not last.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 11, 2012, 03:30:23 pm

And it was still a nightmare for many to get here and then to survive. My wife and I have seriously looked into the logistics of emigration before, and it's daunting. Even to relatively welcoming places like Finland, Sweden, Denmark...there's a lot of red tape to get in. You're buggered if you want to go to New Zealand (unless you work with horses, if which case the door is wide open for you).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gunnarr on January 11, 2012, 08:26:34 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 11, 2012, 01:13:24 pm

Yeah, Ron Paul always confused me with his stance on abortion and whatnot, since it doesn't really mesh with libertarian ideology. Then I found out he used to be an obstetrician and personally delivered an absurd number of babies in his career, so I figure he is really just personally biased.

I used to like him more then I do now, libertarianism is a nice ideal, but such a system of governance would be disasterous. People would struggle, wealth would concentrate in an elite minority, and without compulsory education and a basic safety net, you'd literally have a new underclass of illiterate peasants and fuckin' brigands or whatever roaming the countryside. I think George Carlin sums up the reality, think of how stupid the average person person, and 50% of people are stupider then that. A free society would be a cut-throat society, a libertarian government would have a disasterous impact in this modern age and we have to have a system that works for everyone, or you'll have a society you won't actually want to live in.

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else. That way people have a greater choice in what policies they want to live under. If they don't like paying taxes to provide food stamps they can go move to Alabama or whatever. If you want to smoke pot legally, move to California. It's basically what we already have, but the trends of late have been increased federal authority stepping on state's rights. I think the federal government should lean toward a hands-off libertarian policy while the individual states should lean more progressive, or theocratic policies, whatever floats your boat, that'd be the state you move to.

Maybe the things you are talking about would be true if we did not have a State government as well. We do though, so... yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jryan on January 11, 2012, 10:35:52 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 11, 2012, 06:43:25 am

From the Romney speech:

"He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth."

And then you're wondering why the rest of the world dislikes/hates you? :p That sound like something Bush could have said.

They hate Obama too, so since all other countries think they are awesome then so do we.  You hate us saying it because it's true!  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 11, 2012, 10:42:55 pm

Quote from: jryan on January 11, 2012, 10:35:52 pm

They hate Obama too, so since all other countries think they are awesome then so do we.  You hate us saying it because it's true!  :P

Err... could you clarify those pronouns? Not sure who is hating who.

From what I've heard from my various international friends, Obama is at least a bit better than Bush. People don't often start conversations with, "Do you hate [President], too?" anymore, at least.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 11, 2012, 10:47:50 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 11, 2012, 10:42:55 pm

Quote from: jryan on January 11, 2012, 10:35:52 pm

They hate Obama too, so since all other countries think they are awesome then so do we.  You hate us saying it because it's true!  :P

Err... could you clarify those pronouns? Not sure who is hating who.

From what I've heard from my various international friends, Obama is at least a bit better than Bush. People don't often start conversations with, "Do you hate [President], too?" anymore, at least.

Well, instead of starting two wars and utterly failing to catch the guy responsible for the attack which led to those two wars, he ended at least one and killed the guy. The fact that he's a good public speaker and is much better-looking than Bush doesn't hurt either :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 11, 2012, 10:54:33 pm

Quote from: jryan on January 11, 2012, 10:35:52 pm

They hate Obama too, so since all other countries think they are awesome then so do we.  You hate us saying it because it's true!  :P

Don't know about elsewhere, but we generally like Obama over here in Australia. Possibly because, unlike Bush, he hasn't gotten us dragged into wars in the Middle East. Also, a previous PM had his lips glued to Bush's arse, which kinda pissed many Aussies off with both our leader and yours.

Finally, he doesn't sound like a redneck Texas yokel when he speaks, which is reasssuring considering just how much military might he nominally controls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jryan on January 12, 2012, 12:15:36 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 11, 2012, 10:47:50 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 11, 2012, 10:42:55 pm

Quote from: jryan on January 11, 2012, 10:35:52 pm

They hate Obama too, so since all other countries think they are awesome then so do we.  You hate us saying it because it's true!  :P

Err... could you clarify those pronouns? Not sure who is hating who.

From what I've heard from my various international friends, Obama is at least a bit better than Bush. People don't often start conversations with, "Do you hate [President], too?" anymore, at least.

Well, instead of starting two wars and utterly failing to catch the guy responsible for the attack which led to those two wars, he ended at least one and killed the guy. The fact that he's a good public speaker and is much better-looking than Bush doesn't hurt either :P

Well, he ended one war on the timeline established by Bush, and really did nothing to kill Osama other than give the OK.  The framework of the investigation was in place and working years before he was in office.

Bush isn't my favorite president either, but the deification of Obama is rather off putting.  Blaming Bush for your involvement in a war is also rather silly.  If we have that much power then obviously we are more awesome than even I thought.

But anyway, the idea that the world would love America with Obama in power never came to fruition and the fact that fairly liberal 1st Worlders like a fairly Liberal President over a somewhat conservative President isn't exactly the earth shattering break in international diplomacy I think people were expecting.  In fact it is fairly obvious that left leaning people would like a left leaning president.  The hearts and minds that were supposed to be swayed still hate the US and burn Obama in effigy just as they did Bush.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 12, 2012, 12:49:46 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 11, 2012, 02:19:43 pm

The thing is (and this really holds true for almost any "If you don't like X, then move" arguments)...it's just not that simple to pick up and move. Even if you're a single twenty-something in an apartment, it's not that easy. You need a cushion of money to make the transition possible. You need a job (or certainly the prospects of a job) in the new location. You need a place to live.

If you have a family and a house, it's a freakin' nightmare. You have to sell your existing house (meaning you have to find somebody who wants whatever it is you're trying to get away from) you have to find and purchase a new house (or at least a new apartment) which means either buying sight unseen or shuttling back and forth several times before actually moving. If you have a family, it's essential that you have a new job lined up before you move or else you have a nice fat 6-months-of-living-expenses lined up.

Ideally, drastic policy shifts won't happen in states every few months to cause people to move out for political reasons. I imagine most people will be generally content in the state they are in and put up with policies they disasgree. Unless they feel the tremendous urge to live in a state with stickers on science textbooks saying "evolution is only a theory" -or whatever, they can move on to greener pastures. Hopefully people that care about such things will keep it in mind before buying a house worth 10 years of their salary. The main idea here is that the people living in their particular state will decide what government policies they want to have there, without a federal government in DC mandating policy that might not nessicarily vibe with the people living there. This is just decentralizing government for the sake of greater representation in democracy.

You have a point that it's non-trivial to pack up your life and move it somewhere else, saying 'its not easy to move to another state' is not really good argument against increased states rights.

Quote from: mainiac on January 11, 2012, 01:42:00 pm

There are two way this could take place, both of them bad:
1) Fiscal guarantee at a Federal level.  This is basically what we have now.  The states run a lot but the federal government covers a large part of their essential functions.  This means that no state can screw things up too badly because there will always be the federal government to keep people from dying in the streets in large numbers and keep the biker gangs from taking over major cities.  But if you give the badly performing states more leway to screw things up, you just make them a bigger strain on the system.  Right now backwater places like Alabama get by on federal handouts which protects them from the harsh realities of how fucked up they are.  If you give them more leway to screw things up, they will do so and drag places like California and New England down even more.
2) No Fiscal guarantee at the Federal level.  This is what Europe is currently going through.  The problem with this system is that all the states have the same currency but don't share a budget.  This means that there can't be a currency exchange rate correction for economic balances between the states.  So just like we are seeing governments like Spain and Ireland in real trouble in Europe despite them having behaved very responsibly, we would have states get into serious debt crises in the US.

Do have a good point here, I think the federal government should guarantee a few functions, education and state military come to mind, but should probably stay limited at guiding fiscal policy, rather then individual rights policies. I think there would need to be greater constraints on how governments can function and what they are allowed to do, mostly to keep their budgets balanced and prevent them to doing anything too intrustive on individual rights. Though I suppose this is more complicated in reality then in theory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lastofthelight on January 12, 2012, 01:00:54 am

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time. And of course, the Executive branch leeches off the federal. It keeps climbing upwards.

And while I like certain compassionate safety nets, I wouldn't be opposed to those safety nets being 'local in nature' rather then 'federal in nature'; but the structure of our society prevents that. You can't just go out, for instance, and start a free health care clinic. You have to have insurance, or you'd be sued off your butt, and there is nothing your town (or state) is allowed to do about it. And while I like the idea of regulating the corporations to protect me from them, I dislike the fact that, when the end of the day comes, most regulations are designed to help them, and benefit them, often at my expense. I worked for major bank once (Servicelink/FNF) - and it was horrible how they made their money. It was blatantly obvious and remarked upon in the company how much of their money was reliant upon foreclosures and favorable government regulations.

So I think the real problems are not the 'right' or the 'left' but corruption and not corruption. I'd like to see an overall reduction in corruption, and a return to a smaller scale government (not the token lies the Republicans claim to support), and I'd like to see an acknowledgement that...endless wars will NOT make us safer, but increase our enemies in countries where we are not wanted.

I volunteered for Obama, but I can't really support him anymore because I feel that he sold me out on the peace issue, on the human rights issue, on the corporatism issue, and... I'm disappointed.

What we really need is to stop looking at any of the politicians/liars in these two parties to do anything to really change the status quo, and to look inwards at how we can fix this country, and ask hard questions about real changes.

Thats what I want.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 12, 2012, 01:09:38 am

Quote from: jryan on January 12, 2012, 12:15:36 am

I think you severealy underestimate how much the world used to hate Bush. Generally speaking Obama is perceived as a "normal" president now, not the Messiah he was supposed to be, but still leagues better than Bush.

Hell, they had pro-American protests in Libya, when was the last time you saw PRO-American protests in the middle east (outside Israel?).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2012, 01:12:59 am

Yeah, those photographs of Libyans with US (and French, and UK, and some others I forget) flags still seem completely surreal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 12, 2012, 01:17:51 am

The fact that we sided with the pro-democracy rebels rather than the totalitarian leader (for once) probably helped. Hell, I saw a news report about a US college student running away to Libya and joining the rebels. He didn't really do any fighting, and his parents weren't thrilled, but I thought it was a nice story.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 12, 2012, 01:20:37 am

Maybe Obama will get burned in effigy in Israel and the cycle of realignment will be complete.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2012, 01:23:28 am

The US still supports Israel, and so does Obama for that matter. He's just not totally and completely pro-Israel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 12, 2012, 01:24:42 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2012, 01:23:28 am

The US still supports Israel, and so does Obama for that matter. He's just not totally and completely pro-Israel.

So he's an anti-semitic jihadist in other words.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 12, 2012, 01:25:16 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2012, 01:12:59 am

Yeah, those photographs of Libyans with US (and French, and UK, and some others I forget) flags still seem completely surreal.

You'll find a lot of Iranians (those that remember times before the Ayatollah especially) also like the US, at least according to the Iranian expats I work with. Their government isn't exactly popular with most of the populace, so they actually had a lot of respect for Obama and even Bush for not just taking a nice economic deal and looking the other way with the populace. Kinda contrasts with all the vitriolic anti-western crap Ahmadinejad and his cronies spew.

Of course, waving a US flag in Iran is more likely to get you hauled off by the secret police, and it sure as hell won't be aired by the state tv.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 12, 2012, 01:26:40 am

Though to be fair, at least some of that support comes from Rapture-ites who think that Israel is important to bringing about the second coming of Jesus, or something along those lines. In other words, they only support Israel because they think it's prophecy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2012, 01:28:52 am

Doesn't Israel actually get destroyed in the conjecture of some of the Raptureite theories? It's supposed to be what kicks off the End Times in at least one of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 12, 2012, 01:30:20 am

Yes, but in order for it to be destroyed it must exist first, right? I don't try to follow the "theories", I'm just aware of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 12, 2012, 01:45:40 am

Quote from: lastofthelight on January 12, 2012, 01:00:54 am

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jryan on January 12, 2012, 08:42:39 am

Quote from: G-Flex on January 12, 2012, 01:45:40 am

Quote from: lastofthelight on January 12, 2012, 01:00:54 am

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

So you feel the experience of living in California is no different from Texas or Massachusetts or Virginia?  I'm thinking your wrong.

You simply WANT all other places to be like the place that you like, but not everyone wants what you want.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 12, 2012, 08:45:11 am

Quote from: jryan on January 12, 2012, 08:42:39 am

Quote from: G-Flex on January 12, 2012, 01:45:40 am

Quote from: lastofthelight on January 12, 2012, 01:00:54 am

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

So you feel the experience of living in California is no different from Texas or Massachusetts or Virginia?  I'm thinking your wrong.

You simply WANT all other places to be like the place that you like, but not everyone wants what you want.

That is not what I said whatsoever. I didn't say that every place in the country is culturally identical, just that they are more similar than they were 50, or 100, or 250 years ago. The trend is toward culture becoming less provincial. You are taking that idea and turning into a bizarre, extreme version of itself that I am not trying to support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Maggarg - Eater of chicke on January 12, 2012, 09:17:47 am

I still lol at people calling Obama a socialist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 12, 2012, 09:31:50 am

I completely understand people who want less federal control over their laws. I hate what the EU is doing to Sweden's laws. For example, Sweden has previously had a very strict control over what animals are taken into the country (leading to a country with very few parasites and animal diseases that are common abroad), but from the start of this year we do no longer require de-wormization on import which is going to make the problem with Echinococcosis worms spreading (which I have ranted on before in itself) much more dire. Because obviously, requiring people to show some responsibility goes against their beloved "free trade". And suddenly I won't be able to let my children eat berries directly from the woods any more.

Seriously, fuck the Union. I'm going to stop now, because I feel a full on rage coming if I continue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 12, 2012, 10:05:48 am

Scriver understands the states-rights people, at least. Although trade stuff was one of the first rights states lost in the US, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 10:22:58 am

Yeah, interstate commerce was mostly deregulated centuries ago for us. It's a double-edged sword. In some areas of regulation (think environmental) the Federal level exists as a bottom floor, not a ceiling. California can pass its own environmental regulations which are stricter than the Federal ones. The Federal regulations exist to keep places from going the other route and deregulating "in the name of free trade" and letting companies turn their state into a toxic landfill.

But on an issue like immigration, the Federal rules act as both a floor (so you don't have a state saying "Everybody's welcome! No paperwork required!") and a ceiling. (Hence the court battles over Arizona's immigration laws).


I don't know of the particulars of the EU environmental/trade thing, but from what you describe, it's the EU acting as a ceiling rather than a floor on regulation, which is a shame. As a Southerner, I've heard the glories of States' Rights extolled night and day. But it's funny how it's always a popular issue with whichever party is NOT running the White House. During the Bush years, the states-rights argument was mostly invoked for things like euthanasia in Oregon and medicinal marijuana in California. So at least in the United States, it's come to be just another convenient rhetorical position to use when you're the minority party. The same people who insist that states should have the right to ban gay marriage would become ardent Federalists if there was a Federal law barring gay marriage. *shrug*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 12, 2012, 10:29:42 am

Isn't what was said here in the thread is that the major states-rights pusher (Paul, iirc) is trying to use 'state's rights' as code for 'let's ignore the Constitution on a state level'?

S'one of those things I get a bit jittery about. There's states in the US that could definitely drum up a voting majority that would remove minimum wage (Leading to a permanent underclass and millions more starving and homeless), compulsory/free education (ditto), criminalize stuff like homosexuality, atheism, probably practicing Islam, the list goes on.

Then there's money, from what I understand. Florida, at least, can't even keep its schools from degenerating in quality with federal funding; I can only imagine what sort of nightmare would ensue if fed money drew out -- which would be the case if federal power was reduced and more power was allocated on the state level.

There's definitely reasons for more local control (Tends to be more efficient, if nothing else), but I'm not entirely convinced upping the power of state's rights is something that would work, from both a logistical standpoint and a humanist one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: DJ on January 12, 2012, 10:30:45 am

Why is there no Vermin Supreme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE) in the OP?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 12, 2012, 10:32:09 am

Quote from: jryan on January 12, 2012, 08:42:39 am

Quote from: G-Flex on January 12, 2012, 01:45:40 am

Quote from: lastofthelight on January 12, 2012, 01:00:54 am

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

So you feel the experience of living in California is no different from Texas or Massachusetts or Virginia?  I'm thinking your wrong.

You simply WANT all other places to be like the place that you like, but not everyone wants what you want.

The problem with states rights in the US is that for most people that I hear use it, it is a code word that racists, sexists and theocrats use to mean: we want crazy backwards laws that infringe on the rights of minorities, but there are enough sane people in the nation that our only hope is to do it locally. This includes people like Ron Paul.

pseudo edit: Frumple: yes I did say that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 12:08:45 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 12, 2012, 10:29:42 am

Isn't what was said here in the thread is that the major states-rights pusher (Paul, iirc) is trying to use 'state's rights' as code for 'let's ignore the Constitution on a state level'?

S'one of those things I get a bit jittery about. There's states in the US that could definitely drum up a voting majority that would remove minimum wage (Leading to a permanent underclass and millions more starving and homeless), compulsory/free education (ditto), criminalize stuff like homosexuality, atheism, probably practicing Islam, the list goes on.

Then there's money, from what I understand. Florida, at least, can't even keep its schools from degenerating in quality with federal funding; I can only imagine what sort of nightmare would ensue if fed money drew out -- which would be the case if federal power was reduced and more power was allocated on the state level.

There's definitely reasons for more local control (Tends to be more efficient, if nothing else), but I'm not entirely convinced upping the power of state's rights is something that would work, from both a logistical standpoint and a humanist one.

Well one of the major problems with state's rights arises when you're dealing with the legal status of a person being different in different states. This is a large part of what led to the Civil War: certain people could be considered free citizens in one state and property in another. Now we face potential situations where two people are a married couple in some states, an unmarried couple in others (and if some had their way, a pair of criminals in yet other states). Or if states somehow try to ignore jus soli in their interpretation of the law, you could have people who are natural-born citizens in some states and illegal immigrants in others. Which leads to real antebellum-style conflicts: if you're a legal citizen of New Mexico, drive across Arizona, get stopped for a busted taillight and wind up being deported out of the United States....that's the kind of shit that gets people ANGRY.



Back more on topic, I'm kinda boggling at how quickly Gingrich and Perry are becoming anti-capitalist populists. How dare a venture capital company buy a troubled firm and raid its assets?! Romney is evil for making money and laying people off. And several thousand Occupiers say "Uhhh, yeah. We've been trying to tell you that for how many months now?"

Curiously, Ron Paul--the candidate who seems most tailored to a populist, anti-Wall Street tirade--has yet to jump on Comrade Gingrich's Glorious Attack of Opportunity Front, and has defended both Romney and Bain Capital and even venture capitalism as a concept. On a deeper level, it is very much in line with Randian beliefs (Ayn Rand would have seen venture capital firms as the epitome of Objectivism -- picking and choosing the best and brightest to survive and helping slaughter the "unfit" companies). Just curious to see how that plays out among his base.

Oh and incidentally, *love* the Daily Show's title for their SC primary coverage: "In The South of Madness"  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 12, 2012, 02:19:51 pm

I love that Colbert is apparently polling above Hunstman. Considering he's not running, that's impressive. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wayward Device on January 12, 2012, 03:40:12 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 12, 2012, 01:26:40 am

Though to be fair, at least some of that support comes from Rapture-ites who think that Israel is important to bringing about the second coming of Jesus, or something along those lines. In other words, they only support Israel because they think it's prophecy.

I know this is from a few pages back but i couldn't resist. Basically, for the Rapture to happen, Israel has to come back (we're sort of there on this one), all the Jews (I think this includes the lost tribes, but don't quote me on that) have to return (that's right, ALL of them) and the Temple of Solomon must be rebuilt (which would likely be as hard if not harder as getting every Jew in the world to move to Israel, as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, is built directly atop the ruins, discounting the Wailing Wall.) IIRC This should trigger the appearance of Jesus II, rapturing all real Christians. Then the whole seven years of apocalyptic war I've heard the theory that it'll be Jesus II + whatever goodish but not good enough people are left vs Demons, The Antichrist and all sinners everywhere, but there is little scriptural evidence for this.   

Sorry to post a deraily post like this one in this excellent and informative thread, but I just had to mention the above facts. After all, there are people out there for whom this is a rough roadmap of how things in the middle east should pan out.     

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 04:29:20 pm

And also a reason why certain groups are so adamantly opposed to any "two-state solution" that would give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians: the Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque are in East Jerusalem.  :-\

But yeah...probably best left for a different thread. Though it does bring up an interesting point: foreign policy has been almost utterly absent from the public discussion during the primaries. I know "it's the economy, stupid" but at some point you do need to know that the schmuck you're voting for has some grasp of the outside world and our place in it. Other than some random "I'd bomb Iran" / "I'd re-invade Iraq" / "My opponent is evul for speaking Chinese" asshattery, it's been all about jobs and who can out-fundie who.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2012, 04:30:50 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 12, 2012, 02:19:51 pm

I love that Colbert is apparently polling above Hunstman. Considering he's not running, that's impressive. :P

Colbert is always running. For everything. In every state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 12, 2012, 04:58:05 pm

Quote

Other than some random "I'd bomb Iran" / "I'd re-invade Iraq" / "My opponent is evul for speaking Chinese" asshattery, it's been all about jobs and who can out-fundie who.

I think Bachmann and Cain pretty much fulfilled the quota for gross ignorance of foreign policy. Cain moreso than Bachmann. But really, nothing is going to top "Uzbeki-beki-stan" in the Primaries. Any question about foreign policy knowledge would be like "Are you more globally aware than a 5th grader?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nilik on January 12, 2012, 05:01:56 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 11, 2012, 01:16:55 pm

Quote from: dwarfhoplite on January 11, 2012, 12:11:43 pm

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

The answer is because they do, of course.

Just thought I'd address this one. From an outside perspective... you really don't, unless you count fringe groups like the omnipresent "Green party" every country seems to have. Your "left-wing" party is only barely left of the UK's most right-wing party, and more right-wing than any of the non-nutjob parties in Australia. In a vaccum, without reference to any other parties, I would consider them to be moderate.

You, as a nation, seem to have squeezed all the rednecks, religious extremists and corporation-ists (I'm sure there's a better word I could use there) into one big "Jesus, Guns and Corporations" party. They are completely united on their core values and will not budge an inch. The Democrats on the other hand seem mostly sane, but seem to consist of the "Everyone else" party. As a result they seem to have no core values, and make concessions all the time, resulting in Republican gains in most cases. I couldn't live with a system like that, and I can totally see why it drove Toady to make Liberal Crime Squad  :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 12, 2012, 05:04:34 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 12, 2012, 10:29:42 am

Isn't what was said here in the thread is that the major states-rights pusher (Paul, iirc) is trying to use 'state's rights' as code for 'let's ignore the Constitution on a state level'?

Yep.

Quote

S'one of those things I get a bit jittery about. There's states in the US that could definitely drum up a voting majority that would remove minimum wage (Leading to a permanent underclass and millions more starving and homeless), compulsory/free education (ditto), criminalize stuff like homosexuality, atheism, probably practicing Islam, the list goes on.

It's not even a "could". This kind of stuff has been done, and laws like that are already on the books, and sometimes written into state constitutions. The only reason anti-sodomy laws don't exist in an enforceable state anymore, for example, is because the Supreme Court of the US struck them down as unconstitutional, and that was only in 2003. Things like that would become enforceable again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 05:17:45 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 12, 2012, 04:58:05 pm

Quote

Other than some random "I'd bomb Iran" / "I'd re-invade Iraq" / "My opponent is evul for speaking Chinese" asshattery, it's been all about jobs and who can out-fundie who.

I think Bachmann and Cain pretty much fulfilled the quota for gross ignorance of foreign policy. Cain moreso than Bachmann. But really, nothing is going to top "Uzbeki-beki-stan" in the Primaries. Any question about foreign policy knowledge would be like "Are you more globally aware than a 5th grader?"

Oh gog....I'd forgotten "Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan". And Cain having to get clarification on what Obama's policy in Libya actually *was* before definitively dismissing it as wrong.

Quote

Your "left-wing" party is only barely left of the UK's most right-wing party

Seriously? Democrats = BNP? I know it's fashionable to depict the United States as Jesus-stan, but c'mon...

I'll agree that the Democrats would probably not be considered a left-wing party in Europe, if only because Europe did not singularly equate socialism with "being of the Devil" for 40 years. The US's political equilibrium point is to the right of Europe, yes. That does not mean that there is no political outlet for the Left in the United States. There is certainly a social liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders has been in office for years as a self-described socialist. It's just not as strong or as well-organized as in Europe, that's all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 12, 2012, 05:19:50 pm

Now that they've been declared bankrupt and lost pretty much all of their councillors the BNP are more of a running joke than a party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 12, 2012, 05:39:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 05:17:45 pm

I'll agree that the Democrats would probably not be considered a left-wing party in Europe, if only because Europe did not singularly equate socialism with "being of the Devil" for 40 years.

In Denmark, most of the last 70 years were spent being ruled by Social Democrats to the point that the Social Democrats are losing votes because they've actually more or less accomplished everything they rose to accomplish :b And now our politics are being ruined by people who think America is the best place to look for guidance ;_; But yeah, American Politics to me is like was said earlier, tragicomedy. You guys need socialism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Miggy on January 12, 2012, 05:42:43 pm

Quote from: Lysabild on January 12, 2012, 05:39:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 05:17:45 pm

I'll agree that the Democrats would probably not be considered a left-wing party in Europe, if only because Europe did not singularly equate socialism with "being of the Devil" for 40 years.

In Denmark, most of the last 70 years were spent being ruled by Social Democrats to the point that the Social Democrats are losing votes because they've actually more or less accomplished everything they rose to accomplish :b And now our politics are being ruined by people who think America is the best place to look for guidance ;_; But yeah, American Politics to me is like was said earlier, tragicomedy. You guys need socialism.

In Denmark, our rightmost nutjobs (Liberal Alliance) have it as their final unrealistic endgoal, that they know they will never achieve, but is their theoretical "we won politics" goal, to lower income taxes to a flat 40%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 12, 2012, 06:03:48 pm

Quote from: Miggy on January 12, 2012, 05:42:43 pm

Quote from: Lysabild on January 12, 2012, 05:39:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 05:17:45 pm

I'll agree that the Democrats would probably not be considered a left-wing party in Europe, if only because Europe did not singularly equate socialism with "being of the Devil" for 40 years.

In Denmark, most of the last 70 years were spent being ruled by Social Democrats to the point that the Social Democrats are losing votes because they've actually more or less accomplished everything they rose to accomplish :b And now our politics are being ruined by people who think America is the best place to look for guidance ;_; But yeah, American Politics to me is like was said earlier, tragicomedy. You guys need socialism.

In Denmark, our rightmost nutjobs (Liberal Alliance) have it as their final unrealistic endgoal, that they know they will never achieve, but is their theoretical "we won politics" goal, to lower income taxes to a flat 40%.

What are they now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Miggy on January 12, 2012, 06:25:10 pm

Quote from: Karlito on January 12, 2012, 06:03:48 pm

Quote from: Miggy on January 12, 2012, 05:42:43 pm

Quote from: Lysabild on January 12, 2012, 05:39:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 05:17:45 pm

I'll agree that the Democrats would probably not be considered a left-wing party in Europe, if only because Europe did not singularly equate socialism with "being of the Devil" for 40 years.

In Denmark, most of the last 70 years were spent being ruled by Social Democrats to the point that the Social Democrats are losing votes because they've actually more or less accomplished everything they rose to accomplish :b And now our politics are being ruined by people who think America is the best place to look for guidance ;_; But yeah, American Politics to me is like was said earlier, tragicomedy. You guys need socialism.

In Denmark, our rightmost nutjobs (Liberal Alliance) have it as their final unrealistic endgoal, that they know they will never achieve, but is their theoretical "we won politics" goal, to lower income taxes to a flat 40%.

What are they now?

Depends on how much you earn. The more money you earn, the more you're taxed. According to the danish wiki (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indkomstskat) wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark) the maximum amount of tax you can pay of any earning is ~57%. This is about the figure you'll pay, depending on your county, for all money earnt over 389.000 DKK / 67.000 USD a year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 12, 2012, 07:05:23 pm

Quote from: Lysabild on January 12, 2012, 05:39:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 05:17:45 pm

I'll agree that the Democrats would probably not be considered a left-wing party in Europe, if only because Europe did not singularly equate socialism with "being of the Devil" for 40 years.

In Denmark, most of the last 70 years were spent being ruled by Social Democrats to the point that the Social Democrats are losing votes because they've actually more or less accomplished everything they rose to accomplish :b And now our politics are being ruined by people who think America is the best place to look for guidance ;_; But yeah, American Politics to me is like was said earlier, tragicomedy. You guys need socialism.

We have some. Things like public roads and national parks are paid for by everyone, regardless of whether they use them or not. I admit we could use some more, though, like a decent free health-care plan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 12, 2012, 07:29:56 pm

Quote from: Lysabild on January 12, 2012, 05:39:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 12, 2012, 05:17:45 pm

I'll agree that the Democrats would probably not be considered a left-wing party in Europe, if only because Europe did not singularly equate socialism with "being of the Devil" for 40 years.

In Denmark, most of the last 70 years were spent being ruled by Social Democrats to the point that the Social Democrats are losing votes because they've actually more or less accomplished everything they rose to accomplish :b And now our politics are being ruined by people who think America is the best place to look for guidance ;_; But yeah, American Politics to me is like was said earlier, tragicomedy. You guys need socialism.

We don't ever need socialism, we need the two parties to stop being such fucking idiots, we need corporations to GTFO of politics. Not to mention the whole trillions in debt thing, that wouldn't work too well with socialism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 12, 2012, 07:39:45 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 12, 2012, 07:29:56 pm

Not to mention the whole trillions in debt thing, that wouldn't work too well with socialism.

Explain why you think this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 12, 2012, 07:52:08 pm

"We never need socialism" is about as ridiculous as "we never need capitalism". Our system has elements of both, as it probably should. The question is how much and in what ways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 12, 2012, 07:56:50 pm

Well, first conservatives need to quit using the word like it's going out of style in summer.

Example:

Quote from: Newt Gingrich

(How Mitt Romney does corporate business) is just back-door socialism.

No, Newt, that's pure predatory capitalism, but fuck if I expect you to be intellectually honest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 12, 2012, 07:59:17 pm

The word socialism is a victim of the war against language.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on January 12, 2012, 11:15:30 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 12, 2012, 07:59:17 pm

The word socialism is a victim of the war against language.

Language is a known tool of terrorists.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on January 12, 2012, 11:22:16 pm

Quote from: EveryZig on January 12, 2012, 11:15:30 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 12, 2012, 07:59:17 pm

The word socialism is a victim of the war against language.

Language is a known tool of terrorists.  :P

And libraries are terrorist training grounds.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 12, 2012, 11:27:46 pm

Public library funding is taking hits in some places in the states...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 13, 2012, 02:18:31 am

Quote from: Nilik on January 12, 2012, 05:01:56 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 11, 2012, 01:16:55 pm

Quote from: dwarfhoplite on January 11, 2012, 12:11:43 pm

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

The answer is because they do, of course.

Just thought I'd address this one. From an outside perspective... you really don't, unless you count fringe groups like the omnipresent "Green party" every country seems to have. Your "left-wing" party is only barely left of the UK's most right-wing party, and more right-wing than any of the non-nutjob parties in Australia. In a vaccum, without reference to any other parties, I would consider them to be moderate.

You, as a nation, seem to have squeezed all the rednecks, religious extremists and corporation-ists (I'm sure there's a better word I could use there) into one big "Jesus, Guns and Corporations" party. They are completely united on their core values and will not budge an inch. The Democrats on the other hand seem mostly sane, but seem to consist of the "Everyone else" party. As a result they seem to have no core values, and make concessions all the time, resulting in Republican gains in most cases. I couldn't live with a system like that, and I can totally see why it drove Toady to make Liberal Crime Squad  :)

Nah. Their center is just to the right of ours. Doesn't mean they don't have leftists (as frustrating as it must be being a "European" lefter over there). They even have a Communist Party, for god's sake. You might as well say Europe don't have right wing parties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 13, 2012, 02:20:42 am

Quote from: scriver on January 13, 2012, 02:18:31 am

They even have a Communist Party, for god's sake.

What part of "unless you count fringe groups" was hard to understand?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 13, 2012, 02:28:55 am

"Fringe" indicates being really small and/or isolated more than just at the end of the spectrum, and I've seen you Americans here talk about the commies as one of the parties that would stand a chance to get into the... House-thing (I forget the name of your reichstag, it's really early) if the system were less two-party centric.

Also, what's with the attitude?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 13, 2012, 02:30:32 am

Quote from: scriver on January 13, 2012, 02:28:55 am

"Fringe" indicates being really small and/or isolated more than just at the end of the spectrum, and I've seen you Americans here talk about the commies as one of the parties that would stand a chance to get into the... House-thing (I forget the name of your reichstag, it's really early) if the system were less two-party centric.

Er... we have? I don't think any Communist Party has much of a stronghold at all in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 13, 2012, 02:32:45 am

Quote from: G-Flex on January 13, 2012, 02:30:32 am

Quote from: scriver on January 13, 2012, 02:28:55 am

"Fringe" indicates being really small and/or isolated more than just at the end of the spectrum, and I've seen you Americans here talk about the commies as one of the parties that would stand a chance to get into the... House-thing (I forget the name of your reichstag, it's really early) if the system were less two-party centric.

Er... we have? I don't think any Communist Party has much of a stronghold at all in the US.

CPUSA is the largest communist party in the nation. They have 2,000 members. I have no idea how anyone could ever think communists could get elected in the US, two-party system or otherwise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 13, 2012, 02:35:38 am

American politics generally considers anybody in favor of government-planned economics (to an extent dependent on the amount of fear-mongering desired - at some point, the word gets used without any basis at all) communist. The actual Communist Party isn't actually what's being referred to, as a general rule, so much as a nebulous group of people who Want To Take Your Money.

It's basically a buzzword meant to smear people, because the Cold War was a thing that happened and people have had a hard time getting past that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 13, 2012, 02:36:04 am

Because the right-wing fringe will accuse anyone to the left of them as being communists. Plus there was that whole Cold War/McCarthy thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 13, 2012, 02:37:50 am

Ugh, there's now ads for Ron Paul on Youtube, and it's the usual BS. Thank the gods (fictional or otherwise) they're skipable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 13, 2012, 02:50:13 am

Quote from: scriver on January 13, 2012, 02:28:55 am

"Fringe" indicates being really small and/or isolated more than just at the end of the spectrum, and I've seen you Americans here talk about the commies as one of the parties that would stand a chance to get into the... House-thing (I forget the name of your reichstag, it's really early) if the system were less two-party centric.

Also, what's with the attitude?

As has been said, "Commie" is a smear used by the right-wing in this country to refer to Democrats or other centerish left groups. The Communist Party itself is rather irrelevant. More so than even other 3rd Parties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on January 13, 2012, 02:51:02 am

Quote from: Bauglir on January 13, 2012, 02:35:38 am

It's basically a buzzword meant to smear people, because the Cold War was a thing that happened and people have had a hard time getting past that.

This. The US was saturated with anti-Soviet, anti-communism propaganda for three quarters of a century. It isn't an issue of ideals or ideas, it's an issue of multiple generations growing up and living their entire lives with the ever-present messages about the communist bogeymen. Complete with government witch-hunts of anyone suspected to be or sympathize with communists, in the form of the House Un-American Activities Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 13, 2012, 02:54:36 am

Communist in the US is the word for anyone to the left of you.  So if you are a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (my suggested slogan for them: "We don't need your stinkin' handouts!") then you run on a platform of accusing the republican and libertarians of being communists.  If you are a libertarian, you call the republicans and democrats communist.  Etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 13, 2012, 02:58:33 am

Well, I guess I was wrong. I blame you for misleading innocent Swedish youths with your false insinuations.

By the way, your CPUSA fails at commie names. Our main communist party is called "the Communist Party the Marxist-Leninists (the Revolutionaries)", and no, I did not add any "the" that aren't there (though in Swedish the definite article-makers go at the end so it sounds slightly better... But omly slightly!). Now that's a properly awkward name for commies. You still have much to learn, America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 13, 2012, 03:01:12 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 13, 2012, 02:54:36 am

Communist in the US is the word for anyone to the left of you.  So if you are a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (my suggested slogan for them: "We don't need your stinkin' handouts!") then you run on a platform of accusing the republican and libertarians of being communists.  If you are a libertarian, you call the republicans and democrats communist.  Etc.

And if you are a Republican, you accuse your less extreme fellow Republicans of harboring communist sympathies until the whole system collapses in on itself due to accumulated stress which used to be resolved through duels but now has no outlet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on January 13, 2012, 03:03:48 am

Calling someone a communist is sort of the American political system's own special version of Godwin's Law.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on January 13, 2012, 03:05:00 am

Quote from: alway on January 13, 2012, 03:03:48 am

Calling someone a communist is sort of the American political system's own special version of Godwin's Law.

If you're really desperate for mud to sling, you can go all the way to communazi.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 13, 2012, 03:08:53 am

Quote from: Blargityblarg on January 13, 2012, 03:05:00 am

Quote from: alway on January 13, 2012, 03:03:48 am

Calling someone a communist is sort of the American political system's own special version of Godwin's Law.

If you're really desperate for mud to sling, you can go all the way to communazi.

Or in the case of Obama, Atheist Muslim Communist-Nazi.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 13, 2012, 03:17:10 am

I've been called a long-haired granola-munching commie pinko before, that was a little strange. I've learned that politically-based insults around here don't mean anything beyond, "I don't like you!".

(Note that I have short hair, dislike granola, am a fan of socialism rather than capitalism, and harbor no thoughts of supporting the Soviet Union.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 13, 2012, 03:18:58 am

Quote

And if you are a Republican, you accuse your less extreme fellow Republicans of harboring communist sympathies until the whole system collapses in on itself due to accumulated stress which used to be resolved through duels but now has no outlet.

They've replaced duels with awkward bathroom rendezvous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 13, 2012, 03:31:44 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 13, 2012, 03:08:53 am

Quote from: Blargityblarg on January 13, 2012, 03:05:00 am

Quote from: alway on January 13, 2012, 03:03:48 am

Calling someone a communist is sort of the American political system's own special version of Godwin's Law.

If you're really desperate for mud to sling, you can go all the way to communazi.

Or in the case of Obama, Atheist Muslim Communist-Nazi.

You forgot "hippie"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 13, 2012, 03:33:36 am

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on January 13, 2012, 03:31:44 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 13, 2012, 03:08:53 am

Quote from: Blargityblarg on January 13, 2012, 03:05:00 am

Quote from: alway on January 13, 2012, 03:03:48 am

Calling someone a communist is sort of the American political system's own special version of Godwin's Law.

If you're really desperate for mud to sling, you can go all the way to communazi.

Or in the case of Obama, Atheist Muslim Communist-Nazi.

You forgot "hippie"

D'oh!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 13, 2012, 06:02:06 am

Don't forget that he's a Kenyan post-colonialist as well!

Yes, American politics is so crazy that people have criticized Obama for being against the African colonial empires of the first half of the 20th century.  It is never made clear whether his fault is in support the breakup of the European empires before he was born or if the president's job is to support a re-establishment of colonial empires on the continent.  All they know is that he's racist against white people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 13, 2012, 06:06:48 am

Mitt Romney gains a level in the total dick prestige class. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9cn0M_AFWg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 13, 2012, 07:37:28 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on January 13, 2012, 03:31:44 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 13, 2012, 03:08:53 am

Quote from: Blargityblarg on January 13, 2012, 03:05:00 am

Quote from: alway on January 13, 2012, 03:03:48 am

Calling someone a communist is sort of the American political system's own special version of Godwin's Law.

If you're really desperate for mud to sling, you can go all the way to communazi.

Or in the case of Obama, Atheist Muslim Communist-Nazi.

You forgot "hippie"

You all missed Martian. (http://www.universetoday.com/92359/beam-me-up-obama-conspiracy-theory-claims-president-teleported-to-mars/)

EDIT: Put the quote tree back in to make the joke clear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on January 13, 2012, 09:49:31 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 13, 2012, 06:06:48 am

Mitt Romney gains a level in the total dick prestige class. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9cn0M_AFWg)

I thought he was the most liberal of all the major Republican candidates and Ron Paul the extremist, yet he is being a male reproduction organ while the comments on the video seem to love Ron Paul.

edit; Now I think about it, Romney was mentioned as the most moderate one, which isn't necessarily liberal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 10:47:36 am

Quote from: palsch on January 13, 2012, 07:37:28 am

You all missed Martian. (http://www.universetoday.com/92359/beam-me-up-obama-conspiracy-theory-claims-president-teleported-to-mars/)

Since Aqizzar is probably catching some zzz's, I'll do the honors for him. I hope he doesn't mind.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 31, 2011, 02:32:31 am

Okay, rule number three I guess, no moonbat conspiracy theorizing.

Not that I think you're seriously advocating that Barack Obama is secretly Barry Soetaro, Chrononaut and teenage space explorer. But seriously...we have neither time nor inclination for discussing every loonball thing that's been said about the President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 13, 2012, 10:49:53 am

So, Colbert looks like he might actually run in South Caroline. He has transferred his Super PAC to the completely independent and totally not strategizing with him John Stewart and is preparing to announce his candidacy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 10:53:00 am

And if history is any example, the South Carolina GOP (I assume he's trying to run as a Republican) and State Board of Elections will have none of it. The only people allowed to make a mockery of democracy in South Carolina are the voters of South Carolina themselves!  :P


Seems awfully late to try and get on the ballot too, unless he's going to run independent in the general election. In which case, more power to him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 13, 2012, 10:54:30 am

South Carolina accepts write in votes in their primary, don't they?

The thing is, he's CURRENTLY a write in candidate in the polls and he's still at 5% among legitimately likely REPUBLICAN voters. That's higher than Hunstman, who was actually offered as an option to those polled.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 13, 2012, 10:55:48 am

I would vote for Colbert.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 13, 2012, 10:59:02 am

As would I.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 11:34:51 am

Oh...yeah, I guess write-in is always an option. Wow...that's going to be awesomesad if he actually beats out Huntsman (and at 5%, could beat Rick Perry) as a write-in. It would be the epitome of awesome if he actually got enough to earn a pledged delegate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 13, 2012, 01:35:31 pm

Sometimes I wonder if our universe isn't an absurd satirical fiction making fun of some other universes political buffoonery.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-hits-romney-knowing-speak-french-150300235.html

Basically Gingrich is launching attack ads against Romney because he once went to France as a missionary (it was how Romney dodged the draft) and he is just like liberal democrat John Kerry because they both speak french.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on January 13, 2012, 01:45:18 pm

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we are living in some Tom Tomorrowesque world of insanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on January 13, 2012, 02:17:40 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on January 13, 2012, 01:45:18 pm

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we are living in some Tom Tomorrowesque world of insanity.

A man with a boot on his head whos main polices are mandatory tooth brushing laws and free ponies for everyone, and a popular comedic entertainer are running in an election of one of the most powerful countries on the planet. And they're probably the most normal candidates all things considered. So yeah, the world is pretty insane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 13, 2012, 02:18:47 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 13, 2012, 01:35:31 pm

Sometimes I wonder if our universe isn't an absurd satirical fiction making fun of some other universes political buffoonery.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-hits-romney-knowing-speak-french-150300235.html

Basically Gingrich is launching attack ads against Romney because he once went to France as a missionary (it was how Romney dodged the draft) and he is just like liberal democrat John Kerry because they both speak french.

I like how the ad, in a complete non sequitur, states at the end that "a Massachusetts moderate cannot beat Barack Obama". It switches straight from "Mitt Romney isn't conservative enough" to "Mitt Romney isn't a viable candidate" completely out of nowhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 13, 2012, 02:21:50 pm

I'm telling you, this is exactly why we should re-legalize dueling among politicians. Andrew Jackson would not be standing for any of this.


Of course, he was also kind of a homicidal lunatic. But he was the homicidal lunatic America needed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 02:31:26 pm

Rick Perry will one-up this ad by accusing Romney of speaking English. >_<

Jeez, first the "Manchurian Candidate" thing, now "The French Connection". Way to be proud we're a country full of people too parochial to learn a second language, guys.

Quote from: G-Flex on January 13, 2012, 02:18:47 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 13, 2012, 01:35:31 pm

Sometimes I wonder if our universe isn't an absurd satirical fiction making fun of some other universes political buffoonery.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-hits-romney-knowing-speak-french-150300235.html

Basically Gingrich is launching attack ads against Romney because he once went to France as a missionary (it was how Romney dodged the draft) and he is just like liberal democrat John Kerry because they both speak french.

I like how the ad, in a complete non sequitur, states at the end that "a Massachusetts moderate cannot beat Barack Obama". It switches straight from "Mitt Romney isn't conservative enough" to "Mitt Romney isn't a viable candidate" completely out of nowhere.

No, that's a logical flow from A to B for the folks making that ad. Romney can't beat Obama BECAUSE he's not conservative enough. Because they think that secretly the REAL American people are just like them. That or they think he won't be conservative to win God's vote, and of course that's all that really counts because God will then make everyone vote for him. Damn vote-rigging Jehovah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 13, 2012, 02:53:57 pm

Yeah, you really couldn't write a more hamfisted ad if you tried.  Like, third-grade reading comprehension hamfisted.  But I was wondering how long it would take before someone figured out the glaring similarities between Romney and John Kerry (other than Jon Stewart's writers, four years ago).  Gingrich is definitely pulling out all the stops to destroy Romney any way he can, with clearly either no regard for who is the eventual nominee or a deluded hope that it'll still somehow be himself.

I can't say I'm surprised by the level of puerile, chest-beating worship at the alter of Hank Hill, but I didn't really expect it to start this soon, and to be introduced by the Republican nominees competing against each other.  Let alone that it would spark off a tectonic war between conservative "thinkers" like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin over the merits of populist economic rhetoric (or at least as a screen for Romney-vs-Anti-Romney factions).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 13, 2012, 02:55:35 pm

I feel like Newt is doing this out of pride. Romney went pretty vicious on him with a ton of untraceable ads, and Newt isn't going to stand for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on January 13, 2012, 03:01:48 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 13, 2012, 01:35:31 pm

Sometimes I wonder if our universe isn't an absurd satirical fiction making fun of some other universes political buffoonery.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-hits-romney-knowing-speak-french-150300235.html

Basically Gingrich is launching attack ads against Romney because he once went to France as a missionary (it was how Romney dodged the draft) and he is just like liberal democrat John Kerry because they both speak french.

The first ~38 seconds of that video actually made him sound better to me >.>
It is somewhat worrying that the political spectrum is so polarized that half of one side's insults are half of the other side's compliments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 03:10:11 pm

You'll know we've passed the point of no return when you hear an ad like "John Jackson doesn't eat the bodies of his slain enemies. John Jackson: too liberal for America."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 13, 2012, 03:16:42 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 02:31:26 pm

Rick Perry will one-up this ad by accusing Romney of speaking English. >_<

No, see, he understands that English is the One True Language. He'll accuse him of speaking British.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 13, 2012, 03:19:59 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 03:10:11 pm

You'll know we've passed the point of no return when you hear an ad like "John Jackson doesn't eat the bodies of his slain enemies. John Jackson: too liberal for America."

Welp, we've officially crossed over into nightmarish insanity. Elves are republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 13, 2012, 03:21:28 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on January 13, 2012, 03:19:59 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 03:10:11 pm

You'll know we've passed the point of no return when you hear an ad like "John Jackson doesn't eat the bodies of his slain enemies. John Jackson: too liberal for America."

Welp, we've officially crossed over into nightmarish insanity. Elves are republican.

Truly foreboding times for humanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 03:21:50 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on January 13, 2012, 03:16:42 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 13, 2012, 02:31:26 pm

Rick Perry will one-up this ad by accusing Romney of speaking English. >_<

No, see, he understands that English is the One True Language. He'll accuse him of speaking British.

No, Perry speaks Texan. If you wanted to be gracious, you could say he speaks Amurrican. But yes, you're right...the charge would be of speaking not just British but Great British.

I think the campaign ads and debates would depress me a hell of a lot less if I just dubbed over everything in Simlish before I watched it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 13, 2012, 03:23:01 pm

If you do that, let me know. I'd like to see that. Just don't forget to add the speech bubbles with random images.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 13, 2012, 03:29:14 pm

Yes, nothing fills me with more pride as an American than our insistence that ignorance is a political virtue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 13, 2012, 05:33:10 pm

So according to Gingrich, Spanish is the language of the ghetto, English is the language of prosperity (http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/gingrich-apologizes-in-spanish-for-comments/6wudlfl?cpkey=8545c440-0b1f-415d-8e01-9665ac524df9||||&src=v5:share:permalink:&src=v5:share:permalink:), and I guess French is the language of sissy liberals. Is Paul the only candidate that's run comments on Huntsman's Mandarin speaking? I like to see if Newt has aired a comment on that, if only to complete the set.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 13, 2012, 08:31:37 pm

In AP Government class today, the teacher mentioned something to the effect of support for gay rights. This same teacher refuses to tell us his political affiliation. I nonchalantly said, "Well, I guess he's not a Republican." I had forgotten that I live in Texas. The crazy conservative girl that sits two seats over attacked me, saying that she was a Republican and supported gay rights. I asked her what Republican candidate she supported.

She said Perry. I showed her Perry's infamous campaign video. She didn't talk afterwards.

Good job, Perry. You alienated one of your party's members.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 13, 2012, 08:41:26 pm

In retrospect, Perry hurt his own campaign far more than anyone else could even dream of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 13, 2012, 09:36:17 pm

"You shouldn't vote for people who speak French."

Please, someone, steal the keys and blow up Washington. Now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 13, 2012, 10:51:55 pm

Benjamin Franklin spoke French and he was a goddamned rockstar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 13, 2012, 10:52:25 pm

This is true. He died of syphilis, IIRC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 13, 2012, 11:03:44 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on January 13, 2012, 10:51:55 pm

Benjamin Franklin spoke French and he was a goddamned rockstar.

He also was never President.  Nobody ever remembers this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 13, 2012, 11:05:25 pm

He's what a lot of people envision as the Avatar of America, more or less.  Inventive, stylish, a polymath who was rich but wasn't above manual labor, etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 13, 2012, 11:23:09 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 13, 2012, 11:03:44 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on January 13, 2012, 10:51:55 pm

Benjamin Franklin spoke French and he was a goddamned rockstar.

He also was never President.  Nobody ever remembers this.

Yeah but a lot of the founding fathers who were president did speak french.  And for John Adams and John Quincy Adams it was a downright necessity given their diplomatic postings in France and Russia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 13, 2012, 11:34:56 pm

Didn't France help you guys in the fight for independance? Wouldn't that make speaking French MORE American then speaking just English?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 13, 2012, 11:35:56 pm

No because, you see, in World War 2,

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 13, 2012, 11:36:40 pm

Not to mention the huge green French lady standing outside New York.

Quote from: Capntastic on January 13, 2012, 11:35:56 pm

No because, you see, in World War 2,

Whoops?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on January 13, 2012, 11:39:29 pm

There's really no reason for him to finish that statement. Context should put everything into perspective.

Everyone knows that in World War 2 France invaded all of Europe and made an enemy of democracy -- wait... no, that was another country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 13, 2012, 11:44:27 pm

French eat snails, Germans make beer and bratwursts and genocide.

The snails can not be forgiven.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 13, 2012, 11:44:32 pm

No no, see, the French ran away from every war anyone ever declared on them, and rich people take vacations there, and all Frenchmen are gay, and there's something communist about their country but I can't put my finger on what.  Therefore, speaking French makes you a pussy, on top of already being unpatriotic for knowing any language other than English.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 14, 2012, 12:02:01 am

... Americans' minds work in weird ways  :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 14, 2012, 12:04:12 am

It's just a thing you know?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 14, 2012, 12:17:33 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 13, 2012, 11:44:32 pm

on top of already being unpatriotic for knowing any language other than English.

I presume you mean American.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 14, 2012, 12:21:38 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 14, 2012, 12:02:01 am

... Americans' minds work in weird ways  :o

This is why there needs to be actual punctuation (that doesn't just look like a question mark) for sarcasm. I'm certain Aqizzar is being sarcastic, what with the sarcasm physically punching me in the eyes, but I'm not sure about this one.

I don't know what people have against France. What they did in World War I was incredible, defending themselves to the last to protect their capital. Plus all the wars France won beforehand. I won't even mention Europa Universalis...

Anyway, can anyone summarize the 'Ryan Plan'? I've heard Huntsman is a supporter of it, but every article I find about it is just about the author's opinion of the plan, not the plan itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 14, 2012, 12:24:00 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 14, 2012, 12:17:33 am

I presume you mean American.

Silly Zrk2, to the sort of American they're talking about, only one country speaks English, and that's America. The rest of you "English" speakers gabber in some sort of sometimes-amusing lesser dialect. Like ebonics, just country wide. 'We' just let you claim it's English out of a sort of paternal amusement for the lesser.

Wish to fribblyfrabbly there weren't actually people that think like that :-[

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 14, 2012, 12:40:56 am

Yea, its English people that have the weird accent and can't speak english.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2012, 03:37:59 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 14, 2012, 12:40:56 am

Yea, its English people that have the weird accent and can't speak english.

I do hope you're joking here :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 14, 2012, 05:50:26 am

The whole surrender monkey thing makes even less sense when considering France has the best statistics in the world when it comes to wars won or lost.

Also my favourite historical figure also helped America revolute. Von Fersen kicked some major translation arse and won the war for you. Single-handedly. While seducing all the women.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 14, 2012, 08:54:19 am

Quote from: scriver on January 14, 2012, 05:50:26 am

Von Fersen kicked some major translation arse and won the war for you. Single-handedly. While seducing all the women.

Pffft, all Kosciuszko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Ko%C5%9Bciuszko).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 15, 2012, 01:10:29 am

Quote from: scriver on January 14, 2012, 05:50:26 am

The whole surrender monkey thing makes even less sense when considering France has the best statistics in the world when it comes to wars won or lost.

Also my favourite historical figure also helped America revolute. Von Fersen kicked some major translation arse and won the war for you. Single-handedly. While seducing all the women.

Between WWII and the Franco-Prussian war, they kinda lost the right to that record in the eyes of the world.




But yeah, how about that them there Americun rednecks bein all anti-dawone and science and demanden dat thos there ten comandments (that they could'n name if asked( shou' be in ah red-white-n-blue buildings, and painted all over a ten foo depletd uraniunium wall ah-round the hole country and alla our territorial possestions. besids actin like 'MERICA (fuck yeah) eh the world's only super power or sometin an' p . . . wai, RUSH is ba' on de talky box. Gotta lisen, cuz he's all bout tellin REAL MERICANs what's happening, cuz we ain't jus sheepes lisetnig to what the vast left wing conspiracy-media says.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 15, 2012, 01:28:57 am

Quote

Between WWII and the Franco-Prussian war, they kinda lost the right to that record in the eyes of the world.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/ba110777/index.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LoPTdkHrjjk/SzHdwk4AOWI/AAAAAAAAGE4/ACZffEVwiKI/s1600/ww2-second-world-war-two-dead-french-soldiers-images-photos-pictures-nazi-germany.jpeg)

Some of the French soldiers who died at Dunkirk covering the retreat of the British forces.

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle

One would think that by this point any cultured person would avoid parroting the "surrendering monkeys" myth about the French.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on January 15, 2012, 01:31:21 am

One would think that any cultured person would not try to white-wash history.

France's military utterly failed them in both wars. Soldiers fought bravely, commanders scored victories, government existed in exile. France got stomped.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 15, 2012, 01:35:28 am

World War 1 anyone?  The French killed far more Germans in that war then the Americans killed in WWII.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Realmfighter on January 15, 2012, 01:37:56 am

Quote from: Strife26 on January 15, 2012, 01:31:21 am

One would think that any cultured person would not try to white-wash history.

France's military utterly failed them in both wars. Soldiers fought bravely, commanders scored victories, government existed in exile. France got stomped.

No one is saying France didn't lose. They are saying that their reputation as a country that surrenders to anything comedically available is dumb.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 15, 2012, 01:42:05 am

One would think that a cultured person would stop trying to foist the military merits or lack thereof of a previous generation on a group of people who couldn't possibly have had any part in the decisionmaking we're talking about, by reason of not having been born yet. To whatever extent the French historically were or were not "surrender monkeys", it doesn't matter to modern politics outside of a tiny niche of policy decisions about history classes.

It certainly isn't relevant to this thread, if I'm not putting words in Aqizzar's mouth with this sentence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 15, 2012, 01:46:54 am

Quote from: Bauglir on January 15, 2012, 01:42:05 am

It certainly isn't relevant to this thread, if I'm not putting words in Aqizzar's mouth with this sentence.

I'll admit, some historical context is never a bad thing per se when national reputations come up.  I do think the modern history of France gets shit on a lot more than they might deserve.  But yeah, it's getting a little beyond the thread here, which I probably contributed to at some point.

As long as we all recognize that Presidential candidates using "French" as a character assault is ridiculous, then enough has been said.

The problem really is that there's not much to talk about aside from votes.  It's an off-game weekend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 15, 2012, 01:48:20 am

How about those Gingrich attack ads? I haven't seen the half-hour Romney Slayer yet, but I can easily imagine Gingrich being paid off by the Democrats for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 15, 2012, 07:47:13 am

So...it looks like in South Carolina at least, Gingrich's scorched-earth media blitz is starting to show results.

Polls as recent as 1/10 had Romney with an 11-point lead on Gingrich in the Palmetto State (31.3% to 19.7%). By 1/13, that gap had closed to a mere 4-5 points (26.7% to 22%).

Ron Paul seems to have gotten a spillover boost, going from about 10% to 14.7% over the same period. Santorum is falling off pretty hard after jumping onto the radar after Iowa. He went from 2% before Iowa to 20% after it to now around the same level as Ron Paul.

Perry and Huntsman are polling neck-and-neck at the bottom, both around 5.7%. Considering that Perry seems to have staked his race on "real" Republicans down in Dixie, he's about as much dead meat as the roadkill he compared Carolina barbecue to. Turns out the one thing he can't execute is a decent election campaign.

Given that Gingrich is pretty solidly in 2nd place right now in South Carolina and Florida, if the attacks continue (and more importantly if Romney continues to walk around with one foot lodged firmly in his mouth) then Gingrich could make the mother of all comebacks and win South Carolina and Florida. At least until he puts his foot deeper down his own throat, and we're subjected to yet another spin of the "Who Wants To Lose To Obama 2012 Invitational" wheel. I've heard of a circular firing line, but I've never seen a circular suicide line before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 15, 2012, 09:12:58 am

It's a wonder what 5 millions bucks can do for you. Well, all in all, it's still a good show for Romney. He isn't invincible, but if he can win in the Bible Belt (SC), flyover America (Iowa) and the East Coast (NH) he very proved that he can win against his rivals anywhere.

As a liberal, I'm just hoping Gingritch will continue wrecking havoc in the GOP. Every ads he gets out is more ammo for the Obama's campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 15, 2012, 09:29:04 am

I saw one commentator (a conservative one, I believe) refer to Gingrich as "the suicide bomber of the Republican Party". He knows his political career is probably finished after this, but by God, he's taking as many people with him as he can. And he's probably hoping there's virgins involved somehow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 15, 2012, 12:28:58 pm

Dont you seppos owe the french your entire country after all the gear, knowhow and military support they gave you during your rebellion?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 15, 2012, 01:02:10 pm

Quote from: jester on January 15, 2012, 12:28:58 pm

Dont you seppos owe the french your entire country after all the gear, knowhow and military support they gave you during your rebellion?

I think we sorta paid them back with the help in both World Wars, but it's not really relevant. Anything left over is probably in a museum.

I'm thinking that Perry and Huntsman, at the least, are dropping out after this state. Probably Santorum too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 15, 2012, 01:04:40 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 15, 2012, 07:47:13 am

Given that Gingrich is pretty solidly in 2nd place right now in South Carolina and Florida, if the attacks continue (and more importantly if Romney continues to walk around with one foot lodged firmly in his mouth) then Gingrich could make the mother of all comebacks and win South Carolina and Florida. At least until he puts his foot deeper down his own throat, and we're subjected to yet another spin of the "Who Wants To Lose To Obama 2012 Invitational" wheel. I've heard of a circular firing line, but I've never seen a circular suicide line before.

I suppose what happens in Florida will be the real decision of the race.  It used to be South Carolina was the first "real" primary, because it's more expensive to campaign in than Iowa and New Hampshire, so it was considered proof of who could put together a real campaign.  Thanks to Citizens United, as long as you can pick up one crazy millionaire who wants an impact on the race, anybody can survive.  Combined with the Republican primary going mostly to proportional-caucus delegation, where it's almost like making a parliament, the "real" nomination could drag on for months as candidates overtake each other from one state to the next, with the money jockeying behind them.

Except for Florida, which is the first "big" state, with expensive TV advertising and too many people to go door to door, with their own weird mix of issues between Cuban Republicans and people who used to be New England Republicans and plain old Southern Folk.  And most importantly: Florida is the biggest state on the calendar that's still "Winner Take All" in nomination, with as many delegates as Iowa and South Carolina combined.  If Romney wins Florida, the race will be effective over as everyone else's financial backing dries up and he maintains a commanding lead until the convention.  If anybody but Romney wins Florida, especially if it somehow winds up being Newt Gingrich, it's going to be a long fight.

I still predict a Romney candidacy in the end no matter what, it's just a question of when it'll be obvious to the rest of the campaigns and their donors, and how many aspects of Romney will have tailor-made attack ads ready to go by the end.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 15, 2012, 01:36:02 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 15, 2012, 01:04:40 pm

I still predict a Romney candidacy in the end no matter what, it's just a question of when it'll be obvious to the rest of the campaigns and their donors, and how many aspects of Romney will have tailor-made attack ads ready to go by the end.

Part of me agrees with you, and part of me just isn't so sure. I remember that Hilary Clinton appeared to be a foregone conclusion at one point too. Then Obama was supposedly the frontrunner after he won Iowa and tied NH, but it was still a nightmarishly long slog that threatened to go all the way to the convention. And his margin of delegates at this point (25 to Clinton's 24 and Edwards' 18) frankly wasn't much different than what Romney's got (14 to Ron Paul's 10 and Santorum's 8). Gingrich was polling as high as 45% at one time in Florida, and it looks like he could rebound there with enough ads and enough bomb-throwing (and frankly, bomb-throwing is what Gingrich does best).

Honestly, I'd love to see this thing go all the way to the convention and come down to the "unpledged" delegates. Oh what a wretched hive of shady back-room deals THAT would be. The US hasn't had some really good convention drama in decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on January 15, 2012, 01:44:22 pm

I think it'd be hillarious if vermin supreme got a recognisable amount of votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 15, 2012, 01:46:19 pm

Quote from: Japa on January 15, 2012, 01:44:22 pm

I think it'd be hillarious if vermin supreme got a recognisable amount of votes.

You know America is broken when Vermin Supreme seems like a legit candidate :d

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 15, 2012, 02:11:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 15, 2012, 01:36:02 pm

And his margin of delegates at this point (25 to Clinton's 24 and Edwards' 18) frankly wasn't much different than what Romney's got (14 to Ron Paul's 10 and Santorum's 8). Gingrich was polling as high as 45% at one time in Florida, and it looks like he could rebound there with enough ads and enough bomb-throwing (and frankly, bomb-throwing is what Gingrich does best).

You make an honest point.  I put no stock in polls taken before the primaries begin, but they are officially underway, so what people say now is a lot more likely to play out in reality.  A reality in which Romney is still on top of every opinion poll taken anywhere, shifting margins or otherwise.  I was about to do some rambling around prognostication, but I keep forgetting the most important rule of elections - every one is different.  (Even if this one does have some eerie similarities to 1996, in which the "conservative" vote was split apart and eventually moderate Bob Dole was nominated by margin.)

---

I forgot there actually is a piece of news this weekend.  Tony Perkins - head of the Family Research Council (http://www.frc.org/) parochial think tank, and headmaster of Holy Texas Emperor Rick Perry's Jesuspalooza shindig (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html) back in August - put out a call for a conference of American evangelical "leaders", TV personalities, and megachurch pastors.  A hundred and fifty men (and they are all men) for whom religion is politics and politics is religion sequestered themselves in the hills of Texas' German Country, to make a plan of action: Operation Stop Mitt Romney.  Whether its his past stances on things like abortion and gay marriage, or his unpredictability in the future, or being Mormon, Perkins decided it was high time for religious Republicans to make a stand and make sure they didn't hand him the nomination by allowing the cultural-conservative vote to be segmented, and rally into one jihad to support one candidate.

To no particular surprise, they picked Rick Santorum (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/204177-150-social-conservatives-vote-to-back-santorum) as their great white hope.  It is a little ironic that a group composed about 99% of Protestants, Methodists, Baptists, and Lutherans would decide a Catholic was the man to carry their standard into the White House, but then they're all closer together than this group is to their "enemies" so its not that weird really.  Gingrich is Catholic too by the way, but who cares.  And now to see what kind of money and support Santorum starts getting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 15, 2012, 06:04:04 pm

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/colbert-super-pac-goes-negative-on-romney-in-first

Yes. The Definitely not coordinated with Steven Colbert super PAC has released their first definitely not coordinated with Steven Colbert ad. In this add they condemn Mitt Romney's record of brutally murdering corporations (who are people) and and desecrating their corpses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: warhammer651 on January 15, 2012, 08:23:31 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 15, 2012, 06:04:04 pm

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/colbert-super-pac-goes-negative-on-romney-in-first

Yes. The Definitely not coordinated with Steven Colbert super PAC has released their first definitely not coordinated with Steven Colbert ad. In this add they condemn Mitt Romney's record of brutally murdering corporations (who are people) and and desecrating their corpses.

and yet, its still better than most attack ads.


Where is this country going and why is it in a handbasket?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 15, 2012, 11:41:55 pm

News was saying Huntsman's dropped out. Does that mean there's no longer a (facsimile of a, at least) sane Republican choice?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 16, 2012, 12:13:54 am

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/republican-huntsman-quit-presidential-race-report-023416088.html) at Yahoo says that he's endorsing Romney now. Gack.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 16, 2012, 02:33:45 pm

Confirmed. Huntsman is out of the hunt, endorsed his cousin. I figure about half the votes he would have gotten will go to Romney, the remainder maybe to Ron Paul or possibly Buddy Roemer. Of course, since he was polling single-digits, it's not like this is a tectonic shift. Shame...Huntsman had potential. Maybe in 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 16, 2012, 03:05:59 pm

Sigh. The sane man has left the race. What a pity- I really quite liked Huntsman. 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 16, 2012, 03:12:11 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 16, 2012, 03:05:59 pm

Sigh. The sane man has left the race. What a pity- I really quite liked Huntsman. 2016.

I disliked him the least. though I have found some stuff I don't like about him after some research (he supports prison privatization). But I really am FAR too liberal for that to affect most peoples decision on a republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 16, 2012, 03:22:45 pm

Aye. His ideas for a flat tax and prison privatization were a bit ridiculous, but he was better than the rest. (Which isn't really saying a whole lot.))

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 16, 2012, 03:31:38 pm

OP updated with Hunstman's exit.  I'll bet money that opinion poll that showed him at 4% below South Carolina native Stephen Colbert at 5% (who wasn't even in the poll) had something to do with his decision.  This is going to be a goofy primary.

I think I need more polls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 16, 2012, 03:35:39 pm

I've been hitting up RealClearPolitics for most of my polling data. For some reason, I haven't kept up with Nate Silver's blog this year (I wasn't that thrilled when he went from having his own site to being part of the NY Times).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 16, 2012, 03:46:04 pm

538 has been a lot worse as part of the NYT. They don't have links to the actual polls and do a lot less open analysis of numbers than they used to. It's still my most trusted source and I keep it in my RSS reader if only reading one of every few articles.

RCP is better for links to (most) polls, but are a lot worse on the numbers side. I remember losing all respect when they treated the straight average of multiple different polls as meaningful.

One site I haven't been looking at but should be (eg, just adding to google reader now) is DemConWatch (http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/). It was invaluable back in '08 for it's focus on delegates, convention procedure and various other party minutiae. It looks like they are doing a similar analysis of the Republican primaries this year. They are partisan and not single focus anymore, but still should be worth keeping an eye on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: trees on January 17, 2012, 03:20:59 pm

I guess that Rick Perry claimed that Turkey was run by Islamic terrorists (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_TURKEY_RICK_PERRY?SITE=AP) in the SC debate last night.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 17, 2012, 03:25:35 pm

Quote from: trees on January 17, 2012, 03:20:59 pm

I guess that Rick Perry claimed that Turkey was run by Islamic terrorists (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_TURKEY_RICK_PERRY?SITE=AP) in the SC debate last night.

His  "reasoning" for this was that Turkey was willing to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza in order to deliver food and medicine Palestinians and that they condemned Israel for slaughtering their citizens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 17, 2012, 03:29:16 pm

Quote from: trees on January 17, 2012, 03:20:59 pm

I guess that Rick Perry claimed that Turkey was run by Islamic terrorists (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_TURKEY_RICK_PERRY?SITE=AP) in the SC debate last night.

Yeah, that was pretty damn weird.  I have absolutely no idea who he was trying to convince of what there, because I don't think even the most rabid hawkish conservative distrusts Turkey at this point (indeed, I imagine one's awareness of Turkey's existence decreases with rabidness) and anyone who knows the slightest iota of Middle Easter politics or NATO history would know it's preposterous.

So yeah, when that's the only line he's remembered for, I think he's pretty much baked.  It's a bitter sweet moment for me personally, because it means he's going home to be my governor again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 17, 2012, 04:33:27 pm

Quickly, Aqizzar, you only have few hours to stake a coup d'état! Gather your loyal henchmen and get to it! It is for the best of all Tex-kind!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 17, 2012, 04:36:48 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 17, 2012, 03:29:16 pm

Quote from: trees on January 17, 2012, 03:20:59 pm

I guess that Rick Perry claimed that Turkey was run by Islamic terrorists (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_TURKEY_RICK_PERRY?SITE=AP) in the SC debate last night.

Yeah, that was pretty damn weird.  I have absolutely no idea who he was trying to convince of what there, because I don't think even the most rabid hawkish conservative distrusts Turkey at this point (indeed, I imagine one's awareness of Turkey's existence decreases with rabidness) and anyone who knows the slightest iota of Middle Easter politics or NATO history would know it's preposterous.

So yeah, when that's the only line he's remembered for, I think he's pretty much baked.  It's a bitter sweet moment for me personally, because it means he's going home to be my governor again.

I think he may have been baked in more ways than one.

"Whoa dude, hear me out on this...so, Turkey's all about being like, secular and shit, right? But they're ALL MUSLIMS! How can be they be secular Muslims, man? It's all a big trap....hey, gotta anything to eat?"

On the other hand, the AKP's political opponents have been claiming they're crypto-Islamists since before they even took power, so maybe that's what he was cueing off of. But that'd be like a foreign politician claiming that the United States is ruled by a Kenyan socialist Muslim, because he heard somebody say that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 17, 2012, 04:40:51 pm

I think Nadaka got it right that Perry was probably thinking of, or more accurately somebody on his staff handed him a line to reference, putting Turkey on the enemies list because of that Palestinian relief blockade thing, and he was trying to score some more-pro-Israeli-than-thou points.  Which maybe nine people in the United States actually remember at this point, none of them being Rick Perry.

Quote from: scriver on January 17, 2012, 04:33:27 pm

Quickly, Aqizzar, you only have few hours to stake a coup d'état! Gather your loyal henchmen and get to it! It is for the best of all Tex-kind!

I already won imperatora over Tejas in trial by combat once before.  It's not the picnic that it sounds like, trust me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 18, 2012, 11:34:29 am

McCain's 2008 opposition research document on Romney leaked. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File)

That's a 200 page how-to guide on beating the crap out of Romney from a Republican POV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 18, 2012, 04:49:08 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 18, 2012, 11:34:29 am

McCain's 2008 opposition research document on Romney leaked. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File)

That's a 200 page how-to guide on beating the crap out of Romney from a Republican POV.

Huh. Would you look at that...

Quote

Campaign Finance Reform

• In 2002, Romney proposed installing 10 percent tax on private donations to political campaigns.
• ...
• Romney once proposed capping spending on elections, abolishing PACs and “tightening regulations.”

How much does his funding total?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2012, 04:58:15 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 18, 2012, 04:49:08 pm

• In 2002, Romney proposed installing 10 percent tax on private donations to political campaigns.
• ...
• Romney once proposed capping spending on elections, abolishing PACs and “tightening regulations.”

Romney.....Republican.....taxation........anti-PAC....what.....it doesn't......

*MetalSlimeHunt's mind has imploded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 18, 2012, 09:51:16 pm

Related (http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tries-sidestep-tax-furor-ignited-230233634.html), Romney tries to ignore the arguments of all who oppose him, same as usual. Only this time it's on income. Fits the mood perfectly.

And so the Obama campaign begins. (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-launches-1st-tv-ad-005653481.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 18, 2012, 10:00:12 pm

I should mention that last night, I heard the first "real" Presidential ad I've seen yet, here in urban Texas.  I do see a few TV ads on national cable channels, but when you watch cable news eight hours a day, that's to be expected.  What surprised me, it was a pro-Gingrich PAC ad, airing on a Clear Channel radio station at 11PM.  which I suppose also makes it a national-ad venue, but still.  Also makes me realize again that I'm an odd mix of demographic signatures.

Oh yeah, and some poll in South Carolina (ABC I think) has Stephen Colbert polling at 13%, ahead of Rick Santorum (and Paul and Perry).  As you may have heard, because the South Carolina Republican primary doesn't allow write-in ballots, Stephen's PAC, sorry Jon Stewart's PAC I mean, has been airing ads telling people to vote for Herman Cain (whose name will still be listed) in lieu of Colbert.  It's also an Open Primary, meaning no party restrictions on participation.  That'll be fun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 18, 2012, 10:02:17 pm

I sincerely hope that he's faking being a right-wing radical. If you look at that document, he is about as moderate as Obama, or has been.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2012, 10:30:46 pm

Romney has flipped so much it's hard to tell where he is. Might as well be random.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on January 18, 2012, 10:33:06 pm

It's well known that the only thing Romney has been steadfast on is "wanting to be president"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 19, 2012, 12:23:06 am

Has there been a politician, ever, who hasn't been accused of being a flip-flop? And besides, I'd rather have someone in office who changes their opinions in light of new evidence rather than one that steadfastly goes along with whatever they said 5+ years ago regardless of anything else. Romney's changing views make me even less likely to vote for him, but not because of the mere act of changing his mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 19, 2012, 12:26:08 am

There's a difference between changing one's mind and reaching levels of political opportunism which cause you to say something contrary to a previous stance the very next day. Romney has reached the point where it's impossible to know what he'd actually do because he only says what he thinks will get him elected. He not only looks like the stereotypical politician but he acts like it on steroids.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 19, 2012, 12:26:21 am

Changing opinions in light of new evidence is a good thing. It shows mental flexibility and a willingness to be proved wrong.

The question is: is that really why Romney changed his mind about w/e?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 19, 2012, 12:27:30 am

Well, TR didn't really give a flying fuck what the rest of the government thought. The problem with Romney is that he simultaneously declares himself a 'steadfast supporter' of something, and then changes his mind a few years, months, or weeks later. According to that log from John McCain, the man changes his views on abortion four times in the span of a few years. His original stance came with a reason, but there was no explanation he gave for the sudden shift. He claimed he had always supported that. There was no new information that came to light here:

Romney supports choice because a relative died due to an illegal abortion.
Romney withdraws his support when running for office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 19, 2012, 12:34:21 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 19, 2012, 12:23:06 am

Has there been a politician, ever, who hasn't been accused of being a flip-flop? And besides, I'd rather have someone in office who changes their opinions in light of new evidence rather than one that steadfastly goes along with whatever they said 5+ years ago regardless of anything else. Romney's changing views make me even less likely to vote for him, but not because of the mere act of changing his mind.

Yeah, but Mitt changes his mind every few weeks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 19, 2012, 12:39:39 am

Of course there's the possibility of him just saying whatever he thinks will get him elected (you know, like most politicians), and I probably expect the same. Just that the mere act of changing your mind is not a bad thing. Stuff like "flip flop" and "steadfast" are meaningless to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 19, 2012, 12:41:32 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 19, 2012, 12:39:39 am

Of course there's the possibility of him just saying whatever he thinks will get him elected (you know, like most politicians), and I probably expect the same. Just that the mere act of changing your mind is not a bad thing. Stuff like "flip flop" and "steadfast" are meaningless to me.

I want to know what he wants, not what he thinks will get him elected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 19, 2012, 12:45:42 am

Yahoo is really going on a rampage here. (http://news.yahoo.com/bain-deals-romney-gave-stock-mormon-church-003327096.html) Third top article about Romney's faults I've seen today. In this one, he apparently gave large amounts of stock to the Mormon Church so that he could acquire the huge tax deductions involved.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 19, 2012, 01:18:39 am

Actually, it's worth having him as the frontrunner at least so that the super-wealthy tax practices are put into the spotlight.

Obama will have soooo much fun during the campaign, with all the mud that Gingritch and al. are finding.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 19, 2012, 09:23:57 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 19, 2012, 12:27:30 am

His original stance came with a reason, but there was no explanation he gave for the sudden shift. He claimed he had always supported that.

Mitt Romney has always been a friend to Eastasia. Any thing different you may have heard are lies spread by Goldstein.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 19, 2012, 10:09:43 am

Not official yet, but pretty much definite that Perry is dropping out in the next hour. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16635833)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 19, 2012, 10:49:46 am

You know who's going to be most disappointed by this? "Real Republicans" in South Carolina. All 5 of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 19, 2012, 12:13:13 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven-160547876--abc-news.html

I think having Romney in this race is actually a good thing. If only because he makes it so plainly obvious how screwed up the tax system and income inequality really is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 19, 2012, 12:37:08 pm

I'm sure this is going to play well. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-ex-wife-interview-abc-20120119,0,1553301.story)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 19, 2012, 12:40:22 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 19, 2012, 12:37:08 pm

I'm sure this is going to play well. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-ex-wife-interview-abc-20120119,0,1553301.story)

Wow. I didn't know Gingrich divorced both his wives while they were going through horrible medical challenges. Quite frankly he is so much of a weasel and horrible person that I don't think the minor positive point that he wanted an open relationship instead of continuing to cheat would make a difference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 19, 2012, 01:46:38 pm

Surprisingly enough, Rick Perry did not wait until the South Carolina primary to announce he's giving it up (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57361787-503544/rick-perry-drops-his-presidential-bid/).  I guess after writing off Iowa and New Hampshire for the "real Republicans" of SC, and then coming back polling in Fred Karger territory, he must have decided to avoid the embarrassment.

On behalf of the Independent Christian Republic of Texas, I begrudgingly welcome the return of Our Governor in Perpetuity, Sovereign Lord of the territories of Sugarland, Ria Roja, The Incongruous Pines, Metroplexia, The Oil Inlet, Panhandlestan, and all others honored but not named, by the Grace of Jesus, Keeper of the Sacred Language and Duke of the Corridors, and Supreme Ruler of the Confederated Church, His Imperious Majesty Sir Richard Perry the First.  May God help us all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 19, 2012, 01:58:15 pm

So Perry's out, following my prediction that a a bumbling Texan will be unelectable nationally following Bush. It remains to be seen if this will affect his future gubernatorial elections, but I doubt it.

Now that all the candidates that said God told them to run are out, there's no one left for laughs but Santorum. :(

/ninja'd

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 19, 2012, 02:11:07 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 19, 2012, 01:58:15 pm

Now that all the candidates that said God told them to run are out, there's no one left for laughs but Santorum. :(

It is a little surprising that Perry endorsed Gingrich on his way out instead of Santorum, or just waiting for later, but I guess he was bought up by Gingrich's Last Alliance against Romney.  At least we still have him, Prospector Paul, Uncle Pennybags, and Ol' Jowly.

More interestingly, the Republican party in Iowa is just now getting about to actually counting their primary votes.  As of now, Rick Santorum is actually leading Mitt Romney by a few dozen votes (29840 to 29810 or something like that), but the ballots from eight precincts are just plumb not there (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iowa-gop-chairman-8-iowa-precincts-just-werent-able-submit-their-vote-totals) because somebody wasn't working the phone or something.  If they can't be turned in, the count will have to be certified as it stands, in which case Santorum will be declared the plurality winner, and Romney will no longer be the first non-incumbent Republican nominee to win both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 19, 2012, 02:20:45 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 19, 2012, 01:46:38 pm

Panhandlestan

I am *so* using the phrase "Panhandlestan" from now on. The beauty is that it can double for the Florida panhandle and be 100% as accurate.

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on January 19, 2012, 01:58:15 pm

Now that all the candidates that said God told them to run are out, there's no one left for laughs but Santorum. :(

Combined with the Broncos getting knocked out of the playoffs last weekend in spectacular fashion, God's self-chosen aren't faring too hot of late.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 19, 2012, 02:27:12 pm

Thanks for the mental image, RedKing. Tebow for President? I would plant his ass in the turf myself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 19, 2012, 02:32:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 19, 2012, 02:20:45 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 19, 2012, 01:46:38 pm

Panhandlestan

I am *so* using the phrase "Panhandlestan" from now on. The beauty is that it can double for the Florida panhandle and be 100% as accurate.

Very true. This part of Florida is very backwards. The panhandle helped win Rick Scott (supervillian Lex Luthor look and act alike) the Governorship.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 19, 2012, 06:23:00 pm

Guys, I think we all know what the big question here is: who exactly does Herman Cain endorse?

Well, don't worry everyone, I have the answer right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5GTBI3-spA4).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 19, 2012, 06:30:26 pm

And every single other candidate immediately facepalms, wondering why they didn't think of that. It's the perfect level of schmaltz, and nobody can actually say anything else now for fear of looking anti-American. Or so I predict, anyway. All future endorsements will be phrased "I endorse the American people, and also..."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 19, 2012, 06:31:48 pm

Looks like SOPA might have an effect on the presidential election after all. (http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/)

Quote

So far the most outspoken mogul against the Obama administration on this issue has been Rupert Murdoch who on Saturday told his new Twitter audience: “So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery.” But I’ve learned that other moguls privately are having “direct and personal conversations” with Obama and his administration and the Democratic Party. Several moguls have informed Obama’s newly anointed Hollywood re-election liason to the entertainment community Nicole Avant and her husband who is helping her, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos, that they are pulling out of major fundraisers planned over the next few days and won’t participate in any more headed by Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (whom they see as in the pocket of the Internet giants like Google).

One of those events is a major January 31st fundraiser attended by First Lady Michelle Obama at the Beverly Hills home of Avant and Sarandos. There’s another LA fundraiser for the First Lady on February 1st. And both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will be coming for more fundraisers here in coming weeks.  The moguls are telling Avant and Sarandos to count them out. “Now is when all the fundraises are starting. But everyone in my position is really pissed. It’s a real conundrum,” one mogul told me.

This is pretty big money, especially before there is a single Republican target for Obama to raise money running against.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 19, 2012, 07:23:13 pm

Wow, suddenly I -sort- of like Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 19, 2012, 07:26:15 pm

Let's hope he grows a spine for once and sticks to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 19, 2012, 07:31:21 pm

Quote from: Lysabild on January 19, 2012, 07:23:13 pm

Wow, suddenly I -sort- of like Obama.

He has his moments.

but wait, doesn't this mean that FOX news just lost its biggest talking point against Obama? They can't say he is "hand in hand with the liberal hollywood fatcat media" anymore. Or am I underestimating the quantum superposition of spin states achievable by the conservative propaganda machine?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 19, 2012, 07:32:35 pm

Liberal internet fatcat media bullies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 19, 2012, 07:32:44 pm

They'll ignore it, and report instead that he supports Internet piracy and probably does it a whole bunch himself. Remember, they're owned by Murdoch. I don't mean the corporation, I mean the actual employees.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 19, 2012, 09:54:29 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on January 19, 2012, 07:32:35 pm

Liberal internet fatcat media bullies.

In concert with the hacker alliance Anonymous!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 19, 2012, 10:48:30 pm

Lol, 'Silicon Valley paymasters'  seems like Rupert is hinting Obama takes bribes and is pissed he wont change his stance over the big was he is waving in his face at the same time.  Sooner that mans son kills and eats him to absorb his powers the better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 19, 2012, 11:43:09 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 19, 2012, 09:23:57 am

Mitt Romney has always been a friend to Eastasia. Any thing different you may have heard are lies spread by Goldstein.

This has to be sigged.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on January 20, 2012, 01:53:13 am

It just occurred to me. Mitt Romney is the John Kerry of the Republican party. If you look closer, a lot of them have mirrors from the other side. Another somewhat obvious pair seems to be Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Also Bachmann/Palin (they're basically the same person) and Hillary Clinton.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 20, 2012, 02:50:37 am

How are Bachmann and Palin at all similar to Clinton?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on January 20, 2012, 02:55:15 am

Quote from: G-Flex on January 20, 2012, 02:50:37 am

How are Bachmann and Palin at all similar to Clinton?

They have boobs. That's about as far as a comparison can go, as Hillary Clinton is, you know, not mentally incompetent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 20, 2012, 03:01:57 am

Quote from: alway on January 20, 2012, 02:55:15 am

They have boobs.

Do you have proof of this? They could be very skilled crossdressers. Given the amount of money behind them, I wouldn't be surprised if they could access very convincing accessories.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 20, 2012, 03:02:55 am

Maybe that's why Bill was an adulterer.  He knew.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on January 20, 2012, 03:25:44 am

Hillary is about as extreme left (for the US spectrum, anyway. which just makes her moderate left in general) as Bachmann/Palin are right and at least Hillary/Palin are/were both sidekicks to a much more moderate winner. Obama/McCain.

This is why I completely left Herman Cain out of it. I knew if I mentioned him it'd just be "Cause they're both black!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 20, 2012, 03:28:35 am

Quote from: sluissa on January 20, 2012, 01:53:13 am

It just occurred to me. Mitt Romney is the John Kerry of the Republican party. If you look closer, a lot of them have mirrors from the other side. Another somewhat obvious pair seems to be Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Also Bachmann/Palin (they're basically the same person) and Hillary Clinton.

Hate to break it to you, but these comparisons are a few months old now. Most have been quoted from the media all the way on through to this thread :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on January 20, 2012, 03:40:57 am

Quote from: nenjin on January 20, 2012, 03:28:35 am

Quote from: sluissa on January 20, 2012, 01:53:13 am

It just occurred to me. Mitt Romney is the John Kerry of the Republican party. If you look closer, a lot of them have mirrors from the other side. Another somewhat obvious pair seems to be Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Also Bachmann/Palin (they're basically the same person) and Hillary Clinton.

Hate to break it to you, but these comparisons are a few months old now. Most have been quoted from the media all the way on through to this thread :P

Yeah, so? Not a single original thought left in this world. Sorry.

Just so you know? Pointing it out? Also not original.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 20, 2012, 05:34:18 am

Quote from: sluissa on January 20, 2012, 03:40:57 am

Quote from: nenjin on January 20, 2012, 03:28:35 am

Hate to break it to you, but these comparisons are a few months old now. Most have been quoted from the media all the way on through to this thread :P

Yeah, so? Not a single original thought left in this world. Sorry.

Just so you know? Pointing it out? Also not original.

Yeah? Well MY dad can beat up your dad!



 ::) Come on gentlemen.

I sure hope Obama issues a solid response to their 'Fuck you's (as the writer put so eloquently) in the following way: No, fuck you. Call the elitocracy out once for christ's sake. They seriously cannot expect to have their cakes and eat it too (control of movies, television, music, and NOW the internet) without a sane leader, like Obama, realizing that it's destructive and that a line needs to be drawn. Of course, it's most likely political posteuring.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 20, 2012, 08:24:53 am

We need another Clinton in office like we need another Bush or Kennedy in office. The US isn't a hereditary monarchy and I don't like the idea of giving further influence to these handful of wealthy families.

I'm all for electing people outside the established political circle we have already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 20, 2012, 10:42:36 am

Remember folks, Hillary Clinton is well known to crusade for censorship and against video games. She isn't Ol' Bills distaff counterpart. And I seriously doubt that she would make anywhere near as good a president as he did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 20, 2012, 12:51:51 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 20, 2012, 08:24:53 am

We need another Clinton in office like we need another Bush or Kennedy in office. The US isn't a hereditary monarchy and I don't like the idea of giving further influence to these handful of wealthy families.

I'm all for electing people outside the established political circle we have already.

FDR gave us the New Deal and he was not only related to a previous president but was the most blue blooded aristocrat that we ever made president.  FDR was so aristocratic that he spoke with an obscure accent found only in exclusive schools and gentlemen's clubs of the north-east.  FDR couldn't even walk on his own two legs because walking was too pedestrian for someone of his breeding.  Despite being such a toff, he was the most successful champion of the working class in this nations history.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 20, 2012, 01:00:46 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 20, 2012, 12:51:51 pm

FDR couldn't even walk on his own two legs because walking was too pedestrian for someone of his breeding.

A little unnecessary, don't you think?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 20, 2012, 01:01:01 pm

Not to reopen a mostly dead subthread here, but I think Hillary Clinton's counterpart woud be Gingrich: both are very polarizing figures, have some "baggage" and are mostly holdovers from the 1990's (Clinton's Senate and SoS tenures notwithstanding).


Anybody else getting a kick out of Newt trying to play the offended, self-righteous high road re: his ex-wife?
"The media should be ashamed of themselves for bringing up an internal family matter in a political campaign."

This is the same man who made his career on trying to impeach Clinton for having an affair while he was having his own affair. He takes hypocrisy to a rareified art form.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 20, 2012, 01:20:32 pm

I don't see the Gingrich-Clinton parallel myself.  Hillary entered office after Gingrich left it.  Gingrich made a name for himself by bucking against the party elites and championing culture war while Hillary has never been a party renegade.  They even come from sharply different political office backgrounds.  The Speaker of the House is naturally confrontational while Hillary's positions as first lady, Senator and Secretary of State were more stateswomanly.

So Gingrich is now leading in South Carolina.  Hooray for the GOP circular firing squad!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 20, 2012, 02:01:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 20, 2012, 01:20:32 pm

I don't see the Gingrich-Clinton parallel myself.  Hillary entered office after Gingrich left it.

Arguable. Remember her attempts to shape healthcare policy as First Lady? Not an elected office, but she was certainly much more of a political animal than any First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt.

Quote

Gingrich made a name for himself by bucking against the party elites and championing culture war while Hillary has never been a party renegade.  They even come from sharply different political office backgrounds.  The Speaker of the House is naturally confrontational while Hillary's positions as first lady, Senator and Secretary of State were more stateswomanly.

True, but we're comparing where they are *now* in broad strokes. Paul and Kucinich have drastically different backstories, but they're both seen as sort of charismatic fringers.

Quote

So Gingrich is now leading in South Carolina.  Hooray for the GOP circular firing squad!

Further proving that "family values" voters are so full of shit, they're turning brown. And then they'll have to have each other deported because....y'know, can't trust those brown people.

The new narrative is "the liberal media elites are trying to destroy Gingrich to protect Obama in the general election", which frankly is brilliant. Claim that X group of people hate you and are unfairly trying to destroy you. Then when they bring up ANY LEGITIMATE CRITICISM, you can wave it off and say, "See? See!!??? I told you bro, I told you bout that liberal media...."

I'd be jealous of Newt's mad Machiavellian skillz, if I didn't daily hope that he gets torn to pieces by rabid weasels. Truly, even Santorum isn't as slimy as Gingrich (and given the dual-nature of his name, that's saying something). Santorum's just insane and bigoted. But at least he's consistent and honestly believes the crap he's advocating.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 20, 2012, 07:23:48 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 20, 2012, 01:00:46 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 20, 2012, 12:51:51 pm

FDR couldn't even walk on his own two legs because walking was too pedestrian for someone of his breeding.

A little unnecessary, don't you think?

Yeah... way out of line considering FDR was actually paralyzed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_paralytic_illness), and struggled admirably with his condition while under the public spotlight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 20, 2012, 08:33:34 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chuck-norris-endorses-newt-gingrich-224223391.html

I don't even... Can Chuck Norris roundhouse kick the 'Grich all the way into the presidency?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 20, 2012, 08:36:32 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 20, 2012, 08:33:34 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chuck-norris-endorses-newt-gingrich-224223391.html

I don't even... Can Chuck Norris roundhouse kick the 'Grich all the way into the presidency?

Let's ask Mike Huckabee oh wait.

And dang, I really gotta update that OP.  Where do I begin describing this incredibly bizarre week to be preserved for memory?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dr. D on January 20, 2012, 10:46:08 pm

I can't wait until tomorrow afternoon. Maybe all the damn robocalls will stop.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on January 21, 2012, 12:57:05 am

I'm gonna post to watch atop my high horse up here in the Land of the Free and Home of the Beaver.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 21, 2012, 12:58:51 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 20, 2012, 07:23:48 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 20, 2012, 01:00:46 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 20, 2012, 12:51:51 pm

FDR couldn't even walk on his own two legs because walking was too pedestrian for someone of his breeding.

A little unnecessary, don't you think?

Yeah... way out of line considering FDR was actually paralyzed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_paralytic_illness), and struggled admirably with his condition while under the public spotlight.

The man died over 60 years ago and I was in the middle of a rant on how awesome he was.  I think that one can tastefully make a pun about his condition in those circumstances.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 21, 2012, 01:01:03 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 21, 2012, 12:58:51 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 20, 2012, 07:23:48 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 20, 2012, 01:00:46 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 20, 2012, 12:51:51 pm

FDR couldn't even walk on his own two legs because walking was too pedestrian for someone of his breeding.

A little unnecessary, don't you think?

Yeah... way out of line considering FDR was actually paralyzed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_paralytic_illness), and struggled admirably with his condition while under the public spotlight.

The man died over 60 years ago and I was in the middle of a rant on how awesome he was.  I think that one can tastefully make a pun about his condition in those circumstances.

You're right.  I didn't understand your humor at the time, but I do now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on January 21, 2012, 02:26:16 am

I keep thinking 'Newt Gingrich' sounds like a name for a villain from Harry Potter. This impression is helped by how close it is to the truth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 21, 2012, 02:40:41 am

Quote from: EveryZig on January 21, 2012, 02:26:16 am

I keep thinking 'Newt Gingrich' sounds like a name for a villain from Harry Potter. This impression is helped by how close it is to the truth.

You are not alone in that thought. Sadly, a quick Google search found nothing on Newt's views on Harry Potter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 12:45:22 pm

It's gameday! South Carolinians are taking to the polls today to vote for which son-of-a-bitch they dislike least, to run against that "uppity black guy" in the White House.

On the ballot:
Newt Gingrich, who has had a stellar week by napalming Romney on the airwaves and somehow turning his ex-wife's tell-all interview into a positive by playing the media victim card.

Mitt Romney, a week ago the undisputed front-runner and nominee apparent. Today? A liberal rich guy vulture capitalist who loves firing people.

Ron Paul, who is...still Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum, the newly recrowned victor of Iowa, who has shed almost all of his momentum from Iowa and is back in the low double-digits in polling.

Herman Cain, who isn't actually running but is being used as a cipher vote by Stephen Colbert. And because it's an open primary, could well finish ahead of Santorum.

Buddy Roemer, just because everybody could use a Buddy.



Results should start coming in after 6pm EST (about 5.5 hours from now)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 21, 2012, 02:05:42 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 12:45:22 pm

turning his ex-wife's tell-all interview into a positive by playing the media victim card.

That actually worked?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 21, 2012, 02:12:52 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on January 21, 2012, 02:05:42 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 12:45:22 pm

turning his ex-wife's tell-all interview into a positive by playing the media victim card.

That actually worked?

In the Republican party, decrying the "Liberal media" will always trump any character flaw.  Always.  You can read about it in the other thread ggamer started.

Anyway, I updated the OP.  There's a tornado warning in effect in rainy South Carolina today, but so far exit polls are showing higher than expected turnout (compared to 2008) across the state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on January 21, 2012, 02:36:48 pm

I'm going to make the obligatory joke about the fact that these tornado threats could be drawing their strength from the low pressure caused by so much hot air blowing into that state right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 21, 2012, 03:01:47 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 21, 2012, 02:12:52 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on January 21, 2012, 02:05:42 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 12:45:22 pm

turning his ex-wife's tell-all interview into a positive by playing the media victim card.

That actually worked?

In the Republican party, decrying the "Liberal media" will always trump any character flaw.  Always.  You can read about it in the other thread ggamer started.

That's the line they like to snivel when somebody digs up dirt on them, but Republican voters don't buy it anymore then anybody else does, Herbert Cain is a recent example and his character smear was a pretty lame one compared to some others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 21, 2012, 03:08:47 pm

What it really is, is like some many other realms of life, if you listen to the number and volume of talking heads, you'd think the Republican party was 9-to-1 men and women, when of course it's about 50/50.  When the stuff about Herman Cain and his wacky romantic shenanigans came out, you say most of the "Republican establishment" and media outlets blaming them dang liberals for wanting to stir up trouble for an honest man... whilst women supporters and men with a sense of composure silently abandoned him in droves and his polling numbers disappeared overnight.  Whether the same will eventually happen to Gingrich?  Who knows.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 21, 2012, 03:26:15 pm

Gingrich's infidelity has been known a long time.  GOP primary voters will never hold this against him because while he was doing it he was leading the republican revolution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 21, 2012, 06:17:25 pm

He makes John Edwards look like an underachiever in the infidelity championships.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 21, 2012, 06:39:59 pm

Something I just learned about.  Today is an auspicious day in the history of political campaigning.  As we go into the South Carolina primary, wherein Newt Gingrich is punching his way to the top through a storm of resurfacing personal shenanigans, whilst all and sundry complain about the power of Super PACs to overturning polling in days even as they embrace their dark gifts, January 21st marks both the fifteenth anniversary (or just about) of Newt Ginrich's House committee conviction of financial impropriety (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm), and the second anniversary of the Citizens United decision (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=48389.msg988799#msg988799) that created the Super PAC.

Its amazing what changes and doesn't change over time.  Including my ability to toot my own horn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 06:58:14 pm

Looks like I was off about the results time. 6pm was merely when CNN would start their coverage. Polls don't actually close until 7pm (about two minutes from now).

Based on the latest polls, it could be anything from a photo-finish tie to Gingrich stomping Romney by 10+ percentage points. If Santorum overachieves here, Ron Paul may face his first finish out of the top 3. The other interesting bit will be to see how much Stephen Colbert can wreak havoc with things. If Herman Cain winds up pulling 10% or more and/or beating out of the legitimate (and I use the word with some hesitation) candidates, Colbert is going to be front-page news and you're going to see a lot of GOP talking heads indignant that he's "making a mockery of our political system" (as has already been charged by some). When in fact, he and Jon Stewart are merely holding a floodlight to the mockery that it already is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 21, 2012, 07:27:35 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 06:58:14 pm

When in fact, he and Jon Stewart are merely holding a floodlight to the mockery that it already is.

You win ALL the internet cookies. America, how the fuck did you end up like this? From one of the greatest collections of minds the world has ever seen to a new-age Rome overwhelmed by barbarians in a little over 200 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on January 21, 2012, 08:11:16 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 21, 2012, 07:27:35 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 06:58:14 pm

When in fact, he and Jon Stewart are merely holding a floodlight to the mockery that it already is.

You win ALL the internet cookies. America, how the fuck did you end up like this? From one of the greatest collections of minds the world has ever seen to a new-age Rome overwhelmed by barbarians in a little over 200 years.

At least we don't have mobs clubbing down tribunes in the streets yet. Although to be fair, that might actually be an improvement over the current state of affairs...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 21, 2012, 08:15:03 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 21, 2012, 07:27:35 pm

You win ALL the internet cookies. America, how the fuck did you end up like this? From one of the greatest collections of minds the world has ever seen to a new-age Rome overwhelmed by barbarians in a little over 200 years.

A consumerist based society, bread and circuses cheap beer and fox news?

More seriously, a big part of it actually came from the cold war; extreme opposition to traditionally 'liberal' ideas, an increased emphasis on christian religion and the entrenchment of capitalism as some holy ideal were all started or at least strongly magnified as a reaction against those Godless Commie bastards (TM).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 21, 2012, 08:17:10 pm

Alright, that's enough of that now.

With a quarter of the vote totaled, Gingrich stands at 45k, Romney 29k, Santorum 19k, Paul 14k, and the "others" have not been wholly released.  Because South Carolina works on a district-by-district proportion, Gingrich has 13 of SC's 25 delegates already.

By the way, I urge people to try to stomach Romney's "concession" speech.  His history as a venture capitalist is no longer about "jobs" per se, so much as "success" and "personal liberty", and Republicans "who take up the weapons of the Left will them used against us".  And I have never seen a more gut-wrenching script of applause breaks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 21, 2012, 08:29:56 pm

I suppose it's not entirely unexpected that he'd do well in his home state where he'd put his hopes since at least Iowa.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 08:34:28 pm

And here's the crosstabs (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc) on the exit polling.

Not much that isn't common sense or that we haven't seen before. Rich, educated Republicans went for Romney, young people went for Paul, the blue-collar sixpackers and Tea Partiers went for Gingrich. Santorum was second fiddle to Newt even among his own natural base: born-again Evangelicals who care about religion and want to ban abortion. The only ares where Rick outperformed was for people whom abortion is the single strongest issue (only 8% of the total) and/or people whose single most important candidate quality was a strong moral character (18% of total). It should noted that even 6% of those folks voted Gingrich.

A majority of voters seemed to indicate that the debates were important to their decision, and of those, Gingrich took the lion's share. So since he "won" the debates by attacking everyone who dared question him, and playing the victim card hard....yeah, you know what to expect from here on out.



Geographically, Romney's winning the urban areas. Problem being, this is South Carolina. There's basically two cities -- Columbia and Charleston. Everything in between is lightly populated rural area or small cities at best (<50,000 population). And Gingrich is absolutely cleaning up there.

@Glowcat: Gingrich is from Georgia, not South Carolina. It's right next-door, but it is a distinction.


EDIT: I'll just add that Ron Paul does indeed look headed for his first finish outside the top 3. Not a huge surprise (SC doesn't have a strong Libertarian streak, and *does* have a strong "God-and-guns" streak) but still has to be disappointing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 21, 2012, 08:42:06 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 08:34:28 pm

@Glowcat: Gingrich is from Georgia, not South Carolina. It's right next-door, but it is a distinction.

Darn. 18 hours awake and poor memory tends to blur information together.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 09:00:06 pm

70% or so reporting, and Gingrich has a commanding win. 40% to Romney's 26% and Santorum's 18%.

One of the potential stories out of this...what happened to the Colbert/Cain votes? "Other" is only at 4200 votes, and Rick Perry got about 1600. Considering that Colbert was polling as high as 13% just a week or so ago...I'm going to want to see the final breakdown to see how many Cain got. If he winds up with no votes, and the state GOP says "Oh, well we threw those out because we didn't like some comedian trying to cause havoc with our primary", then all hell is going to break loose because you can't do that. And I can totally see the South Carolina GOP being stupid enough to have done that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 21, 2012, 09:16:21 pm

It is also entirely possible that a bunch of people said, oh yeah I'm voting for Colbert, and either just didn't go vote or voted for a "real" candidate once they got there.  In the 2006 governor's race here in Texas, Kinky Friedman was polling something like 25-30% right up until the election, and got a whopping 10%.  "Joke" candidates tend to poll well, because people who get polled and don't give a shit or probably won't vote can say they're for the joke instead of Undecided.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 21, 2012, 09:50:14 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 09:00:06 pm

If he winds up with no votes, and the state GOP says "Oh, well we threw those out because we didn't like some comedian trying to cause havoc with our primary", then all hell is going to break loose because you can't do that. And I can totally see the South Carolina GOP being stupid enough to have done that.

Please. Please let this happen. The hilarity that ensues will be deliious. Plus, there's a good chance that Colbert will actually get angry, and hell hath no fury like a satirist scorned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 21, 2012, 09:54:42 pm

The other bit is a lot of people who would have voted for Colbert might not have known what to do when they realized he wasn't on the ballot!

Not everyone who supports the guy watches every episode of his show, after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 21, 2012, 10:01:05 pm

So question for folks more on top of this than I: Is there a centralized resource for transcripts of all this tomfoolery? Speeches, debates, attack ads, etc?

I just heard Gingrich implicitly claim responsibility for all the jobs created during his period as speaker, which was like ahahaha wtfd00d because that kind of claim makes the brain totally jump tracks into leetspeech incredulity. Being able to read this stuff at a leisurely pace (read: Having enough time to pick my jaw up off the ground from the sheer effrontery of this bovine excretion and start paying attention again) and without having to deal with what these people actually sound like would be incredibly nice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 21, 2012, 10:02:36 pm

What. I disconnect from the internet for two days and Newt Gingrich starts winning at anything? Fuck, never doing that again. Next time it might be Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 21, 2012, 10:33:36 pm

And now I believe Gingrich is winning the race in elected^* delegates. SC has 11 at-large, winner takes all delegates and then an extra 2 for whoever wins each congressional district. It looks like this might let Gingrich sweep all 25 delegates, putting him ahead of Romney's 19 so far. However SC is being redistricted. The actual CD boundaries are currently being renegotiated (read, sued over). Until they get out of court the final delegate count will be open to change even if they go ahead and announce an official allocation.

* It's worth noting there are also superdelegates (called automatic delegates on the Republican side). Not all delegates who would be superdelegates on the Democratic side are on the Republican side; in some places like SC they are bound to the state popular results, counted in those eleven at-large delegates. DCW keeps a list of these (http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4726/republican-superdelegate-endorsement-list) based on the best available reports. Right now Romney has 16 to one each for Santorum and Gingrich. Notably Santorum's superdelegate was from Iowa and reportedly pushed for the recent announcement that Santorum was the official winner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on January 22, 2012, 02:57:44 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 21, 2012, 09:00:06 pm

One of the potential stories out of this...what happened to the Colbert/Cain votes?

New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/south-carolina) has reported 6300 votes for Herman Cain (just over 1%), and about 2500 for Rick Perry. Huntsman got over 1000 votes, beating out Bachman and Gary Johnson.

Numbers I saw from the AP match this, though they lumped everyone out of the race except Perry into the "other category"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 22, 2012, 03:47:37 am

Darn. I was hoping that he would at least beat Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 06:46:07 am

SC, I am disappoint.

I'd say you're dead to me, but then you've always been dead to me (with the exception of Charleston, which is a lovely city).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 07:03:04 am

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tbNBnBe2SI) is just fucking ridiculous. Ron Paul's been shut out so much...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:07:34 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 07:03:04 am

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tbNBnBe2SI) is just fucking ridiculous. Ron Paul's been shut out so much...

He's a fringe candidate with very little support and a large number of who's "supporters" find many of his causes to be disgusting when they find out about them.  He has no chance of ever winning the race he repeatedly enters because a super-majority of the country would never vote for him in a million years.  He never even cracks the top two and just got 4th place in a 4 way race.

Yeah, it's the media that's holding him back.  Now excuse me, I need to go load my gun, I think the media has been spotted making trouble near my house.

Do you really think that this man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RMK0TRRlEM4 just needs MORE media attention to catch on?  Believe me, if they wanted to destroy him it would be easy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 08:16:18 am

The point is, every major media station has locked Ron Paul out of their coverage, while also entertaining the circus that is Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.

Also "fringe" my ass: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/?hpt=hp_bn3

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 08:26:14 am

@mainiac: That's a bit unfair. Paul did come in second in New Hampshire, and third in Iowa. That's a drastic improvement over his previous attempts. And frankly, until Gingrich did his asspull and came roaring back into this thing, Ron Paul was establishing himself as the legitimate anti-establishment candidate in this race.

One could be charitable and say that at this rate, he could have an excellent shot at getting nominated in 2016 or 2020. If it weren't for the fact that he'll be older than Methuselah by then.


Turning back to the GOP race in general, I find it interesting how polls are showing Gingrich (in SC) favored on the basis of "electability". This seems entirely off-base to me. Yes, Gingrich will ignite the Republican base in a way that Romney never will. He will also ignite the Democratic base in a way that Romney never will. Dems would rather not have Romney as President. They will crawl over broken glass to not have Gingrich. If Republicans really cared about the general election, they'd go with Romney (or Huntsman, before he dropped out). Instead, they're concerned with ideological purity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Miggy on January 22, 2012, 08:30:09 am

Yeah, that's a question I have to ask viewing all of this from the outside: No matter what happens at the GOP's elections, will any of them actually have a chance to beat Obama?

I mean, choosing people like Newt Gingrich over Barack Obama? How the hell is that even supposed to work out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 08:41:31 am

Quote from: Miggy on January 22, 2012, 08:30:09 am

Yeah, that's a question I have to ask viewing all of this from the outside: No matter what happens at the GOP's elections, will any of them actually have a chance to beat Obama?

I mean, choosing people like Newt Gingrich over Barack Obama? How the hell is that even supposed to work out.

Ron Paul would get an interesting debate out of him...

Romney would be a toss-up, honestly. Depends on which positions he decides to support.

Gingrich or Santorum? No fucking chance.

Also, even if Ron Paul loses the nomination, his momentum could easily carry over to his son later on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 22, 2012, 08:43:10 am

Browsing Youtube on Ron Paul videos, both the good and the bad, Ron Paul actually sounds like something worth voting for, compared to the rest of the republican candidates. (And I'm a red-green socialist saying this >_> )

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:47:42 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 08:16:18 am

The point is, every major media station has locked Ron Paul out of their coverage, while also entertaining the circus that is Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.

Also "fringe" my ass: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/?hpt=hp_bn3

If the people in the poll actually had the slightest clue what he advocated the numbers wouldn't look remotely like that.  How many 30 second attack ads have ever been run against him?

Can even you yourself describe his views on race as anything other then fringe?  That video I just posted?  His long (and close) association with white supremacist groups?

The first time that Ross Perot got in a serious debate over free trade with Al Gore, his support evaporated.  If Ron Paul actually got in a real national contest all the shit he's gotten away with for decades would come up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:48:53 am

Quote from: Lysabild on January 22, 2012, 08:43:10 am

Browsing Youtube on Ron Paul videos, both the good and the bad, Ron Paul actually sounds like something worth voting for, compared to the rest of the republican candidates. (And I'm a red-green socialist saying this >_> )

He wants to end federal funding for education, healthcare and retirement in the US.  Are you sure that you are a red-green socialist?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:01:22 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:47:42 am

Can even you yourself describe his views on race as anything other then fringe?  That video I just posted?  His long (and close) association with white supremacist groups?

Do you have anything to support this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 22, 2012, 09:05:39 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:48:53 am

He wants to end federal funding for education, healthcare and retirement in the US.  Are you sure that you are a red-green socialist?

I think my actual paid membership of Enhedslisten, not to mention my vote on them, puts little doubt on my political stance, however, if I was to choose between the republican candidates, which is the context I posted in, I'd choose him for the slight percentage of sense he makes compared to the others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:07:16 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:01:22 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:47:42 am

Can even you yourself describe his views on race as anything other then fringe?  That video I just posted?  His long (and close) association with white supremacist groups?

Do you have anything to support this?

The video I posted where he said that the civil war was about states rights and lincoln was a tyrant and that the CSA derrived consent from the governed?

The white supremacist newletter that was published in his name for a decade?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:16:53 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:07:16 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:01:22 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:47:42 am

Can even you yourself describe his views on race as anything other then fringe?  That video I just posted?  His long (and close) association with white supremacist groups?

Do you have anything to support this?

The video I posted where he said that the civil war was about states rights and lincoln was a tyrant and that the CSA derrived consent from the governed?

The white supremacist newletter that was published in his name for a decade?

The Civil War WAS about state's rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a state does not have the right to secede. It's not exactly a fringe belief either. Lincoln himself said that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." (This is from his first inaugural address) Lincoln believed that states did not have the right to secede (stated several times in the speech).

Also, that newsletter thing has kind of blown over now. I'll just leave it at that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:21:47 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:16:53 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:07:16 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:01:22 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:47:42 am

Can even you yourself describe his views on race as anything other then fringe?  That video I just posted?  His long (and close) association with white supremacist groups?

Do you have anything to support this?

The video I posted where he said that the civil war was about states rights and lincoln was a tyrant and that the CSA derrived consent from the governed?

The white supremacist newletter that was published in his name for a decade?

The Civil War WAS about state's rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a state does not have the right to secede. It's not exactly a fringe belief either. Lincoln himself said that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." (This is from his first inaugural address) Lincoln believed that states did not have the right to secede (stated several times in the speech).

Also, that newsletter thing has kind of blown over now. I'll just leave it at that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy).

Well you are clearly well informed.

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." -Alexander Stephens

But what did he know?  He was just the vice president of the CSA.  That country where every leading politician and general owned slaves.  The same country that invaded northern territory and abducted free citizens and enslaved them.  The same country that we are still waiting, 161 years later, to find out just what those "states rights" were other then slavery.

If you think the newsletter controversy wouldn't come up in a general election you are amazingly naive and I will leave it at that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:26:49 am

That's the reason the CSA seceded, not the reason the war started.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:28:23 am

Pro-tip, if supporting a candidacy means that the racist nature of the CSA even needs to be debated, the candidate is controversial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:30:29 am

I'm not debating the CSA's racism, that's pretty fucking obvious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:38:16 am

So when Ron Paul stands in front of a confederate flag and tries to exonerate the south that makes him... ironic?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

Okay, let's all amplify our relaxed states, shall we?

I think it's fair to say that Paul has some well-documented baggage in this area. No need to rehash it here. Paul supporters will fervently deny that he had anything to do with the newsletters, while detractors will just as fervently claim that they're a roadmap to his inner psyche. Neither is exactly accurate, and frankly we're never going to know unless he in fact does become President and calls for establishing apartheid or some shit.

The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it. And it's hardly a fringe view to consider Lincoln a tyrant. Even supporters of the man (such as myself) will admit that he broke a lot of rules in the name of the greater good. Suspension of habeas corpus, for example. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a tyrant, but then I am perhaps more circumspect than some.


Ron Paul has some ideas that appeal to the Left (ending foreign adventurism, reducing the military budget, anti-globalism) but on even a cursory inspection, this isn't because he's a liberal or even a moderate. He's an isolationist paleoconservative in the Pat Buchanan/Ross Perot mold. His answer to the challenges America faces in a multi-lateral, globalized world would essentially be to pull up the drawbridge and fix our own shit. Which is going to resonate with a lot of people who wonder why we're sending billions in foreign aid overseas at a time when they can't find work, the national infrastructure is crumbling, and the government is seemingly broke.

Problem is, autarchy didn't work in the 19th century, and it sure as hell doesn't work in the 21st. We need the rest of the world. We need them to buy our shit, we need them to make shit for us, and most importantly we need them to bankroll our government until we get some kind of handle on our budgetary woes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:41:11 am

Quote from: RedKing link=topic=98262.msg2923267#msg2923267

while detractors will just as fervently claim that they're a roadmap to his inner psyche

We will?

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

Which is going to resonate with a lot of people who wonder why we're sending billions in foreign aid overseas at a time when they can't find work

So it's going to resonate with people with people who don't know that it's less then %1 of the budget?

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it.

In the same way that global warming or evolution is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:49:50 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:41:11 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it.

In the same way that global warming or evolution is.

Now you're just being an idiot and completely ignoring the facts.

And Ron Paul's not fucking defending the slavery.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:50:52 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:49:50 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:41:11 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it.

In the same way that global warming or evolution is.

Now you're just being an idiot and completely ignoring the facts.

So supporting your candidate requires someone to consider the dominant view about the civil war to be idiotic and completely ignorant.  Really uncontroversial guy here.  He just radiates with non-controversy.

For how many candidates is this sort of thing even an issue?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 09:51:50 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:41:11 am

So it's going to resonate with people with people who don't know that it's less then %1 of the budget?

That's pretty much everyone, really. If there's any aspect of government spending that inevitably gets blown out of proportion it's giving money to foreigners. One of the more common figures that comes up in surveys about aid is 25% of the overall budget.

Quote

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it.

In the same way that global warming or evolution is.

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:54:15 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 09:51:50 am

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

You ever read the various state declarations of independence?  Please do so, it's illuminating.

But please, continue to look down on me because the "reasonable" position always lies in the middle, ftw.

Have a link: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 10:06:30 am

This is NOT about their reasons for secession, it's about the reasons for the fucking Civil War.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:08:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:54:15 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 09:51:50 am

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

I didn't say slavery wasn't an aspect. But it was not the only aspect by far, and not even the biggest one (See: Later in this post).

Quote

But please, continue to look down on me because the "reasonable" position always lies in the middle, ftw.

No one brought up the golden mean fallacy. At all. I don't even know where you're coming from here.


Anyway, the largest reason the Civil War happened is for a far larger reason than slavery. The Civil War happened principally because there was a critical disconnect in development, economy, social policy, culture, and view of the government's role between the North and the South. When a region of a country becomes so disconnected and ignored by another region that they feel unwanted and unbenefited, secession becomes an inevitability if these issues are not addressed. Things had gotten to the point where the Republicans were just plain ignoring the South because they didn't actually need their votes to win elections or get a majority in Congress as the states expanded. The southern states spent years seeing the federal government screw them over, and that feeling of helplessness is what caused the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.
 
I don't like Ron Paul. I think he's crazy, personally. But claiming that the CSA and the Civil War was first, foremost, and only because people wanted to keep slaves is simply ignoring a very important part of history and going with the endless tide of elementary history as truth that plagues our nation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:14:41 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:08:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:54:15 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 09:51:50 am

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

I didn't say slavery wasn't an aspect. But it was not the only aspect by far, and not even the biggest one (See: Later in this post).

Quote

But please, continue to look down on me because the "reasonable" position always lies in the middle, ftw.

No one brought up the golden mean fallacy. At all. I don't even know where you're coming from here.


Anyway, the largest reason the Civil War happened is for a far larger reason than slavery. The Civil War happened principally because there was a critical disconnect in development, economy, social policy, culture, and view of the government's role between the North and the South. When a region of a country becomes so disconnected and ignored by another region that they feel unwanted and unbenefited, secession becomes an inevitability if these issues are not addressed. Things had gotten to the point where the Republicans were just plain ignoring the South because they didn't actually need their votes to win elections or get a majority in Congress as the states expanded. The southern states spent years seeing the federal government screw them over, and that feeling of helplessness is what caused the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.
 
I don't like Ron Paul. I think he's crazy, personally. But claiming that the CSA and the Civil War was first, foremost, and only because people wanted to keep slaves is simply ignoring a very important part of history and going with the endless tide of elementary history as truth that plagues our nation.

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kiinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:18:04 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:14:41 am

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

....What?

Quote

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

Yes, in the entire history of the United States before the civil war, there was a period in which the South and the North had decently balanced representation in government and were similar enough to stay together. That didn't last forever. And that's when the civil war happened.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:21:49 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:18:04 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:14:41 am

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

....What?

Quote

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

Yes, in the entire history of the United States before the civil war, there was a period in which the South and the North had decently balanced representation in government and were similar enough to stay together. That didn't last forever. And that's when the civil war happened.

The south started seceding in December of 1860.  Lincoln took office in 1861, along with the first republican majority.  This is what we who like history call "research".

What you are doing on the other hand is called "idle speculation".

Read the cornerstone speech.  Read the declarations of independence.  Actually learn what the people at the time said.  They said it was about slavery.  "States rights" is largely a product of decades after the war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 10:23:27 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:41:11 am

Quote from: RedKing link=topic=98262.msg2923267#msg2923267

while detractors will just as fervently claim that they're a roadmap to his inner psyche

We will?

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

Which is going to resonate with a lot of people who wonder why we're sending billions in foreign aid overseas at a time when they can't find work

So it's going to resonate with people with people who don't know that it's less then %1 of the budget?

Which is a LOT of people. Most folks aren't concerned with actual numbers or pragmatic logic, it's the principle of the thing--to them, sending even one dollar to help a foreigner when there are people here that need it is just wrong (of course, many of them would also resist sending that dollar to help the poor here, but that's beside the point).

Quote

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 09:39:10 am

The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it.

In the same way that global warming or evolution is.

Seriously? See, this is why I hate the way history is taught in public schools. Let me clue you in on something: most of history is open to interpretation. That's why there are so goddamned many history books. That's why people go to school for years to learn how to study history. Yes, the Civil War (like most complicated, multi-facted events in history) is open to interpretation.

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 09:54:15 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 09:51:50 am

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

You ever read the various state declarations of independence?  Please do so, it's illuminating.

Have a link: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

Gee, how fascinating. I just looked up the North Carolina ordinance of secession. Guess what, Sparky? There's no mention of slavery. Not even a euphemistic mention.

In fact, only Alabama, Texas and Virginia even *mention* the word slave. Even South Carolina, the initial seceder and the one I'd expect to mention slavery, makes no mention whatsoever of it.

Perhaps you should read your own link before you see fit to pontificate. And we should take this to a seperate thread (or let it die in peace) before we invoke the frowny dog.  >:(



EDIT: Sorry, can't let this go unchallenged.

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:21:49 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:18:04 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:14:41 am

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

....What?

Quote

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

Yes, in the entire history of the United States before the civil war, there was a period in which the South and the North had decently balanced representation in government and were similar enough to stay together. That didn't last forever. And that's when the civil war happened.

The south started seceding in December of 1860.  Lincoln took office in 1861, along with the first republican majority.  This is what we who like history call "research".

What you are doing on the other hand is called "idle speculation".

You do realize *when* we have elections, right? By December 1860, Lincoln had already WON the Presidency. It was in fact, his victory that started the ball rolling on secession. Or were you too busy doing "research" to connect those two things?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:26:06 am

Quote from: mainiac

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

But please, continue to judge.

This discussion is getting seriously derailed so let me just point out what started it.  Ron Paul stood in front of a confederate flag and said that the south wasn't to blame for the civil war and that it was all the fault of the evil northern federal government.  To which it was scoffed that the civil war wasn't about slavery.  Whether or not you think the civil war was about slavery, can't we all agree that blaming the north is a fringe position?

On that note, I gotta go on a road trip.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:30:44 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:21:49 am

The south started seceding in December of 1860.  Lincoln took office in 1861, along with the first republican majority.  This is what we who like history call "research".

What you are doing on the other hand is called "idle speculation".

I considered apologizing for my error, but not if you're going to act like that. My point about the Republicans was incorrect, but the overall point is that the South was disconnected from the rest of the nation.

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:21:49 am

"States rights" is largely a product of decades after the war.

Nullification Crisis.

And RedKing is right, new thread if we want to continue this line of conversation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:32:25 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:30:44 am

I considered apologizing for my error, but not if you're going to act like that.

I've been called idiot about three times in the past page.  Please excuse me if I have a low opinion of this debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 10:32:43 am

The more pertinent one is surely the racist news letter that went out in Ron Paul's name for about a decade.  The kind of thing that would trash a candidate to hell if anyone thought he was worth trashing.  Really I can't see the media ignoring him as anything other than a blessing for Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:36:18 am

Not really. There's no way to win a presidential nomination these days if you don't have media coverage. That it is messed up that they basically decide who gets to be a candidate has been brought up many times before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 22, 2012, 10:36:42 am

Well, how long ago were they? I've had many racist and worse opinions that have grown and disappeared throughout my life as I learned and experienced life and was subjected to different ideas and events. Today I'm the polar opposite in politics compared to what I was 2 years ago.

Edit: I don't believe a man should be hunted for an opinion he had 10-20 years ago when he is promising he believes the opposite today!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 10:39:00 am

The fact is though... I also think pauls got some despicable views.

But we aren't voting for electing ideal candidates - we're voting for the lesser evil.

And if was a contest over which Republican was going to get the presidency, I would vote Paul every time. (I would have originally said Johnson, who's like Paul but not insane, but he's since dropped out). He is, as near I can tell, the only candidate who is not a psychopathic corporate crony. (Still insane, but in his own, special way)

That said... I'm honestly not sure how he'd do if they started launching attack ads against him. I'd assume his support would drop pretty quickly though, god knows he's tied himself to plenty of stuff that can sink him in a general election. I don't think he'd have any chance to beat Obama. (Which is, honestly, all the more reason to get him nominated. Change the dialogue, without the risk of him getting elected.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 10:42:10 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:26:06 am

Quote from: mainiac

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

But please, continue to judge.

Still incorrect. Missouri, Kentucky and Arkansas list a number of reasons such as (from their point of view) unlawful occupation by Federal troops, armed police actions by Federal troops on their soil, and Federal support of "partisans" (I'm assuming they mean pro-abolitionists here). None of them make so much as a whit about slavery, "property", or any other phrase that could be taken to indicate slavery.

Quote from: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 10:32:25 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 10:30:44 am

I considered apologizing for my error, but not if you're going to act like that.

I've been called idiot about three times in the past page.

No, you haven't. Just once (ECrownOfFire). The rest of us have vehemently disagreed with you and used sarcasm in our responses, but we have not outright insulted you. And that's my last word on this.



As to Paul being "blessed" by the lack of media coverage, I have to agree with MSH. No press is worse than bad press. Hell, look at Gingrich. If you're slick enough, you can turn bad coverage into a 20-point surge in the polls if you know how to spin it right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 11:39:40 am

Quote from: Lysabild on January 22, 2012, 10:36:42 am

Well, how long ago were they? I've had many racist and worse opinions that have grown and disappeared throughout my life as I learned and experienced life and was subjected to different ideas and events. Today I'm the polar opposite in politics compared to what I was 2 years ago.

Edit: I don't believe a man should be hunted for an opinion he had 10-20 years ago when he is promising he believes the opposite today!

Maybe I could accept this if Ron Paul had admitted to holding these views and said that he has moved on, and has realised the error of his ways.  He hasn't.  He's trying to deny he's ever held those views by claiming that he never checked the newsletters that were printed under his name (some of which he even signed).

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 10:42:10 am

As to Paul being "blessed" by the lack of media coverage, I have to agree with MSH. No press is worse than bad press. Hell, look at Gingrich. If you're slick enough, you can turn bad coverage into a 20-point surge in the polls if you know how to spin it right.

I'd have to say this is an overgeneralization.  All those allegations of sexual assault did not turn out to be "good press" for Herman Cain.  Similarly, I don't think the exposure of Ron Paul's racism/ willingness to sign anything for 10 years would be good press for him either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 22, 2012, 11:56:06 am

I couldn't find the original, so:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Bulldog_standing.JPG/300px-Bulldog_standing.JPG)

Let's rerail and possibly start a new thread before Aqizzar and/or Toady has to have words with us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 22, 2012, 12:02:25 pm

So it looks like the next primary isn't until the 31st, and that's Florida, which should be absolutely huge because it's fourth in terms of population, and the biggest one that's going to be a tossup in the general election (since Texas [1st] is going to vote Republican and California and New York [1st and 3rd, respectively] will vote Democrat).

Any Florida polls yet? Not that they mean anything...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 22, 2012, 12:10:18 pm

... we've been getting ads and phonecalls and suchlike for about a week now, I think, though only in fairly small amounts. Guess that means the bullshit is going to start to fly hardcore soon, or is starting to now.

Damnit.

Anyway, things should be fairly interesting, as they usually are when dealing with a schizophrenic state. It's a closed primary (If I'm actually remembering the right word for that; us registered dems don't get to vote on things. I just woke up.) though, so I fortunately don't get to actually vote on one of those slime bastids. Means they're probably going to be infecting my state for a bit, though :-\

Haven't noticed any polls, but I've also been doing my damnedest to stick my head in the ground and miss the oncoming shitstorm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 12:35:11 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 11:39:40 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 22, 2012, 10:42:10 am

As to Paul being "blessed" by the lack of media coverage, I have to agree with MSH. No press is worse than bad press. Hell, look at Gingrich. If you're slick enough, you can turn bad coverage into a 20-point surge in the polls if you know how to spin it right.

I'd have to say this is an overgeneralization.  All those allegations of sexual assault did not turn out to be "good press" for Herman Cain.  Similarly, I don't think the exposure of Ron Paul's racism/ willingness to sign anything for 10 years would be good press for him either.

But it can be argued that the allegations weren't what did Cain in, it was the way he handled them. But I take your point. If this was all new revelations about Gingrich, he might not have parried it so well. Still, the "open marriage" thing was new, and he's managed to deflect it pretty well by turning the tables and claiming that even asking him about it is somehow a liberal attack that borders on indecency.

Latest polling data on Florida is from the 18th, before the SC primary. Back then, Romney was leading Gingrich 40-22 and was trending towards an even larger lead. But with the events of the last few days....tough to say. I assume the various poll orgs are hitting the state hard this weekend and will report their data tomorrow. By an aggregate count, Romney had about an 18 to 20 point lead on Gingrich before the shit hit the fan in the Palmetto State. If that evaporates and Gingrich is polling even-strength or better by tomorrow....then I pity the poor residents of Florida, because you can expect to see nothing but SuperPAC ads from now until the 31st. Romney's warchest will unload a million barrels into the Florida ad market, and I'd expect to see Gingrich do the same. This is a fickle, fickle state. Newt was actually leading in Florida by nearly 30 points as recently as the beginning of December. Then his candidacy nosedived and it seemed Romney was going to take everything, and the Florida polls reflected that. Now that Romney seems to have stalled out and Gingrich is coming on like a bat out of hell, I'd expect Florida to reflect that as well. Consider that since the end of September, there have been at least four different front-runners in this state: Rick Perry, Romney, Herman Cain, and Gingrich. And Romney has gained and lost front-runner status twice and possibly a third time now if he drops out of first this week.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 22, 2012, 01:37:24 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 11:39:40 am

Maybe I could accept this if Ron Paul had admitted to holding these views and said that he has moved on, and has realised the error of his ways.  He hasn't.  He's trying to deny he's ever held those views by claiming that he never checked the newsletters that were printed under his name (some of which he even signed).

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

The press ignores Ron Paul because they don't think he is a "real" candidate and thus irrelevant other then as an uninteresting side-show. Not enough vapid drama and hot-air to even make an interesting side show like Newt, Trump, Palin or Bachmann.

He's also been saying the exact same stuff for the last 30 years and anybody who has ever heard of the guy already knows where he probably stands on every issue imaginable anyways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 22, 2012, 01:52:30 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2012, 09:16:53 am

Also, that newsletter thing has kind of blown over now. I'll just leave it at that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy).

Quote

At the time Paul's campaign did not deny writing the newsletters.[225][226][62] Campaign spokesman Michael Sullivan stated that they were taken "out of context". In a Dallas Morning News interview, Paul himself defended two of the statements, including the "95% criminal" statement, and added that "If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?"[64] A Houston Chronicle interview includes the statement, "[Ron Paul] said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time'."[227]

In March 2001, Paul stated that he did not write the commentaries but that he had defended them in 1996 because his campaign advisors had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name. He stated that while he did not write the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication.[228]

Uh... the linked section doesn't appear to help that point at all.

Florida is another all-or-nothing state, right? If so, I'm thinking the nomination will be fairly well decided there. Newt may build an unstoppable momentum, or Romney will come back and strangle him with money before he really gets going. Me? I'm hoping for a Newt/Santorum ticket so that people will be pouring out of the woodwork to oppose that nightmare. Romney is just slimy enough to have a chance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 01:59:18 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 22, 2012, 01:37:24 pm

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

A better representation would be "A newsletter with Ron Pauls name on it (ie which was supposedly written or at least overseen by him) which was signed by him in some editions was consistently racist over the course of about a decade".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 22, 2012, 02:30:06 pm

There's also the fact that it came up when he ran for President in 2008 as well, and a few earlier times.  The problem is, he keeps giving a different history of his relationship with the publishers, drawing himself as further and further away from them every time it comes again, or just knocking away microphones and leaving whatever interview it is.

And even if you agree that he had nothing to do with the newsletters (which is unknowable after all), and would personally disavow the ridiculous crap written in them, I would it does not speak well to his management that he would allow or be totally oblivious of a publication in his own name printing material he disagreed with for ten years.


When I saw sixty new posts since I was last in here a few hours ago, I was prepared to write a scathing text wall about the Civil War, since I earned a fucking degree in American history.  As long as everyone is willing to shut up about it now, I'm willing to not prolong it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 02:32:07 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 01:59:18 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 22, 2012, 01:37:24 pm

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

A better representation would be "A newsletter with Ron Pauls name on it (ie which was supposedly written or at least overseen by him) which was signed by him in some editions was consistently racist over the course of about a decade".

And written from his perspective in some cases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 22, 2012, 02:35:05 pm

Gabby Giffords stepping down this week. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAetv47b-Eg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 22, 2012, 02:39:40 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 01:59:18 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 22, 2012, 01:37:24 pm

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

A better representation would be "A newsletter with Ron Pauls name on it (ie which was supposedly written or at least overseen by him) which was signed by him in some editions was consistently racist over the course of about a decade".

Well, no, that'd be a less accurate statement. The newsletter in question was printed over the course of about a decade, sure, 'consistantly racist' not really. There are about a dozen dodgy statements quoted from the newsletter from however many they've picked through. That seems to indicate more of a laziness of Ron Paul to read his own newsletters, more then actual proof of racism on his part. So at worse, he let racists and weirdos submit articles for his newsletter. Anyways, it was two decades ago and you never actually hear him say racist things or discuss the weird conspircy theories presented on the newsletter, past or present.

Quote from: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 02:32:07 pm

And written from his perspective in some cases.

He wrote articles for the newsletter, but none of the ones in question here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 02:44:19 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 22, 2012, 02:39:40 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 02:32:07 pm

And written from his perspective in some cases.

He wrote articles for the newsletter, but none of the ones in question here.

Incorrect. Some of the offensive passages were written from his perspective and signed ostensibly by him. Such as a particular advertisement for the newsletter which warned of a coming "race war". http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ad-for-ron-pauls-newsletter-forecast-race-war/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 22, 2012, 02:48:43 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 22, 2012, 02:35:05 pm

Gabby Giffords stepping down this week. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAetv47b-Eg)

That poor woman.  I can't say I'm surprised that she's resigning, it just raises the question of why now instead of earlier or later.  Not that it matters of course.

I wonder if there will be any kind of heated contention for her seat, or if we'll see some actual propriety for once.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 22, 2012, 03:01:02 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 02:44:19 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 22, 2012, 02:39:40 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 02:32:07 pm

And written from his perspective in some cases.

He wrote articles for the newsletter, but none of the ones in question here.

Incorrect. Some of the offensive passages were written from his perspective and signed ostensibly by him. Such as a particular advertisement for the newsletter which warned of a coming "race war". http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ad-for-ron-pauls-newsletter-forecast-race-war/

It was a ghost writer, so he claims. Goes to show you he did indeed have some racists and weirdos on his A-team and he was definately advertising to a weirdo demographic, but doesn't really implicate him directly as an obvious racist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 03:03:44 pm

It implicates him as someone who would have racists write for him, as him, signed by him, for a newsletter written by him, for years on end, somehow without noticing for, what was his last story, a decade? How does that even happen? Even if he isn't racist and homophobic (well, we know he's homophobic for other reasons, but that's another story) and as scary as depicted in those newsletters, he still profited from it intentionally, or was woefully incompetent enough to hire people to speak for him for years without paying a damn bit of attention to what they were saying through his mouth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 03:06:07 pm

The thing is... assume, for a minute, he is a racist, he wants to destroy several vital government programs, and he's not a terribly good manager. That could all well be true.

Personally, I still think that's worth it to deal some damage to the military-industrial complex and end the war on drugs. There's definitely a bunch of trade offs involved, of course, but I think its worth it. I can also see how other people would disagree, mind you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2012, 03:09:26 pm

The thing about "vital government programmes" is that they are vital.  You can't "trade them off".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 22, 2012, 03:24:05 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 03:06:07 pm

The thing is... assume, for a minute, he is a racist, he wants to destroy several vital government programs, and he's not a terribly good manager. That could all well be true.

Personally, I still think that's worth it to deal some damage to the military-industrial complex and end the war on drugs. There's definitely a bunch of trade offs involved, of course, but I think its worth it. I can also see how other people would disagree, mind you.

He also wants to get rid of drug laws, minimum sentencing and a dozen other government policies which are racist in implimentation.

I'm wondering which of these things are vital government programs. The war on drugs?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 03:36:21 pm

Department of Education and other social programs, mostly, plus shutting down the federal reserve.

Thing is, "vital" doesn't REALLY mean vital, as in impossible to get rid of - very few government programs are that. It just means it would suck a lot for a lot of people if they got slashed. You can, very much, trade them off.

And Paul has stated multiple times he'd pretty much immediately end the war on drugs (or at least as quickly as possible), while most of his more insane plans would be things he'd introduce gradually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 22, 2012, 03:37:27 pm

I enjoyed that interview Bill Maher had with somebody, big fan of Paul that he is.  Posed obvious question, the one coming up here too.

Is Medicare, the Department of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and essentially the entire existence of interstate commerce laws worth trading away for legalizing pot and withdrawing from Colombia?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 03:49:29 pm

There are other factors:
Some of those CAN be covered by the states, if not as well - the government has made it quite clear the states can NOT unilaterally end the drug war within their borders.

None of those things are guaranteed, or even likely, to be lost with a Paul presidency. Obviously, its impossible to know for certain which way the chips will fall.

I WOULD trade any one, maybe two, of those to end The War on Some Drugs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 04:03:40 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 03:49:29 pm

There are other factors:
Some of those CAN be covered by the states, if not as well - the government has made it quite clear the states can NOT unilaterally end the drug war within their borders.

California and a good deal of other West Coast states have done so to a degree anyway, though. In fact, medical marijuana and marijuana decriminalization laws in generally are basically both this, and then the only thing left to enforce the federal government's mandate is the DEA. As I recall, the DEA is actually fairly overburdened right now (don't quote me).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 04:05:12 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 03:49:29 pm

I WOULD trade any one, maybe two, of those to end The War on Some Drugs.

If drug legalization is more important to you than civil rights or public education... I'm not really sure what to say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 04:10:13 pm

It would at least be an interesting social experiment to see what would happen to the nation if things like the Civil Rights Act were suddenly gone. Would people stay tolerant even without the influence of the law, or not? I have no idea. It's probably better if that never comes up in reality, but it is an interesting question.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 22, 2012, 04:11:45 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 22, 2012, 03:37:27 pm

Is Medicare, the Department of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and essentially the entire existence of interstate commerce laws worth trading away for legalizing pot and withdrawing from Colombia?

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 03:36:21 pm

Department of Education and other social programs, mostly, plus shutting down the federal reserve.

Thing is, "vital" doesn't REALLY mean vital, as in impossible to get rid of - very few government programs are that. It just means it would suck a lot for a lot of people if they got slashed. You can, very much, trade them off.

And Paul has stated multiple times he'd pretty much immediately end the war on drugs (or at least as quickly as possible), while most of his more insane plans would be things he'd introduce gradually.

Yeah, he could never do hardly any of that if he was actually elected. What he is selling is a philsophical ideal, not so much a plan for what he'd do if elected. Like any other philosophical idea, it sounds really good, makes a lot of sense untill you actually get down to the business of trying to actually impliment them as government policy, where it then turns into a tragic disaster, like how communism turned out.

Thing is presidents don't have that much power in our system of government. Like how even if Obama was as much a leftist commie pinko as he's advertised, he could never succeed in his obvious ambitions to turn the USA into a communist, agrarian worker's paradise anymore then Ron Paul could bring back the gold standard and close down all the orphanages or whatever.

So I imagine if by some incredible set of circumstances he was elected, he would likely simply sit at his desk and veto every single bill that had the government take some sort of action that landed on it. He'd then introduce a few moderate bills that he thinks might actually get passed through congress. He'd probably also badly mismanage the routine functions of the office and have some racist cabinet member who'd say inane stuff on camera and make for funny youtube videos and fodder for TV pundits.

Anyways, even if he could create some Randian minarchist regime, in theory, it'd all work better then the system we have now. Anything is possible if you believe hard enough, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 22, 2012, 04:15:17 pm

Aqizzar, I would like to hear your opinion on the Civil War, as I haven't been in American History for a year, all I remember is a series of crises over where slavery could be followed by the South going "Fuck this shit" and trying to leave. Actually, the buildup to it reminds me of imperial Europe and World War One.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 04:16:47 pm

Quote

If drug legalization is more important to you than civil rights or public education... I'm not really sure what to say.

I said drug legalization was more important to me than the Department of Education and the Civil Rights Act, which is not the same thing.

If it was "abolish public education" or "roll back civil rights to the 1940s", abolishing the drug war wouldn't be worth either of them, no. But thats not what we're talking about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2012, 04:19:04 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 22, 2012, 04:11:45 pm

Anyways, even if he could create some Randian minarchist regime, in theory, it'd all work better then the system we have now. Anything is possible if you believe hard enough, right?

My state or town being able to label me a second-class citizen for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation does not strike me as "working better than the system we have now".

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 04:10:13 pm

It would at least be an interesting social experiment to see what would happen to the nation if things like the Civil Rights Act were suddenly gone. Would people stay tolerant even without the influence of the law, or not? I have no idea. It's probably better if that never comes up in reality, but it is an interesting question.

Sad fact is, even with the laws, plenty of people and businesses aren't tolerant, and when it comes to business, employers will often act with prejudice simply because it's in what they see as their best interest, without thinking of the consequences: For instance, someone not wanting to hire a black or latino person for their coffee shop because it might inexplicably ruin their upper-crust image. There will always be intolerance of various sorts, and protections need to exist... and in the case of the US in particular, the whole race issue is very far from over, although how serious it is really depends on where you live.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 05:46:20 pm

If the country was conservative enough to elect president Paul then they would be conservative enough to elect a GOP Senate and house.  What would they and President Paul agree on?

Legalize drugs?  Are you shitting me?

But make huge cuts to social services?  Eliminate the capitol gains tax?  Well that's already on the GOP agenda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 22, 2012, 06:06:40 pm

Politics aren't a linear progression from "conservative" to "liberal."


If the country agreed with Ron Paul's views enough to elect him, they probably wouldn't agree with many of the GOP's policies. Maybe enough to have a majority in the house/senate, but not by a huge margin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2012, 06:10:10 pm

Then the country doesn't agree with Ron Paul and there's no point in trying to elect him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 08:08:31 pm

Since the public only agrees with people who look pretty and make for good TV, I think we might as well stop bothering to try at all then, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 22, 2012, 08:35:59 pm

I agree with quite a few politicians that aren't pretty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 22, 2012, 08:40:09 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 22, 2012, 06:06:40 pm

Politics aren't a linear progression from "conservative" to "liberal."

If the country agreed with Ron Paul's views enough to elect him, they probably wouldn't agree with many of the GOP's policies. Maybe enough to have a majority in the house/senate, but not by a huge margin.

With very few exceptions American politicians at the national level do adhere to this.

Considering how much Bush accomplished with only 50 seats in the Senate, how much of majority do you think it takes?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 09:02:38 pm

Quote

I agree with quite a few politicians that aren't pretty.

Unfortunately for all of us, Barbarossa, you are not the incarnation of the American public. But I have a feeling we'd all be better off if you were, heh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 22, 2012, 09:15:39 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 08:08:31 pm

Since the public only agrees with people who look pretty and make for good TV, I think we might as well stop bothering to try at all then, right?

I'm sure Newt Gingrich will be flattered by your appraisal of his good looks.

I really should just add a blanket "no cynicism" rule to the OP or something.  I mean, I'm cynical as Hell, but dammit you people are depressing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 22, 2012, 09:19:34 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 22, 2012, 08:35:59 pm

I agree with quite a few politicians that aren't pretty.

I can't even name a pretty politician. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know of any.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 22, 2012, 09:23:34 pm

Quote

I really should just add a blanket "no cynicism" rule to the OP or something.

No one would bother to read it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 22, 2012, 09:24:02 pm

But Aqizzar, that perfect hair! Doesn't it just make you want to swoon?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on January 22, 2012, 09:40:14 pm

Manly swoon, of course. It IS Aqizzar we are talking about here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 22, 2012, 09:46:18 pm

I admit, I have a weakness for jowls, rosacea, and thinning silver.  It speaks of character and experience.  I swoon as one would catch under the gaze of a king, resolutely and only.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 22, 2012, 09:53:16 pm

Spoiler: FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK (click to show/hide)

Quote from: Svarte Troner on August 26, 2011, 12:02:45 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 25, 2011, 12:54:30 am

(http://img.ie/images/88a70.png)

I'm really sorry and no offense, but you look like the next Republican candidate for president. 

(http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/images/Meet%20Newt%205.preview.jpg)

It's the hair!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 22, 2012, 09:57:46 pm

See, I was going to jokingly offer to make all the running Republicans ugly, but that...that right there?

That's living proof that politics is already ugly enough. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 22, 2012, 10:07:54 pm

While we're on the image spam;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404814_3164412229704_1247319314_3474428_1921384627_n.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 22, 2012, 10:41:12 pm

Obama seems to be unworried.

... also possibly somewhat condescending toward SC voters, heh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 22, 2012, 10:48:08 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 22, 2012, 10:07:54 pm

While we're on the image spam;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404814_3164412229704_1247319314_3474428_1921384627_n.jpg)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://alexkp.dk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Jean-Luc-Picard-Full-of-win.jpg)
SAME PERSON

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on January 23, 2012, 01:26:20 pm

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/?fb_ref=post

Wow Grand Wizard Doctor Paul. Just WOW.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 23, 2012, 02:31:31 pm

What. A. Man. Bitch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 23, 2012, 02:43:23 pm

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-was-implicated-in-attempted-white-supremacist-island-invasion/

I think this one is a bit more damning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 23, 2012, 03:02:46 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 23, 2012, 02:43:23 pm

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-was-implicated-in-attempted-white-supremacist-island-invasion/

I think this one is a bit more damning.

Wow, however much you hate them, you have to give the KKK credit for thinking big: 'what are we gunna do today Bubba?'  'Overthrow a small country for the glory of the white man Jimbob'

  Sidenote:  Anybody willing to put their stones on the block and take a stab at who is going to win?  (The whole election, not just the republican side)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 23, 2012, 03:03:20 pm

Quote from: Tilla on January 23, 2012, 01:26:20 pm

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/?fb_ref=post

Wow Grand Wizard Doctor Paul. Just WOW.

After posting this on my Facebook I have a rabid Ron Paul supporter linking me to his PR department's videos screaming that "HE'S NOT RACIST!!"

And apparently I take all of my facts from MSNBC. Hah, typical Paulian.

Quote from: jester on January 23, 2012, 03:02:46 pm

  Sidenote:  Anybody willing to put their stones on the block and take a stab at who is going to win?  (The whole election, not just the republican side)

Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 23, 2012, 03:16:17 pm

Quote from: jester on January 23, 2012, 03:02:46 pm

Sidenote:  Anybody willing to put their stones on the block and take a stab at who is going to win?  (The whole election, not just the republican side)

S'felt like the general consensus here is that Obama's probably going to take another four years, mostly because the republican candidates are utterly destroying themselves/are near-complete filth of one sort or another.

Hell, I can almost see support for the theory that the republican party has intentionally sabotaged their chances at getting a president in. Maybe they think they'll have a better chance getting legislature through under Obama than they would with (probably) better than half the voting constituency up in arms about whichever madman that wins the republican primary managing presidency.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be a lot less alert with Obama in power again than if one the current candidates managed it, really. It sorta' makes sense.

Though, of course, beware attributing malignancy to what can be attributed to incompetence, and all that. Most of the upper half or so of America's wealth bracket seems to be pretty damned disconnected with the lower half (Which makes up a majority of the population, iirc.), so maybe they really are that blind. Eh. We'll see how things go, anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on January 23, 2012, 03:20:58 pm

Indeed. I also think Obama is going to win. The Republican know they would have a very hard time of it, and even if they did win then they would have full control, and at this point they seem to be basing themselves on fucking everything up so they can blame the Democrats. (Not that the Democrats are a heck of a lot better) So if they actually did manage to take power then they could no longer do that. I am expecting another four years of fuck witlessness followed by them putting up some actual candidates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 23, 2012, 03:27:12 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on January 23, 2012, 03:03:20 pm

Quote from: Tilla on January 23, 2012, 01:26:20 pm

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/?fb_ref=post

Wow Grand Wizard Doctor Paul. Just WOW.

After posting this on my Facebook I have a rabid Ron Paul supporter linking me to his PR department's videos screaming that "HE'S NOT RACIST!!"

You realize there's only one appropriate response.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)

Quote

Quote from: jester on January 23, 2012, 03:02:46 pm

  Sidenote:  Anybody willing to put their stones on the block and take a stab at who is going to win?  (The whole election, not just the republican side)

Obama.

Ditto. I feel like the GOP doesn't really want to win, because seriously....who the fuck wants to inherit the hot mess that is America? Even Obama is asking that. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-openly-asks-nation-why-on-earth-he-would-wan,26933/)  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 23, 2012, 03:38:08 pm

The sad thing is it took me a few minutes to notice

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

that was an onion article. Read like something Obama'd actually say, really.

E: Something, damnit, not someone. I really need to eat something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 23, 2012, 03:39:53 pm

I am absolutely terrified that Obama won't win.

I am also incredibly annoyed there isn't someone more effective or liberal than Obama that has a chance of winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 23, 2012, 03:40:38 pm

I'm putting my money on Obama, because all the Republicans are either completely charismaless or unsellable to the swing voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 23, 2012, 03:41:59 pm

Quote

Wow, however much you hate them, you have to give the KKK credit for thinking big: 'what are we gunna do today Bubba?'  'Overthrow a small country for the glory of the white man Jimbob'

There's actually a fair amount of history behind this idea. Go Google "Knights of the Golden Circle." It's been a Southern fantasy since before the Civil War to conquer all the island chains and Cuba. There's even a legend of buried treasure, thrown in there for good measure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 23, 2012, 04:00:07 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 23, 2012, 03:27:12 pm

You realize there's only one appropriate response.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)

Why do you think it's racist today but were backing up the "states rights" side of things yesterday?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 23, 2012, 04:05:19 pm

I'm not seeing the potential contradiction? What do you mean?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 23, 2012, 04:25:49 pm

In the end it's often this simple. (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/01/campaigns/campaign-2012/the-choice/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 23, 2012, 04:43:56 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 23, 2012, 04:00:07 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 23, 2012, 03:27:12 pm

You realize there's only one appropriate response.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)

Why do you think it's racist today but were backing up the "states rights" side of things yesterday?

I'm not going to reignite a smoldering turd. Suffice it to say, if you can't suss out that a nuanced view of the Civil War != support for racism or slavery, I can't help you. I never said Paul was or wasn't a racist, merely that the Civil War isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think. Start a new thread if you really want to get into this again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 23, 2012, 05:57:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 23, 2012, 04:43:56 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 23, 2012, 04:00:07 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 23, 2012, 03:27:12 pm

You realize there's only one appropriate response.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)

Why do you think it's racist today but were backing up the "states rights" side of things yesterday?

I'm not going to reignite a smoldering turd. Suffice it to say, if you can't suss out that a nuanced view of the Civil War != support for racism or slavery

I don't think I was calling you pro-slavery.  That's kinda taking the whole strawman thing to a bit of an extreme, don't you think?

Just saying that I don't see how one can consider Ron Paul's remarks racist if the civil war was about states rights.  If it really was just about the nullification crises or whatever, where is the racism in thinking that the anti-federalist side was right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 23, 2012, 06:02:18 pm

You're really not getting this are you? If you want to talk about it, DO IT IN ANOTHER THREAD. Then he can spend pages and pages fixing you educational deficiencies, and you can try to do the same for him. Cool? You know what, I'll even create the thread for you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 23, 2012, 06:09:00 pm

This is an entirely different question and I was asking not debating.  Thank you but no thank you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 23, 2012, 06:09:45 pm

It would be the part where he published racist pamphlets, associated with grand dragons of the KKK and may have been involved (or at least aware of and approved enough to not turn them in) in a white supremacist plot to overthrow the Dominican Republic and has solidly voted against every civil rights legislation ever... And the idea that the north should just buy slaves in order to free them, therefore legitimizing the idea that they were property and not human beings. At this point, there isn't a way to see Ron Paul as anything but racist.


But we have digressed to far:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/office-actor-rainn-wilson-finally-admits-looks-newt-174532667.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 23, 2012, 06:15:17 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 23, 2012, 06:09:45 pm

And the idea that the north should just buy slaves in order to free them...

This is one that especially confuses me, since if there's one thing Ron Paul loves to repeat at every opportunity, it's you should never look to the federal government for handouts or assistance.  What greater act of the federal government stepping into both people's property and lives could there be than buying every slave in the South (with tax money) for the express purpose of freeing them?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 23, 2012, 06:42:52 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-democrats-cat-killed-painted-liberal-211435575.html

Election related... but let me know if I should take this elsewhere.

Democratic campaign manager for Arkansas 3rd congressional districts cat is beaten to death, spray painted with the word liberal and left on his front porch for his kids to find.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 23, 2012, 07:13:35 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 23, 2012, 06:42:52 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-democrats-cat-killed-painted-liberal-211435575.html

Election related... but let me know if I should take this elsewhere.

Democratic campaign manager for Arkansas 3rd congressional districts cat is beaten to death, spray painted with the word liberal and left on his front porch for his kids to find.

Idiots, every cat I have ever know was a willfully ignorant sadist at heart and would have tried to get bush back for another 4 years.

On a more serious note though: CHRIST SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST FUCKWITS.  I MEAN ITS A CAT. WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 23, 2012, 07:23:59 pm

It's a GODLESS COMMUNIST LIBERAL CAT you AMERICA HATING SOCIALIST.

On a more serious note, people that willfully injure/kill/torture any animal for any purpose (other than hunting, I guess) should be crucified while on fire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2012, 07:25:38 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 23, 2012, 07:23:59 pm

On a more serious note, people that willfully injure/kill/torture any animal for any purpose (other than hunting, I guess) should be crucified while on fire.

Always remember, folks: If asked, a decent number of people (if not most) will say that they would save the lives of their favored pets over that of humans that they don't know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 23, 2012, 07:39:57 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2012, 07:25:38 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 23, 2012, 07:23:59 pm

On a more serious note, people that willfully injure/kill/torture any animal for any purpose (other than hunting, I guess) should be crucified while on fire.

Always remember, folks: If asked, a decent number of people (if not most) will say that they would save the lives of their favored pets over that of humans that they don't know.

  Check, next time I have to go into mortal danger, im duct taping other peoples pets to myself

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 23, 2012, 09:11:06 pm

Watching NBC Republican debate, moderated by Brian Williams.  Ten minutes in, nothing but prompting for Romney and Gingrich to take shots at each other - Santorum and Paul have yet to speak, since Brian said "Lord knows we all know each other by now" so they didn't even get an introductory statement.  I expected better of you Brian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on January 23, 2012, 09:45:24 pm

One of Doctor Paul's embittered ex-supporters had this to say after Paul tried to distance himself from the White Supremacy movement:

Quote

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous – and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 23, 2012, 09:51:47 pm

Quote from: Tilla on January 23, 2012, 09:45:24 pm

One of Doctor Paul's embittered ex-supporters had this to say after Paul tried to distance himself from the White Supremacy movement:

Quote

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous – and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

He's a socialist, he can't be trusted 'CUZ HE HATES ERR FREEDOM!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on January 23, 2012, 09:55:09 pm

So... Basically he's a commienazi? For reals?

I can't really say anything about the rest of it, except that I really wouldn't be surprised if it's true. :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scaraban on January 23, 2012, 10:37:35 pm

Quote from: My response in an AskReddit thread about making elections a holiday to encourage turnout.

By making it a holiday you are in no way encouraging these people to vote; just giving them a day off, and of the already dismal number of voters, even fewer are properly informed. So, even those that decide to make voting part of their new free day, are in essence a wild card of malformed, manipulated, and/or misinformed opinions on candidates, issues, and the office of Presidency. Until people decide to learn what they are doing, I honestly don't want them voting regardless of which way they lean. I am tired of hearing the same argument about an issue they do not understand and refuse to learn about be the basis of their political life.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 23, 2012, 11:14:43 pm

Quote from: Descan on January 23, 2012, 09:55:09 pm

So... Basically he's a commienazi? For reals?

I can't really say anything about the rest of it, except that I really wouldn't be surprised if it's true. :/

Well, Nazi is just a shortening of the German phrase for 'National Socialist', so...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 23, 2012, 11:51:39 pm

Quote

By making it a holiday you are in no way encouraging these people to vote; just giving them a day off, and of the already dismal number of voters, even fewer are properly informed. So, even those that decide to make voting part of their new free day, are in essence a wild card of malformed, manipulated, and/or misinformed opinions on candidates, issues, and the office of Presidency. Until people decide to learn what they are doing, I honestly don't want them voting regardless of which way they lean. I am tired of hearing the same argument about an issue they do not understand and refuse to learn about be the basis of their political life.

Yes, because god knows we would want the hard workers dedicated to their jobs to vote! Oh no, that's reserved for the upper class who get paid holidays of their own, and people who don't work at all.

I'm well educated, politically, but I'm not even sure if I'm going to be able to vote, because I work an hour away from my assigned polling both, and if it is only open from 7 to 7 here, like it is in some places, well... well, in that case, I guess I'm going to have to tell them I'm coming into work late or leaving early. But I'm lucky - I can AFFORD to do that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 23, 2012, 11:56:20 pm

... most voting areas have options for distance or early voting, I think. It's definitely a thing where I'm at, anyway. Very useful if you're in another area (or even state) for work and can't make it back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 24, 2012, 12:04:00 am

Some places have election day as a holiday. It doesn't actually seem to make a difference in voter turnout. Now, a tax penalty for failing to at least show up and mark "abstaining", on the other hand... (Although you could very well just have the voting officials mark your name off the list of people who haven't voted and then leave without actually voting if you really wanted to be as lazy as possible.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2012, 12:07:51 am

Practically anything involving paperwork is a nightmare to me. I'll look into the voting early thing - we'll see how it goes...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 24, 2012, 12:22:47 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2012, 07:25:38 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 23, 2012, 07:23:59 pm

On a more serious note, people that willfully injure/kill/torture any animal for any purpose (other than hunting, I guess) should be crucified while on fire.

Always remember, folks: If asked, a decent number of people (if not most) will say that they would save the lives of their favored pets over that of humans that they don't know.

I didn't say that.  I said I don't condone the torture of animals.

And we need more people voting, it gets them accustomed to it.  Harder to take it away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 24, 2012, 12:25:26 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 24, 2012, 12:22:47 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2012, 07:25:38 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 23, 2012, 07:23:59 pm

On a more serious note, people that willfully injure/kill/torture any animal for any purpose (other than hunting, I guess) should be crucified while on fire.

Always remember, folks: If asked, a decent number of people (if not most) will say that they would save the lives of their favored pets over that of humans that they don't know.

I didn't say that.  I said I don't condone the torture of animals.

I know, but I was just making a point on the ability of humans to emphasize with animals and inanimate objects more than with other humans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scaraban on January 24, 2012, 12:30:07 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 23, 2012, 11:51:39 pm

Quote

By making it a holiday you are in no way encouraging these people to vote; just giving them a day off, and of the already dismal number of voters, even fewer are properly informed. So, even those that decide to make voting part of their new free day, are in essence a wild card of malformed, manipulated, and/or misinformed opinions on candidates, issues, and the office of Presidency. Until people decide to learn what they are doing, I honestly don't want them voting regardless of which way they lean. I am tired of hearing the same argument about an issue they do not understand and refuse to learn about be the basis of their political life.

Yes, because god knows we would want the hard workers dedicated to their jobs to vote! Oh no, that's reserved for the upper class who get paid holidays of their own, and people who don't work at all.

I'm well educated, politically, but I'm not even sure if I'm going to be able to vote, because I work an hour away from my assigned polling both, and if it is only open from 7 to 7 here, like it is in some places, well... well, in that case, I guess I'm going to have to tell them I'm coming into work late or leaving early. But I'm lucky - I can AFFORD to do that.

Thank you for that, that is clearly how my post was meant, meaning your hostility wasn't in any way pointless. The voting booth is open for 12 hours and the date is known well in advance, if you can't make it file for early/distance voting. The point is that if people who will be working that day wanted to vote they can vote and immediately turning on me like I'm proposing that these people shouldn't allowed to vote is ridiculous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on January 24, 2012, 12:39:37 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 23, 2012, 09:51:47 pm

Quote from: Tilla on January 23, 2012, 09:45:24 pm

One of Doctor Paul's embittered ex-supporters had this to say after Paul tried to distance himself from the White Supremacy movement:

Quote

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous – and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

He's a socialist, he can't be trusted 'CUZ HE HATES ERR FREEDOM!

National Socialist. Nat-sy. This guy wears his racism on his sleeve as a founder of an American Nazi movement. And he claims to have met with Ron Paul regularly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2012, 12:40:38 am

We've already got a number of national holidays - I see no good reason why we couldn't hold one of them on election day and make things easier for all involved.

You were the one who stated you didn't want people to get the day off because you didn't want them voting anyways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 24, 2012, 01:28:17 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 23, 2012, 11:14:43 pm

Quote from: Descan on January 23, 2012, 09:55:09 pm

So... Basically he's a commienazi? For reals?

I can't really say anything about the rest of it, except that I really wouldn't be surprised if it's true. :/

Well, Nazi is just a shortening of the German phrase for 'National Socialist', so...

Yeah, but Nazi Germany was fascist, not socialist. Hitler hated socialism and communism. Calling their party National Socialist was purely a ploy to get the working class on their side.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 24, 2012, 01:33:55 am

In Australia its compulsory to vote.  Frankly I think a system like this might cut down on the lunatic fringe that seems to rise to the top in US politics.

  And are people really complaining about a day off?  I mean its a day off!?  Unless you own a factory or something why hate something as perfect as a day off.  Go vote in the morning then be drunk off your ass and dancing like you need the money by 12

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 24, 2012, 01:34:55 am

Quote from: Tilla on January 24, 2012, 12:39:37 am

National Socialist. Nat-sy. This guy wears his racism on his sleeve as a founder of an American Nazi movement. And he claims to have met with Ron Paul regularly.

You better take your snark meter in for a tune-up.

Quote from: Frumple on January 23, 2012, 11:56:20 pm

... most voting areas have options for distance or early voting, I think. It's definitely a thing where I'm at, anyway. Very useful if you're in another area (or even state) for work and can't make it back.

Distance voting is probably the best thing that's happening in American democracy in recent years.  Or to put it a different way; it is the only bright spot in a giant pile of shit.  Not many people do it but I think it could develop into something good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 24, 2012, 05:16:41 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 24, 2012, 01:28:17 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 23, 2012, 11:14:43 pm

Quote from: Descan on January 23, 2012, 09:55:09 pm

So... Basically he's a commienazi? For reals?

I can't really say anything about the rest of it, except that I really wouldn't be surprised if it's true. :/

Well, Nazi is just a shortening of the German phrase for 'National Socialist', so...

Yeah, but Nazi Germany was fascist, not socialist. Hitler hated socialism and communism. Calling their party National Socialist was purely a ploy to get the working class on their side.

There really isn't any real difference between communism and facism. They are both statist tyrannies with command economies, both systems demand sacrifice from it's people and treat them as means to a end. The ideologies are really just two flavors of the same poison.

Anyways, I never understood why voting takes place on tuesdays and not on a saturday or something. Or have them held on fridays and make it a national holiday? That'd be badass. I think they can take out a workday once every 2 years or whatever. It's really no wonder why voter turn-out is terrible when you have to make time out of the workday to go it. So the only people you can rely on to make decisions about electing national leadership are unemployed people and housewives/husbands or whatever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 24, 2012, 05:42:51 am

Quote from: Montague on January 24, 2012, 05:16:41 am

There really isn't any real difference between communism and facism. They are both statist tyrannies with command economies, both systems demand sacrifice from it's people and treat them as means to a end. The ideologies are really just two flavors of the same poison.

I am incredulous at your ability to type such prejudiced trash while understanding jack all about the subject.

At least if you said socialism and fascism were the same I'd at least be more understanding of the mistake, but equating communism to fascism is pain-inducing ignorance fueled by conservative paranoid rhetoric. When you call a stateless system like communism 'statist' you've become a living caricature of all that's absurd with America's conservative movement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 24, 2012, 05:50:43 am

Quote

There really isn't any real difference between communism and facism.

Err, not really.

Communism is first and foremost an economic system. It came as a direct response to capitalism. An extreme oversimplification would be that communism applies the ideals of democracy to businesses. Instead of the leader(s) at the top having all the power just 'cause, the power comes from the employees (similar to arguments that power in a government comes from the people, not intrinsically held by the leadership). Communism backs this up by having common ownership; no employee owns more of the company than another, as they all own it equally.

In theory, anyway.

Also communism abolishes social classes. Not just abolishing the good ol' classes like nobility, but economic classes as well. No one's significantly richer than anyone else; they can't be due to common ownership.

Again, in theory.


Of course, it's failed pretty spectacularly on any large scale. To enforce all this stuff requires a great deal of control from the government. This is where the fascism sneaks in (or whatever you want to call it; complete control by the government). Fascism (see previous note) isn't intrinsic to the system, but still rather endemic due to the leaders getting corrupt. Social classes sneak back in in the wake of leaders giving themselves and their friends special treatment. All this power also gives the temptation to crush political opposition, thereby nuking the democracy angle. Uh oh.


Communism just isn't stable. Too much power in the governments hands and it'll devolve into fascism as they give themselves favors. Too much power in the people's hands and it'll devolve into capitalism as they vote themselves favors (democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, remember). And even if it was stable, it's not competitive economically against capitalism.


EDIT: Might be getting my words mixed up here. I think people get what I mean, though; point out any odd word choice if you wish.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 24, 2012, 05:54:25 am

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

When we have a Communist candidate for President (with more than five votes), then we'll talk Communism.  When we have a Fascist candidate for President, then we'll talk Fascism.  When they're fighting over America's husk, then we'll compare them.

Don't make me get the hose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Phmcw on January 24, 2012, 08:11:23 am

But you have a wannabe dicator look : http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-officer-charged-in-leaks/2012/01/23/gIQA3AhTLQ_story.html

See : he talked to journalists, he's a snip, kill him! Hey maybe they'll find out he raped someone too.
Yeah that's not Manning : it's just the guy who informed you of what happened in  Guantanamo, John Kiriakou.
The article said that his bond is set at 250 000$. He is the sixth target of a leaks-related prosecution since President Obama took office, exceeding the total number of comparable prosecutions under all previous administrations combined.

Those damn republicans.... ho wait... hmm they need to get crazier so that the democrat candidate still look good, I propose that they announce the end of all health care, no tax for the rich, another war, forbid atheism and criminalize homosexuality! Ho wait...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 24, 2012, 08:24:24 am

Wait, do you really thing that prosecuting someone who appears to have revealed the identities of two undercover agents, one of whom was involved in the capture of Abu Zubaydah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah), is acting like a dictator?

If you want to moan about Obama prosecuting whistle blowers, fine. But this isn't a whistle-blower. This is a self-promoting idiot who flat out lied about the US's torture methods and their effectiveness on TV, then tried to get a book out based on that while lying to the CIA to try to include classified information in that book.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Phmcw on January 24, 2012, 08:53:31 am

Ho wait, He is an idiot now, right like Manning, who wanted to avenge his homosexuality, or Assange who is an egomaniac.
That or you're taking ad nominem attacks at face value, and are willing to close your eyes on this matter because it suit your view of the world.
Yeah he look like an idiot, but I guarantee that you'll look like an idiot too if the DoD decide to make you look like one, he may even be one, given that he seems to support those practices and be a big mouthed idiot rather than an human right activist.

What matter is that this is an nth attack on whistle-blower by Obama's administration who seems to be dead set on prosecuting anyone who talk to the media about American abuse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 10:22:33 am

Here's the thing about people who work with classified secret material: A big part of your job is KEEPING THAT SHIT SECRET. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to process. If you're a soldier, and you willingly and knowingly disclose classified material, that's a massive dereliction of duty and grounds for a court-martial. If you're a CIA agent (even once you're out of the agency) and you disclose classified material, that's a breach of trust and it is grounds for prosecution. Period.

I don't give a whit about the personal qualities of Manning or Kiriakou. Bottom line is, they did something they KNOW they're not supposed to do, and they're going to pay the price for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 24, 2012, 10:52:18 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 10:22:33 am

Here's the thing about people who work with classified secret material: A big part of your job is KEEPING THAT SHIT SECRET. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to process. If you're a soldier, and you willingly and knowingly disclose classified material, that's a massive dereliction of duty and grounds for a court-martial. If you're a CIA agent (even once you're out of the agency) and you disclose classified material, that's a breach of trust and it is grounds for prosecution. Period.

I don't give a whit about the personal qualities of Manning or Kiriakou. Bottom line is, they did something they KNOW they're not supposed to do, and they're going to pay the price for that.

Problem with stuff like this being (and I admit I dont know much about these actual cases) the people working for these types of organizations first loyalties should be to the people of their country, not the organization they are working for.  So if the director of the CIA has his daughters ex tortured and killed, then dumps it in the 'state secret' bin, the patriotic thing to do is report it.  If you are a soldier and your commanding officer is ordering atrocities that will eventually mean the enemy will feel justified in torturing/maiming/killing your comrades/the people you are meant to protect because you have been at it like fiends, then said officer orders you not to tell anybody, well.... Fuck him.

  Not reporting this stuff is a greater failure of your duty to the people you are meant to serve as well as your comrades in arms as its going to cost alot more of their lives in the long term if this sort of shit goes on.  You can serve the people, you can serve the country, but if you serve an organization you are basically just a merc.

  Lack of protection for whistle blowers also causes high level corruption as well

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Phmcw on January 24, 2012, 11:02:10 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 10:22:33 am

Here's the thing about people who work with classified secret material: A big part of your job is KEEPING THAT SHIT SECRET. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to process. If you're a soldier, and you willingly and knowingly disclose classified material, that's a massive dereliction of duty and grounds for a court-martial. If you're a CIA agent (even once you're out of the agency) and you disclose classified material, that's a breach of trust and it is grounds for prosecution. Period.

I don't give a whit about the personal qualities of Manning or Kiriakou. Bottom line is, they did something they KNOW they're not supposed to do, and they're going to pay the price for that.

Because some of us did not forget recent history, and know our states is not above other : if your state is infringing international law, it's you duty as a citizen to breach the trust, to disobey and speak to the journalists and to your peoples. Nuremberg made this clear : if you don't do this, you're an accomplice and therefore guilty. I don't see what is hard to understand in that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 24, 2012, 11:43:35 am

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/gingrich-fate-rises-does-obama-133152405.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 24, 2012, 11:52:55 am

Quote from: Phmcw on January 24, 2012, 08:53:31 am

Ho wait, He is an idiot now, right like Manning, who wanted to avenge his homosexuality, or Assange who is an egomaniac.
That or you're taking ad nominem attacks at face value, and are willing to close your eyes on this matter because it suit your view of the world.
Yeah he look like an idiot, but I guarantee that you'll look like an idiot too if the DoD decide to make you look like one, he may even be one, given that he seems to support those practices and be a big mouthed idiot rather than an human right activist.

Let's be clear about this. The DoD had nothing to do with making him look like an idiot. They basically fought to stop him looking like an idiot.

He was the man who came forwards and said that Zubaydah was waterboarded once, for a few seconds, then spilled all sorts of important secrets. He made a strong case that torture worked on national TV, multiple times.

He was lying in all of those cases. This was revealed when the administration finally released memos concerning the torture (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/04/20/09/cia-waterboarded-key-al-qaeda-suspects-266-times-memo), and then only after immunity was granted to those involved. This forced him to recant and admit he was making shit up. (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006432)

These are not ad-hom attacks. These are examples of him being flippant and self promoting over more serious concerns, such as national security. The charges brought (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-officer-charged-in-leaks/2012/01/23/gIQA3AhTLQ_story.html) are entirely plausible in this context and extremely serious.

Quote

What matter is that this is an nth attack on whistle-blower by Obama's administration who seems to be dead set on prosecuting anyone who talk to the media about American abuse.

This man is not a whistleblower. He revealed classified information about security agents, not abuse. He defended abuse. Whistle blowers expose illegal activity, not legal activity that depends on secrecy for people to stay alive and effective in their work.

This is why, despite deep sympathy for Bradley Manning, I do feel he needs to be prosecuted. I want to see him treated leniently and humanely, but he broke the law in a manner that was irresponsible and dangerous. Had he only leaked material that showed illegal (or even arguably legal) acts that would be one thing. Indiscriminate leaking of classified material is quite another.


You have a strong point about Obama and whistle blower protection. But this isn't one of those cases and neither is Manning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 11:55:52 am

Here's the thing: none of what Manning nor Kiriakou released were bombshell revelations. There was no "OMG Soylent Green is People!" moment.

And even if there were, that doesn't get them out of the punishment part. If they truly believed it was that important to release to risk their careers and freedom, then that's their decision. But you simply cannot let classified leaks like that go unpunished. I know a lot of people here won't agree, but that's where I stand. It's like people who practice civil disobedience complaining about being arrested. I may agree with your cause, but you know what? Laws are laws, and you should expect to be arrested. That's kind of how the whole thing works. If you leak classified material, the state is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 24, 2012, 12:08:14 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 11:55:52 am

Here's the thing: none of what Manning nor Kiriakou released were bombshell revelations. There was no "OMG Soylent Green is People!" moment.

And even if there were, that doesn't get them out of the punishment part. If they truly believed it was that important to release to risk their careers and freedom, then that's their decision. But you simply cannot let classified leaks like that go unpunished. I know a lot of people here won't agree, but that's where I stand. It's like people who practice civil disobedience complaining about being arrested. I may agree with your cause, but you know what? Laws are laws, and you should expect to be arrested. That's kind of how the whole thing works. If you leak classified material, the state is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

I have to disagree with part of this. Manning did reveal some bombshells, among many other non-bombshells. Yes, he should receive punishment for leaking information. However that punishment should definitely not be indefinite confinement and torture, which is what he has been getting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 12:15:04 pm

I agree that his treatment has not been proper. And we should probably re-rail the thread, considering that Copper is still glaring at us from higher up in the page.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Phmcw on January 24, 2012, 12:57:55 pm

Law are above morality? Well, seems like I'll be reading PTTG's thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 24, 2012, 01:08:35 pm

Romney's tax returns make for fun reading. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1225247.html)

EDIT: Blarg.

EDIT EDIT: NYT article with more details. (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/romneys-tax-returns-show-21-6-million-income-in-10.html?_r=1)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 24, 2012, 01:10:33 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 24, 2012, 01:08:35 pm

Romney's tax returns make for fun reading. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1225247.html)

Fixed link. Only one http:// needed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 24, 2012, 01:35:11 pm

Quote

Regardless, the emerging picture was of a man of great means who contributes mightily to charity. The documents showed he and his wife contributed $7 million in charity over the two years, much of it going to his Mormon church. That represents more than 15 percent of the Romneys' income for those years.

Well isn't that nice... I'm not sure if his non-Mormon Republican voters will be pleased with him for helping fund the church's anti-gay legislation efforts or angered because of their sectarian fears of Mormonism gaining more clout due to Romney's investment. The latter would be ironic as this is how replacing taxes with charity is supposed to work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2012, 01:40:40 pm

There is a difference between giving to Charity (a good thing) and giving to "charity", by the legal definition, which can be fairly neutral.

Gates gives a lot of his money to Charity. Romney only seems to give his money to "charity".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2012, 01:42:20 pm

Well, depends how you classify giving to a church I guess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2012, 01:45:15 pm

Charitable giving is the act of giving money, goods or time to the unfortunate.

Neither of those are things the mormon church, especially, is known for. And they themselves are none of the above.

This "charity" is only that in legal terms - not in practical ones.

Total humanitarian giving by the Mormon church averages only about 40-50 million a year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 24, 2012, 01:55:08 pm

It's rare someone seems horrible sitting across from Piers Morgan, but Santorum managed it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfbKR6qBa48)

In lighter Santorum news, his new fund-raising effort is called the "Conservatives United Moneybomb." (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/01/campaigns/campaign-2012/i-am-really-not-making-this-up/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 24, 2012, 02:02:49 pm

So, he's rich, donates to charity and he actually pays the taxes he legally owes? I'm not sure he's going to lose too many votes over this revelation, guys.

Maybe I missing the point, but almost all political figures are wealthy, (except former Sen. Russ Feingold, maybe) it's a wealthy man's game to run for office and in America it shows you are at least competant enough at something to make lots of money or at least stay rich if you're born with it.

It's really a matter of opinion if you think he paying enough taxes or not, but if you think he isn't, you probably were not planning on voting for a Republican anyways. I don't think religious institutions should count as charitable organizations for tax purposes either, but you can't really damn him for doing a legal tax return.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 24, 2012, 02:05:46 pm

I don't think anyone IS damning him for doing a legal tax return. Rather that they are damning the idea that that tax return SHOULD be legal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2012, 02:24:16 pm

He might loose some votes over his funds in the Caymans and accounts in Switzerland. Plus, it's hard relating to the average Republican when you haven't worked in years and make so much money from your retirement deal that 300,000$ a years for lectures is "not much".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on January 24, 2012, 02:37:27 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 24, 2012, 02:05:46 pm

I don't think anyone IS damning him for doing a legal tax return. Rather that they are damning the idea that that tax return SHOULD be legal.

Since the link was posted nobody was even doing that. Not really. I made an off-hand comment about how Romney's Republican voter appeal might be effected by his choice in charity.

If we wanted to go into why that Romney's usage of tax loopholes could hurt his chances then I'd point to the current economic/employment troubles and say that even the Republican line might not be enough to stop voters from realizing how badly their extremely rich politicians are screwing them. Sure, Romney is one of many, but it's harder to cry foul against taxes on the wealthy when they're paying less of their income in taxes than you are. It all fits into that line of attack Gingrich was playing where he tried to differentiate between corporate socialism and capitalism, only helped by his relatively high taxation rate compared to Romney.

Romney didn't withhold his tax returns until he was being significantly pressed by opponents for no reason.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2012, 02:53:46 pm

The really funny part is that under Newt's tax plans, Romney's tax rates would plummets to near-zero. :D

Also, any pronostic for Florida? I really hope either Newt or Santorum wins, because I really like watching the primaries and I don't live in the States anyway (My house is open for political asylum seekers). But I guess this makes me a bad person.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 24, 2012, 02:55:13 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 24, 2012, 02:53:46 pm

The really funny part is that under Newt's tax plans, Romney's tax rates would plummets to near-zero. :D

Also, any pronostic for Florida? I really hope either Newt or Santorum wins, because I really like watching the primaries and I don't live in the States anyway (My house is open for political asylum seekers). But I guess this makes me a bad person.

When is the Florida primary anyway? It is probably to late for me to reregister as republican though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 24, 2012, 03:00:55 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 24, 2012, 02:53:46 pm

Also, any pronostic for Florida? I really hope either Newt or Santorum wins, because I really like watching the primaries and I don't live in the States anyway (My house is open for political asylum seekers). But I guess this makes me a bad person.

Newt is currently miles ahead in the polls. 538 has him at better than 3:1 (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/florida). I'm comfortable with that prediction, especially given Romney's tax returns. Depends on how badly Newt screws up in the next little while and how much is spent.

Quote from: Nadaka on January 24, 2012, 02:05:46 pm

I don't think anyone IS damning him for doing a legal tax return. Rather that they are damning the idea that that tax return SHOULD be legal.

Just a minor point. Tax returns are the documents demonstrating what taxes were paid, income levels, exemptions, etc. The reason people are pissed is that his effective tax rate was well under the median tax rate while his income was 1% levels. Even pretending his charitable contributions were taxes (and allowing Mormon tithing as charitable) he was paying less than the top rate of income tax (35%).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on January 24, 2012, 03:15:05 pm

http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html

Lets not forget the most important point: Ron Paul still sucks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 03:17:34 pm

@Nadaka: Jan. 31.

Here's the latest aggregate poll numbers for Florida:

Gingrich: 37.7%
Romney: 30.3%
Santorum: 11.7%
Paul: 10.3%

For those of you playing at home, three days ago it was:
Romney: 40.5%
Gingrich: 22%
Santorum: 15%
Paul: 9%

That's a HUGE momentum swing in a weekend. And not surprisingly, Sheldon Adelson (the dude that single-handedly dropped $5mil into Gingrich's SuperPAC and quite possibly single-handedly revived Gingrich's campaign from the political graveyard) has dropped another $5mil (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-newt-gingrich-super-pac-five-million-donation-20120123,0,7444292.story). Wonder if Adelson is gunning for the Vice Presidency, or just an ambassadorial position to Israel. Cause you know dude is going to want his payback for that kind of coin.

Meanwhile, when Romney was asked what he had done "for the conservative movement", the only thing he could really think of to lead off with was, "Umm....I'm married and have kids and grandkids...". While Newt is busy revising history to make it look like he was Ronald Reagan's right-hand man. And the Tea Partiers are lapping that shit up.


EDIT: Oh gods. I just agreed...with Ann Coulter. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/ann-coulter-newt-gingrich-south-carolina-john-king_n_1223397.html) I think I'm going to be sick.  :'(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 24, 2012, 03:45:09 pm

For the record, I don't put a lot of stock in daily tracking polls, but I'll admit the swing-polling going into Saturday was pretty much perfectly reflected.

Quote from: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 03:17:34 pm

EDIT: Oh gods. I just agreed...with Ann Coulter. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/ann-coulter-newt-gingrich-south-carolina-john-king_n_1223397.html) I think I'm going to be sick.  :'(

Quote

Coulter also defended CNN's John King for asking Gingrich about the recent allegations made by his ex-wife. Coulter said, "John King is a completely fair reporter, an honorable reporter...and Newt Gingrich goes back to the well to attacking the media, and I resent that..."

Ann Fucking Coulter criticising Gingrich for "going back to the well" of attacking the Liberal Media, and defending CNN.  I have now officially seen everything.  This race is truly driving people insane.

Quote from: palsch on January 24, 2012, 03:00:55 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 24, 2012, 02:05:46 pm

I don't think anyone IS damning him for doing a legal tax return. Rather that they are damning the idea that that tax return SHOULD be legal.

Just a minor point. Tax returns are the documents demonstrating what taxes were paid, income levels, exemptions, etc. The reason people are pissed is that his effective tax rate was well under the median tax rate while his income was 1% levels. Even pretending his charitable contributions were taxes (and allowing Mormon tithing as charitable) he was paying less than the top rate of income tax (35%).

I'm reminded of a time Bill O'Reilly went on the The Daily Show, and income and taxes and Obama the Communist came up.  Stewart pointed out that in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War, the top marginal tax bracket was 91%.  Think about that, 91% of income over (whatever the bracket was then) paid in taxes.  O'Reilly point out that essentially no millionaire of the era actually paid that tax, thanks to loopholes.  Stewart asked whether that was principled, and rather than stopping at just saying it's principled enough to legally compliant, O'Reilly briefly argued that it is in itself patriotic to pay as little taxes as possible.

Lots of people want millionaires to pay higher taxes than themselves.  Romney pulled an interesting reversal on Gingrich in last night's debate - after talking for a bit about how Romney only paid 15% taxes because his income is mostly capital gains, Gingrich soon after described a tax plan that called for eliminating capital gains taxes altogether.  Romney quipped that under Gingrich's tax plan, he would pay effectively nothing.  It was like he was saying, "If you're ticked off that a millionaire like me is paying more taxes than you, this guy wants me to pay squat," although his kind of awkward of saying it made it sound almost like bragging.

But more than wanting rich people to pay more taxes, virtually everyone wants themselves to pay less than they currently do.  Ask absolutely anybody who qualifies for a tax break of some kind, and they'll probably boast wildly about it.  This ties back to O'Reilly, which especially plays true with capital-C Conservative people.  If your political philosophy counts as a founding principle a distrust and hatred for the federal government (especially when you don't like the President), then cheating the government out of taxes (including legally cheating) is itself a "good thing".

I'm curious to see which way Romney manages to play this (if he manages at all), after his Gingrich-line got so little response.  There's two ways he can run this that both count as "populism" with Conservative voters, and they don't even have to be exclusive.  I wonder if he can see that opening for what it is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 25, 2012, 10:21:06 am

Updated polling data for today shows the Florida race tightening back up a bit. Yesterday, Gingrich had about a 7-point lead on Romney, today it's down to 4. No clear reason why, but perhaps the slew of data showing that while a hypothetical Obama v. Romney matchup is still giving the president a 2-point margin, a hypothetical Obama v. Gingrich matchup is giving Obama an 11-point win. All Gingrich's talk about "electability" is bullshit. Like I said before, he's sort of the Republican Hillary Clinton -- yes, he energizes people on his side to vote for him. But he also energizes people on the opposite side to bust their ass to keep him from winning. I'm not even a Democrat, but I'd be volunteering for the local Obama campaign again this year if Gingrich gets the nom.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 25, 2012, 03:29:42 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 24, 2012, 03:45:09 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 03:17:34 pm

EDIT: Oh gods. I just agreed...with Ann Coulter. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/ann-coulter-newt-gingrich-south-carolina-john-king_n_1223397.html) I think I'm going to be sick.  :'(

Quote

Coulter also defended CNN's John King for asking Gingrich about the recent allegations made by his ex-wife. Coulter said, "John King is a completely fair reporter, an honorable reporter...and Newt Gingrich goes back to the well to attacking the media, and I resent that..."

Ann Fucking Coulter criticising Gingrich for "going back to the well" of attacking the Liberal Media, and defending CNN.  I have now officially seen everything.  This race is truly driving people insane.

Well, it was nice knowing you guys, but it looks like the End is really upon us now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 25, 2012, 04:02:00 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 25, 2012, 03:29:42 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 24, 2012, 03:45:09 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 24, 2012, 03:17:34 pm

EDIT: Oh gods. I just agreed...with Ann Coulter. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/ann-coulter-newt-gingrich-south-carolina-john-king_n_1223397.html) I think I'm going to be sick.  :'(

Quote

Coulter also defended CNN's John King for asking Gingrich about the recent allegations made by his ex-wife. Coulter said, "John King is a completely fair reporter, an honorable reporter...and Newt Gingrich goes back to the well to attacking the media, and I resent that..."

Ann Fucking Coulter criticising Gingrich for "going back to the well" of attacking the Liberal Media, and defending CNN.  I have now officially seen everything.  This race is truly driving people insane.

Well, it was nice knowing you guys, but it looks like the End is really upon us now.

I thought Ann Coulter was a misanthrope that hates absolutely everyone, irrespective of any quality they might possess or not. I don't think I've ever heard her actually say anything to suggest she likes anybody for doing anything.

Ann Coulter hating people seems like an island of stablity and normality in an otherwise unpredictable and chaotic world. When she starts loudly commending and gushing over somebody, then I know we are all truly doomed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 25, 2012, 04:22:25 pm

Quote

Coulter also defended CNN's John King for asking Gingrich about the recent allegations made by his ex-wife. Coulter said, "John King is a completely fair reporter, an honorable reporter...and Newt Gingrich goes back to the well to attacking the media, and I resent that..."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Realmfighter on January 25, 2012, 05:21:54 pm

And there you go.

2012. Right on schedule.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 25, 2012, 07:39:41 pm

Ann Coulter's conservatism and the Baktun cycles line up perfectly, apparently. Either it's the end of the world or her books sales are down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 26, 2012, 06:21:45 am

Quote

Coulter also defended CNN's John King for asking Gingrich about the recent allegations made by his ex-wife. Coulter said, "John King is a completely fair reporter, an honorable reporter...and Newt Gingrich goes back to the well to attacking the media, and I resent that..."

Well... she only said stuff about the report in the context of spewing vitriol aimed at attacking somebody else, she didn't really mean it... did she?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 26, 2012, 10:30:37 am

I've got a confession to make - If I had any reason, any reason at all, to think that Newt was serious with and capable of his Moon Base promise, I would totally vote for him.

I'm not even going to ask if this makes me a bad person. I know it does. But I totally would. I have this wonderful list of priorities a candidate can appeal to, and "Space Colonies" is pretty much at the top of the list, above even "End the Drug War" and "Implement Negative Income Tax" and "Change system to Approval Voting".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 26, 2012, 12:04:24 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 26, 2012, 10:30:37 am

I've got a confession to make - If I had any reason, any reason at all, to think that Newt was serious with and capable of his Moon Base promise, I would totally vote for him.

I'm not even going to ask if this makes me a bad person. I know it does. But I totally would. I have this wonderful list of priorities a candidate can appeal to, and "Space Colonies" is pretty much at the top of the list, above even "End the Drug War" and "Implement Negative Income Tax" and "Change system to Approval Voting".

I'm pretty sure that if you asked him, Vermin Supreme would make space colonies a part of his platform. He might even promise to move the White House to a base on the moon.



EDIT: In some tangentially related news, North Carolina's governor Democrat Beverly Perdue has stated that she will not seek re-election in the fall. Perdue is a first-term governor, and frankly she's been about as effective and as inspiring as lukewarm dishwater. I actually voted for the Libertarian candidate in the governor's race in '08 because I was so dismayed with the two major party candidates. Early analysis says this may be a positive for Obama's chances in the Tarheel State, because Democrats will be more energized to come out and vote for a new candidate than they would to re-elect Perdue.

In a lot of ways, Perdue's tenure has mirrored Obama's. Except she didn't have the benefit of coming into office with high ratings. Her approval rating was only 41% within her first three months in office, and it just tanked from there. She had too main problems: an incredibly hostile Republican legislature (sound familiar?) and the fact that she tried to take all possible positions on an issue because she was afraid to alienate any particular demographic.

It'll be interesting to see how the primary races shake out, and how that affects Obama's polling here. Our primary isn't until May, so it's doubtful we'll have any effect at all on the GOP national race, but you never know...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 26, 2012, 03:11:31 pm

Sorry for the double-post, but I didn't want to have my last post become some page-stretching monster of multiple postscripts.

New polling data for Florida shows Gingrich's momentum reversing, with Romney now back in the lead by 7-8 points. Part of it has to be the media blitz that Romney is putting on, but I have to think part of it is also a lot of people going, "Oh wait....Newt Gingrich still has that little problem of being...Newt Gingrich." The initial bandwagon effect from South Carolina (everyone wants to be on the side of the winner) only had a few days' carryover. Newt probably wishes the primaries had been a lot closer together.

All of this sets the stage for some possible fireworks at the 469,125,716th Republican debate of the season tonight in Jacksonville, Florida. Gingrich has to be a bit pissed and desperate after seeing those numbers. Indeed, this morning at a campaign stop he pretty much just ripped on Romney the entire time. Meanwhile, Romney has urged Newt to release the full records of the House ethics investigation that saw his censure and removal, especially after Nancy Pelosi made a cryptic remark that she "knew something" that meant Newt Gingrich would never be President. Romney has also publicly urged his supporters to "just storm in" to the debates if they don't have tickets. In case you weren't aware, the Florida GOP has decided that the audience will be allowed to boo, cheer, yell, etc. at the debates. After the big applause at the SC debates when Gingrich went all mock-outrage on John King, apparently the GOP thinks that turning the debates into even MORE of a mockery of civilized politics is a good thing.

Hmm...two deeply antagonistic camps, in the Florida panhandle and allowed to make as much noise as they want, and one side urging supporters to crash the event. There is no way this can possibly go wrong not be entertaining.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 26, 2012, 03:41:41 pm

Wait, the GOP encourages riots? WHY DO WE HATE THEM?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 26, 2012, 03:52:03 pm

Neutral debates where the audience is explicitly forbidden to make noise are loud and angry enough...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 26, 2012, 04:07:45 pm

Speaking of debates... please please please please please let this happen. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/seven-three-hour-lincoln-douglas-style-debates.html) OK, so practically impossible, but a man can dream...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 26, 2012, 04:14:43 pm

Personally, I'm ready to see some "South Korean legislature"-caliber brawling. The whole political theater aspect of it is starting to look like reality TV anyways, why not toss in some situational conficts which have been utterly engineered to explode in everyone's face?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 26, 2012, 07:04:23 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 26, 2012, 04:14:43 pm

Personally, I'm ready to see some "South Korean legislature"-caliber brawling. The whole political theater aspect of it is starting to look like reality TV anyways, why not toss in some situational conficts which have been utterly engineered to explode in everyone's face?

Sadly there are very few US politicians I really see having the guts to stand their ground and throw hands (and chairs) like the Koreans, they talk a good fight, but I think if it came down to actual fisticuffs im fairly sure the shouting would all be 'SECURITY' and 'DONT HIT ME OR ILL SUE' rather than 'CMON THEN HAVE A REAL GO YA WUSS'

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 26, 2012, 07:36:33 pm

Yeah, not having politicians behave as kindergarten babies is really sad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on January 26, 2012, 07:43:02 pm

Dunno, I'd love a good fight once every bluemoon in the Folketing. Them Asians have something on the right here I feel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 26, 2012, 07:53:42 pm

Remember: If Congress regularly broke out into inter-congressmen fistfights we wouldn't have as many set-in-their-ways-three-fourths-senile-utterly-disconnected morons able to hold seats. Age brings frailty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 26, 2012, 08:19:07 pm

Oh dear oh dear. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/democrats-make-hay-of-romneys-financial-disclosure-errors----demand-more-tax-returns.php)

Quote

Thursday afternoon, the LA Times reported that Romney’s tax returns listed 23 funds and partnerships that did not appear on Mitt Romney’s personal financial statements — the disclosure forms candidates are required by federal law to file with the Federal Elections Commission. Romney filed his disclosure forms in August 2011. The timing of this revelation couldn’t be worse. Hours before a GOP debate and days before the crucial Florida primary, Democrats now have new fodder for demanding additional tax return information from the Romney campaign.
...
Lying to the FEC is crime, but proving that Romney decided to purposefully omit the information (if he did) would be a pretty high burden to meet. There’s been nothing to indicate so far that Romney did anything more than make a mistake on a complicated government form. But if Roussell’s allegations are correct — and it’s proven that the omission of offshore accounts and investments, as well as investments connected to Bain Capital were left off purposefully, for political reasons — then Romney is in trouble legally. Obviously that’s a big “if.”

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 26, 2012, 08:38:54 pm

The debate tonight is fascinating

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 26, 2012, 08:48:45 pm

Holy crap. Santorum has the most sane tax perspective of all the republicans. I mean, it isn't going to balance the budget, but it is more sane than anyone else. I never thought there was something where Santorum would be least bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 26, 2012, 09:05:19 pm

Education and welfare. He's less bad than the rest of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 26, 2012, 09:07:55 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 26, 2012, 09:05:19 pm

Education and welfare. He's less bad than the rest of them.

No he isn't. Read his social policy. If you are not sufficiently abhorred at the idea of Santorum being President after that, read it again. And again. And again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 26, 2012, 09:11:15 pm

I meant in terms of education and welfare he was less bad. Yes, otherwise he's horrible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 26, 2012, 09:34:19 pm

Newt Gingrich promises moon base by the end of his second term (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/jan/25/newt-gingrich-moon-base).

Sane people: "Let's fix the country."

Newt: "TO THE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 26, 2012, 09:41:25 pm

Alright, I like space exploration as much as the next liberal nerd on the internet, but a moon base in eight years is totally unfeasible. Just return meaningful funding to NASA and let them do what they think is best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 26, 2012, 09:46:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 26, 2012, 09:41:25 pm

Alright, I like space exploration as much as the next liberal nerd on the internet, but a moon base in eight years is totally unfeasible. Just return meaningful funding to NASA and let them do what they think is best.

Not to mention the whole "doesn't even have ONE term" thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on January 26, 2012, 09:50:07 pm

I'm seriously impressed. How does this election keep managing to top itself for peak absurdity? I predict that, in response, Romney will endorse Stalin as an example of an effective leader, and then spend weeks explaining that he didn't mean to endorse all of Stalin's policies but only to point out that he was good at getting results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 26, 2012, 09:51:13 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 26, 2012, 09:34:19 pm

Newt Gingrich promises moon base by the end of his second term (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/jan/25/newt-gingrich-moon-base).

Sane people: "Let's fix the country."

Newt: "TO THE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!"

I love space and science and stuff as much as the next nerd, and would LOVE to go to space sometime in my life, but seriously...there are more important things, Newt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on January 26, 2012, 09:53:13 pm

I like the moonbase idea.

Bold

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 26, 2012, 09:53:37 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on January 26, 2012, 09:50:07 pm

I'm seriously impressed. How does this election keep managing to top itself for peak absurdity? I predict that, in response, Romney will endorse Stalin as an example of an effective leader, and then spend weeks explaining that he didn't mean to endorse all of Stalin's policies but only to point out that he was good at getting results.

Nah, Romney would say he endorses Stalin, then Gingrich and Santorum would say they do too (with Paul saying they're all insane). Then Romney turns around and says he doesn't endorse Stalin, only that he got good results, and Gingrich and Santorum would attack him for supporting Stalin. And Paul would say they're all insane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 26, 2012, 10:06:00 pm

And Paul would be entirely correct.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 26, 2012, 10:09:53 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on January 26, 2012, 10:06:00 pm

And Paul would be entirely correct.

An insane clock is right an insanely large number of times a day.  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 26, 2012, 10:11:18 pm

Wouldn't that make them... sane? If you know, they're right all the time.

I suppose the egregiousness of the times they are wrong could call into question their sanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 26, 2012, 10:12:14 pm

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but one that runs backward is right four times (numbers-wise at least).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 26, 2012, 10:12:57 pm

Calling the GOP candidates insane does not make you sane. It just means you're functioning on a very basic mental level. The next step up is breathing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 26, 2012, 10:20:49 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 26, 2012, 09:46:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 26, 2012, 09:41:25 pm

Alright, I like space exploration as much as the next liberal nerd on the internet, but a moon base in eight years is totally unfeasible. Just return meaningful funding to NASA and let them do what they think is best.

Not to mention the whole "doesn't even have ONE term" thing.

Also missing the part where Gingrich's plan for a moonbase by 2020 (possibly large enough to apply for statehood, apparently) is to effectively eliminate NASA completely, and wait for the Invisible Hand of the Free Market to find some magical reason to go to the moon on spec.  This may include government "prizes" in the vein of the X-Prize, which I suppose is forward thinking in its own way.  Instead of throwing government money at a government-owned industry, just throw the money out the window and hope somebody does something useful with it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 26, 2012, 10:27:01 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 26, 2012, 09:41:25 pm

Alright, I like space exploration as much as the next liberal nerd on the internet, but a moon base in eight years is totally unfeasible. Just return meaningful funding to NASA and let them do what they think is best.

A moon base in 8 years is totally feasible, assuming there was the political will to make it happen. As I said before, if I could trust his promises would actually lead to a moon base, I would vote for the man in a heartbeat - If we're going to have the government spend bunches of money on showing off how big their dick is (i.e. the military), let's at least do something actually impressive with it and advance some god damn SCIENCE.

But, as others have pointed out, Newt is not really being serious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on January 26, 2012, 10:28:29 pm

That's no moon... (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/26/thats-no-moon-its-newt-gi.html)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/original1.jpeg)

Completely unrelated, Romney income calculator. (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/romney_income_calculator_how_much_does_mitt_make_how_long_would_it_take_him_to_earn_your_salary_.html)

Quote

Enter your annual income below to find out how long it would have taken Mitt Romney to earn the same amount of money.

Also, Bloomberg reject the most brutal cover image I've seen (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/26/bloombergs-amazing-and-re.html).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/rom.jpeg)

On the moonbase thing I actually have opinions^TM, but probably a bit technical to get into here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 26, 2012, 11:06:31 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 26, 2012, 04:14:43 pm

Personally, I'm ready to see some "South Korean legislature"-caliber brawling. The whole political theater aspect of it is starting to look like reality TV anyways, why not toss in some situational conficts which have been utterly literally (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/23/south-korea-tear-gas-attack_n_1109394.html) engineered to explode in everyone's face?

Fix'd :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 26, 2012, 11:08:40 pm

Quote from: palsch on January 26, 2012, 10:28:29 pm

On the moonbase thing I actually have opinions^TM, but probably a bit technical to get into here.

Start a thread!  I would love some technical opinions myself.

If anyone is interesting, here's an old bill that Newt introduced in 1981 calling for space colonization: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/79483990

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 26, 2012, 11:58:20 pm

You guys are nuts. A project to build a moon base is a retarded idea and it would further bankrupt the country for no reason whatsoever.

Anyways, didn't GW Bush mention something about wanting to build a base on the moon toward the later parts of his presidency? Is this suddenly some sort of neo-conservative ideological goal now? I'm not feeling this moon base vibe at all, man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on January 27, 2012, 12:04:15 am

They see the writings on the wall, and are looking to get a Conservative Stronghold on the dusty rock in space, where they can hold a nuclear gun to the planet to get their terms dictated.

... Or something.

/tinfoilhat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 27, 2012, 12:05:51 am

I think they want to send all the gays and brown people there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on January 27, 2012, 12:07:58 am

I'm sure 10% gravity moonhomosex would be -awesome-.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 27, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote from: Montague on January 26, 2012, 11:58:20 pm

You guys are nuts. A project to build a moon base is a retarded idea and it would further bankrupt the country for no reason whatsoever.

Yeah, but the point is it'd be at least an interesting way of further bankrupting the country for no reason whatsoever. Which is better than a lot of stuff the politicians are pulling out of their arses.

I mean, shit, it's 2012. Yes, the internet thing is really damn interesting, and computing and stuff is totally in the sci-fi realm now, and yeah, yeah, we're getting closer to the stereotypical cyborg, but we were promised moon bases and flying cars, damnit. And they haven't gotten the latter cheap enough for mass production yet... or very effective, really.

So moon base, yanno'? It's harder to worry about the erosion of civil liberties when the folks on the podium are going, "M'fookin' moon base 凹(ﾟДﾟ)凹"

E:

Quote from: Descan on January 27, 2012, 12:07:58 am

I'm sure 10% gravity moonhomosex would be -awesome-.

I think they've got like, wind chambers or something that can mimic that already. No idea how much it'd cost (or if it were legal) to have a go in one of 'em, though. So that's a testable hypothesis :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 27, 2012, 12:17:20 am

Quote from: Montague on January 26, 2012, 11:58:20 pm

You guys are nuts. A project to build a moon base is a retarded idea and it would further bankrupt the country for no reason whatsoever.

Anyways, didn't GW Bush mention something about wanting to build a base on the moon toward the later parts of his presidency? Is this suddenly some sort of neo-conservative ideological goal now? I'm not feeling this moon base vibe at all, man.

There is probably stuff we can learn from on the moon, and definitely stuff we can learn through the trial of building a base there. Also it probably wouldn't end up costing us all that much in the big picture. A drop in the bucket, because the bucket is 17 Trillion drops large in this case.

And if we ever need to get a head start on getting us some of that delicious He3...

(Also, we could rename the nation The United States of Amero-Moonica if we ever founded a state up there. That's a plus, probably.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 27, 2012, 12:19:31 am

Sadly, moonbases will have to wait. Aren't those futures filled with flying cars also usually shining utopias of peace and harmony? At least, the 50s versions were. Since we have nothing remotely resembling a utopia yet, no moon base. Think of it as an incentive  ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 27, 2012, 12:54:28 am

Actually, moon bases are pretty common in dystopias too, though usually dystopias can actually afford stuff

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 27, 2012, 01:00:37 am

Which is a failing of authors since we know that real oppressive regimes are not productive entities. Sure, you can treat your entire population like slaves, but you'll grind their will to function and produce for the nation down to almost nothing.

And absolutely nothing will be able to save you if they ever rise up. Nothing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 27, 2012, 01:07:53 am

Quote

You guys are nuts. A project to build a moon base is a retarded idea and it would further bankrupt the country for no reason whatsoever.

You wound, me good sir. No good reason? Truly? Alas, my highest ideals apparently aren't worth the dirt on your boots. So be it!

But seriously, I can't think of a better thing to spend tax money on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 27, 2012, 01:13:22 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 27, 2012, 01:07:53 am

Quote

You guys are nuts. A project to build a moon base is a retarded idea and it would further bankrupt the country for no reason whatsoever.

You wound, me good sir. No good reason? Truly? Alas, my highest ideals apparently aren't worth the dirt on your boots. So be it!

But seriously, I can't think of a better thing to spend tax money on.

Mars Colony.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 01:24:36 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 27, 2012, 01:13:22 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 27, 2012, 01:07:53 am

Quote

You guys are nuts. A project to build a moon base is a retarded idea and it would further bankrupt the country for no reason whatsoever.

You wound, me good sir. No good reason? Truly? Alas, my highest ideals apparently aren't worth the dirt on your boots. So be it!

But seriously, I can't think of a better thing to spend tax money on.

Mars Colony.

The cheapest way to colonize mars is to colonize the moon and then build your colony ship on the moon.  Then you get to mars and you realize there's bugger there and you go back to the moon which at least could be exploited for resources if you colonize it.

If you think the country is broke then you should be criticizing the parts of the budget that are actually substantial.  NASA's budget is tiny compared to something like defense and NASA has produced a very good return on investment with stuff like all those satellites that relay our communications, monitor our weather, give us the data for physics, etc.  It's not like people are just proposing a moon colony for shits and giggles, they are actually expecting a return on investment like the space program produced.

The mars colony is for shits and giggles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 27, 2012, 01:28:12 am

Back on topic...

Newt is soaring ahead of Romney in Florida and nationally in certain polls, which means that Republicans will in fact take a double adulterer Washington insider over the Mormon businessman Washington Insider.

That's a great choice Republicans. Independents just love Newt Gingrich.

It's pretty wild too, considering Newt has no campaign organisation to speak of and was pretty much out of cash to campaign with.

If you're one for schadenfreude, just imagine if Romney spends all this money just to lose to Gingrich in the primary, which Obama defeats handily in the general election for a second term. Then Romney's taxes will go up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 27, 2012, 01:35:32 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on January 27, 2012, 01:07:53 am

Quote

You guys are nuts. A project to build a moon base is a retarded idea and it would further bankrupt the country for no reason whatsoever.

You wound, me good sir. No good reason? Truly? Alas, my highest ideals apparently aren't worth the dirt on your boots. So be it!

But seriously, I can't think of a better thing to spend tax money on.

Education? Bringing down the national debt? Furthering science and knowledge? Sustainable power, water, and food? All of these things are far more important, and those last three would be tremendous help in actually running a moon colony once we got around to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 27, 2012, 01:39:18 am

I don't understand Newt's appeal.  He sounds like he just inhaled a liter of helium, he looks like the Winston Churchill babby, his personal life sounds like the parody of a politician's personal life, his positions are utterly retarded, and he promised us a moon base, which he won't be able to deliver.  Is it the moon base?  Are people really that stupid?

Someone please explain this to me.  And I get that his positions are in line with the Republican platforms and whatnot, I just don't understand how humans can like this person.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 27, 2012, 01:50:26 am

Quote

Education?

Suffers from systemic problems, yes, but I honestly see spending the money directly on education doing less to inspire students to go into productive science careers than a moon base. In fact, wasn't the whole space race thing a huge boon for education? It captured people's minds, and suddenly education became a national priority because we had some real scientific, technological goal to look forward to together, as a society.

PLUS we get a moon base.

Thus, I think the moon base is a better investment.

Quote

Bringing down the national debt?

Not quite seeing how this is better than a moon base. Sure, it would be nice if it happened, but not only is it not gonna, but shit - do you know HOW MANY moon bases we could buy with the amount of money it would take to pay that down? Probably some asteroid bases and even a mars base too. Sorry, dollar for dollar, moon base wins. (Mostly because that's a lot of dollars)

Quote

Furthering science and knowledge?

Nothing furthers knowledge and science more than getting our culture to look up and think about knowledge and science. And nothing has proven more effective at doing that than expanding the frontiers of space, filling them with a sense of awe, wonder, and a real feeling of possibility. And there's not much that can do that quite as well as a moon base. (Especially if we taunt China about how we're going to build a moon base, and they decide to try for it too. Progress, ho!)

Quote

Sustainable power, water, and food?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. But I feel that whatever you mean, exactly, the research poured into a moon base could only help.

Sorry, dude - Moon Base wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on January 27, 2012, 01:54:16 am

Vacuum Energy would be nice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on January 27, 2012, 01:56:58 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 27, 2012, 01:39:18 am

I don't understand Newt's appeal.

He's not Romney. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 27, 2012, 02:09:06 am

What I meant is that people living on a moon base (or some other hostile environment) are not going to be able to rely on things like frequent deliveries or running power lines from the nearest hydroelectric dam. They'd need to produce their own power (without relying on fuel shipments), grow their own food (to supplement diets), recycle water and air, maybe even make their own. Point is, this isn't stuff you try to do on the fly. You need preparation and testing done on Earth, and the techniques we learn could improve life down here as well as up there.

Education: The problem is that many schools already do not get enough funding. If schools could afford things like science labs and decent computers (instead of barely being able to buy enough paper), students would be more interested in learning and pursue those science-y careers you were talking about. We can't build a moon base using a bunch of fast-food workers, so education comes first (maybe with some reforms to solve those problems you alluded to).

Economy: I fail to see how sinking billions of dollars into something like a moon base will fix our own economy. Unless you anticipate being one of the lucky colonists, you'll still have to deal with the massive debt and constant budget cuts. Making sure we don't collapse and become a third-world country is priority numero uno.

I will grant you the science and knowledge point, because you're right; the space race greatly expanded our technological abilities and helped a lot of people all over the world begin to dream big.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 27, 2012, 04:48:36 am

I think the other thing to remember is:  you aint gonna get a moonbase.  The idea of people living full time on the moon in 8 years time is a pipedream, we dont even have people living in orbit anymore.  More likely its a way for Newt to pour a big pile of money into a few companies

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on January 27, 2012, 05:21:02 am

Sirus, I guess the whole R&D part is part of the Moon Base plan. The plan to colonize the moon isn't to send a bunch of guys with spades, picks and a wagon.

Well, maybe Newt's plan is (that's why he think he can do it in 8 years?) but he's insane anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 08:44:55 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 27, 2012, 02:09:06 am

Economy: I fail to see how sinking billions of dollars into something like a moon base will fix our own economy. Unless you anticipate being one of the lucky colonists, you'll still have to deal with the massive debt and constant budget cuts. Making sure we don't collapse and become a third-world country is priority numero uno.

If you are experiencing depression economic and interest rates have been stuck at the zero bound for the past three years then anything that spends money in the short term is good actually.  Moon base probably isn't ideal as it takes too long.  But if we spent two trillion dollars digging a ginormous hole and then spent another two trillion dollars filling it in that would return the economy to full employment.  That in turn would greatly improve our countries finances because tax revenues would rise and spending on things like unemployment benefits would fall.  If we had full employment and let the Bush tax cuts expire we'd have debt start shrinking as a percentage of GDP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 27, 2012, 08:51:52 am

And the Moon Base would create economic pressure for skilled science, technology, and manufacturing jobs, making those jobs more appealing. Also, all the support jobs that go with those.

Quote

Moon base probably isn't ideal as it takes too long.

Getting prepared for the moon base would actually probably involve a heck of a lot more jobs than the moon base itself, especially if we're going to do it in 8 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 27, 2012, 09:04:37 am

There's one facet of a moonbase that intersects with conservative conceptions of America very well: it would give us a frontier again. One school of American history (one that frequently touts American exceptionalism) posits that America was at its best, its most productive and most democratic when it still had a frontier to settle. It meant opportunity available to the poor back East. Rather than forming a permanent underclass in the big Eastern cities, millions of them packed up and headed west to make homesteads on all that open land. That notion of being able to strike out on your own and carve out your own little patch from the wilderness by hard work and your wits is part and parcel of "the American Dream". Of course, it really hasn't worked like that since about the 1940s, if not earlier.

I could see a lot of people voluntarily migrating to the Moon if there were jobs a-plenty and/or the Moon was determined to be rich in valuable minerals. Wouldn't be the first time large population movements have been triggered by a gold rush.

But anyways....no riot last night. Florida, I am disappoint. Aren't you the same state that made it legal to shoot first if you "feel threatened"? Where was that kind of tinfoil-crazy last night?

It'll be interesting to see how the polls digest the debate, especially with no clear "winner".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 27, 2012, 09:31:37 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 27, 2012, 09:04:37 am

There's one facet of a moonbase that intersects with conservative conceptions of America very well: it would give us a frontier again. One school of American history (one that frequently touts American exceptionalism) posits that America was at its best, its most productive and most democratic when it still had a frontier to settle. It meant opportunity available to the poor back East. Rather than forming a permanent underclass in the big Eastern cities, millions of them packed up and headed west to make homesteads on all that open land. That notion of being able to strike out on your own and carve out your own little patch from the wilderness by hard work and your wits is part and parcel of "the American Dream". Of course, it really hasn't worked like that since about the 1940s, if not earlier.

I could see a lot of people voluntarily migrating to the Moon if there were jobs a-plenty and/or the Moon was determined to be rich in valuable minerals. Wouldn't be the first time large population movements have been triggered by a gold rush.

Sorry, moonbases still suck. If we wanted a new frontier, it'd be more lucrative and easier to build colonies on the ocean floor in international water. The landmass in the arctic. The treaties preventing economic activity in Anarctica will end soon. There are also plenty of untouched places in national territory as well, like Siberia and hell, Afghanistan. We could build cities or colonies deep underground for less expense and asspain then a moonbase. All better ideas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 27, 2012, 10:07:51 am

I think you're ignoring the power of the popular imagination. If you asked someone, "Would you rather be a colonist on the Moon, or a colonist in Antarctica?" moon base is going to win hands-down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 27, 2012, 10:36:08 am

We should probably move this to the moonbase thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 11:12:06 am

Quote from: Montague on January 27, 2012, 09:31:37 am

Sorry, moonbases still suck. If we wanted a new frontier, it'd be more lucrative and easier to build colonies on the ocean floor in international water. The landmass in the arctic. The treaties preventing economic activity in Anarctica will end soon. There are also plenty of untouched places in national territory as well, like Siberia and hell, Afghanistan. We could build cities or colonies deep underground for less expense and asspain then a moonbase. All better ideas.

There are no resources in those locations.  If there is no return on investment it's not a frontier, it's a wasteland.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 27, 2012, 11:15:44 am

Agreed. Less moonbase, more moonbat.

And speaking of moonbats, Gingrich still has about a 3-point lead in national polls, but Florida is slipping away from him. Yesterday's poll releases both show Romney re-establishing a 9-point lead in Florida. Expect Gingrich's SuperPAC to unleash an absolute barrage of anti-Romney ads over the weekend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 11:19:15 am

How recent are those national polls?  Maybe they just aren't recent enough to show the same decline as Florida.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 27, 2012, 11:27:58 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 11:19:15 am

How recent are those national polls?  Maybe they just aren't recent enough to show the same decline as Florida.

It's an aggregate spread. Honestly, it'd be higher than that except it's factoring in a somewhat out-of-date CBS poll from 1/12-1/16 that showed Romney up by 7 nationally. All the recent (1/24-25) snapshot polls put Gingrich at 6-9 points above Romney. But then, nationally people haven't been subjected to the ad blitz like Floridians have. So it's only the most salient bits that are going to influence them. Might see a lot more movement nationally if Romney wins Florida and wins big.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 27, 2012, 05:38:27 pm

Quote from: Montague on January 27, 2012, 09:31:37 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 27, 2012, 09:04:37 am

There's one facet of a moonbase that intersects with conservative conceptions of America very well: it would give us a frontier again. One school of American history (one that frequently touts American exceptionalism) posits that America was at its best, its most productive and most democratic when it still had a frontier to settle. It meant opportunity available to the poor back East. Rather than forming a permanent underclass in the big Eastern cities, millions of them packed up and headed west to make homesteads on all that open land. That notion of being able to strike out on your own and carve out your own little patch from the wilderness by hard work and your wits is part and parcel of "the American Dream". Of course, it really hasn't worked like that since about the 1940s, if not earlier.

I could see a lot of people voluntarily migrating to the Moon if there were jobs a-plenty and/or the Moon was determined to be rich in valuable minerals. Wouldn't be the first time large population movements have been triggered by a gold rush.

Sorry, moonbases still suck. If we wanted a new frontier, it'd be more lucrative and easier to build colonies on the ocean floor in international water. The landmass in the arctic. The treaties preventing economic activity in Anarctica will end soon. There are also plenty of untouched places in national territory as well, like Siberia and hell, Afghanistan. We could build cities or colonies deep underground for less expense and asspain then a moonbase. All better ideas.

I would much rather we aim our economic ventures at a place that is not supporting life, than damage anymore ecosystems here on earth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 27, 2012, 05:56:51 pm

Yeah, we've got a thread for talking about moon bases now.  You can all go over there.

Meanwhile, Florida coming up on Tuesday.  Sadly though, the next candidate debate is not until February 22nd.  Whatever will we do...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 27, 2012, 06:11:07 pm

I just learned that my grandparents are Gingrich people. My mind is full of fuck. I explained to my grandmother about the whole steeping out on his cancer ridden wife and she ignored that but cheered for him hounding Clinton out of office. My mind is full of fuck.

Did I mention my mind is full of fuck?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 27, 2012, 06:12:01 pm

It's pretty scary when the base that should care about morality the most seems to care about it the least. I'm pretty sure that's how you elect the anti-christ.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 27, 2012, 06:30:49 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 27, 2012, 06:12:01 pm

It's pretty scary when the base that should care about morality the most seems to care about it the least. I'm pretty sure that's how you elect the anti-christ.

Unless there's a ton of stuff we don't know about Gingrich, I'd be very disappointed if he were the anti-christ.  Surely hell can produce someone more impressive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 27, 2012, 06:34:49 pm

I think the closest the world could come to the anti-christ is some horrible combination of Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 27, 2012, 06:35:51 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on January 27, 2012, 06:34:49 pm

I think the closest the world could come to the anti-christ is some horrible combination of Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

You are right, Gingrich would have been too obvious. ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 27, 2012, 06:36:27 pm

I heard that the Anti-Christ is supposed to bring peace to the Middle East, solve our economic problems, and bring about a world government that would treat everyone equally. Therefore, Gingrich cannot be the Anti-Christ :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 27, 2012, 06:38:08 pm

Somehow that whole world government seems a lot less appealing with things like the ACTA floating around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 27, 2012, 06:40:50 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 27, 2012, 06:38:08 pm

Somehow that whole world government seems a lot less appealing with things like the ACTA floating around.

All it takes is one rich villain to ruin decades of world relations :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on January 27, 2012, 10:19:42 pm

The Anti-Christ will also destroy all attempts at internet censorship. Hail Satan?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 27, 2012, 10:22:20 pm

If I had to pick a patron deity of the Internet, he's the most likely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on January 27, 2012, 10:30:10 pm

Koalemos would also be appropriate, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 27, 2012, 10:42:49 pm

I would think it either Eris or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... or Cthulhu, I suppose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 27, 2012, 10:47:16 pm

FSM, maybe... I'd think more along the lines of Hermes or something, really. One of the various gods of messengers or knowledge, I guess. Inherent semi-degenerate nature of a lot of the content aside, the sheer marvel of the speed at which information moves in this place is definitely god-tier as far as old myths and such are concerned.

Maybe if Zeus and Hermes had a butt baby or something. It's definitely a Grecian god, as far as major western mythos goes, though. Not many other of the big ones involve sufficient debauchery.

Also derail? Yes, derail. RERAIL!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on January 27, 2012, 10:53:16 pm

Maybe some sort of disgusting many-headed combination of all of them, much like the ideal GOP candidate.

There, RERAILED.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 11:16:25 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 27, 2012, 06:11:07 pm

I just learned that my grandparents are Gingrich people. My mind is full of fuck. I explained to my grandmother about the whole steeping out on his cancer ridden wife and she ignored that but cheered for him hounding Clinton out of office. My mind is full of fuck.

Did I mention my mind is full of fuck?

Did you point out that he was having an affair at the same time as he was prosecuting blowjobgate?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 27, 2012, 11:19:18 pm

The whole Clinton thing is going to be one of those amusing footnotes in history, I think, like Taft getting stuck in the bathtub.

"They impeached Clinton for THAT?!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 27, 2012, 11:25:07 pm

And didn't impeach Reagan. Somehow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 12:03:29 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 11:16:25 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 27, 2012, 06:11:07 pm

I just learned that my grandparents are Gingrich people. My mind is full of fuck. I explained to my grandmother about the whole steeping out on his cancer ridden wife and she ignored that but cheered for him hounding Clinton out of office. My mind is full of fuck.

Did I mention my mind is full of fuck?

Did you point out that he was having an affair at the same time as he was prosecuting blowjobgate?

Yeah, that's about where the second mind full of fuck came from.

On the topic of the anti-christ I recently read The Fountainhead a came across a certain anecdote on the topic:

Quote from: Ayn Rand

It was a pedestal from which a god had been torn, and in his place there stood, not Satan with a sword, but a corner lout sipping a bottle of Coca-Cola.

I thought that that was probably a better description of what the concept of the anti-christ really meant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 28, 2012, 12:12:44 am

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Fidel Castro on something.

Quote from: Fidel Castro

The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is _ and I mean this seriously _ the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Jan/25/castro_lambasts_us_republican_primary_as_idiotic.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Jan/25/castro_lambasts_us_republican_primary_as_idiotic.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 12:18:46 am

I rather liked the anti-christ character in Good Omens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Omens).  I found it incredibly wise, actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 12:51:08 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 12:03:29 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 27, 2012, 11:16:25 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 27, 2012, 06:11:07 pm

I just learned that my grandparents are Gingrich people. My mind is full of fuck. I explained to my grandmother about the whole steeping out on his cancer ridden wife and she ignored that but cheered for him hounding Clinton out of office. My mind is full of fuck.

Did I mention my mind is full of fuck?

Did you point out that he was having an affair at the same time as he was prosecuting blowjobgate?

Yeah, that's about where the second mind full of fuck came from.

On the topic of the anti-christ I recently read The Fountainhead a came across a certain anecdote on the topic:

Quote from: Ayn Rand

It was a pedestal from which a god had been torn, and in his place there stood, not Satan with a sword, but a corner lout sipping a bottle of Coca-Cola.

I thought that that was probably a better description of what the concept of the anti-christ really meant.

Ah, good, another Fountainhead reader.  For fun, analyze Romney using the speech Roark gives at his trial.
And some of my family supports Gingrich as well, and all attempts to explain his hypocrisy were met with the standard "Obama is a socialist" answers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 28, 2012, 01:01:16 am

Remember, winning is just about hating the other guy more than you hate your own candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 01:55:58 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 12:51:08 am

Ah, good, another Fountainhead reader.  For fun, analyze Romney using the speech Roark gives at his trial.
And some of my family supports Gingrich as well, and all attempts to explain his hypocrisy were met with the standard "Obama is a socialist" answers.

Do you mean in terms of being a second hander, or what? I can see him being one, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Is it something about his flip-flopping on every issue?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on January 28, 2012, 03:22:03 am

Well, I don't want to point out the obvious but Gringrich is simply too fat and ugly to be president. He is also batshit crazy.

Nobody votes for people like that when it comes down to it, no matter how loud the ideologes squeal over a candidate, the independents and fence-sitters determine the presidency, settled the last presidential election, they'll settle this one and normal people simply don't like people with multiple chins in power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 04:43:27 am

Quote from: Montague on January 28, 2012, 03:22:03 am

Well, I don't want to point out the obvious but Gringrich is simply too fat and ugly to be president. He is also batshit crazy.

Nobody votes for people like that when it comes down to it, no matter how loud the ideologes squeal over a candidate, the independents and fence-sitters determine the presidency, settled the last presidential election, they'll settle this one and normal people simply don't like people with multiple chins in power.

Ill back this, can someone tell me when america last had a fatty for prez?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on January 28, 2012, 07:13:51 am

Clinton was actually pretty unhealthy and overweight. From what I heard he only ate cheeseburgers on the campaign trail and his coping mechanism for stress was to eat more. Bad eating, constant stress, and no time for exercise ruin a man's body.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wayward Device on January 28, 2012, 09:54:36 am

Yeah, but that was Hollywood fat. What about real fat, the kind where you might kill a small child if you accidentally sat on them? Not since the advent of television I'll bet you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ed boy on January 28, 2012, 10:17:36 am

I think the last big one was taft (1909-1913).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gatleos on January 28, 2012, 10:20:07 am

Not fat, but Reagan was pretty damn ugly. I think the republicans like that, actually.

Come to think of it, that's probably the real reason they all hate Romney: he doesn't look like a deformed, rippling alien slug creature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 11:06:15 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 01:55:58 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 12:51:08 am

Ah, good, another Fountainhead reader.  For fun, analyze Romney using the speech Roark gives at his trial.
And some of my family supports Gingrich as well, and all attempts to explain his hypocrisy were met with the standard "Obama is a socialist" answers.

Do you mean in terms of being a second hander, or what? I can see him being one, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Is it something about his flip-flopping on every issue?

Yeah, his inability to hold ideas of his own unless everyone else in his chosen group holds them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 12:01:29 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 11:06:15 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 01:55:58 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 12:51:08 am

Ah, good, another Fountainhead reader.  For fun, analyze Romney using the speech Roark gives at his trial.
And some of my family supports Gingrich as well, and all attempts to explain his hypocrisy were met with the standard "Obama is a socialist" answers.

Do you mean in terms of being a second hander, or what? I can see him being one, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Is it something about his flip-flopping on every issue?

Yeah, his inability to hold ideas of his own unless everyone else in his chosen group holds them.

Then shouldn't politicians, by definition, be second-handers?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 12:40:10 pm

Gingrich may have stupid ideas but at least he certainly isn't afraid to have ideas that people around him don't share.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 04:20:02 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 12:01:29 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 11:06:15 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 01:55:58 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 12:51:08 am

Ah, good, another Fountainhead reader.  For fun, analyze Romney using the speech Roark gives at his trial.
And some of my family supports Gingrich as well, and all attempts to explain his hypocrisy were met with the standard "Obama is a socialist" answers.

Do you mean in terms of being a second hander, or what? I can see him being one, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Is it something about his flip-flopping on every issue?

Yeah, his inability to hold ideas of his own unless everyone else in his chosen group holds them.

Then shouldn't politicians, by definition, be second-handers?

Those that seek power for power's sake...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 04:26:19 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 04:20:02 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 12:01:29 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 11:06:15 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 01:55:58 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 12:51:08 am

Ah, good, another Fountainhead reader.  For fun, analyze Romney using the speech Roark gives at his trial.
And some of my family supports Gingrich as well, and all attempts to explain his hypocrisy were met with the standard "Obama is a socialist" answers.

Do you mean in terms of being a second hander, or what? I can see him being one, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Is it something about his flip-flopping on every issue?

Yeah, his inability to hold ideas of his own unless everyone else in his chosen group holds them.

Then shouldn't politicians, by definition, be second-handers?

Those that seek power for power's sake...

Are a damn sight better to be around than those who seek it so they can be jerks without repercussions?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 04:27:19 pm

Quote from: jester on January 28, 2012, 04:26:19 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 04:20:02 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 12:01:29 pm

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 11:06:15 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 01:55:58 am

Quote from: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 12:51:08 am

Ah, good, another Fountainhead reader.  For fun, analyze Romney using the speech Roark gives at his trial.
And some of my family supports Gingrich as well, and all attempts to explain his hypocrisy were met with the standard "Obama is a socialist" answers.

Do you mean in terms of being a second hander, or what? I can see him being one, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Is it something about his flip-flopping on every issue?

Yeah, his inability to hold ideas of his own unless everyone else in his chosen group holds them.

Then shouldn't politicians, by definition, be second-handers?

Those that seek power for power's sake...

Are a damn sight better to be around than those who seek it so they can be jerks without repercussions?

That's exactly how I would define power for power's sake, actually...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 04:36:37 pm

I was thinking more the Genghis Khan style:  Control over pretty much the entire known world, living in a tent.  Living by the idea that the trappings of power are complete bullshit, power itself is all.  Like the idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Canalan on January 28, 2012, 04:40:27 pm

Go read The Fountainhead.  My little phrase makes a lot more sense then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 04:47:33 pm

In fact, she says that "the man who goes after power" is "the worst sort if second-hander." I have a pdf of the the book, so I should be able to dig up her explanation...

...here it is:

Quote

Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely
through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity
of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the
bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 04:53:06 pm

The irony is that most wealthy business leaders would fit that description just as well as the people I know she's aiming her criticism at.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on January 28, 2012, 05:02:06 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 04:53:06 pm

The irony is that most wealthy business leaders would fit that description just as well as the people I know she's aiming her criticism at.

Well, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Ayn Rand was the most logical person around

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 05:34:01 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on January 28, 2012, 05:02:06 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 04:53:06 pm

The irony is that most wealthy business leaders would fit that description just as well as the people I know she's aiming her criticism at.

Well, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Ayn Rand was the most logical person around

Heavy speed use will do that.  Frankly I found her stuff boring as scrut.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 28, 2012, 05:38:20 pm

Quote from: jester on January 28, 2012, 04:36:37 pm

Genghis Khan style

Don't you mean Gingrich Khan?

edit: +1 internets for anyone who can make a photo supporting this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 05:40:04 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on January 28, 2012, 05:38:20 pm

Quote from: jester on January 28, 2012, 04:36:37 pm

Genghis Khan style

Don't you mean Gingrich Khan?

... WHY DON'T I HAVE ACCESS TO PHOTOSHOP RIGHT NOW

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 05:46:22 pm

Even though he was probably one of the first people responsible for 1 million deaths, I think that its a bit harsh to compare Genghis to newt.

  Genghis got shit done.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 28, 2012, 07:05:59 pm

Hearing that Obama bypassed Congress to approve the ACTA just makes me.....so fucking mad. The same president who sat there and acted like he couldn't do shit during the debt crisis but sit on his hands....decides to act unilaterally over this?

I'm seriously considering not voting in this election now. SOPA, PIPA and now ACTA (not to mention NDAA), every chance Obama has had to show he stands with the rights of the common person over the power of business and government, he's chosen to side with more powerful interests.

I really cannot conscious casting my vote for a president who is that deep into the pocket of business, or has so little respect for the magnitude of changes they're trying to foist on people. This is equally as bad as what Bush did all throughout his presidency. I've been on the fence for a long time about Obama, questioning whether I can continue to vote for him despite him doing things I find absolutely appalling. The threat of a Republican president is scary, but right now, Obama is actually doing things that scare me, rather than candidates who scare me with the things that they might do. So while I've been planning to vote for Obama along purely party lines....I think ACTA finally tears it. He wants to bypass Congress' ability to disagree with ACTA completely, and there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS HE SHOULD DONE THAT ON ALREADY.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 07:09:06 pm

Obama has done some decent things on the cultural front, but on absolutely everything else he has said one thing in public, while doing the exact opposite behind closed doors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 07:11:40 pm

This may be a freakishly stupid question, but is there any sort of 3rd or even 4th party option in the US?  Nothing like a good protest vote that nets some semi nutters 10% of the vote to shake some trees in the major parties.  Not voting seems like a silly way to get your voice heard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 28, 2012, 07:13:21 pm

Well afaik there was Huntsman as a moderate (that sort of counts as 3rd party right?), but he dropped out  awhile ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gatleos on January 28, 2012, 07:17:03 pm

In theory there's a third party option in the U.S.

In practice, it's essentially political suicide.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 07:18:03 pm

We really need to abolish the electoral college. Like in the sense of right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 28, 2012, 07:20:54 pm

Quote from: jester on January 28, 2012, 07:11:40 pm

This may be a freakishly stupid question, but is there any sort of 3rd or even 4th party option in the US?  Nothing like a good protest vote that nets some semi nutters 10% of the vote to shake some trees in the major parties.  Not voting seems like a silly way to get your voice heard.

As others have noted, in the US voting third party is called "throwing your vote away" by either of the two party faithfuls. That's how it's seen politically, the only real danger to the establishment by the 3rd party is that it narrows the margin of victory for the two dominant parties. In other words, it makes for fine political theater without actually changing the outcome. The "message" of voting 3rd party gets heard only as long as it takes to declare victory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 28, 2012, 07:28:34 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 07:18:03 pm

We really need to abolish the electoral college. Like in the sense of right now.

There is a movement to bypass the electoral college. They need enough states to sign on to get the majority of the electoral votes to activate it.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 07:36:34 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 28, 2012, 07:20:54 pm

Quote from: jester on January 28, 2012, 07:11:40 pm

This may be a freakishly stupid question, but is there any sort of 3rd or even 4th party option in the US?  Nothing like a good protest vote that nets some semi nutters 10% of the vote to shake some trees in the major parties.  Not voting seems like a silly way to get your voice heard.

As others have noted, in the US voting third party is called "throwing your vote away" by either of the two party faithfuls. That's how it's seen politically, the only real danger to the establishment by the 3rd party is that it narrows the margin of victory for the two dominant parties. In other words, it makes for fine political theater without actually changing the outcome. The "message" of voting 3rd party gets heard only as long as it takes to declare victory.

I..... Ohh.... But..... Not at all???... 2 party system?.... I...

 Im walking away from this thread before my neighbors call the cops about the swearing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 28, 2012, 07:38:37 pm

Two parties is what happens when you have a FPTP system in every single fucking level of government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 07:45:54 pm

And don't forget that the Commission on Presidential Debates, which controls every aspect of the major televised debates that is the strongest influence on the majority of voting Americans outside of party loyalty, is jointly owned and operated by the committees of both major parties.  A large portion of Americans still believe they live in the freest country in the world, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NobodyPro on January 28, 2012, 07:54:04 pm

(http://tnypic.net/images/11249.png) (http://tnypic.net/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 28, 2012, 07:57:36 pm

One feels quite sorry for the horse that would have to bear that man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gatleos on January 28, 2012, 07:59:51 pm

Newt Gingrich will have similar vestments custom-made for himself so that he can wear them as he sits atop his throne in his brand new moon base.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 09:06:26 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 07:45:54 pm

A large portion of Americans still believe they live in the freest country in the world, too.

Rhetoric like this is not productive.  The fact that our voting system is outdated doesn't mean we aren't free.

If anyone thinks that this treaty thing is more important then more important issues like who appoints the next federal reserve chairman then I guess that this country is getting the leadership it deserves.  I'll be the first to say that Bernanke could have done more but he's still the most active federal reserve chairman in the institutions history and things are looking good that he could get the board to agree to an inflation target (which would be great news).  Romney has promised to replace him with a hard money hardliner and Gingrich has promised to replace him with a idol of Ronald Reagan made out of gold.  If you think that having a federal reserve chairman who is going to slam on the economic brakes is a less important issue then an agreement that carries very little force of law without congressional approval then please then go ahead and sit the election out.

It's a good way to thank Obama for the stimulus, the payroll tax cut, the fact that the Bush tax cuts weren't made permanent, the fact that military spending is going down slightly for the first time in 14 years, the healthcare bill, employment equality laws for women and LBGT people, blocking a number of unsafe mining and drilling operations, raising efficiency standards (and saving the auto industry) and giving us a wonderful little break from all the creeping religious bullshit like intelligent design that any republican president would bring.  But I guess he sucks because he didn't repeal the constitution and pass a bunch of stuff that congress would have never agreed to.

We have a constitution that was deliberately set up in a way to make it easy for the minority to block the majority and where a geographically diverse coalition is needed to reconcile different views within the majority.  When you bitch about Obama not getting shit done you are bitching about the wrong person.

I remember how my parents used to say that Clinton was a useless sellout who never stood for any liberal ideas.  These days they look back on his time in office fondly and are convinced that it's Obama who's the sellout.  I remember how EVERYBODY used to say that there was barely any difference between Bush and Gore.  Turns out it was probably the most important election of our lifetimes.

So before you write off Obama take a real look at him, look at what he has done and what he realistically could have done.  Remember that the harder he pushes for something progressive the more controversial it becomes in our bullshit political system.  And think about the damage to our country that a republican president would do in his place.  If you think the differences are minor then you clearly aren't paying attention.

I'd love a proportional system to allow for a third party.  I'd be voting for the socialists in no time flat.  But we don't have such a system.  What we do have is a primary system.  If you think the democrats are sellouts then the primary system, not the general elections, are where you can best make your voice heard and get people you like elected.  If your candidates can't win a democratic primary that should tell you a lot about their general election viability.  Winning even one primary has a lot more effect then a million protest no-votes.  Work within the system we have not a system that doesn't exist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:08:57 pm

As far as I am concerned Obama betrayed us with NDAA and ACTA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 09:12:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:08:57 pm

As far as I am concerned Obama betrayed us with NDAA and ACTA.

He betrayed us by actually reducing the military budget for the first time in 14 years?  Despite the huge military industrial complex we have with extensive ties to politics?

This is why we can't have nice things.  He comes through and people bitch about him not coming through enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:15:39 pm

It's not about coming through enough. He didn't come through enough with the ACA, and I don't blame him because it passed by a razor's edge.

NDAA and ACTA are both contrary to everything a progressive person should want. That's betrayal. Cutthroat, backstabbing betrayal of having a free nation. And I will never, ever, forget that. Obama turned his back on us. He doesn't deserve to be President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 28, 2012, 09:17:59 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 09:06:26 pm

Work within the system we have not a system that doesn't exist.

Hate to sound like a jerk, but id say that system is probably responsible for a large quantity of the problems america faces today

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 28, 2012, 09:21:02 pm

You can say "work within the system" all you want, that's what we did with Obama Season 1. And while it got us some things I'm happy about:

Quote

the payroll tax cut, the fact that the Bush tax cuts weren't made permanent, the fact that military spending is going down slightly for the first time in 14 years, the healthcare bill, employment equality laws for women and LBGT people, blocking a number of unsafe mining and drilling operations

Let's talk about what he's done that's not worthy of praise.

-Backpedaling on campaign promises to end the use of Guantanamo Detention Center
-A failed railway innovation plan cooked up at the last second.
-Two bankrupt green energy industries which got sizable federal grants.
-SOPA
-PIPA
-ACTA
-NDAA (which stands in stark contrast to his campaigning for his first term)
-Bailing out every single industry that asked for it, many of which have already repaid their debts and gone back to business as usual.
-Choosing Geithner in the middle of the banking meltdown to run things
-Not taking an active leadership role during the debt crisis, even when he's perfectly willing to use executive privilege when it fits his agenda.

And that's before I even really start asking Google to remember for me. If that's "working within the system", then to me voting for Obama is staving off some evils while accepting a handful of others. I don't believe he represents U.S. Citizens. I feel like he's a poster boy for "Agency Capture" at the executive level. And I simply can't give my vote for that, particularly not at this point in time where it seems like industry is rushing to exploit the favor of the Executive as fast as possible.

I don't have any delusions that the Republican candidates would do a better job for me either. And I'm not voting for them, either. Obama has met my bare minimums as a social democrat, while he's completely violated my expectations about an independent executive that is actually concerned with protecting civil liberties. Seriously, what American president blindly enters into a global contract that allows extra-legal, international prosecution of American citizens without the protection of our own courts? And does without even a shred of national debate?

That's the kind of behavior I expect out of Republicans. Which begs the question why I'd vote for him again, knowing what I know now about his ultimate politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 09:27:36 pm

He betrayed us by signing an extension of the patriot act for even longer than the republicans suggested extending it for.  Explicity promoting the most absurd levels of government secrecy since the cold war, while promising unprecedented transparency (he personally denied freedom of information requests for details on ACTA because he claimed it a threat to national security, for instance).  Escalating the incredibly reckless military drone program.  Implicitly supporting the crackdown on journalism, whistleblowers, and dissenting social movements that has led to the U.S. dropping 27 ranks in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index this year.  And ACTA, which I believe to be a bigger deal than you.

I'm not saying that everything he's done is bad, and I don't blame him for not being able to do more in the face of a great deal of opposition.  I blame him for the things he has done that continue or even escalate the oppressive elements of the old administration, set the stage for greater abuses by further administrations, and criminalizes vocal opposition to these trends.

Also, you say he's blocked unsafe mining and drilling, yet he approved 27 offshore drilling operations in the aftermath of the BP oil spill. (http://environment.about.com/b/2010/05/10/obama-administration-approves-27-offshore-drilling-projects-after-gulf-oil-spill.htm)

Quote from: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 09:06:26 pm

The fact that our voting system is outdated doesn't mean we aren't free.

Our voting system is not just outdated.  Important components of it are private property of the entrenched powers.  And I never said we aren't free.  I was making a bitter remark about how many people will say that the entire rest of the world is worse, no matter how bad things get.  I encounter it frequently, and it rubs me quite wrongly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 28, 2012, 09:38:26 pm

I'll say what I've said all along thus far in this election season. I'm voting for Obama, even though it pains me. There is stuff that he has done that is absolutely horrible. (PATRIOT act, ACTA, etc) On the other hand, good social policies.

There are no third party options that can reasonably win this election. The only alternative is going to be one of the remaining Republicans.

Santorum: Almost dead in the water, and FUCK NO.
Ron Paul: In the same boat, but has no grasp of economics, and his social policies are appalling.
Gingrich: Half of his own party hates him, he's a terrible diplomat, and he supported SOPA/PIPA until the 18th.
Romney: Utterly disconnected with the finances of the average American. Remember the $10,000 bet with Perry? Supported SOPA/PIPA until the 18th, claims to be extremely socially conservative like it's a good thing.

Romney and Gingrich have supported the same bad decisions as Obama, but they don't have anything to counterbalance it.

@nenjin: SOPA/PIPA were made by congress, and a veto was threatened. Though I have my doubts, the signing statement on the NDAA says that it will not be used on American citizens. Bush did TARP, Obama did a far smaller one. (People forget that.)

I wish you could only be president once. Maybe we could have gotten a liberal candidate to run for the Democrats, that'd be nice. I'm just incredibly frustrated that my choices are either 'vote for a semi-bastard", 'vote for a complete bastard', or 'vote for nobody, which will give the complete bastards a slightly better chance.'

Bear in mind that I want to change this. My ultimate goal, if I do decide to go into politics, would be to become incredibly influential in one party or the other and tear it into a significant third party. It looks like the Republicans may already be heading that way. It's a longshot, though. At the moment I'm supporting the Occupy candidate against the incumbent for the House of Representatives. It's something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 09:38:39 pm

Are we talking about the same NDAA here?  I was talking about the National Defense Authorization Act.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 28, 2012, 09:41:07 pm

Then as far as I know, yes. What's your confusion?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 28, 2012, 09:45:16 pm

The republicans had that whole tea party shenanigan a while back and they seemed to be tearing in two, actually, their whole party is kinda scraping its knee on every rock in the park. But that's just now. I guarantee when the democrats no longer have a re-running president, the repubiclan party will be unified 100%. Four years everyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 09:48:19 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on January 28, 2012, 09:41:07 pm

Then as far as I know, yes. What's your confusion?

Because the NDAA that Obama just signed lowered defense spending slightly compared to the year before and is a huge progressive triumph.  It shows that Obama's talk about getting the right people in face to start trimming the military budget wasn't just talk because we are actually seeing things moving in the right direction.  It's even better when you consider that it shrinking before inflation adjustment and the growing population or the fact that this should mean that we would continue to see the military budget shrink in the future.  This is exactly what we should have hoped for.  He wasn't going to take a fire-axe to the defense budget but now that we have responsible people in charge and they have had time to lay the groundwork we have started seeing progress.  People have been saying we need to reform the defense budget for years.  This is exactly what they have been asking for!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:49:39 pm

Mainiac, this year's NDAA contains a provision that allows for the indefinite detainment of US citizens by the military. Did you completely miss this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 09:49:45 pm

While at the same time, our police force is looking more and more like a military....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on January 28, 2012, 09:50:58 pm

I think "empowered thugs" is what you were looking for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 28, 2012, 09:53:05 pm

To quote Admiral Adama, "The military fights the enemy, police protect the people, when the military becomes the police, the people become the enemy."

Massively paraphrased because my googlefu isn't good enough to find the actual quote/clip.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 10:18:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:49:39 pm

Mainiac, this year's NDAA contains a provision that allows for the indefinite detainment of US citizens by the military. Did you completely miss this?

Frankly it doesn't strike me as nearly a big a deal as the state of our homefront.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 10:24:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 10:18:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:49:39 pm

Mainiac, this year's NDAA contains a provision that allows for the indefinite detainment of US citizens by the military. Did you completely miss this?

Frankly it doesn't strike me as nearly a big a deal as the state of our homefront.

Then you and I do not see the world in the same way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: OwlEpicurus on January 28, 2012, 10:24:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:49:39 pm

Mainiac, this year's NDAA contains a provision that allows for the indefinite detainment of US citizens by the military. Did you completely miss this?

You're referring to Section D, right?  Actually, it specifically excludes American citizens from its provisions:

Quote from: NDAA Section D Subsection e

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Source: the bill as passed by Congress (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf)

That's not to say there aren't other good reasons to dislike the bill (such as the sanctions against Iran, or even the possiblity of using Section D against non-citizens captured outside the US), but unless I'm reading that section wrong then indefinite detainment of US citizens by the military is not one of them.  At least, that is no more of a problem now than it was before it was passed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 10:27:33 pm

Good fortune come difficult and go easy.  Both ways often enough. 

Respect for civil rights defines generations, cannot be gained without fighting tooth and nail through great sacrifice, and disappear as soon as you're distracted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 10:40:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 10:24:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 10:18:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:49:39 pm

Mainiac, this year's NDAA contains a provision that allows for the indefinite detainment of US citizens by the military. Did you completely miss this?

Frankly it doesn't strike me as nearly a big a deal as the state of our homefront.

Then you and I do not see the world in the same way.

Well I tend to see the world as being full of apocalyptic language used by lay people describing obscure wording that often doesn't mean what they think it does.

Meanwhile huge important issues are going on everyday and they will ignore them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 28, 2012, 11:24:37 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 09:06:26 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 28, 2012, 07:45:54 pm

A large portion of Americans still believe they live in the freest country in the world, too.

When Obma doesn't do shit it isn't his fault. Blame the Republicans!

I think we can all agree that Obama isn't doing much and the Republicans are fucking retarded. Next question.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on January 29, 2012, 12:03:32 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 10:40:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 10:24:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 28, 2012, 10:18:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 28, 2012, 09:49:39 pm

Mainiac, this year's NDAA contains a provision that allows for the indefinite detainment of US citizens by the military. Did you completely miss this?

Frankly it doesn't strike me as nearly a big a deal as the state of our homefront.

Then you and I do not see the world in the same way.

Well I tend to see the world as being full of apocalyptic language used by lay people describing obscure wording that often doesn't mean what they think it does.

Meanwhile huge important issues are going on everyday and they will ignore them.

I like how you subtly imply that you are less a layperson than anyone else here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 29, 2012, 12:10:01 am

And ignore all the fun stuff lawyers have been able to to do with obscure wording

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 29, 2012, 12:20:14 am

All this crap makes me want to run for office, but I'd never get elected, too honest, oh and I'm an athiest, that too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on January 29, 2012, 12:27:46 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on January 29, 2012, 12:20:14 am

All this crap makes me want to run for office, but I'd never get elected, too honest, oh and I'm an athiest, that too.

You could just lie.  It is allowed in politics

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on January 29, 2012, 12:38:20 am

Quote from: jester on January 29, 2012, 12:27:46 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on January 29, 2012, 12:20:14 am

All this crap makes me want to run for office, but I'd never get elected, too honest, oh and I'm an athiest, that too.

You could just lie.  It is allowed in politics

It does, however, completely defeat the purpose of his running.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on January 29, 2012, 01:21:23 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 29, 2012, 12:03:32 am

I like how you subtly imply that you are less a layperson than anyone else here.

Maybe I just imply that I use less apocalyptic language.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 29, 2012, 01:27:27 am

Quote from: Willfor on January 29, 2012, 12:38:20 am

Quote from: jester on January 29, 2012, 12:27:46 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on January 29, 2012, 12:20:14 am

All this crap makes me want to run for office, but I'd never get elected, too honest, oh and I'm an athiest, that too.

You could just lie.  It is allowed in politics

It does, however, completely defeat the purpose of his running.

I would actually be tempted to vote for someone who came out and unambiguously said that they were going to destroy the American political system. They'd either be an honest politician or they would actually put forth effort to fix the many problems with our current system. Either choice would be a pleasant change from what we've been getting for the last century.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 29, 2012, 02:09:33 am

Quote from: Mego on January 29, 2012, 01:27:27 am

Quote from: Willfor on January 29, 2012, 12:38:20 am

Quote from: jester on January 29, 2012, 12:27:46 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on January 29, 2012, 12:20:14 am

All this crap makes me want to run for office, but I'd never get elected, too honest, oh and I'm an athiest, that too.

You could just lie.  It is allowed in politics

It does, however, completely defeat the purpose of his running.

I would actually be tempted to vote for someone who came out and unambiguously said that they were going to destroy the American political system. They'd either be an honest politician or they would actually put forth effort to fix the many problems with our current system. Either choice would be a pleasant change from what we've been getting for the last century.

Thanks bro. I'd vote for that too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on January 29, 2012, 02:22:12 am

I think every 4 years, as we elect a new president, we should also do something else. Namely, kill 10% of all politicians, randomly.

I personally think it would keep them rather honest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 29, 2012, 02:26:12 am

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Seriously. I read a story where the elected leader of a country essentially became a prisoner of the country, forced to work day and night for the benefit of the country, and that idea was STILL better than yours.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on January 29, 2012, 02:28:31 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on January 29, 2012, 02:22:12 am

I think every 4 years, as we elect a new president, we should also do something else. Namely, kill 10% of all politicians, randomly.

I personally think it would keep them rather honest.

I'm kind of curious how killing them completely at random would keep anyone honest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on January 29, 2012, 02:32:05 am

Quote from: G-Flex on January 29, 2012, 02:28:31 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on January 29, 2012, 02:22:12 am

I think every 4 years, as we elect a new president, we should also do something else. Namely, kill 10% of all politicians, randomly.

I personally think it would keep them rather honest.

I'm kind of curious how killing them completely at random would keep anyone honest.

Gotta keep 'em on their toes! Or at the very least limit how many times senators/representative can be elected

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

you shouldn't take what I say seriously

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 29, 2012, 02:39:40 am

I would rather have a death penalty for any politician that votes for a law that violates civil rights. That MIGHT keep them honest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 29, 2012, 02:41:53 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 29, 2012, 02:39:40 am

I would rather have a death penalty for any politician that votes for a law that violates civil rights. That MIGHT keep them honest.

The only way to make a politician honest is to create a journalism and reporting system that claws its way tooth and nail to get to the truth behind everything. Something I think we've lost in the past decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 29, 2012, 02:42:21 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 29, 2012, 02:39:40 am

I would rather have a death penalty for any politician that votes for a law that violates civil rights. That MIGHT keep them honest.

Some would argue that the death penalty itself is a violation of civil rights. WHAT NOW?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I don't consider myself one of them, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on January 29, 2012, 02:45:12 am

Corporations are people. If they vote against corporations they get the death penalty. Either that restraint fails by preventing any law from passing ever again -- civil rights of corporations versus civil rights of ... humans -- or the restraint fails by killing every politician and preventing any law from passing ever again.

Let's try something a little less easy to manipulate as far as restraints are concerned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 29, 2012, 02:47:59 am

It was hyperbole. But I would rewrite the constitution to make it very clear that corporations are not people and are not subject to civil rights. A multi-million dollar fine and decade in prison would be enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 29, 2012, 02:51:39 am

Hope you have a significant number of other politicians supporting you. No one person has the power to amend the Constitution like that. How would you get enough of them to agree?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Just because I'm sick of people making grandiose claims without showing what they're thinking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 29, 2012, 02:56:13 am

I said rewrite the constitution. Not amend it.  You do not need politicians to hold a constitutional congress. But no, I don't have anywhere near the support needed to fix things, if I did, i doubt it would be screwed up enough to need that kind of fixing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on January 29, 2012, 02:58:35 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 29, 2012, 02:51:39 am

Hope you have a significant number of other politicians supporting you. No one person has the power to amend the Constitution like that. How would you get enough of them to agree?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Just because I'm sick of people making grandiose claims without showing what they're thinking.

obviously with a well armed lynch mob, Worked for the french!

Sure a few people lost their heads over the matter, but nothing that a few thousand deaths couldn't cure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 29, 2012, 03:05:49 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 29, 2012, 02:56:13 am

I said rewrite the constitution. Not amend it.  You do not need politicians to hold a constitutional congress. But no, I don't have anywhere near the support needed to fix things, if I did, i doubt it would be screwed up enough to need that kind of fixing.

Have you considered all the things that might happen when you basically abolish the standing government (which is what re-writing the constitution sounds like)? What parts would you change, add, or get rid of?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 29, 2012, 03:06:42 am

There are provisions in the constitution for a constitutional convention sponsored by the people or the states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 29, 2012, 03:07:37 am

Things are going to have to get a whole lot worse if we resort to rewriting the Constitution. In fact, a North American Union is more likely than us rewriting the Constitution anytime soon. Not by much though, as they're both almost impossible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 11:31:31 am

Back on the rails, it's D-1 to the Florida Primary: Showdown in the Low-Down. The Stomp in the Swamp. The Hokey-Pokey in the Okefenokee. The...okay, I'll stop now.


Polls! We got 'em!

Current aggregate average for the state of Florida:
Mitt Romney: 40.9%
Newt Gingrich: 29.4%
Rick Santorum: 12.9%
Ron Paul: 10.3%

That's a whopping 11.5% advantage for Romney. Newt's scorched-earth policy seems to have run its course and all the momentum he took out of South Carolina has evaporated just as quickly as it formed. Romney is right back where he was before SC (just above 40%). Gingrich is 5 points higher after all is said and done, but that's come from picking up the Perry voters and a couple of points out of the Santorum camp. Dr. Paul is about 1 point higher now, but he's pretty much hit his cap around 10%. Florida isn't a particularly Libertarian state, given how many retirees and Cuban-Americans are represented.

If, as expected, Romney takes Florida then it could be the beginning of the end of the primaries. Or is it? Florida is NOT a proportional race, so whoever wins gets 50 delegates, catapulting them to a commanding lead. But, Rick Santorum's campaign has been challenging this, arguing that the race should be proportional like most of the rest of the states have gone to. Guess who else is arguing for proportional voting? Mitt Romney (http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/feeditem/florida-primary-delegate-drama-winner-take-all-or-proportional-delegates). Not surprisingly, he was actually in favor of winner-take-all until last week when it looked like he was going to lose the state to Gingrich. Then he started backing proportional voting. Now that he's back in front, I assume his camp has quietly dropped the push for proportional voting.  ::) Or to put it in a form we all recognize, "He was against it before he was for it, and now he's against it again."

There's already a court challenge and internal RNC challenge to the winner-take-all status, but it won't be decided until May at the earliest. Imagine the chaos if Gingrich bounces back yet again and this turns into a tight race all the way to the convention, and then Florida pops up to once again completely fuck up the entire electoral process. xD

On the slate past Florida:

Nevada (2/4)
Maine (2/4-2/11) -- Don't ask me why it takes a small, sparsely populated state an entire week to hold a caucus. Maybe ToonyMan can shed some light on it.
Colorado (2/7)
Minnesota (2/7)
Missouri (2/7) -- Note: this primary means absolute diddlysquat and counts for no delegates. Missouri will have a caucus in March to actually determine the delegates. Why? Well, state law had set the primary date for 2/7, but the RNC had laid down the law after a bunch of states kept trying to jump earlier in the calendar, and said anybody going before March 6 other than the first four would have to forfeit half their delegates. The Governor and legislature are controlled by Democrats, and they (possibly deliberately) failed to enact any legislation to move the date. So the state GOP declared that one to be essentially null and void, and scheduled an internal caucus for mid-March, to stay in compliance with the RNC and retain their full slate of delegates. Such is American electoral politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 30, 2012, 12:12:29 pm

So, Gingrich tried to take the moral high ground with his affairs (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/01/24/exclusive-gingrich-to-evangelicals-my-past-weaknesses-make-me-more.aspx) by claiming that he is more "normal" than people who don't cheat.

Here Newt, have a shovel. You need it to dig yourself deeper.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 12:29:02 pm

Quote from: Sirus on January 30, 2012, 12:12:29 pm

So, Gingrich tried to take the moral high ground with his affairs (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/01/24/exclusive-gingrich-to-evangelicals-my-past-weaknesses-make-me-more.aspx) by claiming that he is more "normal" than people who don't cheat.

Here Newt, have a shovel. You need it to dig yourself deeper.

He's doing it again. Dude actually has the giant brass cajones to try and turn a negative into a positive. "My infidelity and ethical violations make me MORE like Joe Sixpack, because he's a lying, cheating piece of shit too!" Gingrich is trying to one-up the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" populist comparison by becoming the "guy you'd like to go bang a Tijuana hooker with".

Though I found the analysis attached to that article even more interesting. There is definitely a pattern of evangelicals flocking to people who have been guilty of some serious hypocrisy and moral failings (Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker), all because they did the dog-and-pony show of public contrition and then turned that "repentance" into a selling point. But what gets me with Gingrich is that I've never actually seen contrition. He's never done the public blubbering on TV like Falwell did. He just sort of says "I have confessed my weaknesses, and that I have had to go to God for forgiveness and for reconciliation," but without ever actually admitting guilt. And of course, if you try to press this point that he's never actually said "I'm sorry" and "I was wrong", then you're a liberal elite media demon persecuting poor, poor Newt.

On the other hand, the comments on that story (on Pat Robertson's CBN, no less) make me feel a bit better than even most Christian evangelicals see through this bullshit and expect better of their political leaders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strange guy on January 30, 2012, 01:02:37 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 12:29:02 pm

On the other hand, the comments on that story (on Pat Robertson's CBN, no less) make me feel a bit better than even most Christian evangelicals see through this bullshit and expect better of their political leaders.

I decided to venture into the comment of a political news, despite past experience, because of this. It was only the second comment in which I learned Obama worships the moon god. Still at least all of them are seeing through his bullshit, even if they contain some of their own.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 01:13:21 pm

Quote from: Strange guy on January 30, 2012, 01:02:37 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 12:29:02 pm

On the other hand, the comments on that story (on Pat Robertson's CBN, no less) make me feel a bit better than even most Christian evangelicals see through this bullshit and expect better of their political leaders.

I decided to venture into the comment of a political news, despite past experience, because of this. It was only the second comment in which I learned Obama worships the moon god. Still at least all of them are seeing through his bullshit, even if they contain some of their own.

LOL, yeah I saw that one too. I guess I kinda shrugged it off, because I've gotten used to seeing random religious lunacy (no pun intended) and just gloss over it mentally.


Just noticed a peculiar thing. In a race where you had not one but two Mormons running, the state of Utah is the LAST one to vote (June 16th). How much do you bet Jon Huntsman would have liked them to jump towards the front of the pack?



EDIT: While noting all the various conservative pundit response lately, I got curious to know exactly how each camp shapes up in terms of its cheerleaders. So I held my nose (and my sanity) and dove into Townhall.com, HotAir.com, FOX News, and a few other sites, to dredge up the "finest" in conservative opinions and try to gauge where each pundit (and/or former candidate) fell.

Team Romney:
Charles Krauthammer
George Will
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
John McCain

Team Gingrich:
Sarah Palin
Herman Cain
Rick Perry

Team Santorum:
Michelle Malkin
Glenn Beck (formerly a Bachmann supporter)
Mark Levin (gave an "either/or" endorsement to Bachmann and Santorum)

Team Paul:
Jesse Ventura
Alex Jones

Team Roemer:
Umm...Colbert seems to like him?
Politically-minded hipsters all over the Net

Sidelines:
Bill O'Reilly (Papa Bear has never officially endorsed any candidate, because he likes to continue pretending he's a "journalist")
Mike Huckabee
Michelle Bachmann (despite the fact that there's a YouTube video out there that claims to show her endorsing Ron Paul)
Michael Savage (not much a neutral party as a completely insane one. Endorsed Cain, then Perry, and most recently Romney--all the while talking about how much he likes Ron Paul. I'm guessing next week he'll endorse Joe Arpaio's boots, and the week after that, the number 12.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2012, 03:13:41 pm

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on January 30, 2012, 03:18:32 pm

Look, I love bashing republican political candidates. I love laughing at people who think the deliberation of a choice between seven hypocritical religious fundamentalists funded by massive corporations represents a "conservative" debate.

But look, I think that we all know that Obama is going to win the election. As you'll recall, he killed Osama Ben Laden with his bare hands. He talks good and looks well. He is the president, and what kind of terrorist votes against the president of the united states? For the love of god, we gave George Bush two terms!

I don't like Obama any more than I like the republicans. I find him a hypocritical religious moderate funded by massive corporations. He claims to "compromise" in order to put the blame on republicans whenever some unpopular bill gets passed (not that I don't blame the republicans, but it's a cooperative effort).

What bugs me the most, however, is the content and intensity of this republican primary. For months now, every moment of political news has been dominated by conservative viewpoints and debate. Should we kill women who get abortions, or simply put them in jail for life? Should we make Christianity the official religion of the nation, or make the nation the official nation of Christianity?

All this seems to serve no practical purpose. Why spend billions of dollars to fight other billions of dollars for the privilege of losing to Obama?

I believe there are two reasons; first, part of the traditional long-cycle strategy. The Democrats get even-numbered presidents, the Republicans get the odd ones. Or maybe the other way around. My point is, the illusion of progress is had by both sides, and the danger of sliding back is apparent. There is never an election year where a third party (I would like to state at this time that I am not now, nor have ever been, a member of the Ronpaulist Party.) is safe- every year is a desperate struggle, lest THOSE GUYS win.

The second part of this is that the constant flow of verbal santorum gives one the impression that we live in a third-world country. That social liberals should be glad that gays aren't shot on sight and that women are allowed to leave home without a male escort. It is lowering the discourse by pure density of ignorance. And it seems impossible to find the will or momentum to fight against it. There are no popular, serious progressives. The best thinkers of my class appear to be comedians and borderline criminals.

Perhaps I am alone; perhaps I am a radical for wanting people to be able to just be people, judged solely by merit. Perhaps a social support net is an impossible extravagance. Perhaps the future history of the world will be one dominated by needless war, avoidable climate change, and the growth of a domineering, apocalyptic religion. All presided over by a man with a blue tie or a red tie... it doesn't really matter.

Or perhaps not. But one can rare enough see signs to the contrary in the news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 30, 2012, 03:19:52 pm

I think one reason why this election cycle, the Republican nomination that is, generates as much... stridency as it does, is precisely because Obama's got a pretty good shot at winning.  There are sane Republicans to run against him.  Sane enough that they can make a rational analysis of their chances, and decided to sit it out for a different cycle.  So the only people on stage are the ones ambitious, egotistical, and well-funded enough to run.

Quote from: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 01:13:21 pm

Team Romney:
Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter would also be in the sidelines.  She's come down on Gingrich for his bashing Bain Capital (which is to say, bashing capitalism), but she's not pro-Romney (at least not until he's the nominee).  I'm surprised you didn't trip over that interview with her saying the Republican party has to draft Christ Christie before a Romney candidacy costs the Republican party the election.

Of course, she's Ann Coulter, so it's not like anything she said yesterday matters to what she'll say tomorrow, but it's still there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 30, 2012, 03:25:04 pm

I just have to say that Charles Krauthammer is a hilarious name.

PTTG?? I would point out that Perot was actually in line to challenge the presidency before he committed the tactical blunder of withdrawing from the race temporarily, without telling anyone that it was temporary or that it was his crappy idea to do so to avoid negative campaigning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 03:34:33 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2012, 03:13:41 pm

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

Quote from: Nadaka on January 30, 2012, 03:25:04 pm

I just have to say that Charles Krauthammer is a hilarious name.

Doubly-so for the fact that he's Jewish. Krauthammer's an odd bird. Stridently pro-Israel and neoconservative, but he's in favor of abortion rights, energy conservation, embryonic stem cell research and a critic of creationism and intelligent design. He's a thinking man's conservative (although he can get fairly shrill when he gets into the partisan character sniping). But I can see why he would go for Romney and be utterly disgusted with the Know-Nothing wing of the party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on January 30, 2012, 04:39:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 03:34:33 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2012, 03:13:41 pm

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

You'd trust a dirty consonant?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 30, 2012, 04:57:51 pm

Could be worse, you could end up with "Y"... no-one knows WTF thats supposed to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2012, 04:59:37 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 30, 2012, 04:39:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 03:34:33 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2012, 03:13:41 pm

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

You'd trust a dirty consonant?!

I thought in this day and age consonants and vowels would have the same rights as numbers.

I was wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 05:06:33 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on January 30, 2012, 04:39:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 30, 2012, 03:34:33 pm

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2012, 03:13:41 pm

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

You'd trust a dirty consonant?!

There's 21 consonants and only five vowels. Stop being a tool for the 19.2%!!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on January 30, 2012, 05:55:16 pm

I don't understand how Y can be anything but a vowel. Just feel that sound, man!


...Vowel power. *raises fist*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 30, 2012, 07:12:19 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 30, 2012, 05:55:16 pm

I don't understand how Y can be anything but a vowel. Just feel that sound, man!


...Vowel power. *raises fist*

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on January 30, 2012, 09:12:57 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 30, 2012, 07:12:19 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 30, 2012, 05:55:16 pm

I don't understand how Y can be anything but a vowel. Just feel that sound, man!


...Vowel power. *raises fist*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)

How many times has that gif been posted here, now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 30, 2012, 09:29:35 pm

Less times than it will be by the time the presidential election is over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 31, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote from: Sirus on January 30, 2012, 09:12:57 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on January 30, 2012, 07:12:19 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 30, 2012, 05:55:16 pm

I don't understand how Y can be anything but a vowel. Just feel that sound, man!


...Vowel power. *raises fist*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)

How many times has that gif been posted here, now?

Shit, so this is the thread I got it from. Good to know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 31, 2012, 01:46:13 am

PTTG??, you are not alone. There are other progressives out there, but they dare not run against the incumbent from their own party. Have you tried running for office? I'd vote for you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: LostCosmonaut on January 31, 2012, 02:10:10 am

I'm fairly libertarian, and I'd vote for you. Sanity trumps politics, in my book.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 31, 2012, 09:06:16 am

Game on! At long last, Floridians will go to the polls today in a mass ritual designed to drive away evil spirits by placating them with votes. If successful, the plague of attack ads and debates and smarmy campaign photo-ops will leave the state for good. Or at least until August.

Latest polls suggest Romney will wipe the floor with Gingrich in Florida today. The aggregate spread for Romney is 13 points, but I think that's skewed a bit high by a single poll out of Suffolk University that showed Romney up by 20. Other polls are a bit more cautious, projecting an 8-10 point lead. Imma go ahead and project the results:

Romney: 40%
Gingrich: 30%
Santorum: 15%
Paul: 11%
Other: 4%

This thing is still far from over though. National polls continue to show Gingrich with a 1-5 point lead, even as his momentum in Florida got swept under by Romney's newly-aggressive ad offensive.  Although there's no really recent poll data availalble, Gingrich has polled extremely well out west, pulling an 18 point lead in Minnesota as recently as a week ago, and a 19 point lead in Colorado a couple of months back. Could be a typical Western mistrust of an "East Coast/New England moderate", although it should be pointed out that Georgia is on the East Coast too.  ???

Even in Nevada, with its substantial Mormon population, Romney's lead had shrunk from 20 to 4 in the last couple of weeks. Could be people upset with the way Huntsman got treated, could be the non-Mormon population voting against the Mormon candidate, or just people who like to bet against the house.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 10:30:41 am

I am not voting today. Florida is not an open primary state, and I would have had to register as a republican 30 days prior, AKA last year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 31, 2012, 12:50:34 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 10:30:41 am

I am not voting today. Florida is not an open primary state, and I would have had to register as a republican 30 days prior, AKA last year.

Do they allow Independents to vote in the primary? If not, that'll hurt Ron Paul by at least a couple of percentage points.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 12:55:10 pm

No, you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered to. It is a fully closed primary. As I have no party affiliation, I can't vote in any primary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 31, 2012, 12:59:31 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 12:55:10 pm

No, you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered to. It is a fully closed primary. As I have no party affiliation, I can't vote in any primary.

That stinks. That's how it used to be in NC up until about six years ago.



EDIT: A new study calls the Florida primary race "most negative campaign ever" (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/florida-primary-the-most-negative-campaign-ever-says-media-group/), with a whopping 92% negative ads compared to only 8% positive or neutral ads. Wow. The numbers in that study also show that the Romney camp absolutely buried Gingrich with their ad blitz.

Quote

Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich's campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney's campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.

The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.

To wit, that's a combined 8,245 ads from Romney + PAC vs. 2,905 ads from Gingrich + PAC. And virtually every single ad Romney ran was negative. Looks Newt has some justification in complaining about Romney running a "dirty" campaign, although it's not so much that Romney's ad campaign was so much dirtier than Gingrich's as it was just so much bigger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 04:52:58 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/everyone-step-toes-gingrich-security-harasses-ron-paul-165042767.html

A Ron Paul supporter was assaulted by Gingrich security after the Gingrich posse arrived at the polling station where the boy was holding up a Ron Paul sign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on January 31, 2012, 05:20:39 pm

I can tell you only one thing about the presidential election this year; it will be horrifying. This meager primary will make this look like a barroom brawl next to the all-out warfare of the presidential campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 31, 2012, 05:22:05 pm

Apparently Newt already thinks he has the Secret Service following him around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on January 31, 2012, 06:05:55 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 04:52:58 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/everyone-step-toes-gingrich-security-harasses-ron-paul-165042767.html

A Ron Paul supporter was assaulted by Gingrich security after the Gingrich posse arrived at the polling station where the boy was holding up a Ron Paul sign.

It's official. I would vote for one of the Castro brothers before any of the Republican stooges this year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on January 31, 2012, 07:42:15 pm

It's looking like 50% Romney, 30% Gingrich, Santorum 13% and Paul 7% according to CNN.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on January 31, 2012, 07:47:15 pm

After Florida, I don't doubt that Paul and Santorum will drop out. Paul will probably run 3rd party. Santorum's voters will probably flee to Gingrich, and it'll be somewhat of a close matchup again.

(I kinda hope Gingrich can keep fighting for a few more months, just so that they bury each other in the dirt they dig up.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on January 31, 2012, 07:52:25 pm

I don't think that Paul will drop out, his goal was never to win, because he knew he couldn't, but rather to try to change the conversation in the republican party and put his views out there.
Because of that I see no reason for him to drop out just because he doesn't stand a chance of winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on January 31, 2012, 07:58:54 pm

I feel like that's Newt's mindset too. Except instead of trying to turn Republican conversation toward his views, I think he's trying to maintain the business of being Newt, and that requires publicity of any kind. He's sort of becoming the real Donald Trump of politics, at this point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on January 31, 2012, 08:00:14 pm

Quote from: nenjin on January 31, 2012, 07:58:54 pm

I feel like that's Newt's mindset too. Except instead of trying to turn Republican conversation toward his views, I think he's trying to maintain the business of being Newt, and that requires publicity of any kind. He's sort of becoming the real Donald Trump of politics, at this point.

The resemblance is outstanding.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 31, 2012, 08:01:17 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on January 31, 2012, 07:52:25 pm

I don't think that Paul will drop out, his goal was never to win, because he knew he couldn't, but rather to try to change the conversation in the republican party and put his views out there.
Because of that I see no reason for him to drop out just because he doesn't stand a chance of winning.

Yeah, he didn't drop out in 2008 either, even when it was mathematically impossible for him to win by the end of January.  Heck, he even spent all that Revolution money to host his own separate Convention across the street from the Republican Party one, and he certainly wasn't a third-party then either.  He just doesn't care, as long as they still let him into the debates - running is what he does.

Santorum, yeah I can imagine him dropping out soon.  If not after this, then definitely after February 7th, provided he doesn't pull an out of nowhere comeback.  Which in this nomination, is always a possibility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on January 31, 2012, 08:10:53 pm

So, this election has finally made significant (as in, more than a 30 sec slot) of air time on Australian TV; at least as far as I've seen. Was watching the news last night, and got a nice couple of minutes of commentary. Also around 30 to 40s of Romney basically calling Gingrich a lying, cheating two-faced weasel.

Good times.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on January 31, 2012, 08:20:01 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on January 31, 2012, 08:10:53 pm

So, this election has finally made significant (as in, more than a 30 sec slot) of air time on Australian TV; at least as far as I've seen. Was watching the news last night, and got a nice couple of minutes of commentary. Also around 30 to 40s of Romney basically calling Gingrich a lying, cheating two-faced weasel.

Heck, I was just listening to a manager from the pro-Gingrich PAC, basically accusing Romney of being complicit in $120million Medicare fraud case, perpetrated by some company Bain Capital bought, and then sold the month it was convicted.  And then has to say that Gingrich will stand behind Romney should he win the nomination.

You know Obama's campaign staff are sitting on their asses just recording this stuff, since all they have to do is slap an Obama bumper on the end, and they have every ad they'll ever need against either guy running.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on January 31, 2012, 08:42:29 pm

Looks like Gingrich won the panhandle (aka Crazy Crackerville), Romney dominated South Florida (aka North Cuba / South New York).

Would be fascinated to see the crosstabs re: Hispanic and Jewish vote

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 08:47:43 pm

Aqizzar: For a moment I thought you were refering to the Columbia/HCA scandal that FL Gov Rick Scott (R) was involved in, but 120 million sounds way to small an amount of fraud.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2012/01/um-rick-scott-uses-holocaust-quote-to-defend-bain-capital-seriously/

RedKing: yes I this is crazy crackerville, kinda sucks actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on January 31, 2012, 08:55:33 pm

Ah, you're up/down here in Bumfuckistan, too, Nadaka? Suffering brethren!

All I know is I'm happy this is over for us, for a little while anyway. It wasn't too bad, but th'house I'm in did probably get a dozen or so, probably more, autocalls. Which was kind of ridiculous, as no one in the house is registered Republican. I can only imagine it was worse in places with an actual population.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 01, 2012, 09:03:20 am

Morning update:

Gingrich apparently refused to call Romney to offer his concession. U MAD, NEWT?

Here's the exit poll crosstabs. (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/fl) In short, Mitt brings all the hot mamis to the booth. Really though, he dominated almost every category--even the youth vote, which is a big difference from the previous three contests.

This is perhaps a bigger loss for Santorum and Paul than it is for Gingrich. Ron Paul underperformed his poll standing, and lost the youth vote to Romney. Santorum was a second fiddle to Gingrich even among abortion single-issue voters, archconservatives and evangelical born-agains.

It'll be interesting to see if Florida has much effect on the next two contests (Maine and Nevada) because there's so little time for the campaigns to filth up the airwaves. Then a few days after that, we get Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri's not-a-real-primary popularity poll. Then there's an unholy three-week gap before the next primary. I think that three-week gap is when you'll see Santorum and Paul drop out, and any third-party contenders to throw their hat in.

There are rumblings that The Donald is thinking of making a 3rd party run. Guess he wants to try and play his... 8) Trump Card.


EDIT: Oh, and in response to my earlier wondering about the Hispanic and Jewish votes:
Jewish voters were only about 1% of exit poll respondents and had no seection preference recorded.
Hispanics went overwhelmingly for Romney, but it should be noted that the Florida Hispanic population is disproportionately Cuban-American. The Cuban exiles are an altogether different political beast than various Central and South American enclaves elsewhere in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 01, 2012, 11:20:43 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 31, 2012, 08:47:43 pm

http://blog.reidreport.com/2012/01/um-rick-scott-uses-holocaust-quote-to-defend-bain-capital-seriously/

Lot's of mileage from the holocaust this race. (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/gingrich-robocall-romney-forced-holocaust-survivors-to-eat-non-kosher/)

Incidentally another significant figure is how well the negative ads (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/mitt-romney-florida-primary-newt-gingrich-super-pac_n_1239002.html) worked. Positive ads convince people to like you and to turn out to vote for you. Negative ads convince people who like the other guy to stay home. This year nearly 300,000 who voted in the Florida Republican primary in 2008 stayed home, a 14% drop. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/romney-wins-but-turnout-lags/) Among self-identified Republicans the drop is even worse.

One other thing to keep in mind; Florida have broken the rules in two ways. They held an early primary, being docked half their delegates for that. They also went winner-takes-all, something not supposed to be allowed this year. That opens the 50 delegates Romney just took up to further challenges (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/if-gop-fight-drags-on-so-could-argument-over-floridas-delegates/1212342) at a later time. Now, there is no way the Republicans will further penalise Florida (you don't piss off Florida on the run up to a presidential election), but it could be they are instructed to redistribute the delegates proportionally, either by vote share or some version of how the districts were won. Gingrich actually did win a fair few counties (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/florida), which may convert into outright wins in some congressional districts or whatever dividing line would be used. Given that these issues tend to be decided by committees of campaign and party staff during the convention negotiations, it could easily come up later.

Meanwhile the FEC filings are giving some more interesting reading. Romney is raising fast, but still miles behind Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-super-pac-18m).

Quote

Top executives at Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs and other financial houses tied to Mitt Romney have poured millions of dollars into a Super Pac that funded the blitz of attack adverts that played a central role in the former Massachusetts governor's victory in Florida.

According to figures released by the Federal Election Commission at midnight, the Super Pac backing Romney, Restore Our Future, took in about $18m from 200 donors during the second half of last year. Nearly 60 of the donors were firms or rich individuals who gave more than $100,000.

The Super Pac backing Barack Obama and started by former White House staffers, Priorities USA Action, raised just $4.4m over the same period. But the financial filings released by the FEC showed that the president's campaign organisation – which is not a Super Pac and therefore limited to individual donations no larger than $2,500 – raised more than twice as much as Romney's in 2011, bringing in $140m.

The disparity suggests that Romney will be heavily reliant on wealthy donors and big business to finance his run for president, after a supreme court ruling last year opened the way for virtually unlimited funding in support of political candidates by individuals, companies and trades unions.

Just how tied into the funding source of Bain Romney is is best illustrated by another datapoint; Romney's family and close donors helped to pay down Pawlenty's debt when he supported Romney. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72221.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 01, 2012, 12:11:20 pm

All of which is going to provide great ammunition in the fall: "Mitt Romney is the candidate of Wall Street, bought and paid for."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 01, 2012, 03:32:14 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 01, 2012, 12:11:20 pm

All of which is going to provide great ammunition in the fall: "Mitt Romney is the candidate of Wall Street, bought and paid for."

Supposedly, that's exactly where Gingrich plans on going next, if he hasn't started already, trying to call Romney the Candidate of Wall Street.

Updated the OP.  I have to pace myself, because it's already like 28000 characters, and I need to leave room for the rest of the race.

Some interesting exit-polling data I heard.  Supposedly, Rick Santorum was considered by far the most likable candidate, no doubt because he was completely ignored by the nuclear exchange between Gingrich and Romney.  But only 15% of people who ranked him Most Likable said they actually voted him.  Meanwhile, the highest ranking reason for selecting a candidate was "electability" at like 45%, not coincidentally about the same as Romney's vote total.  Even as Romney's "likability" numbers drop in the toilet, though still miles away from the Universe of Hate that is Gingrich's national reputation, apparently.  Florida being a Closed Primary, it's no particular surprise that 60% of people considered themselves Tea Party Supporters, while the state as a whole is only about a third registered-Republican.

What I thought was the most interesting was the spending versus the effects.  Romney spent half again as much money as the entire Republican field did in Florida in 2008, and it netted him a sub-50% plurality victory.  Even with stupid amounts of money poured into advertising, Republican voter turnout was down a quarter million people from 2008, especially dropping out of Latinos.

Considering the total ad-time given to "positive" campaign messaging was something like 0.8% of broadcasting (most of it Santorum and Paul), this really is rewriting the story on campaign advertising.  I think we've seen the ad nauseum effect of unlimited campaign spending and total blowout negatives - you can win, but may actually driving people away from the polls, and it's blowing huge craters in the general electorate's perception of the two guys most likely to win this nomination.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 01, 2012, 03:40:50 pm

So, potentially... potentially the Citizens United decision might turn out to be a GOOD thing? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 01, 2012, 04:28:18 pm

So in other words, if you allow people to fling enough shit, eventually they'll drown in it?

Exxxxxcellent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 01, 2012, 05:03:52 pm

I think that if Obama was smart he would just close down his PAC entirely at this point.  He will have plenty of money through conventional sources.  The optics of having one guy getting bankrolled by millionaires and the other guy bankrolled by the middle class would be priceless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 02:38:17 am

Thread too long; didn't read.

Ron Paul is growing on me. Why?

He follows the Austrian School of economic thought, which at the moment, I agree with most in regards to monetary and fiscal policy. To note, I have a background in Economics and I feel the Austrian School does the best at explaining why business cycles happen...and at the simplest level...because of over expansion of credit. Instead, the Keynesians believe in the notion of "shit happens", partially due to animal spirit influence on market forces. I have a difficult time believing modern Keynesians still believe that, but Keyne himself attributed business cycles to spirits. But still, a lot of economists and financial people like to say recessions are just "natural" but they don't know the cause, and frankly I don't believe it. An action has to trigger a boom or a bust, just like getting punched in the face will give me a bruise.

That alone makes me like him over any other GOP candidate. Gingrich is nuts. Man is just nuts and nuts. Romney has no backbone and is just plain awkward. Says he won't release his tax information....one month later....he releases his tax records. Cant wait to see what he'll do with our nuclear and military secrets when dealing with foreign leaders. Nukes for all!

I seriously don't even feel like voting because this presidential race has THE WORST bunch of runners I have ever seen/read about. The GOP...my god. I feel like it's American Idol mixed with some kind of sick MTV reality show. And to note, my views lean more toward the right and I voted for Obama last time.

Then again, there are a lot of people who contributed to this thread who are much more intelligent when it comes to politics and such and I could be full of crap. To be honest, I hate how our presidential election has turned into an entertainment event. The youtube debates, Obama literally skyping with potential voters, the whole debacle. Bleh. If they would just do their jobs and stop all this BS, then I wouldn't be so cynical about the entire process.

EDIT: I just read he is opposed to the federal reserve system. And you know....it is kind of helpful. I don't know what to think anymore!!!  :-X ::) ??? :o :-* :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on February 02, 2012, 02:46:09 am

What's wrong with Obama talking to voters? I thought on of the problems people had with politicians was them not talking directly

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 02:47:51 am

You know that like, presidents all the way back through the ages used to like, go town to town and talk to constituents?  This is where we get the term stump speech.  If you're going to dismiss 'skyping with people' out of hand as tawdry entertainment, then I really don't know what to say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 02:50:21 am

Sorry. I should have clarified that him talking to people whether through technological or physical means is great, but I don't enjoy the fact that Obama can't do it without CNN in his face. I guess that's a pretty weird view point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 02:51:10 am

Quote from: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 02:38:17 am

Thread too long; didn't read.

Ron Paul is growing on me. Why?

Because you're not a fan of living in a country as much as living in a loosely-organized collection of fiefdoms controlled by robber barons who can freely violate your constitutional rights on a whim with no federal oversight?

Quote

Instead, the Keynesians believe in the notion of "shit happens", partially due to animal spirit influence on market forces. I have a difficult time believing modern Keynesians still believe that, but Keyne himself attributed business cycles to spirits.

If you really think any modern economist thinks like that, then your "background in Economics" is surprisingly limited and alien. In fact, I'd like to see some kind of source that any mainstream school of economics believes in the influence of "spirits".

Quote

But still, a lot of economists and financial people like to say recessions are just "natural" but they don't know the cause, and frankly I don't believe it. An action has to trigger a boom or a bust, just like getting punched in the face will give me a bruise.

Then you sound like you'd prefer a method of studying economics that is at least halfway empirical or scientific, as opposed to the austrian school, which rejects such methods.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 02:56:28 am

I'm going to drop a quote by Murray Rothbard, one of the big dudes in the Austrian school of economics, just so people who aren't "in the know" can get an idea of what Taniec is implicitly supporting:

"Supposedly "humanitarian" child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors."

His worldview only makes sense if you see literally every human interaction as a competition, without empathy of any sort.  It is unethical to allow children, who are demonstrably not rational actors, the 'right' to 'enter the labor force'. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on February 02, 2012, 03:01:08 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 02:51:10 am

If you really think any modern economist thinks like that, then your "background in Economics" is surprisingly limited and alien. In fact, I'd like to see some kind of source that any mainstream school of economics believes in the influence of "spirits".

I'm not sure about alien. I've heard his view once or twice in libertarian echo chambers, and they're very much earthlings. /silly

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 03:08:33 am

Yikes, my college education must have failed me.

1. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Keynes discusses the idea of animal spirits in correlation with consumer confidence. He discusses that trust and confidence in the market is affected by outside animal influences. It isn't a MAJOR part of the book, however it is mentioned. He mentions that people like to act out of action, rather than "do the math" to determine benefits or probabilities.

2. To be fair, just because the Austrian School isn't known for being as mathematically heavy as other schools of thought (Many Austrians flat out reject empirical evidence), doesn't mean that math is thrown right out the window for all of those in line with Austrian thought. I'm not smart enough to win a nobel prize or develop my own sophisticated model, but of all the schools of thought that try to explain inflation, recessions, views on monetary and fiscal policy, the Austrian view makes the most sense to me. That is subject to change.

3. I prefer a utopian paradise, in which sexual orgies are the norm and my seed can be spread freely. Alas...such a day may never come.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 03:10:01 am

Quote from: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 03:08:33 am

animal spirits

Quote from: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 03:08:33 am

Many Austrians flat out reject empirical evidence

I think we've established we don't need to discredit this line of thought any more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 03:13:39 am

Quote from: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 03:08:33 am

1. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Keynes discusses the idea of animal spirits in correlation with consumer confidence. He discusses that trust and confidence in the market is affected by outside animal influences. It isn't a MAJOR part of the book, however it is mentioned. He mentions that people like to act out of action, rather than "do the math" to determine benefits or probabilities.

You're ridiculously confused about what "animal spirit" even means in this case. It's not about outside influences. It's not about literal "spirits". It's about emotional and impulse decision-making. It has absolutely nothing to do with "outside animal influences" or literal spirits of any kind. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_spirits_%28Keynes%29

Quote

3. I prefer a utopian paradise, in which sexual orgies are the norm and my seed can be spread freely. Alas...such a day may never come.

oh my god where did this even come from

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 02, 2012, 03:17:09 am

Economics is voodoo anyway, whats wrong with blaming things on animal spirits?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 02, 2012, 03:19:02 am

Hella ninja'd...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Describing Keynesian economics explanation of business cycles as "shit happens, partly due to animal spirits" is ignoring the rigorous treatment of markets and most importantly interest rates that Keynesian economics is all about.  Believe it or not but bad loans happen in a Keynesian world view as well.  Yes, single huge events can cause recessions in a Keynesian view.  The 1929 crash, I should not have to remind you, was the pressing conundrum that Keynesian economic was invented to answer.

Honestly if you want the shit happens side, it's among the real business cycle people.  Keynesians and their offshoots not only have explanations for recessions but they have explanations for several different kinds of recessions.  Keynesians try not to claim omniscience but they do offer quite a bit of explanation.

If you have a background in economics then I present you with this situation which presents dilemma's for the Austrian world view:

Currently and for quite some time the interest rates on some US treasury bonds are at historically low rates (i.e. near to zero after inflation) and inflation remains low according to every broad price index.  This is even as the Federal Reserve has massively increased the money supply and the Treasury has taken on a number of new loans.  The Keynesian explanation is simple: spending is depressed which keeps inflation down and lowers the price for safe like US treasury bonds, lower money velocity prevents the usual equilibrium from being restored.

Two questions for the Austrian school:
a) How can there be so little inflation when the money stock has increased so much?  How does this reconcile with the Austrian belief that the value of money is directly tied to the quantity of money and size of the economy?
b) Why are US treasury bonds selling for historically low rates when our finances are in far worse shape then say, 1995?  Remember, don't answer this with common sense.  Answer it with Austrian school logic.

I could understand how one might see the appeal of the neoclassical school when the economy is running at full capacity.  But the economy is obviously not running at full capacity and it shows up in a thousand different ways.  Why then would you embrace a school of thought that assumes that the economy is running at full capacity at all times?

These are not minor quibbles.  How you view the points I raised decides which of two completely divergent courses of action you want to take.  In the UK they have tried the Austrian solution and the British economy is currently experiencing the worst recession in the history of British industry.  Yes, they're doing even worse in terms of percentage of GDP lost then they were in the Great Depression.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 02, 2012, 04:13:16 am

Quote from: Taniec on February 02, 2012, 02:38:17 am

Thread too long; didn't read.

Ron Paul is growing on me...

Not to take a 2x4 to a rotting horse carcass, but I have a feeling the only reason the second statement remains true is because of the first statement.  Don't bother asking for an explanation, just go back and read, everything is there and doesn't need to be litigated again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 04:20:23 am

I haven't compiled this huge Libertarians.txt file to hoard it all to myself, Aqizzar!!  (It's why I had that Rothbard quote handy so quick.  That dude is a real master of sounding dignified while saying things that, when put in a real world context, as abysmal.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 06:00:53 am

You have a Libertarians.txt file and haven't given it to me yet? What is wrong with you? Upload that or somethign!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 06:12:07 am

Like the Constitution, it's a living document.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 02, 2012, 09:01:17 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 06:12:07 am

Like the Constitution, it's a living document.

Complete with pseudopods and a voracious hunger.


I'm beginning to wonder if Buffalo Wild Wings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIVtwjdfb2M) is secretly orchestrating the entire primary, because every time it seems like we might have a clear front-runner putting this thing to bed, they say something so completely boneheaded that it boggles the mind that they're actually running for office. Yesterday's example? Mitt Romney saying that he's "not concerned about the very poor." (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-to-soledad-obrien-im-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor/)

Granted, in context it's not quite as bad, (saying that he wasn't concerned because there's a social safety net there), but it's still bad. And it's a soundbite that couldn't be more custom-made for attacking Romney as a billionaire who doesn't give a shit about the average American. Can someone just get him to say, "Let them eat cake" and finish out the picture?

Expect to see Gingrich take that quote and run like hell with it. Also, Rush Limbaugh is upset with Romney over that quote too, but for a different reason: how dare Romney suggest that it's okay to HAVE a social safety net? (http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-is-upset-about-romney-not-caring-about-the-very-poor-but-for-a-different-reason/)  ::)


New poll data!
Nevada:
Romney: 45
Gingrich: 25
Santorum: 11
Paul: 9

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on February 02, 2012, 11:04:05 am

I'm surprised Paul isn't doing better in Nevada, which has always had a strong libertarian bend, or maybe his support has always been confined to the dudes who live in trailers out in the middle of the desert and put up giant "Vote Paul" signs next to the highway.  ::)

Anyway, do you think his small drop in numbers is a result of the bad press that's been coming out, or just that it's now becoming clear that he really, really, really isn't going to win the nomination.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 02, 2012, 11:21:53 am

I don't think either of those things have ever mattered in the past with Paul voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 02, 2012, 11:32:15 am

I think it's more that the Romney-Gingrich dustups have consumed all the available media attention, and in doing so kind of leave Santorum and Paul on the sidelines, going "Hey, we're still an option too, y'know!"

It's like you have to constantly remind me people that they have more than two candidates to choose from, or else they just completely tie into the "pick your side" 1v1 contest. Kind of a tangent here, but I've always felt that our affinity for the two-party system was dramatically entrenched by the Cold War and the bipolar worldview it created. Us v Them. Americans have a real hard time with multipolarity and shifting alliances. But if you look prior to WWII (especially the latter half of the 19th century), we had a number of significant third parties. Postwar, almost none of note.


I never thought I'd say this, but I'm grudgingly coming to respect Rick Santorum as a person. Not as a politician, mind you; and gods know I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. But here's the thing: he's run a clean, old-fashioned kind of campaign. No blitz of negative ads, no jet-setting all over the country, no big flashy photo ops, no spin doctoring. He's putting in the hours going door-to-door, speaking at the Rotary Clubs and town halls, and for the most part he's stuck to his guns, foul and bigoted as they may be. Kinda reminds me a bit of Jesse Helms in that respect. You might have hated the man, and he might have hated you, but at least he was open and honest about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 12:01:35 pm

Someone as backwards and regressive as Santorum cannot be respected. He is actively destructive to the people of his state and the nation in general. I don't care how sincerely he kisses those babies.

All that said, I am hoping that the republicans win this year. I think that after two or three years of republican rule I'd be able to get most of my state to secede. Then we join up with Cascadia and ship out the conservative minority if they won't assimilate. With the most productive farming regions in the nation, the most productive technology industries, and access to pacific ocean trading partners, we'd be a fantastically strong force.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 02, 2012, 12:04:22 pm

Quote from: Karlito on February 02, 2012, 11:04:05 am

Anyway, do you think his small drop in numbers is a result of the bad press that's been coming out, or just that it's now becoming clear that he really, really, really isn't going to win the nomination.

Or maybe Libertarians aren't actually the silent majority and it remains a fringe view within and without the Republican party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 02, 2012, 12:08:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 02, 2012, 11:32:15 am

It's like you have to constantly remind me people that they have more than two candidates to choose from, or else they just completely tie into the "pick your side" 1v1 contest. Kind of a tangent here, but I've always felt that our affinity for the two-party system was dramatically entrenched by the Cold War and the bipolar worldview it created. Us v Them. Americans have a real hard time with multipolarity and shifting alliances. But if you look prior to WWII (especially the latter half of the 19th century), we had a number of significant third parties. Postwar, almost none of note.

Our two party system is deeply entrenched in the fact that we have a first past the post district voting system with no alternative representation.

The two party system is hardly a creation of the cold war.  Yes there was some tumult in the progressive era but that actually resulted in the progressives or socialists wining control of congress or the presidency and it mostly ended before the Russian revolution even started, let alone the cold war.  And the two party system dates back to Washington administration with the only real disruption being during the Lincoln presidency and during 1932-1938 when the democrats were so dominant that we were a defacto one party state. <flaming removed>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 02, 2012, 12:17:45 pm

I did say "dramatically entrenched", not "created by". But whatever....luv u too, bro.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on February 02, 2012, 01:36:52 pm

Well, that's now in the quotes thread :P.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 02, 2012, 03:24:11 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 02, 2012, 12:17:45 pm

I did say "dramatically entrenched", not "created by". But whatever....luv u too, bro.

Aw, how can I stay mad at you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 04:22:12 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 02, 2012, 09:01:17 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 06:12:07 am

Like the Constitution, it's a living document.

Complete with pseudopods and a voracious hunger.


I'm beginning to wonder if Buffalo Wild Wings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIVtwjdfb2M) is secretly orchestrating the entire primary, because every time it seems like we might have a clear front-runner putting this thing to bed, they say something so completely boneheaded that it boggles the mind that they're actually running for office. Yesterday's example? Mitt Romney saying that he's "not concerned about the very poor." (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-to-soledad-obrien-im-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor/)

Granted, in context it's not quite as bad, (saying that he wasn't concerned because there's a social safety net there), but it's still bad. And it's a soundbite that couldn't be more custom-made for attacking Romney as a billionaire who doesn't give a shit about the average American. Can someone just get him to say, "Let them eat cake" and finish out the picture?

Expect to see Gingrich take that quote and run like hell with it. Also, Rush Limbaugh is upset with Romney over that quote too, but for a different reason: how dare Romney suggest that it's okay to HAVE a social safety net? (http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-is-upset-about-romney-not-caring-about-the-very-poor-but-for-a-different-reason/)  ::)


New poll data!
Nevada:
Romney: 45
Gingrich: 25
Santorum: 11
Paul: 9

Paul supporters in Nevada intentionally don't vote due to shenanigans that occurred in 08 (specifically, the McCain campaign found all the Paul supporters via robocalls and then had the state GOP lock them out of the nomination process). Anyhow, the polls in 08 of Nevada all showed him with around 8% and he came out with 14%, so Nevada polls (Actually, all of these caucuses at that) are unreliable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 05:10:41 pm

Paul... You mean the neo-nazi?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 05:31:15 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 05:10:41 pm

Paul... You mean the neo-nazi?

Obama... You mean the communist?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 02, 2012, 05:38:01 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 05:31:15 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 05:10:41 pm

Paul... You mean the neo-nazi?

Obama... You mean the communist?

Ron Paul is firmly linked the the founders of Stormfront and the American Nazi Party as well as several Grand Dragons of the KKK. He published a racist news letter for a decade, and a subpena was requested regarding his involvement in the white supremacist coupe attempt in the Dominican republic. He firmly stands against the 14th and 24th amendments and has voted against every civil rights legislation he has had the opportunity to.

Why do you think that Obama is a communist? What has he done to even be even tangentially tied to that label?


But this line of questioning has already been covered and is mostly off topic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 05:43:45 pm

EDIT: More information:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/290374/20120131/ron-paul-anonymous-neo-nazi-opblitzkrieg-antisec.htm

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 02, 2012, 05:56:40 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 05:43:45 pm

EDIT: More information:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/290374/20120131/ron-paul-anonymous-neo-nazi-opblitzkrieg-antisec.htm

Quote

The hacktivists said they also hacked Kelso's credit card and made donations to anti-fascist organisations, such as the Anti-Defamation League.

Absolutely beautiful. I rarely heap praise on anonymous, but this is a pretty damn good idea from them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 02, 2012, 06:04:00 pm

Well most charities would just give the money straight back if it was a donation from credit fraud anyway.  Although they do seem to have genuinely done something other than just put a website down for a few hours this time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 06:15:18 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 02, 2012, 05:38:01 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 05:31:15 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 05:10:41 pm

Paul... You mean the neo-nazi?

Obama... You mean the communist?

Ron Paul is firmly linked the the founders of Stormfront and the American Nazi Party as well as several Grand Dragons of the KKK. He published a racist news letter for a decade, and a subpena was requested regarding his involvement in the white supremacist coupe attempt in the Dominican republic. He firmly stands against the 14th and 24th amendments and has voted against every civil rights legislation he has had the opportunity to.

Why do you think that Obama is a communist? What has he done to even be even tangentially tied to that label?


But this line of questioning has already been covered and is mostly off topic.

He happens to be supported by racists. That makes him no more racist then any other American politician.

About eight newsletters out of several thousand hand racist content, coincidentally occurring when he was actually running his medical practice. Poor management yes, but hardly proof of racism.

Obama is supported by communists, too. He was, after all supported by the American Communist party, the communist youth league, etc. Does this make him a communist? Hardly, but people don't seem to make the same connections with him as they do with Paul, despite the two being functionally no different.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 02, 2012, 06:24:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 06:15:18 pm

He happens to be supported by racists. That makes him no more racist then any other American politician.

About eight newsletters out of several thousand hand racist content, coincidentally occurring when he was actually running his medical practice. Poor management yes, but hardly proof of racism.

Obama is supported by communists, too. He was, after all supported by the American Communist party, the communist youth league, etc. Does this make him a communist? Hardly, but people don't seem to make the same connections with him as they do with Paul, despite the two being functionally no different.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/290374/20120131/ron-paul-anonymous-neo-nazi-opblitzkrieg-antisec.htm

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ron+paul+nazi&FORM=HPNTDF

Actually, how about you do some research instead of just being a fool, Ron Paul is a documented, verified white supremacist who has deep ties with neo-nazi organizations and funders, and also happens to golf and buddy around with the same people.

Go find me some documented evidence of Obama being a socialist/communist (doubt you could even name the difference) or just shut up. Misinformation such as yours leads to people like Grand Wizard Paul being able to silently stay in the national spotlight and act like a saint, while his real views and policies are hidden, as they would be disastrous to any nation, especially the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 02, 2012, 06:26:30 pm

Sorry, but having regular documented in person and telephone strategy meetings with leaders of the racist movements and being implicated as a conspirator in the attempted overthrow of the Dominican Republic by white supremacists goes far far beyond just happening to be supported by racists.

Name one thing, just one, that Obama has actually done that qualifies him as a communist. Can you show, even a little, that he consulted with those communist groups directly and personally and that they consulted with him?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on February 02, 2012, 06:26:59 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 02:56:28 am

It is unethical to allow children, who are demonstrably not rational actors, the 'right' to 'enter the labor force'.

We can't allow people to make decisions for themselves, they might do something wrong!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 06:39:23 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 02, 2012, 06:26:59 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 02:56:28 am

It is unethical to allow children, who are demonstrably not rational actors, the 'right' to 'enter the labor force'.

We can't allow people to make decisions for themselves, they might do something wrong!

I find it difficult to argue with you if you insist on ignoring the content of the statement you are arguing against. Children are not intelligent or experienced enough to be effective workers, and allowing them to be employed would inevitably result in large-scale abuses.

You somehow interpret this as some kind of absolutist government policy applying to everyone.

I truly hope you were being satirical and I've merely misinterpreted a well-meaning joke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 06:40:50 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on February 02, 2012, 06:24:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 06:15:18 pm

He happens to be supported by racists. That makes him no more racist then any other American politician.

About eight newsletters out of several thousand hand racist content, coincidentally occurring when he was actually running his medical practice. Poor management yes, but hardly proof of racism.

Obama is supported by communists, too. He was, after all supported by the American Communist party, the communist youth league, etc. Does this make him a communist? Hardly, but people don't seem to make the same connections with him as they do with Paul, despite the two being functionally no different.

Anonymous also claims that the organisation has links with Republican candidate Ron Paul. "We found a disturbingly high number of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul," the statement said, adding that Paul had regularly met with many party members and even engaged in conference calls with its board of directors.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/290374/20120131/ron-paul-anonymous-neo-nazi-opblitzkrieg-antisec.htm#ixzz1lGobjR3x

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ron+paul+nazi&FORM=HPNTDF

Actually, how about you do some research instead of just being a fool, Ron Paul is a documented, verified white supremacist who has deep ties with neo-nazi organizations and funders, and also happens to golf and buddy around with the same people.

Go find me some documented evidence of Obama being a socialist/communist (doubt you could even name the difference) or just shut up. Misinformation such as yours leads to people like Grand Wizard Paul being able to silently stay in the national spotlight and act like a saint, while his real views and policies are hidden, as they would be disastrous to any nation, especially the US.

EVIL ME CLAIMING RAWN PAWL ISN'T AN EVIL RACIST

Ahem:

Quote

Anonymous also claims that the organisation has links with Republican candidate Ron Paul. "We found a disturbingly high number of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul," the statement said, adding that Paul had regularly met with many party members and even engaged in conference calls with its board of directors.

Notice "MEMBERS OF". In other words, racist who have connections to Ron Paul, not Ron Paul with connections to racists. An actual racist this does not make.

Furthermore, the second article says:

Quote

"Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position," he added.

Views about world Judaism? Funny, the thing he puts above all else is a school of economics called the Austrian school, which was founded almost exclusively by Jews. Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, etc, are all very much Jewish. Calling him anti-semetic is just silly.

Quote

Sorry, but having regular documented in person and telephone strategy meetings with leaders of the racist movements and being implicated as a conspirator in the attempted overthrow of the Dominican Republic by white supremacists goes far far beyond just happening to be supported by racists.

Implicated in the overthrow of the Dominican Republic? Please, educate me. I would think he'd be in jail for that if he did.

Quote

Name one thing, just one, that Obama has actually done that qualifies him as a communist. Can you show, even a little, that he consulted with those communist groups directly and personally and that they consulted with him?

Well, okay, if you want

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

Quote

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a
“secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But
what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood
mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

In
his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into
contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a
“hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004
U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However,
through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone
who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The
record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where,
at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son,
with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting
advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

Mind, I don't think Obama is actually a communist anymore then I think Paul is a Nazi. I brought it up to make a point; associations with an objectionable individual does not a racist/communist/etc make.

EDIT:

Actually, I would advise you read those emails yourself, seeing as how some Anons kindly released them. The connection is remarkably weak for all the flair put on it. Some nuts call up some other nuts and say "SUPPORT RON PAUL" and suddenly RON PAUL IS EVIL. Actually, Kelso, the EVIL RON PAUL SUPPORTING RACIST, was actually basically forced out of CPAC by Ron Paul supporters;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCdBrAalghY&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 02, 2012, 06:42:12 pm

Really, that's your example?  A black-helicopter freak's "analysis" of Obama's book, written nearly a year before he was elected President?

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 06:39:23 pm

I truly hope you were being satirical and I've merely misinterpreted a well-meaning joke.

Yes, they were all being satirical, making fun of some economist who was dead fucking serious that child-labor laws were unfair to children.

I know this is a long thread, but my advice to everyone is to hang around and pay attention, you pick it up eventually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 06:45:52 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 02, 2012, 06:42:12 pm

Really, that's your example?  A black-helicopter freak's "analysis" of Obama's book, written nearly a year before he was elected President?

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 02, 2012, 06:39:23 pm

I truly hope you were being satirical and I've merely misinterpreted a well-meaning joke.

Yes, they were all being satirical, making fun of some economist who was dead fucking serious that child-labor laws were unfair to children.

I know this is a long thread, but my advice to everyone is to hang around and pay attention, you pick it up eventually.

Really? Those newsletters written decades ago with little actual connection to the candidate himself are your example?

Again, I don't think Obama's a communist, I'm just exposing the poor logic being used here which can just as easily label Obama as one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 02, 2012, 06:47:11 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 02, 2012, 06:42:12 pm

Really, that's your example?  A black-helicopter freak's "analysis" of Obama's book, written nearly a year before he was elected President?

I find his lack of knowledge on the subject amusing, so I'm not even going to bother with it anymore. Ron Paul is a neo-nazi, no matter how others try and try to ignore it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 06:48:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 06:45:52 pm

Really? Those newsletters written decades ago with little actual connection to the candidate himself are your example?

"Little actual connection"? I can tell you haven't read this thread. They were signed by him. They carried his name. They were often written from his perspective. Yet somehow, they were both not written by him, not supported by him, and went unnoticed by him for at least a decade? How can you possibly find this reasonable?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 02, 2012, 06:49:02 pm

GreatJustice: read this thread. I already have links here for my assertions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 06:54:50 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 02, 2012, 06:26:59 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 02:56:28 am

It is unethical to allow children, who are demonstrably not rational actors, the 'right' to 'enter the labor force'.

We can't allow people to make decisions for themselves, they might do something wrong!

I'm glad you agree.

You should form a counter-argument if you disagree, rather than being a cool sarcasm dude.  Are you seriously trying to assert that a ten year old child is intelligent enough to understand the risks they are taking on, and should be allowed to 'fire' their parents and become a free agent, quit school, and work to support themselves?  Because yes, in many cases, it's wrong to allow people to make decisions that can lead to their utter poverty, illness, harm, or death.  This is why we often lock up medicine cabinets and chemical cupboards in homes with children in them- because giving your children the choice to make those decisions (drink the bleach) on their own is pretty abhorrent.

Are you going to prove that a child whose brain isn't fully developed, much less educated with any sort of context about the world, should be allowed to run away from home?
Are you going to ignore that puberty alone floods the brains with hormones that cause mood swings and irrational behavior?

Please address these issues, I'm curious as to your views on them!

Humans in general are provably not rational actors.  Given perfect information (which, again, does not really exist in the wild!), there's no guarantee that a person will make a rational choice.  If this were not the case, we wouldn't really need a social contract at all.

So, as with PTTG, I'm inclined to believe you are merely trying to be humorous rather than mounting an argument that a pre-teens rights unto themselves are unassailable. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 06:57:11 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 06:54:50 pm

Are you seriously trying to assert that a ten year old child is intelligent enough to understand the risks they are taking on, and should be allowed to 'fire' their parents and become a free agent, quit school, and work to support themselves?

What are you talking about? Things worked out great when we allowed five-year-olds to work in coal mines.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 02, 2012, 07:00:28 pm

I'd like to jump in, being a huge advocator of children's rights, but this is a pretty egregious tangent. Another thread?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 02, 2012, 07:01:05 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 06:57:11 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 06:54:50 pm

Are you seriously trying to assert that a ten year old child is intelligent enough to understand the risks they are taking on, and should be allowed to 'fire' their parents and become a free agent, quit school, and work to support themselves?

What are you talking about? Things worked out great when we allowed five-year-olds to work in coal mines.

And when they would spend 14 hours a day inside an operational loom with an oil, only stopping to remove the occasional severed body part gumming up the works.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:04:31 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 02, 2012, 07:00:28 pm

I'd like to jump in, being a huge advocator of children's rights, but this is a pretty egregious tangent. Another thread?

Go ahead and start one.  I really only want to know ECrown's response in relation to how he's defending Rothbard, which relates to the discussion about Austrian school free market economics, etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 02, 2012, 07:08:29 pm

Ah well I don't care enough~

The original quote does give a pretty damn terrible reason for allowing it again, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:09:46 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 06:48:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 06:45:52 pm

Really? Those newsletters written decades ago with little actual connection to the candidate himself are your example?

Quote

"Little actual connection"? I can tell you haven't read this thread. They were signed by him.

Autopen, a feature that many such magazines, etc feature.

Quote

They carried his name.

Indeed they do. Maclean's carries Maclean's name too, but that doesn't mean Maclean (who is, I recall, very much dead) personally wrote every article, or even supervised. Again, bad management, but not proof of racism by any means.

Quote

They were often written from his perspective.

So? I can write from the perspective of Chuck Norris. That doesn't constitute much in the way of proof.

But while on the subject, I can see you haven't read any of his other articles, or heard him speak or write at literally any other point. The newsletters in question weren't even remotely written in his style, which would be rather obvious were you actually comparing them to the thousands of non-racist ones from the past.

Quote

Yet somehow, they were both not written by him, not supported by him, and went unnoticed by him for at least a decade? How can you possibly find this reasonable?

It was a small time newsletter that he'd mostly lost interest in and effectively abandoned, seeing as how he was running his practice at the time. Again, bad management, and on its own it doesn't make much sense logically that he'd suddenly run a spate of about eight racist newsletters after previously showing no particular signs of being a racist and then stops them outright not much longer afterwards.

Quote

GreatJustice: read this thread. I already have links here for my assertions.

I have seen one source already, with incredibly weak connections and extremely long leaps of logic, which are about as long as the "Obama associated with a Communist" article (which you notably haven't even looked at, even though it isn't much more silly). I've been reading since page 80 and haven't seen much since then, and unless you can find a better source I don't think its very worthwhile to go all the way back to look for what amount to Daily Mail articles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 02, 2012, 07:15:16 pm

I'd like to point out there are things I said 5 days ago that I regret and have changed my opinion on.

Assuming these letters were written by Ron Paul, what evidence is there that he still holds these opinions? And no, golfing buddies don't count; statements or actions by the man himself, please.



(I don't like Ron Paul for other reasons and would never vote for him, but when people bring up this ancient stuff I raise an eyebrow.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:23:16 pm

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:37:10 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:23:16 pm

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

Not well known by any means. Do you know who Kelso is?

The only time I've heard of him before was when he was tossed out of CPAC by Paul supporters. He has a massive ego and very little relevance, bragging about "connections" that he obviously doesn't have and never backs up (those "top men" in Illinois and SoCal quite literally are unknown to any of the actual activists or campaigners in those states, etc). If you want I can provide a rather detailed wall of text covering most of this, but that isn't really necessary.

I could just as easily claim to have personally met with Evgeny Murov too, but were I someone with as silly a resume as Kelso I don't think anyone would take my claims seriously, even if emails were hacked showing that I made such claims.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:43:03 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:37:10 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:23:16 pm

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

Not well known by any means. Do you know who Kelso is?

If I were a white supremacist, I probably would.   Which is why I said "figureheads in white supremacist circles".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:49:33 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:43:03 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:37:10 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:23:16 pm

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

Not well known by any means. Do you know who Kelso is?

If I were a white supremacist, I probably would.   Which is why I said "figureheads in white supremacist circles".

There are any number of wrong things with this statement, but two major ones:

(A) Seeing as how you say that it would only be in white supremacist circles that he's known, you imply that Ron Paul already knows him, therefore he's a white supremacist, therefore he associated with him making him a white supremacist. If he isn't known outside of such circles then any association Paul has with him (and it is extremely limited, basically Kelso posing with him for a photo) is irrelevant. I recall Paul also did something similar with a San Francisco pedophile without knowing who he was (Paul has rather poor luck with associations, but that's beside the point), and not many people claim it proves he's part of the worldwide pedophile conspiracy.

(B) You imply that "Kelso is a well known figure" is a proven statement. It most certainly isn't. Can you prove that he is? Maybe some previous exposure? I wouldn't know, but otherwise this article is about as worthwhile as one of those "RON PAUL SUPPORTERS ON THE INTERNET SAY ELECTION WAS RIGGED" articles you find every once in a while.

Here's something for you in the meantime:

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/politicaljunkie/2012/02/02/lynching-ron-paul?page=0,0

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 02, 2012, 08:09:32 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 02, 2012, 07:15:16 pm

I'd like to point out there are things I said 5 days ago that I regret and have changed my opinion on.

Assuming these letters were written by Ron Paul, what evidence is there that he still holds these opinions? And no, golfing buddies don't count; statements or actions by the man himself, please.

Assuming those letters were written by Ron Paul, he's lying out his ass by saying they weren't, which is bad in itself, and they still wouldn't speak well for his character. Yes, people can change their minds on plenty of issues, but if he did write them, it doesn't bode well that he'd lie about it.

Either they weren't written by him, making him monumentally ignorant and disorganized at best or monumentally willing to capitalism on racism, homophobia, and paranoia at worst... or he did write them, is lying his ass off about it now, and was, at some point at least, a homophobic paranoid racist, which doesn't speak well for his ability to form rational judgments about things in general.

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:09:46 pm

So? I can write from the perspective of Chuck Norris. That doesn't constitute much in the way of proof.

Sure, but it's slightly different if Chuck Norris himself gives you authorization to do so.

Quote

But while on the subject, I can see you haven't read any of his other articles, or heard him speak or write at literally any other point. The newsletters in question weren't even remotely written in his style, which would be rather obvious were you actually comparing them to the thousands of non-racist ones from the past.

You don't need those letters to call Ron Paul a homophobe. There's plenty of other sources for that, at least!

Quote

It was a small time newsletter that he'd mostly lost interest in and effectively abandoned, seeing as how he was running his practice at the time. Again, bad management, and on its own it doesn't make much sense logically that he'd suddenly run a spate of about eight racist newsletters after previously showing no particular signs of being a racist and then stops them outright not much longer afterwards.

It's bad enough management that it still reflects very poorly on his character and ability to... well, manage anything. Qualities a president should have.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 02, 2012, 08:18:53 pm

Pretty much. The content of his older political beliefs is bad enough, but his attempt to dance around them has been pretty embarrassing. You don't just wave off stuff like that with a "it was a long time ago, I don't really remember" or its equivalent. It's sad but I think he might have done better in the polls if he'd come out and defended his views, rather than retreating from them. Because at this point he doesn't have the support of the moderates because of those statements, and he probably lost a few of the kooks votes because he didn't reply "Hell yeah I said that!"

Considering Paul has been elected multiple times based on those views....that's probably got to have pissed off some of his long-time supporters (who read what Paul had to say before he was a presidential candidate.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nilik on February 02, 2012, 09:08:37 pm

Ron Paul strikes me as an American Nick Griffin, the head of the British National Party. As the country descends into shit, his ideas become more and more appealing, as it becomes clear that something radical has to be done to get the country back on track. His supporters were originally a hard-core of racists and nutjobs, but have gradually expanded to include otherwise fairly rational people who just desire change at any cost more than anything else. He was once considered a fringe lunatic, but eventually expanded his power-base to the point that he could be considered a real contender. The previous paragraph could apply to either Nick or Ron.

But eventually the bubble has to burst. The more exposure Ron Paul gets, the more his views are going to come under scrutiny. For Nick Griffin the bubble burst when he had finally gained enough support to be considered politically important enough to appear on "Question Time". At this point the whole country got to see first-hand what his views and policies actually were. There are clips on youtube, but suffice to say he made an arse of himself and the BNP more-or-less fell back into obscurity.

That said, Nick could probably do well as a Republican...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 02, 2012, 09:17:52 pm

Ahh, the BNP.

Sooner or later, I hope, the bubbling tension is going to get a left-winger as a serious contender, hopefully for president (but probably not).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 02, 2012, 09:32:17 pm

I don't think Nick Griffin would do well at all as a Republican candidate really, even if you shifted his viewpoint enough.  He's just too goddamn incompetant to lead anything but a bankrupt fringe party.  I mean, have any of the Republicans managed to get into fistfights with their potential voters while on the campaign trail (initiating the violence, no less)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 02, 2012, 10:02:06 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 02, 2012, 12:08:04 pm

The two party system is hardly a creation of the cold war...

I would just like to take a moment to say that I was trying to be sarcastic in this previous post and apologize to anyone I might have offended since it appears I missed the mark.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 02, 2012, 10:05:45 pm

Some sort of sarcasm font or the like would probably cut down on the hate (ok, maybe diethate) on this thread by about %75

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 02, 2012, 10:07:38 pm

What about adding the  ;D emoticon to all sarcasm? That might help, though it might also defeat the purpose of sarcasm...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 02, 2012, 10:09:48 pm

But if someone doesn't catch sarcasm, isn't that in and of itself a resounding success?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 02, 2012, 10:10:07 pm

Quote from: jester on February 02, 2012, 10:05:45 pm

Some sort of sarcasm font or the like would probably cut down on the hate (ok, maybe diethate) on this thread by about %75

Perhaps impact? Oh gods, no. Not impact. Courier? *previews* That's... not as bad. I like the name of georgia, at least, and that's fairly readable. Perhaps Aqi would like to dictate an official sarcasm font for the thread? I'll just go ahead and nominate georgia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: trees on February 02, 2012, 10:13:47 pm

Perhaps the "irony mark"⸮ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 02, 2012, 10:15:05 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on February 02, 2012, 10:09:48 pm

But if someone doesn't catch sarcasm, isn't that in and of itself a resounding success?

No?  Are you being sarcastic?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 02, 2012, 10:19:44 pm

Of course he isn't being sarcastic. Clearly he is mis-informed about the purpose of it all.  ;D

Like this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 02, 2012, 10:22:28 pm

Whatever happened to good, ol' fashioned /sarcasm tags?

Too sarcastic?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 12:14:27 am

Quote from: Nilik on February 02, 2012, 09:08:37 pm

Ron Paul strikes me as an American Nick Griffin, the head of the British National Party. As the country descends into shit, his ideas become more and more appealing, as it becomes clear that something radical has to be done to get the country back on track. His supporters were originally a hard-core of racists and nutjobs, but have gradually expanded to include otherwise fairly rational people who just desire change at any cost more than anything else. He was once considered a fringe lunatic, but eventually expanded his power-base to the point that he could be considered a real contender. The previous paragraph could apply to either Nick or Ron.

But eventually the bubble has to burst. The more exposure Ron Paul gets, the more his views are going to come under scrutiny. For Nick Griffin the bubble burst when he had finally gained enough support to be considered politically important enough to appear on "Question Time". At this point the whole country got to see first-hand what his views and policies actually were. There are clips on youtube, but suffice to say he made an arse of himself and the BNP more-or-less fell back into obscurity.

That said, Nick could probably do well as a Republican...

Nick Griffin is only on the right socially, a bit like Le Pen in France. He's very much a lefty on economic issues, and seeing as how Ron Paul is 30% economic issues and 50% foreign policy/war issues, he would fit Paul's views rather poorly even were Paul a crazed supremacist. He'd be run out of the Republican party if the topic of discussion ever went near economic policy, actually.

Paul would, in British terms at least, be more likely to fit in with either the Liberals (the Orange wing at least, though he wouldn't be pro-Euro so not entirely), the Tories (though depending on what issue is at hand at the time, though Daniel Hannan is a good example of Ron Paul's ideas in Britain), or the UKIP (with the non-interventionist/isolationist/what-have-you undertones).

Quote

Sure, but it's slightly different if Chuck Norris himself gives you authorization to do so.

But were I writing crazy things from the "viewpoint" of Chuck Norris while Chuck Norris was on vacation or busy beating up fools, then the crazy things written would be showing that Chuck Norris made a bad decision in letting me write and not keeping a close enough eye on his publications, not that he was as insane as I (the ghostwriter). Furthermore, the relevance of the crazy things written in Chuck Norris's name would decline after two decades of him doing heroic things and distinctly not following through with what the handful of newsletters did.

Of course, by this point the analogy starts to look kinda silly, but whatever.

Quote

You don't need those letters to call Ron Paul a homophobe. There's plenty of other sources for that, at least!

Way to change the subject there, bro

He's a homophobe in the sense that he personally dislikes it. Sad to say it, but it's true. On the other hand, every single other Republican running dislikes homosexuals even more (GAYS IN THE MILITARY anyone?), and unlike Paul, are entirely willing to use the government to screw around with them. While disliking them (and considering the fact that he's a good 73 years old, its hardly much worse than most grandparents), his live and let live philosophy would mean that he would absolutely protect their rights.

Quote

It's bad enough management that it still reflects very poorly on his character and ability to... well, manage anything. Qualities a president should have.

He was retired from politics, and at the time it looked like he was going to spend the rest of his life as a doctor before retiring. Then stuff happened and he changed his mind, returning to Congress to rant about an incoming housing bubble (ho ho!), the war in Iraq being an insane endeavor without any potential gain (What a nutty idea!), and that maybe bombing and killing people in their countries isn't a good way to fight terrorism (Insane, I tell you!).

Considering the circumstances, it still leaves him leaps and bounds above literally every single alternative.

----

I'm sad to say, though, that even were the bulk of the bad things said about him actually true (being a racist, etc), he'd still easily be the best of the pack. So long as he didn't let them affect his policy (him being an actual crook or not holding to his values would be a whole different ballgame, but I have yet to see anyone claim THAT so far), it would be outweighed by the end of stupid American foreign interventions, the extension of American hegemony to the rest of the world, less blustering and threatening, more negotiating, and an economic policy not purely directed by massive banks to boot. Hell, just pulling out of those bases would make it worth it. Mind, I'm not American so my priorities are a bit different, but he would still be far ahead of the alternatives.

With the Republicans, Mitt Romney is for sale to the highest bidder, lacks any strong moral fibre, and would bend over to whatever major interests wanted to control him. He'd probably lose to Obama unless the worst circumstances happened though, since I can't see Mitt freaking Romney getting out dedicated voters the way literally any other Republican could.

Newt Gingrich is also for sale to the highest bidder, but dresses it up in populist rhetoric and is personally a scumbag where Mitt is plastic. Not much different than Mitt except he'd probably lose by even larger margins.

Santorum, well, he's a bible thumping, war-mongering nut who hates the internet. He's authentic, but absolutely nuts in every sense.

Obama is ALREADY owned, specifically by Goldman Sachs and co. He's no communist, just a fascist in vaguely socialist clothing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 03, 2012, 12:25:14 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 12:14:27 am

Quote

You don't need those letters to call Ron Paul a homophobe. There's plenty of other sources for that, at least!

Way to change the subject there, bro

It wasn't changing the subject. One of the issues with those newsletters was homophobic content. From other sources, at other times, Ron Paul has expressed discomfort at using a gay supporter's bathroom, and has also called HIV patients "victims of their own lifestyles".

Quote

He's a homophobe in the sense that he personally dislikes it.

He's also a homophobe in the sense that he's written legislation that specifically singles out sexual activity and same-sex unions as something the supreme court shouldn't be able to rule over.

Quote

On the other hand, every single other Republican running dislikes homosexuals even more (GAYS IN THE MILITARY anyone?), and unlike Paul, are entirely willing to use the government to screw around with them.

Paul has tried to use the government, and his own legislation, to effectively make state anti-sodomy laws legal again. You tell me who's more homophobic there.

Quote

his live and let live philosophy would mean that he would absolutely protect their rights.

See above. He's written legislation aimed at shooting down the only way their rights can be protected, and have been protected. Do you know how many state anti-sodomy/homosexuality laws the "We the People Act" would make enforceable again? Far, far too many.

You think that Ron Paul has a "live and let live" philosophy. He doesn't. His own legislation makes it clear that his agenda is to let your state control your life rather than the federal government doing it. This isn't even some hypothetical tin-foil-hat bullshit: He has literally written regulation that would explicitly prevent the SCOTUS from ruling on state laws regarding issues that are basically a very specific laundry list of socially conservative hot-button topics (establishment of religion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and abortion). These state laws do exist, have for some time, and the only reason they aren't enforceable is because the SCOTUS has ruled that they are unconstitutional. This is not "live and let live", it's pretending that the rights of states supersede the rights of human beings, regarding a suspiciously explicit list of issues he doesn't want the SCOTUS saying bugger-all about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on February 03, 2012, 12:36:24 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 12:14:27 am

[... ]So long as he didn't let them affect his policy [...]

Is it not the case that that Paul is against the Civil Rights Act ?

(Also, aside from the racism thing there are still most of the lther things listed here: http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html )

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 01:17:21 am

The Late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was a dues paying member of the KKK in the late 40s.  He realized his mistake and repented.  Know why people believed him?  Because he said he was sorry.  He explained that he screwed up.  He explained why he had believed hateful things at a young age and urged the young people of West Virginia to be more careful.  He spent 60 years in politics, got into the very good graces of the NAACP and endorsed the nations first black president but knew that the slate would never be wiped clean.

He could have weaseled his way out of this stain on his name very easily.  He was in his early 20s when he joined, left after only a few years, was never involved in any hate crimes and ran for office in a region where they honestly wouldn't have given a damn.  He could have told people it was a youthful indiscretion and the incident would have been quickly buried as that was the sort of thing that people did in the 40s and no one cared.

Robert Byrd did not take the easy way out though and I think the explanation is obvious: it was the right thing to do.  He was a deeply honorable man and the price of honor is that it forces you to do the right thing.  Listen to his speech against the authorization of force against Iraq sometime if you think politicians have no integrity.

Ron Paul has associated himself with distinctly unsavory characters and he has done so a hell of a lot more recently then the 1940s.  His constant denials and weaseling tell you everything you could possibly need to know about the man's character.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 03, 2012, 01:49:20 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:49:33 pm

A COOL STRAWMAN

Arguing that because the white supremacists Ron Paul associates with aren't 'well known in the general public', it's excusable for Ron Paul to hang out with them as if he's some poor misguided Mr. Magoo, completely ignores the fact that not that many normal Americans are probably that informed about movers and shakers in the white power community.  The men he holds conference calls with, the men he plays golf with, are very truly racists of the most deplorable kind.  Anyone who willfully associates with them, leaning on them for support, is shameful.  The man has had his name attached to a violently racist newsletter, has had ties with racist organizations both in the past and recently, and has expressed that the freedom he seeks is the freedom to be exploited and terrorized by a local government, rather than a federal one.  (he is even inconsistent on this point, seeking a federal ban on abortion, but wanting states to be able to disregard a federal acceptance of gay marriage.)  These are all damning truths.  Arguing that he's 70, and should thereby be excused of having a strong, recurring dislike of homosexuals, denies that there are people out there that also want economic, social, and drug reform, that don't simultaneously harbor the serious problems Ron Paul has.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:42:09 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 03, 2012, 01:49:20 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 02, 2012, 07:49:33 pm

A COOL STRAWMAN

Arguing that because the white supremacists Ron Paul associates with aren't 'well known in the general public', it's excusable for Ron Paul to hang out with them as if he's some poor misguided Mr. Magoo, completely ignores the fact that not that many normal Americans are probably that informed about movers and shakers in the white power community.  The men he holds conference calls with, the men he plays golf with, are very truly racists of the most deplorable kind.  Anyone who willfully associates with them, leaning on them for support, is shameful.  The man has had his name attached to a violently racist newsletter, has had ties with racist organizations both in the past and recently, and has expressed that the freedom he seeks is the freedom to be exploited and terrorized by a local government, rather than a federal one.  (he is even inconsistent on this point, seeking a federal ban on abortion, but wanting states to be able to disregard a federal acceptance of gay marriage.)  These are all damning truths.  Arguing that he's 70, and should thereby be excused of having a strong, recurring dislike of homosexuals, denies that there are people out there that also want economic, social, and drug reform, that don't simultaneously harbor the serious problems Ron Paul has.

Way to miss a huge part of the point.

He has associations with racists on occasion primarily because he doesn't know that they are, and he's hardly had long secret meetings with their leaders.

To assume that this is remotely true, you have to take a huge leap of logic in that you have to assume the words of a rather unhinged (from what he's tried in the past, anyway) white supremacist should be taken at complete face value, as though he never has and never will exaggerate in any way or outright lie. If hacks of German Neo-nazi sites had emails of similarly insane individuals claiming to have had secret meetings with the CDU, I doubt anyone would take them seriously.

Besides that,

Quote

The man has had his name attached to a violently racist newsletter

Which was "violently racist" for eight issues and had absolutely no connection to anything else he ever said.

Quote

has had ties with racist organizations both in the past and recently

Again, Obama was endorsed by the Communists and received their donations. This is not a legitimate "tie", nor are the deranged rantings claiming to be buddies of random e-racists.

Quote

and has expressed that the freedom he seeks is the freedom to be exploited and terrorized by a local government

Like how your constitution explicitly says it should be? You also ignore that there are any number of things that prevent state governments from going too far, most of which don't do a damn thing when your federal government oversteps its boundaries.

Quote

(he is even inconsistent on this point, seeking a federal ban on abortion, but wanting states to be able to disregard a federal acceptance of gay marriage.)

Uh, no he doesn't. He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn it into a state issue, which is entirely reasonable. He has even taken shots from goons like Santorum for not wanting to just ban it outright. He supported DOMA for those reasons.

Quote

Arguing that he's 70, and should thereby be excused of having a strong, recurring dislike of homosexuals, denies that there are people out there that also want economic, social, and drug reform, that don't simultaneously harbor the serious problems Ron Paul has.

No, that wasn't my entire argument by any means. Stop cherry picking.

I'm saying that, in addition to being 70, his dislike of homosexuals in utterly irrelevant because (A) unless he inexplicably betrayed his own principles he'd never act on it at all and (B) Literally every single candidate has the same views or worse. Yes indeed there are better alternatives than Ron Paul; I hardly think he's the Messiah. But he's easily the best politician you Americans have, and it kills me to watch you vote for absolute crooks like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney over silly details and conspiracy theories. The only "better" candidate in that regard is Obama, and he's a crooked murderer with big rhetoric but a lack of a spinal cord.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 03, 2012, 08:01:22 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:42:09 am

Like how your constitution explicitly says it should be? You also ignore that there are any number of things that prevent state governments from going too far, most of which don't do a damn thing when your federal government oversteps its boundaries.

Er, Ron Paul wants to dismantle the things that "prevent state governments from going too far". Actively. I've named one.

Also: Ron Paul wants to override anything the constitution says about state law (regarding certain subjects). Let me put it this way: The only way the constitutionality of legislation can be maintained is through the courts stepping in and saying when something isn't constitutional. Ron Paul wants to remove that protection.

And I'm sorry, but no, the constitution does not explicitly state that states should specifically be left to their own devices regarding issues of civil rights and, say, establishment of religion. Hell, there are certain amendments that, according to the generally-held interpretations, state otherwise, such as the 14th.

Quote

He supported DOMA for those reasons.

Why would he support DOMA? DOMA was defining marriage at the federal level, which sounds like exactly the sort of thing he'd be against.

Quote

I'm saying that, in addition to being 70, his dislike of homosexuals in utterly irrelevant because (A) unless he inexplicably betrayed his own principles he'd never act on it at all

He already has acted on it. I've specifically mentioned the legislation that acts on it.

Quote

it kills me to watch you vote for absolute crooks like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney over silly details and conspiracy theories.

Do you know what I dislike most about Ron Paul? It's not conspiracy theories. It's not even those newsletters. It's his actual policies and attitudes and the legislation he's written and tried to pass. Don't try to make us sound like tinfoil-hat crackpots when we're giving very explicit and clear reasons for disliking him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 03, 2012, 08:08:27 am

Yeah dude, even if he hadn't had his picture taken with the founder of Stormfront, knowing full well who he was, his actual policies are little more than trying to shift America towards a minarchist Hellhole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 03, 2012, 08:10:07 am

His only redeeming quality is a staunch opposition to the war on (some) drugs.

And honestly, that's nearly enough to get me to vote for him, the rest of his fucked up policies be damned.

But make no mistake - he is no saint.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 03, 2012, 08:13:00 am

You could vote for the Green Party who hates the war ondrugs, the other war, pollution, and is fairly solidly pro-rights.  Without the recurring ties with racists or "if someone is molested by their employer, they have the right to find a different job if they don't want to put up with it- otherwise they're partially to blame!" abhorrence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 03, 2012, 08:28:21 am

If they'd run a candidate in the Republican primaries I might very well have done so. But they didn't, alas.

And I vote for people, not parties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 03, 2012, 08:37:39 am

Well, keep an eye on them when the Democratic primaries roll up, I guess.  I doubt you'll see much action on the visible media spectrum, but with some digging you might find someone you agree with more than Ron Paul

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 03, 2012, 08:53:45 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:42:09 am

The only "better" candidate in that regard is Obama, and he's a crooked murderer with big rhetoric but a lack of a spinal cord.

That's a bit of a weighty statement you have there. I'm not sure what you're calling murder; as commander-in-chief, it is literally in his job description to help the military win the wars that they are/were in. The lack of a spinal cord thing has been thrown around ever since he started campaigning, but I'm not sure where it comes from. He refused to bypass Congress when they weren't going to raise the debt ceiling or come to an agreement, forcing them to actually do something. His stance ever since he came into office was that we need to get America out of its two wars. The brass disagreed with him about Iraq, but he pushed on to get everyone withdrawn. I could be wrong, but I believe the vast majority of Iraq veterans are home now. There's now a plan in place to get us out of Afghanistan by 2014. He's had to make some deals with the Republicans so that Congress would do anything at all, but that actually makes sense. Getting a partial deal for what you want is better than the whole government seizing up for the rest of the Congressional session.

What really cracks me up is that Romney is starting to call him 'a waffler'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 03, 2012, 09:52:28 am

Bit old, but I haven't been here since yesterday.

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:23:16 pm

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

I have a libertarian friend I pall around with. That makes me libertarian, right?

(hint: no)



All this is moot unless we think it affects his policies. There's no reason to think it would affect his policies later if it's not affecting them right now, so there should be plenty of evidence to support your view that's not from 30 years ago or guilt by association.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 03, 2012, 10:18:30 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 03, 2012, 09:52:28 am

Bit old, but I haven't been here since yesterday.

Quote from: Capntastic on February 02, 2012, 07:23:16 pm

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

I have a libertarian friend I pall around with. That makes me libertarian, right?

(hint: no)



All this is moot unless we think it affects his policies. There's no reason to think it would affect his policies later if it's not affecting them right now, so there should be plenty of evidence to support your view that's not from 30 years ago or guilt by association.

It does affect his policies, right now, plenty of evidence to support it.

How about the fact that he still wants to repeal the 14th and 24th amendments? How about the fact that he still defends his vote against the civil rights bill that it infringes on the right of white business owners to discriminate?


There are limits to the guilt by association defense, Ron Paul surpasses those by orders of magnitude, and has and continues to advocate on behalf of the ideology of his associates. How about the fact that his friends are not just libertarians but the FOUNDER of THE AMERICAN NAZI PARTY, the FOUNDER of STORMFRONT, and CONVICTED RINGLEADER of a WHITE SUPREMACIST COUPE OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and GRAND DRAGONS of the KKK. These are not isolated cases of random association, he works with these people knowing full well what they represent.

Quote from: Capntastic on February 03, 2012, 08:37:39 am

Well, keep an eye on them when the Democratic primaries roll up, I guess.  I doubt you'll see much action on the visible media spectrum, but with some digging you might find someone you agree with more than Ron Paul

Roseanne Barr is one of several green party candidates currently up for their presidential ticket, though she is basically there just to draw attention to the party.

Roseanne Barr (California) - Actress, comedian and farmer.
Winona LaDuke (Minnesota) - Native American activist, economist, writer and '96/'00 VP nominee.
Cynthia McKinney (California) - Ex-Georgia Congresswoman, Ex-State Rep., College Professor and '08 Nominee.
Kent Mesplay (California) - Biomedical engineer, environmental activist, '04/'08 candidate & '06 US Sen. candidate.
Harley Mikkelson (Michigan) - Retired state employee, Vietnam War veteran & frequent candidate.
Rhett Smith (Texas) - Company auditor, Navy veteran & frequent candidate.
Jill Stein (Massachusetts) - Physician, progressive activist, author & '02/10 Governor nominee.
Gary Swing (Colorado) - Festival promoter, peace activist & frequent candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 03, 2012, 10:30:33 am

Like the Democrats are going to go with anyone but Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 03, 2012, 11:00:00 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 03, 2012, 08:01:22 am

Do you know what I dislike most about Ron Paul? It's not conspiracy theories. It's not even those newsletters. It's his actual policies and attitudes and the legislation he's written and tried to pass.

I think this deserves repeating.  Even if he isn't racist, he writes and supports legislation that will massively harm black people.  Even if he isn't homophobic, he writes and supports legislation that will massively harm homosexual people.  And that's before getting into his horrible economic ideas, and that his possible one USP to end the war on drugs would definitely not work since almost noone inside or outside of his party supports it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 03, 2012, 12:15:32 pm

New poll data!
Different poll in Nevada (PPP), with a larger sample size:
Romney: 50
Gingrich: 25
Paul: 15
Santorum: 8

So there's your better showing for Paul, GreatJustice. Still doesn't change the fact that Romney is going to wax the floor with everyone else in this state, which is unsurprising. The state has some Big Money and a hefty number of Mormons. Might bode slightly better for Paul's chances to continue if he at least takes 3rd place.



Arizona:
Romney: 48
Gingrich: 24
Santorum: 13
Paul: 6

A bit surprised to see Romney do so well in the land of Joe Arpaio, but then his recent hardline stance on illegal immigration is probably paying dividends here. (And will likely bite him in the ass come the general election).

Michigan:
Romney: 38
Gingrich: 23
Santorum: 17
Paul: 14

Somewhat tighter race in Michigan.

One interesting thing to note is that these polls were all dated 2/1, before Romney's "not concerned about the very poor" comment had time to trickle into the popular consciousness. Might see him lose a couple of points from the backlash on that, but even then...Mitt looks poised to boost his lead in delegates in the next few weeks. Arizona, in particular, is a winner-take-all race. Gingrich doesn't have to win these races, he just needs to poll well enough to get some delegates and stay within striking range (and hope for Romney to have yet more foot-in-mouth moments).

Santorum and Paul are already relegated to also-ran status. As I projected earlier, I think Santorum drops out after the CO and MN caucuses next Tuesday, unless he pulls a shocking 2nd place finish somewhere between now and then. No idea who he'd endorse though. I can't honestly see him endorsing *either* candidate if he wants to retain any of the archconservative street cred he's built up. Maybe he'll tell voters to stay home and prepare for the Lord's reckoning (and to vote for him in 2016).

Ron Paul....who knows? Realistically, he'd drop out about the same time, barring a 2nd place finish somewhere. But because this is Ron Paul....maybe he's waiting until Super Tuesday and hoping that places like Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota will give him some wins. But even if they did....it's Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota. He'd probably get more delegates from winning his home district in Texas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 02:53:45 pm

The Bureau of LaborStatistics  released it's monthly report and said that the economy added 243,000 jobs last month.  Also the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to %.2 to %8.3 (seasonally adjusted means that they account for the Christmas boom and post Christmas bust).  Another 1.2 million workers left the workforce so they no longer count as unemployed (due to the end of the Christmas boom and the weak economy presumably).

This is being hailed in the economy nerd circles of the internet as being "real" good news instead of just "meh" good news like we've had in the past.  The economy needs to add about 100k jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth.  But the economy outpaced that by a fairly substantial clip and did so without being attributed to the usual cyclical noise of inventory bounces or seasonal adjustment.  Also interesting is that the BLS revised it's two previous monthly estimates upward (they issue revisions on the previous two months every report) in keeping with it's yearlong trend of revising upward it's pessimistic initial estimates.  Unless something comes along to knock us off trend, this year is going to be where it starts feeling like a real recovery.

This is election related because if things keep going at this pace then things look good for the left.  Obama's reelection odds will pick up and the democrats even have a shot at retaking the house.  If the trend keeps improving like this then Obama would probably be a shoe in.  In that case we might even see the Democrats hang onto the Senate despite having so many seats to defend.  Elections aren't just determined by the economy but the economy is probably the GOP's only shot this election.  What else do they have?  Foreign policy against the administration that nabbed Osama and ended the wars?  Beat a dead horse over culture war?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 03, 2012, 03:10:50 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 02:53:45 pm

Beat a dead horse over culture war?

Bingo. When in doubt, go to the well. Only it probably won't be over abortion or gay marriage, but some more nebulous concept of "overweening Presidential overreach" by pointing out things that he's done by executive order rather than "consulting" Congress. of course, there will be little mention of the fact that those things were done by executive order precisely because the Republican-controlled House was usually too busy sticking its collective fingers in its collective ears and yelling "LALALALALALACAN'THEARYOUNOTGONNADOIT". Try to cast Obama as "out-of-control" and "power-mad". Hell, they already make it sound like he lies awake at night trying to figure out how to possibly be MORE evil.

"Hmm....I know, I'll make a new law that forces straight people to marry their children off....to homosexuals! Muahahaha! And then we'll force them to eat a live kitten at the wedding! Muhaahahaha! And we'll make them PAY for the kitten! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAA!"



Alternately, they'll say the economy still sucks and/or say "Okay, but the recovery would have been EVEN BETTER if we had been in charge! If John McCain had been President, all of you would have had flying cars by now. Flying cars that bathe you in money!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 03, 2012, 03:19:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 03, 2012, 03:10:50 pm

"Hmm....I know, I'll make a new law that forces straight people to marry their children off....to homosexuals! Muahahaha! And then we'll force them to eat a live kitten at the wedding! Muhaahahaha! And we'll make them PAY for the kitten! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAA!"

I'd vote for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on February 03, 2012, 03:28:33 pm

I'd rather have flying cars, but eating kitties is okay too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Quote from: EveryZig on February 03, 2012, 12:36:24 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 12:14:27 am

[... ]So long as he didn't let them affect his policy [...]

Is it not the case that that Paul is against the Civil Rights Act ?

Actually, that was more of a moral opposition. As I explained earlier he is a libertarian and so feels negative rights are more important than positive rights, ie the right of the storekeeper to dictate who they are willing to sell to is more important than the right of the shopper to be sold to. In the end it works out the same way but it's important to understand why he opposed them.

Now perhaps we should start a Ron Paul thread a la the moonbase thread?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 04:05:07 pm

I eat pussy on a fairly regular basis already so I'd want the flying car.

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Actually, that was more of a moral opposition. As I explained earlier he is a libertarian and so feels negative rights are more important than positive rights, ie the right of the storekeeper to dictate who they are willing to sell to is more important than the right of the shopper to be sold to. In the end it works out the same way but it's important to understand why he opposed them.

Unless it's the negative rights of gay people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes, or the negative rights of women seeking abortions or basically any negative right that gets in the way of people who are rich, white and male doing whatever the hell they want.

Ron Paul's support of negative rights is about as consistent as Thomas Jefferson's support of abolition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 03, 2012, 04:50:37 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Actually, that was more of a moral opposition. As I explained earlier he is a libertarian and so feels negative rights are more important than positive rights, ie the right of the storekeeper to dictate who they are willing to sell to is more important than the right of the shopper to be sold to.  In the end it works out the same way but it's important to understand why he opposed them.

Sure it's a "moral opposition".  And yet it would still result in black people being screwed over regardless of why Paul thinks people should be allowed to screw them over.

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Now perhaps we should start a Ron Paul thread a la the moonbase thread?

He's a candidate in the American Elections so I'd be inclined to say no.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 06:07:27 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 03, 2012, 04:50:37 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Actually, that was more of a moral opposition. As I explained earlier he is a libertarian and so feels negative rights are more important than positive rights, ie the right of the storekeeper to dictate who they are willing to sell to is more important than the right of the shopper to be sold to.  In the end it works out the same way but it's important to understand why he opposed them.

Sure it's a "moral opposition".  And yet it would still result in black people being screwed over regardless of why Paul thinks people should be allowed to screw them over.

As I noted, I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that his primary motive (AFAIK) was not racism.

Quote

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Now perhaps we should start a Ron Paul thread a la the moonbase thread?

He's a candidate in the American Elections so I'd be inclined to say no.

Very  well, just wanted to make sure this didn't get out of hand.

Quote from: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 04:05:07 pm

I eat pussy on a fairly regular basis already so I'd want the flying car.

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Actually, that was more of a moral opposition. As I explained earlier he is a libertarian and so feels negative rights are more important than positive rights, ie the right of the storekeeper to dictate who they are willing to sell to is more important than the right of the shopper to be sold to. In the end it works out the same way but it's important to understand why he opposed them.

Unless it's the negative rights of gay people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes, or the negative rights of women seeking abortions or basically any negative right that gets in the way of people who are rich, white and male doing whatever the hell they want.

Ron Paul's support of negative rights is about as consistent as Thomas Jefferson's support of abolition.

I never claimed he was consistent, or even right, I was merely explaining why.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 06:24:55 pm

If he says that he cares about negative rights but in practice only cares about the rights of people like himself, negative or otherwise, then it is hardly a difficult deduction to figure out that his reasons for having such non-mainstream views are not because of a philosophical preference for negative rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 03, 2012, 06:25:17 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 06:07:27 pm

Quote

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 03, 2012, 04:01:20 pm

Now perhaps we should start a Ron Paul thread a la the moonbase thread?

He's a candidate in the American Elections so I'd be inclined to say no.

Very  well, just wanted to make sure this didn't get out of hand.

If this goes on much longer, I'm going to say that it is.  I think this is the third round of "Who Is Ron Paul" and I'm getting a little tired of watching it drag on, since I'm at least tangentially responsible for people fighting in this thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 03, 2012, 06:43:53 pm

But I was just gonna bust out my "If Ron Paul can't appropriately identify the people he's hanging out with and gladly accepting campaign contributions from, how is average Joe on the Street supposed to use free caveat emptor to determine if the colloidal silver he's being told to buy from a celebrity endorsed commercial is actually poisonous??"

Regardless, in terms of realistic outcomes, we should probably talk about who actually has a probable chance of snagging the Republican nomination.  The current field is so staticy with both Newt and Romney thrashing each other (and themselves) that it's hard to tell who exactly is pulling ahead in a general sense.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:58:59 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:42:09 am

Like how your constitution explicitly says it should be? You also ignore that there are any number of things that prevent state governments from going too far, most of which don't do a damn thing when your federal government oversteps its boundaries.

Quote

Er, Ron Paul wants to dismantle the things that "prevent state governments from going too far". Actively. I've named one.

The constitution and the right to vote? The first restrains the state governments in a way that the federal government is good at ignoring (if the likes of SOPA, ACTA and the PATRIOT act among others are anything to go by), and the second limits it further to being responsible to those it controls. Frankly, if the result of state governments having more power than the federal government was state governments engaging in clownery, then I find it unlikely that the average American will somehow make the federal government much better.

Quote

Also: Ron Paul wants to override anything the constitution says about state law (regarding certain subjects). Let me put it this way: The only way the constitutionality of legislation can be maintained is through the courts stepping in and saying when something isn't constitutional. Ron Paul wants to remove that protection.

Source, please.

Quote

And I'm sorry, but no, the constitution does not explicitly state that states should specifically be left to their own devices regarding issues of civil rights and, say, establishment of religion. Hell, there are certain amendments that, according to the generally-held interpretations, state otherwise, such as the 14th.

Again, the constitution overrides state laws. That's a widely agreed upon fact; were that not the case, the US would be a confederation or alliance, not a union.

Quote

He supported DOMA for those reasons.

Quote

Why would he support DOMA? DOMA was defining marriage at the federal level, which sounds like exactly the sort of thing he'd be against.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You misread it. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_marriage_act

Quote

Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state

So in other words, no US state is forced to recognize gay marriage, but it notably does NOT say that no US state CAN recognize gay marriage. Seeing as how it was signed into law by Bill Clinton AND several American states do, in fact, have gay marriage laws already, its rather silly to claim this somehow does such a thing regarding marriage.

Quote

I'm saying that, in addition to being 70, his dislike of homosexuals in utterly irrelevant because (A) unless he inexplicably betrayed his own principles he'd never act on it at all

Quote

He already has acted on it. I've specifically mentioned the legislation that acts on it.

Two things:

A. When referring to past statements regarding specific things (EG. DOMA), at least mention them so I know what you're talking about. I really hate to get into long, drawn out arguments about the wrong issue.

B. As shown above, DOMA doesn't force the states to do anything and thus your statement is untrue.

Quote

it kills me to watch you vote for absolute crooks like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney over silly details and conspiracy theories.

Quote

Do you know what I dislike most about Ron Paul? It's not conspiracy theories. It's not even those newsletters. It's his actual policies and attitudes and the legislation he's written and tried to pass. Don't try to make us sound like tinfoil-hat crackpots when we're giving very explicit and clear reasons for disliking him.

Really? Then why don't you attack him on his issues or his actual problems, rather than digging up extremely suspect "evidence" and primarily sticking to attacking him personally?

I dislike Obama very strongly too, but mostly because he's a fascist that I actually believed might be a bit better than Bush (at least for the couple of months before he actually did anything) and wasn't owned by corrupt banks. It was stupid of me to not even check his donations, but after the recession I figured things couldn't get too much worse.

However, I have yet to start claiming that Obama was born in Kenya or any such nonsense, and it would be disingenuous of me to attack him specifically on such a silly issue when there are far more glaring faults to go after.

Quote

Yeah dude, even if he hadn't had his picture taken with the founder of Stormfront, knowing full well who he was, his actual policies are little more than trying to shift America towards a minarchist Hellhole.

He's a presidential candidate, I'd imagine he takes pictures with a lot of people, not to mention autograph signing and giving interviews (He isn't especially picky about who interviews him either; he was "interviewed" by Bruno, and by some college kid in his dorm). I doubt he keeps a photo album of "public enemies" to memorize for people not to take pictures with.

Minarchist hellhole, now that's a new one. What, like Hong Kong? I can't think of many minarchies these days, or examples of minarchist hellholes. "The Minarchists are taking over the government and doing nothing with it! Oh the humanity!"

Quote

You could vote for the Green Party who hates the war ondrugs, the other war, pollution, and is fairly solidly pro-rights.  Without the recurring ties with racists or "if someone is molested by their employer, they have the right to find a different job if they don't want to put up with it- otherwise they're partially to blame!" abhorrence.

Well, first and foremost, American third parties have literally no relevance. Besides that, the Greens are very much collectivist and, in my (limited, at least, to non-Americans) are rather unpleasant people with the idea that if only the evil corporations were stopped the world would be nicer.

Quote

I think this deserves repeating.  Even if he isn't racist, he writes and supports legislation that will massively harm black people.  Even if he isn't homophobic, he writes and supports legislation that will massively harm homosexual people.  And that's before getting into his horrible economic ideas, and that his possible one USP to end the war on drugs would definitely not work since almost noone inside or outside of his party supports it.

Yes, he massively hurts black people by opposing the war on drugs (which is responsible for an overwhelming number of black imprisonments) and opposing the foreign adventures (which is responsible for an overwhelming number of black deaths, not counting those of foreigners who Americans don't seem to give a damn about). He massively hurts homosexuals, yet his largest donator (of almost a million dollars, actually) is actually gay himself. Go figure.

Quote

So there's your better showing for Paul, GreatJustice. Still doesn't change the fact that Romney is going to wax the floor with everyone else in this state, which is unsurprising. The state has some Big Money and a hefty number of Mormons. Might bode slightly better for Paul's chances to continue if he at least takes 3rd place.

I'll get to it later, but its worth mentioning that the polls of the caucus states were remarkably unreliable. Go check the RCP average, but I'll put it up tomorrow if you want. Nevada was a prime example:

-It showed Paul with 7% in 3rd/4th, he came 2nd with 14%

-It showed Romney barely ahead by 5%, he won by something like 20-30%

-It showed Huckabee and McCain as serious competitors when they actually lost to Paul

etc etc. Maybe the pollsters have found a better way to poll Nevada, but I find it unlikely. I guess we'll find out, eh?

Quote

The Bureau of LaborStatistics  released it's monthly report and said that the economy added 243,000 jobs last month.  Also the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to %.2 to %8.3 (seasonally adjusted means that they account for the Christmas boom and post Christmas bust).  Another 1.2 million workers left the workforce so they no longer count as unemployed (due to the end of the Christmas boom and the weak economy presumably).

This is being hailed in the economy nerd circles of the internet as being "real" good news instead of just "meh" good news like we've had in the past.  The economy needs to add about 100k jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth.  But the economy outpaced that by a fairly substantial clip and did so without being attributed to the usual cyclical noise of inventory bounces or seasonal adjustment.  Also interesting is that the BLS revised it's two previous monthly estimates upward (they issue revisions on the previous two months every report) in keeping with it's yearlong trend of revising upward it's pessimistic initial estimates.  Unless something comes along to knock us off trend, this year is going to be where it starts feeling like a real recovery.

This is election related because if things keep going at this pace then things look good for the left.  Obama's reelection odds will pick up and the democrats even have a shot at retaking the house.  If the trend keeps improving like this then Obama would probably be a shoe in.  In that case we might even see the Democrats hang onto the Senate despite having so many seats to defend.  Elections aren't just determined by the economy but the economy is probably the GOP's only shot this election.  What else do they have?  Foreign policy against the administration that nabbed Osama and ended the wars?  Beat a dead horse over culture war?

Oh my. This deserves a long talk, but I think its worth mentioning that a "robust recovery" and "strong economy" have been pumped ever since 2001 with Krugman advocating the creation of a housing bubble to boost spending. The economy's fundamentals are terrible: a very large amount of money has been printed (digitally, mind), but it sitting in banks because they aren't willing to lend yet; Europe, Japan, and China are all rapidly running into problems; foreign oil is threatened by a war in the Gulf, etc etc

Again, if you want I can go into this more but I'm a bit rushed presently.

---- STUFF HERE ----

I'd get to it, but again, I'm rushed. Sorry! Get to it in a later post tomorrow if I can :(

Quote

Regardless, in terms of realistic outcomes, we should probably talk about who actually has a probable chance of snagging the Republican nomination.  The current field is so staticy with both Newt and Romney thrashing each other (and themselves) that it's hard to tell who exactly is pulling ahead in a general sense.

Its going to be Romney, guaranteed. It was basically always likely to be him. He has the money and is "next in line". He'll be nominated, and if there is a God the economy won't crash until Obama is nominated a second time because Romney presiding over the inevitable crash would be infinitely worse than Obama doing the same.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 03, 2012, 08:08:07 pm

I'm British and I haven't followed American politics since the Bush Jr. days so i'm a little out of the loop.

Romney seems to be a rich, corrupt, elitist, mormon with extremely right wing social views.
So a perfect Republican candidate?

I get that hes a Republican, but why does he appear soo popular?
Obama won the previous election and he is essentially a socialist in comparison. How can the merican people jump from what is essentially a socialist into a religious right wing nutbag.
I don't get you guys.

All I can see in opposition Gingrich has nothing at all to offer. Someone told me he promised to put a moon base inplace within his term, despite the current state of affairs at NASA.
That is moronically insane, if that is in fact what he said. For that alone I wouldn't vote for him.



Santorum I dont know about, and Ron Paul is for the Anarchist who live in fairyland where unregulated capitalism actually works.


My point is, at least when Bush Jr. came along he had some good policies such as his education ones. I wouldn't have voted for him, but he did have some good policies.
At least before he became president and totally flipped the fk out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 08:31:15 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:58:59 pm

Oh my. This deserves a long talk, but I think its worth mentioning that a "robust recovery" and "strong economy" have been pumped ever since 2001 with Krugman advocating the creation of a housing bubble to boost spending. The economy's fundamentals are terrible: a very large amount of money has been printed (digitally, mind), but it sitting in banks because they aren't willing to lend yet; Europe, Japan, and China are all rapidly running into problems; foreign oil is threatened by a war in the Gulf, etc etc

You and I apparently live in entirely different universes.
Krugman in fact warned about a housing bubble as it was forming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html
And you are taking him massively out of context when he deliberately said that the Fed should not create a housing bubble:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?pagewanted=1

And then you engage in the typical behavior of anyone who wants to attack the mainstream: throw a bunch of scary stuff against the wall without explanation and count on some of it to stick because people have genuinely no clue what you are saying.

The irony of the fact that you would portray Krugman's statements as being the diametric opposite of what they were yet claim that your chosen candidate is lied about and maligned isn't lost on me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 03, 2012, 08:33:46 pm

Greatjustice:
1: DOMA also forbids the federal government from providing marriage benefits to its employees, serving or retired veterans, for tax and all other purposes, etc, even if they are legally married in a state that allows same sex marriages.

Section motherfucking 3:

Quote

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

2: The source for Ron Paul's legislative attempt to repeal the supreme courts ability to rule state laws unconstitutional? Its the god damn WE THE PEOPLE act that i have linked on page 5 of this thread. http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2011/09/1949/

I'll leave the rest to others to dismantle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 03, 2012, 09:19:59 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:58:59 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:42:09 am

Like how your constitution explicitly says it should be? You also ignore that there are any number of things that prevent state governments from going too far, most of which don't do a damn thing when your federal government oversteps its boundaries.

Quote

Er, Ron Paul wants to dismantle the things that "prevent state governments from going too far". Actively. I've named one.

The constitution and the right to vote? The first restrains the state governments in a way that the federal government is good at ignoring (if the likes of SOPA, ACTA and the PATRIOT act among others are anything to go by), and the second limits it further to being responsible to those it controls. Frankly, if the result of state governments having more power than the federal government was state governments engaging in clownery, then I find it unlikely that the average American will somehow make the federal government much better.

Quote

Also: Ron Paul wants to override anything the constitution says about state law (regarding certain subjects). Let me put it this way: The only way the constitutionality of legislation can be maintained is through the courts stepping in and saying when something isn't constitutional. Ron Paul wants to remove that protection.

Source, please.

I already gave you the source for all of this. It's the "We the People Act". Could you at least try here?

Quote

Really? Then why don't you attack him on his issues or his actual problems, rather than digging up extremely suspect "evidence" and primarily sticking to attacking him personally?

I have. You ignore it, and continue to ask for "sources" that I've already given.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on February 03, 2012, 10:05:10 pm

It would be so nice if we could directly elect executive cabinet members, that way you could vote for the treasury head based upon his monetary policy, state based on foreign policy, AG based on crime stance...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 12:14:44 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 03, 2012, 08:31:15 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 03, 2012, 07:58:59 pm

Oh my. This deserves a long talk, but I think its worth mentioning that a "robust recovery" and "strong economy" have been pumped ever since 2001 with Krugman advocating the creation of a housing bubble to boost spending. The economy's fundamentals are terrible: a very large amount of money has been printed (digitally, mind), but it sitting in banks because they aren't willing to lend yet; Europe, Japan, and China are all rapidly running into problems; foreign oil is threatened by a war in the Gulf, etc etc

You and I apparently live in entirely different universes.
Krugman in fact warned about a housing bubble as it was forming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html
And you are taking him massively out of context when he deliberately said that the Fed should not create a housing bubble:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?pagewanted=1

And then you engage in the typical behavior of anyone who wants to attack the mainstream: throw a bunch of scary stuff against the wall without explanation and count on some of it to stick because people have genuinely no clue what you are saying.

The irony of the fact that you would portray Krugman's statements as being the diametric opposite of what they were yet claim that your chosen candidate is lied about and maligned isn't lost on me.

On the contrary, if you actually read the article, Krugman follows up the "create a housing bubble statement" with:

Quote

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

That isn't "Ha ha, what an idiot, trying to create a bubble", that's "He thinks he can, but he's not succeeding".

Krugman has a very long list of stupid things said, which is ironic since he talks about outside of his columns regarding free trade, etc are actually not that bad. Anyhow, here's a small list of him advocating things that led to the crash:

http://www.pkarchive.org/global/welt.html
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/5201.html
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML082201.html

Fun quotes (Please don't insist that Krugman has a long history of drily supporting the creation of bubbles and providing arguments in the favour ironically, these aren't out of context as the sources show):

Quote

“KRUGMAN: I think frankly it’s got to be — business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she — or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?

KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don’t know”

Quote

“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”

Quote

Quote

“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.

In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”

Quote

Greatjustice:
1: DOMA also forbids the federal government from providing marriage benefits to its employees, serving or retired veterans, for tax and all other purposes, etc, even if they are legally married in a state that allows same sex marriages.

Section motherfucking 3:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/ron-paul-homophobic_b_1171695.html

Ahem:

Quote

While Ron Paul stated that he supports DOMA, DOMA is a complex law. Evidencing DOMA's complexity is the pro-queer legal community's general strategy of attacking DOMA Section 3, not DOMA's entirety.

Because I could find nothing in which Paul specifically addressed DOMA Section 3 rather than DOMA in its entirety (including legislative history, as Paul wasn't a member of Congress during the DOMA vote), I requested comment from the Paul campaign on short notice. I did not receive a response prior to submitting this piece. (I'll include an update should I receive a response.)

My guess is that if specifically asked regarding support for DOMA Section 3, Paul would answer no. My further suspicion is that since he supports most of DOMA, Paul can justify saying that he supports DOMA, enabling him to pander to the party primary base.

Even if Paul supports DOMA entirely, President Clinton signed all of DOMA into law, despite being hailed as possibly having "courted the gay vote" more than any other prior candidate. President Clinton's campaign messages didn't equate with his "voting" as president.

So (A) One particular part is a problem but the rest isn't, making it justifiable to a point (I recall Paul saying he objected to small details of the CRAs, but still would have supported them with reservations due to the rest being fine) and (B) If you're going to lambast Paul for it, you're going to have to lambast the senate, the house, and President Clinton as being equally racist/homophobic/etc. If you are willing to admit that Clinton is a racist and homophobe and should be called out for it, then I'll give up right here and now. Otherwise, you're using double standards and shame on you.

Quote

2: The source for Ron Paul's legislative attempt to repeal the supreme courts ability to rule state laws unconstitutional? Its the god damn WE THE PEOPLE act that i have linked on page 5 of this thread. http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2011/09/1949/

Which limits the courts by link to the tenth amendment, not literally striking down all of their power (seeing as how that is probably the biggest thing they do, that would be more or less the same as simple abolition of the courts).

It also limits them in a handful of specified ways, not "THE COURTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INTERVENE". Most of them (privacy, etc) are things that are already covered by constitutional limits (the 4th, the 5th, etc etc) that the federal government (thanks to the SC might I add) is far more willing to bend. Even the "establishment of a religion" clause isn't especially powerful; again, the constitution overrides state laws, so either it would literally be an altogether symbolic thing or it would be unconstitutional under the first amendment, among others. Next.

Quote

I already gave you the source for all of this. It's the "We the People Act". Could you at least try here?

Finished, see above. The constitution overrides state laws, and this doesn't change that in the slightest (it doesn't even damage the power of the SC in any major terms).

Quote

I have. You ignore it, and continue to ask for "sources" that I've already given.

I make an effort to find every statement and cover it in some regard. If I haven't, its probably because I haven't seen it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 04, 2012, 12:38:32 am

Section 3 of DOMA is attacked because it is the worst part of the law, because it directly interferes in the rights and privileges of gay people and removes from states the ability to fully recognize these liberties.

You need to explain how you come to that conclusion about the We the people act, because its actual text does exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.

It completely prohibits the court from ruling on the constitutionality of those laws and directly removes the only method to challenge the constitutionality of those laws. If the laws are unconstitutional, this law removes the ability for those laws to be struck down. It is extremely explicitly clear that the sole purpose if this law is to allow states to pass unconstitutional laws without recourse for contest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 04, 2012, 01:54:56 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 12:14:44 am

It also limits them in a handful of specified ways, not "THE COURTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INTERVENE". Most of them (privacy, etc) are things that are already covered by constitutional limits (the 4th, the 5th, etc etc) that the federal government (thanks to the SC might I add) is far more willing to bend. Even the "establishment of a religion" clause isn't especially powerful; again, the constitution overrides state laws, so either it would literally be an altogether symbolic thing or it would be unconstitutional under the first amendment, among others. Next.

It doesn't matter if a law is unconstitutional if the courts can't rule on it. The We the People Act explicitly denies federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from ruling on laws concerning those issues, meaning if a state wants a law that is flagrantly unconstitutional, it can get away with enforcing it. What part of this don't you understand? Yes, the constitution overrides state law, but that doesn't make a damn bit of different if nobody can actually enforce the constitution. Literally the only way for the constitution to override state law is for court to rule that those laws violate the constitution, and Ron Paul's legislation explicitly denies them that ability. I'm sorry if I'm being combative here, but it's like you're being obtuse for no reason about this.

This is not hard to understand. The Constitution overrides state law. This only makes a damn bit of difference if the courts can actually uphold the constitution. Ron Paul's legislation explicitly tells them they can't.

See: Anti-sodomy state laws prior to 2003. In 2003, they were struck down by SCOTUS. If SCOTUS couldn't or wouldn't have done that, as would be the case under Ron Paul's legislation, those laws would still be enforceable. Those federal courts are literally the only thing capable of telling the states that their unconstitutional laws cannot be enforced or maintained, and Ron Paul's legislation very, very, very explicitly tells them that they can't rule on the constitutionality of state law.

Basically, this is like if someone passed an ordinance saying "the justice department can no longer prosecute cases of fraud, nor can such cases be heard in civil court", and you replying by saying "but fraud is still a crime!". No, effectively it wouldn't be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 04, 2012, 03:09:07 am

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 03, 2012, 08:08:07 pm

Obama won the previous election and he is essentially a socialist in comparison. How can the merican people jump from what is essentially a socialist into a religious right wing nutbag.
I don't get you guys.

Bolded the relevant part here. Obama isn't really much of a socialist. If he were, I'd be trying to get him re-elected like crazy. The race is almost certainly going to be between a moderate Obama and a waffling-but-occasionally-arch-conservative Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 04, 2012, 04:08:25 am

Yeah, if you look at the rest of the world, obama is about as socalist as a dead cat.  In about 90% of democratic countries he would be firmly right wing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 04, 2012, 06:21:37 am

I think it's time for a Ron Paul thread. That argument is basically a derailment now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 04, 2012, 07:29:13 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 04, 2012, 03:09:07 am

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 03, 2012, 08:08:07 pm

Obama won the previous election and he is essentially a socialist in comparison. How can the merican people jump from what is essentially a socialist into a religious right wing nutbag.
I don't get you guys.

Bolded the relevant part here. Obama isn't really much of a socialist. If he were, I'd be trying to get him re-elected like crazy. The race is almost certainly going to be between a moderate Obama and a waffling-but-occasionally-arch-conservative Romney.

I meant in comparison to the competition, in the UK he would not be considered anything like a solocialist at all  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 04, 2012, 01:54:30 pm

To summarize the critique of Krugman:

One should never hope for an economic recovery because if the economy recovers it might go down again afterwards.

It would be cute that the Paulites have such a basic lack of a grasp of economics were it not so disturbing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 03:47:53 pm

Quote

It completely prohibits the court from ruling on the constitutionality of those laws and directly removes the only method to challenge the constitutionality of those laws. If the laws are unconstitutional, this law removes the ability for those laws to be struck down. It is extremely explicitly clear that the sole purpose if this law is to allow states to pass unconstitutional laws without recourse for contest.

Show me a state constitution that doesn't prevent a state government from instituting an official religion. That's hardly a realistic fear, and furthermore the SC, by definition, only has jurisdiction in federal matters, of which marriage, religion, and abortion are not. Were the states to actually violate the BoRs, then they would be prosecuted based on their actual violations, not on their perceived violations (in other words, abortion would be entirely left to the states, so a very liberal SC couldn't decree that Louisiana could be prosecuted for banning abortion and an arch-conservative SC couldn't prosecute Oregon for allowing abortion, but overstepping the boundaries by, say, preventing discussion of abortion would violate the 1st and would be an entirely different issue).

This bill is mostly for the purpose of preventing the SC from creating "rights" out of thin air on issues that the Federal government has little ground on. Abortion, for example, isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution, so by the 10th it goes to the states. If the federal govt wants to cover it, it has to pass a constitutional amendment to go with it (and good luck with passing an amendment on abortion).

Quote

It doesn't matter if a law is unconstitutional if the courts can't rule on it. The We the People Act explicitly denies federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from ruling on laws concerning those issues, meaning if a state wants a law that is flagrantly unconstitutional, it can get away with enforcing it. What part of this don't you understand? Yes, the constitution overrides state law, but that doesn't make a damn bit of different if nobody can actually enforce the constitution. Literally the only way for the constitution to override state law is for court to rule that those laws violate the constitution, and Ron Paul's legislation explicitly denies them that ability. I'm sorry if I'm being combative here, but it's like you're being obtuse for no reason about this.

See above. If they ARE violating the constitution, then whether it is related to abortion, marriage, etc is irrelevant since the reasons for prosecution come down to the actual unconstitutional actions, rather than the issues themselves that are left to the states under the 10th. It doesn't prevent the courts from prosecuting 1st amendment violations, it prevents them from prosecuting states for perceived violations of SC-created rights (be it life or abortion). If the states actually did something unconstitutional relating to the issues, the issues themselves wouldn't be the problem so much as the unconstitutional action (and no, no amount of SC claims will somehow add abortion to the list of federally decided issues, it takes an amendment for that).

Quote

See: Anti-sodomy state laws prior to 2003. In 2003, they were struck down by SCOTUS. If SCOTUS couldn't or wouldn't have done that, as would be the case under Ron Paul's legislation, those laws would still be enforceable. Those federal courts are literally the only thing capable of telling the states that their unconstitutional laws cannot be enforced or maintained, and Ron Paul's legislation very, very, very explicitly tells them that they can't rule on the constitutionality of state law.

It has four narrowly defined areas in which the SC has its power limited, and all of which are distinctly unmentioned in the constitution (marriage and privacy). Anti-sodomy laws are indeed stupid, but nominally aren't under federal jurisdiction as there isn't any federally granted right to privacy. There should be, but then it should be passed through congress as allowing the SC to unilaterally create rights is a very slippery slope that could just as easily go in the other direction. Again, if something is prosecutable directly under the BoRs, then the underlying issue (marriage, abortion, etc) is irrelevant to the actual violation.

Quote

To summarize the critique of Krugman:

One should never hope for an economic recovery because if the economy recovers it might go down again afterwards.

It would be cute that the Paulites have such a basic lack of a grasp of economics were it not so disturbing.

It would be cute that the Keynesians have such a lack of basic economic knowledge were it not so disturbing.

Krugman was hoping for a recovery, and he characterized a "recovery" by the grounds of the recreation of an economic bubble.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 04, 2012, 03:49:54 pm

Alright, that's enough.

All of you take the definition of Ron Paul out of my thread.  Yes, it's about a Presidential candidate, but I'm tired of watching people shout themselves hoarse at walls.  You can do it all you want somewhere where I'm not responsible for breaking you up.


Alright, dammit, there's a part of that argument I can't ignore.

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 03:47:53 pm

This bill is mostly for the purpose of preventing the SC from creating "rights" out of thin air on issues that the Federal government has little ground on. Abortion, for example, isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution, so by the 10th it goes to the states. If the federal govt wants to cover it, it has to pass a constitutional amendment to go with it (and good luck with passing an amendment on abortion).

You parenthetically provided the exact reason why a lot of people would consider it a good thing for the Supreme Court to "create rights out of thin air".  You're right, the Constitution does not mention any Federal power over abortion.  So what did the Supreme Court say?  That the Federal government therefore cannot wholesale restrict access to abortion without an amendment, and by the extension power of the 14th amendment (which does exist whether you like it or not), neither can states.

In the history of the Supreme Court, whether for good or ill, when presented with a question of whether a "right" exists they have almost always erred on the side of saying it does until proven otherwise, by further discovery or by an amendment.  In this way, it basically keeps both the Federal government and the states from making up on their own what counts as "Constitutional" or not without actually changing the Constitution, a process which as your example points out, can take decades.

It's a position that holds that it's better that a right be assumed to exist until it's legitimately restricted, rather than saying a right does not exist until enumerated.  And I would think minarchists would appreciate that position.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 04:28:42 pm

Quote

You parenthetically provided the exact reason why a lot of people would consider it a good thing for the Supreme Court to "create rights out of thin air".  You're right, the Constitution does not mention any Federal power over abortion.  So what did the Supreme Court say?  That the Federal government therefore cannot wholesale restrict access to abortion without an amendment, and by the extension power of the 14th amendment (which does exist whether you like it or not), neither can states.

In the history of the Supreme Court, whether for good or ill, when presented with a question of whether a "right" exists they have almost always erred on the side of saying it does until proven otherwise, by further discovery or by an amendment.  In this way, it basically keeps both the Federal government and the states from making up on their own what counts as "Constitutional" or not without actually changing the Constitution, a process which as your example points out, can take decades.

It's a position that holds that it's better that a right be assumed to exist until it's legitimately restricted, rather than saying a right does not exist until enumerated.  And I would think minarchists would appreciate that position.

Slippery slope. The Supreme Court is unelected, and thus isn't bound by many of the same restrictions that the legislative and executive branches are. Those two are bound to have to act slowly and are replaced if they do something silly, with the same applying to their statewide counterparts. The SC is far less accountable, and by all means can change far more things than they are intended to. Once the door is opened on the SC unilaterally making laws, it can just as easily make terrible laws and seriously overstep its boundaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 04, 2012, 04:35:03 pm

Nevada primer. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-g-o-p-landscape-in-nevada/)

Quote

The Republican nominating train is in new terrain: the West. Saturday’s caucus in Nevada will unfold against mountains and deserts, a far different backdrop from the first four states.

But do not be fooled by the scenery. Where elections are concerned, Nevada is an urbanized state. Most Nevadans live in cities, and that holds true for Republicans and for Republican caucusgoers. In the state’s 2008 Republican caucus, exit polls found just over half of voters were from urban communities, and another quarter was from the suburbs.

Quote

The dire economy may help explain the fractured support of Nevada’s Tea Party, which has been one of the more active Tea Party groups in the country, but cannot seem to agree on a standard-bearer in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum won the endorsement of Sharron Angle, a senatorial candidate backed by the Tea Party, but it might be too little too late. A poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found Tea Party support was split, with 37 percent going to Newt Gingrich, 27 percent to Mr. Romney and 20 to Mr. Santorum.

Another important voting bloc, as has been widely noted, are Mormons. Twenty-six percent of 2008 Republican caucusgoers were Mormon, and Mr. Romney won 95 percent of their votes. Mr. Paul, however, has been trying to make inroads into that support. His focus on the Constitution is a natural fit for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which considers the document to be divinely inspired. And Mormonism has a history of conflict with the federal government.

In 2008, there was also a substantial share of caucusgoers — 8 percent — who were Hispanic. While a majority of Florida’s Hispanics are of Cuban descent, Nevada’s Hispanics are mostly of Mexican origin. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Paul have reportedly courted this group’s support more than Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum.

Should make for some interesting reading. And viewing if anyone lets Sharron Angle near a TV camera.

538 vote projections. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-nevada-caucus-look-for-romney-to-win-and-paul-to-outperform/)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6817819039_40684f8d6a_b.jpg)
On the less factual side of things there have been some polls and rumours that make for fun speculation. One poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) shows Santorum beating Obama in the general (lol). Now this is a Rasmussen poll and they have had horrible problems in the past, and this seems to mostly be people remaining mostly ignorant about Santorum given his (very) brief time in the spotlight, but for a few days it makes him the most electable candidate. He might be able to ride that out of a bad beat in Nevada.

Meanwhile Newt is holding a press conference (http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gingrich-to-hold-post-caucus-press-conference-20120204) immediately after the results come in. Not a speech, a press conference. Some have take this to mean he might drop out.

Combine these two and you have a fantasy situation where Newt throws his weight behind Santorum and the two run hard against Romney. At least one punter got some money down on a Santorum presidency today. (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/02/04/suddenly-the-buzz-is-for-santorum/) I'd have taken the 140/1 as a value bet, but 66/1 sounds a bit generous to Santorums general electability. That said, today I'd take those as the odds for him getting the Republican nod.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 04, 2012, 04:37:17 pm

@ GreatJustice and Aqizzar:

(face removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 04, 2012, 04:40:54 pm

Yeah, if only to keep that from showing up again, I'm certainly not continuing the argument here.  I figured that'd be my last chance to make a point about the Supreme Court I felt had to be made (my thread and all) so I did.  At this point, I couldn't care less about anything having to do with Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 06:39:34 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 04, 2012, 04:35:03 pm

Nevada primer. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-g-o-p-landscape-in-nevada/)

Quote

The Republican nominating train is in new terrain: the West. Saturday’s caucus in Nevada will unfold against mountains and deserts, a far different backdrop from the first four states.

But do not be fooled by the scenery. Where elections are concerned, Nevada is an urbanized state. Most Nevadans live in cities, and that holds true for Republicans and for Republican caucusgoers. In the state’s 2008 Republican caucus, exit polls found just over half of voters were from urban communities, and another quarter was from the suburbs.

Quote

The dire economy may help explain the fractured support of Nevada’s Tea Party, which has been one of the more active Tea Party groups in the country, but cannot seem to agree on a standard-bearer in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum won the endorsement of Sharron Angle, a senatorial candidate backed by the Tea Party, but it might be too little too late. A poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found Tea Party support was split, with 37 percent going to Newt Gingrich, 27 percent to Mr. Romney and 20 to Mr. Santorum.

Another important voting bloc, as has been widely noted, are Mormons. Twenty-six percent of 2008 Republican caucusgoers were Mormon, and Mr. Romney won 95 percent of their votes. Mr. Paul, however, has been trying to make inroads into that support. His focus on the Constitution is a natural fit for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which considers the document to be divinely inspired. And Mormonism has a history of conflict with the federal government.

In 2008, there was also a substantial share of caucusgoers — 8 percent — who were Hispanic. While a majority of Florida’s Hispanics are of Cuban descent, Nevada’s Hispanics are mostly of Mexican origin. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Paul have reportedly courted this group’s support more than Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum.

Should make for some interesting reading. And viewing if anyone lets Sharron Angle near a TV camera.

538 vote projections. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-nevada-caucus-look-for-romney-to-win-and-paul-to-outperform/)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6817819039_40684f8d6a_b.jpg)
On the less factual side of things there have been some polls and rumours that make for fun speculation. One poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) shows Santorum beating Obama in the general (lol). Now this is a Rasmussen poll and they have had horrible problems in the past, and this seems to mostly be people remaining mostly ignorant about Santorum given his (very) brief time in the spotlight, but for a few days it makes him the most electable candidate. He might be able to ride that out of a bad beat in Nevada.

Meanwhile Newt is holding a press conference (http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gingrich-to-hold-post-caucus-press-conference-20120204) immediately after the results come in. Not a speech, a press conference. Some have take this to mean he might drop out.

Combine these two and you have a fantasy situation where Newt throws his weight behind Santorum and the two run hard against Romney. At least one punter got some money down on a Santorum presidency today. (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/02/04/suddenly-the-buzz-is-for-santorum/) I'd have taken the 140/1 as a value bet, but 66/1 sounds a bit generous to Santorums general electability. That said, today I'd take those as the odds for him getting the Republican nod.

Doubtful. Romney is going to win the nomination easily barring something incredible.

The upcoming caucuses are all very much states that Santorum will get crushed in, barring Missouri and maybe Minnesota. His strongest states are rust belt states, and those are basically sealed in favour of Romney.

He isn't even on the ballot in a lot of states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 04, 2012, 06:47:02 pm

That picture makes Gingrich look a bit like Derek Jacobi's Master.

Only more fodder for my "Republicans are aliens out to destroy the world"-theory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 04, 2012, 07:09:22 pm

A Santorum presidency would be the best thing for humor and satire since George W(hat do you mean there's no such word as misunderestimating?) Bush.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 04, 2012, 07:18:31 pm

The Santorum scenario (soggiest spy thriller ever...) is extremely doubtful but entertaining to speculate about. My play scenario for causing the most damage to the Republican field;

All four candidates stay in but Santorum manages a minor bump thanks to recent polls and disgust with the top two pushing them towards him, putting him securely ahead of Paul but still behind Gingrich. Gingrich and Romney continue to beat each other down, suppressing their support and pushing their combined share down somewhat compared to the two trailers. Gingrich drops out shortly before Super Tuesday and endorses Santorum, giving him enough of a bump for the combined pair to be fairly successful before anyone takes a second look or thinks and they slump again. Come the convention the combined pair have enough delegates to deny Romney an outright win and can turn a contested convention into a slugging match.

Of course, this news suggests it's not happening. (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/us/politics/gingrich-patron-adelson-said-to-be-open-to-aiding-romney.html)

Quote

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino executive keeping Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes alive, has relayed assurances to Mitt Romney that he will provide even more generous support to his candidacy if he becomes the Republican nominee, several associates said in interviews here.

Adelson is the money man behind Newt's savaging of Romney. This makes me think he sees the end of the line for Newt and is laying the ground work to try to pull the party together. I'm really hoping Newt doesn't see things the same way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 04, 2012, 07:28:13 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 04, 2012, 07:09:22 pm

A Santorum presidency would be the best thing for humor and satire since George W(hat do you mean there's no such word as misunderestimating?) Bush.

Herman Cain would have been much better. For humor, I mean.

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 03:47:53 pm

Show me a state constitution that doesn't prevent a state government from instituting an official religion.

There are state constitutions that have establishment of religion in them. See: Texas. It's incredibly foolish to assume that state laws/constitution would protect all of everyone's (federal) constitutional rights, because they do not and it is trivially provable that many do the exact opposite. Texas' state constitution, for example, bars people who don't believe in God from even holding public office.

Quote

That's hardly a realistic fear, and furthermore the SC, by definition, only has jurisdiction in federal matters, of which marriage, religion, and abortion are not. Were the states to actually violate the BoRs, then they would be prosecuted based on their actual violations, not on their perceived violations

This doesn't make any sense. Establishment of Religion is a federal matter. It's in the fucking first amendment. A state law that violates the establishment clause would very much be an "actual violation" and under Ron Paul's law, the SCOTUS wouldn't be able to rule on it. I don't know why you use the term "prosecute" because it doesn't really apply, but there you go.

Quote

This bill is mostly for the purpose of preventing the SC from creating "rights" out of thin air on issues that the Federal government has little ground on.

Right, like that pesky "establishment clause" those activist judges are talking about. How is that not a right that actually exists?

Quote

It doesn't prevent the courts from prosecuting 1st amendment violations, it prevents them from prosecuting states for perceived violations of SC-created rights (be it life or abortion).

Do you really, really, really think that the first fucking amendment right to freedom of religion, and the establishment clause, is an "SC-created right"? Seriously? That isn't something the Supreme Court made up. I'm sorry.


You've obviously shown yourself to be incapable of doing basic research or even arguing in good faith. It's not worth arguing with you if you can't be remotely rational, so I won't be replying to you anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Toady One on February 04, 2012, 07:54:12 pm

I know you've established a kind of "show large face instead of posting" culture in here, but it's getting reporty, so please try to keep it under control.  I removed/edited a few posts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 04, 2012, 07:56:22 pm

Sorry about that  :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 04, 2012, 08:05:21 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 06:39:34 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 04, 2012, 04:35:03 pm

Nevada primer. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-g-o-p-landscape-in-nevada/)

Quote

The Republican nominating train is in new terrain: the West. Saturday’s caucus in Nevada will unfold against mountains and deserts, a far different backdrop from the first four states.

But do not be fooled by the scenery. Where elections are concerned, Nevada is an urbanized state. Most Nevadans live in cities, and that holds true for Republicans and for Republican caucusgoers. In the state’s 2008 Republican caucus, exit polls found just over half of voters were from urban communities, and another quarter was from the suburbs.

Quote

The dire economy may help explain the fractured support of Nevada’s Tea Party, which has been one of the more active Tea Party groups in the country, but cannot seem to agree on a standard-bearer in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum won the endorsement of Sharron Angle, a senatorial candidate backed by the Tea Party, but it might be too little too late. A poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found Tea Party support was split, with 37 percent going to Newt Gingrich, 27 percent to Mr. Romney and 20 to Mr. Santorum.

Another important voting bloc, as has been widely noted, are Mormons. Twenty-six percent of 2008 Republican caucusgoers were Mormon, and Mr. Romney won 95 percent of their votes. Mr. Paul, however, has been trying to make inroads into that support. His focus on the Constitution is a natural fit for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which considers the document to be divinely inspired. And Mormonism has a history of conflict with the federal government.

In 2008, there was also a substantial share of caucusgoers — 8 percent — who were Hispanic. While a majority of Florida’s Hispanics are of Cuban descent, Nevada’s Hispanics are mostly of Mexican origin. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Paul have reportedly courted this group’s support more than Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum.

Should make for some interesting reading. And viewing if anyone lets Sharron Angle near a TV camera.

538 vote projections. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-nevada-caucus-look-for-romney-to-win-and-paul-to-outperform/)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6817819039_40684f8d6a_b.jpg)
On the less factual side of things there have been some polls and rumours that make for fun speculation. One poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) shows Santorum beating Obama in the general (lol). Now this is a Rasmussen poll and they have had horrible problems in the past, and this seems to mostly be people remaining mostly ignorant about Santorum given his (very) brief time in the spotlight, but for a few days it makes him the most electable candidate. He might be able to ride that out of a bad beat in Nevada.

Meanwhile Newt is holding a press conference (http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gingrich-to-hold-post-caucus-press-conference-20120204) immediately after the results come in. Not a speech, a press conference. Some have take this to mean he might drop out.

Combine these two and you have a fantasy situation where Newt throws his weight behind Santorum and the two run hard against Romney. At least one punter got some money down on a Santorum presidency today. (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/02/04/suddenly-the-buzz-is-for-santorum/) I'd have taken the 140/1 as a value bet, but 66/1 sounds a bit generous to Santorums general electability. That said, today I'd take those as the odds for him getting the Republican nod.

Doubtful. Romney is going to win the nomination easily barring something incredible.

The upcoming caucuses are all very much states that Santorum will get crushed in, barring Missouri and maybe Minnesota. His strongest states are rust belt states, and those are basically sealed in favour of Romney.

He isn't even on the ballot in a lot of states.

Wha? He's a Republican candidate. At last check, he was on the ballot in every state (at least so far). Also, I think Santorum would have a natural constituency in the South, especially if Gingrich dips out. I agree that Romney probably has this in the bag, but the rest of your post is just flat what.


Also, palsch is the man. Gots mad love for anybody else who follows all this primarily for the game itself rather than the outcome. I worry about what it'd all mean AFTER it's over. During the race, I'm just into the race.


EDIT: Oh yeah, the results. Romney 0wnzors in Nevada. Looking like 50%+ at this point, Gingrich in the low 20s, Paul in the mid-high teens, and Santorum picking up the trash.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 04, 2012, 08:12:00 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2012, 08:05:21 pm

Also, palsch is the man. Gots mad love for anybody else who follows all this primarily for the game itself rather than the outcome. I worry about what it'd all mean AFTER it's over. During the race, I'm just into the race.

Usually I care about the outcome. 2008 I wanted McCain in the GOP primaries (I honestly respected the guy) and Obama in the Dems because I thought the outcome mattered.

This year the primaries don't matter to me one jot. I don't like any of the Republican candidates. The one I think would make the least disastrous president is pretty much guaranteed the win. I'd rather Obama retains the presidency no matter what happens in the primary (and if I vote it will be for him) so my only real concern is seeing Romney (or whoever) win ugly and come out of this damaged goods. So I call for bloodsport and the GOP obliges.

Being able to watch it all from the other side of the pond probably helps.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 04, 2012, 09:05:27 pm

Yeah, I was for McCain in the 2008 primary too. I felt bad for the guy after what happened in 2000. I don't feel so bad after 2008. Which brings up a point we haven't considered yet: who would Romney draft for VP? It's tough to get a real boost out of a good VP pick, but I think Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle showed us that a bad one can kill a candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 05, 2012, 01:58:20 am

I don't think Sarah Palin killed McCain's chances, if anything it hypercharged the based.  For all the wrong reasons, obviously.  Of course, if there's some stats out there I'm not aware of, feel free to show 'em.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 05, 2012, 02:45:27 am

Instead of focusing on castigating people, let's try to find some 3rd party candidates that seem cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Alexander  A friend told me about this guy, and he seems pretty solid.  While I haven't had time to activate my mind palace and determine much about him, he doesn't seem to have any overt failings.  People might also see his visual similarity to Lando Carlissian as a major plus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 05, 2012, 02:59:16 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 05, 2012, 01:58:20 am

I don't think Sarah Palin killed McCain's chances, if anything it hypercharged the based.  For all the wrong reasons, obviously.  Of course, if there's some stats out there I'm not aware of, feel free to show 'em.

Palin repulsed and alienated independants and moderates, who would have probably otherwise voted for McCain, who is a centrist republican and oddly enough ran his campaign to that effect. Palin being the borderline retarded Arch-Conservative  that she is compelled independants to vote Democrat or not vote at all.

It is afterall, the independants and moderates that determine the outcomes of elections, it's never about the base for republicans or democrats.

That said, I still voted for McCain in 2008, with the hopes that he'd have her sent away in exile to Site-R or otherwise marginalized once elected. Although I pretty much voted for him because I liked McCain since 2000 though and I wish he'd won the 2000 Primaries and possibly could have avoided Dubbya's reign of incompetance. After Bush and looking at this latest batch of Republicans, I think I'm just not going to vote ever again if it keeps up like this. Just going to boycott democracy untill somebody competant has a chance of winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 05, 2012, 03:05:52 am

If people like you boycott it then the idiots will just keep electing idiots.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 05, 2012, 03:07:38 am

Yeah, as I argued earlier in the thread, opting out of a system and waiting for it to change is just inviting things to get worse.  Imagine if everyone who was dissatisfied simply waited for things to change rather than taking action?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 05, 2012, 03:10:23 am

Quote from: Montague on February 05, 2012, 02:59:16 am

After Bush and looking at this latest batch of Republicans, I think I'm just not going to vote ever again if it keeps up like this. Just going to boycott democracy untill somebody competant has a chance of winning.

I don't even think it's a lack of competency; generally speaking, they know what they're doing. The saddest thing to realize here is that the current batch of Republican candidates does, at least to some significant degree, represent their party and those who belong to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 05, 2012, 07:03:54 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 05, 2012, 03:07:38 am

Yeah, as I argued earlier in the thread, opting out of a system and waiting for it to change is just inviting things to get worse.  Imagine if everyone who was dissatisfied simply waited for things to change rather than taking action?

Agree. It's usually the conscientious and intelligent individuals who decide to ops out after being frustrated with the lack of intelligence that gets elected.
Then the idiots still vote because they want a lower tax on beer or whatever, some reactionary issue. Then it gets worse when some right wing idiot gets elected because all the real people were disillusioned from voting.

Not voting is never the answer, it only makes it worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 10:37:47 am

Quote

Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2012, 08:05:21 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 04, 2012, 06:39:34 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 04, 2012, 04:35:03 pm

Nevada primer. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-g-o-p-landscape-in-nevada/)

Quote

The Republican nominating train is in new terrain: the West. Saturday’s caucus in Nevada will unfold against mountains and deserts, a far different backdrop from the first four states.

But do not be fooled by the scenery. Where elections are concerned, Nevada is an urbanized state. Most Nevadans live in cities, and that holds true for Republicans and for Republican caucusgoers. In the state’s 2008 Republican caucus, exit polls found just over half of voters were from urban communities, and another quarter was from the suburbs.

Quote

The dire economy may help explain the fractured support of Nevada’s Tea Party, which has been one of the more active Tea Party groups in the country, but cannot seem to agree on a standard-bearer in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum won the endorsement of Sharron Angle, a senatorial candidate backed by the Tea Party, but it might be too little too late. A poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found Tea Party support was split, with 37 percent going to Newt Gingrich, 27 percent to Mr. Romney and 20 to Mr. Santorum.

Another important voting bloc, as has been widely noted, are Mormons. Twenty-six percent of 2008 Republican caucusgoers were Mormon, and Mr. Romney won 95 percent of their votes. Mr. Paul, however, has been trying to make inroads into that support. His focus on the Constitution is a natural fit for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which considers the document to be divinely inspired. And Mormonism has a history of conflict with the federal government.

In 2008, there was also a substantial share of caucusgoers — 8 percent — who were Hispanic. While a majority of Florida’s Hispanics are of Cuban descent, Nevada’s Hispanics are mostly of Mexican origin. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Paul have reportedly courted this group’s support more than Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum.

Should make for some interesting reading. And viewing if anyone lets Sharron Angle near a TV camera.

538 vote projections. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/the-nevada-caucus-look-for-romney-to-win-and-paul-to-outperform/)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6817819039_40684f8d6a_b.jpg)
On the less factual side of things there have been some polls and rumours that make for fun speculation. One poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) shows Santorum beating Obama in the general (lol). Now this is a Rasmussen poll and they have had horrible problems in the past, and this seems to mostly be people remaining mostly ignorant about Santorum given his (very) brief time in the spotlight, but for a few days it makes him the most electable candidate. He might be able to ride that out of a bad beat in Nevada.

Meanwhile Newt is holding a press conference (http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gingrich-to-hold-post-caucus-press-conference-20120204) immediately after the results come in. Not a speech, a press conference. Some have take this to mean he might drop out.

Combine these two and you have a fantasy situation where Newt throws his weight behind Santorum and the two run hard against Romney. At least one punter got some money down on a Santorum presidency today. (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/02/04/suddenly-the-buzz-is-for-santorum/) I'd have taken the 140/1 as a value bet, but 66/1 sounds a bit generous to Santorums general electability. That said, today I'd take those as the odds for him getting the Republican nod.

Doubtful. Romney is going to win the nomination easily barring something incredible.

The upcoming caucuses are all very much states that Santorum will get crushed in, barring Missouri and maybe Minnesota. His strongest states are rust belt states, and those are basically sealed in favour of Romney.

He isn't even on the ballot in a lot of states.

Wha? He's a Republican candidate. At last check, he was on the ballot in every state (at least so far). Also, I think Santorum would have a natural constituency in the South, especially if Gingrich dips out. I agree that Romney probably has this in the bag, but the rest of your post is just flat what.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the results. Romney 0wnzors in Nevada. Looking like 50%+ at this point, Gingrich in the low 20s, Paul in the mid-high teens, and Santorum picking up the trash.

Uh, yeah, Santorum isn't on the ballot in a bunch of states because you have to "register" in each individual state. These states include:

Virginia
Tennessee
Rhode Island
and possibly more that I can't remember.

I find it highly unlikely Santorum will be surging anywhere without being on the ballot.

Anyhow, on my last check, the upcoming states are:

-Maine, a state even less friendly than New Hampshire where he came 10% in
-Colorado, a safe Romney state
-Minnesota, a state that has its evangelicals but has even more non-religious sorts who would go either Romney or Paul
-Missouri, Santorum's best chance at winning something, but sufficiently southern that his chance at actually winning the state depends more on what Gingrich does than his own merit.

Seeing as how elections rely upon momentum, I don't think a flurry of unfriendly states followed by a bunch of states you literally get no votes from will benefit him in the slightest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on February 05, 2012, 10:56:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 10:37:47 am

-snip-

Uh, yeah, Santorum isn't on the ballot in a bunch of states because you have to "register" in each individual state. These states include:

Virginia
Tennessee
Rhode Island
and possibly more that I can't remember.

I find it highly unlikely Santorum will be surging anywhere without being on the ballot.

He's not on the ballot in Tennessee?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Funk on February 05, 2012, 11:02:44 am

there are two types of individuals that dont vote, fool that dont know care or know who is runing and fools that care but know who is runing.

dont you have any sane middle of the road, lest just fix our shit up type.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 05, 2012, 11:03:50 am

No we don't. Or at least none that has any chance of getting elected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 05, 2012, 11:05:47 am

Everyone avoids voting third party because "it's throwing your vote away" so no one votes third party.  Regardless of if you think you have a chance to get a third party member elected president, local support can go a long way in getting third partiers elected at more local levels, which can be just as important.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 05, 2012, 11:13:09 am

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on February 05, 2012, 11:03:50 am

No we don't. Or at least none that has any chance of getting elected.

They don't have a chance of getting elected because people don't think they have a chance of being elected.

You should vote on who you think is best, not who you think is going to win. Anything else is stupid, not to mention against the whole spirit of democracy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 11:42:49 am

Quote from: PyroDesu on February 05, 2012, 10:56:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 10:37:47 am

-snip-

Uh, yeah, Santorum isn't on the ballot in a bunch of states because you have to "register" in each individual state. These states include:

Virginia
Tennessee
Rhode Island
and possibly more that I can't remember.

I find it highly unlikely Santorum will be surging anywhere without being on the ballot.

He's not on the ballot in Tennessee?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/30/bachmann-santorum-have-no-delegates-on-tennessee-primary-ballot/

So strictly speaking he is, but he has no delegates

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on February 05, 2012, 11:50:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2012, 09:05:27 pm

Yeah, I was for McCain in the 2008 primary too. I felt bad for the guy after what happened in 2000. I don't feel so bad after 2008. Which brings up a point we haven't considered yet: who would Romney draft for VP? It's tough to get a real boost out of a good VP pick, but I think Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle showed us that a bad one can kill a candidate.

My esteemed governor, Brian Sandoval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sandoval#Governor_of_Nevada) seems to have been governing the last two years in way that will make him the best choice for VP, namely by doing nothing to try and fix the state. He's free from any personal scandals, can say he's never raised taxes, and plus he's Hispanic, and I'd bet the Republicans would like to have some diversity in the ticket.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 05, 2012, 12:17:09 pm

Quote from: Karlito on February 05, 2012, 11:50:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2012, 09:05:27 pm

Yeah, I was for McCain in the 2008 primary too. I felt bad for the guy after what happened in 2000. I don't feel so bad after 2008. Which brings up a point we haven't considered yet: who would Romney draft for VP? It's tough to get a real boost out of a good VP pick, but I think Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle showed us that a bad one can kill a candidate.

and plus he's Hispanic, and I'd bet the Republicans would like to have some diversity in the ticket.

 :P you Americans, still playing the race card in politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on February 05, 2012, 01:02:41 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 05, 2012, 12:17:09 pm

Quote from: Karlito on February 05, 2012, 11:50:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 04, 2012, 09:05:27 pm

Yeah, I was for McCain in the 2008 primary too. I felt bad for the guy after what happened in 2000. I don't feel so bad after 2008. Which brings up a point we haven't considered yet: who would Romney draft for VP? It's tough to get a real boost out of a good VP pick, but I think Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle showed us that a bad one can kill a candidate.

and plus he's Hispanic, and I'd bet the Republicans would like to have some diversity in the ticket.

:P you Americans, still playing the race card in politics.

We play the gender card sometimes too. Nothings off the table.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on February 05, 2012, 01:43:20 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 11:42:49 am

Quote from: PyroDesu on February 05, 2012, 10:56:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 10:37:47 am

-snip-

Uh, yeah, Santorum isn't on the ballot in a bunch of states because you have to "register" in each individual state. These states include:

Virginia
Tennessee
Rhode Island
and possibly more that I can't remember.

I find it highly unlikely Santorum will be surging anywhere without being on the ballot.

He's not on the ballot in Tennessee?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/30/bachmann-santorum-have-no-delegates-on-tennessee-primary-ballot/

So strictly speaking he is, but he has no delegates

Nice we don't have him or Bachmann, but we have no delegates for Buddy Roemer?

Probably won't end up mattering too much in the long run, though. Tennessee has never been much of a swing state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 05, 2012, 01:48:05 pm

When you have a flood of attack ads every two years (for the House), four years (President), and six years (Senate), things get a little heated. 2012 is one of those years where the stars align and there will be election campaigns for all three. My Washington Voter's Pamphlet will be more than 100 pages, I am sure. (What with all the stuff on the ballot for Washington this year along with all the descriptors of every candidate and issue.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 05, 2012, 02:26:00 pm

Actually, doesn't that happen every 4 years, what with 1/3 of Senators being elected every 2 years in a staggered arrangement that spreads them out across the whole thing? Minor nitpick, but yeah. Gonna be a big pamphlet, more accurately described as a small book.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 03:54:49 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on February 05, 2012, 01:43:20 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 11:42:49 am

Quote from: PyroDesu on February 05, 2012, 10:56:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on February 05, 2012, 10:37:47 am

-snip-

Uh, yeah, Santorum isn't on the ballot in a bunch of states because you have to "register" in each individual state. These states include:

Virginia
Tennessee
Rhode Island
and possibly more that I can't remember.

I find it highly unlikely Santorum will be surging anywhere without being on the ballot.

He's not on the ballot in Tennessee?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/30/bachmann-santorum-have-no-delegates-on-tennessee-primary-ballot/

So strictly speaking he is, but he has no delegates

Nice we don't have him or Bachmann, but we have no delegates for Buddy Roemer?

Probably won't end up mattering too much in the long run, though. Tennessee has never been much of a swing state.

It's the thought that counts, and its the sort of state that Santorum would have to win were he in a position to beat Romney.

Anyhow, I know there are other states Santorum is either not on the ballot for or doesn't have enough delegates. I think he wasn't able to get on the Indiana and Arizona ballots either, but don't quote me on that. If you want, I can go check for ballot access.

But frankly, Santorum isn't a serious threat to Romney. Gingrich had a casino mogul backing him and a resounding win in the state that's said to always determine the Republican victor; Santorum had an extremely lacklustre victory in a state he practically lived in for the past year, followed by getting crushed in the next state and performing so-so in the next two. If the current Nevada/Clark County results are anything to go by, he's going to end up with 10% or less in Nevada, and the next states aren't exactly Santorum friendly (again, barring Missouri and possibly Minnesota).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on February 05, 2012, 07:32:56 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 05, 2012, 02:26:00 pm

Actually, doesn't that happen every 4 years, what with 1/3 of Senators being elected every 2 years in a staggered arrangement that spreads them out across the whole thing? Minor nitpick, but yeah. Gonna be a big pamphlet, more accurately described as a small book.

Every 4 years, House and Presidential elections line up. But, Senate elections fall mid-term half of the time, being every 6 years. It's only every 12 years that Senate and House/Presidential elections land on the same year.

House:     2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012
President: 2000,       2004,       2008,       2012
Senate:    2000,             2006,             2012

(I used Courier so that the text would line up in nice columns)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 05, 2012, 08:09:52 pm

Okay, but no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term). They are, in fact, staggered. Only 33 seats are up this year. Each Senator serves 6 years, but 1/3 of them are elected every 2. I admit, I did have to look it up to be sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 05, 2012, 08:13:06 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 05, 2012, 08:09:52 pm

Okay, but no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term). They are, in fact, staggered. Only 33 seats are up this year. Each Senator serves 6 years, but 1/3 of them are elected every 2. I admit, I did have to look it up to be sure.

This. This was (for obvious reasons) a good idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on February 05, 2012, 09:15:44 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 05, 2012, 08:09:52 pm

Okay, but no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term). They are, in fact, staggered. Only 33 seats are up this year. Each Senator serves 6 years, but 1/3 of them are elected every 2. I admit, I did have to look it up to be sure.

Oh wow, I somehow failed to take that into account. They are indeed staggered, so every 4 years, House, Senate, and Presidential elections occur. I apologize, my brain seems to have turned off after watching campaign ads.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 05, 2012, 09:52:09 pm

Quote from: Mego on February 05, 2012, 09:15:44 pm

my brain seems to have turned off after watching campaign ads.

That's entirely reasonable. That seems to be their intended function, after all. No worries!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 05, 2012, 09:55:52 pm

Superbowl final scores are in.

Nevada final results aren't.

Just saying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 05, 2012, 10:01:31 pm

America knows where its priorities are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 05, 2012, 10:55:09 pm

Football games have clear rules to determine the winner, a process to review decisions swiftly and clear documentation of any contestable events as well as a governing body to review to results of their rules and officials.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 06, 2012, 12:36:35 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 05, 2012, 10:55:09 pm

Football games have clear rules to determine the winner, a process to review decisions swiftly and clear documentation of any contestable events as well as a governing body to review to results of their rules and officials.

If only we had a similar system implemented in our elections, with mandatory voting..

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 06, 2012, 12:39:51 am

First bit, maybe. I've never really been entirely sure about the mandatory voting thing. Better to teach better early on so folks will vote (and vote well informed) of their own volition. Mandatory voting doesn't mandate actually knowing what the hell you're voting on :-\

I'm not even sure how you'd enforce that bit, actually. Some sort of pre-vote quiz with a small fine for failure?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 06, 2012, 01:12:57 am

Quote from: Frumple on February 06, 2012, 12:39:51 am

I'm not even sure how you'd enforce that bit, actually. Some sort of pre-vote quiz with a small fine for failure?

Yes, it would definitely be best if we stripped the undereducated of their right to vote. (note: sarcasm, in case it isn't clear)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 06, 2012, 01:27:02 am

Well, we already do in a lot of cases. Many felons, for one. Folks that can't afford to get to the voting booths or understand (/afford to do) distance voting. People that don't know how to find out when the voting occurs. Etc., so forth. And honestly, at least in the states, a small pre-vote quiz would probably knock a lot of well educated people out of voting eligibility, too; strictly partisan voters who know nothing of the opposition or who they're voting for, ferex.

Though I was only ruminating on how to enforce informed voting in a mandatory vote system. There would probably be options for those who can't read (Verbal questioning), and possibly the option to only be questioned (and allowed to vote on) specific areas for those unable to educate themselves on the full spectrum of voting issues.

I'unno, I just can't help but see a mandatory voting system degenerating to the degree that everyone that's not voting now doing the voting equivalent of "Just answer C on everything." That wouldn't help the democratic process at all. There'd either need to be some kind of check for basic understanding or very strong social pressures toward informed voting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 01:34:25 am

We could always a) get our politicians to take clear stances on things, b) compile those stances into an easy to read, colorful brochure, and c) then mail them en masse to houses.

Okay, yeah, a) will never happen, but a man can dream, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 06, 2012, 01:41:14 am

It's a beautiful dream, MZ. Gave me this momentary vision of politicians not only having to have clear stances, but also having a logic style proof of their reasoning behind it, with a minimum number of sources and peer review for logic inconsistencies. I'd love to be able to see something like that, a clear cut premise->conclusion by way of the laws of logic manifesto* alongside plain language descriptions of the position.

Never going to happen, but damn, it'd be beautiful.

*E: I'm suddenly curious if someone's ever done something like that to a press release or whatev'. Would probably be hilariously pitiful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 02:00:23 am

We should make it a law that all politicians must have actual beliefs or non-beliefs or apathy or whatever about the positions they're taking, and that they have to be honest about them. Then again, getting all of the politicians to be honest would take a lot of facepunching. I'm pretty sure I don't want to wear my arms down to nubs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 06, 2012, 02:04:12 am

Could re-purpose those rail-road spike driving machines for facepunching. Put a boxing glove or something at the end of a spike.

Or just hire people on rotation for the facepunching. It'd probably take long enough and involve such volume of facial fisticuffs that we'd be able to employ at least a couple thousand people.

And hey! Job creation. Who knew :P

Though we'd need a population of dishonest politicians to keep people employed, I guess. Kinda' like the private prison stuff, just with, uh. Politicians. Or something. We'll go with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 06, 2012, 03:22:01 am

Quote from: Frumple on February 06, 2012, 01:27:02 am

Well, we already do in a lot of cases. Many felons, for one. Folks that can't afford to get to the voting booths or understand (/afford to do) distance voting. People that don't know how to find out when the voting occurs. Etc., so forth. And honestly, at least in the states, a small pre-vote quiz would probably knock a lot of well educated people out of voting eligibility, too; strictly partisan voters who know nothing of the opposition or who they're voting for, ferex.

If they know nothing of the opposition or who they're voting for, then in this context they're hardly "well-educated" even if they are in a more general sense.

Also: Those examples you listed are unfortunate aspects and limitations of the system. The system is generally designed to be as accessible as possible, which is why long-distance voting is even a thing.

Quote

I'unno, I just can't help but see a mandatory voting system degenerating to the degree that everyone that's not voting now doing the voting equivalent of "Just answer C on everything." That wouldn't help the democratic process at all. There'd either need to be some kind of check for basic understanding or very strong social pressures toward informed voting.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of mandatory voting at all. However, I'm even less a fan of limiting people's right to vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 06, 2012, 03:35:15 am

I don't know, because a reasonable person might assert an opinion untill somebody explains why they are wrong or they otherwise question the validity of their opinion. It's why politicians like to flip-flop on issues and why they tend to behave more moderate and compromise more once they are actually elected. I think the US system is designed to do that, with everyone reaching a reasoned compromise or only agreeing on nessicary actions, while shooting down each other's more ideological or extreme legislation. Is basically why the system is actually sort of broken right now, with parties refusing to cooperate on anything.

So really, an uncompromising, completely consistant politician is only a good thing if they happen to be exactly correct with every stance they take or otherwise that politician will be ineffective, because everything he does will just be countered by the opposition and he'll just spend his term trying to shoot down everyone else's ideas. Sort of how I imagine Ron Paul to do if he was president. He'd sit there and veto everything that reached his desk and congress would kill everything else.

Also, mandatory voting is probably a bad idea. Mandatory education for voting would be to controversial, since people would claim it would be biased to one party or another and maybe it discriminates against dumb people or something.

I'd just make the polls open on Saturday, or make it a national holiday on a friday. More people would vote if they had the time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 06, 2012, 07:34:11 am

"None of the above"

Before discussing limitations of a system in the abstract sense, it's a good idea to look at the international experience and figure out if someone figured out the answer to your problem a century before you were born.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 09:06:13 am

Quote from: Montague on February 06, 2012, 03:35:15 am

I don't know, because a reasonable person might assert an opinion untill somebody explains why they are wrong or they otherwise question the validity of their opinion. It's why politicians like to flip-flop on issues and why they tend to behave more moderate and compromise more once they are actually elected. I think the US system is designed to do that, with everyone reaching a reasoned compromise or only agreeing on nessicary actions, while shooting down each other's more ideological or extreme legislation. Is basically why the system is actually sort of broken right now, with parties refusing to cooperate on anything.

So really, an uncompromising, completely consistant politician is only a good thing if they happen to be exactly correct with every stance they take or otherwise that politician will be ineffective, because everything he does will just be countered by the opposition and he'll just spend his term trying to shoot down everyone else's ideas. Sort of how I imagine Ron Paul to do if he was president. He'd sit there and veto everything that reached his desk and congress would kill everything else.

The thing about politicians, at least here in the states, is that the vast majority are doing nothing more than pandering to the public to get votes. They don't have more than a couple consistent values apiece, and even those are subject to change at essentially random and with no explanation. There is no, "So, someone explained this whole 'womens rights' thing to me, and I understand it a little more clearly now. I'm changing my stance on abortion because of it." No, they just say one thing in one place if it's popular, another in the next place to grab votes there, and go back and forth like a reciprocal saw. This country needs leaders, not people with ethics straight out of a Groucho Marx quote: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." The reason that I'm for political leaders actually adhering to this is that yes, the politics of this country are, at this time, built entirely on compromise. However, you have to have a reasonably solid starting place before you can come to any reasonable compromise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ed boy on February 06, 2012, 09:09:05 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 01:34:25 am

We could always a) get our politicians to take clear stances on things, b) compile those stances into an easy to read, colorful brochure, and c) then mail them en masse to houses.

Quote from: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 02:00:23 am

We should make it a law that all politicians must have actual beliefs or non-beliefs or apathy or whatever about the positions they're taking, and that they have to be honest about them.

That would require lots of candidates to present a simplified version of their beliefs, and would result in pretty much everyone being misrepresented in many ways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 09:16:57 am

These are people who give hours upon hours of speeches. Why would they have to give anything but full disclosure? Also, we live in an age of ridiculously easy information gathering. We could put up a website with a shitload of links to youtube with each speech attached to each article. Sure, some people may go off the handbook alone, but you could always asterisk stances that may require more explanation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 06, 2012, 09:33:07 am

This sounds like an idea to achieve parliamentary results but in a roundabout, unreliable fashion.  If you want to vote for a slate of positions then why not vote directly for a slate of positions with a parliamentary system?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 06, 2012, 10:21:58 am

The thing is, the american system isn't supposed to be an never was supposed to be about "issues" - it's always supposed to have been about finding the smartest, most capable guy for the job (of passing good laws and representing our regional interests).

Much as I like that ideal, we don't seem to be particularly good at achieving it. Bah, partisanship... Start with "solutions" and then expend all your effort looking for justifications as to why you were right all along. It's retarded as all hell.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 06, 2012, 10:55:32 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 06, 2012, 10:21:58 am

The thing is, the american system isn't supposed to be an never was supposed to be about "issues"

But it doesn't work that way so it's really past time we updated our voting processes to reflect that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 06, 2012, 03:38:45 pm

I officially need to take a break from politics.

I woke up this morning having a lucid dream about hosting a cable "news" show, being lumbered with moderating a couple talking heads bashing/praising Obama, while I played with an interactive map of the Keystone Pipeline.  Interestingly enough, the pro-Obama person was a bit more ethnic (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chiss) than usual.  Then it turned into The Boondocks.

Anyway.

I was busy all weekend, and didn't even notice the Nevada primary came and went.  Apparently nobody here did either.  I hear they had some crazy counting fuckup and took like two days to produce an official result, but that's nothing new.  The more interesting point might be that Romney won with an exact 50.1% majority, but still actually counted something like fifteen thousand less votes than he did four years ago, in an election that saw 20% less turnout (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/05/nevada-caucuses-suffer-low-turnout-surly-confrontations/) altogether.  That sounds significant to me.

I'll get around to updating the OP sooner or later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 06, 2012, 04:26:22 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 06, 2012, 03:38:45 pm

I officially need to take a break from politics.

I woke up this morning having a lucid dream about hosting a cable "news" show, being lumbered with moderating a couple talking heads bashing/praising Obama, while I played with an interactive map of the Keystone Pipeline.  Interestingly enough, the pro-Obama person was a bit more ethnic (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chiss) than usual.  Then it turned into The Boondocks.

Anyway.

I was busy all weekend, and didn't even notice the Nevada primary came and went.  Apparently nobody here did either.  I hear they had some crazy counting fuckup and took like two days to produce an official result, but that's nothing new.  The more interesting point might be that Romney won with an exact 50.1% majority, but still actually counted something like fifteen thousand less votes than he did four years ago, in an election that saw 20% less turnout (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/05/nevada-caucuses-suffer-low-turnout-surly-confrontations/) altogether.  That sounds significant to me.

I'll get around to updating the OP sooner or later.

It was absolutely silly. They took well over 24 hours to finish the count, had to recount three times, there were shenanigans regarding the counting, and its looking like a state-wide recount is inbound because of problems in Washoe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 09:09:37 pm

Aqizzar, that means you need MOAR POLITICS. Get two tvs going at once, one on MSNBC and the other on FOX News, and report the hallucinations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 06, 2012, 09:41:22 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 09:09:37 pm

Aqizzar, that means you need MOAR POLITICS. Get two tvs going at once, one on MSNBC and the other on FOX News, and report the hallucinations.

When the people on one TV start yelling at the people on the other, then you MIGHT have had too much politics.

When a politician makes sense then you should go sleep for 48 hours, eat a large meal of pasta and then return.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 06, 2012, 09:52:05 pm

These days I just have dreams of living in a libertopia where I check the stock market each morning to make sure that the elemental components making up my body haven't went up in price enough to make the murder and sale of my corpse incentivized enough to make calling in sick the best rational-actor decision.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: LostCosmonaut on February 06, 2012, 10:44:15 pm

I vaguely recall seeing somewhere that, at current prices, the component elements of your body are worth about $14.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on February 06, 2012, 10:56:07 pm

Yeah, but your body is worth a lot more than that. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus are all cheap, but even assembling them into the basic organic macromolecules is pretty expensive. Just a vial of insulin costs more than $14, for example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NobodyPro on February 06, 2012, 11:08:25 pm

Any news on ACTA? Do I have to hate Obama yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 06, 2012, 11:08:35 pm

Hell, there are about 5L of blood in an average person's body, and a couple of pints is worth ~$300 in Bulgaria, according to a cursory web search.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 06, 2012, 11:09:20 pm

Quote from: NobodyPro on February 06, 2012, 11:08:25 pm

Any news on ACTA? Do I have to hate Obama yet?

Are you serious?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 07, 2012, 12:05:19 pm

So the polls suggest Santorum should do well in the three polls today. (http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/02/07/final-polls-have-santorum-winning-2-of-todays-3-states/) He has 10%+ leads over Mitt in Missouri and Minnesota, and is second in Colorado based on PPP polls.

On the other hand, none of those polls will be binding. (http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/5118/framing-the-day-colorado-minnesota-missouri-and-california) It seems today there are party meetings to choose representatives to send to meetings where delegates will be chosen (potentially with another step between). There will also be non-binding straw/Presidential Preference polls.

At least when the Nevada votes were finally counted it meant something. Other than giving Santorum a boost these votes don't appear to mean much of anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 07, 2012, 02:48:55 pm

Took me a minute to realize you were using two different definitions of "polls" there, causing me to think the pollsters were actually doing polls about people's expectations of other polls. Yo dawg, I heard you like polls...

Speaking of polls, here's a variety of things to ponder:

Obama's approval rating in positive territory (48% approval vs. 47% disapproval) for the first time since July 2011.

Romney ahead in Colorado, Santorum ahead in Minnesota (where he's seen as the banner-carrier for Minnesota's favorite native nutcase, Michelle Bachmann). They're significant even though "non-binding". Pretty much EVERY caucus is non-binding, in theory. But it's extremely rare for delegates to go against the apportionment of votes determined by the popular election (whether winner-take-all or proportional).

Missouri is purely a beauty contest, because they'll be holding a closed party vote in March to actually determine their candidate picks.

Still, it's an important momentum shift if the results hold close to the poll numbers: Santorum is back in the race, Gingrich is sliding to third, and Paul is at the back of the pack. Minnesota in particular will be interesting to watch because while Santorum appears to have that one in hand, the race for 2nd-4th places is very tight. I had been expecting Santorum to potentially drop out after these races, but now that seems highly unlikely. Perhaps Ron Paul will finally fall on his sword instead, if he places fourth in all three races.

Looking forward, Romney appears to have a lock on Arizona and Michigan (both at the end of the month), but there's a lot of time in between for things to happen.

Also, a hypothetical Obama vs. Romney matchup is now polling 6 points in favor of Obama, whereas before it had been a virtual tie. At this point, *all* of the potential Republican challengers are polling -6 or worse against Obama. Combine that with the recent jobs report and the overall trend of economic data pointing in a good direction, and the GOP has got to be feeling sick in their stomach. If the economy is measurably on track to recovery, they lose their biggest weapon in the general election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 07, 2012, 03:23:47 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 07, 2012, 02:48:55 pm

Took me a minute to realize you were using two different definitions of "polls" there, causing me to think the pollsters were actually doing polls about people's expectations of other polls. Yo dawg, I heard you like polls...

Cursed English language...

Quote

They're significant even though "non-binding". Pretty much EVERY caucus is non-binding, in theory. But it's extremely rare for delegates to go against the apportionment of votes determined by the popular election (whether winner-take-all or proportional).

The problem here is how drastically the race could change, especially in the eyes of the Republican establishment, between the caucus and the delegates being assigned. In the two previous caucuses they have officially assigned delegates to candidates immediately. In this one you can't assign them like that until much later in the process. While they ought to go along with the caucus results they could make a very strong party case for, say, ignoring Santorum if he drops out between now and then, especially if there is a tight race between an establishment backed figure and a spoiler.

The usual saying is Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There isn't much sign of the latter this year (and arguably less of the former than 2008). If this stretches on too long the whips might start cracking. If they can avoid a messy convention fight in return for mildly annoying some caucus voters (assuming any of them pay attention or it even gets any coverage) then that might not be the worst trade off ever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: thegoatgod_pan on February 07, 2012, 04:20:52 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 07, 2012, 03:23:47 pm

The usual saying is Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There isn't much sign of the latter this year (and arguably less of the former than 2008). If this stretches on too long the whips might start cracking. If they can avoid a messy convention fight in return for mildly annoying some caucus voters (assuming any of them pay attention or it even gets any coverage) then that might not be the worst trade off ever.

I think the usual saying is troubled by the Super Pac money. So far the major consequence to the Super Pacs has been a kind of excess of vicious ads that the candidates seem to think they can forswear. Establishment republicans struggle to get their message across. Fox News plays the part of base organizer but badly (for once), since it cannot resist cannibalizing candidates for stories. The whole primary is as unreasonably brutal as Fox news commentary.

Republicans criticizing republicans is old news, but republicans criticizing republicans for being too rich, or too capitalist is just funny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 07, 2012, 05:05:40 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 07, 2012, 03:23:47 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 07, 2012, 02:48:55 pm

Took me a minute to realize you were using two different definitions of "polls" there, causing me to think the pollsters were actually doing polls about people's expectations of other polls. Yo dawg, I heard you like polls...

Cursed English language...

Quote

They're significant even though "non-binding". Pretty much EVERY caucus is non-binding, in theory. But it's extremely rare for delegates to go against the apportionment of votes determined by the popular election (whether winner-take-all or proportional).

The problem here is how drastically the race could change, especially in the eyes of the Republican establishment, between the caucus and the delegates being assigned. In the two previous caucuses they have officially assigned delegates to candidates immediately. In this one you can't assign them like that until much later in the process. While they ought to go along with the caucus results they could make a very strong party case for, say, ignoring Santorum if he drops out between now and then, especially if there is a tight race between an establishment backed figure and a spoiler.

The usual saying is Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There isn't much sign of the latter this year (and arguably less of the former than 2008). If this stretches on too long the whips might start cracking. If they can avoid a messy convention fight in return for mildly annoying some caucus voters (assuming any of them pay attention or it even gets any coverage) then that might not be the worst trade off ever.

Yeah, but given the current voter sentiment and popular disgust with "Washington" (i.e. the political establishment) in general, if the Republican nom comes down to bending some delegates to the will of the party elite instead of how the votes came down? They'd be signing their own death warrant in the general election (even though they're probably dead there anyways). Disenfranchising your own constituency, even if totally above-board and legal, is a recipe for a massive revolt within the ranks.

And FOX News has lost some of its ability to deliver elite cues because it's gone from being perceived as the "maverick" cable news station to being part of the establishment (and a track record of more or less supporting Romney hasn't helped in that regard). The real hellraisers in the party are ready to consign anything and everything that supports Mittens to the flames, to "burn the cancer out of the Republican Party". Of course, in so doing they'd leave a charred stump of a party that would never get above 40% support in a national election again. Far too many people are just not comfortable with a party that focuses mostly on God-and-Guns. My most fervent wish is that it goes down to the convention, which is a near-riot as Romney lacks enough delegates to win outright, and the other candidate camps band together to oppose him. Some shady backroom deals award a change of delegates to Romney and he gets the nomination with a taint. Those in the GOP that opposed him get so worked up about it (and the polls show Romney far enough out of reach that they're no real point to their holding their nose and voting for Mitt) that they tear the party in half and create a third party bid, and with it a permanent second major conservative party, thus keeping political power out of conservative hands for a generation. Eventually, the Democrats would overreach and hopefully tear themselves in two as well (a market-liberal centrist party and a true social liberal party), and then we'd actually have some real politics in this country. Four or five major parties would be a good thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 07, 2012, 07:44:25 pm

Four or five parties is simply not going to happen given the setup of american elections.  You don't even need to blame the "media" or "elites" or anyone else.  In a large-district, first past the post system it is not possible to have 4 or 5 major parties co-exist for an extended period.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2012, 07:50:06 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 07, 2012, 07:44:25 pm

first past the post system

So we fix that, ne? If the big boys did manage to tear themselves into pieces, we'd probably see a hell of a lot more support for a more proportional style or somethin'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 07, 2012, 07:53:49 pm

I think you guys might want to know about this (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html). Well played federal court of appeals, well played.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 07, 2012, 07:57:00 pm

There's a bit more on that over in th'progressive annoyance thread, heh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 07, 2012, 08:01:27 pm

Quote from: Frumple on February 07, 2012, 07:50:06 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 07, 2012, 07:44:25 pm

first past the post system

So we fix that, ne? If the big boys did manage to tear themselves into pieces, we'd probably see a hell of a lot more support for a more proportional style or somethin'.

I'd be all for it myself but I just don't see how it's going to happen.  It would take the most sweeping constitutional amendment since the 14th amendment.  And while proportional representation it does have natural constituencies (far left, far right) they both divided and kept out of power through the current rules.  I just don't see what storyline leads to proportional representation without something really game changing happening like a year-long government shutdown.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 07, 2012, 08:31:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 07, 2012, 07:44:25 pm

Four or five parties is simply not going to happen given the setup of american elections.  You don't even need to blame the "media" or "elites" or anyone else.  In a large-district, first past the post system it is not possible to have 4 or 5 major parties co-exist for an extended period.

No, but I could see a regional system evolving.

Fiscal conservative/social moderate-libertarian party (the old GOP) dominant in the Northeast and West Coast
Social conservative party in the South, Midwest and Mountain West
Centrist market liberal party in the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley/Rust Belt
Social liberal party in Pacific Coast and New York

I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying it's what I'd love to see.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 07, 2012, 08:36:56 pm

That never happened in the past and people were less polarized back then.  People's opinions on social issues tell you more about their issue on fiscal issues then it used to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 07, 2012, 09:00:55 pm

That's kinda the point. People are more polarized, and they're polarizing in a variety of directions.

The marriage of social conservatism and fiscal conservatism that Reagan brought about in 1980 has been long overdue for a divorce. Building an maintaing a theocracy and legislating heavy-handed morality comes with a pricetag. Vice versa, if all you care about is ensuring a free market and low taxes, that includes allowing things like the porn industry, the alcohol industry and gambling to flourish.

Look at the history of the Prohibition Party. They never elected a President or a Senator, but they did send at least one person to Congress, one Governor of Florida won as a Prohibitionist after losing the Democratic primary (then switched his allegiance back to Democrat), and they were enough of a force in the 1910s to affect national politics and get the 18th Amendment passed. They were social progressives (in the sense of actinng towards a change in the status quo for what they saw as the communal good), but distinct from the "progressive" party of the time, the Republican party. They worked in alliance with the Republican Party at times, but always stayed seperate from it and frequently ran their own candidates in state and Federal elections.

Or look at the 1912 election, when the Republican party basically split in half, and the breakaway half (Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party) actually fared better than the rump GOP left behind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 07, 2012, 09:47:35 pm

Actually, the Democratic-Republican party once split. The southern conservatives formed the Democratic party. The northern progressives formed the Republican party. (They flip-flopped atwixt the World Wars.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 07, 2012, 09:50:09 pm

To note, the Republican party didn't emerge until the Civil War, long after the Democratic-Republican split. The Republican Party came out of the split in the Whig party over slavery issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 07, 2012, 09:50:54 pm

You are going to have to kill the current system anyway to cut down on the corruption, adding in other major changes at the same time doesnt seem to be a huge stretch

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 12:30:44 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 07, 2012, 09:47:35 pm

Actually, the Democratic-Republican party once split. The southern conservatives formed the Democratic party. The northern progressives formed the Republican party. (They flip-flopped atwixt the World Wars.)

Yes, and this coincided with the death of the whig party.  There can only be two.

Quote from: RedKing on February 07, 2012, 09:00:55 pm

That's kinda the point. People are more polarized, and they're polarizing in a variety of directions.

No they really aren't.  Less then 10% of the electorate are real swing voters at this point.  A recent poll found that only 7% of the electorate are actually up for grabs.  People's opinions on social issues very strongly correlate with their opinions on fiscal issues and vice-versa.  Even our neighborhoods are becoming increasingly polarized as geography increasingly determines which of the two camps we fall into.

Under these conditions a third party isn't going to go far.  The L+ voters do better off electorally by supporting the L party.  The C+ does best supporting the C party.  The Ls and Cs occasionally throw the wings a bone.

Edit: this premise might be tested though, as it looks like Sanatorum just had a really good night in the 3 caucuses just held.  Maybe the C+ is splitting from the C.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 08, 2012, 12:33:23 am

Wait. There's an L party in the US now? That's news to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 12:45:06 am

Oh hey, election results!

AP has called Minnesota and Missouri (which, just to remind folks, is a totally meaningless popularity contest) for Santorum.

Minnesota (with 82% reporting)
Santorum: 45%
Paul: 27%
Romney: 17%
Gingrich: 11%

Missouri (with 99% reporting)
Santorum: 55%
Romney: 25%
Paul: 12%

Either Gingrich wasn't on the not-really-a-ballot, or he is damn unpopular.

Colorado is still too close to call (53% reporting)
Romney: 39%
Santorum: 35%
Gingrich: 13%
Paul: 13%


This is a surprise. Romney was expected to take Colorado rather handily. He's actually overperforming his poll numbers slightly, but Santorum is way outperforming his poll numbers (in all three states, really). Either his ground game has been much better than people realized, or he's benefitting indirectly from the Romney-Gingrich dustups, as people fall away from Romney but can't stomach Newt and are latching onto Santorum as their fallback option.

I don't see it happening, but if Gingrich were to drop out and endorse Santorum at this point...this could be a nightmare for Romney (and of course, Team Obama would be giddy as schoolchildren on a snow day if Santorum were to win the nomination).

EDIT: Also, props to Team Paul for outperforming in Minnesota. 2nd place finish means we will see no concession speeches from Dr. Paul tonight. And the relentless Bataan Death March to the nomination continues for all four candidates...

DOUBLE-EDIT: One reason that Colorado is still very much up for grabs is that Colorado Springs (home to Focus on the Family and the Air Force Academy, and extremely friendly to evangelical social conservatives) hasn't reported in yet at all. That could be a big chunk of votes for Santorum.


UPDATE: 70% reporting now, and Santorum is within 150 votes of Romney. And still no Colorado Springs. I'm gonna go ahead and say that Santorum makes a clean sweep of all three states. All the remaining counties to report in are rural (where Romney typically fares poorly) with the exception of Colorado Springs, which I think will go hard for Santorum. Losing Colorado is a bigtime embarassment for Team Romney, if I'm right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: thegoatgod_pan on February 08, 2012, 01:02:06 am

Santorum wins three states including my own, Colorado...hilarious. In the general election, Colorado Springs might vote him, but Boulder will not in a hundred million years, nor would Denver, nor would the libertarian hillfolk.

If Santorum keeps at it he will derail Romney's already low chances for good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 01:07:53 am

82% in, and Santorum is ahead by 599 votes. And STILL no Colorado Springs. It's gonna be a hat trick night, folks.

Looking ahead, if Santorum can keep the momentum up between now and Super Tuesday....dear Gott im Himmel, I think he's got a chance to win the whole thing. The states coming up on the slate in March are very favorable to Santorum and unfavorable to Romney. It's a lot of Deep South and Midwestern states, friendly to Bible-thumpers, not so friendly to rich urbanite Mormons. Gonna be a wild ride.


UPDATE: It's over. Santorum wins Colorado. Final tally:

Santorum: 40%
Romney: 35%
Gingrich: 13%
Paul: 12%

MAJOR bad night for Romney. Not so much in terms of the total delegate count, but for the questions it raises about Romney's support in flyover country, the heart of the Republican base. And, it's like a 1.21 gigawatt jolt in the arm for Rick Santorum's campaign, which is suddenly surging and positioning him back in the position of chief alternative to Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 08, 2012, 01:35:48 am

If Gingrich and Santorum teamed up, I think they could steal the nomination. I also think that people would be pouring out of the woodwork to vote Obama, just to prevent that nightmare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on February 08, 2012, 01:37:10 am

How many delegates where awarded tonight?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 08, 2012, 03:47:19 am

Quote from: Andrew425 on February 08, 2012, 01:37:10 am

How many delegates where awarded tonight?

0.

The elections were actually non-binding polls alongside party meetings choosing representatives who will later choose delegates. The polls tonight may (if the party reps so desire) inform their choice of delegates but officially they don't have to.

As for all the Santorum talk that strange scenario I posted was not supposed to be actually possible guys. My posts are meant to be random rants for pure amusement purposes. I'm getting scared here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 08:16:17 am

Quote from: palsch on February 08, 2012, 03:47:19 am

The elections were actually non-binding polls alongside party meetings choosing representatives who will later choose delegates. The polls tonight may (if the party reps so desire) inform their choice of delegates but officially they don't have to.

The races last night weren't purely for show.  Colorado and Minnesota were non-binding in theory but not in practice, sort of like how the electoral college doesn't have many defections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 08, 2012, 11:06:12 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 08, 2012, 01:35:48 am

If Gingrich and Santorum teamed up, I think they could steal the nomination. I also think that people would be pouring out of the woodwork to vote Obama, just to prevent that nightmare.

I fear you may be overestimating how many people find that to be a nightmare scenario.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 08, 2012, 11:12:48 am

Santorum gets in, how far do you think the guy responsible for that google thing needs to run to survive?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 08, 2012, 11:20:07 am

Edit: I was being too harsh

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 11:29:42 am

These are the republican caucus attending populations of these states.  They are no where near representative of the states as a whole.  Minnesota is in fact one of the most progressive states in the union, the only state in which the Farmer-Labor party survives to this day (as part of the democratic-farmer-labor coalition) and was the only state to vote democratic in every one of the last 9 presidential elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 08, 2012, 11:34:16 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 11:29:42 am

Minnesota is in fact one of the most progressive states in the union

Some parts of it certainly aren't. I've heard incredibly bad things about Bachmann's district, what with rabid anti-homosexual bias and, you know, that string of teen suicides they had, mostly gender/orientation-related.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 01:18:39 pm

Yeah, it ain't all Lake Woebegon. The urban areas trend left-of-center, and the population distribution is such that the cities tend to outweigh the countryside. But you never can tell. This is the state that elected Jesse Ventura as Governor, after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 08, 2012, 01:28:30 pm

Minnesota is in a odd place.

From our point of view, we are basically the last part of civilization until you get to the coast. We have a very large city and the surrounding suburbs are very nice. But once you drive out for a hour or so it turns into rural backwoods place. I dunno. I guess I am not surprised to much that Santorum won. But he has basically no chance of ever taking the state in a election. I know if he somehow makes it what Barbarossa describes will happen. People will spontaneously consolidate out of thin air to vote against him.

Followed by a eight year recount of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 02:04:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 01:18:39 pm

Yeah, it ain't all Lake Woebegon. The urban areas trend left-of-center, and the population distribution is such that the cities tend to outweigh the countryside.

This describes almost every state in the union.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 08, 2012, 02:17:23 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 02:04:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 01:18:39 pm

Yeah, it ain't all Lake Woebegon. The urban areas trend left-of-center, and the population distribution is such that the cities tend to outweigh the countryside.

This describes almost every state in the union.

It's slightly more complicated then that, it breaks down into outlooks of specific demographics better then rural vs urban, but yeah, basically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 02:22:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 02:04:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 01:18:39 pm

Yeah, it ain't all Lake Woebegon. The urban areas trend left-of-center, and the population distribution is such that the cities tend to outweigh the countryside.

This describes almost every state in the union.

Except Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alaska, and various other rural red states, where the countryside outweighs the relatively small urban population. The "swing" states are basically those where the cities either aren't all that blue, or the cities and countryside are roughly in balance electorally. Even my home state isn't that urban. What shifts things more blue (and made a big difference in 2008) is that the eastern 1/3 of the state, while rural, is also predominantly African-American. So you get a differential in party identification from what you'd expect based purely on a urban/rural ratio.

By contrast, almost 60% of Minnesota lives in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. That's unusually concentrated for a Midwestern state, and makes the state bluer overall, although it still leave plenty of room for deep red countryside.


EDIT: Montague's right, I should be saying "relative population density" instead of urban/rural. There's plenty of established research showing the link between population density and party identification.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 08, 2012, 02:27:23 pm

Go, go, go Santorum. Please win the nomination, thereby discrediting the batshit fundy part of your party for the next decade.


Argh. Why, why, why does somebody like I, an upstanding member of the Christian Far Left, have to be lumped in with him? *mutter mutter*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 08, 2012, 02:34:47 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 08, 2012, 02:27:23 pm

Go, go, go Santorum. Please win the nomination, thereby discrediting the batshit fundy part of your party for the next decade.


Argh. Why, why, why does somebody like I, an upstanding member of the Christian Far Left, have to be lumped in with him? *mutter mutter*

Disasterous presidencies never discredit anything. The True Believers will never be discouraged from doing the same thing the next possible chance they have. If their reign was a failure, it's because they're faith was'nt strong enough and they are obligated to try harder next time.

Also, 'Christian Far Left' has always made more sense to be then 'Christian Far Right'. How does capitalism have anything to do with Christianity or Christian values? Do people just skip over the red-lettered words in their Bibles or what?

(edited for blasphemy)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wayward Device on February 08, 2012, 02:50:12 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 08, 2012, 02:27:23 pm

Go, go, go Santorum. Please win the nomination, thereby discrediting the batshit fundy part of your party for the next decade.


Argh. Why, why, why does somebody like I, an upstanding member of the Christian Far Left, have to be lumped in with him? *mutter mutter*

May I request a new thread to discuss the views of the Christian Far Left? As a middle-of-the-road Liberal Radical, I would be interested in such a discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 08, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Not sure about this, but Christianity doesn't even really lend itself well as a political system. Nowhere in the Bible does it advocate a theocracy. It says to move to the hinterlands of nations and empires and render unto Caeser and all that. It's more like Quakers, Mennonites, Amish and monasteries. Withdrawal from nations and kings and governments, not seizing control over them.

So it really baffles me how Republicans can even really represent a coherant philosophy. Freedom and Theocracy? Capitalism and Interventionism? That isn't Christianity, it's not even logical, ffs.

Anyways, I imagine Christian Far-Left would work out to be something like Kibbutzim. Obviously, hippies and heathens need not apply.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 08, 2012, 04:09:56 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 08, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Not sure about this, but Christianity doesn't even really lend itself well as a political system. Nowhere in the Bible does it advocate a theocracy. It says to move to the hinterlands of nations and empires and render unto Caeser and all that. It's more like Quakers, Mennonites, Amish and monasteries. Withdrawal from nations and kings and governments, not seizing control over them.

That depends on what you specifically call "Christianity" really.  The teachings of Jesus don't exactly advocate nationalism or seizing political control (although he didn't exactly advocate non-intervention either, all that "And I will come with a sword" business).  The Old Testament though, for all Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies, does have quite a few politically motivated passages and notes on laws.  Deuteronomy especially is full of weirdly explicit rules on how an Abrahamic society is supposed to govern itself, along with the goofy grab bag from Leviticus and Exodus.  Essentially none of which, it should be noted, are reflected in the standing laws of any ostensibly "Christian" nation.

Quote from: Montague on February 08, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

So it really baffles me how Republicans can even really represent a coherant philosophy. Freedom and Theocracy? Capitalism and Interventionism? That isn't Christianity, it's not even logical, ffs.

It's not Christian per se, no.  It's hard to say that it explicitly violates it, more than any political power that claims to be guided by Christianity ever has.  Logical is a different matter.  It all makes perfect sense if you believe that a storybook interpretation of American history gives it a manifest right to impose whatever we're calling American Values this week on all people of the world.  It's all about definitions.


Anyway, I'll throw a note into the OP about the Rick Santorum rolling up three meaningless elections.  What's next, Maine?  Pfft.  I can't remember if their votes count either.  Then the Northern Marianas Islands, because territories (did you remember that America has territories?) don't count for the Electoral College but they do count for party nominations.  And then finally Arizona and Michigan a whopping 20 days from now.  And I think they're still part of the schedule of states penalized by the party for having their primaries before March.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 04:23:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 02:22:02 pm

Except Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alaska, and various other rural red states, where the countryside outweighs the relatively small urban population.

40% of Alaskans live in Anchorage town limits and 51% live in the Anchorage Metro area.
The 4 largest metro areas in Alabama (Birmingham-Hoover, Huntsville, Mobile, Montgomery) are more then half the state population all living in cities of at least 300k people.
The 5 metro areas of Mississippi are 45% of the state population but that percentage was lowered by hurricanes and should keep increasing
More then 2/3rds of Tennessee lives in 3 metro areas, all of which are more then a million people in population.

Very few states have small urban populations compared to their rural populations at this point.  People have been leaving the cities, but they have been going to the suburbs not the country.

Quote from: Montague on February 08, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Not sure about this, but Christianity doesn't even really lend itself well as a political system.

It really doesn't matter what a religion says about politics and violence and whatnot.  Buddhists aren't even supposed to kill in self defense but even Buddhists have engaged in holy wars at times.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 05:16:37 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 08, 2012, 04:23:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 08, 2012, 02:22:02 pm

Except Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alaska, and various other rural red states, where the countryside outweighs the relatively small urban population.

40% of Alaskans live in Anchorage town limits and 51% live in the Anchorage Metro area.
The 4 largest metro areas in Alabama (Birmingham-Hoover, Huntsville, Mobile, Montgomery) are more then half the state population all living in cities of at least 300k people.
The 5 metro areas of Mississippi are 45% of the state population but that percentage was lowered by hurricanes and should keep increasing
More then 2/3rds of Tennessee lives in 3 metro areas, all of which are more then a million people in population.

Very few states have small urban populations compared to their rural populations at this point.  People have been leaving the cities, but they have been going to the suburbs not the country.

Fair enough, I'll have to re-examine the statistics on that at some point.

Quote

Quote from: Montague on February 08, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Not sure about this, but Christianity doesn't even really lend itself well as a political system.

It really doesn't matter what a religion says about politics and violence and whatnot.  Buddhists aren't even supposed to kill in self defense but even Buddhists have engaged in holy wars at times.

Which Buddhists? There's as many flavors of Buddhism as there are of Christianity. And there are certain canonical texts which seem to imply that defensive war is acceptable. There is also a notion that intent is more important than action. In many Theravada traditions, if the killing is done without intent to kill, it is not karmically negative.

Okay, major derail there.

An interesting op-ed in the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-race_626425.html) points out that the "inevitable nominee" Romney has now lost 5 of 8 races. Meanwhile, Santorum--who was regarded as third-tier at best when the race started--leads all candidates with 4 wins. That Iowa reversal is looking like a bigger thing now.

Looking forward, the Santorum camp appears to be going all out for Michigan (probably thinking that Arizona is a lost cause, while Romney is more vulnerable in the Motor State) and hoping to get another win before Super Tuesday to keep his momentum high, while Gingrich is doubling down in Ohio hoping to pull out a Super Tuesday win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 08, 2012, 10:05:15 pm

Go Santorum!

I really mean it. He has a good shot of discrediting the wingnuts for a decade if he goes to the general election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on February 08, 2012, 10:16:16 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 08, 2012, 10:05:15 pm

Go Santorum!

I really mean it. He has a good shot of discrediting the wingnuts for a decade if he goes to the general election.

What if he wins and ushers in a new age of Arch-conservative darkness?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 08, 2012, 10:28:38 pm

I don't find the idea of him winning worrisome for some reason. Because I do not think it will happen.

If he does win though, we are... Well. Fucked. We are well and truly fucked, and perhaps the whole world is fucked if they don't smarten up and reject him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 08, 2012, 10:58:23 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on February 08, 2012, 10:28:38 pm

I don't find the idea of him winning worrisome for some reason. Because I do not think it will happen.

If he does win though, we are... Well. Fucked. We are well and truly fucked, and perhaps the whole world is fucked if they don't smarten up and reject him.

More fucked than 8 years of bush jr?   I mean, lets be honest, that was some serious legs behind the ears giant horsecock have neighbors call the police style deal

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 08, 2012, 11:04:57 pm

Well... That was a colorful metaphor...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 08, 2012, 11:22:56 pm

Now add bush's vacant grin into the mix, for bonus points, cheney and rummy too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on February 08, 2012, 11:34:08 pm

This metaphor confuses and infuriates me!

Wait, no. Just confuses.

What the hell are you talking about?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 08, 2012, 11:40:06 pm

Twas a grand 'totally fucked' metaphor, lack of punctuation meant to show the wholeness of the thing, with some side implications that a previous leader (and sidekicks) of the peoples of the USA may have been doing the screwing.  Carry on with your electioneering gentlemen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 08, 2012, 11:43:15 pm

Quote from: jester on February 08, 2012, 10:58:23 pm

More fucked than 8 years of bush jr?

Honestly? From what I have heard about him? Yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 09, 2012, 01:57:26 am

Quote from: Glowcat on February 08, 2012, 10:16:16 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 08, 2012, 10:05:15 pm

Go Santorum!

I really mean it. He has a good shot of discrediting the wingnuts for a decade if he goes to the general election.

What if he wins and ushers in a new age of Arch-conservative darkness?

Go go Liberal Crime Squad!

Yeah, if Santorum won, I'd be on the next boat to...anywhere. Considering the Holy Death Squads of the Lord's Inquisition would not take kindly to my kind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 02:01:55 am

I was about to ask "what kind?", but then I realised that pretty much anything other than straight White Protestant could fall under "kind".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 09, 2012, 02:06:54 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 02:01:55 am

I was about to ask "what kind?", but then I realised that pretty much anything other than straight White Protestant could fall under "kind".

Actually, it'd be broader than that (Santorum himself is Roman Catholic). But yeah, I fear non-Christian/non-Jews would rapidly become second-class citizens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 02:09:14 am

My bad, straight white Roman Catholics.

Wait a second...why would the far right fringe vote for Santorum? According to a number of ultra-fundamentalist Baptists and Protestants, Catholics are not Christians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 09, 2012, 02:12:39 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 02:09:14 am

Wait a second...why would the far right fringe vote for Santorum? According to a number of ultra-fundamentalist Baptists and Protestants, Catholics are not Christians.

There is a lot of historical anti-Catholic sentiment from fundamentalist Christians in the US, and the Church doesn't look kindly upon protestantism either. However, Santorum is still Christian, and still has very similar policies that they would have, so in this case, they get along just fine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 02:14:50 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 09, 2012, 02:12:39 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 02:09:14 am

Wait a second...why would the far right fringe vote for Santorum? According to a number of ultra-fundamentalist Baptists and Protestants, Catholics are not Christians.

There is a lot of historical anti-Catholic sentiment from fundamentalist Christians in the US, and the Church doesn't look kindly upon protestantism either. However, Santorum is still Christian, and still has very similar policies that they would have, so in this case, they get along just fine.

In other words, Catholics are only Christians when it comes to the polls  :P
(and right there, I managed to turn a potential derail right back towards election discussion!)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 09, 2012, 02:21:45 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 08, 2012, 04:09:56 pm

That depends on what you specifically call "Christianity" really.  The teachings of Jesus don't exactly advocate nationalism or seizing political control (although he didn't exactly advocate non-intervention either, all that "And I will come with a sword" business).  The Old Testament though, for all Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies, does have quite a few politically motivated passages and notes on laws.  Deuteronomy especially is full of weirdly explicit rules on how an Abrahamic society is supposed to govern itself, along with the goofy grab bag from Leviticus and Exodus.  Essentially none of which, it should be noted, are reflected in the standing laws of any ostensibly "Christian" nation.

Jesus never taught pacifism, but never really advocated war either.

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 08, 2012, 04:09:56 pm

It's not Christian per se, no.  It's hard to say that it explicitly violates it, more than any political power that claims to be guided by Christianity ever has.  Logical is a different matter.  It all makes perfect sense if you believe that a storybook interpretation of American history gives it a manifest right to impose whatever we're calling American Values this week on all people of the world.  It's all about definitions.

Well, this last point is illustrated by US-Israeli relations. It actually really boils down to Biblical prophecy nonsense about Israel and the end of the world. All the allies of Israel in the End Times get free tickets into heaven or whatnot. So as a result of Evangelist voters and their influence, the US government is now completely in bed with the Israelis in a totally lopsided alliance that really doesn't help either country, least of all the interests of Americans. I'm also pretty sure this US policy on Israel is the drive behind much of US foriegn policy these days. The term 'US foriegn policy' is pretty much just a dog-whistle euphemism for for this relation with Israel anymore.

The Bible might not really advocate theocracy, but I'm pretty sure the fundies are consistant with their beliefs in this case here, the Bible spells it out pretty clearly that they need to do this, as deletrious to the United States (and anybody else) as this relationship might be. In this case, the fanatics have won. They drive US foriegn policy. I only wonder what other fronts they might win in the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 09, 2012, 10:55:30 am

Quote from: Montague on February 09, 2012, 02:21:45 am

The Bible might not really advocate theocracy, but I'm pretty sure the fundies are consistant with their beliefs in this case here, the Bible spells it out pretty clearly that they need to do this...

Yeah, the bible is extremely clear about how the USA must ensure that Israel commands the entire holy land so that it may be attacked by the full force of Gog and Magog (often identified as Russia (although more commonly in earlier PMD books the Soviet Union) and Ethiopia and Libya) and see them destroyed (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2003/10/24/lb-the-literal-donkeys-penis/) (preferably without anyone actually caring (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2003/10/25/lb-the-babel-fish/); that would get in the way of the next few steps by removing all those doubters to be cast into fire) before they make a discovery that makes their land the most fertile in the world bringing them enormous riches (because, as we all know, China's current prosperity is due to their peasant farmers (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2003/10/22/lb-weird-science/)). This discovery leads to widespread and universally accepted peace (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2003/10/23/lb-peace-in-the-middle-east/), which is one of the cues for the rapture to happen and a One World Government to form under the anti-Christ (singular of course, because when the bible only talks about anti-Christs in plural it's obviously in the context of a very literal figure only described in opaque metaphor), who promises peace and disarms the world while signing a peace treaty with Israel (which is the capital of the OWG they just made peace with).

OK, so that isn't the only 'literal' reading of Revelation (mixed with other biblical verses that are obviously end times prophecies if you completely ignore their historical context) but it is the most popular.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 09, 2012, 11:48:01 am

I think that the prodies accept Sanatorum because they don't have one of their own available.  Romney is a Mormon and Gingrich is a space creature inhabiting the body of a man who died 40 years ago.

Quote from: Montague on February 09, 2012, 02:21:45 am

Jesus never taught pacifism

Lolwhat?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 09, 2012, 11:59:44 am

Isn't it wonderful that the strongest nation on the planet, armed with far more than enough firepower to glassify the entire surface, is politically dominated by people who believe that an ancient book of terribly mistranslated parables is not only literally true, but morally perfect?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 09, 2012, 12:08:08 pm

The belief that some text or leader is morally perfect is hardly unusual in human history.  What is unusual is that lately a large minority of the population of the planet bucks this trend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 12:12:12 pm

The us can only glassify less than 1% of the earth, the worlds total combined arms can glassify about 2%. The area that can be rendered temporarilly lethal to human life is somewhere between 5% and 8% even if you include conventional arms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on February 09, 2012, 12:39:27 pm

Upcoming Election Issue:
Israel chomping on the bits to make war with Iran? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16937613) 
*Insert pictures with Obama trying to hold on to the leash of a rabid Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, as he tries to get at Iran's President, Ahmadinejad, who is taunting the rabid dog with a nuke shaped steak.*

Well, Obama's response to Israel's attack on Iran will be a hot topic...  Damned if we get dragged into war.  Damned if we don't give our unconditional love to Israel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jackrabbit on February 09, 2012, 03:10:42 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 12:12:12 pm

The us can only glassify less than 1% of the earth, the worlds total combined arms can glassify about 2%. The area that can be rendered temporarilly lethal to human life is somewhere between 5% and 8% even if you include conventional arms.

Where'd you get those stats? That doesn't sound right at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 03:18:27 pm

Quote from: Jackrabbit on February 09, 2012, 03:10:42 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 12:12:12 pm

The us can only glassify less than 1% of the earth, the worlds total combined arms can glassify about 2%. The area that can be rendered temporarily lethal to human life is somewhere between 5% and 8% even if you include conventional arms.

Where'd you get those stats? That doesn't sound right at all.

I don't remember exactly where I got them, but they are in the general ballpark. Might check out Global Defense Monitor, or google around a bit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 09, 2012, 03:27:48 pm

When you consider how concentrated human are (Half of the world's population lives within 100 km of the coasts, which is something like 10% of the world's surface), you can kill a lot of people with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 09, 2012, 03:33:19 pm

Quote from: Jackrabbit on February 09, 2012, 03:10:42 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 12:12:12 pm

The us can only glassify less than 1% of the earth, the worlds total combined arms can glassify about 2%. The area that can be rendered temporarilly lethal to human life is somewhere between 5% and 8% even if you include conventional arms.

Where'd you get those stats? That doesn't sound right at all.

The USA "only" has 8,500 strategic warheads. Average yeild is about 1 megaton. Enough to hit every city on earth with a population greater then 150,000 or more, twice over, but hardly enough to actually glass the entire surface of the earth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jackrabbit on February 09, 2012, 03:43:11 pm

I think this (http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm) is what he was referencing. It's not hugely relevant to the thread, but thanks for bringing it up, I learned something.

This is interesting and hilarious:
"Non-propagandizing scientists recently havecalculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists."

"Goddamn sellout Sagan! I was a scientist before it was cool."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on February 09, 2012, 03:43:12 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 09, 2012, 03:33:19 pm

Quote from: Jackrabbit on February 09, 2012, 03:10:42 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 12:12:12 pm

The us can only glassify less than 1% of the earth, the worlds total combined arms can glassify about 2%. The area that can be rendered temporarilly lethal to human life is somewhere between 5% and 8% even if you include conventional arms.

Where'd you get those stats? That doesn't sound right at all.

The USA "only" has 8,500 strategic warheads. Average yeild is about 1 megaton. Enough to hit every city on earth with a population greater then 150,000 or more, twice over, but hardly enough to actually glass the entire surface of the earth.

We're not trying hard enough.

But nuclear winter can still wipe out society, actually glassing the dirt under our feet is really moot by comparison.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 09, 2012, 04:43:46 pm

There's always that one person who tries to play down the dangers of nuclear war.  I guess Nikov needed replacing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 04:59:14 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 09, 2012, 04:43:46 pm

There's always that one person who tries to play down the dangers of nuclear war.  I guess Nikov needed replacing.

I don't really understand, the dangers of nuclear war have been vastly overstated to the point where people believe untrue things like "far more than enough firepower to glassify the entire surface". Why does being a realist mean I "play down the dangers of nuclear war"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on February 09, 2012, 05:05:57 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 04:59:14 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 09, 2012, 04:43:46 pm

There's always that one person who tries to play down the dangers of nuclear war.  I guess Nikov needed replacing.

I don't really understand, the dangers of nuclear war have been vastly overstated to the point where people believe untrue things like "far more than enough firepower to glassify the entire surface". Why does being a realist mean I "play down the dangers of nuclear war"?

Reality is overrated!!!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 09, 2012, 05:11:34 pm

I'd say "glassify" is an acceptable hyperbole for killing a vast number of people and screwing everything up, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 09, 2012, 05:24:13 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 09, 2012, 05:11:34 pm

I'd say "glassify" is an acceptable hyperbole for killing a vast number of people and screwing everything up, really.

I don't think it is acceptable. Killing off up to a quarter of the worlds human population and causing massive social and economic damage is bad, but it doesn't glassify the surface of an entire planet. It would barely even disturb the climate of earth at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on February 09, 2012, 05:36:43 pm

I don't think the issue is turning 1% of the earth's surface into glass (along with everything on it), it's the fallout that would ensue if the Americans had an out-and-out nuclear war with another country. Wouldn't it create a nuclear cloud that would shift across landmasses and plunge at least a continent into a nuclear winter until the cloud shifts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on February 09, 2012, 05:38:15 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-AnuDkXlX0o Representative Guiterrez rips into Newt Gingrich's attacks on the supplemental nutrition program - that is, the food stamps for poor starving americans - and tears him a new asshole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 09, 2012, 05:50:13 pm

Wait, wait, what? Gingrich was attacking the food stamp programs? One of the few things between millions of americans being forced to either steal for their supper or outright starve?

... I'm guessing he's a proponent for privatized prisons, then? or just... man, I don't know. I can appreciate idealogical purity (when it's not pants-on-head nonfunctional utopianism) but there's some aspects of our welfare systems that we can't afford to remove right now; it'd completely fuck up our country by completely disenfranchising significant swaths of our population. States wouldn't survive that level of destabilization, especially right now.

How is Gingrich defending that position? Or is it just one of those throwaway party position things no real thought is being put in to (Besides what volume to scream it at, that is.)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 09, 2012, 05:50:29 pm

Quote from: Tilla on February 09, 2012, 05:38:15 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-AnuDkXlX0o Representative Guiterrez rips into Newt Gingrich's attacks on the supplemental nutrition program - that is, the food stamps for poor starving americans - and tears him a new asshole.

No mean feat, as Gingrich's entire body is an asshole.

Perhaps smelling blood in the water, some prominent conservative pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer have recently broken from Team Romney, writing some scathing editorials and pinning the "flip-flopper" tag on him for his previous decision as Governor of Massachusetts to force Catholic health services to provide contraception, in compliance with state law--the same sort of decision that Obama recently made at the Federal level which has the Right howling about religious freedom, and which Romney (of course) has taken to excoriating as another reason why Obama sux and Romney is teh d00d.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on February 09, 2012, 05:53:41 pm

Not to mention that Newt's on record for calling food stamps a black problem. But don't you point it out as racist, you racist race-baiting racists you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 09, 2012, 05:59:59 pm

I'd rather just call it wrong. Know more whites on food stamps than I do other skin phenotypes.

Of course, the population of non-Caucasians in the town I'm living in last census (I bothered checking, so it might been the one before last) was like five (okay, maybe ten) but yeah.

Also a lot of elderly on food stamps. Guess it's an old person problem, too, ageists.

Still wondering how the hell the guy expects massive destabilization to not occur when you've suddenly got millions with no ability to access food.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2012, 06:03:45 pm

On the bright side, he'd get impeached very quickly when his stupid initiatives started to make the nation tear apart at the seams. And if it didn't get him impeached, oh well, I'd just have to fast-track the People's Democratic Republic of Greater Carolina by a few decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 09, 2012, 06:17:50 pm

I'd be totally onboard with the PDRGC. Then we can start a decades-long simmering tension with HolyPalmettoLand over the border regions. And Charleston. I vote that we annex Charleston and a thin corridor of land to allow access to it. This is totally a good idea and in no way parallels a certain Baltic city starting with a D.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 09, 2012, 06:39:31 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 09, 2012, 06:17:50 pm

I'd be totally onboard with the PDRGC. Then we can start a decades-long simmering tension with HolyPalmettoLand over the border regions. And Charleston. I vote that we annex Charleston and a thin corridor of land to allow access to it. This is totally a good idea and in no way parallels a certain Baltic city starting with a D.

Wait a second, if this nation breaks apart you people in the more southerly directions are gonna be killing each other instead of coming after us in the border states?  Why didn't you tell us sooner?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 09, 2012, 06:45:59 pm

Canada would totally take us in if the US died.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2012, 06:53:01 pm

If the US died Quebec would take advantage of the situation to finally break free of Canadian control. And then we are doomed, for the rage of the freed Quebecers would surely burn all of humanity to ash.

Remember our deal, Canada. Don't let them ever get out from under your thumb. The fate of our species depends upon it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 09, 2012, 06:53:57 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2012, 06:53:01 pm

Remember our deal, Canada. Don't let them ever get out from under your thumb. The fate of our species depends upon it.

You are tempting me to stage a coup.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 09, 2012, 07:04:38 pm

Well if the remnants of the US didn't need to worry about the noisy people in the south coming after them I think we could take care of Quebec.  We'd just team up with the former Canadians to surround them on all sides and give them the silent treatment.  No way out of the silent treatment once you are surrounded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 07:24:16 pm

I'd like to think that California would get off somewhat well if the nation split up. Prop 8 shenanigans aside, we don't have that many conservative crazies, and we've got two strong liberal influences in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Not to mention the vast amounts of farmland we've got.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 09, 2012, 07:44:38 pm

Where's your water going to come from?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 07:46:06 pm

Some of it comes from the mountains...though with these droughts we may have to annex Nevada or something :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 09, 2012, 07:46:35 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 07:24:16 pm

I'd like to think that California would get off somewhat well if the nation split up. Prop 8 shenanigans aside, we don't have that many conservative crazies, and we've got two strong liberal influences in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Not to mention the vast amounts of farmland we've got.

And then Colorado dams the Colorado River, and everyone in southern California has to start wearing stillsuits from Dune.

EDIT: Ninja'd by dhokarena.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 09, 2012, 07:51:13 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 07:46:06 pm

Some of it comes from the mountains...though with these droughts we may have to annex Nevada or something :P

Sweet, that's part of the plot of my favorite fallout game!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 07:55:39 pm

I'm sure that Nevada wouldn't mind. Besides, according to Wikipedia California grows something like a third of the country's food supply. If Colorado threatened to cut off our water, we'd cut off food.

Even if we did lose that water however, we still have lots of sources like the San Joaquin Delta and the previously stated mountain ranges. They'd just have to be rationed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on February 09, 2012, 08:07:14 pm

To be honest, if the US goes down, the rest of the world's not far behind. Especially Canada.

And if Canada doesn't go down, Oregon and Washington would probably join them, to be honest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Pnx on February 09, 2012, 08:13:36 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 09, 2012, 08:07:14 pm

To be honest, if the US goes down, the rest of the world's not far behind. Especially Canada.

And if Canada doesn't go down, Oregon and Washington would probably join them, to be honest.

...

You know, the entire world does not actually revolve around the United States. There are plenty of heavily consumerist countries out there to keep those Chinese factories going, and the whole world turning.

If North America just sank into the sea one day, the world would in fact keep going, even if it would temporarily wreak havoc with the economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on February 09, 2012, 08:20:06 pm

And the tsunami that results from the sinking of a continent would do absolutely nothing to all the nations along the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Nothing whatsoever.

 :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 09, 2012, 08:20:51 pm

Quote from: Pnx on February 09, 2012, 08:13:36 pm

You know, the entire world does not actually revolve around the United States. There are plenty of heavily consumerist countries out there to keep those Chinese factories going, and the whole world turning.

If North America just sank into the sea one day, the world would in fact keep going, even if it would temporarily wreak havoc with the economy.

Perhaps you missed the memo, but the United States has the largest economy in the entire world. By far. China is second, and they aren't even close to breaking even with the US economy.

North America sinking into the ocean would mean the deaths of about 454,000,000 people and the instantaneous destruction of the one remaining superpower. The power vacuum of violence as a likely collapsing European Union, a likely self-destructing Russia, and a likely starving and revolting PRC try to fill the void would be the largest and most deadly conflict in all of human history.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 09, 2012, 08:22:19 pm

No, the world doesn't revolve around the US, but the world is a lot more heavily interconnected than it ever has been. Any of the major powers go down suddenly -- or even sufficient numbers of the smaller ones, in quick succession -- and it's going to destabilize significant amounts of the world for a damn long time; a couple of generations at least, assuming a cascade effect doesn't hit that wrecks things for even longer.

All that's one of the reasons there's significant portions of the US that wants to become more self-sufficient (Nevermind that's not really possible anymore).

Simple fact is that the US is currently the world's hyperpower -- it going down without some forewarning and preparatory power shifts will screw the entire global situation straight to hell. We're not talking just some economic upsets, we're talking full out global destabilization. It's not something anyone sane wants to see, because the repercussions would echo -- hard -- for an easy few hundred years.

E: Ninja'd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 08:26:43 pm

Quote from: Pnx on February 09, 2012, 08:13:36 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 09, 2012, 08:07:14 pm

To be honest, if the US goes down, the rest of the world's not far behind. Especially Canada.

And if Canada doesn't go down, Oregon and Washington would probably join them, to be honest.

...

You know, the entire world does not actually revolve around the United States. There are plenty of heavily consumerist countries out there to keep those Chinese factories going, and the whole world turning.

If North America just sank into the sea one day, the world would in fact keep going, even if it would temporarily wreak havoc with the economy.

Blasphemy! Everyone knows that America is the center of the universe, and that God's chosen live there! The rest of the world is irrelevant! Now where's mah oil?
</sarcasm>

I guess it would depend on how long you define "temporarily". Keep in mind that a lot of stuff that was made in Japan is still more expensive than it used to be after the nuclear disaster, and that was relatively minor compared to an entire country dissolving/sinking into the ocean (not trying to downplay it, it was still horrible for the people living there). Things would pick up again eventually, but there would be chaos significant changes for a time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 09, 2012, 08:28:57 pm

Where would you people get your political directions if it was not for us? Your own morality or something silly like that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 09, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

If America sunk into the sea tomorrow the resultant aggregate demand shock to the world economy would probably cause the breakup of the EU and cause a civil war in China.  There would be a lot of instability in the middle east due to the power vacuum and Africa would suffer a few dozen humanitarian catastrophes due to the chaos in the EU and loss of US aid.  Japan's growth prospects would take yet another hit as it is highly dependent on exports to the US, Europe and China.

Ironically the regions closest to the US would probably be among the best able to weather the storm.  Although the economy of Canada would be thrown into chaos, their economic confidence would remain solid so they could make it back to trend within a few years.  Latin America is becoming increasingly self-sufficient so although they'd suffer a bigger shock then Europe they shouldn't fall apart like the EU.  India and Australia would lose out on the benefits of globalization but have political stability and democracy so they would make it through.

The geopolitical map would certainly look pretty different after a few decades.  Canada could be an emerging great power with their economic stability and their relatively pro-immigration political scene.  China could end up doing pretty much anything imaginable.  Europe would become a lot less amicable with nations on the periphery like the UK and the Nordics probably doing quite well for themselves, comparatively speaking.  India and China would probably be getting all up in each others shit and it would be interesting to see how the remaining stable democracies of the world would play that scene.

Of course this is all hazy speculation so feel free to substitute your own speculation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 09:50:17 pm

So in short: No, America is not the supreme power of the world. Yes, things would be different if it (or just about any major world power) were to suddenly vanish. Yes, this should be made into it's own thread if people want, as I highly doubt that election results will cause any Atlantis-style sinking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on February 09, 2012, 10:16:20 pm

Quote from: Pnx on February 09, 2012, 08:13:36 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 09, 2012, 08:07:14 pm

To be honest, if the US goes down, the rest of the world's not far behind. Especially Canada.

And if Canada doesn't go down, Oregon and Washington would probably join them, to be honest.

...

You know, the entire world does not actually revolve around the United States. There are plenty of heavily consumerist countries out there to keep those Chinese factories going, and the whole world turning.

If North America just sank into the sea one day, the world would in fact keep going, even if it would temporarily wreak havoc with the economy.

Looks like you missed the part where the US is the only remaining superpower in the world, the largest economy in the world, the largest oil importer in the world...

Also, HUGE portions of the internet are based in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 09, 2012, 10:28:05 pm

I'd say that I don't see what any of this has to do with anything, least of all the state of the elections, but I admit it's pretty slow news right now.

Oh yeah, the Conservatives Convention, CPAC, started meeting today.  Headline panels included: "The Failure of Multiculturalism", "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America", "Conservative Dating", "Islamic Law in America", "Obama’s Agents Are Reading Your Emails", and "Why Am I Living In My Parent's Basement?".  I'm not making any of those up, you can read it for yourself.

Oh and the answer to that last one?  Hint: It's Obama's fault.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 10:38:02 pm

(reverse?) Poe's Law in action. No matter what the parodies come up with, the real thing will always sound just as wacky.

I wonder if anyone's gonna remember that it was originally Bush's agents that were reading the emails, thanks to good ol' PATRIOT ACT?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 09, 2012, 11:38:43 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 09, 2012, 10:38:02 pm

(reverse?) Poe's Law in action. No matter what the parodies come up with, the real thing will always sound just as wacky.

I wonder if anyone's gonna remember that it was originally Bush's agents that were reading the emails, thanks to good ol' PATRIOT ACT?

Too bad public concentration tends to last about 6-10 months. See: Syria's civil war/war for freedom currently raging. The latest news I get on Syria comes out of Europe, and is typically re-covered for about 5 minutes by the American national news.

I was shocked to see new videos released by a BBC crew on a 3 a.m. newscast, only to have the next story be about Eli Manning going to Disney World after the superbowl. I bet you can assume which one had better coverage by the American crew (as the BBC videos weren't their work).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 09, 2012, 11:45:15 pm

Maybe if Syria had a station at Epcot we would care about them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 12:00:06 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 09, 2012, 10:28:05 pm

I'd say that I don't see what any of this has to do with anything, least of all the state of the elections, but I admit it's pretty slow news right now.

Oh yeah, the Conservatives Convention, CPAC, started meeting today.  Headline panels included: "The Failure of Multiculturalism", "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America", "Conservative Dating", "Islamic Law in America", "Obama’s Agents Are Reading Your Emails", and "Why Am I Living In My Parent's Basement?".  I'm not making any of those up, you can read it for yourself.

Oh and the answer to that last one?  Hint: It's Obama's fault.

He's not making it up. See here (http://cpac2012.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Schedule-Of-Events_Latest.pdf) for more.

Other highlights include:

• "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity – Conservative Book Nook"
• "The Need for a Twenty-first Century Gold Standard – Harding" (surprisingly, Ron Paul isn't involved here)
• "Debate: Is the “Arab Spring” Good or Bad for America?" (we better figure out if democratization of the Middle East is a good thing before deciding whether or not to allow them to overthrow their horrible authoritarian rulers!)
• "The Obama EPA's Green Assault on American Jobs" (the environment is taking our jobs, dammit)
• "Political Correctness & The Wussification of America" (seriously)
• "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism & Dupes: How America’s
  Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century" (Ronald Reagan never would have manipulated anyone or anything, right guys!?)
• "In the Name of “Tolerance”: Countering Sexual Identity Politics in Schools & Wait No More" (just plain sickening if you know what they're referring to)
• "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department" (uhhhhhh)
• "Of Thee I Zing: America’s Cultural Decline from Muffin Tops to Body Shots" (I have no idea)
• "Why are U.S. taxpayers spending billions to promote abortion and homosexuality worldwide?" (ahhaahahahahah "promote homosexuality")

I swear I didn't know there would be so many good ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 10, 2012, 12:04:51 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 12:00:06 am

"In the Name of “Tolerance”: Countering Sexual Identity Politics in Schools & Wait No More" (just plain sickening if you know what they're referring to)

Does it involve trying to turn gays straight?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 10, 2012, 12:08:28 am

10:30 Data Mining and Common Core Standards: Big Brother is Taking Over Your Children’s Upbringing – Truman

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Light refreshments provided

Arch Conservative brainwashing at it's best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 12:40:11 am

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on February 10, 2012, 12:04:51 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 12:00:06 am

"In the Name of “Tolerance”: Countering Sexual Identity Politics in Schools & Wait No More" (just plain sickening if you know what they're referring to)

Does it involve trying to turn gays straight?

I imagine it does advocate we all 'pray the gay away' somewhere in the speech, yes.

Some of those points might be relevant. The governments disposed of or in the process of being disposed in the "Arab Spring" could very well be replaced with something even worse, good intentions of the westernized democratic reformers are besides the point. I'm sure people remember the deal with Iraq and the sorts that tried to fill the power vaccum created when Saddam was disposed.

"How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century"
Remember the 60's and 70's? Jane Fonda? Well, it's back! (sorta). This is probably talking about how awfully similar Iranian, Taliban, Al-Quada propaganda is to what leftist conspircy-theory types have been spouting in the last 10 years. Although, I suspect it's them copying the ideas of American leftists, not the other way around. Google translate an Iranian news source or a Jihadist website and you'll see what I mean it sounds like the guy that made "Zeitgeist" wrote it. Or it'll sound like something you'd read on Stormfront. Weird how that works.

Also, I think the German prime minister and some other leaders in Europe have made statements to the effect of "Multiculturalism has failed" although, I always wondered exactly what it was supposed to accomplish in the first place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Powder Miner on February 10, 2012, 01:03:57 am

...I'd just like to say that is not what all conservative believe God I have to say this a lot this stuff gets brought up a lot in this thread and there is noone who wants to bring up the liberal stuff. I do have to say though, screw political correctness.


Like there's this one person who advises colors for preschools, telling them to use lavender or green paper instead of white paper because paper is power, and for teachers to, if their favorite color is asked, say black or brown.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 10, 2012, 01:17:21 am

Quote from: Powder Miner on February 10, 2012, 01:03:57 am

...I'd just like to say that is not what all conservative believe God I have to say this a lot this stuff gets brought up a lot in this thread and there is noone who wants to bring up the liberal stuff. I do have to say though, screw political correctness.


Like there's this one person who advises colors for preschools, telling them to use lavender or green paper instead of white paper because paper is power, and for teachers to, if their favorite color is asked, say black or brown.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg!

Um? What? I've never even once heard of anything even remotely like that happening at all.

But there is some crazy on this side of the fence.

But if you want to rage at say... PETA or the anti-nuclear greens or the anti 2nd amendment people, then I will stand right by your side because they bother me too.

Another example: my elder brother got caught up in OWS and was saying that student loans should be forgiven, even though it would just be giving a handout directly to the banks he was protesting.

But for the most part we should be discussing stuff directly related to the 2012 elections.

An an uninformative and uninteresting note, I have been completely unable to find any information on anyone who is going to be running for office in florida.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 01:20:04 am

Quote from: Powder Miner on February 10, 2012, 01:03:57 am

Like there's this one person who advises colors for preschools, telling them to use lavender or green paper instead of white paper because paper is power, and for teachers to, if their favorite color is asked, say black or brown.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg!

So... you complain about people bringing up generalizations that don't apply to you, even though they're generalizations espoused by a large segment of popular conservatism.

... And then you immediately talk about a trend you hate and bring up this one particular, extremely sketchy and dubious example, about literally one person, as if it represents anything at all?

A bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 01:41:32 am

I like how apparently the whole argument against the possibly-fictitious scenario  is predicated on someone telling people to use a different color paper for potentially 'politically correct' reasons and that's bad because political correctness in of itself is apparently bad.  It's faulty reasoning that is completely reactionary and hinges solely on an appeal to tradition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 02:08:06 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 01:41:32 am

I like how apparently the whole argument against the possibly-fictitious scenario  is predicated on someone telling people to use a different color paper for potentially 'politically correct' reasons and that's bad because political correctness in of itself is apparently bad.  It's faulty reasoning that is completely reactionary and hinges solely on an appeal to tradition.

I think the overwhelming emphasis on promoting 'multiculturalism' in the school system is a little silly, if not an overt attempt at brainwashing children. It's one thing to encourage kids to not pick on the exchange student, but the preachiness and volume of the "celebrate diversity" routine and political correctness is excessive and it's forced.

Not that it really matters, because nothing they try to instill in kids in school ever sticks anyways. Just like how that "say no to drugs" and abstience education doesn't make a damn bit of difference. They rebel against it out of principle, because they know that it's something being forced upon them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 10, 2012, 02:20:28 am

*attends multicultural events*
*has never done drugs*
*has never had sex*

I think it depends on the kids in question. You'll have your "rebels", and you'll have your "squares".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 10, 2012, 02:22:23 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 02:08:06 am

I think the overwhelming emphasis on promoting 'multiculturalism' in the school system is a little silly, if not an overt attempt at brainwashing children. It's one thing to encourage kids to not pick on the exchange student, but the preachiness and volume of the "celebrate diversity" routine and political correctness is excessive and it's forced.

As if brainwashing children to be tolerant is as bad as brainwashing children to be intolerant, which is much, much more common...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 02:23:03 am

Even though you're using 'multiculturalism' in scare quotes without really defining what you mean, I'm pretty sure multiculturalism is a perfectly decent thing to teach in a school in a country that is becoming increasingly multicultural.  Do you think there's a 'default' culture we should be sticking to?

As for drugs and abstinence, kids generally know when information being fed to them is bad, like "you need to learn cursive".  Being taught that, well, yes, hispanic people have their own traditions and contributions to our society as a whole, we should know about them because 17% of the US is hispanic isn't really useless information.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 02:42:59 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 02:23:03 am

Even though you're using 'multiculturalism' in scare quotes without really defining what you mean, I'm pretty sure multiculturalism is a perfectly decent thing to teach in a school in a country that is becoming increasingly multicultural.  Do you think there's a 'default' culture we should be sticking to?

As for drugs and abstinence, kids generally know when information being fed to them is bad, like "you need to learn cursive".  Being taught that, well, yes, hispanic people have their own traditions and contributions to our society as a whole, we should know about them because 17% of the US is hispanic isn't really useless information.

Of course and that's all fine, it's just the volume and zeal they use is what irks me. The colored paper thing, for example. I use the scare quotations because I'm not sure it's even really multiculturalism they are aiming for, like they advocate in Europe. America isn't really even multicultural, it's monocultural. It's a 'melting pot', not a 'cultural mosiac'. I'd think the goal is to intergrate other cultures into our own, rather then enforce several distinct cultures in the same country.

To extent the metaphor, a mosiac is pretty from the outside, but it's a fragmented whole, with peices that never actually touch one another. I don't understand the intent behind emphsising the differences between cultures, or trying to drive wedges between ethnic or cultural groups by highlighting what makes them different rather then what makes them similar. I don't see how this can accomplish anything but aggravate tensions between different cultures, or create a backlash, which is why I agree that multiculturalism has failed, because this hasn't happened. Immigrants and whatnot should be encouraged to intergrate into mainstream culture, not told to go fuck off back to the ghetto and stay different because we want to perserve and celebrate their cultural outsider identity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 10, 2012, 03:10:13 am

The colored paper thing, if it's even true, is stupid. Learning about how people from different backgrounds live is a good thing. It leads to that melting pot you mentioned, as people adopt other ideas and traditions. Here in California, for instance, Cinco de Mayo is a fairly major event that people of all races and backgrounds celebrate.

I disagree that the purpose of multiculturalism is driving wedges between different groups. I think the purpose is to share ideas, food, customs, and just about anything else you can think of, so you'll find something you like about other groups. Once you find something you like, it's easier to get along. If it's easier to get along, there is less tension and violence between groups. The whole thing morphs into a new culture greater than the sum of it's parts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 03:11:54 am

What volume and zeal?  On what basis are you saying that America only has/needs one culture?  Who's 'enforcing culture'?  Either show us an article or something about the colored paper thing or stop expecting us to let you use it as the basis for what you're saying.  It's an anecdote of an anecdote, and one-sided at that, currently.

Your melting pot/mosaic metaphor fails because beyond tilting at the windmills you've yet to demonstrate are giants, you're asserting that recognizing that people coming from different places and holding different beliefs negates their ability to coexist with others.  I know you're probably not trying to do so consciously, but you're prescribing a really authoritarian stance- one that specifically engenders privilege of the majority at the expense of the minority.

If you feel that someone having a different culture than you aggravates tensions between you and them, is that anyone's fault but your own?  Do you truly think that ignoring cultural differences rather than preparing people to accept them might help people?  Again, just like with the abstinence education which you've correctly dismissed, it fails because it says "don't do this" and doesn't prepare people to make educated choices.  Why should we hold ignorance up as our shield?

And by saying that people's options are to "integrate into mainstream culture" or "fuck off back to the ghetto" you're creating a really terrible false dilemma.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 10, 2012, 03:13:46 am

Nn... well, America always has been at its best when it's actively stealing from other cultures. We would probably be better off if we did a bit more of that than trying to export.

M'not even sure where I stand on all that rotterdamn nonsense, I guess; I've never really noticed America having much of a culture to integrate with. Some junk on upward mobility and "freedom and equality," a hefty dose of 'leave me the fuck alone, everyone else,' a few holidays and... shit, what's left? Fair amount of local stuff, but nothing really on the national scale. Plenty of room to haul along old traditions if folks feel like. Guess what I'm saying is that I'd be all for mainstream culture (which is mostly empty) starting to be a little more proactive in stealing the neat bits from the immigrants. Or rather, it's rather silly to say melting pot and expect all the integration to be one way... I guess. Which seems to be the more virulent anti-multiculture position.

I'unno, I haven't been exposed to many people not using the 'say no to multiculturalism' as thinly (if at all) veiled bigotry/racism/xenophobia. The message, "Let us work towards integration" sounds a lot better than "Assimilate or fuck off, not!us." Unsurprisingly, I haven't really ran into much multicultural crusading in my area (The occasional exhibit or whatever doesn't even remotely count), so maybe it's being hammered in harder in other places.

I'm just not really sure what the issue is, I guess. I can't really see anything negative in checking out the practices of other cultures. Maybe some negatives in it being mandatory, but having the option there (and possibly encouraged) to learn more about the history of the world doesn't sound like it'd be something objectionable.

E: Sweet madre de doubleninja.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 03:33:05 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 02:42:59 am

Of course and that's all fine, it's just the volume and zeal they use is what irks me. The colored paper thing, for example.

If your example has to be so apocryphal and extreme that it's probably completely fabricated, what does that say about your ability to back up your point?

Quote

It's a 'melting pot', not a 'cultural mosiac'. I'd think the goal is to intergrate other cultures into our own, rather then enforce several distinct cultures in the same country.

If you want to encourage integration of other cultures within our own, we need to actually make that plausible. There are clear socioeconomic barriers to integration/assimilation. Most importantly, the poor in the US tend to stay poor across generations. If you don't think this is true, look at the trouble african-americans have as a group despite it being 2012, decades after the "civil rights" era, and over 150 years after the abolition of slavery.

Quote

I don't understand the intent behind emphsising the differences between cultures, or trying to drive wedges between ethnic or cultural groups by highlighting what makes them different rather then what makes them similar.

In social groups, diversity is valuable. This is clear in everything from evolutionary biology to the concept of division of labor. In a very general sense, diversity is good, not bad. It's understandable that any society needs some commonality of culture in order to function, but celebrating our differences has value as well. Also, this might surprise you, but people celebrating and learning about each other's differences is a step to cultural assimilation/integration in the first place.

Quote

which is why I agree that multiculturalism has failed, because this hasn't happened.

It hasn't? Funny, because I'm pretty sure blacks, the Irish, and Jews are sure as hell at least treated better now than they were several decades ago. The reason you don't see cultural integration where it exists is because it has occurred.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 04:29:11 am

Quote

If your example has to be so apocryphal and extreme that it's probably completely fabricated, what does that say about your ability to back up your point?

Why does everyone hate the colored paper ancedote so much?

Quote

If you want to encourage integration of other cultures within our own, we need to actually make that plausible. There are clear socioeconomic barriers to integration/assimilation. Most importantly, the poor in the US tend to stay poor across generations. If you don't think this is true, look at the trouble african-americans have as a group despite it being 2012, decades after the "civil rights" era, and over 150 years after the abolition of slavery.

I wonder if this isn't cause vs corrolation. There is a culture that likes to remain distinct, there is a reason people in ghettos are poor. 

Quote

In social groups, diversity is valuable. This is clear in everything from evolutionary biology to the concept of division of labor. In a very general sense, diversity is good, not bad. It's understandable that any society needs some commonality of culture in order to function, but celebrating our differences has value as well. Also, this might surprise you, but people celebrating and learning about each other's differences is a step to cultural assimilation/integration in the first place.

I've never heard a decent argument as to why diversity is some desired thing that needs to be actively persued. I accept it as a natural occurance, rather then something that needs to be forced or advocated. Immigrants should come to a country because they want to belong there. Not come there to bring their own ideologies and culture and live seperate from the natives. That's basically what colonialism was all about. Some of the most prosperous nations on earth are overwhelmingly homogenous. Japan, South Korea, the Scandinavian countries, ect. I can think of some more "diverse" nations not nearly so prosperous.

Quote

It hasn't? Funny, because I'm pretty sure blacks, the Irish, and Jews are sure as hell at least treated better now than they were several decades ago. The reason you don't see cultural integration where it exists is because it has occurred.

Thats from intergration and tolerance, not multiculturalism, which is what I mean.

I think cultural influence is great. I also think cultural influence is inevitible and natural and doesn't need to be forced. Japanese cultural is basically mainstream now in America. People like it and adopt it for it's own merit. We did not need to bring 10 million Japanese people into the country for this to happen, nor did the government need to teach kids the virtues of their culture. Why they do this in Europe, is beyond me. I don't believe every culture in the world is compatible with one another, nor do I believe every ideology or philisophy is worth equal consideration. Some ideas are crap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 10, 2012, 04:35:51 am

Firstly, on social integration, schools in particular have a strong interest in encouraging integration and tolerance as strongly as they can. There are plenty of studies showing that diverse and integrated student bodies are more successful, academically and in other ways. This is especially true for minority students and goes right up to the college level. It's why colleges actively fight to keep affirmative action programs legal; the programs let them encourage diversity to the advantage of all students.

I'd argue that companies often have an equally strong interest in reflecting the community that they serve and being as open and accepting as is humanly possible to exclude as few customers as they can. Part of this is political correctness, which is simply acknowledging things that do or can offend people and avoiding doing or saying them in front of others. 99% of it is just awareness of what is (or may be considered) a slur or rude. 1% is stupid nonsense utterly unrelated to any real concerns. As far as I can tell, much of that 1% is bullshit made up by British tabloids to mock political correctness.

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 02:42:59 am

America isn't really even multicultural, it's monocultural. It's a 'melting pot', not a 'cultural mosiac'. I'd think the goal is to intergrate other cultures into our own, rather then enforce several distinct cultures in the same country.

Except that this is blatantly false. There is no one American culture, even if you discount all racial minorities.

Within America there are more distinct cultural traditions than you can comfortably list. Compare New England to the mid west to the deep south to the Canadian border to California to Texas to Hawaii to DC to Las Vegas to NYC to Boston to San Francisco to to to... The mosaic may not be divided on (solely) racial lines, but it's obvious that one exists. And within that range of cultures it's often hard to point to any common, let alone defining set of features and say that that is American culture.

It's probably why politicians who like to use the idea of an American monoculture have to keep dividing the nation into 'real' America and all those messy, culturally diverse places where people might notice that the monoculture only exists in their heads.

You see the same here in Britain. The very people who like to talk about Britishness are the same who, in another context, will happily play up the cultural difference between cities, counties, the north and south, or at least the different countries on the island. The idea that we can't accept some level of outside culture in that mix is absurd to me. And this is in a far smaller and less racially diverse nation. As far as I can tell, Britishness is the face put on for other nationalities when you want to play on their stereotypical views for your own advantage. You drink the tea and let the accent ring (whatever that accent might be) and instantly acquire essence of *insert current British film star/character here*. Or not.


EDIT: I should just say, multiculturalism tends to mean very different things depending on who is talking. I tend to avoid using the term it simply because that semantics fight is a distraction and lets people avoid the actual topic, but not having that fight means people just talk past each other by saying that what the other person is saying isn't actual multiculturalism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 04:37:06 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 04:29:11 am

Why does everyone hate the colored paper ancedote so much?

Because it's an unsourced anecdote.

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 04:29:11 am

Japanese cultural is basically mainstream now in America. People like it and adopt it for it's own merit.

Like this is.  People in America usually don't wear kimono, people aren't typically practitioners of Shinto, chopsticks aren't mainstream utensils, etc.  Most people don't watch anime or eat pocky, either.


Edit:  I just realized how absolutely stupid it is to say that people automatically accept the culture of outgroups and aren't likely to voraciously demonize them, using Japanese Americans as an example, given their treatment during WW2.  Regardless, this is veering pretty far off topic and I don't want to incur Aqizzar's glares.  If you want to spin this discussion off onto its own thread that's fine, but I'm not really going to continue explaining why raging against teaching cultural unity is kind of dumb.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 04:45:32 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 04:29:11 am

Quote

If your example has to be so apocryphal and extreme that it's probably completely fabricated, what does that say about your ability to back up your point?

Why does everyone hate the colored paper ancedote so much?

... Because it's pulled out of thin air? I could make up unsubstantiated anecdotes to prove my points, too, but I won't, because it's intellectually dishonest and completely useless.

Quote

I wonder if this isn't cause vs corrolation. There is a culture that likes to remain distinct, there is a reason people in ghettos are poor.

The reason people in ghettos are poor is because they're in the goddamn ghetto, generally with very poor access to education, decent jobs, any means of prestige (good clothing, means of conspicuous consumption, an accent that sounds "proper"), and none of the privilege that comes with a less-poor upbringing. If you're going to tell us that people actually avoid upward mobility because they like living in poverty with their friends, I'd love for you to actually take a poll and see if that's the case, because I can tell you right now that it isn't.

Quote

I've never heard a decent argument as to why diversity is some desired thing that needs to be actively persued. I accept it as a natural occurance, rather then something that needs to be forced or advocated.

I just did. Sorry. I already mentioned division of labor and evolutionary biology as examples. In a social group, it pays for people to have different strengths and weaknesses, because one person's strength compensates for the other's weakness. That's why it's advantageous to have some people who are better at others at certain things, because we don't all do the same things. It's helpful and appropriate to have different ways of looking at problems, different ways of viewing the world, and different strengths and weaknesses over all, because that just adds to the toolset, so to speak (to continue that analogy, do you want every single tool in your toolbox to be the same size and shape, too?). This is true on a person-to-person basis and a culture-by-culture basis.

Quote

Immigrants should come to a country because they want to belong there. Not come there to bring their own ideologies and culture and live seperate from the natives. That's basically what colonialism was all about. Some of the most prosperous nations on earth are overwhelmingly homogenous. Japan, South Korea, the Scandinavian countries, ect. I can think of some more "diverse" nations not nearly so prosperous.

Do you know one significant reason why Japan is so prosperous right now? Because they actively sought out how other nations/cultures did things and incorporated those ideas and methods into their own. When even Japan, a very historically isolationist nation, can accept the value of the influence of another culture, it becomes fairly obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Also: Colonialism is about displacement. The British Colonies that became the US did not live and work in Native American society by Native American rules, they displaced the Native Americans, and quite forcibly!

Quote

Thats from intergration and tolerance, not multiculturalism, which is what I mean.

If there isn't any multicultural element, there is no need for tolerance. You're the one being intolerant of other cultures living in the US, here. And yes, I hate to say this, but those groups, to one extent or another, still have their own culture and in spades.

Seriously, the reason a group is at all able to integrate themselves into American culture is because people finally became accepting of their culture to begin with. How the hell do you expect a culture to integrate itself into ours if we shun them and alienate them by trying to make them feel bad for even having their own culture to begin with?

Quote

I don't believe every culture in the world is compatible with one another, nor do I believe every ideology or philisophy is worth equal consideration. Some ideas are crap.

There's a huge difference between "every culture in the world is compatible with one another" and "cultures can possibly learn something from one another". There's also a huge difference between "all ideas are worth equal consideration" and "we should explore the ideas of others in order to at least be able to fairly judge how worthy of consideration they are".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 05:26:09 am

Ok, I think we are now just arguing about the semantics of the word "Multiculturalism" here because I'm in agreement with much of what anybody is saying. It's been implimented in Europe differently then how it works in the USA, but thats another topic entirely.

Except the diversity thing, which the way G-flex describes it sounds rather racist and stereotypical. It sounds like "we need a variety of people, like we need a variety of tools in a toolbox, for example the Asians can do all the math and the Africans can win all the sporting events." I don't buy that and it seems like that is the concept of multiculturalism that I don't agree with.

Also, the American cultural is dynamic and 'mainstream American culture' is a bit of a misnomer, because it values individuality and freedom above anything else. We do adopt other cultures, but we do not buy them wholesale either. There is variance and flexibility within the mainstream culture A guy can get Chinese lettering tattooed, know karate, eat tacos drink German beer, practice Catholism and not speak anything besides English. That's just fine, thats well within the mainstream norm.

I'd bring up a few more points, but as it's been pointed out, the thread is now wildly off topic and we are now obligated to discuss the boring semantics of different flavors of Republicans and why we don't like any of them.

I don't like Mitt Romney because he likes to fire people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 10, 2012, 05:31:08 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 05:26:09 am

Except the diversity thing, which the way G-flex describes it sounds rather racist and stereotypical. It sounds like "we need a variety of people, like we need a variety of tools in a toolbox, for example the Asians can do all the math and the Africans can win all the sporting events." I don't buy that and it seems like that is the concept of multiculturalism that I don't agree with.

I have no idea how you got that out of his depiction of diversity. Seriously, way to blow my mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 05:31:21 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 05:26:09 am

Except the diversity thing, which the way G-flex describes it sounds rather racist and stereotypical. It sounds like "we need a variety of people, like we need a variety of tools in a toolbox, for example the Asians can do all the math and the Africans can win all the sporting events." I don't buy that and it seems like that is the concept of multiculturalism that I don't agree with.

... I'm not trying to stereotype at all. Different cultures tend to have different perspectives on things, different languages, different worldviews, and different methods of achieving different tasks, and this is valuable. I'm not trying to ascribe anything to race at all, and I find it pretty insulting that you think I am.

Quote

I don't like Mitt Romney because he likes to fire people.

Please tell me you aren't one of the people who actually thinks he said that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 10, 2012, 06:01:01 am

Believe it or not, I actually don't have a problem with this discussion taking place, mostly because it does directly relate to the election and some of its bigger, nebulous issues.  Plus, it would probably stagnate and disappear if I forced it to move.  I do want to remind everyone that civility is required here, at least when speaking of other people in the thread (you can insult people who aren't Bay Watchers as much as you want, I don't care).

By the way, when I first heard that one of symposiums was called "The Failure of Multiculturalism", my first thought was that it might be a self-critical examination of how the conservative movement, and its political embodiment in the Republican Party, never seems to attract more than about a third of Hispanics and about seven black people, no matter how much "broadening the tent" campaigns they launch.  Then I remembered that it's CPAC - they check for self-criticism at the door.  And then I heard that the panel's keynote speaker was a White Nationalist, and it all just rolls on from there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 06:04:31 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 05:31:21 am

... I'm not trying to stereotype at all. Different cultures tend to have different perspectives on things, different languages, different worldviews, and different methods of achieving different tasks, and this is valuable. I'm not trying to ascribe anything to race at all, and I find it pretty insulting that you think I am.

I was attributing a similar viewpoint that I've heard to what you said, which was a dick move, my bad. My point is that I see multiculturalism as the concept of exploitating of the differences between distinct people and cultures within a single nation. This joke sort of illustrates that point of view.

Quote

In Heaven…

•the mechanics are German
•the chefs are French
•the police are British
•the lovers are Italian
•and everything is organized by the Swiss.
In Hell…

•the mechanics are French
•the police are German
•the chefs are British
•the lovers are Swiss
•and everything is organized by the Italians.

It should be, in heaven the mechanics, police, chefs, lovers and organizers are all Americans, because we've intergrated everything positive from other cultures into a single dynamic culture and discarded everything that isn't. Which is kind of a sappy metaphor. My point of view is there isn't a need to have multiple distinct cultures that are significantly different then one another. A melting pot of different ingrediants molded into a single homogenous mess is perferred. Not a 'cultural mosaic' that consists of distinct fragments peiced together into a whole. That doesn't work.

So what I'm basically trying to say is that I'm arguing semantics, abusing the apostrophe key and wasting everybody's time.

and I was just being facetious about Mitt Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 06:13:18 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 06:04:31 am

It should be, in heaven the mechanics, police, chefs, lovers and organizers are all Americans, because we've intergrated everything positive from other cultures into a single dynamic culture and discarded everything that isn't.

This is not possible. Just as no single person can embody the best traits of the best barbers, cooks, physicists, politicians, etc., no single culture can do so either. You cannot have the kind of strange homogeneous diversity that you're talking about (where individuals can vary but culture cannot), because much of what composes an individual, shapes him, and influences him is cultural in nature. Worldviews, language, ways of going about solving problems and doing things, are all highly cultural in nature. Everyone having the same exact culture essentially implies that everyone is raised the same, with the same thought and behavior paradigms, norms of behavior, practices, worldviews, and so forth. This does not encourage the kind of diversity necessary to have the "best of everything" blended into one pot, because it encourages people to be too much the same. And guess what: When people aren't all raised the same, that is what cultural diversity is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 06:24:45 am

The whole "germans are mechanics in heaven, chefs are french" viewpoint sort of makes sense if you see cultures as conforming to arbitrary data points based in stock stereotypes.  This isn't Pokemon, French food doesn't beat Japanese food while in turn being weak to Tex-Mex.  They're just different in specific ways.  Understanding that (and other cultural differences) helps you deal with them.  Saying that French People are good cooks is on par with saying that Native Americans are good trackers, and, further on, similar things that border on outright racism.  The real world isn't D&D where Germans (Orcs) get +2 strength and -1 dex, or whatever.

People are just, you know, people.  And culture isn't just straight up "being good at things".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 06:31:39 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 06:13:18 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 06:04:31 am

It should be, in heaven the mechanics, police, chefs, lovers and organizers are all Americans, because we've intergrated everything positive from other cultures into a single dynamic culture and discarded everything that isn't.

This is not possible. Just as no single person can embody the best traits of the best barbers, cooks, physicists, politicians, etc., no single culture can do so either. You cannot have the kind of strange homogeneous diversity that you're talking about (where individuals can vary but culture cannot), because much of what composes an individual, shapes him, and influences him is cultural in nature. Worldviews, language, ways of going about solving problems and doing things, are all highly cultural in nature. Everyone having the same exact culture essentially implies that everyone is raised the same, with the same thought and behavior paradigms, norms of behavior, practices, worldviews, and so forth. This does not encourage the kind of diversity necessary to have the "best of everything" blended into one pot, because it encourages people to be too much the same. And guess what: When people aren't all raised the same, that is what cultural diversity is.

I disagree. For one, the US mainstream culture isn't a lockstep, homogenous culture. It emphasises individuality and freedom and largely rejects tradition and conformity. It's a unified culture, without being conformist or homogenous. Thats how it differs from other countries. The US is a good example of why intergration works, Yugoslavia is a good example of why the cultural diversity of the type you are talking about does not work.

Here are some news articles demostrating how 'state cultural diversity' in Europe has failed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994)

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/February/Frances-Sarkozy-Multiculturalism-Has-Failed/ (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/February/Frances-Sarkozy-Multiculturalism-Has-Failed/)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 06:39:59 am

That's also true. Usually*, it's less about being objectively "better" at things and more at being able to tackle similar problems from different angles, which in turn is useful because sometimes one approach is more applicable than another.


* I say "usually" because sometimes a given culture does have more of a tradition of engaging in some task than another culture does. All cultures cook, but not all cultures, say, do a lot of fishing, or have similarly strong written vs. oral tradition, or what have you.

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 06:31:39 am

I disagree. For one, the US mainstream culture isn't a lockstep, homogenous culture. It emphasises individuality and freedom and largely rejects tradition and conformity. It's a unified culture, without being conformist or homogenous.

You can't have it both ways. Individuals cannot meaningfully differ in the way we're describing unless segments of the population can also differ. Even when individuals differ in specific ways by chance, they tend to coalesce into groups with their own standards, norms, and ways of doing/viewing things. This is how subcultures happen. You simply cannot have a culturally homogeneous society while retaining a significant degree of individual heterogeneity. In addition, when individuals differ significantly, it's for significant reasons; people are not self-made and their ideas and methods do not spring out of nowhere. They are, by and large, learned. Do you know what it is when different groups of people have different ideas and ways of doing things, which they then pass on to others and (when applicable) their children? That is the very meaning of cultural diversity.

You're also denying the fact that cultural diversity can exist within a larger culture. For instance, it is obvious that religious and ethnic groups in this country can retain their own culture while still being integrated into a greater culture; this happens all the time. For example, families of different ethnic backgrounds tend to retain significant elements of their parent cultures even if they are well-integrated into American culture. The same, again, can be said of most of what you'd call "subcultures". It is entirely possible for cultural diversity/variation to exist but for those variants to still be functioning as part of the parent culture, as opposed to competing with it. You're pretending that multiculturalism has to mean that different cultures are competing with each other, when in fact it can very well mean that they are all functioning as variations within a large monoculture into which they've integrated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 06:52:39 am

Ok, now we are arguing about the semantics of the word 'multiculturalism' again.

Quote

...For example, families of different ethnic backgrounds tend to retain significant elements of their parent cultures even if they are well-integrated into American culture. The same, again, can be said of most of what you'd call "subcultures".... It is entirely possible for cultural diversity/variation to exist but for those variants to still be functioning as part of the parent culture, as opposed to competing with it... all functioning as variations within a large monoculture into which they've integrated.

You just hit on the points I've been trying to make. This is intergration you are describing- like you have in the USA (and perhaps Brazil and other nations) which differs from 'multiculturalism', the distinction of which is that multiculturalism is defined as independant monocultures existing in the same nation. The peices that don't touch in the 'cultural mosaic'. Having defined subcultures within a larger mainstream culture is not multiculturalism.

You can look up "American Mainstream culture" and bloggers and folks will argue and wonder if there even is such a thing. I say there is, but just because individuals still like to pidgeonhole themselves into subcultures doesn't mean they do not belong to the larger mainstream culture of the nation as well.

So... when you read "multiculturalism has failed", they are talking about the European model. Trying to have distinct monocultures co-existing in the same nation under the same laws and everything. It doesnt' mean the US model of intergration has failed, because it obviously has not failed by any interpretation, which is why I wonder why the flawed philosophy of multiculturalism the Europeans have attempted is being advocated in public schools here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:03:10 am

You see, in my precision calculated metaphor, the things you say don't mean what they actually are,

Montague, what do you think multiculturalism is if not a co-understanding of culture between one group and another?  There's not a dichotomy between "multiculturalism" and "melting pot homogenization" that makes them incompatible.

Saying that an individual's culture should be ignored to further a monocultural ideal is pretty much in line with saying that the minority needs to shape up or ship out.  It places a negative onus on them, and makes them the target of some heinous stuff.  Multiculturalism pretty much seeks to be more inclusive of people, avoiding "othering" people from outgroups, and recognizing privilege.  Those are all pretty solid goals.

Do you think that Native Americans on reservations should be pressured into giving up their traditional lifestyles to conform to the 'American culture'?  Do you think that we should hold the ideal of an 'American culture' to be above the Native American traditional lifestyle, thereby giving implicit disapproval of it?  Do you not see how that sort of thought can lead to some really awful stuff?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 07:22:54 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:03:10 am

You see, in my precision calculated metaphor, the things you say don't mean what they actually are,

Montague, what do you think multiculturalism is if not a co-understanding of culture between one group and another?  There's not a dichotomy between "multiculturalism" and "melting pot homogenization" that makes them incompatible.

I thought I've beat this point to death already and pointed out the distinctions.

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:03:10 am

Saying that an individual's culture should be ignored to further a monocultural ideal is pretty much in line with saying that the minority needs to shape up or ship out.  It places a negative onus on them, and makes them the target of some heinous stuff.  Multiculturalism pretty much seeks to be more inclusive of people, avoiding "othering" people from outgroups, and recognizing privilege.  Those are all pretty solid goals.

I'd say that a immigrant need not migrate new country if they are intolerate of the native culture there. I also don't think the native culture needs to cater or appease immigrant groups if there is a conflict. I believe tolerance and inclusiveness should apply to the immigrant as well.

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:03:10 am

Do you think that Native Americans on reservations should be pressured into giving up their traditional lifestyles to conform to the 'American culture'?  Do you think that we should hold the ideal of an 'American culture' to be above the Native American traditional lifestyle, thereby giving implicit disapproval of it?  Do you not see how that sort of thought can lead to some really awful stuff?

Native Americans belong to their own nations, with their own distinct laws and the US government treats them (more or less) as seperate nations. That's what the reservations are for. This is how that differs from multiculturalism, which is multiple cultures in the same nation they are free to their own devices if they so chose and rightfully so. If they don't like the US mainstream culture they have their own nation they can be apart of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:27:42 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 07:22:54 am

This is how that differs from multiculturalism, which is multiple cultures in the same nation they are free to their own devices if they so chose and rightfully so. If they don't like the US mainstream culture they have their own nation they can be apart of.

How does an attitude like this help any sort of integration?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 07:41:51 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:27:42 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 07:22:54 am

This is how that differs from multiculturalism, which is multiple cultures in the same nation they are free to their own devices if they so chose and rightfully so. If they don't like the US mainstream culture they have their own nation they can be apart of.

How does an attitude like this help any sort of integration?

Well, you kinda got me there, because European settlers certainly did not integrate with the prevailing native culture when they arrived, right? So the Native Americans have their own nations distinct from the US nation and it's culture. That's the compromise that was made, because the multicultural model, so to speak, didn't work out so well. Immigrants now come from their own nations and if they prefer their native culture and are intolerant of the prevailing culture of another nation? Then they might consider staying home where they don't have to deal with other cultures.

I suppose you could take something from the historical experience of the Native Americans, about what happens when too many people of an alien and intolerant culture are introduced to your environs? You might end up feeling like a foriegner in your own country, to say the least.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:57:23 am

You realize you're using a straight up genocide as the basis for your argument pertaining to how to best handle cultural integration, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:02:00 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:57:23 am

You realize you're using a straight up genocide as the basis for your argument pertaining to how to best handle cultural integration, right?

No, that's just what you are trying to insinuate. I don't think requiring immigrants to tolerate and abide the culture of their adopted nation is paramount to "straight up genocide".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:03:25 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 07:41:51 am

Immigrants today have their own nations as well and if they prefer their native culture and are intolerant of the prevailing culture of another nation? Then they might consider staying home, like Native Americans that chose to live on the rez.

Even people who move to this country because they like this country and appreciate what it stands for, want to live successfully within our society, etc., still will largely retain their own culture, by necessity. There is literally no other way to do it. Immigration is not some magical process that wipes your mind of all your native language, upbringing, and culture, replacing it with some sort of... American Mind Porridge. You have to accept that any immigrant will retain their native culture to a fair degree, that integration is an multi-generational process, that people of similar background will still coalesce into their own like-minded communities, and that none of this means that their people don't care to integrate, won't integrate over time, or that they don't care about or appreciate this country's strengths or culture.

For example: Where I grew up was a very ethnically French-Canadian area. It was largely populated in (roughly, I'm not entirely sure) the mid-late 19th century by immigrants from French-speaking Canada (Quebec and so forth). My grandparents still have a localized version of a French-Canadian accent, even, and were schooled in French as children. Obviously, those immigrants retained their culture, even their language, and existed in a very ethnic community. They still integrated. It just takes time. You cannot chide an immigrant for not immediately learning the language of their new nation or integrating into the new culture overnight. That shit doesn't happen. It just doesn't work that way. My point is that ethnic communities and fairly distinct cultures have existed in America before, always have, and have not been a significant barrier to integration except where those populations were ostracized or alienated in some fashion. For example, I used to work in an auto parts store near where I grew up, and a sign out front was in both Spanish and English. A customer one day walked in and got visibly and verbally upset there we dared to put the sign in both languages and not just English. There is a significant likelihood that his own ancestors (and definitely those of some of the people working there, including myself) were in the exact same situation as those hispanics no more than two or three generations ago in that same area, yet somehow they managed just fine.

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:02:00 am

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 07:57:23 am

You realize you're using a straight up genocide as the basis for your argument pertaining to how to best handle cultural integration, right?

No, that's just what you are trying to insinuate. I don't think requiring immigrants to tolerate and abide the culture of their adopted nation is paramount to "straight up genocide".

He's referring to you referencing the Native Americans, where our "integration policy" for a long time essentially was straight-up genocide... or at least forcing them more and more west against their will so we could take their lands, which caused enough death (of individuals and of culture) on its own.

I'd also like to know how you define "tolerate and abide". Isn't following the law enough? Do you intend to somehow force immigrants to do more than is legally required of the rest of us?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 08:10:04 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:03:25 am

He's referring to you referencing the Native Americans, where our "integration policy" for a long time essentially was straight-up genocide... or at least forcing them more and more west against their will so we could take their lands, which caused enough death (of individuals and of culture) on its own.

I'm totally aware of this.  But the whole point was that it happened because of relatavism based on cultural discrimination.  By seeing them as lesser culture, they felt justified in genocide.  If they had, at the time, a developed sense of different cultures not being something to be forced to assimilate or die- to conform to a notion of 'us', they probably wouldn't have been treated like subhumans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:12:48 am

I know you're aware of it. You're not the one I was talking to there. :P

I completely agree with you, although to be fair, the Native Americans themselves weren't necessarily any more accepting, or at least certainly not in all cases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:15:10 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:03:25 am

Even people who move to this country because they like this country and appreciate what it stands for, want to live successfully within our society, etc., still will largely retain their own culture, by necessity. There is literally no other way to do it. Immigration is not some magical process that wipes your mind of all your native language, upbringing, and culture, replacing it with some sort of... American Mind Porridge. You have to accept that any immigrant will retain their native culture to a fair degree, that integration is an multi-generational process, that people of similar background will still coalesce into their own like-minded communities, and that none of this means that their people don't care to integrate, won't integrate over time, or that they don't care about or appreciate this country's strengths or culture.

For example: Where I grew up was a very ethnically French-Canadian area. It was largely populated in (roughly, I'm not entirely sure) the mid-late 19th century by immigrants from French-speaking Canada (Quebec and so forth). My grandparents still have a localized version of a French-Canadian accent, even, and were schooled in French as children. Obviously, those immigrants retained their culture, even their language, and existed in a very ethnic community. They still integrated. It just takes time. You cannot chide an immigrant for not immediately learning the language of their new nation or integrating into the new culture overnight. That shit doesn't happen. It just doesn't work that way. My point is that ethnic communities and fairly distinct cultures have existed in America before, always have, and have not been a significant barrier to integration except where those populations were ostracized or alienated in some fashion. For example, I used to work in an auto parts store near where I grew up, and a sign out front was in both Spanish and English. A customer one day walked in and got visibly and verbally upset there we dared to put the sign in both languages and not just English. There is a significant likelihood that his own ancestors (and definitely those of some of the people working there, including myself) were in the exact same situation as those hispanics no more than two or three generations ago in that same area, yet somehow they managed just fine.

Right, the process of intergration doesn't happen overnight and I don't mean to imply that it does. It takes a couple generations but it also requires that the immigrants accept or at least tolerate the new culture to some degree and do not try to force concessions in the law or prevailing culture to their own. It doesn't mean the immigrants have any right to alienate the natives either.

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:03:25 am

He's referring to you referencing the Native Americans, where our "integration policy" for a long time essentially was straight-up genocide... or at least forcing them more and more west against their will so we could take their lands, which caused enough death (of individuals and of culture) on its own.

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had two distinct cultures existing in the same place, both refusing to intergrate with the other- multiculturalism, basically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:18:42 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:15:10 am

Right, the process of intergration doesn't happen overnight and I don't mean to imply that it does. It takes a couple generations but it also requires that the immigrants accept or at least tolerate the new culture to some degree and do not try to force concessions in the law or prevailing culture to their own. It doesn't mean the immigrants have any right to alienate the natives either.

Define "concessions in the prevailing culture". What exactly does this mean? Does it mean immigrants aren't allowed to speak their own language? Does it mean a Jewish community can't only shop at kosher grocers? What exactly do you mean by this?

Quote

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had multiculturalism, basically.

No, you didn't. That was not "multiculturalism" in any sense in which modern people mean it. That was a case of cultures existing side-by-side and being rather intolerant of one another's very existence, never mind their culture. Modern multiculturalism (in the real world, not whatever definition you've made up in your head) relies on acceptance and peaceful coexistence. That is the entire point. So no, you didn't have "multiculturalism" back then. "Multiculturalism" here means a hell of a lot more than "two cultures".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 08:21:03 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:15:10 am

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had multiculturalism, basically.

I can't tell what words you're straining most to try to reach for a point.

I mean, you're literally trying to conflate "acknowledge and respect other cultures" with an actual racial genocide.

This was apparently motivated by an unsubstantiated anecdote about colored paper.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:42:28 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:18:42 am

Define "concessions in the prevailing culture". What exactly does this mean? Does it mean immigrants aren't allowed to speak their own language? Does it mean a Jewish community can't only shop at kosher grocers? What exactly do you mean by this?

I mean immigrants should not try to force any changes on their host nation and impose on the people already living there. You can't immigrate to Saudi Arabia and demand that you be permitted to buy and sell alcohol and pork chops because that's part of your cultural identity. You have to make concessions to the prevailing culture there, not the other way around. If your wine and pork chops are that important to you, why the hell did you move to Saudi Arabia? This doesn't mean I'm advocating that the Saudis should genocide you or whatever because you like pork chops.

Quote from: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:18:42 am

you didn't. That was not "multiculturalism" in any sense in which modern people mean it. That was a case of cultures existing side-by-side and being rather intolerant of one another's very existence, never mind their culture. Modern multiculturalism (in the real world, not whatever definition you've made up in your head) relies on acceptance and peaceful coexistence. That is the entire point. So no, you didn't have "multiculturalism" back then. "Multiculturalism" here means a hell of a lot more than "two cultures".

Peaceful coexistence between two distinct different cultures is much more difficult to achieve, especially in the long run, then we'd like to think. It's tenuous at best and you know the worse it can result. We can barely keep peace between different nation states when they differ so much in outlook. Hence the failure of multiculturalism, It's probably human nature. School spirit on a larger scale. Why I favor intergration.

Quote from: Capntastic on February 10, 2012, 08:21:03 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:15:10 am

That was'nt any intergration policy, because the European settlers were in fact- the foriegn culture forcing concessions from the natives and destroying the existing prevailing culture there in the process. You had multiculturalism, basically.

I can't tell what words you're straining most to try to reach for a point.

I mean, you're literally trying to conflate "acknowledge and respect other cultures" with an actual racial genocide.

This was apparently motivated by an unsubstantiated anecdote about colored paper.

I'm sure you are misunderstanding something, but I can't quite identify it. The colonization of North America is a historical example of what can happen with a culture clash. Obviously tolerance and respect for other cultures didn't apply to either side of that and thats how it turned out the way it did.

Why can't you just admit that the colored paper rule was crossing the line?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 10, 2012, 08:54:48 am

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 08:42:28 am

I mean immigrants should not try to force any changes on their host nation and impose on the people already living there. You can't immigrate to Saudi Arabia and demand that you be permitted to buy and sell alcohol and pork chops because that's part of your cultural identity. You have to make concessions to the prevailing culture there, not the other way around. If your wine and pork chops are that important to you, why the hell did you move to Saudi Arabia? This doesn't mean I'm advocating that the Saudis should genocide you or whatever because you like pork chops.

Except all you're talking about here is following the law. Do you have a non-legally-oriented example? You sure seemed to imply you did.

Quote

Peaceful coexistence between two distinct different cultures is much more difficult to achieve, especially in the long run, then we'd like to think. It's tenuous at best and you know the worse it can result. We can barely keep peace between different nation states when they differ so much in outlook. Hence the failure of multiculturalism, It's probably human nature. School spirit on a larger scale. Why I favor intergration.

... Except you identified the colonist/native situation as multiculturalism despite the obvious fact that no attempt at multiculturalism had even been made between them. Do you not see why this is disingenuous?

Quote

I'm sure you are misunderstanding something, but I can't quite identify it. The colonization of North America is a historical example of what can happen with a culture clash. Obviously tolerance and respect for other cultures didn't apply to either side of that and thats how it turned out the way it did.

In other words, it's an absolutely atrocious example to use. You cannot use that situation to prove that multiculturalism doesn't succeed, because multiculturalism was not even attempted. The exact opposite was attempted: Total annihilation of the opposing culture.

Quote

Why can't you just admit that the colored paper rule was crossing the line?

I also won't admit that NASA faking the moon landings was crossing the line, or that Hitler ingesting a power dot and eating the ghosts of former Soviet and American leaders was crossing the line. Because those things didn't happen. Don't expect people to remark upon ridiculous, sensationalistic, unsubstantiated rumors. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2012, 09:30:29 am

Fun Fact: What Montague is referring to as "European Style Multiculturalism" (Immigrant keeps their culture intac and form communities) is know in Belgium/France as "Anglo Saxon Multiculturalism".:p

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2012, 09:34:11 am

Ok, I think there is a fundamental cultural misunderstanding at work here so I'm just going to concede my argument since I think I argued my point to it's end and I've run out of arguments worth mentioning. I admit the Native American comparison does suck now its been pointed out. Should'a stuck with the Yugoslavia example. I still assert that multiculturalism is a failure and intergration is the way to go.

Let's 'celebrate our diversity' by arguing about something else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 10, 2012, 11:12:04 am

The weirdest thing about that anecdote is that there isn't even anything inherently wrong about giving people coloured paper.  It sounds exactly like the kind of story the Daily Mail might make up via the following process:

- A preschool classroom somewhere got its students to use coloured paper because they thought it looked nicer
- Some parent got outraged and assumed it was to do with POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
- The teacher denied this but at some point they'd said their favourite colour was black and that clearly supported the idea!
- The whole thing blew over and nobody cared because nothing bad had happened
- 5 years later the Daily Mail digs it up and makes a massive fuss over nothing

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 10, 2012, 11:42:25 am

I do not that some kindergarden teachers have been trying to teach that blue is not the only favorite color allowed for boys and pink is not the only favorite color allowed for girls and you shouldn't make fun of someone for liking a different color.

But that is as close as I can possibly come to the anecdote that Luke Prowler brought up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 10, 2012, 12:59:18 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 04:29:11 am

Japan, South Korea, the Scandinavian countries, ect. I can think of some more "diverse" nations not nearly so prosperous.

I'd like to point that even if you discount post-50's additions, Sweden has always been a multicultural country. Hell, the two most iconic "Swedish" things, Midsummer and Lucia, were imported.

Quote from: Montague on February 10, 2012, 09:34:11 am

Should'a stuck with the Yugoslavia example.

It wouldn't have done you any good, seeming as Yugoslavia was basically an example in taking several different cultural and religious groups and forcing them in under one label and cultural nation while completely ignoring what made them different ("Be one with the whole or fuck off!"), and that's why it eventually exploded and why people who had lived relatively peacefully as neighbours and friends for centuries suddenly started hating and killing each other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 10, 2012, 02:04:39 pm

Interesting historical sidenote: Yugoslavia had the second highest standard of living inside the Soviet block.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wayward Device on February 10, 2012, 03:13:41 pm

Quote from: Sheb on February 10, 2012, 09:30:29 am

Fun Fact: What Montague is referring to as "European Style Multiculturalism" (Immigrant keeps their culture intac and form communities) is know in Belgium/France as "Anglo Saxon Multiculturalism".:p

Whenever I see French politicians complaining about something the UK has done (which is quite often, recently) they have a way of saying "Anglo Saxon" (Anglo Saxon Financial models/practices/banks is also very common) that sounds as if they are trying to say "You Fucking English Bastards". The malice is quite palpable.     

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on February 10, 2012, 03:15:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 10, 2012, 11:42:25 am

I do not that some kindergarden teachers have been trying to teach that blue is not the only favorite color allowed for boys and pink is not the only favorite color allowed for girls and you shouldn't make fun of someone for liking a different color.

But that is as close as I can possibly come to the anecdote that Luke Prowler brought up.

I who in the what now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 10, 2012, 03:22:54 pm

I wonder if it's because European countries have fought each other off and on for hundreds of years, and now they have to get along as much as possible. 150-200 years ago, France and England might have gone to war over such remarks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 10, 2012, 03:49:32 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on February 10, 2012, 03:15:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 10, 2012, 11:42:25 am

I do not that some kindergarden teachers have been trying to teach that blue is not the only favorite color allowed for boys and pink is not the only favorite color allowed for girls and you shouldn't make fun of someone for liking a different color.

But that is as close as I can possibly come to the anecdote that Luke Prowler brought up.

I who in the what now?

My bad. Got a wire crossed somewhere, It was Powder Miner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on February 10, 2012, 04:17:17 pm

I actually get confused with other people more often than you'd think, so it's fine.

I personally don't care what color of paper people choose, so long as it's by their own choice and not what someone else told them

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 10, 2012, 09:35:11 pm

Analysis of the Santorum Anomaly: It was a week day, which means a work day for most people. Who shows up to caucuses instead of working? Diehard, opinionated voters. (Tea Party.) Enter Santorum voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 10, 2012, 09:38:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 10, 2012, 02:04:39 pm

Interesting historical sidenote: Yugoslavia had the second highest standard of living inside the Soviet block.

It wasn't within the Soviet Bloc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 10, 2012, 09:40:54 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 10, 2012, 09:38:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 10, 2012, 02:04:39 pm

Interesting historical sidenote: Yugoslavia had the second highest standard of living inside the Soviet block.

It wasn't within the Soviet Bloc.

It was until the end of WWII. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sneakey pete on February 11, 2012, 03:59:52 am

Err, it was occupied by the axis until the end of WW2, until which it was associated with the USSR until 1948.

But really that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the American election.
So i have to ask, if the republican candidates really want a smaller government, why don't they start by getting rid of the ridiculously long primary selection process? (or reforming it at least. I can actually see why it is probably the way it is, before areoplanes for example.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 11, 2012, 08:18:11 am

Well, that's not the government. That's the Republican Party at work there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 11, 2012, 11:14:28 am

Quote from: sneakey pete on February 11, 2012, 03:59:52 am

Err, it was occupied by the axis until the end of WW2, until which it was associated with the USSR until 1948.

But really that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the American election.
So i have to ask, if the republican candidates really want a smaller government, why don't they start by getting rid of the ridiculously long primary selection process? (or reforming it at least. I can actually see why it is probably the way it is, before areoplanes for example.)

Yeah, primaries are bylaws of a political party, it isn't run by or controlled by the government. It's just how the political party determine who it's going to have run for the real elections. It's why primary voters have to be party members, registered Republicans. If it was run by the government everyone could vote and that'd be hilarious.

Also, Yugoslavia was never even part of the Warsaw Pact, it divorced itself from the Soviet Union and it's allies in 1948. It's independant stance probably helps explain why it did a bit better then other socialist countries at the time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 11, 2012, 12:22:29 pm

Well, aren't primary regulated by state laws? And aren't a lot of them "open"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 11, 2012, 12:26:52 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 11, 2012, 11:14:28 am

Quote from: sneakey pete on February 11, 2012, 03:59:52 am

Err, it was occupied by the axis until the end of WW2, until which it was associated with the USSR until 1948.

But really that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the American election.
So i have to ask, if the republican candidates really want a smaller government, why don't they start by getting rid of the ridiculously long primary selection process? (or reforming it at least. I can actually see why it is probably the way it is, before areoplanes for example.)

Yeah, primaries are bylaws of a political party, it isn't run by or controlled by the government. It's just how the political party determine who it's going to have run for the real elections. It's why primary voters have to be party members, registered Republicans. If it was run by the government everyone could vote and that'd be hilarious.

Not true in about half the country, hence the terms "open primary" and "closed primary". There are at least 14 states with fully open Presidential primaries and 11 with semi-open primaries (unaffiliated/independents can vote in either race). It turns out not to be such a clusterfuck after all, because the number of people willing to take time out to go trollvote in the other party's primary is actually quite small. Hell, you can't get most people to show up for their OWN party's primary. Additionally, "spoiler" votes rarely ever constitute a large enough portion to change the outcome of a race. This may actually become less true in proportional races, as one or two percentage points may mean a difference of a few delegates. But in the overall scheme of things, a handful of delegates is not going to mean much if the ACTUAL party members aren't interested in the candidate.



Also, while the primaries aren't run by the Federal government they do in fact cost a non-trivial amount of public money to stage, paid either by the state or local governments. Those voting booths don't appear out of thin air. That absolutely pointless Missouri "beauty pageant"? Estimated to cost $6-7 million of taxpayer dollars.




While we're on that topic, the National Association of Secretaries of State has been working on a proposal (http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:nass-regional-primaries-plan&catid=902&Itemid=439) to do a rotating primary pool to take some of the haphazardness out of the whole thing. They'd leave Iowa and New Hampshire untouched, but everybody else would go into one of four regional, 12-state pools based on geographic location. The primaries would be held on the first Tuesday of each month (March, April, May, June). And then each region would go on the same day. So if they had used this plan this year, for example, it would have been:

Iowa: the usual date
New Hampshire: the usual date

And let's say for argument that the rotation order is East, South, North, West (they'd actually do a lottery draw the first year to determine it).

So first Tuesday in March, all the East states vote.
First Tuesday in April, all the South states vote.
First Tuesday in May, all the North states vote.
First Tuesday in June, all the West states vote.

This still allows candidates time to focus their efforts in a relatively narrow area (a month per region), but takes a lot of the time and confusion out of things, and actually lessens the workload on candidates as they don't have to jump back and forth across the country. You don't have to choose "am I going to camp out in Arizona or Michigan?" as Santorum is currently doing.

The next election cycle, The East states would move to the back of the line and all the other regions would move up a month.

It's an interesting plan, and I like it. I doubt it'll actually ever go anywhere, because there's an entire industry of pundits and campaign strategists built upon the arcane wackiness of the American primary system. But it's still a good idea. Instead of the weird piecemeal horse race, you'd essentially have four "Super Tuesdays". And this way, no state gets chronically ignored (like North Carolina, which is damn near last in the country).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on February 11, 2012, 01:36:44 pm

Actually, why not have a primary where everyone can vote, and encourage everyone to vote? Then you get a candidate that has essentially already been elected by the politically-interested people ;P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 11, 2012, 02:21:15 pm

Quote from: darkflagrance on February 11, 2012, 01:36:44 pm

Actually, why not have a primary where everyone can vote, and encourage everyone to vote? Then you get a candidate that has essentially already been elected by the politically-interested people ;P

I don't think Republicans would like Elite Liberals, Anarchists and Communists with a capital "C" determining who they should put on the election ballot.

I think it'd be funny though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on February 11, 2012, 04:27:17 pm

Quote from: darkflagrance on February 11, 2012, 01:36:44 pm

Actually, why not have a primary where everyone can vote, and encourage everyone to vote? Then you get a candidate that has essentially already been elected by the politically-interested people ;P

Because then you could end up with silly results like Ronald Reagan vs Himself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 11, 2012, 04:45:05 pm

Zombie Reagan vs. Mecha Reagan! It'd be a win-win for Reaganites everywhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 11, 2012, 04:46:36 pm

I'd vote for Mecha Reagan, but only if it had boob missiles. Or nipple missiles, I guess.

Zombie Reagan gets no votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on February 11, 2012, 05:33:00 pm

Why would anyone vote for zombie Reagan when you can vote for zombie Lincoln?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 11, 2012, 07:26:39 pm

Quote from: Solifuge on February 11, 2012, 06:00:48 pm

Sounds like its Triage time. Ditch the stressing, and just keep doing what you can to tackle the most important things. You can fuss over the other bits as you can. Good luck!

I spent some time doing my civic duty to get educated regarding the upcoming American election. Without TV, I've been a bit out of the loop, regarding following debates, etc... which I feel I've somewhat resolved. Also, though I'm once again unsure how I feel about Ron Paul, I'm finding the whole Media Blackout on him more than a bit troubling... in fact, it bothers me a lot.

Jon Stewart, for all his foibles, did a damned good spot on this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo&feature=related). Ignore the sensationalist title of the Youtube video, and give it a watch if you care to... it's pretty ridiculous, and heaps ever more doubt onto the paper-thin integrity of our available national news services. I'm pretty cynical, and even I find it hard to believe.

EDIT: Stance notwithstanding, I'm glad to see the audience was able to override CNN's repeat skipping of his chance to answer questions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im7d9l_vY9w&feature=related).

*Quote from another thread(sad thread)

Link to full debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV0gFbfLaAo

Quick note, I think gingrich has a point on the outset. A Presidents personal life has never had a negative effect on his ability to do his job. In fact the presidents who did have personal problems come into the media, such as Clinton, were some of the best presidents the USA has had.
I think with Gingrich, people mistake a potential president for a celebrity, as far as im concerned a presidential candidate should debate the issues, not how he runs his marriage.

On Ron Paul... while I disagree with a great many things he says(but also agree with alot too), he is the only person ive seen talking about american politics who doesn't look like an absolute twit.
I see his logic, I see his reasoning, it's not just propaganda or misguidance like most of them do. It's bottled down to plain belief, either you agree or you don't.

I haven't kept up with American politics much lately, i'm just watching this debate to see what they all think(being british), but these are my two thoughts after watching the first video and the beginning of the debate.


*also I'd like to say, they really pulled together with gingrich to change the issue. They could have taken pot shots but none really did. Kept it clean.

**Difference from the UK, the American politicians when talking about the unemployed dont base everything on the idea that 'unemployed are lazy', they base it on the poor economy, which is exactly why people are unemployed.
It does feel like the conservative Americans are more honest about capitalism than the British, the British cons blame unemployment on lazy citizens because 'the economy is fine obviously!!' while they fire thousands and worsen the economy and reduce retraining schemes. Even the left do this in Britain. Because its popular to bash the unemployed over regulation of industry, way to kick a man when hes down to support the middle class vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on February 11, 2012, 07:49:59 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 11, 2012, 07:26:39 pm

*snip*
**Difference from the UK, the American politicians when talking about the unemployed dont base everything on the idea that 'unemployed are lazy', they base it on the poor economy, which is exactly why people are unemployed.
It does feel like the conservative Americans are more honest about capitalism than the British, the British cons blame unemployment on lazy citizens because 'the economy is fine obviously!!' while they fire thousands and worsen the economy and reduce retraining schemes. Even the left do this in Britain. Because its popular to bash the unemployed over regulation of industry, way to kick a man when hes down to support the middle class vote.

Durr Hurr... Not middle class voters anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on February 11, 2012, 08:48:35 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on February 11, 2012, 05:33:00 pm

Why would anyone vote for zombie Reagan when you can vote for zombie Lincoln?

Mecha Lincoln + Mecha Regan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 11, 2012, 08:56:19 pm

Mecha G.W. Bush. With WMD detectors installed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 11, 2012, 09:04:48 pm

Nothing but false positives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 11, 2012, 09:17:04 pm

Watching this debate now(a couple of days after the last one i posted)

Full debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4BuTa6rE4I&feature=related

Romney really looks like hes falling apart here, he seems to be resorting to partisan politics because the other guys are, or their supporters are. He should have risen above it like he 'apparently' said he would.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on February 11, 2012, 09:40:09 pm

Remember, a vote for mecha roosevelt is a vote for peace.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SirAaronIII on February 12, 2012, 01:13:51 am

MFDR or Teddy?

Or both?? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 12, 2012, 01:27:44 am

Both... in the same mech-body. Siamese-twin mecha-Roosevelt (STMR), powered by nuclear fission and the tears of starved paraplegics. Their infinite fury and self-loathing will power the giant war-machine America uses to crush all that dares question the CARNIVAL, which is what STMR will rechristen the political process.

There will be bread and circus, guided by the steel fist of Roosevelt's hate. Those who question will be dismembered, starved, and then assaulted with onions, to further power STMR's reign. The excess limbs will be attached to the slave miners we cull from our enemy's leaders, so that they can mine the heavy minerals needed to power SMTR more efficiently.

This is our future. Note it well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 12, 2012, 03:10:41 am

Quote from: darkflagrance on February 11, 2012, 01:36:44 pm

Actually, why not have a primary where everyone can vote, and encourage everyone to vote? Then you get a candidate that has essentially already been elected by the politically-interested people ;P

Many states do have open primaries.  Others do not.  Some states allow you to register with a party the day of the primary (and you are always allowed to change parties).

Even in open primaries the exit polls indicate that the electorate is heavily tilted towards party loyalists of the party holding the primary, be they registered as party members or not.  So don't expect zombie Reagan to be winning Democratic open primaries anytime soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 04:16:52 am

Is there any reason not to have the primaries all on the same day, as in general elections, so that the early states don't hold a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on February 12, 2012, 04:29:12 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 04:16:52 am

Is there any reason not to have the primaries all on the same day, as in general elections, so that the early states don't hold a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention?

Well, no, but then the early states wouldn't get a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Solifuge on February 12, 2012, 04:37:20 am

Quote from: alway on February 12, 2012, 04:29:12 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 04:16:52 am

Is there any reason not to have the primaries all on the same day, as in general elections, so that the early states don't hold a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention?

Well, no, but then the early states wouldn't get a bizarre amount of undue sway/attention.

Gotta disagree that there's no reason to stagger the primaries as they are. It's very difficult for a candidate to campaign and do outreach EVERYWHERE AT ONCE. The kind of road-trip necessary to campaign across the entire country is already bad enough spread out over the time it presently is, much less all in one go, with no chance to stop, organize, interview, debate, etc. Also, if you pushed all the primaries back to, say, the last day possible, your candidates most recent rallies in some areas may have been months ago, and not at all fresh in the minds of voters.

Staggering them gives candidates the chance to campaign in each region close enough to the primaries that their messages are still fresh, relevant, and impactive when those regions are caucusing and/or casting ballots.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 12, 2012, 05:27:08 am

So would you support a staggered schedule for the "real" election?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 05:32:00 am

Quote from: Solifuge on February 12, 2012, 04:37:20 am

Gotta disagree that there's no reason to stagger the primaries as they are. It's very difficult for a candidate to campaign and do outreach EVERYWHERE AT ONCE. The kind of road-trip necessary to campaign across the entire country is already bad enough spread out over the time it presently is, much less all in one go, with no chance to stop, organize, interview, debate, etc. Also, if you pushed all the primaries back to, say, the last day possible, your candidates most recent rallies in some areas may have been months ago, and not at all fresh in the minds of voters.

Staggering them gives candidates the chance to campaign in each region close enough to the primaries that their messages are still fresh, relevant, and impactive when those regions are caucusing and/or casting ballots.

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about the general election? They'd just do the campaigning beforehand instead.

The fact of the matter is that a staggered schedule makes some states more important than they have any reason to be; this is not good democracy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Solifuge on February 12, 2012, 06:09:12 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 05:32:00 am

Couldn't you say the exact same thing about the general election? They'd just do the campaigning beforehand instead.

The fact of the matter is that a staggered schedule makes some states more important than they have any reason to be; this is not good democracy.

Well, it certainly structures the Strategy Game that is a political campaign, like where and when candidates spend their time/funding. I'm not sure that it's fundamentally less democratic, though.

I'm not a sports person, so I hope not to botch this metaphore... but holding votes simultaneously is like determining the outcome of a basketball game by having one player from each team simultaneously throwing penalty shots into opposite hoops until one misses, whereas staggered ballots are more like the multi-person competition over one ball which teams normally play. In the second example, if a team is doing poorly, they can adjust their strategy to adapt to their opponents, decide what resources to commit to what function on their team, and adapt to changing conditions. In the first example, you can't strategize or adapt... you can only hope you sent your best player forward and prepared them well enough.

Whatever way it works out, you're ideally still seeing a competition to see who is the best player... but both of the games would be played radically differently. To leave the metaphore, simultaneous votes put a lot more focus more on a candidates travels, the presence of their message in mass media, and mostly require lots and lots of advanced preparation. Staggered votes put more focus on strategy and adaptation, and (I would say) create more opportunities to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate as they're put through a trial by fire.

If the concern is that primaries in each state influence those in subsequent states, a compromises could be keeping the primary ballots/caucus results secret until every one is decided... I think that would allow maximum time to campaign just prior to the decisions being made, without giving unfair influence to the first states.

EDIT: Still... that it affects later primaries isn't in question, but remember that each state still has equal chance and power to react to the primaries held before, and have equal say in the end process (per capita, of course). There's no true "advantage", so much as their is a chance to structure the playing field first, before other states get a chance to restructure it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 12, 2012, 06:51:44 am

So this report from Maddow (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#46349475) (YT version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OkN2npJR-4)) is getting some play. Basically she goes to do an expose of how Ron Paul is focusing on winning delegates even where he loses the vote only to find that the Ron Paul campaign is openly and proudly doing so, even sending a senior advisor onto the show to boast about how they are using the process. He is pretty much claiming a majority of delegates in all caucus states.

When senior members of a high performing campaign are talking about gaming the system (against the silly little 'voter preference' thing) and enforcing a brokered convention on one side, and on the other serious thinkers who I respect are repeating my pie in the sky, beat Romney at any price, Santorum/Newt strategy (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/02/campaigns/campaign-2012/how-much-does-newt-gingrich-hate-mitt-romney/) that I thought was utterly absurd... this could be a very fun year.

Oh, and something about Maine. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/how-maine-helps-romney/) Probably not important.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 07:11:28 am

Quote from: Solifuge on February 12, 2012, 06:09:12 am

To leave the metaphore, simultaneous votes put a lot more focus more on a candidates travels, the presence of their message in mass media, and mostly require lots and lots of advanced preparation. Staggered votes put more focus on strategy and adaptation, and (I would say) create more opportunities to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate as they're put through a trial by fire.

Except it puts some states in different roles than other states in a manner that is completely arbitrary and unfair.

Quote

If the concern is that primaries in each state influence those in subsequent states, a compromises could be keeping the primary ballots/caucus results secret until every one is decided... I think that would allow maximum time to campaign just prior to the decisions being made, without giving unfair influence to the first states.

This would be fair enough, I think, although unofficial polling would probably still skew later results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 12, 2012, 12:31:41 pm

No, individual people who live in California and New York tend to be more ethnic than Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and thus they are worth less.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 12, 2012, 12:44:18 pm

If you want to preserve the incredibly expensive and lengthy campaign season but still allow states to fill any and all roles...

You could assign the order of states primary ballots randomly or in a cyclical fashion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 01:18:51 pm

I don't see why you can't just have the candidates campaign across the country, as they do now during the primary season, and then hold all primaries simultaneously. It would take the same amount of time, even.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 12, 2012, 01:44:59 pm

Nrguffle. The primaries eat up taxpayer money? That, I did not know, and it kinda' pisses me off. Primaries are party run, a party function, not government run, and provide little to no benefit to the general populace.

Rich bastards (and I'm speaking across parties, there) can afford to pay for their pissing contest without draining cash from the people. Or they can submit to laws that regulate the process so it's less expensive and time consuming. Which apparently we need if the primaries are going to be sucking up millions of taxpayer dollars.

Anyone got a mini-history lesson on how the hell it ended up like this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 12, 2012, 02:39:15 pm

I have a question.

I know Ron Paul has a fanatical but small support base.
But why do they think he can ever win? It's never going to happen.
He's a laissez faire extremist, an extremist wont win an election anytime soon.

He thinks if the government is eliminated from the economy, there would be no need for social welfare or anything else.
It's absolutely insane. This i 19th century Britain stuff, we had no regulation, little state
intervention. The poor were dying in the streets in the millions, disease rife, education non existant.

What Ron Paul promotes as a political and social system is exactly the reason social intervention and government intervention came about in the first place....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 12, 2012, 02:43:43 pm

They tend to apply the "clap your hands if you believe" strategy, much like with his policies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 12, 2012, 02:48:50 pm

Alternatively, they don't select candidates based on their "viability", but because of the policies they support. A voting practice I respect, even if virtually all their policy preferences are not mine. At least, it is if that's an accurate assessment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 12, 2012, 02:51:00 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 12, 2012, 02:48:50 pm

Alternatively, they don't select candidates based on their "viability", but because of the policies they support. A voting practice I respect, even if virtually all their policy preferences are not mine. At least, it is if that's an accurate assessment.

I'm not saying they shouldnt vote for him, voting for who is 'viable' is absolutely retarded. But the Ron Paul guys seem to think hes going to win, and this has been going on for years...

Personally I think Ron Paul is a purist. It's nice to be so rigid, but in reality the world doesn't work that way. He lives in fairyland where an unregulated private sector fixes every problem for every citizen and leaves no one behind. It is absolutely nonsense.

'Socialism doesn't work' - Ron Paul

The NHS, free healthcare for all without prejudice since the 1940's. Enough said. All polls i've ever seen state the NHS as Britains greatest institution, it is also cheaper per person than the American private healthcare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 02:56:06 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 12, 2012, 02:51:00 pm

Personally I think Ron Paul is a purist. It's nice to be so rigid, but in reality the world doesn't work that way. He lives in fairyland where an unregulated private sector fixes every problem for every citizen and leaves no one behind. It is absolutely nonsense.

I wish I could believe that, but judging from his actual policies and legislation that he has much more of a personal agenda than he lets on. He's no purist; he has his own clear prejudices and hot-button issues like all/most other politicians.


Regarding why he's popular in the US: In the United States, individualism is very overrepresented as a value. In an ironic twist, the fact that the rich pay into the system so little means that the middle class has a heavy burden the lower class gets nothing terribly good, meaning people look at the system and think that taxing and providing social programs is good for nothing, which winds up being even better for the rich because people are convinced that taxes are just plain bad. This feeds into the belief that people should basically sink or swim and survive by their own merits, however that's supposed to work. It's no surprise at all that libertarianism has become more popular recently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on February 12, 2012, 04:05:03 pm

The problem I've found with most Ron Paul supporters I've talked to is they take things for granted which happen to be the same things they want to do away with. I brought up how removing the EPA would result in massive health risks from unregulated pollution to one supporter; his response was "I'm sure someone would do it [ensure pollution wasn't too bad]."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 04:09:23 pm

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 12, 2012, 04:33:08 pm

Quote from: alway on February 12, 2012, 04:05:03 pm

The problem I've found with most Ron Paul supporters I've talked to is they take things for granted which happen to be the same things they want to do away with. I brought up how removing the EPA would result in massive health risks from unregulated pollution to one supporter; his response was "I'm sure someone would do it [ensure pollution wasn't too bad]."

This has always been my issue with libertarians as well; they assume that if they get rid of government, some benevolent people will step in and take care of everything it does, only better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 12, 2012, 04:35:52 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 04:09:23 pm

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

The argument is that without federal management, federal protections go out the window too. If an industry's pollution causes a problem then they can have their asses sued off. So, you have a market incentive to control pollution- or at least conceal it or find some other way to cover their own asses from the threat of litigation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 04:45:29 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 04:35:52 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 04:09:23 pm

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

The argument is that without federal management, federal protections go out the window too. If an industry's pollution causes a problem then they can have their asses sued off. So, you have a market incentive to control pollution- or at least conceal it or find some other way to cover their own asses from the threat of litigation.

Aside from something overt like an oil spill, how are you going to prove that pollution causes any problems? I don't know if you've noticed, but we still have people denying global warming in the States. At least one of the candidates (Santorum) is one of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 12, 2012, 04:56:01 pm

... because there's places in the world that are basically unlivable due to pollution, right now, and there's areas where pollution from previous generations still have heavy impact. Pollution being bad isn't exactly something that's really debatable by anyone even remotely sane. We have a lot of examples of how it screws things up.

E: The refusal to recognize global warming is at least understandable -- it takes a long-term (20+ years) and heavily statistical (global warming is global; local environments don't necessarily warm up across the globe) view, which many people refuse to engender. Especially politicians who tend to be heavily focused in a very short-term period (election and re-election).

The refusal is g'damn stupid, yes, but it's understandable. Wrong, foolish, and deadly shortsighted, but understandable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 12, 2012, 04:58:26 pm

Quote from: Frumple on February 12, 2012, 04:56:01 pm

... because there's places in the world that are basically unlivable due to pollution, right now, and there's areas where pollution from previous generations still have heavy impact. Pollution being bad isn't exactly something that's really debatable by anyone even remotely sane. We have a lot of examples of how it screws things up.

(http://www.globalwarmingandu.com/images/Dead-Zone-In-The-Ocean.jpg)

All that ocean is uninhabitable by everything except Jellyfish.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 12, 2012, 05:10:11 pm

Montague, how can you sue them off if polluting isn't illegal, hence regulated? I just don't get it.

(And since when does the Federal Government protect polluter from prosecution?)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 05:11:19 pm

You guys are preaching to the choir here. I know that pollution is bad, and should be kept in check, global warming or no global warming. It's some of the politicians who either act like pollution isn't anything to worry about, or believe that industry will police itself. Some companies might, but there are more than a few that would sell their mothers for an extra dollar or two.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 12, 2012, 05:13:13 pm

As I recall it, the European Union is getting pissed about pollution. Not so sure about America though. Illegal dumping going on - literally entire ships sunk in European waters illegally :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 12, 2012, 05:16:02 pm

Not to mention that the common method of disposal for old oil rigs is just to collapse them into the sea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 12, 2012, 05:45:21 pm

Pretty sure those get done with environmental impact statements though. And properly sealed, old tankers shouldn't be leaking into the ocean for several hundred years at least.

It's when rigs sink that really damage happens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 12, 2012, 05:48:59 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 12, 2012, 05:45:21 pm

Pretty sure those get done with environmental impact statements though. And properly sealed, old tankers shouldn't be leaking into the ocean for several hundred years at least.

Oh good, unexplainable oil leaking to the Ocean surface from our barbaric civilization. Maybe future humans will write about how foolish we are to do things like this.

The ocean should be a waste dump for no man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 12, 2012, 05:51:33 pm

I'm not defending the whole industry or anything. But they don't literally just ram a hole in the keel and let it sink.

I always kind of have been puzzled why they don't strip down oil rigs and tankers for materials though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 12, 2012, 05:56:00 pm

I think they do take most of the valuable stuff. But a bunch of steel robs sunk in concrete aren't worth the bother.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 12, 2012, 06:41:21 pm

Quote from: Sheb on February 12, 2012, 05:10:11 pm

Montague, how can you sue them off if polluting isn't illegal, hence regulated? I just don't get it.

(And since when does the Federal Government protect polluter from prosecution?)

A civil lawsuit. Litigation. They'd go to court if a plaintiff could prove damages and responsibility. If Monsanto dumps 400tons of eviljuice into the river and it kills off a farmer's entire crop that season, then Monsanto would be sued because it caused damage to somebody's property. Damage to life and property is obviously illegal.

The federal government protects polluters indirectly. In that same civil suit, Monsanto could claim "We followed every federal regulation regarding the storage and containment of evil-juice and we can prove we followed them to the letter. If these measures failed then you need to sue the government, not us, we just did what we were told would keep people safe." and they thus might not be responsible for damages.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 12, 2012, 06:51:08 pm

Okay, got it. Still don't think it'd work, because except for the most clear-cut cases, it's just too fucking hard to prove it'd Monsanto's fault. Or at the very least it'd take years and thousands of dollars of research that most people can't afford.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 12, 2012, 06:51:33 pm

What if the pollution doesn't directly damage any business but instead, say, screws up a city's air and creates a smog over it?  Who exactly is gonna sue them then?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 06:55:16 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 06:41:21 pm

A civil lawsuit. Litigation. They'd go to court if a plaintiff could prove damages and responsibility. If Monsanto dumps 400tons of eviljuice into the river and it kills off a farmer's entire crop that season, then Monsanto would be sued because it caused damage to somebody's property. Damage to life and property is obviously illegal.

Proving damages in most cases would be flat-out impossible. You're intentionally giving a case where it just happens to be clear-cut, but what about when you have hundreds of companies and facilities all contributing, in a general sense, to a worsening of environmental and health conditions? Who do you sue? How do you even pin down blame? What do you even blame them for, exactly? You can't pick some guys out of a city and say "these plaintiffs all have lunger cancer, which might be because of the undisclosed, unregulated chemicals the 427 defendant companies may or may not have been pumping into the soil and atmosphere, which may or may not heighten the statistical chance of such cancer". It just doesn't work that way. Litigation only works in cases where there is a very clear-cut causal link between a problem and the actions of the perpetrating party. Usually, with issues like pollution, the link is there, but is indirect enough that you can't effectively point fingers and say "this chemical by this company definitely and directly caused this problem". It's normally a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 12, 2012, 07:09:52 pm

Quote from: Sheb on February 12, 2012, 06:51:08 pm

Okay, got it. Still don't think it'd work, because except for the most clear-cut cases, it's just too fucking hard to prove it'd Monsanto's fault. Or at the very least it'd take years and thousands of dollars of research that most people can't afford.

Pretty much, but that's the line of thought behind "self-regulation" anyways. Most libertarian types don't really buy that argument either and admit the environment should be one of the government's few responsibilities.

Quote from: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 06:55:16 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 06:41:21 pm

A civil lawsuit. Litigation. They'd go to court if a plaintiff could prove damages and responsibility. If Monsanto dumps 400tons of eviljuice into the river and it kills off a farmer's entire crop that season, then Monsanto would be sued because it caused damage to somebody's property. Damage to life and property is obviously illegal.

Proving damages in most cases would be flat-out impossible. You're intentionally giving a case where it just happens to be clear-cut, but what about when you have hundreds of companies and facilities all contributing, in a general sense, to a worsening of environmental and health conditions? Who do you sue? How do you even pin down blame? What do you even blame them for, exactly? You can't pick some guys out of a city and say "these plaintiffs all have lunger cancer, which might be because of the undisclosed, unregulated chemicals the 427 defendant companies may or may not have been pumping into the soil and atmosphere, which may or may not heighten the statistical chance of such cancer". It just doesn't work that way. Litigation only works in cases where there is a very clear-cut causal link between a problem and the actions of the perpetrating party. Usually, with issues like pollution, the link is there, but is indirect enough that you can't effectively point fingers and say "this chemical by this company definitely and directly caused this problem". It's normally a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Yep. However, industries do indeed get sued all the time for damages caused by pollution. This is easier to do when the source of the pollution is clear and the link to health problems or damages is clear.

So, no, you'd likely never win a case against the coal power plant if you get some respiratory disease because they'd just argue "Our plants are pollution isn't that bad, you can blame the automobile traffic, airport other factories, tire burning yard, ect, ect, ect for your problems, not us." because it'd be impossible to pinpoint the source, especially when every single industry is happily polluting away knowing no potential plaintiff could really ever pin them down and sue them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 12, 2012, 07:11:00 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 04:09:23 pm

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

This is exactly my experience with RP supporters. Cut away regulation and the private sector will cure poverty, the environment, healthcare and everything else. Magically.

I want to hear from a RP supporter, whats their reaction to being looked at like this. I don't want a response like LOL THE MAIN STREAM IS CRUSHING OUR DREAMS MAAANNNNN

I want a real response to try and defend the allegations by (it seems) everyone that RP lives in the land of the fairies, a place with no standing in the real world. I say this not as a Republican voter, not even as an Obama lover, but as a British onlooker onto american politics.

*Focus of the ridicule is on his ideas about the free market magically healing all ills.
I agree with his foreign policy and other such things, but the free market crap which is the main part of his campaign and ideology is just insanely naive to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 12, 2012, 07:39:59 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 12, 2012, 07:11:00 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 04:09:23 pm

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

This is exactly my experience with RP supporters. Cut away regulation and the private sector will cure poverty, the environment, healthcare and everything else. Magically.

I want to hear from a RP supporter, whats their reaction to being looked at like this. I don't want a response like LOL THE MAIN STREAM IS CRUSHING OUR DREAMS MAAANNNNN

I want a real response to try and defend the allegations by (it seems) everyone that RP lives in the land of the fairies, a place with no standing in the real world. I say this not as a Republican voter, not even as an Obama lover, but as a British onlooker onto american politics.

*Focus of the ridicule is on his ideas about the free market magically healing all ills.
I agree with his foreign policy and other such things, but the free market crap which is the main part of his campaign and ideology is just insanely naive to me.

I'd say they are on to something. Countries with greater economic freedom are the most prosperous ones. They also tend to have better human rights records, greater standard of living (even for the poor) and greater individual freedom. It correlates almost perfectly.

Consider that most abuse is done directly or indirectly by the government interfering with the economy. Try naming a monopoly that arose without the help or support of a government, for example.

http://www.heritage.org/index/default (http://www.heritage.org/index/default)
Look at the list and think about which countries you'd rather live in.

Of course, RP and friends are proposing something absurdly extreme. Not even Hong Kong is completely without regulation or totally 100% free market. There is a balance here, though it peaks toward greater economic freedom, I don't think going retarded with it is going to help things. There is a very black and white type of thinking with extreme ideology and that's basically how it boils down. If a little bit is good then a lot more must be better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 12, 2012, 08:15:15 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 07:39:59 pm

I'd say they are on to something. Countries with greater economic freedom are the most prosperous ones. They also tend to have better human rights records, greater standard of living (even for the poor) and greater individual freedom. It correlates almost perfectly.

Personally, I think that the correlation is the other way around. Countries that are more prosperous want to compete on the world stage, so they lower tariffs and try to get the free market system flowing, since by doing so they potentially can earn more money. When countries slide into a recession, then they establish trade tariffs and laws in an attempt to protect their economy. Of course the correlation isn't exactly perfect, since economic freedom is influenced by a whole host of different factors. The prosperity of the country is probably one of the major factors though.

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 07:39:59 pm

Consider that most abuse is done directly or indirectly by the government interfering with the economy. Try naming a monopoly that arose without the help or support of a government, for example.

Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel Company/U.S. Steel are the two that spring foremost to my mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 08:19:30 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 07:39:59 pm

http://www.heritage.org/index/default (http://www.heritage.org/index/default)
Look at the list and think about which countries you'd rather live in.

JFYI, you might want to use sources that aren't from conservative think tanks. That's not even biased; that's having a clear and outspoken agenda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 12, 2012, 08:39:54 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 08:19:30 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 07:39:59 pm

http://www.heritage.org/index/default (http://www.heritage.org/index/default)
Look at the list and think about which countries you'd rather live in.

JFYI, you might want to use sources that aren't from conservative think tanks. That's not even biased; that's having a clear and outspoken agenda.

You have a better source? Far as I know that's the only source that bothers with that sort of thing. What's inaccurate about it?

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on February 12, 2012, 08:15:15 pm

Personally, I think that the correlation is the other way around. Countries that are more prosperous want to compete on the world stage, so they lower tariffs and try to get the free market system flowing, since by doing so they potentially can earn more money. When countries slide into a recession, then they establish trade tariffs and laws in an attempt to protect their economy. Of course the correlation isn't exactly perfect, since economic freedom is influenced by a whole host of different factors. The prosperity of the country is probably one of the major factors though.

Maybe if the correlation was a recent thing tied to globalism, but it's pretty much been like that for the last 50 years or go. Tariffs are not really free-market so much as they are free-trade.

The country's domestic economic polices determine it's economic freedom. Some countries have few foreign trade tariffs or protectionist policies but very little domestic economic freedom and vise-versa. Vietnam or China is an example of the former. Not many modern examples of the latter anymore, though. Protectionism as a whole was more popular a few decades ago even with capitalist countries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 12, 2012, 08:44:57 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 08:39:54 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on February 12, 2012, 08:15:15 pm

Personally, I think that the correlation is the other way around. Countries that are more prosperous want to compete on the world stage, so they lower tariffs and try to get the free market system flowing, since by doing so they potentially can earn more money. When countries slide into a recession, then they establish trade tariffs and laws in an attempt to protect their economy. Of course the correlation isn't exactly perfect, since economic freedom is influenced by a whole host of different factors. The prosperity of the country is probably one of the major factors though.

Maybe if the correlation was a recent thing tied to globalism, but it's pretty much been like that for the last 50 years or go. Tariffs are not really free-market so much as they are free-trade.

The country's domestic economic polices determine it's economic freedom. Some countries have few foreign trade tariffs or protectionist policies but very little domestic economic freedom and vise-versa. Vietnam or China is an example of the former. Not many modern examples of the latter anymore, though. Protectionism as a whole was more popular a few decades ago even with capitalist countries.

Right, now I'm confused. What laws would constitute good economic freedom and what laws would constitute poor economic freedom? Is it about the ability for corporations or individuals to set up their own businesses and how they should regulate it? Do minimum wage and environmental laws affect economic freedom?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 08:53:44 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 08:39:54 pm

You have a better source? Far as I know that's the only source that bothers with that sort of thing. What's inaccurate about it?

It's hard to say what's accurate or not because it's using an ill-defined metric created by fiscal conservatives in order to promote their own agenda. It's not that it's "wrong", it's that it just plain isn't trustworthy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 12, 2012, 09:01:05 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on February 12, 2012, 08:44:57 pm

Right, now I'm confused. What laws would constitute good economic freedom and what laws would constitute poor economic freedom? Is it about the ability for corporations or individuals to set up their own businesses and how they should regulate it? Do minimum wage and environmental laws affect economic freedom?

Well basically. Things like ease of starting and disbanding a business, property rights, government overhead and associated taxes, ect.

http://www.heritage.org/index/faq (http://www.heritage.org/index/faq)

The source I linked measures it by a list of criteria in all sorts of categories and explains them in depth, some are more valid then others in my opinion and it does factor in how protectionist their foreign trade policies are. Yes, it also assigns penalties for labor laws and minimum wages and whatnot. It not weighted heavily in their calculation, though.

Quote from: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 08:53:44 pm

It's hard to say what's accurate or not because it's using an ill-defined metric created by fiscal conservatives in order to promote their own agenda. It's not that it's "wrong", it's that it just plain isn't trustworthy.

*shrug* So long as you take it with a grain of salt, it seems like an accurate enough assessment to me. It has definitions there somewhere. Hopefully fiscal conservatives would know what they are talking about when it comes to gauging economic freedom.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 12, 2012, 09:14:00 pm

Yeah, I have to laugh at the notion that China is somehow economically oppressive. The number of self-made millionaires and even billionaires there is staggering. Jack Ma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma) is the quintessential self-made man in China. The system is only oppressive for those who don't know how to navigate it (like foreigners).

And you'll pardon me if I take a grain of salt salt lick with the Heritage Foundation as a source.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 09:19:37 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 09:01:05 pm

*shrug* So long as you take it with a grain of salt, it seems like an accurate enough assessment to me. It has definitions there somewhere. Hopefully fiscal conservatives would know what they are talking about when it comes to gauging economic freedom.

You're not taking it with a grain of salt. You're looking at an index of figures, the meaning of which is unclear to you, and saying they're "accurate enough" based either on your own prejudices or other information, rendering the index useless.

Quote from: RedKing on February 12, 2012, 09:14:00 pm

Yeah, I have to laugh at the notion that China is somehow economically oppressive. The number of self-made millionaires and even billionaires there is staggering. Jack Ma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma) is the quintessential self-made man in China. The system is only oppressive for those who don't know how to navigate it (like foreigners).

And you'll pardon me if I take a grain of salt salt lick with the Heritage Foundation as a source.

China is a little complicated in that regard. They're oppressive and seem to like companies get away with damn near anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 12, 2012, 10:01:52 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 12, 2012, 09:19:37 pm

China is a little complicated in that regard. They're oppressive and seem to like companies get away with damn near anything.

They can be oppressive in the protectionist requirements (like requiring a certain percentage ownership by the state for publicly traded companies, or requiring all companies in China have Chinese owners), and there is a lot of red tape. But most of the red tape gets bypassed with bribes and favors.

Yeah, I know...it's not exactly economic freedom to have that level of corruption.
But the point is that if you know how to game the system, it's actually incredibly easy to be an entrepeneur in China.
If you're a foreigner, you find a local partner to put their name on all the official documents. If you need a license from the local mayor/governor/whatever and you don't feel like waiting for five years, you find out if any of your friends know a guy who knows a guy who knows an official's brother-in-law, etc. Or you take them out for a really nice dinner and send their kids gifts for their birthday. Hey, suddenly you get your permit. That's just how it works there (and in a lot of other places around the world).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: OwlEpicurus on February 12, 2012, 10:19:00 pm

The thing that jumped out at me immediately when I looked at that index:  Singapore.  It's #2 on the list.  It is definitely prosperous.  Of course, the government there will execute you if you're caught with drugs, and the the Economist ranked it #82 in terms of democracy (http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf) out of 162 countries.  It fares slightly better on the HDI, coming in at #27.

In contrast, Norway, ranked #1 in the Economist's 2010 Democracy Index and in the 2011 HDI, is ranked #40 in the Heritage Foundation's rankings.  I think I'd rather live in Norway.

A few other oddly ranked countries:

                 Heritage     Economist       HDI
Bahrain:      12             122               42
Mauritius:    8               24                77
Qatar:        25              137              37
France:       67             31                 20
Venezuela*: 174            96                73

All three of these rankings tell you something about what living in a country would be like.  They seem to agree on which countries are generally bad places to live and which ones are generally good, but it gets messier once you start comparing the countries in the upper halves of each list.  Considering that most arguments about government's place in the economy is less, say, "United States vs. Zimbabwe" and more "United States vs. Norway," this will cause significant problems.

*Regardless of your position on Chavez, that is a large difference between the rankings.

(I really should get back to my homework now.)

Edit:  How did I post by accident?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 12, 2012, 11:18:47 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 12, 2012, 10:01:52 pm

They can be oppressive in the protectionist requirements (like requiring a certain percentage ownership by the state for publicly traded companies, or requiring all companies in China have Chinese owners), and there is a lot of red tape. But most of the red tape gets bypassed with bribes and favors.

My uncle has doing legal work on a string of hundred million dollar real estate deals in china for the past few years and he gave me his take on the Chinese legal system a few months back.  Chinese people think of lawyers like witch doctors because they can make the law say whatever they want.  But it's actually really easy to get Chinese laws to say whatever you want because it's much more vaguely written then American law or laws in other places.  But it's only going to stand up in court if your company has "influence" with the local officials.  This influence is gathered exactly the way you would expect, favors and various backchannel bribes.  The maximum punishment for taking bribes is death but the only officials that get punished are those that have already screwed up and lost their positions.  It's not so much a punishment as a coup-de-grace.

My uncle has however spent his entire career talking about how horrible legal work is (as he grew steadily richer) and telling everyone younger then him to never get into it so YMMV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 08:56:20 am

Quote from: Montague on February 12, 2012, 07:39:59 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 12, 2012, 07:11:00 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 12, 2012, 04:09:23 pm

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

This is exactly my experience with RP supporters. Cut away regulation and the private sector will cure poverty, the environment, healthcare and everything else. Magically.

I want to hear from a RP supporter, whats their reaction to being looked at like this. I don't want a response like LOL THE MAIN STREAM IS CRUSHING OUR DREAMS MAAANNNNN

I want a real response to try and defend the allegations by (it seems) everyone that RP lives in the land of the fairies, a place with no standing in the real world. I say this not as a Republican voter, not even as an Obama lover, but as a British onlooker onto american politics.

*Focus of the ridicule is on his ideas about the free market magically healing all ills.
I agree with his foreign policy and other such things, but the free market crap which is the main part of his campaign and ideology is just insanely naive to me.

I'd say they are on to something. Countries with greater economic freedom are the most prosperous ones. They also tend to have better human rights records, greater standard of living (even for the poor) and greater individual freedom. It correlates almost perfectly.

Consider that most abuse is done directly or indirectly by the government interfering with the economy. Try naming a monopoly that arose without the help or support of a government, for example.

http://www.heritage.org/index/default (http://www.heritage.org/index/default)
Look at the list and think about which countries you'd rather live in.

Of course, RP and friends are proposing something absurdly extreme. Not even Hong Kong is completely without regulation or totally 100% free market. There is a balance here, though it peaks toward greater economic freedom, I don't think going retarded with it is going to help things. There is a very black and white type of thinking with extreme ideology and that's basically how it boils down. If a little bit is good then a lot more must be better.

Prosperity yes, but at the expense of the poor, IE most of the nation. Unregulated capitalism works for better prosperity nearly always, but its morally abhorant to pursue profit at the expense of everything else.
Even in a capitalist society, the poor are considered to deserve some state intervention.

RP's ideas are a step towards 19th century catastrophy, not ideas that are 'onto something'.
A step back is indeed, not a step forward.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 13, 2012, 09:59:49 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 12, 2012, 11:18:47 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 12, 2012, 10:01:52 pm

They can be oppressive in the protectionist requirements (like requiring a certain percentage ownership by the state for publicly traded companies, or requiring all companies in China have Chinese owners), and there is a lot of red tape. But most of the red tape gets bypassed with bribes and favors.

My uncle has doing legal work on a string of hundred million dollar real estate deals in china for the past few years and he gave me his take on the Chinese legal system a few months back.  Chinese people think of lawyers like witch doctors because they can make the law say whatever they want.  But it's actually really easy to get Chinese laws to say whatever you want because it's much more vaguely written then American law or laws in other places.  But it's only going to stand up in court if your company has "influence" with the local officials.  This influence is gathered exactly the way you would expect, favors and various backchannel bribes.  The maximum punishment for taking bribes is death but the only officials that get punished are those that have already screwed up and lost their positions.  It's not so much a punishment as a coup-de-grace.

My uncle has however spent his entire career talking about how horrible legal work is (as he grew steadily richer) and telling everyone younger then him to never get into it so YMMV.

Nah, that sounds about right. The Chinese legal system has a long history of being arbitrary and subject to the whim of the local official (watch any good kung-fu movie, and one of the villains will typically be a corrupt local magistrate/governor who abuses his power). There's also an old tradition of treating the plaintiff as harshly as the defendant, to discourage people from actually using the courts, because doing so meant somebody lower down the hierarchy wasn't doing their job keeping the peace. It's kind of like a parent who gets tired of hearing their kids fight all the time, so they punish all the kids equally, without really investigating who was at fault.

Local corruption/lack of sufficient oversight is really, IMHO, the biggest obstacle to China's future as a megapower. It becomes nightmarish for Beijing to implement any kind of reforms because they're dependent on the local bureaucracy doing its job. For a "totalitarian", centralized authoritarian state, China actually has a great deal of trouble keeping a billion people in line. Which is why they overlook so many violations of laws, as long as it doesn't genuinely threaten stability. The Great Firewall is there, and tens of millions of people bypass it on a daily basis without repercussions. Environmental laws, health laws, worker protection laws, traffic laws....they're all openly flouted and the only time they really crack down on violators is when:

A. Somebody gets a reformist streak and decides to make a personal crusade of it.
B. The end result is either embarrassing to the country and/or threatens social stability.

Otherwise, it's just not worth the effort. Hell, I remember being in a taxi and the taxi driver cut off a cop in traffic on the highway. The cop flashed his lights and yelled something at him on the loudspeaker, and the taxi driver just grunted, leaned out his window and yelled back a couple of expletives and kept on driving. The cop didn't pull him over, because to do so on one of Shanghai's main elevated highways would have created a traffic snarl that would have affected literally MILLIONS of people. It wasn't worth it. That was an eye-opening moment for me (and also part of why I find this notion that China is so massively oppressive to be amusing)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 13, 2012, 10:48:52 am

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 08:56:20 am

Prosperity yes, but at the expense of the poor, IE most of the nation. Unregulated capitalism works for better prosperity nearly always, but its morally abhorant to pursue profit at the expense of everything else.
Even in a capitalist society, the poor are considered to deserve some state intervention.

RP's ideas are a step towards 19th century catastrophy, not ideas that are 'onto something'.
A step back is indeed, not a step forward.

That's the popular perception, anyways. Thing is, the poor do comparitively well in highly capitalistic societies, since there are that many more jobs and oppurtunity available, then in more heavily centralized economic systems. Poor people in the USA have cable TVs, automobiles, houses with electricity, running water, heat, ect. Not so much in less capitalistic societies.

I'd also point out that a government welfare state that helps out the poor isn't always incompatitble with free markets. Switzerland, for example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 10:53:09 am

Quote from: Montague on February 13, 2012, 10:48:52 am

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 08:56:20 am

Prosperity yes, but at the expense of the poor, IE most of the nation. Unregulated capitalism works for better prosperity nearly always, but its morally abhorant to pursue profit at the expense of everything else.
Even in a capitalist society, the poor are considered to deserve some state intervention.

RP's ideas are a step towards 19th century catastrophy, not ideas that are 'onto something'.
A step back is indeed, not a step forward.

That's the popular perception, anyways. Thing is, the poor do comparitively well in highly capitalistic societies, since there are that many more jobs and oppurtunity available, then in more heavily centralized economic systems. Poor people in the USA have cable TVs, automobiles, houses with electricity, running water, heat, ect. Not so much in less capitalistic societies.

I'd also point out that a government welfare state that helps out the poor isn't always incompatitble with free markets. Switzerland, for example.

Jobs would be more forthcoming, yes, healthcare, equality, unemployment support, education, environmental issues, pensions, job security etc etc all would tailored towards the rich, the poor would get no subsidy and you have a 19th century system again.

Protip to ron paulists: The Private market cannot deal with a social net, it infact works upon the idea that there would be no need for a social net because the Ron Paul fairyworld would be so awesome and successful there would be no sick, unemployed, poorly paid, homeless, etc etc.
A social net is always needed, the private market can only deal with job creation, it cannot even eliminate unemployment, let alone everything else.

Britain has a free market and a good social net, free healthcare etc. Yeah it costs alot, but the USA is in more debt than we are, and we support our population, so.... err.... I consider that a refutal of the 'private market fixes all' idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 13, 2012, 11:03:27 am

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 10:53:09 am

Jobs would be more forthcoming, yes, healthcare, equality, unemployment support, education, environmental issues, pensions, job security etc etc all would tailored towards the rich, the poor would get no subsidy and you have a 19th century system again.

Protip to ron paulists: The Private market cannot deal with a social net, it infact works upon the idea that there would be no need for a social net because the Ron Paul fairyworld would be so awesome and successful there would be no sick, unemployed, poorly paid, homeless, etc etc.
A social net is always needed, the private market can only deal with job creation, it cannot even eliminate unemployment, let alone everything else.

They like to imagine private charities would take over for the government. I'd point out, that most social safety net programs actually bring a net increase of tax revenue for a government. Some programs are helpful but really only cost a trival amount of money to impliment. Unemployment and especially food-stamp programs are highly cost effective. (Social security and pensions, not so much)

But naturally, Ron Paul's sort of ideology isn't going to compromise on the basis of pragmatism or utility or anything. It's all about the principle of the matter. 'People are only going to be entitled to what they've earned themselves, no more, no less.'

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 11:09:40 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 13, 2012, 09:59:49 am

That was an eye-opening moment for me (and also part of why I find this notion that China is so massively oppressive to be amusing)

Ironically, I left China with the impression that it's what libertarianism in action would look like.  All you have to do is look at the sidewalks covered in parked cars and the people squeezing around them.

That is assuming your libertarian world has sidewalks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tofu on February 13, 2012, 11:21:38 am

I'm sorry it I'm a little off topic, regarding what's currently being discussed, but I'm just
curious as to what your opinion is on something that is entirely related to the coming election.
I don't really get into a lot of politics, simply because I don't know a lot about it, to be honest.
Though, I did see a youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lETiqZTLzCk&feature=channel_video_title) lately, and it kind of caught my attention;
It talks about how all the candidates for the newest election are religious,they're all Christian,
all but one are republican, all but two  does not support separation of church and state, and
5 of the candidates are creationists. Those 5 are also for discrimination for religious reasons,
and they also want abortion illegal in all situations. Well, Bachman is out, so I guess only 4 out
 of 7 remain, but that's besides the point. Now I'm not trying to push a certain agenda or
something (hell, I don't even live in the US) but it just seems off to me how people that are
supposed to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world don't "believe" in science.

Do you think this is ok? What do you think of this?
Again, just want an opinion or something from someone more well versed in this than I. Thanks in advance.
(if there's something wrong with the post I'll just delete it or something)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 13, 2012, 11:27:31 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 11:09:40 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 13, 2012, 09:59:49 am

That was an eye-opening moment for me (and also part of why I find this notion that China is so massively oppressive to be amusing)

Ironically, I left China with the impression that it's what libertarianism in action would look like.  All you have to do is look at the sidewalks covered in parked cars and the people squeezing around them.

That is assuming your libertarian world has sidewalks.

It's not really fair to compare something like China that has widescale corruption and abuse from the government with a system designed to minimize the ability of the state to do such things.

Although I imagine people would park haphazardly on the sidewalks and everywhere else in libertarianland due to the complete lack of zoning laws or city ordiances and relative scarcity of public parking.

Quote from: Tofu on February 13, 2012, 11:21:38 am

-snip-

Honestly, I don't place a lot of weight on what religious belief a candiate professes to have. It's them playing politics, it's a selling point for voters who care about such a thing but in reality I imagine half of them don't believe a word of their adopted religion and it has little or no influence on their governing.

I generally look at how zealous they approach their religion is and how much it influences their politics, if they advocate laws against abortion or think creationism or prayer needs to exist in public schools. Then I know they are bat-shit insane and don't need to be in a position of power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 13, 2012, 11:47:08 am

Honestly, I kinda want Libertarianland to exist. I just don't want to live in it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 13, 2012, 11:48:26 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 11:09:40 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 13, 2012, 09:59:49 am

That was an eye-opening moment for me (and also part of why I find this notion that China is so massively oppressive to be amusing)

Ironically, I left China with the impression that it's what libertarianism in action would look like.  All you have to do is look at the sidewalks covered in parked cars and the people squeezing around them.

That is assuming your libertarian world has sidewalks.

True dat. They're not communist, they're hypercapitalist. Complete with the growing problem of massive income disparity because the Maoist "social safety net" is being dismantled like gangbusters. Peasants in the countryside arguably have it better than many of the liurenkou (internal illegal immigrants to the cities) because at least they have subsistence farming. The liurenkou may earn more money, but have way more necessary expenses like housing and food to worry about. And because they're in violation of the hukou system, they're subject to the same sort of abuses and exploitation you'd expect illegal immigrants to face. Shanghai is a glaring example of that. You can have a dude in a gleaming new Lamborghini driving next to some wizened little old grandma on a rickety bicycle carrying about two tons of rubbish on her back, hoping to make a few yuan at the recycling plant so she can afford dinner. And both of them are driving past a dude begging on the sidewalk with no arms, legs or face because of an industrial accident. Who gets ignored by a bevy of twenty-something young women wearing designer Italian clothing which cost more than most Chinese make in a year. It's some seriously messed-up shit. And it's a source of social instability that scares the ever-loving bejeezus out of the Central Committee in Beijing.

Quote from: Montague on February 13, 2012, 11:27:31 am

It's not really fair to compare something like China that has widescale corruption and abuse from the government with a system designed to minimize the ability of the state to do such things.

Although I imagine people would park haphazardly on the sidewalks and everywhere else in libertarianland due to the complete lack of zoning laws or city ordiances and relative scarcity of public parking.

Except that you can't just say "it's the governnment that's the problem" in China. It's the lack of effective central control of the government that's part of the problem. It's the local magistrate that colludes with a factory owner to deny labor rights to his workers. It's the mayor that takes kickbacks from developers to evict peasants from their land so a new high-rise office building can go up. It's the local PSB chief that takes bribes to overlook sweatshop factories that make Foxconn look like a workers' paradise.

But keep in mind that in these cases, the local government is a facilitator of abuse, not the motivator. The motivators are all the private profit-seeking individuals exploiting the hell out of the system to make a buck. In a pure libertarian system, those people are still there. Only now instead of having to bribe officials, there's simply no officials to deal with (or get in their way).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 13, 2012, 11:54:33 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 13, 2012, 11:47:08 am

Honestly, I kinda want Libertarianland to exist. I just don't want to live in it.

It would certainly be interesting to watch. Perhaps a Disneylandesque experience? Well, except that the only way to view it would be remotely, or from behind bulletproof glass.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 12:04:26 pm

Wouldn't it be fair to say China is the closest to Ron Pauls liberatarianism in the world?
It certainly seems so to me on the economics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 13, 2012, 12:10:35 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 12:04:26 pm

Wouldn't it be fair to say China is the closest to Ron Pauls liberatarianism in the world?
It certainly seems so to me on the economics.

Well, no, but sorta, yeah, the closest thing to libertarianism or minarchy in reality would probably be Hong Kong, which I suppose is nominally part of China. It's more or less independant of the majority of Chinese law, which is not even remotely libertarian, it's just badly governed.

Kowloon Walled City was a good example of a minarchist or even capitalism-anarchy and that was part of Hong Kong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 13, 2012, 12:43:16 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 13, 2012, 12:10:35 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 12:04:26 pm

Wouldn't it be fair to say China is the closest to Ron Pauls liberatarianism in the world?
It certainly seems so to me on the economics.

Well, no, but sorta, yeah, the closest thing to libertarianism or minarchy in reality would probably be Hong Kong, which I suppose is nominally part of China. It's more or less independant of the majority of Chinese law, which is not even remotely libertarian, it's just badly governed.

Kowloon Walled City was a good example of a minarchist or even capitalism-anarchy and that was part of Hong Kong.

Yeah, I remember watching a 20/20 piece several years ago where John Stossel was creaming his shorts over Hong Kong's "freedom", mostly revolving around the fact that you could start a business with virtually no regulation, and that there was no social safety net. I think YMMV in real life.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tofu on February 13, 2012, 01:12:17 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 11:09:40 am

Quote from: Tofu on February 13, 2012, 11:21:38 am

-snip-

Honestly, I don't place a lot of weight on what religious belief a candiate professes to have. It's them playing politics, it's a selling point for voters who care about such a thing but in reality I imagine half of them don't believe a word of their adopted religion and it has little or no influence on their governing.

I generally look at how zealous they approach their religion is and how much it influences their politics, if they advocate laws against abortion or think creationism or prayer needs to exist in public schools. Then I know they are bat-shit insane and don't need to be in a position of power.

I wouldn't normally either, but when ALL of them are Christian, and most of them are pushing Christian "values" or whatever that is? It just seems kind of unfair to the people that are not Christian. But yeah, it doesn't really have much to say, and the second paragraph of yours was more akin to what I meant.
That was kind of the thing that was crazy to me, how all of these seem to be, well, bat-shit insane.
Thanks for the reply, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 01:40:42 pm

Don't nearly all the republican candidates support abortion and want more education on creationism etc in schools? I'm sure i've heard them all except newt (including ron paul) arguing actively against Evolution and pro abortion.

To me, they are all bat shit crazy. They argue against the evil state theocracies; A nation which hinders science and medicine by banning stem cell research isn't that far from being lead by a theocrat. Not to mention gay rights, etc etc etc.

Having a veto also makes this a dictatorship, as they can veto reasonable laws because of their own religious prejudices. This looks very similar to countrys like Saudi Arabia in terms of religious leadership. The only difference is an American president vetos laws the people want, wheras in Saudi Arabia the people actually agree with the religious leadership in the most part.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 01:46:52 pm

A veto isn't a permanent stop to a law. The law in question can go back to Congress, and with enough support (I vaguely recall a number around 75%, but that was from my government class which was six years ago) it can supersede the veto.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 01:52:35 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 01:46:52 pm

A veto isn't a permanent stop to a law. The law in question can go back to Congress, and with enough support (I vaguely recall a number around 75%, but that was from my government class which was six years ago) it can supersede the veto.

Semantics, a veto effectivly destroys a proposed law. In most cases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 13, 2012, 01:54:01 pm

No good law can get more than 50% of the senate to agree to it.

If one side like a law, the other side MUST dislike it or else will appear weak.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 01:57:35 pm

I must clarify, i'm not against a veto, i'm against one man exercising his religious bigotry with a veto. All the candidates for US president(Republican) would do similar things if given the presidency.

All bush showed when he veto'd stem cell research was that he's too stupid to be president.

The seperation of church and state should prohibit such actions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 13, 2012, 02:05:32 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 01:40:42 pm

Don't nearly all the republican candidates support abortion and want more education on creationism etc in schools? I'm sure i've heard them all except newt (including ron paul) arguing actively against Evolution and pro abortion.

To me, they are all bat shit crazy. They argue against the evil state theocracies; A nation which hinders science and medicine by banning stem cell research isn't that far from being lead by a theocrat. Not to mention gay rights, etc etc etc.

Having a veto also makes this a dictatorship, as they can veto reasonable laws because of their own religious prejudices. This looks very similar to countrys like Saudi Arabia in terms of religious leadership. The only difference is an American president vetos laws the people want, wheras in Saudi Arabia the people actually agree with the religious leadership in the most part.

It does seem massively hypocritical of them when you put it like that. They say they hate theocracies and then profess to advocate very theocratic policies. I guess there is that thing where factions of similar ideologies passionately hate each other more then anything else. Sort of like the different flavors of communists calling each other 'revisionists' and trying to destroy each other. I suppose it's natural a Christian theocracy is going to oppose the heretics and heathens.

Quote from: Tofu on February 13, 2012, 01:12:17 pm

I wouldn't normally either, but when ALL of them are Christian, and most of them are pushing Christian "values" or whatever that is? It just seems kind of unfair to the people that are not Christian. But yeah, it doesn't really have much to say, and the second paragraph of yours was more akin to what I meant.
That was kind of the thing that was crazy to me, how all of these seem to be, well, bat-shit insane.
Thanks for the reply, though.

Thing is, during primaries and whatnot republicans are going to get up on the pulpit and claim these sorts of things because they are attempting to appeal to the constitutes and evangelists. Then when they are in actually in power they take a stance like "I personally think abortion is abhorrent but the government must respect a woman's right to choose" or some sort of cop-out like that and people call them flip-floppers. Really, I believe most politicians are intelligent enough to know that they are representative of a secular government and there is opposition and limits and realities inherit in that, but know they have to put on a show for the 'Christian Values' crowd to get elected. Sometimes you have to really listen to what they say, if they are stating their personal or philosophical opinion or actually advocating some sort of change to the law. Basically, the saying goes that you cannot trust everything that comes out of a politician's mouth.

If they really do believe it and really want to strip freedoms in the name of Jesus, well good thing there are checks and balances and plenty of opponents and independents who won't let them advance it easily.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 02:13:40 pm

Republican never ban abortion because they know that democratic filibusters and supreme court injunctions stop them.  That didn't stop them from passing hundreds of restrictions on abortion over the past decade and greatly reducing the number of abortion clinics out there.

Todays republicans are a different breed from past politicians.  They are willing to stake out massively unpopular positions.  Mitt Romney's tax plan calls for tax hikes on the median tax payer and tax cuts for the richest.  These two positions at the same time would normally be the sign that a candidate is on the far right fringe but instead he is seen as too moderate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 02:22:19 pm

Weird, I always thought that the Republicans never try to ban abortion because it can be seen as a "get another term free" card.

1: Promise to ban abortion
2: Get elected
3: Aside from the occasional sound-bite, make no attempt to ban abortion during your term
4: When election time rolls around, blame the evil liberals for not being able to ban abortion
5: Get re-elected

Repeat as needed. Of course, this won't work everywhere, but I'm pretty sure that stunts like this are how people like Bachman stay in office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 02:29:37 pm

For a decade they were nibbling around the edges, but they've started really pushing the abortion restrictions at the state level in the past year.  It's important to remember that the typical republican who recently was elected to office for the first time is far more conservative then you would expect by comparing them to republican incumbents from similar districts or offices.  So even though the recent freshman congressman are on average from more competitive districts, on average they are to the right of the republican incumbents they joined.  The GOP took a really hard turn to the right over the past three years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 13, 2012, 02:41:43 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 02:29:37 pm

For a decade they were nibbling around the edges, but they've started really pushing the abortion restrictions at the state level in the past year.  It's important to remember that the typical republican who recently was elected to office for the first time is far more conservative then you would expect by comparing them to republican incumbents from similar districts or offices.  So even though the recent freshman congressman are on average from more competitive districts, on average they are to the right of the republican incumbents they joined.  The GOP took a really hard turn to the right over the past three years.

I haven't heard too much of this but I believe that it's probably happening, I know one state law passed recently that mandated that women seeking abortions have to look at the ultrasonic scans of the fetus before they can consent to the operation. I think it's legally baseless to implement a law like that because there is no real justification for it, I imagine it'll be overturned or repealed at some point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 02:47:40 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 13, 2012, 02:41:43 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 02:29:37 pm

For a decade they were nibbling around the edges, but they've started really pushing the abortion restrictions at the state level in the past year.  It's important to remember that the typical republican who recently was elected to office for the first time is far more conservative then you would expect by comparing them to republican incumbents from similar districts or offices.  So even though the recent freshman congressman are on average from more competitive districts, on average they are to the right of the republican incumbents they joined.  The GOP took a really hard turn to the right over the past three years.

I haven't heard too much of this but I believe that it's probably happening, I know one state law passed recently that mandated that women seeking abortions have to look at the ultrasonic scans of the fetus before they can consent to the operation. I think it's legally baseless to implement a law like that because there is no real justification for it, I imagine it'll be overturned or repealed at some point.

Considering that the average abortion takes place when the "fetus" is little more than a blob, I can't see how effective this law will be. You're right, it will probably be overturned or simply unenforced before long.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 13, 2012, 03:00:40 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 02:29:37 pm

So even though the recent freshman congressman are on average from more competitive districts, on average they are to the right of the republican incumbents they joined.  The GOP took a really hard turn to the right over the past three years.

I'm not sure it's so much that the Republican party as a whole, especially the "institutional" level, took a hard turn to the right as that it's found itself between two pressures it never expected to face.  One is the 2010 crop of newbies, who got elected campaigning on old conservative meathooks like absolutism on abortion and such, and the Republican establishment never got around to explaining to them that it's supposed to be an act.  That they're supposed to campaign on abortion and gays and prayer in schools and crap to get elected, then leave all of those issues as legislatively ambiguous as possible so they can still use them in the next election.

Instead, they wound up with a crop of zealots who've been drinking the koolaid for so long, they don't know how to leave things be.  Partially because, in the year 2010 of Citizen's United and Obamacare, the conservative think tanks and advocates who always funded the Republican party, your ALECs and Family Research Councils and so forth, suddenly had unlimited money to throw at candidates, and a bumpercrop of true-believer nutcases to pick from.  Many of those groups really do believe the stuff they push, and have been waiting with the patience of saints for the party they've stood behind for thirty years to finally do what they've been paying them to.  At last, an election came along where they didn't need to deal with the Republican party structure at all, and got the loyal soldiers they wanted, and told them they were invincible.

And now, since the Republican presidential candidates believe they have to hitch a ride on this train to win, they're right there with them.  That's how you get candidates like Rick Santorum sounding "reasonable", because the 2010 alumni have made it common knowledge in Republican circles that abortion is so old hat it's time to discuss the moral legality of contraception.  That's also why you don't see the other Republican posterboys like Chris Christie running this time either, because they know that train is going to derail sooner or later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 13, 2012, 03:03:40 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 02:47:40 pm

Considering that the average abortion takes place when the "fetus" is little more than a blob, I can't see how effective this law will be. You're right, it will probably be overturned or simply unenforced before long.

I looked it up out of curiosity (It was Texas, big surprise there) and the Circuit Court upheld the state's right to enforce the law because it 'falls within the state's power to require informed consent of the patient'. True enough, an blob on the sonograph probably isn't going to be exactly heart-wrenching enough to dissuade anybody serious about getting an abortion. Still, the ideological intent behind the law is fucking dodgy- I'm surprised the law was upheld.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152992567818170.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152992567818170.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 13, 2012, 03:15:31 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 02:22:19 pm

Weird, I always thought that the Republicans never try to ban abortion because it can be seen as a "get another term free" card.

1: Promise to ban abortion
2: Get elected
3: Aside from the occasional sound-bite, make no attempt to ban abortion during your term
4: When election time rolls around, blame the evil liberals for not being able to ban abortion
5: Get re-elected

Repeat as needed. Of course, this won't work everywhere, but I'm pretty sure that stunts like this are how people like Bachman stay in office.

This is pretty much the main thrust of Republican 'pro-life' politics. The problem is it only works when there are true believers to play to. And those true believers are the ones making the big pushes. Some of them made it into the state house, others are running the Tea Party groups that helped win the elections. Suddenly you can't just play lip service, even if that is the strategically smart thing to do.

Realistically abortion politics comes down to overturning Roe v. Wade (or rather it's successor cases, like Planned Parenthood v. Casey). That means having a highly conservative Supreme Court (where the majority reject an inherent right to privacy granted in the Constitution) hearing a fairly reasonable case about some anti-abortion law. The danger is any case that reaches the SCOTUS and is decided strongly is likely to set the playing field for decades. That is far too big a risk to take for either side. Predicting how the Court will jump is all too often a mug's game.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 13, 2012, 03:18:16 pm

Similar law re: abortion and ultrasound popped up in North Carolina, though IIRC the Governor vetoed it. But then also IIRC, the state legislature (which was overrun by Republicans in 2010) overrode the veto.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on February 13, 2012, 06:10:51 pm

MEANWHILE, IN SANTORUM LAND

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/AevFw.png)Yoinked from Reddit

Will it ever stop?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 06:15:41 pm

Assuming Goldwater is dead (he certainly looks old enough in that pic), he must have been rolling in his grave the past decade or two.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 06:24:30 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 06:15:41 pm

Assuming Goldwater is dead (he certainly looks old enough in that pic), he must have been rolling in his grave the past decade or two.

So is Eisenhower, Adam Smith and the founding fathers in general.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 06:26:22 pm

Well, obviously. Goldwater was the only one on my mind at the time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on February 13, 2012, 06:34:40 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 06:24:30 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 06:15:41 pm

Assuming Goldwater is dead (he certainly looks old enough in that pic), he must have been rolling in his grave the past decade or two.

So is Eisenhower, Adam Smith and the founding fathers in general.

Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 06:37:51 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 13, 2012, 06:34:40 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 06:24:30 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 06:15:41 pm

Assuming Goldwater is dead (he certainly looks old enough in that pic), he must have been rolling in his grave the past decade or two.

So is Eisenhower, Adam Smith and the founding fathers in general.

Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429).

Never seen the comic, but I have heard the joke somewhere else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 13, 2012, 06:41:33 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 13, 2012, 06:34:40 pm

Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429).

This joke seems somewhat (http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/03/dark-science-01/) familiar (http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/10/dark-science-02/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on February 13, 2012, 06:47:43 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 13, 2012, 06:41:33 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 13, 2012, 06:34:40 pm

Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429).

This joke seems somewhat (http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/03/dark-science-01/) familiar (http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/10/dark-science-02/)

Dilbert (http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2004-07-28/) did it first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 06:49:59 pm

Quote from: ECrownofFire on February 13, 2012, 06:34:40 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 06:24:30 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 13, 2012, 06:15:41 pm

Assuming Goldwater is dead (he certainly looks old enough in that pic), he must have been rolling in his grave the past decade or two.

So is Eisenhower, Adam Smith and the founding fathers in general.

Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429).

Lol'd hard  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: LostCosmonaut on February 13, 2012, 08:03:43 pm

SMBC has something relevant to just about any situation.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that if Santorum is complaining about you, you must be doing something right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 13, 2012, 08:10:29 pm

Gods help me for lacking the impulse control, but...

... are you sure you don't mean "something left?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 13, 2012, 08:11:07 pm

I see what you did there  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 13, 2012, 09:16:42 pm

Alright, so, what have we learned today?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 09:22:47 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 13, 2012, 09:16:42 pm

Alright, so, what have we learned today?

Very little in all likelyhood.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 13, 2012, 09:29:38 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 13, 2012, 09:16:42 pm

Alright, so, what have we learned today?

That today is apparently a quiet day for the primaries. Only news I heard in passing on th'TV was that Houston singer kicking it.

Though, uh, I'm not entirely sure how much noisier the rest of the primaries will get, insofar as mudslinging goes. It kinda' feels like at this point all the dirt has been dug up.

Aren't we in a dry spell for votes-that-actually-matter or something?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 13, 2012, 10:48:22 pm

There's been some interesting polling that shows Santorum ahead in Michigan.  If he wins there then he will probably knock Gingrich into second tier status and could turn this into a 1 on 1 contest, which is pretty much the worse case scenario for Romney.  Santorum probably isn't as open to negative ads as Gingrich so Romney wouldn't be able to ad blitz carpet bomb him as easily.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 13, 2012, 11:19:14 pm

Romney would be worried because he'd face an opponent with less than an aircraft carrier full of political baggage.

I'm sure Jon Stewart would be thrilled though, he loves him some Santorum jokes.

I feel like we need some old-timey retrospective of the past-crazy Republican candidates, shot in Sepia-tone and scored with wistful piano music. Bonus points if their mouths are agape as they shout terrible things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 14, 2012, 10:41:02 am

New relevant polling data:

For the first time, Rick Santorum is now leading in national-level polling. In the last 4 days, Santorum lead Romney in 3 of 4 national tracking polls. This is pretty big news. After the Iowa near-win that later turned out to be a real win, his national-level support only jumped up as high as 17.3%. He's now polling at 30.2% on average, narrowly edging out Romney at 28.6%. Gingrich continues to freefall, dropping to 16.4% and Ron Paul is essentially flat at 12%.

With two weeks left until the Arizona and Michigan primaries, Michigan has swung 30 points, turning a +15 Romney state on 2/1 into a +15 Santorum state by 2/12. That's some jaw-dropping change of heart right there, which tells you that people have just never been solidly sold on Romney. Or maybe they're finally starting to admit to themselves that this thing just ain't gonna happen in 2012, and that admission of pre-defeat frees them to vote for the crazy mofo that they've always wanted to vote for deep down.

Recent (2/9) poll in Georgia still shows Gingrich in the lead, but that lead has been cut down to single digits. The fascinating part is that it's no longer Romney he's having to fend off.

Georgia, 2/2 (Survey USA):
45%: Newt Gingrich
32%: Mitt Romney
9%: Rick Santorum
8%: Ron Paul

Georgia, 2/9 (Landmark/Rosetta Stone):
35%: Newt Gingrich
26%: Rick Santorum
16%: Mitt Romney
5%: Ron Paul

Will Gingrich turn the long knives on Santorum after AZ/MI? Is he going to hold out hope for dual wins in Ohio and Georgia on 6 March to rekindle his campaign, and/or will he fold if he loses those races? I still maintain that if Gingrich folded and threw his weight behind Santorum, the hardcore conservative cannibalism cycle would be complete, and Rick Santorum would be the Christian conservative Kwisatz Haderach.

Who will promptly be devoured by Shai-Obama in the general election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 14, 2012, 11:16:39 am

Every time I hear about Santorum doing well in the polls, it strikes me that I live in a country with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of astoundingly ignorant people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 14, 2012, 12:41:03 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 14, 2012, 11:16:39 am

Every time I hear about Santorum doing well in the polls, it strikes me that I live in a country with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of astoundingly ignorant people.

You should be thrilled when he pulls ahead, because the majority are still not going to vote for a guy like Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 14, 2012, 01:35:29 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 14, 2012, 12:41:03 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 14, 2012, 11:16:39 am

Every time I hear about Santorum doing well in the polls, it strikes me that I live in a country with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of astoundingly ignorant people.

You should be thrilled when he pulls ahead, because the majority are still not going to vote for a guy like Santorum.

I agree with you in principle, but I also remember that people said a majority of Americans were not going to vote a black guy with the middle name "Hussein". Or that a pro wrestler would never be elected governor. Or that an aging cowboy actor would never be elected President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 14, 2012, 01:58:26 pm

I am terrified that my country may be insane enough to elect Santorum president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 14, 2012, 02:12:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 14, 2012, 01:58:26 pm

I am terrified that my country may be insane enough to elect Santorum president.

I'm not quite that terrified yet, in part because if they did it would no longer be my country.
I still have faith (no pun intended) that most people just don't want religion in their daily lives. Certainly that's a tough view to maintain at times, when you have no shortage of people that wish you "a blessed day" in the course of normal speech, or people that have Bible citations as their license plates...but I have to remind myself that those are just the much more visible minority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 14, 2012, 09:37:39 pm

I hope my prediction that people will burst out of the woodwork to vote against Santorum comes true. I cannot imagine my college years being filled with Santorum jokes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 14, 2012, 09:40:31 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 14, 2012, 09:37:39 pm

I hope my prediction that people will burst out of the woodwork to vote against Santorum comes true. I cannot imagine my college years being filled with Santorum jokes.

Santorum is surging after riding high on three polls... I had to do it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 14, 2012, 09:41:22 pm

The religious right loves Santorum. Everyone else is scared of him, including some of the conservatives. If he gets nominated it'll kill the GOP's campaign this year.

Now, granted, Ron Paul is going to spin off like he always does when he runs and ensure Obama gets re-elected anyway, but Santorum being nominated will just make it worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 14, 2012, 10:07:40 pm

By the way, I completely forgot, but Maine held its primary today.  Mitt Romney "won" by 194 votes over Ron Paul, as already certified and sanctified by the Maine state Republican party.  Even though three counties turned in zero votes because of various weird circumstances, one precinct had more ballots than voters, and at least one other county had electronic results significantly differing from exit polls, wherein a Romney appointee was in charge of transferring paper ballots to the computer system.

So yeah, that happened.  OP to be updated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 14, 2012, 10:14:47 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 14, 2012, 10:07:40 pm

By the way, I completely forgot, but Maine held its primary today.  Mitt Romney "won" by 194 votes over Ron Paul, as already certified and sanctified by the Maine state Republican party.  Even though three counties turned in zero votes because of various weird circumstances, one precinct had more ballots than voters, and at least one other county had electronic results significantly differing from exit polls, wherein a Romney appointee was in charge of transferring paper ballots to the computer system.

So yeah, that happened.  OP to be updated.

Gee, that's subtle.

...where's that sarcasm marker, again?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 14, 2012, 11:34:03 pm

I...what. Cannot comprehend such corruption so openly...something. ARGH!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 14, 2012, 11:42:40 pm

S'kind of amusing how little confidence these so-called supporters have in their candidate, if they feel they have to cheat the system to try to get the win. Honestly, it's quite insulting to the person you're nominally supporting.

Assuming it's not a double-blind or something.

But anyway, yeah. Here's hoping they get all this corruption out of their systems before an actual election goes down. I'm just kinda' glad the primaries don't actually directly put anyone in a position of power at this point. Of course, the fact that there's so much shit stirring going down for something that doesn't really matter, well...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on February 15, 2012, 03:58:31 am

Does the Maine Republican Party even have to listen to the polls?

There's got to be some kind of loophole where they could just send a bunch of people that ("officially" or not) would vote for Romney/whoever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:45:13 am

I've seen all the major debates, but as a Brit I dont get bombarded with american news, hows the race going?

Romney still in for a easy win?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 15, 2012, 07:51:03 am

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:45:13 am

I've seen all the major debates, but as a Brit I dont get bombarded with american news, hows the race going?

Romney still in for a easy win?

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 14, 2012, 10:07:40 pm

By the way, I completely forgot, but Maine held its primary today.  Mitt Romney "won" by 194 votes over Ron Paul, as already certified and sanctified by the Maine state Republican party.  Even though three counties turned in zero votes because of various weird circumstances, one precinct had more ballots than voters, and at least one other county had electronic results significantly differing from exit polls, wherein a Romney appointee was in charge of transferring paper ballots to the computer system.

So yeah, that happened.  OP to be updated.

By as much as he wants too apparently, scary stuff

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 09:23:54 am

Quote

Romney still in for a easy win?

Easy? Probably not. Win? Still pretty likely IMO. Remember that with American political coverage, every day's outcomes distort the overall picture. Heisenberg would be proud of America. Right now everyone is again talking about Santorum as an actual threat to Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 10:21:22 am

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 09:23:54 am

Quote

Romney still in for a easy win?

Easy? Probably not. Win? Still pretty likely IMO. Remember that with American political coverage, every day's outcomes distort the overall picture. Heisenberg would be proud of America. Right now everyone is again talking about Santorum as an actual threat to Romney.

Yeah I was surprised how quickly peoples opinions changed in favor of santorum. It's almost as if voters don't know what the hell they're doing  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 15, 2012, 10:33:27 am

Not so much that they don't know what they're doing as they don't really have any candidates they can truly support, so they're looking for somebody to pop out of the mix and become a rallying point. Problem is, they've had multiple rally point candidates, all of whom then invariably shoot themselves in the foot by playing grabass (Cain), looking like a deer in the headlights (Perry), reminding people that they're an utterly abominbale human being (Gingrich...twice), or just coming across as utterly batshit insane (Bachmann, and Santorum to some extent).

I think Santorum actually has a bit more of a shot than his predecessors on the Bartertown Wheel of GOP candidates. He has a lot less baggage when it comes to personal issues, and while he comes across as utterly batshit insane to *us*, he looks like a good, diehard Christian conservative to the base. And they're convinced that the silent majority of voters in the US are secretly Christian conservatives too, who are just too intimidated by the Great Liberal Establishment to speak their minds.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 15, 2012, 11:35:53 am

I wish to join this "Great Liberal Establishment". How do I get in? Is there a membership fee?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 11:36:48 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on February 15, 2012, 11:35:53 am

I wish to join this "Great Liberal Establishment". How do I get in? Is there a membership fee?

REJECTED, you have to be a figment of conservative unthought. You exist, thus we dont like your kind around heee

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on February 15, 2012, 01:41:27 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=player_embedded)

I watched that and thought it mostly true.

And i'm fairly sure that is why he got fired.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 02:04:04 pm

He lost me when he started humming on Ron Paul's nuts without the same degree of criticism he leveled at virtually everyone else.

What if Judge Napolitano was just another political operative just like the ones he decries?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 02:05:09 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on February 15, 2012, 01:41:27 pm

I watched that and thought it mostly true.

Funny, I thought it was a load of crap.

You don't need to imagine shadowy people behind the curtain to explain the two party system any more then you need them to explain the laws of physics.  We have a two party system because we have a congressional district based first past the post voting system using large districts in a large nation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 15, 2012, 02:15:43 pm

No, you need shadowy people behind a curtain otherwise you have to admit that we've done this to ourselves. Which is not a pleasant truth to bear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 02:16:22 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on February 15, 2012, 01:41:27 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=player_embedded)

I watched that and thought it mostly true.

And i'm fairly sure that is why he got fired.

Lol I like this guy, I guess that means hes not fit for fox news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 15, 2012, 02:23:02 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 02:16:22 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on February 15, 2012, 01:41:27 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=player_embedded)

I watched that and thought it mostly true.

And i'm fairly sure that is why he got fired.

Lol I like this guy, I guess that means hes not fit for fox news.

I liked him too, until I realized he was just being a Ron Paul shill. Surprise. It's ironic, considering Ron Paul is as much smoke-and-mirrors as any other politician. Well, maybe not as much as the other candidates, but enough, and in his own way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 15, 2012, 03:30:54 pm

I like the part where he believes that the market can regulate itself perfectly as a massive interacting network of independent agents, but doesn't believe in evolution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 15, 2012, 03:35:28 pm

You don't know how right you are.  The Colorado/Minnesota/Missouri caucuses were essentially mock-votes, since new caucuses will be held in March, and the Paul campaign organizers used them as their main testbed for an interesting strategy.

Caucuses really are a tool from another century, wherein everyone shows up in a room, basically "nominate" winners by acclamation, and then campaign appointees are given the job of tallying the votes afterwards, are totally in their rights to tell everyone else to go home.  Technically, even though Paul got a substantially smaller portion of the vote in Colorado (for instance), he got almost all of the "delegates" (which is to say, nobody got any because of the calendar shenanigans, but he proved the method works).  Ron Paul doesn't make any bones about this either - here's a pretty good article (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-delegate-strategy-threatens-to-undermine-will-of-gop-voters) that lays out the whole story, grounded in an email the Paul campaign ad-men sent out to their mailing list supporters.

Quote from: Dave Weigel's newsletter

    We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates. As an example of our campaign’s delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:

    - In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich.  There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.
         
    - In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.
         
    - In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.
         
    - We are also seeing the same trends in Minnesota, Nevada, and Iowa, and in Missouri as well.

And yes, they're doing the same thing in Maine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/maine-caucuses-provide-a-window-into-ron-paul-delegate-strategy/2012/02/12/gIQARNbC9Q_blog.html).  One suspects the Republican nomination process is going to be pretty different by 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 15, 2012, 03:37:20 pm

So....abuse an arcane and outdated electoral system for fun and profit?

Yup, sounds like a true reformer.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 15, 2012, 03:45:25 pm

Well, he certainly has established his desire to take every other aspect of American governance back to the early 19th century.  Why should the federal election process be any different?

The man's just that much of a traditionalist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 04:16:27 pm

I wonder if Rick Santorum would endorse Dave Mustaine of Megadeth?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/megadeth-singer-endorses-rick-santorum-calls-newt-gingrich-164220697.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 15, 2012, 04:18:46 pm

Vaguely hint at a conspiracy.  Say a lot of things that most people wouldn't disagree with but contain no substance or actual ideas.  Set up your candidate as a solution to all our problems.

I'll admit it was cleverly done, but if you examine it for one moment you'll see it's as vacuous and hypocritical as hell.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 15, 2012, 04:24:35 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 04:16:27 pm

I wonder if Rick Santorum would endorse Dave Mustaine of Megadeth?

Puts an interesting spin on my fanship, but who the fuck cares.  Dave Mustaine is metal enough to vote family values.  Kinda ironic, judging by stuff like Peace Sells and Back In The Day you'd think he'd be a Paulite, but he doesn't like people calling Americans bullies, and wants a nice guy president.  'Kay.

Quote

Romney:
I was floored the other day to see that Mitt Romney's five boys have a $100 million trust fund. Where does a guy make that much money?

When a mega-successful rockstar says "Goddamn, how rich can you be?" you're pretty fucking rich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 15, 2012, 04:26:59 pm

Wonder if he [Ron Paul] supports the Three-Fifths Compromise....

New national poll data with two very different results:
Rasmussen, 2/14:
39% - Santorum
27% - Romney
15% - Gingrich
10% - Paul

It should be noted that Rasmussen is known for being one of the most inaccurate major pollsters, with a distinct Republican/conservative lean to their results. Shouldn't be such an issue in a GOP-only primary poll, but still....their methods are often unsound.

Gallup, 2/14:
33% - Romney
31% - Santorum
15% - Gingrich
8% - Paul

Either way, Romney is suddenly in a dogfight for the nomination. Word is he's filling up the advertising gun with money and getting ready to blanket the airwaves in Michigan and Arizona. Santorum will be a more difficult target than Gingrich though.

But here's the thing...if these races keep getting split say, 35/30/20/15, then I don't think any one candidate is going to get enough pledged delegates to win outright prior to the convention. The preponderance of proportional primaries (say that five times fast) means this could drag out in a big way. The key prize down the stretch might be California: it's got the most delegates (172) and it's winner-take-all. Sort of.

To explain, the winner for the state gets X number of delegates, and then each candidates gets another X delegates for every Y Congressional districts they won. South Carolina was the same way, which is how Gingrich got 23 delegates, but Romney still eked out 2 for winning the area around Columbia. And although you'd think "There's absolutely no way a guy like Santorum could win California...." he's polling only 2 points behind Romney. And that was a week ago. The thing about California Republicans is that they tend to be more extreme than the average because they feel like a desperate outpost of red in the sea of blue that is the "People's Republic of California".

Almost all the other major states are proportional or non-binding. Texas, with its mammoth 155 delegates, is proportional this year for the first time.

Romney's current lead of 98 delegates to Santorum's 44 is in no way, shape or form insurmountable. After Arizona (which is a paltry 23 delegates), the next winner-take-all election (other than Puerto Rico) isn't until Apr 3, when Wisconsin and Maryland go on the same day as Texas. All Santorum has to do between now and then is run neck-and-neck with Romney, maybe scratching out a few wins here and there, and then take those two states and Romney's lead is gone. Now, neither would have enough delegates to win outright, but oh the fun that would bring about for the rest of the race. Especially in California, which doesn't go until June 5.

If Santorum stays viable and doesn't commit any huge gaffes, I think this race gets even uglier, I think the battle for California will go down in history as one of the most expensive (and rancorous) primary campaigns in history, and I think we *still* end up in a brokered convention. Which could split the party in two, regardless of whom they settle on as a candidate.

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 04:16:27 pm

I wonder if Rick Santorum would endorse Dave Mustaine of Megadeth?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/megadeth-singer-endorses-rick-santorum-calls-newt-gingrich-164220697.html

I...WHAT THE F**K??? Ok, Megadeth is officially dead to me. Seriously...WTF?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 04:41:20 pm

What are you guys opinions on Gingrich?

Firstly I think his personal life is irrelivant.
However in debates all I hear him ever say is, 'I did this with Reagan'. When his credibility is questioned, it's always 'i'm with the ghost of reagan'. The other candidates really do rip him apart too about his political qualifications.

That said, he does seem to be one of the most seasoned and experienced politicians in the running. I think he is actually a better politician than he himself makes out. If he could just drop the Reagan shit, I think he might have gone far. He also doesn't seem loonie like the other candidates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 04:48:31 pm

Someone's personal life is not irrelevant to politics, to me.

You can't be a shitty person in your day-to-day life but somehow become a beneficent ruler when it becomes your job.

Similarly, you can't be a horrible, corrupt despot of a ruler while being a really great guy in your personal life. Character is not mutually exclusive been your private and public lives.

Now, not all of your personal behavior extends to your public behavior....but in Gingrich's case, he's demonstrated the only thing that matters to him is what's good for Newt. Fuck compassion, fuck consistency, fuck clarity even. I think if you only judge a politician based on either sphere of their life, personal or public, then you get exactly what you deserve. Which is a dysfunctional SOB at the helm of the ship.

And in America, the land where every politician spews moral virtue in every sentence they speak, their ability to live up to those ideals in their personal life is of paramount importance to their performance in government, and to upholding the values they swear they believe in...and swear they'll protect.

Honestly, when people tell who a person ultimately is inside has no bearing on politics.....I kind of look at them like they have squid mouth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:11:07 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 04:48:31 pm

Someone's personal life is not irrelevant to politics, to me.

You can't be a shitty person in your day-to-day life but somehow become a beneficent ruler when it becomes your job.

JFK, shitty in person. Good President. Jefferson, shitty in person. Good president. Clinton, shit in person, good president.
Adolf hitler, the marble man of clean living. Auschwitz.

Enough said. This is why I don't care about presidents personal lives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 15, 2012, 05:17:26 pm

What? Clinton was pretty great. EDIT: You switched em!


Jimmy Carter is the posterboy for "great guy, terrible president."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:18:11 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 15, 2012, 05:17:26 pm

What? Clinton was pretty great.


Jimmy Carter is the posterboy for "great guy, terrible president."

What I meant, and yet another example of why their marriage or anything else personal doesnt matter.

E. Yeh was a typo, but the forum is being a bitch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:21:07 pm

Adolf Hitler is one of your examples of "clean living" "bad leader"? Really?

He was a syphilitic meth head who raped his underage cousin until she killed herself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:23:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:21:07 pm

Adolf Hitler is one of your examples of "clean living" "bad leader"? Really?

He was a syphilitic meth head who raped his underage cousin until she killed herself.

He was on drugs due to his wounds from ww1 and the 'raping of his underage cousin'? I've never seen anything credible on this ever other than in a film. Even in that he didn't rape her he was just overprotective.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 15, 2012, 05:24:05 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:11:07 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 04:48:31 pm

Someone's personal life is not irrelevant to politics, to me.

You can't be a shitty person in your day-to-day life but somehow become a beneficent ruler when it becomes your job.

JFK, shitty in person. Good President. Jefferson, shitty in person. Good president. Clinton, good in person, shitty president.

I think you dyslexia'd Clinton. There's a reason the Onion's headline after Bush won was "Our National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over (http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/)" (Incidentally, the most terrifying prescient piece of satire ever.) Dude had questionable personal morals (although I think on the whole he's a good guy), but his record as President is pretty damn solid.

To me, it's not that Gingrich is a slimebag. It's that he pretends not to be a slimebag, gets defensive about being called a slimebag, and has the brass motherfucking cajones to try and turn being questioned about being a slimebag into a badge of honor.

It's not his personal life that bothers me, it's his personal hypocrisy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:26:37 pm

I think Gingrich pretty much says what I say, it has no relevance. From what i've seen and heard also, some of the personal stuff on him might be fabricated/false.
Let's look at the other candidates, all are basicly clean living models of morality, and their policies are batshit insane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 05:28:13 pm

I don't really care that he cheated on his wife. I care that he bailed on several wives while they were sick and probably in need of their significant other. I care that he talks about all the ebil done during the Obama administration when he was directly profiting from it before and after the financial meltdown.

Quote

JFK, shitty in person. Good President. Jefferson, shitty in person. Good president. Clinton, shit in person, good president.

JFK, shitty, really? Because he slept around? I guess saving his whole boat crew in Vietnam and carrying stricken crew members on his back, with a bad back, and swimming miles to find help makes him a person of low character. I guess being the sole voice of reason in a government hell bent on war with Russia and in Vietnam makes his personal character shit too.

I think you're cherry picking your examples while not really knowing about the people you're calling shit (in their personal or presidential lives.)

Quote

Let's look at the other candidates, all are basicly clean living models of morality.

Rule #1 in American politics. Politicians personal lives are not what they say they are. You only have to look to the closet Log Cabin Republicans to know the truth of that one.

And seriously. Saying Hitler took meth because of a war wound is like saying Rush Limbaugh eats painkillers like M&Ms because of the pain of being fat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:30:47 pm

Quote

JFK, shitty, really? Because he slept around? I guess saving his whole boat crew in Vietnam and carrying stricken crew members on his back, with a bad back, and swimming miles to find help makes him a person of low character.

I think you're cherry picking your examples while not really knowing about the people you're calling shit (in their personal or presidential lives.)

JFK's morality is no better than Gingriches, as for the war heroism. Adolf hitler iron cross in ww1. It doesnt matter one iota what people do prior to or during their presidency in their personal lives.

I think you are having one set of standards for one person, and one for another.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 05:32:33 pm

JFK didn't have morals?  Seriously?  Someone who was born into a life of privileged and volunteered for dangerous duty when his nation needed him?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:33:04 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 05:32:33 pm

JFK didn't have morals?  Seriously?  Someone who was born into a life of privileged and volunteered for dangerous duty when his nation needed him?

So did Hitler..... how are you guys not getting this?

Also I didnt say he had no morals, I said what he has similar misgivings as gingrich, yet is hailed as a national hero.
Ergo, it doesn't matter for shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 15, 2012, 05:33:26 pm

Do we really need this discussion?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:35:18 pm

Quote from: Darvi on February 15, 2012, 05:33:26 pm

Do we really need this discussion?

I simply stated a politicians personal life doesn't matter and that their personal lives have little or no influence on whether they are good presidents or not. Infact it is often inversely the case.

Thats all i'm going to say, as this is an argument that will never end.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 05:35:31 pm

Quote

It doesnt matter one iota what people do prior to or during their presidency in their personal lives.

Then why don't we allow convicted felons to run for political office, or even vote?

I like how you equate JFK's morality to Gingrichs without providing anything to your argument, either. And are we really going to compare the Iron Cross, handed out in WWI to a genocidal maniac to saving the lives of fellow soldiers? Germany wasn't exactly a model of forward thinking in WWI, either. So I think your examples are pretty terrible.

Quote

Do we really need this discussion?

You're right. We're mucking up the thread with non-relevant discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 15, 2012, 05:36:21 pm

When you invoke Godwin you know that you are going to lose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:37:14 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 05:35:31 pm

Quote

It doesnt matter one iota what people do prior to or during their presidency in their personal lives.

Then why don't we allow convicted felons to run for political office, or even vote?

I like how you equate JFK's morality to Gingrichs without providing anything to your argument, either. And are we really going to compare the Iron Cross, handed out in WWI to a genocidal maniac to saving the lives of fellow soldiers? Germany wasn't exactly a model of forward thinking in WWI, either. So I think your examples are pretty terrible.

Quote

Do we really need this discussion?

You're right. We're mucking up the thread with non-relevant discussion.

I thought it was relevant at the time, as Gingrich is going to lose off the back of it.

For the record, I actually like JFK. As a president. I stand by the logic and evidence provided of my argument.
Sayonara discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 15, 2012, 05:38:24 pm

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

This is still warranted, because you guys need to learn to stop trying to get in the last word while acknowledging that the discussion is over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:40:19 pm

How can you even rationally say JFK had NO morals? He was a cheater, but he would never leave his wife for another woman, especially in a time she needed him the most, unlike Gingrich. Gingrich and Hitler are really the only ones on your list I can point at and not find any semblance of morality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 15, 2012, 05:41:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:40:19 pm

-Blablabla-

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 15, 2012, 05:38:24 pm

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

And now I have to shoot myself for having to be the sensible one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:43:31 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:40:19 pm

How can you even rationally say JFK had NO morals? He was a cheater, but he would never leave his wife for another woman, especially in a time she needed him the most, unlike Gingrich. Gingrich and Hitler are really the only ones on your list I can point at and not find any semblance of morality.

I never said JFK had no morals, I compared him to Gingrich. Stop with the JFK fandom, I actually like the president, not the man. Cheating is cheating is immoral behavior. Good president for the most part.

You really are incredibly biased for JFK and against Gingrich, suggest you read some about JFK and his presidency.

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

Self dogged.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 15, 2012, 05:46:08 pm

(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:48:02 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:43:31 pm

whatever...

How about you go and read about Hitler and get your own facts strait?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 05:48:43 pm

Quote

You really are incredibly biased for JFK and against Gingrich, suggest you read some about JFK and his presidency.

I'd suggest you do the same.

Also:

(http://i.imgur.com/gkIDu.jpg)

Thread Nazi dog has spoken.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 15, 2012, 05:51:21 pm

(http://i.imgur.com/kgXCb.png)






I've not much on topic to say, other than I find it highly amusing Santorum's becoming a significant contender. 'Course that amusement would turn to fright if he gets a significant chance at the presidency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:52:16 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:48:02 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:43:31 pm

whatever...

How about you go and read about Hitler and get your own facts strait?

I suggest you read a book and not get your information from hollywood, good god people is this what history has come to? hollywood = truth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 05:53:27 pm

Look man. We're all reasonably intelligent individuals around here. We're all capable of reading. I have a minor in History, almost made it my major.

There's a big difference between reading history and your interpretation of it. Saying you're a history student doesn't give you anymore validity than me calling myself a rocket science because I read a wiki article on rocket science. Or a book, for that matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:54:59 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 05:53:27 pm

Look man. We're all reasonably intelligent individuals around here. We're all capable of reading. I have a minor in History, almost made it my major.

There's a big difference between reading history and your interpretation of it. Saying you're a history student doesn't give you anymore validity than my calling myself a rocket science because I read a wiki article on rocket science. Or a book, for that matter.

What you've said has been reasonable. I disagree with a great deal of it but its not beyond the realms of reality that I may be wrong in my argument. That other guy is totally without credible information. Saying I majored in history is never meant to be a statement of competancy, its a statement of my interest in the area only.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:55:37 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:52:16 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 05:48:02 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 05:43:31 pm

whatever...

How about you go and read about Hitler and get your own facts strait?

I suggest you read a book and not get your information from hollywood, good god people is this what history has come to? hollywood = truth.

I don't even know what the hell you are going on about. I have not gotten any of my information on this subject from hollywood at all. And you really need to stop with the personal attacks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 06:02:49 pm

Let's all calm down abit, were all friends here.

Anyone have any dirt on Santorum? mr squeeky clean man?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 15, 2012, 06:13:20 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 06:02:49 pm

Anyone have any dirt on Santorum? mr squeeky clean man?

I did a quick review back in January when he was up in the polls. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg2883799;topicseen#msg2883799)

Quote from: palsch on January 06, 2012, 08:55:26 am

As for Santorum, no-one took him seriously before his late surge simply because he isn't someone who should be taken seriously. He was a Senator who got stomped to the tune of 17% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_United_States_Senate_election,_2006) (710,204 votes), the largest defeat of any incumbent Senator since 1980, who is grossly out of tune with the current popular rhetoric in the Republican party, who has been a joke on the internet since 2003. People haven't needed to do anything other than point and laugh since 2006.

I'd love it if he does stay high in the polls for a while, simply because there are so many more stories about him that haven't had enough time in the spotlight yet. Like his take on the Catholic sex abuse scandal (blame liberals (https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30)). Or his lending his name to a Dicovery Institute written Intelligent Design pushing amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment). Or going Godwin over the Democrats using the filibuster. Or saying that Terri Schiavo was executed. Or how (just last year) he said how John McCain doesn't understand torture enhanced interrogation techniques (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55140.html). Or him being about the only person to maintain the US found WMDs in Iraq. Or his inserting of a multi-billion dollar tax credit (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1167738,00.html) for synthetic (coal based) fuel oil into a bill otherwise concerned with aid for Katrina victims. Or his proposal to block the national weather service from publishing any weather information that might compete with commercial sources. Or why he is commonly referred to as 'man on dog' Santorum (which is somehow worse since Dan Savage had his way with his name). Or how he blames radical feminism for making it "more socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children."

This just from a quick skimming of his wiki page for stories I remember.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 06:18:21 pm

'John McCain doesn't understand torture enhanced interrogation techniques.'

 :P Santorum had to be trolling on this one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:19:45 pm

... you seem to not realize that Santorum seems to be dead serious about just about every damn thing he says. Man apparently doesn't troll, though people would feel a lot better about his sanity if he did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 06:28:29 pm

Quote from: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:19:45 pm

... you seem to not realize that Santorum seems to be dead serious about just about every damn thing he says. Man apparently doesn't troll, though people would feel a lot better about his sanity if he did.

To be honest, I like politicians like this. We have a politician here Ken Livingston, he says what he thinks and he doesn't sugar coat it. He gets alot of flak about it, but at the end of the day he has integrity. Because you know what he says is what he means, and thats his political currency for the people.

Santorum might be batshit, but I respect a guy who doesn't bullshit. It gives the man a level of credibility no amount of propaganda and charisma will give you. It's just a shame that what he says is almost always total bollocks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 06:36:19 pm

I used to think that about Ron Paul. But he's backpedaling away from all his (non-economic, non-foreign policy) rhetoric as fast as his legs will let him. It wouldn't make him more acceptable to me as a candidate, or his views better in my eyes, but he'd get an iota of more respect out of me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 15, 2012, 06:48:29 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 06:28:29 pm

We have a politician here Ken Livingston, he says what he thinks and he doesn't sugar coat it. He gets alot of flak about it, but at the end of the day he has integrity.

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that.

The guy worked for Press TV, the British media arm of the Iranian government. He only left when they were shut down for ignoring Ofcom regulations, specifically keeping editorial control in Tehran. He also hosted a Muslim cleric who called for the death penalty for homosexuals. Yet he still campaigns hard on gay rights.

I really wanted to see Oona King get the nod over him in this mayoral election, not least because Livingston being nominated pretty much means Boris wins again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:51:40 pm

I'd probably go in fifty/fifty on it... integrity is one thing, but knowing when to shut the hell up or stay quiet is kind of important when you're dealing with a non-homogeneous ideological base (read: All of them). Santorum in particular is just a really shitty politician -- and I mean this in the higher sense of good social leader, not just someone that wins elections -- and the fact that he's running for what he is, with the positions that he holds, just makes that really bloody obvious.

I can respect ideological integrity, but willful ignorance, stupidity, or insanity -- and it's one or more of the three in Santorum's case -- pretty easily counters what little respect that sort of integrity garners. Sticking to your guns doesn't excuse incompetence or having your head stuck up the ass of a centuries-to-millennium outdated ideological foundation :-\

But it's all rather irrelevant, really. The chances of the man getting elected president this time around is still basically zero.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 15, 2012, 06:53:59 pm

Quote from: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:51:40 pm

I'd probably go in fifty/fifty on it... integrity is one thing, but knowing when to shut the hell up or stay quiet is kind of important when you're dealing with a non-homogeneous ideological base (read: All of them). Santorum in particular is just a really shitty politician -- and I mean this in the higher sense of good social leader, not just someone that wins elections -- and the fact that he's running for what he is, with the positions that he holds, just makes that really bloody obvious.

I can respect ideological integrity, but willful ignorance, stupidity, or insanity -- and it's one or more of the three in Santorum's case -- pretty easily counters what little respect that sort of integrity garners. Sticking to your guns doesn't excuse incompetence or having your head stuck up the ass of a centuries-to-millennium outdated ideological foundation :-\

But it's all rather irrelevant, really. The chances of the man getting elected president this time around is still basically zero.

I also find it hard to think someone has "integrity" while they simultaneously 1) claim to support the US Constitution, and 2) claim to support religiously-oriented policies and legislation within the US government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:55:49 pm

Ideological integrity, to be more precise. And specifically to his own, which includes that sort of hypocrisy and radical interpretation/fabrication.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 06:59:24 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 15, 2012, 06:48:29 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 06:28:29 pm

We have a politician here Ken Livingston, he says what he thinks and he doesn't sugar coat it. He gets alot of flak about it, but at the end of the day he has integrity.

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that.

The guy worked for Press TV, the British media arm of the Iranian government. He only left when they were shut down for ignoring Ofcom regulations, specifically keeping editorial control in Tehran. He also hosted a Muslim cleric who called for the death penalty for homosexuals. Yet he still campaigns hard on gay rights.

I really wanted to see Oona King get the nod over him in this mayoral election, not least because Livingston being nominated pretty much means Boris wins again.

Absolutely true points.
What I meant though was his statements, his arguments, what he says that we can see. It's not distorted, he goes right for the throat and says it. I remember that stuff about Iran, i'm sure there were some mitigating circumstances to some of this, though I don't recall enough of it to comment/defend this though.

You can't deny that he says what he means, he gets beaten down for it all the time, it's probably what brings his popularity down the most. Thats all i'm refering to, and that gives the man credibility in my opinion.

Quote from: G-Flex on February 15, 2012, 06:53:59 pm

Quote from: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:51:40 pm

I'd probably go in fifty/fifty on it... integrity is one thing, but knowing when to shut the hell up or stay quiet is kind of important when you're dealing with a non-homogeneous ideological base (read: All of them). Santorum in particular is just a really shitty politician -- and I mean this in the higher sense of good social leader, not just someone that wins elections -- and the fact that he's running for what he is, with the positions that he holds, just makes that really bloody obvious.

I can respect ideological integrity, but willful ignorance, stupidity, or insanity -- and it's one or more of the three in Santorum's case -- pretty easily counters what little respect that sort of integrity garners. Sticking to your guns doesn't excuse incompetence or having your head stuck up the ass of a centuries-to-millennium outdated ideological foundation :-\

But it's all rather irrelevant, really. The chances of the man getting elected president this time around is still basically zero.

I also find it hard to think someone has "integrity" while they simultaneously 1) claim to support the US Constitution, and 2) claim to support religiously-oriented policies and legislation within the US government.

I would say it is integrity, its just nonsense. He believes what he says, but what he says is absolute tripe.

Quote from: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:55:49 pm

Ideological integrity, to be more precise. And specifically to his own, which includes that sort of hypocrisy and radical interpretation/fabrication.

I think you're completely right here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 15, 2012, 07:05:01 pm

Quote from: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:55:49 pm

Ideological integrity, to be more precise. And specifically to his own, which includes that sort of hypocrisy and radical interpretation/fabrication.

Internally speaking, that's not integrity at all though. He's just being a two-faced bullshitter to himself in addition to being one to the electorate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:06:37 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 15, 2012, 07:05:01 pm

Quote from: Frumple on February 15, 2012, 06:55:49 pm

Ideological integrity, to be more precise. And specifically to his own, which includes that sort of hypocrisy and radical interpretation/fabrication.

Internally speaking, that's not integrity at all though. He's just being a two-faced bullshitter to himself in addition to being one to the electorate.

Not at all, it means he speaks from the heart, But whats in his heart is a load of crap.
I respect the man, but I wouldn't vote for him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 15, 2012, 07:10:12 pm

You respect a man for (probably willfully) holding intellectually dishonest and two-faced beliefs? You respect someone who would pretend to love what his country stands for while actively subverting it, and actually believing he's doing the former and not the latter? How is that respectable to you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:14:55 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 15, 2012, 07:10:12 pm

You respect a man for (probably willfully) holding intellectually dishonest and two-faced beliefs? You respect someone who would pretend to love what his country stands for while actively subverting it, and actually believing he's doing the former and not the latter? How is that respectable to you?

He doesnt know or think they are two faced. It is not beyond the realm of reason for an american candidate to beleive relgion and conservatism arent mutually exclusive.

For the record, I am a rabid athiest with extremely left wing views. I do not support the man or any of his ideas.
I respect any man(or woman) who says what he means and doesn't take the easy road of pandering.
Granted that road is easier for someone who truly believes in the crap he does for a republican, but there it is.

Mit Romney for example, doesn't have this trait. He seems too fake to me and I believe this is one of his highest criticisms? (it would be mine)
*Other than his vast wealth, which I find a strange criticism in a country like the USA where he is supposed to be the architypical capitalist worker, a self made man?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 15, 2012, 07:28:18 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:14:55 pm

Mit Romney for example, doesn't have this trait. He seems too fake to me and I believe this is one of his highest criticisms? (it would be mine)
*Other than his vast wealth, which I find a strange criticism in a country like the USA where he is supposed to be the architypical capitalist worker, a self made man?

Well, that's partly thanks to the ad campaign against him, from his history.  His father was the governor of Michigan, and a very wealthy man, who sent his son to the finest colleges (which ironically makes him an elitist in the American rubric) and gave him most of his starting capital for his businesses.  Mitt is now exponentially more wealthy than Romney Sr. ever was, but he's anything but a self-made man.

Which is why it makes a strong criticism, in this particular year, as American political speech has really seized on "the rich get richer and the poor don't" as a foundational element.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on February 15, 2012, 07:32:30 pm

He made all his wealth in the financial industry, largely doing things that the vast majority of Americans don't understand and don't really bring any benefit to the economy while serving to make those who work in it obscenely wealthy at the expense of others.
It would be different if he made his wealth in anything besides the financial industry, and the complaints about him (from the republican side) would have much less to stand on, and probably wouldn't have been brought up at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:35:05 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on February 15, 2012, 07:32:30 pm

He made all his wealth in the financial industry, largely doing things that the vast majority of Americans don't understand and don't really bring any benefit to the economy while serving to make those who work in it obscenely wealthy at the expense of others.
It would be different if he made his wealth in anything besides the financial industry, and the complaints about him (from the republican side) would have much less to stand on, and probably wouldn't have been brought up at all.

But this is what nearly all of capitalism is........ 8% of american economy is manufacturing?
Seriously i'm at a loss. America is the most capitalist and free market country in the world, yet they castigate a candidate for partaking in that.
BUT THATS WHAT THE WHOLE NATION IS ABOUT! from the beginning! especially the republican party!
It's crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 07:37:36 pm

This whole nation was about taxation without representation from the beginning.  Capitalism came later and many of the founding fathers (such as Jefferson) were veeeeery leery of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:39:37 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 07:37:36 pm

This whole nation was about taxation without representation from the beginning.  Capitalism came later and many of the founding fathers (such as Jefferson) were veeeeery leery of it.

Agreed it was a bit of a blanket statement. But come on! seriously? you create a system of capitalism and free market, you tell people if you work hard you can be rich, you guide social policies to promote economic growth above nearly all other issues.
Then you criticise a candidate for succeeding in exactly the way this system wants!!!!

and! these are only the right wing voters!!!!!! it absolutely boggles my mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 07:41:50 pm

The theory was that capitalism would lead to a good allocation of resources, not a bunch of bloodsucking hedge funds.  They are angry at Romney for not being the kind of capitalist they expected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 15, 2012, 07:43:15 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:35:05 pm

But this is what nearly all of capitalism is........ 8% of american economy is manufacturing?
Seriously i'm at a loss. America is the most capitalist and free market country in the world, yet they castigate a candidate for partaking in that.
BUT THATS WHAT THE WHOLE NATION IS ABOUT! from the beginning! especially the republican party!
It's crazy.

Like I was saying around the Georgia primary, yes it is pretty crazy.  In any other year, Romney's business history would make him the Republican wunderkind.  "Economic populism" has come roaring back into American politics though, even with a good portion of conservative Republican loyalists, and the general public makes a very hard distinction between different kinds of "capitalism".  Manufacturing is only 8% yes; most people think it's higher than that and should be higher still, and don't want to hear that it's not.

What Romney did was go to companies in financial straights, buy them out, alter them in some way (frequently by firing a lot of people), then selling the company back off while paying himself millions, with something like a 20% rate of them subsequently going bankrupt regardless.  That kind of "capitalism", while perfectly legitimate, doesn't sit well with your typical American voter at this time of all times.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 07:47:54 pm

Romney was successful at murdering corporations and feasting upon their corpses. Metaphorically speaking.

In reality, he also made some of that money from what is arguably fraud. Buying a company, taking out a loan to pay himself 350 million dollars (or close to it) and then filing for bankruptcy on the loans he took out to pay himself but suffering no liability because of legal loopholes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:50:28 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 07:47:54 pm

Romney was successful at murdering corporations and feasting upon their corpses. Metaphorically speaking.

In reality, he also made some of that money from what is arguably fraud. Buying a company, taking out a loan to pay himself 350 million dollars (or close to it) and then filing for bankruptcy on the loans he took out to pay himself but suffering no liability because of legal loopholes.

I say this with much left wing baggage attached;
Sounds like a true Capitalist to me  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 07:52:41 pm

Quote

Buying a company, taking out a loan to pay himself 350 million dollars (or close to it) and then filing for bankruptcy on the loans he took out to pay himself but suffering no liability because of legal loopholes.

And the best part is, the collateral posted for that loan? The company he bought out. The insane part is that, in the average person's world, this is fraud. In the corporate world, it's a business plan.

Using someone else's money is a cornerstone of global business economics. So while technically it's fraud, it's actually how business has been getting done for a very long time. It's actually very rare for people to put up much of their own money to support a business. Can't get rich that way!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:54:45 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 07:52:41 pm

Quote

Buying a company, taking out a loan to pay himself 350 million dollars (or close to it) and then filing for bankruptcy on the loans he took out to pay himself but suffering no liability because of legal loopholes.

And the best part is, the collateral posted for that loan? The company he bought out.

Using someone else's money is a cornerstone of global business economics. So while technically it's fraud, it's actually how business has been getting done for a very long time. It's actually very rare for people to put up much of their own money to support a business. Can't get rich that way!

From what little I understand of the business world, I am getting this impression too. I think companys and individuals can and will do whatever they can to milk money out of the system, and I think the government looks the otherway because it often leads to GDP growth, and such greed is the fundimental engine of capitalism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 15, 2012, 10:07:08 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 05:35:31 pm

Then why don't we allow convicted felons to run for political office, or even vote?

Felons can vote, depending on the state.

I liked The Colbert Super PAC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aix7tQMdJ3s)'s attack ad on the topic of Bain Capital.

Oh gods, what? (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephen-colbert-is-now-offering-500000-to-sponsor-south-carolinas-gop-primary-with-a-few-conditions/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 10:12:46 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:54:45 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 07:52:41 pm

Quote

Buying a company, taking out a loan to pay himself 350 million dollars (or close to it) and then filing for bankruptcy on the loans he took out to pay himself but suffering no liability because of legal loopholes.

And the best part is, the collateral posted for that loan? The company he bought out.

Using someone else's money is a cornerstone of global business economics. So while technically it's fraud, it's actually how business has been getting done for a very long time. It's actually very rare for people to put up much of their own money to support a business. Can't get rich that way!

From what little I understand of the business world, I am getting this impression too. I think companys and individuals can and will do whatever they can to milk money out of the system, and I think the government looks the otherway because it often leads to GDP growth, and such greed is the fundimental engine of capitalism.

This doesn't add to GDP.  It's econ 101 that capitalism doesn't work without capital goods, operating capital, etc.  This is why it's called capital-ism not monocle-top-hat-ism.  When a big company gets taken over and shrunk to return to profitability, the result is a decrease in GDP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 15, 2012, 10:15:27 pm

I just don't know what to say. I really don't. (http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/02/15/santorum-being-female-is-a-mental-disorder/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 10:18:36 pm

That he uttered something so stupid in my own state (possibly my own town? I wonder what local university they are talking about) doesn't surprise me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:20:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 15, 2012, 10:15:27 pm

I just don't know what to say. I really don't. (http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/02/15/santorum-being-female-is-a-mental-disorder/)

What the fuck?! What...the fuck?! What..the..fu-u-*cries*

Oh god, just when I thought Santorum could not get any more out there, he does this. I don't think he actually wants the presidency after all :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 10:24:39 pm

I am honestly having trouble believing this, even from him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 15, 2012, 10:30:39 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 15, 2012, 10:15:27 pm

I just don't know what to say. I really don't. (http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/02/15/santorum-being-female-is-a-mental-disorder/)

Quote from: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 10:24:39 pm

I am honestly having trouble believing this, even from him.

Can we find a news source for this? The only thing I see is this self proclaimed "almost" reliable" news site and a bunch of tumbler blogs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:32:20 pm

You know, looking at a couple other sources (a Nebraska newspaper and a Democrat website), they don't make any mention of the "women are mentally ill" thing. However, he did imply that not going to war in the Middle East would have resulted in all of us speaking Arabic now, and claimed that Christians have never conquered or governed anyone (unlike Muslims). I'll keep checking.

ETA: Something I just noticed, both of the sources I found were from Dec 2011, while the linked article implies that it happened today or just recently. I never thought I would defend this guy, but I'm not entirely sure he said this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 15, 2012, 10:36:17 pm

That's really too bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 10:37:22 pm

Well I'm much less disturbed now so I call it a win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:39:29 pm

Another thing: The linked website (Free Wood Post) makes a mention that a group called "Code Pink" are planning protests. There's nothing I can see on a quick sojurn through the Code Pink website. No alerts, no tweets, no nothing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:50:57 pm

Double-post, sorry.

Did the person who linked to Free Wood Post know that this was a satire website, like the Onion? At least I hope it's satire and not just malicious lies/batshit insanity, because they have stories like "Michelle Bachman melts when water is spilled on her" and "Newt Gingrich offers to convert to Judaism after the election". Pretty sure we been trolled, guys.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 16, 2012, 01:52:40 am

Sadly, Id belive it all, especially the Michelle Bachman thing.

  But yeah, its a satirical website, shouldnt even be called news in america.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 16, 2012, 02:30:15 am

Not very good satire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 16, 2012, 02:32:29 am

Well, it got me pretty good, until I started digging around. But yeah, the Onion is better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 16, 2012, 02:35:49 am

Isn't satire supposed to be amusing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 16, 2012, 02:38:11 am

It's not intrinsic to the concept, no. As this demonstrates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 16, 2012, 05:46:26 am

Trolling may not be amusing in the eyes of all, but is still amusing to some.

  I find the onion rather unfunny, but alot of people obviously disagree with me.  Though id say america is in a laugh or cry stage politically

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 16, 2012, 05:52:59 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 15, 2012, 10:12:46 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 15, 2012, 07:54:45 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 15, 2012, 07:52:41 pm

Quote

Buying a company, taking out a loan to pay himself 350 million dollars (or close to it) and then filing for bankruptcy on the loans he took out to pay himself but suffering no liability because of legal loopholes.

And the best part is, the collateral posted for that loan? The company he bought out.

Using someone else's money is a cornerstone of global business economics. So while technically it's fraud, it's actually how business has been getting done for a very long time. It's actually very rare for people to put up much of their own money to support a business. Can't get rich that way!

From what little I understand of the business world, I am getting this impression too. I think companys and individuals can and will do whatever they can to milk money out of the system, and I think the government looks the otherway because it often leads to GDP growth, and such greed is the fundimental engine of capitalism.

This doesn't add to GDP.  It's econ 101 that capitalism doesn't work without capital goods, operating capital, etc.  This is why it's called capital-ism not monocle-top-hat-ism.  When a big company gets taken over and shrunk to return to profitability, the result is a decrease in GDP.

He 'saved' a bunch of companys, yeah some failed but a 80% successrate is indeed increasing the operating capital that would not have existed had he not intervened.
So yeah, despite his butchery I believe he did help the economy, at the expense of workers and to great profit to himself.

'When a big company gets taken over and shrunk to return to profitability, the result is a decrease in GDP.'

From what people have stated, if he didnt shrink them they would have collapsed anyway, thus a small decrease trumps a big decrease.
Honestly, I know people will want to argue Mit is an evil capitalist, to be fair, I think hes a capitalist. He didn't start businesses@(apparently), but he intervened in many, essentially making a profit.
But yeh he seems to have screwed people over, but I don't think he had a negative effect on the economy, quite the opposite. I thinkt thats what opponants to him want to think, despite being proponants of capitalism which relies on layoffs and buying and selling of stock, venture capital and investors.

Not to mention, the company he owned(I assmume he owned a invesment company or was involved in one?) would have been making enormous profits in this time.

*If I said GDP, I meant without him the GDP wouldn't have been better than with him and people like him, not that it would yield a net increase from his actions. If I said otherwise it was a mistake.

I know alot of this is ifs and maybes, but I think the core of what i'm saying is he didn't have a negative or A-Capitalistic portfolio, he simply invested in companys to make the most profit, and cut labor where it was required to make the company profitable again, which is good for the economy and growth.

Does anyone have any detailed info on his business actions? I'd really like to read up on this guy and see exactly what were talking about, so I can make a better judgement as to the if's and maybes here.
Note: I'm not looking for propaganda on how he tore apart companys and is generally a bad guy, I know this, I agree to this more than anyone here probably, I despise how business hurts the workers first and the top last or not at all. I'm looking for detailed information on what companys he owned, how well they were/are doing and what his involvement was in them.

Quote from: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:20:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 15, 2012, 10:15:27 pm

I just don't know what to say. I really don't. (http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/02/15/santorum-being-female-is-a-mental-disorder/)

What the fuck?! What...the fuck?! What..the..fu-u-*cries*

Oh god, just when I thought Santorum could not get any more out there, he does this. I don't think he actually wants the presidency after all :/

As for Santorum........................................  :P it has to be bullshit. Has to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 16, 2012, 06:12:18 am

So... I was just rereading the thread, and found this gem.

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 05, 2012, 02:30:48 pm

Whether the government is going to outlaw condoms is kind of a general topic of an election maybe, but will only really become more so provided Rick Santorum is still in the Top Three for the Republican nomination come the end of January.  Let's keep it in the here and now for the time being, eh?

I'll be damned.  Five weeks later, and for entirely related reasons, Rick Santorum is near the top of the polls, and outlawing condoms is by some dark confluence a serious position in American politics.

Holy shit, where did we turn onto this road?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 16, 2012, 08:50:54 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/rick-santorum-mitt-romney-rombo-ad_n_1278735.html

This is a "Santorum" ad attacking Romney for "mudslinging". I don't know about you, but I think it may backfire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 16, 2012, 09:25:50 am

Santorum released his tax returns. Four years of them, actually. This will turn out to be an astute move for him.

Not only was his annual income well below Romney and Gingrich ($600,000 or so to $1.1 million, depending on the year), but his effective tax rate was 27%. About double that of Romney. And he apparently files his own taxes instead of using a preparer. Those things are going to resonate well with blue-collar Republicans. Dude also racked up on the child tax credit...he's got seven kids, all of whom live at home.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2012, 10:17:31 am

Impressions: Note, none of these have valid evidence, this is just the general gist I've gotten from the grapevine.

Santorum - god, while he has the most reprehensible positions of the bunch, I'm actually thinking I might prefer him over the others. Like Paul, he seems sincere if batshit insane, and like so much of the population I am just so incredibly sick of politics as usual. He seems like the least likely candidate to rob me or ruin my life for personal profit and to enrich his friends in high places.

Of course, he's also the most likely to do it "for my own good" "because I'm a sinner" or just because "god said so" or because I'm some sort of deviant. And he's still likely to do quite a bit of the other kind, regardless of how he looks. He's still a politician after all.

But at the very least I can see how he's getting so much support. He's the only one who seems like he'd be willing to follow the rules he makes, in spirit as well as implementation, and is in it for something other than personal empowerment.

He's also pretty terrible, so I'd never vote for him, but I can see why people who are sick of "politicians" would do so.

/completely unjustified gut feelings

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 16, 2012, 10:24:41 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:32:20 pm

and claimed that Christians have never conquered or governed anyone (unlike Muslims).

*looks at Europe*

*looks especially hard at northern Europe*

...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 16, 2012, 10:27:53 am

Quote from: scriver on February 16, 2012, 10:24:41 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:32:20 pm

and claimed that Christians have never conquered or governed anyone (unlike Muslims).

*looks at Europe*

*looks especially hard at northern Europe*

...

*Looks at America*

*looks especially at ALL of the Americas*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 16, 2012, 10:46:48 am

Quote from: Nadaka on February 16, 2012, 10:27:53 am

Quote from: scriver on February 16, 2012, 10:24:41 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 15, 2012, 10:32:20 pm

and claimed that Christians have never conquered or governed anyone (unlike Muslims).

*looks at Europe*

*looks especially hard at northern Europe*

...

*Looks at America*

*looks especially at ALL of the Americas*

*looks at all the world*

*looks especially hard at ALL the European colonies*

Well at least now we know that Santorum isn't big on history. Or small on history for that matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 16, 2012, 10:53:48 am

Is there any people in history that have never waged a war of aggression against their neighbors?  Iniuts maybe?  Not trying to excuse anyone, just curious thanks to this topic of discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2012, 10:58:07 am

Quakers?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 16, 2012, 10:59:08 am

Even the Greenland Inuit would surely have waged war against other Inuit tribes, or against the Norse colony.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 16, 2012, 10:59:52 am

War of aggression... if you're specifically looking at attempted conquest, sure, there's plenty of people in the world that haven't done that, specifically. Plenty of cultures and people weren't and aren't expansionistic. If you're looking for no violence at all, well, that's considerably more rare; you usually have border skirmishes and raids and so forth as kind of par for course.

But wars of aggression, especially in the sense that term's used nowadays is comparatively rare, from what I understand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on February 16, 2012, 11:00:38 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 16, 2012, 10:53:48 am

Is there any people in history that have never waged a war of aggression against their neighbors?  Iniuts maybe?  Not trying to excuse anyone, just curious thanks to this topic of discussion.

Eh, it seems like even the Inuit decided to fight a war or two when their populations reached a significant density. To me it seems like you'll have to go back to before the invention of farming to find peoples who didn't fight against their neighbors (and even then you'd have to search for a bit).

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2012, 10:58:07 am

Quakers?

They're a religious group, so I don't think they'd count.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2012, 11:01:30 am

Wasn't the whole inspiration for this tangent over religious groups and their conquering? Don't see how it wouldn't apply.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 16, 2012, 11:10:25 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 16, 2012, 10:53:48 am

Is there any people in history that have never waged a war of aggression against their neighbors?  Iniuts maybe?  Not trying to excuse anyone, just curious thanks to this topic of discussion.

The Swiss, I guess, not to say they've never historically been prepared for war and didn't lend out mercenaries and whatnot, though.

Luxembourg, which doesn't count because it's actually populated by Germans and Frenchmen.

Iceland, if you consider them to be distinct people and not just a colony of lost Scandinavians. They also did base American military in the Cold War.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 16, 2012, 11:12:34 am

Quote from: Montague on February 16, 2012, 11:10:25 am

Luxembourg, which doesn't count because it's actually populated by Germans and Frenchmen.

Fuck you too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 16, 2012, 11:36:58 am

Quote from: Montague on February 16, 2012, 11:10:25 am

The Swiss, I guess, not to say they've never historically been prepared for war and didn't lend out mercenaries and whatnot, though.

Indo-Europeans didn't take over Europe by hugging the natives ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on February 16, 2012, 12:42:15 pm

Santorum is big on the ipad gaming, apparently (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3deYGZJEY4&feature=player_embedded)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 16, 2012, 12:53:22 pm

Nothing overly interesting yet.

So have lots of videos of Santorum being glitter bombed. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/02/15/santorum-occupied11/)

EDIT: OK, I take that back. This last paragraph is interesting. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/13/the-rick-santorum-rally-in-tacoma-probably-could-have-gone-better)

Quote

About halfway through the handshaking, Santorum was glitterbombed. This was not just any glitterbomb, where a handful of glitter is haphazardly thrown at the candidate: Rick Santorum was glitter bukkake'd: He had glitter cascading down the front of his sweater vest, all down his back, through his hair, and his giant forehead shone in the flashes of photographs like Ke$ha had just vomited on it. But Santorum plodded onward with the weary grace of someone who had been sprinkled with glitter by strangers against his will many times before. He didn't shake everyone's hand, but he made an effort. And then he was whisked away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 16, 2012, 01:04:46 pm

That's what American politics needs. More bukkake.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 16, 2012, 01:37:04 pm

Abit old but..

Ron Paul on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taqzzLRQ9wc

Lol amusing, he got boo'd for taking the CIA and top political analysts stance on why 9/11 happened. Ron Paul makes me hate Americans people, they are such idiots often sometimes always.

*after thinking about Britain, I have expanded the scope of my statements.

Ron Paul on his best area, foreign policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8jNdnGqYQ&feature=related

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 16, 2012, 01:56:36 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 16, 2012, 06:12:18 am

So... I was just rereading the thread, and found this gem.

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 05, 2012, 02:30:48 pm

Whether the government is going to outlaw condoms is kind of a general topic of an election maybe, but will only really become more so provided Rick Santorum is still in the Top Three for the Republican nomination come the end of January.  Let's keep it in the here and now for the time being, eh?

I'll be damned.  Five weeks later, and for entirely related reasons, Rick Santorum is near the top of the polls, and outlawing condoms is by some dark confluence a serious position in American politics.

Holy shit, where did we turn onto this road?

I'm not sure, but you need to start offhandedly dismissing ridiculous scenarios that are good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 16, 2012, 02:03:35 pm

A race of scantily-clad attractive female aliens comes down, gives us the secrets of fusion and FTL travel, and all the conservatives promptly head off to settle their own brutal dystopias far beyond the Rim, while the rest of us stay for a continuous party with said space babes?

Highly unlikely. You hear me, universe? HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 16, 2012, 02:05:08 pm

I see what you did there  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 16, 2012, 02:11:10 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 16, 2012, 01:56:36 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 16, 2012, 06:12:18 am

Holy shit, where did we turn onto this road?

I'm not sure, but you need to start offhandedly dismissing ridiculous scenarios that are good.

This is like, the third or fourth it's happened too.  Am I...

Am I a wizard?  Will I be a good wizard or an evil wizard... Definitely evil wizard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 16, 2012, 02:12:09 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 16, 2012, 02:11:10 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 16, 2012, 01:56:36 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 16, 2012, 06:12:18 am

Holy shit, where did we turn onto this road?

I'm not sure, but you need to start offhandedly dismissing ridiculous scenarios that are good.

This is like, the third or fourth it's happened too.  Am I...

Am I a wizard?  Will I be a good wizard or an evil wizard... Definitely evil wizard.

Wizzard.

Bonus points for getting the reference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on February 16, 2012, 02:15:53 pm

The wind is very rinsing today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 16, 2012, 02:41:49 pm

New Rasmussen poll shows Santorum leading Romney by a whopping 18 points in Ohio. As I've stated before, you have to take a wider margin of error with Rasmussen and he seems to be in the tank for Santorum lately with his polls compared to everyone else's....but that's still a pretty good indicator that Santorum is likely to win in Ohio in nothing major happens between now and then.

Also, reporter with agenda claims that Obama's photo-op in Wisconsin the other day was tied to labor unions because he was under a big flag for the "local union, Wisconsin 1848".
Problem? That's the state flag, jackass. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/obama-wisconsin-master-lock-politico_n_1281920.html)  :P


And lastly, big donor behind Santorum's SuperPAC (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/foster-friess-in-my-day-gals-put-aspirin-between-their-114730.html) comments,

Quote

“You know, back in my days, they used bare aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”

That's not the Onion. That's an honest-to-gods quote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 16, 2012, 02:42:59 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 16, 2012, 01:04:46 pm

That's what American politics needs. More bukkake.

I think the economy is political bukkake.  It's a bunch of old men wanking off all over society.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2012, 02:48:35 pm

Mind, RedKing, that was still a joke and obvious reference to keeping their legs shut being the best method of contraception. I don't think he meant the aspirin would actually do anything to stop pregnancy, as I've heard the same line repeated with other things in place of aspirin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 16, 2012, 02:59:58 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2012, 02:48:35 pm

Mind, RedKing, that was still a joke and obvious reference to keeping their legs shut being the best method of contraception. I don't think he meant the aspirin would actually do anything to stop pregnancy, as I've heard the same line repeated with other things in place of aspirin.

Yeah, I got that part. What he apparently didn't get is that there are some jokes you don't use on national TV when being interviewed in the context of serious political concerns. The fact that he feels he can be that flippant about the whole thing and nobody is going to lose their shit...that disconnect is what boggles my mind.

EDIT: There's also the fact that it conveys an attitude of "If these skanks would just keep their legs shut...."  ::)
If some guy were to use that line near me, I'd have to respond with, "Well I'm teaching my daughter that the best birth control is a cigar cutter."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 16, 2012, 03:03:07 pm

He's not a politician, he's not a media figure. He's just a guy with a crapload of money, who's probably used to saying whatever the hell he wants and frankly probably doesn't care himself and thus doesn't think other people would care. I mean, it doesn't seem THAT surprising.

It's not like HE'S going to suffer if he says something stupid, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 16, 2012, 03:20:22 pm

Quote from: Descan on February 16, 2012, 02:15:53 pm

The wind is very rinsing today.

I for one think we need to clear the air, get rid of all the old luggage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 16, 2012, 03:27:34 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 16, 2012, 03:20:22 pm

Quote from: Descan on February 16, 2012, 02:15:53 pm

The wind is very rinsing today.

I for one think we need to clear the air, get rid of all the old luggage.

Maybe we should take the time to go pick a flower or two?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 16, 2012, 05:12:41 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 16, 2012, 02:41:49 pm

And lastly, big donor behind Santorum's SuperPAC (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/foster-friess-in-my-day-gals-put-aspirin-between-their-114730.html) comments,

Quote

“You know, back in my days, they used bare aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”

That's not the Onion. That's an honest-to-gods quote.

Even more astounding was that he said that on live television straight to Andrea Mitchell, one of the most important female figures in modern journalism.  Really, the whole thing was absolutely stupefying to watch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 16, 2012, 05:24:29 pm

Being associated with NC State, I'm familiar with the type -- rich good ol' boys who think it's still 1952, and they can get away with telling seriously off-color jokes, because all their fellow good ol' boy buddies still laugh at them.

State has way too many of that type as alumni and donors.  :-\


Doubt it'll hurt Santorum all that much directly. He can easily sidestep the quote and just blow it off as "Oh, that's just Foster being Foster..."

Although I did like one of the Facebook comments attached to the story:

Quote

Wow. An aspirin between the knees. I think one of my kids was conceived while my wife's knees were together. There's more in life than the missionary position, old dude.

  :P  :P  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 16, 2012, 08:13:56 pm

Isn't it ironic that a religion that makes people uncomfortable about discussing sex results in far more public discussion of specific sexual practices then in other countries?  When was the last time that you heard about a secular discussion of say, the mechanics of sodomy in a countries parliment?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 17, 2012, 05:41:07 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 16, 2012, 08:13:56 pm

Isn't it ironic that a religion that makes people uncomfortable about discussing sex results in far more public discussion of specific sexual practices then in other countries?  When was the last time that you heard about a secular discussion of say, the mechanics of sodomy in a countries parliment?

I dunno, I imagine they still do have secular discussions on it in European parliaments to determine if such things might be too much for day time broadcast television and TV news programs or street art festivals and the sort. I doubt it's quite the public policy crisis it degenerates into in American politics, though.

But yeah, it occurred to me today that the same religion that believes modern medicine is unethically cheating death believes the Earth can support an unlimited number of human beings. So, yeah, let's ban contraceptives and medicine and we can all have 45 year long life spans and 12 children per family. That'd save Social Sociey and medicare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 17, 2012, 05:11:23 pm

Wow, it's been all day and no posts in this thread. So have some poll numbers! They're free, and they're a part of your daily balanced diet!

National:
Gallup has Santorum at +4 over Romney, well below Rasmussen's +12 hard-on for Slick Rick, but still a troubling sign for Team Romney.

Arizona:
Rasmussen has Romney at a mere +8 over Santorum, two weeks after they had Romney at +24. I'm not sure if Rasmussen has an inherent pro-Santorum bias, or just a pro-frontrunner bias. I'd love to see Nate Silver take that one apart.

General Election:
Rasmussen's most recent Obama vs. X polls show that it probably doesn't really matter. Against Romney or Santorum, Big O wins by 6 points. Stick Gingrich in there, and he wins by double digits. The GOP are derping themselves into the political graveyard in this election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on February 17, 2012, 05:16:37 pm

My prediction: Santorum wins primaries, Romney is his VP, and all hell breaks loose.

Note, none of this is at all possible, plausible, or in the realm of reality. In fact, Gingrich becomes his Secretary of State just because.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE. I GUESS.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 17, 2012, 09:46:30 pm

One of my favorite comments on that article about [EXPLETIVE DELETED]'s trip to Tacoma.

Quote from: schallup

Rick Santorum was here to give a speech? I thought he was just here to protest the Powell boys' funeral.

So... Newt Gingrich is basically dead everywhere, right? I can't see a comeback anytime soon, but he could throw a wrench into things with another South Carolina.

/me crosses his fingers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 18, 2012, 12:20:09 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 17, 2012, 09:46:30 pm

One of my favorite comments on that article about [EXPLETIVE DELETED]'s trip to Tacoma.

Quote from: schallup

Rick Santorum was here to give a speech? I thought he was just here to protest the Powell boys' funeral.

So... Newt Gingrich is basically dead everywhere, right? I can't see a comeback anytime soon, but he could throw a wrench into things with another South Carolina.

/me crosses his fingers.

He still has a decent shot to win Georgia. Was still leading in the polls down there at last check, but they're a bit dated. Santorum was surging up on him though.

The next big thing will be 2/28, when Arizona and Michigan go. Michigan's slightly leaning Santorum at this point. Romney still has a lead in Arizona, but that lead appears to slip by the day. If Santorum takes both states, then goes on to take Ohio and Georgia a few days later, I think he becomes a goddamn freight train, and the GOP establishment's collective shit hits the fan. Super Tuesday could be an absolute bloodbath, even though Romney might still be leading in delegates going into it. People aren't necessarily keying into the whole "lots of proportional primaries this cycle", and if they just see "Santorum wins", then they're liable to think he got the whole bag of marbles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 18, 2012, 12:23:58 am

It's really a waste of time now. The major GOP candidates seem to be trying to do their best to alienate everyone who isn't a die-hard far-right conservative, and that doesn't get you anywhere in US politics. You have to play to the middle to win anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on February 18, 2012, 12:47:53 am

From what I've been reading here, it seems we are witnessing the implosion of the GOP.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about that, but I somehow doubt it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 18, 2012, 12:48:26 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 18, 2012, 12:20:09 am

He still has a decent shot to win Georgia. Was still leading in the polls down there at last check, but they're a bit dated. Santorum was surging up on him though.

Well, hope he brings deodorant or something. That'll get messy.

I really want to see Ron Paul suddenly smack Santorum down and win a couple states. Just a couple, though. May as well give every single Republican candidate a chance to lead for a little bit and share in the wealth. (Or rather, get ad-blitzed by it.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 18, 2012, 02:59:50 am

Quote from: PyroDesu on February 18, 2012, 12:47:53 am

From what I've been reading here, it seems we are witnessing the implosion of the GOP.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about that, but I somehow doubt it.

The GOP imploded during Bush's second term. 

Doesn't matter who wins the election, America is screwed because the majority of career politicians who are in place to actually put a stop to this thing would rather play politics and vote pander to an ever increasing class of "poor" people. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 18, 2012, 11:40:59 am

How does the GOP platform of tax hikes on the poor and middle class and tax cuts on the wealthy pander to the poor?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 18, 2012, 11:44:25 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 18, 2012, 11:40:59 am

How does the GOP platform of tax hikes on the poor and middle class and tax cuts on the wealthy pander to the poor?

It panders to the poor in the sense that they inexplicably get the poor to believe it's good for them.

The fact that NinjaBoot used "poor", with scare quotes, is a little concerning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 18, 2012, 02:03:25 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 18, 2012, 11:40:59 am

How does the GOP platform of tax hikes on the poor and middle class and tax cuts on the wealthy pander to the poor?

Because they call it tax cuts, with no further qualifications.

EDIT: Also, any tax hikes are called "paying a fair share", and appeals are made to a sense of justice to make the subjects of the hikes feel like they're serving their country and living up to their obligations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:22:11 pm

Conservatism is the greatest manifestation of hubris ever displayed.

The idea that, 'I work hard, fuck everyone else, if theyre poor they must be lazy else they'd be rich like me' is unfathomably ignorant, immoral and unfair.

There is no corrolation between hard work and wealth, in fact in many cases the opposite is true. Especially in a rich/poor comparitive nature.
Opportunity is directly linked to the general prosperity of the world, and even in the greatest boom years billions of talented, honorable, hard working individuals are abandoned at the lowest rungs of society. The market will never have a 1:1 ratio of hard work and talent, to good well paid jobs.
Capitalism is a tiered society, and there is no way to get around that. There will always be the poor, and talent wasted in the poor. During recessions this is just exacerbated, it isn't unique to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 18, 2012, 02:25:33 pm

Fuck you, got mine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:27:30 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:22:11 pm

Conservatism is the greatest manifestation of hubris ever displayed.

The idea that, 'I work hard, fuck everyone else, if theyre poor they must be lazy else they'd be rich like me' is unfathomably ignorant, immoral and unfair.

There is no correlation between hard work and wealth, in fact in many cases the opposite is true. Especially in a comparative nature.

Can you explain how or why of this is true?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:30:08 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:27:30 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:22:11 pm

Conservatism is the greatest manifestation of hubris ever displayed.

The idea that, 'I work hard, fuck everyone else, if theyre poor they must be lazy else they'd be rich like me' is unfathomably ignorant, immoral and unfair.

There is no correlation between hard work and wealth, in fact in many cases the opposite is true. Especially in a comparative nature.

Can you explain how or why of this is true?

I believe I did. There is no corrolation between how hard people work, and the rewards they get.

Factory worker, breaking his back 50 hours a week, paid minimum wage. This man gets paid not by the effort he personally puts into his job, or into life, but purely upon a miniscule portion of the monetary value of his labor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 18, 2012, 02:30:50 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:27:30 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:22:11 pm

Conservatism is the greatest manifestation of hubris ever displayed.

The idea that, 'I work hard, fuck everyone else, if theyre poor they must be lazy else they'd be rich like me' is unfathomably ignorant, immoral and unfair.

There is no correlation between hard work and wealth, in fact in many cases the opposite is true. Especially in a comparative nature.

Can you explain how or why of this is true?

The most wealthy people expand their wealth not through the product of their labor, but the rents of their property and interests of their investments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:32:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 18, 2012, 02:30:50 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:27:30 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:22:11 pm

Conservatism is the greatest manifestation of hubris ever displayed.

The idea that, 'I work hard, fuck everyone else, if theyre poor they must be lazy else they'd be rich like me' is unfathomably ignorant, immoral and unfair.

There is no correlation between hard work and wealth, in fact in many cases the opposite is true. Especially in a comparative nature.

Can you explain how or why of this is true?

The most wealthy people expand their wealth not through the product of their labor, but the rents of their property and interests of their investments.

Exactly, they make money from money. Like parasites they produce nothing of their own. While honest men earn minimum wage by honest labor.

I call this, immoral, unfair and unjust. Conservatives support the parasites above the workers who produce the goods which make our nations great.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 18, 2012, 02:34:36 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:30:08 pm

There is no correlation between hard work and wealth,

I should mention that there's a (very) weak correlation. You can fuck up your way into failure no matter where you start (although, to be sure, at the top wealth levels in this country you'd have to basically be trying). You just can't work your way into success without luck being at least as big a factor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:49:08 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:32:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 18, 2012, 02:30:50 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:27:30 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:22:11 pm

Conservatism is the greatest manifestation of hubris ever displayed.

The idea that, 'I work hard, fuck everyone else, if theyre poor they must be lazy else they'd be rich like me' is unfathomably ignorant, immoral and unfair.

There is no correlation between hard work and wealth, in fact in many cases the opposite is true. Especially in a comparative nature.

Can you explain how or why of this is true?

The most wealthy people expand their wealth not through the product of their labor, but the rents of their property and interests of their investments.

Exactly, they make money from money. Like parasites they produce nothing of their own. While honest men earn minimum wage by honest labor.

I call this, immoral, unfair and unjust. Conservatives support the parasites above the workers who produce the goods which make our nations great.

The super-ultra-wealthy make most of their money, by investing other money, sure. They also make most of their money from exploiting other super-wealthy people.

Most rich people get their income through work like anybody else. CEO's and the such are basically hired employees and are paid so much because people able to do the job well are in extremely high demand.

People get paid according to market principles. A job that almost anybody is able and willing to do isn't going to pay much. A job that few people can ably do and jobs that nobody wants to do, pay very well. The latter implies a certain degree of merit, talent, work ethic, personal responsibility and competence required to do it, so it pays better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on February 18, 2012, 02:59:30 pm

You're kidding right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 03:01:54 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:49:08 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:32:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 18, 2012, 02:30:50 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:27:30 pm

Quote from: Deadmeat1471 on February 18, 2012, 02:22:11 pm

Conservatism is the greatest manifestation of hubris ever displayed.

The idea that, 'I work hard, fuck everyone else, if theyre poor they must be lazy else they'd be rich like me' is unfathomably ignorant, immoral and unfair.

There is no correlation between hard work and wealth, in fact in many cases the opposite is true. Especially in a comparative nature.

Can you explain how or why of this is true?

The most wealthy people expand their wealth not through the product of their labor, but the rents of their property and interests of their investments.

Exactly, they make money from money. Like parasites they produce nothing of their own. While honest men earn minimum wage by honest labor.

I call this, immoral, unfair and unjust. Conservatives support the parasites above the workers who produce the goods which make our nations great.

People get paid according to market principles. A job that almost anybody is able and willing to do isn't going to pay much. A job that few people can ably do and jobs that nobody wants to do, pay very well. The latter implies a certain degree of merit, talent, work ethic, personal responsibility and competence required to do it, so it pays better.

Tell that to our crushed economy in which a lack of expressed talent, a poor work ethic, little personal responsibility and massive golden parachutes ruined the lives of millions of people.

*This happens in recession and boom alike.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 18, 2012, 03:04:57 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 18, 2012, 02:49:08 pm

Most rich people get their income through work like anybody else. CEO's and the such are basically hired employees and are paid so much because people able to do the job well are in extremely high demand.

People get paid according to market principles. A job that almost anybody is able and willing to do isn't going to pay much. A job that few people can ably do and jobs that nobody wants to do, pay very well. The latter implies a certain degree of merit, talent, work ethic, personal responsibility and competence required to do it, so it pays better.

I'd buy that if you didn't get a severance package for fucking up so badly the company decides that paying you $10,000,000 to quit is cheaper than letting you run things anymore (who was that HP guy, again?). I grant that I would not do well as a CEO - I do not have the charisma that you need to be the public face of a company whenever shit happens, and I don't have the business training to actually do the job. But that latter, at least, I could potentially fix, and possibly the former given enough work.

What I do not grant is that top executive pay is determined by market principles from the company's perspective. Executives are human - they make their decisions based on what's good for them, in the majority of cases. Each and every one of them knows that having safety nets like that as established principle is good for them, and perpetuating that is in turn what they should do. Same reason you got European monarchs that warred with France for generations fighting to undo the French Revolution. Same reason you get a Congress that refuses to improve the voting system. For that matter, the number of people who want to be and have the ability to be CEOs is, I'd wager, far higher than the number of people who are.

Now, if your definition of "can" includes the enormous slew of environmental factors in a person's life that determine whether or not CEO or Janitor is a more appropriate career aspiration, that's at least logically consistent, but it's also what we're complaining about since that shouldn't be allowed to generate such a huge disparity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 18, 2012, 05:57:25 pm

I used to have a nice Andrew Carnegie quote about this. Don't have it on hand so I'll just paraphrase what happened: He got the opportunity to invest some money for the first time, and did so through borrowing. When he got his return, that completely paid off his debt and then some, he said "Eureka! Here lies the goose that lays the golden eggs. It was the first dollar I earned not by the sweat of my own brow."

Latter part's important.


As long as you need money to make money, wealth will never have more than a tentative correlation to hard work and/or aptitude. The hard workers are making minimum wage. The geniuses are in R&D on salary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 02:12:44 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 18, 2012, 11:40:59 am

How does the GOP platform of tax hikes on the poor and middle class and tax cuts on the wealthy pander to the poor?

I never said anything connecting the GOP to vote pandering to the poor. 

I stated that Politicians (on both sides) do this. 

For me personally, being Canadian, I have a somewhat vested interest in seeing our closet ally and biggest trading partner get its shit together. 

$15 Trillion in debt and spiraling out of control. 

The whole issue has never been with taxation.  While I do agree that the 46% of Americans who pay no taxes, should pay SOME taxes (everybody has to have skin in the game, duly so if they have the right to vote), the whole problem has been with the spending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on February 19, 2012, 02:21:00 am

No, 46% don't pay federal income tax.
They still pay the other taxes.

And you are wrong, the whole problem hasn't been spending, the US needs both to get more revenue (aka taxes) and to cut spending, the US simply can't cut its way out of this problem (short of completely gutting a ton of stuff).
Bush cutting taxes and them getting extended by the republicans (and obama OK'ing it), has been one of the most damaging things to the budget.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 19, 2012, 02:25:45 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 18, 2012, 05:57:25 pm

As long as you need money to make money, wealth will never have more than a tentative correlation to hard work and/or aptitude. The hard workers are making minimum wage. The geniuses are in R&D on salary.

Not only this, but as long as you can make money by having money. As long as people with money can get exponentially more money through solid investments, how is anyone else going to squeeze their way toward the top?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 19, 2012, 02:35:32 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 02:12:44 am

$15 Trillion in debt and spiraling out of control.

Just minor enlightenment there; the states're actually at a lower debt than we were back in WWII, when measured as a % of the GDP. 15 trill's still insane, yes, but the states have been in a worse position before, several times.

But yeah, the question re: spending is always the same -- what gets cut? S'a discussion for another thread, though, if it's not something one of the candidates are campaigning on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 02:46:37 am

Quote from: Frumple on February 19, 2012, 02:35:32 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 02:12:44 am

$15 Trillion in debt and spiraling out of control.

Just minor enlightenment there; the states're actually at a lower debt than we were back in WWII, when measured as a % of the GDP. 15 trill's still insane, yes, but the states have been in a worse position before, several times.

It is a problem when other countries own the debt. 

Quote

But yeah, the question re: spending is always the same -- what gets cut? S'a discussion for another thread, though, if it's not something one of the candidates are campaigning on.

The candidates do not focus on it because it would be political suicide to openly talk about cutting down the size of government. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 19, 2012, 02:48:09 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 02:46:37 am

Quote

But yeah, the question re: spending is always the same -- what gets cut? S'a discussion for another thread, though, if it's not something one of the candidates are campaigning on.

The candidates do not focus on it because it would be political suicide to openly talk about cutting down the size of government.

Well, there's a fair sized branch of American politics that believes its not.  They just have to find creative ways to say so.

And yes, this is a topic a bit too broad and heated for me to really welcome it here, because I've seen it happen a hundred times before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 06:39:55 am

Yeah, what Aqizzar said. This is the Election thread, not the "What's fucked up with America?" thread. Which would need a computer the size of the Earth to properly hold it all.

So, we're all mostly familiar with the line of "reasoning" among some evangelical Protestants that the Catholics aren't really Christians, right?
Well, now we have a speech dredged up from 2008 where Rick Santorum is basically saying the opposite at a lecture at a Catholic university: that American Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity". (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/rick-santorum-protestantism_n_1286471.html)

Be interesting to see if this gets much play from his rivals. Nothing like a little old-school sectarian warfare to liven things up. They gonna party like its 1629!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 08:12:27 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 06:39:55 am

Yeah, what Aqizzar said. This is the Election thread, not the "What's fucked up with America?" thread. Which would need a computer the size of the Earth to properly hold it all.

So, we're all mostly familiar with the line of "reasoning" among some evangelical Protestants that the Catholics aren't really Christians, right?
Well, now we have a speech dredged up from 2008 where Rick Santorum is basically saying the opposite at a lecture at a Catholic university: that American Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity". (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/rick-santorum-protestantism_n_1286471.html)

Be interesting to see if this gets much play from his rivals. Nothing like a little old-school sectarian warfare to liven things up. They gonna party like its 1629!

I suppose that is what is fucked up with America, the focus on such non-issues. 

I guess congress not having passed a budget in over 1000 days is not important.  I suppose that government now being the sole lender of post-secondary financial aid is also a non-issue.  PPACA?  All good.  Fast and Furious?  Nope.  All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.  Shitty economy that hasn't done anything in 3 years?  Gonna need another term to fix it.  Education system that is broken and in need of an overhaul?  Throw more money at it. 

Oh, right.. I suppose a candidates religious beliefs are a good indicator of how well he run the country. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 19, 2012, 09:16:36 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 08:12:27 am

All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.

Because we all know that reliance on fossil fuels is going to be great in the long-term, and that the rich in the US pay more than their fair share.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Azkanan on February 19, 2012, 10:19:05 am

I'm British and vote for Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 19, 2012, 10:26:11 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 19, 2012, 02:25:45 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 18, 2012, 05:57:25 pm

As long as you need money to make money, wealth will never have more than a tentative correlation to hard work and/or aptitude. The hard workers are making minimum wage. The geniuses are in R&D on salary.

Not only this, but as long as you can make money by having money. As long as people with money can get exponentially more money through solid investments, how is anyone else going to squeeze their way toward the top?

Honestly, I'd let people with money make as much money as they possibly can, I'd just tax the majority of it. Also, investments can fail, so they are taking a risk with their money when they play these games with it. Also, investment and financing and loans are immensely important for growing the economy and allowing new businesses to get up and running.

If there was no real incentive to offer loans or buy shares of a corporation, the economy would stagnate and would cripple innovation and kill off new ventures before they were born. All and all, while the ultra-rich capitalist sorts don't work very hard, they do contribute to the economy.

Again, I'd also tax them to the point where they'd almost want to quit doing this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 10:26:47 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 08:12:27 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 06:39:55 am

Yeah, what Aqizzar said. This is the Election thread, not the "What's fucked up with America?" thread. Which would need a computer the size of the Earth to properly hold it all.

So, we're all mostly familiar with the line of "reasoning" among some evangelical Protestants that the Catholics aren't really Christians, right?
Well, now we have a speech dredged up from 2008 where Rick Santorum is basically saying the opposite at a lecture at a Catholic university: that American Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity". (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/rick-santorum-protestantism_n_1286471.html)

Be interesting to see if this gets much play from his rivals. Nothing like a little old-school sectarian warfare to liven things up. They gonna party like its 1629!

I suppose that is what is fucked up with America, the focus on such non-issues. 

I guess congress not having passed a budget in over 1000 days is not important.  I suppose that government now being the sole lender of post-secondary financial aid is also a non-issue.  PPACA?  All good.  Fast and Furious?  Nope.  All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.  Shitty economy that hasn't done anything in 3 years?  Gonna need another term to fix it.  Education system that is broken and in need of an overhaul?  Throw more money at it. 

Oh, right.. I suppose a candidates religious beliefs are a good indicator of how well he run the country.

It's not that they're not important, it's that this thread is not the place for that discussion. From the OP:

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 05:43:00 pm

And yes, I know this is a politics thread, but let's try to have too many policy arguments, okay?  It's inevitable, but I'd like to keep everything civil here, and the horserace of electioneering is more than enough to keep everyone entertained without a firestorm of pointless ideological debates.

Might I suggest the progressive rage/annoyance thread, if you're so inclined? (although I gather you'd be more annoyed at the progressives there than what they're annoyed at)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 10:35:24 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 08:12:27 am

Nope.  All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.  Shitty economy that hasn't done anything in 3 years?

1) We spend more money on oil subsidies then we do on green energy subsidies.
2) The economy has grown been growing at a decent clip in the past two years (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=GDPC1&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=2000-01-01&coed=2011-10-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=pc1&vintage_date=2012-02-19&revision_date=2012-02-19).  It's just that the financial crises fucked things up so far that there's plenty of distance still to go.  This is hardly surprising, it often take a decade or more to recover from a severe financial crises.  And considering that some nations like the UK (poster child of austerity) and Greece STILL aren't growing, we could be doing a lot worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 19, 2012, 10:49:01 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 10:35:24 am

And considering that some nations like the UK (poster child of austerity) and Greece STILL aren't growing, we could be doing a lot worse.

It's not that the UK "still isn't't growing".  It's that the UK economy WAS growing until austerity kicked in and reversed that last quarter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:04:32 am

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 11:07:27 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:04:32 am

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

This isn't forever though.  This is when the economy is severely depressed.  If you are complaining about structural deficits then complain when interest rates aren't at the zero bound, we have 3-5 percentage of the population cyclically unemployed and cutting deficits would be self defeating like in the UK.  I.E. the bush deficits were a good time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:16:50 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 11:07:27 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:04:32 am

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

This isn't forever though.  This is when the economy is severely depressed.  If you are complaining about structural deficits then complain when interest rates aren't at the zero bound, we have 3-5 percentage of the population cyclically unemployed and cutting deficits would be self defeating like in the UK.  I.E. the bush deficits were a good time.

A severe recession isn't a great time to accumulate government debt, either. When the good times come back, the government is going to have to crash the party by introducing austerity measures to cover the debt. So you can lengthen a recession or abort a good economy, austerity measures aimed at reducing debt are going to suck no matter what part of the boom-bust cycle it's implemented.

Although, I think it'd be ideal if the government never went into deficit in the first place unless it absolutely had to. I think it'd help dampen the extremes of the economic cycle, if at least the government could be consistent with it's spending even if revenue declines or increases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 11:25:23 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:16:50 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 11:07:27 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:04:32 am

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

This isn't forever though.  This is when the economy is severely depressed.  If you are complaining about structural deficits then complain when interest rates aren't at the zero bound, we have 3-5 percentage of the population cyclically unemployed and cutting deficits would be self defeating like in the UK.  I.E. the bush deficits were a good time.

Although, I think it'd be ideal if the government never went into deficit in the first place unless it absolutely had to. I think it'd help dampen the extremes of the economic cycle, if at least the government could be consistent with it's spending even if revenue declines or increases.

....how does that even work? If the government cannot go into deficit, then when revenue declines so does government spending.

Keynsian economics isn't "GOVT SPEND ALL THE TIME", it's counter-cyclical spending. The government acts a a "prime mover" during downturns to get the ball rolling again, then reins in spending during upswings (to recoup their losses and avoid crowding out private capital investment). The problem is that once the economy is moving again, politicians are loathe to cut anything that brings jobs to their district or subsidies to their industry buddies.

Cutting back spending and steadily raising taxes during upswings probably will slow down ecnomic growth, but as you yourself just stated, it would "dampen the extremes". That's the tradeoff you pay for not having to go through long, crippling recessions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:45:06 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 11:25:23 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:16:50 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 11:07:27 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:04:32 am

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

This isn't forever though.  This is when the economy is severely depressed.  If you are complaining about structural deficits then complain when interest rates aren't at the zero bound, we have 3-5 percentage of the population cyclically unemployed and cutting deficits would be self defeating like in the UK.  I.E. the bush deficits were a good time.

Although, I think it'd be ideal if the government never went into deficit in the first place unless it absolutely had to. I think it'd help dampen the extremes of the economic cycle, if at least the government could be consistent with it's spending even if revenue declines or increases.

....how does that even work? If the government cannot go into deficit, then when revenue declines so does government spending.

Keynesian economics isn't "GOVT SPEND ALL THE TIME", it's counter-cyclical spending. The government acts a a "prime mover" during downturns to get the ball rolling again, then reins in spending during upswings (to recoup their losses and avoid crowding out private capital investment). The problem is that once the economy is moving again, politicians are loathe to cut anything that brings jobs to their district or subsidies to their industry buddies.

Cutting back spending and steadily raising taxes during upswings probably will slow down ecnomic growth, but as you yourself just stated, it would "dampen the extremes". That's the tradeoff you pay for not having to go through long, crippling recessions.

Keynesian economics, I don't think has ever historically been shown to work as advertised, ever. Neither has the more serious implementations of laissez-faire economic policies, which tend to go through wildly extreme boom-bust cycles.

I think government spending should remain stable, even if revenue increases or decreases. The government can save during booms to survive the lean times like every other entity on the planet does. Otherwise it traps itself by overspending and overcommitment during booms and going into immense deficit during busts. Or worse yet it wastes money trying to halt a recession.

Avoiding extremes of the market cycle should coincide with avoiding austerity cycles with a government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 12:05:00 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:45:06 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 11:25:23 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:16:50 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 11:07:27 am

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 11:04:32 am

You can't sustain growth forever on government debt.

Austerity is just a reality check, really.

This isn't forever though.  This is when the economy is severely depressed.  If you are complaining about structural deficits then complain when interest rates aren't at the zero bound, we have 3-5 percentage of the population cyclically unemployed and cutting deficits would be self defeating like in the UK.  I.E. the bush deficits were a good time.

Although, I think it'd be ideal if the government never went into deficit in the first place unless it absolutely had to. I think it'd help dampen the extremes of the economic cycle, if at least the government could be consistent with it's spending even if revenue declines or increases.

....how does that even work? If the government cannot go into deficit, then when revenue declines so does government spending.

Keynesian economics isn't "GOVT SPEND ALL THE TIME", it's counter-cyclical spending. The government acts a a "prime mover" during downturns to get the ball rolling again, then reins in spending during upswings (to recoup their losses and avoid crowding out private capital investment). The problem is that once the economy is moving again, politicians are loathe to cut anything that brings jobs to their district or subsidies to their industry buddies.

Cutting back spending and steadily raising taxes during upswings probably will slow down ecnomic growth, but as you yourself just stated, it would "dampen the extremes". That's the tradeoff you pay for not having to go through long, crippling recessions.

Keynesian economics, I don't think has ever historically been shown to work as advertised, ever.

Just post-WWII America and Europe for about 30 years.  ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 19, 2012, 12:29:41 pm

http://randonesia.tumblr.com/post/15251001685/i-want-to-be-the-big-cheese

Quote

My first act as President of the United States will to be shot. That’s right, SHOT. With a high-powered assault rifle. Immediately after taking the oath of office, I will be escorted about twenty yards away and be shot publicly in a non-lethal area of my body by a highly trained Navy SEAL sniper. It will hurt like fuck. Why would I do this? Because I will now be commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This means that during my term I will probably have to make some tough decisions affecting the survival of other men. And as commander-in-chief, I shouldn’t expect anyone in our military to do anything I’m not willing to do myself. That includes getting shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 19, 2012, 12:54:07 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 12:05:00 pm

Just post-WWII America and Europe for about 30 years.  ???

Ehhhmmm... maybe. You could argue that the US and Europe were prosperous despite Keynesian economic policies. Europe has been a big fan of the theory and still is and they are not doing too hot right now, while less Keynesian-leaning places have been relatively untouched by the economic chaos of late.

I still say that they've been going down an unsustainable path and it's now catching up to them. All that heavy government spending isn't looking like such a great idea right now that they are going to have to implement austerity measures to prevent complete economic collapse. So, I still say it's not quite working as advertised.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 19, 2012, 12:58:36 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 08:12:27 am

Oh, right.. I suppose a candidates religious beliefs are a good indicator of how well he run the country.

Not entirely, no. It's also the fact that presidents can and have used executives orders before. Santorum is a 'person' that has said he wants to arrest all people who have had a marriage that are gay. Moreover, his tax plan is wheels-on-ducks retarded. That means our tax plan would be left up to Congress. Yes, the most reviled wing of the Federal Government. Hell, probably the most reviled group of ~500 people in politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 01:42:04 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 12:54:07 pm

Ehhhmmm... maybe. You could argue that the US and Europe were prosperous despite Keynesian economic policies. Europe has been a big fan of the theory and still is and they are not doing too hot right now, while less Keynesian-leaning places have been relatively untouched by the economic chaos of late.

No they most certainly have not.  The UK austerity package has been the exact opposite of Keynesian economics.  The policy towards Greece has produces exactly the disaster that the Keynesians have predicted.  And the German obsession with inflation is depressing growth throughout the euro-zone in exactly the way that a Keynesian prediction would produce.

The post-war period when the world really embraced Keynesian economics were the best 25 years of economic growth in this century if not ever.  The US, Europe and Japan all posted growth numbers that we haven't seen yet.

The war stimulus of WWII ended the great depression entirely.  This is exactly what one would predict.  Furthermore countries that engaged in fiscal and monetary corrections sooner saw results sooner, again an orthodox Keynesian result.

And austerity after an economic recovery to make up for stimulus during the recovery is not as bad as austerity during the recovery.  After the recovery you have the government crowding out private spending and inflationary pressure as desired spending is greater then total production.  By implementing austerity once you are recovered it's even possible to further boost growth in a best case scenario because the anti-inflationary pressures allow for pro-growth monetary policies that would otherwise not be possible due to inflationary fears.  These inflationary fears don't exist during a recession so you wouldn't experience these benefits by austerity during the recession itself.

You come across as someone who does not know what Keynesian economic is, the arguments for it or the historical evidence that lead to it becoming the orthodox economic school of thought worldwide until very recently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 19, 2012, 04:27:03 pm

The problem with Keynesian economic isn't the validity of it's predictions and it's academic observations of cause and effect, it's actually having the government intervene in the economy to implement them is the problem.

A democracy is basically going to do whatever it's pressured into doing and government programs and intervention in the economy during a recession is likely to persist into following the boom cycle. The programs become popular and the government is pressured to keep them going. It's a problem with political realities, rather then the science behind the economic theory.

That could possibly explain why the governments in Europe and the USA have been doing into such deep deficit, through good times and bad.

Also, I'm dubious of the value wars have on the economy. The US and it's western allies have been fighting a continuous war for more then 10 years now and it's economies have only deteriorated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 04:31:33 pm

Keynesian economics is no more responsible for fiscal profligacy then nutritional science is responsible for obesity.  It tells people what to do, it does not magically compel them to do so.

And Keynesian economics doesn't say that wars grow the economy.  The specific case of WWII did because it provided a stimulus to a number of deeply depressed economies, not because of any inherent virtues of war.  Hiring 30 million people to dig holes in the ground would have accomplished the same end.  Keynesian economics doesn't proscribe silver bullets that fit all situations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on February 19, 2012, 04:59:20 pm

So hey, about them politicians  :P

Did someone already post this one?  (http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-says-obama-agenda-not-based-bible-011457960.html) Or is it just that obvious?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 19, 2012, 05:16:06 pm

Someone needs to write out the 1st Amendment in 10ft tall, brick letters, and then collapse it on Santorum's head. Maybe then he'll get the message.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on February 19, 2012, 05:21:23 pm

Maybe he was an inquisitor in another life

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nilik on February 19, 2012, 09:05:05 pm

Quote from: Azkanan on February 19, 2012, 10:19:05 am

I'm British and vote for Ron Paul.

I'm British and don't do that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 19, 2012, 09:24:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 04:31:33 pm

Keynesian economics is no more responsible for fiscal profligacy then nutritional science is responsible for obesity.  It tells people what to do, it does not magically compel them to do so.

And Keynesian economics doesn't say that wars grow the economy.  The specific case of WWII did because it provided a stimulus to a number of deeply depressed economies, not because of any inherent virtues of war.  Hiring 30 million people to dig holes in the ground would have accomplished the same end.  Keynesian economics doesn't proscribe silver bullets that fit all situations.

Yeah, fair enough. Can't really fault an economic policy if the people in charge are not even consistent about implementing it as policy. My point was that Keynesian economics is flawed because it assumes the government will correctly identify the situation and implement the best course of action, while Austrian School Economics requires the government to do essentially nothing, which seems easier to do successfully, but in reality a government can interfere as an unintended consequence of some other action or be pressured to deviate from that policy as well.

Although you could condemn an economic policy if it consistently fails when it's consistently followed as a coherent policy, I suppose that is actually the case here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 19, 2012, 09:39:23 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 19, 2012, 09:24:12 pm

Although you could condemn an economic policy if it consistently fails when it's consistently followed as a coherent policy, I suppose that is actually the case here.

There is nothing to say this one way or the other, precisely because we live in a world where national leaders do not sit down with a sixty year old textbook and ask, "What singular, academic theory should I personally use to direct every single dollar that this government spends for every day of my term in office?"  This is exactly the kind of argument I've been saying from the start that I don't want in my thread, because it goes nowhere.

You are not going to convince mainiac of anything, he is not going to convince you of anything.  Sitting here as OP, I can say that of the two of you, he is the one making the coherent argument, in that he acknowledges how little any of this talk has to do with how nations are actually run.  My thread about the current American elections is not an open microphone for you to launch your case against a nebulous (and might I add erroneous) dimensionless impression of an economic theory, and I'm getting a little tired of having to remind everyone of that.

You know what policy positions you can argue about?  The ones people running for office have actually described.  Not what you believe they have acted on, what they have actually described, and what (at least in the case of those who have held an office) have actually implemented themselves.  In concrete terms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 19, 2012, 09:42:01 pm

So, how 'bout ABORTION?

I'm sorry Aqizzar. I have poor judgement.

But anyway, what is all this shit about the winner of Michigan (IIRC) winning the nomination? Is that just more of the BS that claimed Gingrich was going to win back in Florida?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 19, 2012, 09:46:22 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 19, 2012, 09:42:01 pm

So, how 'bout ABORTION?

I'm sorry Aqizzar. I have poor judgement.

Y'know what, as long as people don't take it as an opportunity to grandstand about what they think of the morality of abortion, yes, you can talk about it.  It is a driving issue for quite a few voters, after all.

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 19, 2012, 09:42:01 pm

But anyway, what is all this shit about the winner of Michigan (IIRC) winning the nomination? Is that just more of the BS that claimed Gingrich was going to win back in Florida?

Basically, Romney's strongest (and fundamentally only pillar) for being the Republican nominee is that he has the best chance of winning an election against Barack Obama.  He's from Michigan (among other places), his dad was the governor there, it's supposed to be an "economic" state and he's supposed to be the "economic" candidate, and he has the freedom to spend exponentially more money there than any other candidate.

Ergo, if he manages to lose Michigan, and lose to Rick Santorum of all people, the movers and shakers of the Republican party will be obligated to look at Romney and ask if he's really capable of winning a national election, especially when the most likely Republicans to show up and vote in the general election don't seem to want him.  By plurality anyway.

Really, yes, it's all hot air, and there's a shitload more votes to go, which could easily go roaring to Romney anyway.  A lot of it sounds like it does in reporting, because journalists are terrified of Romney locking up the nomination this early, because holy shit would that be a boring rest of the year without a real Presidential fight going on.  Or it would effectively mean the general election would start right now, which would be utterly depressing and inane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 19, 2012, 09:57:01 pm

If the presidential election started now we wouldn't need anymore stimulus...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 19, 2012, 11:02:52 pm

Santorum is headed to somewhere near my hometown soon. I'm seriously thinking about attending the rally. To heckle him. In the mouth. With my fist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 19, 2012, 11:14:05 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on February 19, 2012, 11:02:52 pm

Santorum is headed to somewhere near my hometown soon. I'm seriously thinking about attending the rally. To heckle him. In the mouth. With my fist.

You can try to find out if he is good as Bush was at playing dodge shoe...

But these days, speaking out against a republican candidate WILL get you arrested, and being in the wrong place near one will get you tazed or a broken foot, they would probably shoot you for throwing a punch or a shoe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 19, 2012, 11:15:11 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 19, 2012, 11:14:05 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on February 19, 2012, 11:02:52 pm

Santorum is headed to somewhere near my hometown soon. I'm seriously thinking about attending the rally. To heckle him. In the mouth. With my fist.

You can try to find out if he is good as Bush was at playing dodge shoe...

Point of order: Can we not encourage physical violence against politicians we disagree with in this thread? Thanks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 19, 2012, 11:17:34 pm

I wasn't actually advocating violence, more like advocating against it in a round about way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 11:19:30 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 19, 2012, 11:15:11 pm

Point of order: Can we not encourage physical violence against politicians we disagree with in this thread? Thanks.

+1

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 19, 2012, 11:43:51 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 19, 2012, 11:15:11 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 19, 2012, 11:14:05 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on February 19, 2012, 11:02:52 pm

Santorum is headed to somewhere near my hometown soon. I'm seriously thinking about attending the rally. To heckle him. In the mouth. With my fist.

You can try to find out if he is good as Bush was at playing dodge shoe...

Point of order: Can we not encourage physical violence against politicians we disagree with in this thread? Thanks.

Good plan. Besides, teeth are hard. The groin and kidneys are much better targets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 19, 2012, 11:50:42 pm

While I know you are being humorous, I don't think the humor is in good taste given the direction of american politics in recent years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 20, 2012, 12:08:45 am

Hey, you could join in with those other folks in throwing glitter at him. I hear it's all the rage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 12:09:27 am

Glitter, this country needs more glitter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 20, 2012, 12:47:07 am

Pies go well, nothing wrong with a bit of cream pie on the head to make a political point.

  Though I do think its a bit sad that making a joke about slapping a politician in the kisser isnt a good idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 01:48:59 am

Has there ever been a point in this nations history when it was a good idea?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 02:28:36 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 10:26:47 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 19, 2012, 08:12:27 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 19, 2012, 06:39:55 am

Yeah, what Aqizzar said. This is the Election thread, not the "What's fucked up with America?" thread. Which would need a computer the size of the Earth to properly hold it all.

So, we're all mostly familiar with the line of "reasoning" among some evangelical Protestants that the Catholics aren't really Christians, right?
Well, now we have a speech dredged up from 2008 where Rick Santorum is basically saying the opposite at a lecture at a Catholic university: that American Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity". (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/rick-santorum-protestantism_n_1286471.html)

Be interesting to see if this gets much play from his rivals. Nothing like a little old-school sectarian warfare to liven things up. They gonna party like its 1629!

I suppose that is what is fucked up with America, the focus on such non-issues. 

I guess congress not having passed a budget in over 1000 days is not important.  I suppose that government now being the sole lender of post-secondary financial aid is also a non-issue.  PPACA?  All good.  Fast and Furious?  Nope.  All that money squandered on green energy?  Just tax rich people more.  Shitty economy that hasn't done anything in 3 years?  Gonna need another term to fix it.  Education system that is broken and in need of an overhaul?  Throw more money at it. 

Oh, right.. I suppose a candidates religious beliefs are a good indicator of how well he run the country.

It's not that they're not important, it's that this thread is not the place for that discussion. From the OP:

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 05:43:00 pm

And yes, I know this is a politics thread, but let's try to have too many policy arguments, okay?  It's inevitable, but I'd like to keep everything civil here, and the horserace of electioneering is more than enough to keep everyone entertained without a firestorm of pointless ideological debates.

Might I suggest the progressive rage/annoyance thread, if you're so inclined? (although I gather you'd be more annoyed at the progressives there than what they're annoyed at)

Thanks for pointing that out :)

Slapping a politician is out of the question.  So just toss a nice pie in their face.  Just make sure it's not someone named John Cretien!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on February 20, 2012, 01:44:29 pm

Oh god, Chretien. He was a badass.

Couldn't understand the fuck he was saying, but damn he was a badass ol' man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 20, 2012, 03:11:37 pm

Then Martin happened. And Harper. We need some more interesting politicians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 20, 2012, 03:16:50 pm

Ted Nugget, 2016. If you can't elect him, you can skin him and eat him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 20, 2012, 04:00:07 pm

New poll data.

National tracking poll, Gallup (2/19):

Santorum: 36%
Romney:   26%
Gingrich:   13%
Paul:        11%

Looks like Romney has staunched the bleeding, with his deficit to Santorum nationally flattening out at about 10-12%. Still, the implosion of Gingrich at the same time as Santorum's surge (I think it's a requirement that any talk of Rick Santorum uses the term "surge") meant that Romney had about one week at the beginning of February where he was able to breathe easy. And then it was back to hanging on for dear life.

Looking back and comparing this to 2008, 2012 is all over the damn place. 2008 was pretty much stable up until the voting started. 2012, we've had 5 different front-runners in the national polls, and four different front-runners (Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Romney) before the actual primaries even started. Candidates have had these huge 30-40 point spikes, then within less than a month, they're plummeting equally as fast. Hell, Gingrich has managed to do that twice.


Arizona, PPP (2/19):
Romney: 36%
Santorum: 33%
Gingrich: 16%
Paul: 9%

Less than three weeks ago, Romney was winning Arizona by 24 points. Epic collapse.


Michigan, two different polls, 2/19:
We got one set of polls that show Romney and Santorum tied at 29%, but with 12% "undecided". Another poll shows Santorum leading Romney 37-33. Either way, it's still a tight race, and if anything it's getting tighter. Just a few days ago, Santorum was polling as high as +10 to Romney. Michigan appears to be where the Romney SuperPAC has decided to drop the heavy artillery for now.


Quick history lesson:
There's also increasing rumbling about the possibility of a brokered convention in Tampa. And possibly even a "compromise candidate" wherein the party would basically trot out a brand new candidate in order to break the impasse. This occurred somewhat more frequently in the US in the 19th century and early 20th century, but has been extremely rare in the postwar era. The last brokered GOP convention was the 1948 convention when Thomas Dewey lacked enough delegates to win, but his three nearest rivals refused to support a compromise candidate to oppose him. Eventually one of the three withdrew from the race and freed his delegates up to vote however they chose, which pushed Dewey over the top.

The last convention where an entirely different candidate was elected was the infamous 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy had won the primaries, with 38.73% of the total popular vote in the primaries, with Robert Kennedy in 2nd place. President Johnson had dropped out of the race and announced that he would not run for re-election. The esatblishment within the Democratic Party feared losing control to an outsider like McCarthy, and so orchestrated the nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey at the convention, despite the fact that Humphrey had not run in a single primary, and Johnson (whose stead he would be running in) fared terribly before dropping out, only taking New Hampshire (and barely taking it at that). Humphrey got most of his support from states which did not run primary elections (which was actually a majority of them) by orchestrating with the party bosses in those states to get their support.

The McCarthy supporters (mostly young anti-war activists and intellectuals) staged a huge mass protest outside the hotel where the convention was occuring, and Chicago mayor Richard Daley (a party boss and part of the establishment) used the police to crack down hard. The protests turned into riots, but Humphrey was nominated regardless. He went down to defeat in the fall to Richard Nixon.

And that, boys and girls, is why primary elections matter. Because without them, you wind up with a candidate picked by the party elites rather the populace. And you can expect to see a metric shitton of references and comparisons to Chicago, 1968 if Romney is trailing in candidates going into this thing but somehow comes out the nominee.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 04:42:43 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 20, 2012, 04:00:07 pm

Arizona, PPP (2/19):
Romney: 36%
Santorum: 33%
Gingrich: 16%
Paul: 9%

Less than three weeks ago, Romney was winning Arizona by 24 points. Epic collapse.

Never forget the influence of local politics and prurience (http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-sheriff-quits-romney-campaign-amid-accusations-021441912.html).  Obviously nothing about little stories like that reflect the Romney campaign itself, but anything that puts a bad taste in people's mouths can swing an election.

I think the nature of the Republican primary turnout in Arizona and Michigan will say a lot about how they go in the general election too, since they're both serious swing-states.  But I can't commit to a read.  I want to think that a Romney victory would signal a Romney general win, but it's easy to think otherwise.

As for a brokered convention, it really depends on how long Santorum manages to survive (I think Gingrich's time as an opponent has come and gone, but we'll see what the South brings), how many caucus votes Paul manages to spirit away in the night (if his tactic works as well as his mailers hope, he could have a couple hundred delegates by the end), and how thoroughly Romney manages to discredit himself as "electable" compared to how well positioned Obama is by August (state of the economy, PAC funds, foreign affairs, etc).  It's doubtful, but I bet Richard Daley could never have predicted in February of '68 what he'd be presiding over that autumn.

This Republican nomination has certainly been a game of upsets, and with so many proportional votes, it's really a question of funding more than anything.  But with the giant spotlight on the process and the candidates, I guarantee that it won't result in someone not currently running being nominated.

Still need to update the OP for Maine, which I think is still a little fuzzy.  I can't go into too much detail there, because I have to save room in the post.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 05:24:28 pm

There were brokered conventions in '76 (GOP) and '84 (Democratic) as well.  They just weren't as high profile because each time the frontrunner was picked instead of a runner up or dark horse.  But they both made for bad optics and helped the eventual nominee go on to lose the general election in both races.  The GOP looks more on track to this sort of brokered convention then a dark horse nominee.  It's possible that there will be enough Paul and Gingrich votes for neither Romney nor Santorum to come up with an absolute majority.  This could lead to all sorts of embarrassing situations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 20, 2012, 05:29:36 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 05:24:28 pm

This could lead to all sorts of embarrassing situations.

... wouldn't that make it kind of par for course for this whole primary?

Methinks you've now doomed(?) us to experience the phenomena. Should be interesting!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 20, 2012, 05:44:18 pm

GOP Primary Cage Match, American Gladiators style! Air cannons with tennis balls, the medicine ball course and of course, facing down the American Gladiators to reach the finish. The first GOP contender to finish without a heart attack or expressing feelings of homosexuality wins!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 06:03:29 pm

I'm not sure the GOP would want Santorum running against the president, if it came down to a brokered convention. I don't think he is electable, he basically embodies everything people hate about Republicans and I'm sure somebody else has recognized this as well.

Romney is the only candidate that might stand a chance, even if the Republican base isn't terribly excited about him, he is going to have an easier time getting independents to vote for him then Santorum would.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:15:51 pm

If that is the scenario, wherein neither Romney nor Santorum reach the convention with enough delegates to win, and they have to bargain a deal between at least each other and/or Paul and Gingrich, the Republican party and it's reliable voters are going to be stuck in a staring match.  If Romney is declared the winner by a brokered convention, the Republican base could revolt, which is to say, not turn out for the election (or uselessly throw itself at some last ditch ultraconservative third-party).  If Santorum is declared the winner (it's hardly impossible that he could still win up in the lead), then the great Independent Majority of American voters are going to flee the Republican party in droves, split between staying home and voting Obama.

Anything can happen of course, but in the case of a brokered convention and the ideological spectacle it would entail, those would be the probable outcomes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:20:40 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 06:03:29 pm

I'm not sure the GOP would want Santorum running against the president, if it came down to a brokered convention. I don't think he is electable, he basically embodies everything people hate about Republicans and I'm sure somebody else has recognized this as well.

Why?  Because he is religious?

[Edit]

Aqizzar, there will be no revolt.  Republicans will vote for ANYONE not named Obama.  They want him out of office.  That said, they also want the candidate that best represents them and their core ideals and has the best chance at being elected. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 06:23:05 pm

Because he believes in banning birth control?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2012, 06:27:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:15:51 pm

Anything can happen of course, but in the case of a brokered convention and the ideological spectacle it would entail, those would be the probable outcomes.

There is also Ron Paul's inevitable independent/libertarian campaign to consider. His hardcore followers are like cultists (I still, still see "Paul 2008" bumper stickers every once in a while), and he himself is so ideologically motivated that the GOP rejecting him won't mean anything to him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:31:57 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:20:40 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 06:03:29 pm

I'm not sure the GOP would want Santorum running against the president, if it came down to a brokered convention. I don't think he is electable, he basically embodies everything people hate about Republicans and I'm sure somebody else has recognized this as well.

Why?  Because he is religious?

There's a difference between being religious, and statements like this:

Quote

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:20:40 pm

Aqizzar, there will be no revolt.  Republicans will vote for ANYONE not named Obama.  They want him out of office.  That said, they also want the candidate that best represents them and their core ideals and has the best chance at being elected.

I don't expect there to be, no.  I can just see some plausible scenarios where it could happen, a hotly contested majority-less convention being one of them.  And yeah, anti-Obama will carry any nominee a long way, it's just a question of how far.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:33:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 06:23:05 pm

Because he believes in banning birth control?

So? 

Ok, I'll game.  So he bans birth control.  Is this going to lead to an increase to an already increasing number of underaged mothers and single mothers?  Is it going to increase the already 40% of children not having a father/mother? 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 06:36:55 pm

Yeah, really the whole Republican primary has been a goat-rope. I think it might have been publicized a bit too much and it's had this herp-derp media-circus vibe the entire time with it's parade of unelectable joke candidates. I'm not sure if it's intended or not, to generate enthusiasm for ousting the president or what but the whole thing has really just made me queasy.

I think somebody mentioned it seems like the Republican party has imploded, perhaps with the most recent Bush presidency, but it seems to me like the GOP has become highly dysfunctional since the Tea Party crowd started gaining traction.

Speaking of which, is it just me or did the Tea Party faction seem to have completely degenerated into a reactionary social conservative movement? I remember it was fairly broad-based, with a sorta libertarian slant to it when it started off, now it seems to focus on solely on attacking the president as a "Muslim Socialist Kenyan" and such shit. It seems to have all the credibility and mass appeal of a band of racist internet conspiracy theorists anymore. Too much AM radio for these people, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:38:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:31:57 pm

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:20:40 pm

I don't expect there to be, no.  I can just see some plausible scenarios where it could happen, a hotly contested majority-less convention being one of them.  And yeah, anti-Obama will carry any nominee a long way, it's just a question of how far.

Far enough that Mitt Romney has lasted this far!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:40:44 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:38:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:31:57 pm

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

I hear this response from time to time.  What the heck is that argument even supposed to be?  I'm not even sure it counts as an argument.  "I believe the political alignment I despise does this, therefor it's okay that my political alignment wants to do this."  This is supposed to make him electable somehow?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2012, 06:41:04 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:33:57 pm

So? 

Ok, I'll game.  So he bans birth control.

He first has to defy over 30 years of judicial precedent allowing for the free sale of birth control, but for the sake of argument, fine.

Quote

Is this going to lead to an increase to an already increasing number of underaged mothers and single mothers?

This is more because we've stopped being a society where pregnancy means automatic marriage which can never be dissolved without becoming a pariah, but yes, banning birth control would also make it skyrocket.

Quote

Is it going to increase the already 40% of children not having a father/mother?

I'd like a source for that figure, but probably, yes.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:38:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:31:57 pm

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

The left, in general, wishes to expand the scope of government through social programs. Rick Santorum wants to expand the scope of government by making us a closed, reactionary society where rich white men have all the power and everyone else plays out a predetermined role. I.e. 1880's society.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 06:53:09 pm

Quote

Ok, I'll game.  So he bans birth control.  Is this going to lead to an increase to an already increasing number of underaged mothers and single mothers?  Is it going to increase the already 40% of children not having a father/mother? 

Considering the statistics here - yes and yes. Incredibly so. Though I'm pretty sure you're pulling that 40% number out of your ass.

There's been a great many studies done that show widely available birth control vastly deflates the number of unwanted pregnancies in general and teenage pregnancies in particular.

Santorum, though - he hates science. He is completely unreasonable. He is completely incapable of compromise as well, judging by what his associates in congress have to say. Even his Republican associates. The man is actively hostile to anything approaching good governance.

Perhaps the Republicans will line up to support him - but that just tells me that they don't give a damn about what happens to this country. They look to Iran and see some sort of rolemodel, near I can tell from my conversations with them. These are the sort of people Santorum represents - the people who want to make our country like Iran (but bigger, and better able to throw its weight around, obviously)

The man is actively hostile to reason, science, and the opinion of others, especially experts. He has no respect for the military, or the men who lead it, which is definitely a point against him on the Republican front. He has basically no respect for anybody who isn't exactly like him, and damn the consequences.

Lets get this straight - I am no Democrat. But Santorum has demonstrated a marked inability to do any of the things an executive requires. If I was extremely socially conservative and religious, I might support him for senate - but I could never bring myself to support him for the Presidency.

On top of that, he's demonstrated no grasp whatsoever of foreign policy or economics.

Seriously - Gingrich would be better as president than Santorum - at least Gingrich wouldn't repeatedly shove the star shaped block into the round hole, yelling for it to work, until the whole thing broke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

Quote

Quote

Is this going to lead to an increase to an already increasing number of underaged mothers and single mothers?

This is more because we've stopped being a society where pregnancy means automatic marriage which can never be dissolved without becoming a pariah, but yes, banning birth control would also make it skyrocket.

Combine this with the public perception of not viewing abortions in a positive light, then yes.. people who make mistakes are being punished and punished hard.

Quote

Is it going to increase the already 40% of children not having a father/mother?

I'd like a source for that figure, but probably, yes. [/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent

The results of the 2010 United States Census showed that 27% of children live with one parent, consistent with the emerging trend noted in 2000.[6]

I seem to have confused the number with Children borne out of wedlock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html

"Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007"

So yeah, the problem is not about having birth control, it is the effect of having birth control that is creating this illusion of "sexual freedom" for younger women.  Combine this with a lack of morals/parenting on both sides and you get a generation of children being raised without knowing what it takes to make a relationship work.

Quote

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:38:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 06:31:57 pm

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

The left, in general, wishes to expand the scope of government through social programs. Rick Santorum wants to expand the scope of government by making us a closed, reactionary society where rich white men have all the power and everyone else plays out a predetermined role. I.e. 1880's society.

[/quote]

Really? 

Such religious intolerance!  Heh, but seriously.. at least give a guy a fair shake.  If we disqualified candidates on what they have said before that sounds highly strange, then we'd have literally nobody to elect.  Go throughout the history of any candidate and you are likely to find statements that are troubling to some degree, depending on your perspective. 

But then again, what a politician says during his or her campaign really has no bearing on how they will run the country when they are elected.  El Presidente Barack H Obama should be the perfect example of this. 

And, really, lets be honest here.  If Santorum did win the presidency, do we honestly believe he'll turn American thinking back to 1880?  Thats pure malarky and hogwash :P.  He won't ever have enough power to do what you "believe" he will do because really, not all Republicans (especially his own party) are nowhere near what fanatical when it comes to religion.

But yeah, there seems to be this misconception that Republicans are Republican because they are religious.  And that is verily untrue because alot of Republicans are Republicans because there is no other fiscally conservative party in America, and well.. the Tea Party has not fully become its own party yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 07:22:02 pm

Republican politicians, in general, are not fiscally conservative. That was the whole point of the Tea Party thing, originally - trying to drag that Republican's down the fiscal conservatism road, and it failed hard.

Santorum is DEFINITELY not a fiscal conservative.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:26:42 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 06:53:09 pm

On top of that, he's demonstrated no grasp whatsoever of foreign policy or economics.

The rest of your argument was addressed in my previous post (incase your wondering why I am only focusing on this).

Firstly, what does foreign policy have to do with anything?  Do we have any bench mark for foreign policy relations?  Because honestly, the whole history of American Foreign relations has been one fuck-up after the next then trying to play all nice afterwards.  And no, Barak Obama or Bill Clinton were not any better at foreign relations than George W Bush, or whoever else will be elected in the future, because people will hate America regardless of what they do in regards to Foreign Policy.

Secondly, please expand on your idea regarding how terrible Santorum is at economics.  It certainly can't be any worse than the current President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 20, 2012, 07:33:21 pm

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:33:46 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 07:22:02 pm

Republican politicians, in general, are not fiscally conservative. That was the whole point of the Tea Party thing, originally - trying to drag that Republican's down the fiscal conservatism road, and it failed hard.

Santorum is DEFINITELY not a fiscal conservative.

You are right on that account, they stopped being fiscally conservative after they jizzed in their pants when Bush first got into office because they had a surplus of the previous administration to work off of. 

I suppose one would argue that the older generation of Republicans who aided in that are now mostly disposed off. 

The Tea Party did not fail, things do not automatically happen after one election.  They have gotten the message out that yes there is a third option to those seeking it.  This should hopefully show other people that yes, other parties with more grassroots do have a chance at making change. 

And also, it is really hard for anything to be done when the current party in power is rather apt at stonewalling any sort of dialogue on fiscal sanity.  Small wonder why, when Democrats had a chance to pass a budget with the majority they held in both houses back when Barak Obama was first elected, they choose not to and instead passed the PPACA (only one "republican" voted for it).  Congress is now 1000 days without a budget. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:35:45 pm

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 20, 2012, 07:33:21 pm

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe. 

And no, bush did not unjustly invade anywhere.  He at the very least had the approval of congress to go to war (unlike Obama's war against Libya). 

Quick history lesson:  Getting rid of Saddam Hussein has been American foreign policy ever since the first Iraq-conflict.  This includes the Clinton Administration.  They have tried everything short of invading prior to Bush's presidency. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 07:39:27 pm

Santorum is a fan of earmarks and pet projects. He isn't consistently fiscally conservative, if you look at his voting record and the types of things he's attempted to get done.

Santorum is also hard core on the idea of American Exceptionalism. While it's true everybody is going to hate the USA no matter what it does, Santorum is going to insist on the same sort of ideas that got the country into Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't help or country to act under the idea that the US is literally blessed with a divine mission to lead the world, let alone help America's popularity overseas.

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:35:45 pm

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

Fiscally conservative is a relative term here. The neoconservative faction is definitely not fiscally conservative, but traditionally it is part of the core Republican party platform.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:41:07 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 07:39:27 pm

Santorum is a fan of earmarks and pet projects. He isn't consistently fiscally conservative, if you look at his voting record and the types of things he's attempted to get done.

Santorum is also hard core on the idea of American Exceptionalism. While it's true everybody is going to hate the USA no matter what it does, Santorum is going to insist on the same sort of ideas that got the country into Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't help or country to act under the idea that the US is literally blessed with a divine mission to lead the world, let alone help America's popularity overseas.

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:35:45 pm

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

Fiscally conservative is a relative term here. The neoconservative faction is definitely not fiscally conservative, but traditionally it is part of the core Republican party platform.

No... Really, republicans for the last 50+ years have been very very big on deficit spending. All you have to do is look at what they actually DO.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 20, 2012, 07:42:07 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

If Santorum did win the presidency, do we honestly believe he'll turn American thinking back to 1880?  Thats pure malarky and hogwash :P.  He won't ever have enough power to do what you "believe" he will do because really, not all Republicans (especially his own party) are nowhere near what fanatical when it comes to religion.

Now, I'm a just wandering past here, but I have to say, this argument and many like it that you seem to be making strike me as odd. I don't know who here said that he could do such things, just that the common thought is that he would want to.

Not to mention the president is a very powerful position. He might not have the power to regress the world three hundred years and throw us into a new dark age, but that does not mean he would not be immensely harmful to the nation and the world.

Some other thoughts that crossed my mind:

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

So yeah, the problem is not about having birth control, it is the effect of having birth control that is creating this illusion of "sexual freedom" for younger women.  Combine this with a lack of morals/parenting on both sides and you get a generation of children being raised without knowing what it takes to make a relationship work.

Are you stating here that birth control actually increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies, or are you stating that a society that is hostile to unmarried births is preferable to a society that is accepting? Because for both of these statements you will have to excuse me for asking for sources.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

Such religious intolerance!

I understand this is your idea of a punchline, but there is no joke. There was no talk of religion in the quoted post, so I can only assume you are having issues reading, it might do you good to look closer at what people say and assume less.

A alternative I guess would that you thinking religion=a closed, reactionary society where rich white men have all the power and everyone else plays out a predetermined role.

But somehow I don't think that is the case.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

at least give a guy a fair shake.  If we disqualified candidates on what they have said before that sounds highly strange, then we'd have literally nobody to elect.  Go throughout the history of any candidate and you are likely to find statements that are troubling to some degree, depending on your perspective.

What.

What.

What.

How do you expect anyone to vote for anyone? There is literally no other way to tell what they plan other then by looking at their actions in the past and their words. In both of these Santorum has been in my opinion less then sanitary. Very few leaders have done everyone they have promised, this is true, but it does not mean that you should ignore everything they say. Seriously, what metric do you use? Who do you want to vote for and why?

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.   

Although we all know the big liberal media is always lying to us, do you... Have... Anything at all to back that up?

Fuck, so long as we discount anything that could count as a actual source, let me tell you. Most people I have talked to that do not live in america and dislike america specifically mention Bush as the point where they started disliking america.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:45:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:35:45 pm

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

Indeed, but what are be using as the standard for fiscal responsibility? 

If we take the current administration's ability to spend money, then yes, every other single republican administration would be fiscally conservative compared to this, including democratic ones. 

Right now we are using the "rhetoric" as the standard I suppose.  Look at what the current Republicans have said about their stances in regards to government spending.  Its all a unilateral "less spending".  Are these Republicans campaigning on a platform of fiscal spending?  No.  They are advocating for fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately due to politicians being politicians, you will have to take it with a grain of salt.  For the sake of argument, there you go. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 07:48:32 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:41:07 pm

No... Really, republicans for the last 50+ years have been very very big on deficit spending. All you have to do is look at what they actually DO.

You may have a point here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:53:13 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 07:48:32 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:41:07 pm

No... Really, republicans for the last 50+ years have been very very big on deficit spending. All you have to do is look at what they actually DO.

You may have a point here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg)

And if you chart the debt along that same timeline, you will see a much more dramatic difference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 07:56:39 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:53:13 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 07:48:32 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:41:07 pm

No... Really, republicans for the last 50+ years have been very very big on deficit spending. All you have to do is look at what they actually DO.

You may have a point here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg)

And if you chart the debt along that same timeline, you will see a much more dramatic difference.

Well, it dipped with Clinton in office, but Obama is no Clinton. Although I imagine at some point, the debt is going to have to drop one way or another regardless of who is in office.

Hopefully these latest batch of Republicans, if elected, don't emulate Reagan quite as ardently as they advertise with this respect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 08:02:04 pm

The rate of debt increase has been far higher under republican presidents.

Clinton is my favorite president, Obama is more of a moderate republican anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 20, 2012, 08:03:42 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe. 

Dude, I wasn't born yesterday. I was around during the Clinton years, and I can compare the different attitudes. "The media" doesn't need to tell me anything.

Quote

And no, bush did not unjustly invade anywhere.  He at the very least had the approval of congress to go to war (unlike Obama's war against Libya). 

Quick history lesson:  Getting rid of Saddam Hussein has been American foreign policy ever since the first Iraq-conflict.  This includes the Clinton Administration.  They have tried everything short of invading prior to Bush's presidency.

Whether or not a war is or is viewed worldwide as just has nothing to do with the decisions of a petty little government body. Neither does America's feelings toward Hussein.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 20, 2012, 08:23:35 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 06:20:40 pm

Aqizzar, there will be no revolt. Republicans will vote for ANYONE not named Obama. They want him out of office.

Not always true. I've talked to quite a few Republicans in my rather conservative small town, and most say that if it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, they're going to vote Obama. They say that they're basically the same on quite a few policies, but keeping Obama around for a while gives them a better shot at a good presidential candidate in 2016. Failing that, people say that they would rather stay home than vote for Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:26:11 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on February 20, 2012, 07:42:07 pm

Now, I'm a just wandering past here, but I have to say, this argument and many like it that you seem to be making strike me as odd. I don't know who here said that he could do such things, just that the common thought is that he would want to.

And why is that?  It should strike you as odd that people should have these kinds of ideas.  Its akin to people currently saying that Obama is a Marxist or a Communist.

Quote

Not to mention the president is a very powerful position. He might not have the power to regress the world three hundred years and throw us into a new dark age, but that does not mean he would not be immensely harmful to the nation and the world.

This is why there is a clear division of power within the government.  This is why congress is there in the first place.

Quote

Some other thoughts that crossed my mind:

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

So yeah, the problem is not about having birth control, it is the effect of having birth control that is creating this illusion of "sexual freedom" for younger women.  Combine this with a lack of morals/parenting on both sides and you get a generation of children being raised without knowing what it takes to make a relationship work.

Are you stating here that birth control actually increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies, or are you stating that a society that is hostile to unmarried births is preferable to a society that is accepting? Because for both of these statements you will have to excuse me for asking for sources.

Yes, birth control increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies through simple numbers.  By increasing the amount of people wanting to have sex (because its now safe), you are also increasing the chances of "accidents" happening.  "Oh, I didn't take the pill."  "The condom broke."  "The Pill didn't work" (give me proof that it is 100% effective). 

Quote

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

Such religious intolerance!

I understand this is your idea of a punchline, but there is no joke. There was no talk of religion in the quoted post, so I can only assume you are having issues reading, it might do you good to look closer at what people say and assume
less.

I suppose it is because I read a little too much into things!

Quote

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:12:01 pm

at least give a guy a fair shake.  If we disqualified candidates on what they have said before that sounds highly strange, then we'd have literally nobody to elect.  Go throughout the history of any candidate and you are likely to find statements that are troubling to some degree, depending on your perspective.

How do you expect anyone to vote for anyone? There is literally no other way to tell what they plan other then by looking at their actions in the past and their words. In both of these Santorum has been in my opinion less then sanitary. Very few leaders have done everyone they have promised, this is true, but it does not mean that you should ignore everything they say. Seriously, what metric do you use? Who do you want to vote for and why?

Currently I am in the "get Barack Obama out of office at all costs" metric.  Welcome to politics I suppose. 

Seriously though, he would be the best choice to actually follow through on his claims of fiscal responsibility. 

Quote

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.   

Although we all know the big liberal media is always lying to us, do you... Have... Anything at all to back that up?

Fuck, so long as we discount anything that could count as a actual source, let me tell you. Most people I have talked to that do not live in america and dislike america specifically mention Bush as the point where they started disliking america.

[/quote]

Look at the whole media explosion over Sarah Palin being tapped VP wrought.  Remember, VP is a pretty useless position, yet the media could just not stop talking negatively about Sarah Palin. 

Look at the whole circus that came to town when Barack Obama won the nomination.  A candidate whom only had a few years of back-benching in the senate, and prior to that.. what?  Community organizing?  Yet it was a bad thing that a useless position like VP be filled by Sarah Palin, who had real experience in managing organizations (mayor, senator), yet was somehow less experienced than Barack Obama? 

Look at the contrast to when Bush when to war and when Obama to war. 

Etc etc.  I'll stop there because I don't want to derail this thread (my apologies if I already did!)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 20, 2012, 08:34:33 pm

Well, we're talking about candidates. It can't really be a derail.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:26:11 pm

And why is that?  It should strike you as odd that people should have these kinds of ideas.  Its akin to people currently saying that Obama is a Marxist or a Communist.

Difference being that Obama actually isn't either of those things, and Santorum actually said those things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 08:37:49 pm

The media is pretty good at trashing Democrats too, to be fair.

Remember Al Gore? Nobody could dig up any dirt at all on that guy! He was bland, inoffensive and the media managed to turn that around on him to convince the public that he was somehow a slightly insane/ robotic automation / hippie cult leader dude or whatever.

Sarah Palin, in contrast, was an extraordinarily easy target for the media to throw poop at and so they did.

So naturally, the media is going to pick apart everybody. Cept' maybe Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:39:01 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 07:39:27 pm

Santorum is a fan of earmarks and pet projects. He isn't consistently fiscally conservative, if you look at his voting record and the types of things he's attempted to get done.

That is more a fault of the system itself than a politician using it to ensure he gets reelected.  This also ties in with government being big enough to doll out earmarks in such a fashion as to now have them as a means to influence voting patterns.  People are more willing to vote for a candidate that offers them money rather than a candidate that doesn't. 

Quote

Santorum is also hard core on the idea of American Exceptionalism. While it's true everybody is going to hate the USA no matter what it does, Santorum is going to insist on the same sort of ideas that got the country into Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't help or country to act under the idea that the US is literally blessed with a divine mission to lead the world, let alone help America's popularity overseas.

Hey, doesn't matter if American is doing the Obama Apology World Tour, they will still go to war.  Look at what happened in Libya. 

Quote

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 07:35:45 pm

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

Fiscally conservative is a relative term here. The neoconservative faction is definitely not fiscally conservative, but traditionally it is part of the core Republican party platform.

[/quote]

Of course, this is why we talk about "deficit reduction" instead of "debt reduction". 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 08:41:03 pm

Quote

"Oh, I didn't take the pill."  "The condom broke."  "The Pill didn't work" (give me proof that it is 100% effective). 

No birth control is 100% effective. Even abstinence only has an effective use rate of something like 70%/99.5% (Which, mind you, is actually a lower success rate for both effective and perfect use than the birth control pill.)

Quote

Yes, birth control increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies through simple numbers.  By increasing the amount of people wanting to have sex (because its now safe), you are also increasing the chances of "accidents" happening.

Quote

It's simple math, because simple math is all I can do.

You are just... incredibly wrong here. Like, look at any numbers, any surveys, any studies. Not one of them support your viewpoint on this. Birth control is tightly, INCREDIBLY tightly correlated with a tremendous drop in unwanted pregnancies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 20, 2012, 08:42:00 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:26:11 pm

Yes, birth control increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies through simple numbers.  By increasing the amount of people wanting to have sex (because its now safe), you are also increasing the chances of "accidents" happening.  "Oh, I didn't take the pill."  "The condom broke."  "The Pill didn't work" (give me proof that it is 100% effective).

Please back this up with at least some sort of factual information. Especially the notion that, without birth control, people wouldn't be having sex unless they wanted to get pregnant. If you're going to say stuff that is this controversial, you should probably cite your sources.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:46:02 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 20, 2012, 08:34:33 pm

Well, we're talking about candidates. It can't really be a derail.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:26:11 pm

And why is that?  It should strike you as odd that people should have these kinds of ideas.  Its akin to people currently saying that Obama is a Marxist or a Communist.

Difference being that Obama actually isn't either of those things, and Santorum actually said those things.

You sure about that?  Obama nationalized the student loans industry.  He is also in the process of nationalising Healthcare.  He also ensured that the government now owns a portion of GM. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 08:47:52 pm

Quote

Hey, doesn't matter if American is doing the Obama Apology World Tour, they will still go to war.  Look at what happened in Libya. 

Yes, please, tell me - how many soldiers did we lose in Obama's war compared to Bush's war? How long did it take us to win Obama's war compared to Bush's war? How much did we spend? The people asked us to be there, begged us to come, and we earned goodwill from the citizens of the country rather than their hatred. And, to top it all off, we didn't START this war - we joined it midway through due to treaty obligations we are expected to fulfil, and which congress, in fact, approved.

Libya did far more good for us and accomplished quite a bit more for quite a bit less than the mess we got into in Iraq. I could see someone who was opposed to the Iraq war making a good case against Libya, and I'd have no problem with them. But the SOLE argument people use is "see - Obama does it to!", and that's a bullshit argument hands down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:56:43 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 20, 2012, 08:42:00 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:26:11 pm

Yes, birth control increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies through simple numbers.  By increasing the amount of people wanting to have sex (because its now safe), you are also increasing the chances of "accidents" happening.  "Oh, I didn't take the pill."  "The condom broke."  "The Pill didn't work" (give me proof that it is 100% effective).

Please back this up with at least some sort of factual information. Especially the notion that, without birth control, people wouldn't be having sex unless they wanted to get pregnant. If you're going to say stuff that is this controversial, you should probably cite your sources.

You are honestly telling me you have never met or know of people who are in this situation?  I say this from personal experience, having seen and know alot of people who think they are having safe sex then end up with a kid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 08:58:33 pm

Why does ninjaboot hate america so much?

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:56:43 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 20, 2012, 08:42:00 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:26:11 pm

Yes, birth control increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies through simple numbers.  By increasing the amount of people wanting to have sex (because its now safe), you are also increasing the chances of "accidents" happening.  "Oh, I didn't take the pill."  "The condom broke."  "The Pill didn't work" (give me proof that it is 100% effective).

Please back this up with at least some sort of factual information. Especially the notion that, without birth control, people wouldn't be having sex unless they wanted to get pregnant. If you're going to say stuff that is this controversial, you should probably cite your sources.

You are honestly telling me you have never met or know of people who are in this situation?  I say this from personal experience, having seen and know alot of people who think they are having safe sex then end up with a kid.

I had a pregnancy scare but we live in a free country so plan B no problem.  One day me and that special lady will have kids together when we are good and ready and not financially incapable.

One day you will no longer be a virgin and you will look back on what you think now and shake your head.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 20, 2012, 08:59:24 pm

Personal experience isn't always indicative of society as a whole. In fact it most often isn't; small slices of anything large and complex is going to give you a skewed view.

So yeah. Statistics. Use those.


PS:
Are you guys jerks to everyone you disagree with? Vehement disagreement is fine. Sarcasm and demeaning quips toward people is well... douchebaggish.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2012, 09:03:16 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:56:43 pm

You are honestly telling me you have never met or know of people who are in this situation?  I say this from personal experience, having seen and know alot of people who think they are having safe sex then end up with a kid.

NinjaBoot, you may not be aware of this, but people in general quite like having sex. A lot. We're kind of driven towards it, as a byproduct of our evolutionary drive to propagate the species.

People love sex so much, in fact, that if deprived of birth control they'll just do it anyway. With birth control, the likelihood of conceiving is entire orders of magnitude lower than without.

No form of birth control is perfect. There have been people who have actually managed to defeat vasectomies and tubal ligations, and those are the most effective forms of birth control we have.

The point is that, right now, we are in a state of law where you can use many types of contraceptive methods to prevent conceiving, and you can get an abortion if that manages to fail and you don't want or can't support a child. Santorum would try to change all of that, or make it very difficult, thus exasperating the situations you yourself have described.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:03:55 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:39:01 pm

That is more a fault of the system itself than a politician using it to ensure he gets reelected.  This also ties in with government being big enough to doll out earmarks in such a fashion as to now have them as a means to influence voting patterns.  People are more willing to vote for a candidate that offers them money rather than a candidate that doesn't. 

Just saying, all politicians love earmarks, but that isn't really conductive to deficit reduction or a conservative fiscal policy.

Quote

Hey, doesn't matter if American is doing the Obama Apology World Tour, they will still go to war.  Look at what happened in Libya. 

Libya was a very cost-effective war in almost every aspect for the US, mostly because we prodded the Europeans into doing most of the work. I'm all for letting Europeans take the risk and foot the bill for these sorts of voluntary armed adventures in shithole countries we have nothing to do with.

Quote

Of course, this is why we talk about "deficit reduction" instead of "debt reduction". 

Government spending has only gone up, but public debt has gone down under the Clinton administration. I'd like to see a serious effort to bring spending in line right now, with the Republican Congress, but they haven't done much there.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 08:41:03 pm

No birth control is 100% effective. Even abstinence only has an effective use rate of something like 70%/99.5% (Which, mind you, is actually a lower success rate for both effective and perfect use than the birth control pill.)

Abstinence, by definition, is 100% effective. The problem with the statistics is people can still get pregnant if they wanted to or not and I don't mean immaculate conception either, but that's another topic altogether.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 20, 2012, 09:05:31 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:46:02 pm

You sure about that?  Obama nationalized the student loans industry.  He is also in the process of nationalising Healthcare.  He also ensured that the government now owns a portion of GM.

Not going to get into all three of these, but let's just look at one of them. As always;
(http://image.spreadshirt.net/image-server/image/configuration/36178117/producttypecolor/2/type/png/width/280/height/280)
Student loans;
Before 2010 there were two student loan projects. The first was private loans backed by government cash (FFEL). That is to say, private companies issue the loans and make profit from them. If a student defaults then the government pays for the defaulted value. There is no risk involved for the private company and the government needs to keep the capital required to pay for the potential cost of defaults.

The second was direct government loans directly to students (FDLP). This was started in 1993.

These two projects existed in parallel since then until 2010. During the healthcare debate the administration was looking for ways to save money. They noticed that the FDLP was cheaper for the Federal government. They estimated something like $30 billion (number from memory and I think over 10 years) was being spent on subsidising banks to encourage them to make the loans. By scrapping the FFEL project and granting all loans directly under the FDLP they could save that $30 billion instantly.

The only argument against this was that they would no longer be pumping an extra $30 billion into the banking industry. IIRC the banks could still offer loans to students. They just wouldn't be federally subsidised. All that ended was the massive subsidy that was paid to those acting as middlemen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:09:06 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 08:47:52 pm

Quote

Hey, doesn't matter if American is doing the Obama Apology World Tour, they will still go to war.  Look at what happened in Libya. 

Yes, please, tell me - how many soldiers did we lose in Obama's war compared to Bush's war? How long did it take us to win Obama's war compared to Bush's war? How much did we spend? The people asked us to be there, begged us to come, and we earned goodwill from the citizens of the country rather than their hatred. And, to top it all off, we didn't START this war - we joined it midway through due to treaty obligations we are expected to fulfil, and which congress, in fact, approved.

Congress did not give Obama the approval to goto war.  Even using his presidental authority to goto war without congressional approval for 90 days, he did not get approval for going to war period. 

Blame and hate Bush all you want, but at the very least he went and got approval from congress. 

Quote

Libya did far more good for us and accomplished quite a bit more for quite a bit less than the mess we got into in Iraq.

How so?  Oh, right.. because the coalitian against Libya wanted to oust a dictator who happened to have control over some very profitable oil fields and he just happened to be obstinate enough to finally get ousted? 

Quote

I could see someone who was opposed to the Iraq war making a good case against Libya, and I'd have no problem with them. But the SOLE argument people use is "see - Obama does it to!", and that's a bullshit argument hands down.

I would have no problem with the war if he had at least gotten the approval of the senate, and conducted it through the law.  He did not. 

Ontop of that, the whole circumstances and reasons for invading Libya are more controversial than what happened in Iraq. 

If you argue Libya was for humanitarian purposes, then you give an automatic pass to Iraq because, well, Saddam Hussein did gas his own people (the kurds, ya know? roughly 100,000 of them). 

Oil?  There's Oil in Libya too! 

Taking down an oppressive regime?  Thats what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:10:47 pm

I assume that when GlyphGryph said that abstinence is only 70% effective, he (or is it she? I can never remember) was talking about abstinence plans like Virginity Pledges. As far as medical science is aware, people who never have sex will never have kids. In reality, people enjoy having sex and will probably have it, pledges be damned. When they do, thy are less likely to use birth control. Thus, abstinence pledges are only 70% effective.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2012, 09:13:13 pm

Libya wasn't so much a war for the US as it was a small military operation. We bombed some stuff, that's about it. Afghanistan and Iraq were both full-scale invasions and occupations. Kind of a different ball game.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:14:38 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 20, 2012, 09:05:31 pm

The only argument against this was that they would no longer be pumping an extra $30 billion into the banking industry. IIRC the banks could still offer loans to students. They just wouldn't be federally subsidised. All that ended was the massive subsidy that was paid to those acting as middlemen.

No, the banks will not be able to offer student loans.  This means companies that offer loans as a means of business.  Loan Sharks if you want to use the disparaging term.

Since they will not be able to offer loans, government has now become the sole lendor of post-secondary financial aid.  They have taken over the post-secondary loans industry. 

Yes, I know of the history surrounding this, but at the very least it still gave people choice.  There is no choice now. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:15:30 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:10:47 pm

I assume that when GlyphGryph said that abstinence is only 70% effective, he (or is it she? I can never remember) was talking about abstinence plans like Virginity Pledges. As far as medical science is aware, people who never have sex will never have kids. In reality, people enjoy having sex and will probably have it, pledges be damned. When they do, thy are less likely to use birth control. Thus, abstinence pledges are only 70% effective.

Then, it's like saying condoms are ineffective because people end up not using them correctly, or birth control regimens don't work because people can forget to take them.

It's true people are terrible at staying out of each other's pants but it doesn't mean you can really rely compare statistics like this fairly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 20, 2012, 09:19:01 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 20, 2012, 07:33:21 pm

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.

Guys.  You can't reason with a conspiracy theorist.  Because conspiracy theorists just know the truth even if the evidence doesn't point that way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:21:38 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 08:58:33 pm

Why does ninjaboot hate america so much?

I'd like to make the distinction that I like America (being Canadian and all), I just dislike with a passion the politiking that is going on. 

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 08:56:43 pm

I had a pregnancy scare but we live in a free country so plan B no problem.  One day me and that special lady will have kids together when we are good and ready and not financially incapable.

Good for you, I'm glad you realize the need for being good and ready and financially capable of supporting your kid(s) when you have them. 

My whole focus is one the whole section of people who are not ready to have kids. 

Quote

One day you will no longer be a virgin and you will look back on what you think now and shake your head.

Meh, I'll let it slide.  :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2012, 09:22:27 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 20, 2012, 09:19:01 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 20, 2012, 07:33:21 pm

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.

Guys.  You can't reason with a conspiracy theorist.  Because conspiracy theorists just know the truth even if the evidence doesn't point that way.

To be fair, mass media outlets do want to convince you to believe things. It's just that they're different things, and not some shadowy monolithic entity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 20, 2012, 09:23:35 pm

And they'd have trouble bribing every foreign person to retrospectively claim that actually they liked America a lot more before the Bush years even though at the time they hated it just as much as they do now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:23:47 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 20, 2012, 09:19:01 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 20, 2012, 07:33:21 pm

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.

Guys.  You can't reason with a conspiracy theorist.  Because conspiracy theorists just know the truth even if the evidence doesn't point that way.

What?  No.  You got it all wrong.  Yes, its a huge conspiracy involving the Rockafellers and the Bilderbergs.  But the illuminati are for the good of America!  I swear, its what Fox News told me!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 20, 2012, 09:26:14 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:09:06 pm

If you argue Libya was for humanitarian purposes, then you give an automatic pass to Iraq because, well, Saddam Hussein did gas his own people (the kurds, ya know? roughly 100,000 of them). 

Libya was an ongoing conflict in which one side was using the full military power of an active government to kill initially peaceful protesters. This lead to an internal rebellion, including some elements of that military, that was rapidly escalating to a full civil war. Both those inside and outside Libya called for rapid and strong international action to stop the immediate threat from Ghaddafi's forces.

One basic difference between Iraq and Libya? The UN Security Council passed a motion called for by Libya's own delegation to enforce a no-fly zone (requiring the bombing of anti-air weapons and airports, as well as a continuous air force presence over the nation essentially requiring outside forces take over their airspace) and, in a step unprecedented in UN history, called for international forces to intervene to protect civilians on the ground. That gave the world, and especially NATO, a mandate to get involved. To sit back after that point would be inhumane.

With Iraq there were no immediate lives saved by intervening when Bush did. The rational for going in was never about humanitarian issues before the invasion, simply because if you wanted to solve humanitarian problems in 2003 Iraq was not where you started. That would have been Darfur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur), where cries for intervention were ignored. You don't invade a country as punishment for humanitarian crimes committed in the past. That only hurts the nation worse. You hit them only when it stops a greater crime from being committed and saves lives in the near term future. Otherwise the cost of such action is simply too great.

The question of when to intervene or not is always going to be a nuanced and complicated one. Comparisons require detail and good sense, as well as a greater deal of honesty than is usually allowed during election years.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:14:38 pm

No, the banks will not be able to offer student loans.  This means companies that offer loans as a means of business.  Loan Sharks if you want to use the disparaging term.

Since they will not be able to offer loans, government has now become the sole lendor of post-secondary financial aid.  They have taken over the post-secondary loans industry. 

Yes, I know of the history surrounding this, but at the very least it still gave people choice.  There is no choice now. 

Erm, so these companies are advertising services they no longer offer? (http://www.finaid.org/loans/privatestudentloans.phtml)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 09:26:28 pm

Is there any way to get this train back on the election track instead of the general political arguement track?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:27:30 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2012, 09:22:27 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 20, 2012, 09:19:01 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 20, 2012, 07:33:21 pm

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.

Guys.  You can't reason with a conspiracy theorist.  Because conspiracy theorists just know the truth even if the evidence doesn't point that way.

To be fair, mass media outlets do want to convince you to believe things. It's just that they're different things, and not some shadowy monolithic entity.

Indeed, unfortunately when the message happens to be the same.. *cough* 

Bush is bad.  Therefore, Bush is bad.

Obama is good.  Therefore, Obama is good. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2012, 09:27:45 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 09:26:28 pm

Is there any way to get this train back on the election track instead of the general political arguement track?

Yes.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/idx9ja.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:28:46 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 20, 2012, 09:26:28 pm

Is there any way to get this train back on the election track instead of the general political arguement track?

Unfortunately with every post I have to reply to multiple posts, and I would rather try and be detailed in my responses if need be!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:29:03 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:03:55 pm

Government spending has only gone up, but public debt has gone down under the Clinton administration. I'd like to see a serious effort to bring spending in line right now, with the Republican Congress, but they haven't done much there.

We have a growing population and an economy that normally experiences moderate inflation.  Trying to bring spending down in nominal terms would require vast cutbacks in terms of government services required.  Even more vast when you consider that most government spending is simply giving people the social security/medicare/medicaid/unemployment insurance (insurance, not welfare which is like 2%) that they paid for and those aren't going to get cut because people paid for them and expect to receive them.

Suppose that you completely eliminated every last dollar spent on defense over 7 years.  That wouldn't bring spending down in absolute terms, it would just level it off.
Suppose that you completely eliminated every last non-defense discretionary dollar over 5 years.  That wouldn't bring spending down in absolute terms, again, just leveling it off.
Eliminate them both and you've got us level for 11 years... assuming that society hasn't collapsed into anarchy long before this point.

Because either of these would be simply vast.  One would be eliminating the entire damn military, everything, soldiers healthcare and pensions, everything.  One would be shutting down basically everything that you think of as "government", post office, NIH, NASA, FBI, FEMA, the federal highway administration, the smithsonian, border control, everything.

While there is a little fat to cut in military procurements and the size of our armed forces (but not enough for what you are talking about without a severe shakeup), we've already spent 15 years cutting the non-defense discretionary spending until there's nothing easy left to cut.  Going even a single year with a reduction in net government spending would involve huge sacrifices.  Because even just holding spending constant means cutting everything in defense and non-defense discretionary by 10% a year per-capita in real terms.

So if someone tells you that he is going to bring government spending down in real terms, ask him to explain what very substantial government programs is he going to end?  Will he completely end welfare, NASA, the national health administration, every cent of foreign aid and all government highway funding?  Well all those together would make us break even for about a single year.

Meanwhile the US has something like the 7th lowest tax rate in the world and a system that is basically an overall flat tax when you account for regressive state and local taxation as well as progressive federal federal (which means the poor people in the more regressive states pay more of their total income in taxes then the rich in those states).  So increasing revenues with a more progressive system is entirely feasible from an economic standpoint.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:33:34 pm

palsch

Dude, Libya has had a history of constant human rights violations.  This was not something that just happened.  It has been going on for decades.  The same deal with Iraq.

How can you justify that Libya was more "noble" then Iraq? 

They are both wars.  Libya's war was illegal because Obama did not get approval from congress and went past his Presidential authority.  Are you seriously advocating for a war that was conducted in an illegal manner?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:34:35 pm

I was going to respond to Montague's earlier post involving birth control, but now the dog has returned.  :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 09:36:49 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:03:55 pm

Abstinence, by definition, is 100% effective. The problem with the statistics is people can still get pregnant if they wanted to or not and I don't mean immaculate conception either, but that's another topic altogether.

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:15:30 pm

Then, it's like saying condoms are ineffective because people end up not using them correctly, or birth control regimens don't work because people can forget to take them.

Actually, the "effective rate" (the first number I quoted) DOES count people who use them incorrectly or forget to take their pills. The pill manages an over 99% success rate COUNTING those situations.

The second number was the "perfect" rate - and abstinence still is not 100% effective, because abstinence is only about "choosing" not to have sex - choosing not to have sex is NOT a guarantee you won't be forced into having sex, a situation where the pill works and abstinence does not, and children do occur as the result of rape.

Someone who is practising abstinence can still be raped, and it happens. In fact, it happens a LOT. Rapes may be more likely to happen against men, but almost 20% of women are still raped at some point in their life. The Pill protects against pregnancy due to rape, abstinence does not.

If you REALLY want effective prevention, you would combine abstinence and some sort of hormonal therapy like the pill (which has the wonderful side effect of making periods far more tolerable as well).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:38:32 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 09:36:49 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:03:55 pm

Abstinence, by definition, is 100% effective. The problem with the statistics is people can still get pregnant if they wanted to or not and I don't mean immaculate conception either, but that's another topic altogether.

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:15:30 pm

Then, it's like saying condoms are ineffective because people end up not using them correctly, or birth control regimens don't work because people can forget to take them.

Actually, the "effective rate" (the first number I quoted) DOES count people who use them incorrectly or forget to take their pills. The pill manages an over 99% success rate COUNTING those situations.

The second number was the "perfect" rate - and abstinence still is not 100% effective, because abstinence is only about "choosing" not to have sex - choosing not to have sex is NOT a guarantee you won't be forced into having sex, a situation where the pill works and abstinence does not, and children do occur as the result of rape.

Someone who is practising abstinence can still be raped, and it happens. In fact, it happens a LOT. Rapes may be more likely to happen against men, but almost 20% of women are still raped at some point in their life. The Pill protects against pregnancy due to rape, abstinence does not.

If you REALLY want effective prevention, you would combine abstinence and some sort of hormonal therapy like the pill (which has the wonderful side effect of making periods far more tolerable as well).

Gah. I know it's insensitive of me, but I always forget the rapes. I feel terrible now.  :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:38:46 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 09:36:49 pm

Rapes may be more likely to happen against men

This factoid surprises me greatly!  Typo?  Something I'm missing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 20, 2012, 09:40:10 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 09:36:49 pm

Rapes may be more likely to happen against men, but almost 20% of women are still raped at some point in their life.

Actually this is false. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/02/12/mras-still-wrong-on-prison-rape)
(http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/files/2012/02/Rape_Reanalysis.png)
And NinjaBoot, if you want to continue that conversation I'd say start a new thread or PM me. It's probably going to be a length derail if I start getting into liberal interventionism.

EDIT: Link fixed. That keeps happening when I edit posts...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 09:40:35 pm

Quote

How can you justify that Libya was more "noble" then Iraq?

They are both wars.  Libya's war was illegal because Obama did not get approval from congress and went past his Presidential authority.  Are you seriously advocating for a war that was conducted in an illegal manner?

I don't think it was any more noble. I just think it was executed better. It was not illegal - he did not get approval from THIS congress, but he did not need it because the approval was already granted by a previous congress that said "If such and such happens and so and so requests action, we are both allowed and in fact obligated to respond in this and this a way." Circumstances which didn't cover the Iraq invasion, which is why Bush had to get explicit approval.

It wasn't an illegal war. Congress passed several laws saying the actions Obama took were ok. I don't like the guy, I have a lot of problems with a lot of questionably legal shit he's done, but the Libya war, at least, was on the up and up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:42:44 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 20, 2012, 09:40:10 pm

Actually this is false. (http://http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/02/12/mras-still-wrong-on-prison-rape)

Still that is a disturbingly large number of prison rape.  Christ.  And non-prison rapes too.  But in prisons we should be able to protect these people pretty easily, no?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 09:42:51 pm

Your link is broken, Palsch.

I should clarify - more women are still raped than men, but male rape tends to be repeated multiple times when it happens and is far less likely to be reported. In prison situations, it is often actually encouraged. And I should have specified this is only valid within the US.

And honestly, there's not a lot of accuracy in any of the studies. Report rates are very low. There's a lot of guesswork involved.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:43:28 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:42:44 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 20, 2012, 09:40:10 pm

Actually this is false. (http://http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/02/12/mras-still-wrong-on-prison-rape)

Still that is a disturbingly large number of prison rape.  Christ.

Pro-tip: Don't go to prison. Follow that rule and you'll be a much happier person.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2012, 09:44:57 pm

Unfortunately, you can often end up in jail without having actually broken any laws simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. While a holding cell isn't as bad as a real prison, rape incidences involving them are still scary high.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:46:33 pm

New pro-tip: Never leave your room. Try putting me in the wrong place at the wrong time now, universe!
*shakes fist*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:47:18 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:46:33 pm

New pro-tip: Never leave your room. Try putting me in the wrong place at the wrong time now, universe!
*shakes fist*

Watch out for asteroids!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:48:23 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:47:18 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 20, 2012, 09:46:33 pm

New pro-tip: Never leave your room. Try putting me in the wrong place at the wrong time now, universe!
*shakes fist*

Watch out for asteroids!

You can't go to jail for asteroid impacts, though. You'd probably be dead instead! Take that, universe!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:54:23 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 20, 2012, 09:26:14 pm

Erm, so these companies are advertising services they no longer offer? (http://www.finaid.org/loans/privatestudentloans.phtml)

The law goes into effect in 2014, so technically yes they can still offer these services until the law comes into effect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:57:46 pm

You do realize that the US government already paid for these loans, right?  All these companies did was take a slice off the top while assuming none of the risk and providing none of the money.  If correcting this situation is socialism then I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't want this kind of socialism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 10:01:52 pm

By the way, Ninja, I just got back and had a look through the thread.  This post caught my attention. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3014603#msg3014603)  Please examine it.  Then, please examine your future posts to make sure you understand how quote tags work.  It's making my thread a little messy.

Jesus Christ, do we need some content to talk about.  C'mon primaries, happen already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 10:02:58 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:57:46 pm

You do realize that the US government already paid for these loans, right?  All these companies did was take a slice off the top while assuming none of the risk and providing none of the money.  If correcting this situation is socialism then I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't want this kind of socialism.

Indeed, unfortunately not every single company out there gives out government backed studentloans.  If that was the case, then yes I could see what you are saying. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 10:03:46 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 10:02:58 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:57:46 pm

You do realize that the US government already paid for these loans, right?  All these companies did was take a slice off the top while assuming none of the risk and providing none of the money.  If correcting this situation is socialism then I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't want this kind of socialism.

Indeed, unfortunately not every single company out there gives out government backed studentloans.  If that was the case, then yes I could see what you are saying.

The law only affected the ones that did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 10:07:02 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 20, 2012, 10:01:52 pm

By the way, Ninja, I just got back and had a look through the thread.  This post caught my attention. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3014603#msg3014603)  Please examine it.  Then, please examine your future posts to make sure you understand how quote tags work.  It's making my thread a little messy.

Jesus Christ, do we need some content to talk about.  C'mon primaries, happen already.

Lol, now that you've pointed it out it does look weird!  I seemed to have deleted the wrong author quote box! :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 20, 2012, 10:10:08 pm

Because there is too much serious debate going on here, have something lighter.

Some conservative literary criticism of Dreams From My Father that proves Bill Ayers wrote it. (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/02/paging-jack-cashill-jack-cashill-paging-jack-cashill) Or something.

Quote from: SEK

But Cashill’s deconstruction is far from complete. He amasses a boatload of irrefutable evidence:

    Both Obama and Ayers “use ’storms’ and ‘horizons’ as metaphor and as reality.”
    “Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone.”
    The polyamorous Ayers has “tangled love affairs” while the undergraduate Obama has “tangled arguments.”
    “On at least 12 occasions, Obama speaks of ‘despair,’” an emotion Ayers has been known to feel.
    “Obama . . . has a fondness for the word ‘murky’ and its aquatic usages.”
    Both . . . make conspicuous use of the word ‘flutter.’”
    The “Fugitive Days” excerpt scores a 54 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level. The “Dreams’” excerpt scores a 54.8 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level.

If Cashill’s math fails to convince you—54 is quite close to 54.8, but numbers might not be to your taste—consider that in his analysis, he “introduce[s his] own book, Sucker Punch . . . [a]s a control.”  How much more scientific does his deconstruction need to be?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In case of sarcasm blindness, that's known as laying it on with a shovel.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 09:54:23 pm

The law goes into effect in 2014, so technically yes they can still offer these services until the law comes into effect.

OK, so I did the stupid thing and actually searched the bill (https://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4872/show). I could find all the provisions except the one forbidding private companies from offering loans. Help?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 10:22:06 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 20, 2012, 10:10:08 pm

I could find all the provisions except the one forbidding private companies from offering loans. Help?

You got me there! (I'll concede I am wrong)

Still though, you think private industry will still be able to offer loans to students at realistic rates?  I doubt it. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 10:26:28 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 10:22:06 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 20, 2012, 10:10:08 pm

I could find all the provisions except the one forbidding private companies from offering loans. Help?

You got me there! (I'll concede I am wrong)

Still though, you think private industry will still be able to offer loans to students at realistic rates?  I doubt it. 

If the private industry doesn't want to do it, then why should we pay them to when the government can do so at less cost of taxpayer money AND less risk to taxpayers?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 10:29:50 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 09:29:03 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 09:03:55 pm

Government spending has only gone up, but public debt has gone down under the Clinton administration. I'd like to see a serious effort to bring spending in line right now, with the Republican Congress, but they haven't done much there.

We have a growing population and an economy that normally experiences moderate inflation.  Trying to bring spending down in nominal terms would require vast cutbacks in terms of government services required.  Even more vast when you consider that most government spending is simply giving people the social security/medicare/medicaid/unemployment insurance (insurance, not welfare which is like 2%) that they paid for and those aren't going to get cut because people paid for them and expect to receive them.

Suppose that you completely eliminated every last dollar spent on defense over 7 years.  That wouldn't bring spending down in absolute terms, it would just level it off.
Suppose that you completely eliminated every last non-defense discretionary dollar over 5 years.  That wouldn't bring spending down in absolute terms, again, just leveling it off.
Eliminate them both and you've got us level for 11 years... assuming that society hasn't collapsed into anarchy long before this point.

Because either of these would be simply vast.  One would be eliminating the entire damn military, everything, soldiers healthcare and pensions, everything.  One would be shutting down basically everything that you think of as "government", post office, NIH, NASA, FBI, FEMA, the federal highway administration, the smithsonian, border control, everything.

While there is a little fat to cut in military procurements and the size of our armed forces (but not enough for what you are talking about without a severe shakeup), we've already spent 15 years cutting the non-defense discretionary spending until there's nothing easy left to cut.  Going even a single year with a reduction in net government spending would involve huge sacrifices.  Because even just holding spending constant means cutting everything in defense and non-defense discretionary by 10% a year per-capita in real terms.

So if someone tells you that he is going to bring government spending down in real terms, ask him to explain what very substantial government programs is he going to end?  Will he completely end welfare, NASA, the national health administration, every cent of foreign aid and all government highway funding?  Well all those together would make us break even for about a single year.

Meanwhile the US has something like the 7th lowest tax rate in the world and a system that is basically an overall flat tax when you account for regressive state and local taxation as well as progressive federal federal (which means the poor people in the more regressive states pay more of their total income in taxes then the rich in those states).  So increasing revenues with a more progressive system is entirely feasible from an economic standpoint.

I agree taxes in general are far too low. The right seems hell bent on this idea of that lowering taxes will raise revenue. If there was any weight to this idea is that corporate taxes are pretty high and don't generate a large portion of the revenue anyways.

I think the Republicans, both parties really, need to grow some balls and figure out how to tackle Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security which are all dangerously unsustainable programs taking up the majority of the federal budget. Not just increasing the retirement age another year or anything lame like that either. Reform it, gut it, raise taxes, do whatever it takes.

They have been willing to axe the more absurd of the military boondoggles eating up the defense budget, which was a good start, but railing against some of the more irrelevant tertiary federal programs strikes me as creating a lot of noise to help the ignore the real problem of the deficit spending. Welfare programs are cheap, NASA is cheap. Corn subsidies are not bankrupting America. They need to get real with their priorities. Either way, it's going to catch up to them very shortly if they don't do something about it soon.

Though I imagine they will just keep agreeing on raising the debt ceiling, hoping to delay the problem until Israel is invaded according to prophecy, the Rapture happens and all Americans go to heaven.

Also: There are countries with lower tax rates then the USA? Seems unlikely somehow. Uruguay, maybe?

Also: Tuition is stupidly high for no good reason at all. Probably because student loans are so easy to get.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 10:31:25 pm

Was there a republican compromise on defense spending that I missed?  Last I heard was them vowing to increasing defense spending to make up for the increases Obama didn't make.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 20, 2012, 10:35:07 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 10:29:50 pm

Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security which are all dangerously unsustainable programs taking up the majority of the federal budget.

The majority? I'm reading something like 43%. Just saying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 10:37:33 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 10:31:25 pm

Was there a republican compromise on defense spending that I missed?  Last I heard was them vowing to increasing defense spending to make up for the increases Obama didn't make.

They passed the latest defense bill, which cut spending. Although I believe the majority of 'savings' here was the end of the Iraq war, which they lamely defined as a spending cut.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 20, 2012, 10:38:26 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 10:22:06 pm

Still though, you think private industry will still be able to offer loans to students at realistic rates?  I doubt it.

Depends on what you mean by realistic. They will be able to offer loans at market rates, for unsubsidised values of market. And they will almost certainly not be competitive with government loans simply because, in this area, government is going to be far more efficient and effective. There will be something of a market for the less competitive private loans, probably a mix of those who can't qualify for government loans and those too paranoid or ideological to apply for them.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't tend to give a crap about ideology in direct market questions like this. I care about getting the most good for the least cost. Direct government loans are more efficient than subsidised private loans. I don't care to burn money on an extra layer of bureaucracy (even private bureaucracy is bureaucracy) just to pretend that a public initiative is actually a private industry. I can think of far more useful ways the government can pay people to do busywork. Even bankers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 10:40:09 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 10:29:50 pm

Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security which are all dangerously unsustainable programs taking up the majority of the federal budget.

Social security is solvent for two decades at current rates and solvent indefinitely with slight adjustments.  It's not dangerously unsustainable.  And even a slightly faster rate of economic growth would mean it's indefinitely sustainable without that slight adjustment.

Medicare and Medicaid currently are growing at a slower rate then private healthcare.  So it's not a government problem we have, it's a healthcare problem we have.  Luckily the american public loves to embrace healthcare reform proposals.

Also, it's important to remember that despite the apocolyptic language, current law would close the american budget gap pretty quickly:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-do-nothing-plan-now-worth-71-trillion/2011/08/25/gIQAmfIIYN_blog.html

Now this isn't quite realistic because those cuts would be self defeating until the economy has a couple more years to recover.  But after that, we are good if we just stick to paygo rules.  Even if we do no healthcare reforms at all, those costs won't rise forever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 20, 2012, 11:04:13 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 20, 2012, 10:40:09 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 10:29:50 pm

Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security which are all dangerously unsustainable programs taking up the majority of the federal budget.

Social security is solvent for two decades at current rates and solvent indefinitely with slight adjustments.  It's not dangerously unsustainable.  And even a slightly faster rate of economic growth would mean it's indefinitely sustainable without that slight adjustment.

Medicare and Medicaid currently are growing at a slower rate then private healthcare.  So it's not a government problem we have, it's a healthcare problem we have.  Luckily the american public loves to embrace healthcare reform proposals.

Also, it's important to remember that despite the apocolyptic language, current law would close the american budget gap pretty quickly:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-do-nothing-plan-now-worth-71-trillion/2011/08/25/gIQAmfIIYN_blog.html

Now this isn't quite realistic because those cuts would be self defeating until the economy has a couple more years to recover.  But after that, we are good if we just stick to paygo rules.  Even if we do no healthcare reforms at all, those costs won't rise forever.

That article assumes sequestration cuts take place. That would be the "doomsday" spending cuts intended to be so drastic and unpalatable that a bipartisan budget would be basically forced to compromise on a new budget. It was the thing they thought up when they decided to raise the debt ceiling again. Chances are, those sequestration cuts will not go into effect. Probably an agreement on a new budget will be reached in a dramatic last-minute session, after which they'll take another vacation.

Healthcare reform would be wonderful. I like Obamacare for at least trying to solve the problem of ever-rising healthcare expenses in the country, although I'm not sure how well it will ever pan out. It would hopefully ease the expense of funding Medicare/Medicaid anyways.

The wars ending in Iraq and Afghanistan and the resulting downsizing/ down-scaling/ stand down of the military is going to help.

Letting the tax cuts expire would be great, but everybody in Washington seems to agree they need to continue forever.

Anyways, all said and done I don't have much confidence in the government to actually come up with any real solutions any time soon. Even if doing nothing would solve the problem, I'm pretty sure they'd find a way to fuck that up too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 11:47:39 pm

Quote from: palsch on February 20, 2012, 10:38:26 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 20, 2012, 10:22:06 pm

Still though, you think private industry will still be able to offer loans to students at realistic rates?  I doubt it.

Depends on what you mean by realistic. They will be able to offer loans at market rates, for unsubsidised values of market.

They still won't be able to compete with the government in this regard.  Subsidized means the government doesn't expect you to pay back the interest payments (they do), unsubsidized means you will have to pay back the interest.  In this case, again, government wins out because private industry cannot compete with the rate and terms they are offering. 

Quote

And they will almost certainly not be competitive with government loans simply because, in this area, government is going to be far more efficient and effective.

Its more of a bottom-line sort of deal.  Government offers then a going rate that is too good to pass up, not because they are actually efficient (when are they ever) or necessarily effective.

Quote

There will be something of a market for the less competitive private loans, probably a mix of those who can't qualify for government loans and those too paranoid or ideological to apply for them.

Of course, it is not like any of these companies will be going away, just offering less services and charging more for them. 

Quote

Maybe it's just me, but I don't tend to give a crap about ideology in direct market questions like this. I care about getting the most good for the least cost. Direct government loans are more efficient than subsidised private loans. I don't care to burn money on an extra layer of bureaucracy (even private bureaucracy is bureaucracy) just to pretend that a public initiative is actually a private industry. I can think of far more useful ways the government can pay people to do busywork. Even bankers.

The more apt question would be, why is government in the student-loans industry in the first place?  Why should other taxpayers be responsible for what other people do?  By cornering the market on these loans, you are now making taxpayers 100% liable for any and all people who do not pay back their loans for any number of reasons.   Hell, even then, not everybody is going to get a job they goto school for.  You think someone who went to school and got a sociology degree is going to get a good enough job to pay off what it took to get it? 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 12:14:20 am

Just to doublecheck here, do you really not know why government subsidized student loans exist (i.e. why the taxpayers want to pay for them/government is "in the student-loans industry"), or are you just playing devil's advocate/pushing your own opinion?

If it's the latter you'd save me a more detailed response... and it's not exactly rocket science why we're doing it, so not having a reason to expend the effort would be nice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 12:23:43 am

Quote from: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 12:14:20 am

Just to doublecheck here, do you really not know why government subsidized student loans exist (i.e. why the taxpayers want to pay for them), or are you just playing devil's advocate/pushing your own opinion?

If it's the latter you'd save me a more detailed response... and it's not exactly rocket science why we're doing it, so not having a reason to expend the effort would be nice.

If we are assuming that everybody will get the jobs they are going to school to have the education required for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 12:32:38 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 12:23:43 am

If we are assuming that everybody will get the jobs they are going to school to have the education required for.

I, uh. That... that's not actually a sentence. Accidental post?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NobodyPro on February 21, 2012, 12:39:05 am

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on February 21, 2012, 12:41:47 am

Where did that come from? I've seen it three times now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NobodyPro on February 21, 2012, 12:46:14 am

The ACTA treaty؟


_{؟ means sarcasm}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 12:54:24 am

Quote from: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 12:32:38 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 12:23:43 am

If we are assuming that everybody will get the jobs they are going to school to have the education required for.

I, uh. That... that's not actually a sentence. Accidental post?

Oops!

Of course people want government funded education loans because it ends up being cheaper for those looking for a loan. 

That is, unfortunately, if we naturally assume that the ideal scenario of it plays out: that everybody who takes a loan out from the government ends up finding a job and paying back the money within a reasonable time-frame.  I am talking about years, not decades. 

Sadly this is not the case because alot of people simply do not graduate, or even if they do graduate college, do not find the work they went to school for.  Unless you goto school for a hard skill like doctor or lawyer, then you will have a hard time finding work that will give you the ability to pay off your debt in a reasonable amount of time.  Where do you think all those Occupy Protestors crying about debt and no job come from?

The end result of this is creating a group of people who are too educated for what they are working in, ontop of being saddled with a bad amount of debt.  And these people cannot ever default on that debt because the government will not allow it, so you are always paying for it. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:06:45 am

1. At least with FAFSA and Washington State Need Grants, if you don't graduate, your interest rate goes quite a bit higher and you have to pay everything. That's incentive for people to actually get degrees.

2. I have not yet met an unemployed Occupier that was not a student. (Except for a homeless guy, but he technically makes a living carving scrimshaw and selling it at the farmer's market.) I may be in a smallish town, but we're not all jobless layabouts, you know!

3. If the people are too educated, they need to put their education to use. Want to be a psychologist? Make your own job, if you can't find one! Or you know, plan properly. I for one am going for a math/physics/compsci degree. (Major/minor/major.) The state is giving me extra funding for this because those are practical, needed degrees. There are no equivalents for history majors. (Not knocking on history majors, I love the topic, but we need math people!)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:09:08 am

I thought that FAFSA was essentially free money, so long as it went towards education. Did that change or something?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 01:09:45 am

This guy explains it better than me:

http://www.senseoncents.com/2011/04/are-student-loans-an-impending-bubble-is-higher-education-a-scam/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 21, 2012, 01:12:01 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:06:45 am

Want to be a psychologist? Make your own job, if you can't find one!

Step 1: Make people crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:12:32 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 21, 2012, 01:12:01 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:06:45 am

Want to be a psychologist? Make your own job, if you can't find one!

Step 1: Make people crazy.

That's the job of the masked dude hiding under your chair.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 21, 2012, 01:13:05 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 12:54:24 am

Unless you goto school for a hard skill like doctor or lawyer, then you will have a hard time finding work that will give you the ability to pay off your debt in a reasonable amount of time.

Actually, even the law grads were struggling with finding a job.

Quote from: kaijyuu on February 21, 2012, 01:12:01 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:06:45 am

Want to be a psychologist? Make your own job, if you can't find one!

Step 1: Make people crazy.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 21, 2012, 01:13:34 am

@Sirus
I already beat him up and assumed his identity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:14:21 am

No no, the other masked dude. This one is invisible and intangible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 01:18:13 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on February 21, 2012, 01:13:05 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 12:54:24 am

Unless you goto school for a hard skill like doctor or lawyer, then you will have a hard time finding work that will give you the ability to pay off your debt in a reasonable amount of time.

Actually, even the law grads were struggling with finding a job.

I wonder what is going to happen to the current crop of students when they have to compete with those who are currently without a job.  It is going to be even worse if the current economic climate in America does not improve.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:19:13 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:09:08 am

I thought that FAFSA was essentially free money, so long as it went towards education.

Exactly. Drop out of school midyear and you have to pay it back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:28:19 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:19:13 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:09:08 am

I thought that FAFSA was essentially free money, so long as it went towards education.

Exactly. Drop out of school midyear and you have to pay it back.

So why are you talking about interest rates? Stay in school, and you pay nothing back, which is like negative interest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:31:18 am

Ah, I forgot to list Stafford Loans at the beginning of that post. Those are really low-interest loans that only remain low-interest until you leave school. If you earn a degree, the interest rate is a bit below average. If you drop out, it's higher.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 21, 2012, 01:32:41 am

Wait, wait, wait. I appear to have been doing something wrong this whole time. FAFSA is just a form required to quantify your eligibility for actual aid from other sources, is it not? All I ever got out of it was the ability to apply for loans (the Stafford ones being what I wound up with).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 01:33:25 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on February 21, 2012, 01:06:45 am

2. I have not yet met an unemployed Occupier that was not a student. (Except for a homeless guy, but he technically makes a living carving scrimshaw and selling it at the farmer's market.) I may be in a smallish town, but we're not all jobless layabouts, you know!

Berserkly students would like to have a word with you.

Quote

3. If the people are too educated, they need to put their education to use.

That is easy for you too say, it is harder to understand when there is absolutely no job prospects in the place you live.  It is hard enough to move, but it is even harder when you have loans that need to be paid back, find a job, new place, while surviving and enjoying yourself, if you can. 

If you are saying these people are not trying to find work, then it is either because there is no job prospects or school did a very bad job at preparing them for actual life. 

Quote

Want to be a psychologist? Make your own job, if you can't find one!Or you know, plan properly.

If it was so easy then everybody would be self employed, rich and successful.  Plan properly?  Kind of hard to do when you are being pressured be your friends/parents/teachers to goto school and get an education. 

Quote

I for one am going for a math/physics/compsci degree. (Major/minor/major.) The state is giving me extra funding for this because those are practical, needed degrees.

If only everybody shared your desire and work ethic, things would be so much easier! 

Quote

There are no equivalents for history majors. (Not knocking on history majors, I love the topic, but we need math people!)

Of course not, but do you think those who are teaching those classes are going to enlighten you or possible students to what kind of job prospects they may or may not have in that field (or any other sociology field)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:36:34 am

Quote from: Bauglir on February 21, 2012, 01:32:41 am

Wait, wait, wait. I appear to have been doing something wrong this whole time. FAFSA is just a form required to quantify your eligibility for actual aid from other sources, is it not? All I ever got out of it was the ability to apply for loans (the Stafford ones being what I wound up with).

No, FAFSA can qualify you for genuine scholarship money; the kind you don't have to pay back, direct from the government. Not everyone can qualify however. I'm apparently just middle-class enough to fall outside their guidelines, though my family could certainly use the extra help.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 21, 2012, 01:40:33 am

Qualify, yeah, but I was under the impression that you actually had to further apply for such things. Ah well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 01:42:14 am

I wouldn't know. I never got that far  :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 02:02:05 am

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 21, 2012, 12:54:24 am

Of course people want government funded education loans because it ends up being cheaper for those looking for a loan.

I... I can pretty much stop it right here, actually. That's not it.

People, and the government, want government funded education loans because A.) education (Yes, even the soft stuff) is really, really damn important, especially in a ostensibly democratic society, and B.) education has been proven time and time and time again to be a basically unquestionably good investment -- for the individuals involved, for the society as a whole, for the government as well. There is a lot more going on there than a piece of toilet paper with fancy writing on it.

Spoiler: A little ranty, here. Spoilered for length. (click to show/hide)

This isn't a "we feel like cheap bastards" thing, it's a "this is a really, really good idea" thing, especially for particular subsets of the population. Government funded student loans in particular tend to have a number of caveats and specific bits and pieces that determine who gets what and how much -- and a fair amount is slanted toward lower earners, folks who most likely will still be paying off the student loans decades later. They may not even pay it off in their lifetime. This is because, yanno', we've noticed education is pretty much one of the strongest indicators of people ending up able to get out of said lower earning brackets -- if not in the first generation, then in the second or the third. The point isn't to make money in the short term, it's to get money to people who are going to be able to use that to benefit themselves and, ultimately, society. The loan aspect is only really hiding an effectively near-socialist system.

Try to find a well functioning society nowadays where basic education isn't mandatory and higher education not easily accessed. I can almost certainly guarantee you you're going to have trouble doing that. The government student loans are one of those things where the US can at least have something ostensibly capitalist but make absolutely no mistake -- if they weren't there we'd probably either have or be really close to having full ride state-funded education (or have already collapsed.). To be perfectly honest, we (as in the collective first world) don't really have a choice in that anymore, not if we want even a remotely stable and pleasant society.

Quote

That is, unfortunately, if we naturally assume that the ideal scenario of it plays out: that everybody who takes a loan out from the government ends up finding a job and paying back the money within a reasonable time-frame.  I am talking about years, not decades.

Neither the loan system nor the people getting into it assume that; most people going in for student loans nowadays fully expect to be paying them back decades later. The system itself largely expects that, from what I understand.

Quote

The end result of this is creating a group of people who are too educated for what they are working in, ontop of being saddled with a bad amount of debt.  And these people cannot ever default on that debt because the government will not allow it, so you are always paying for it.

The latter bit of that, from "ontop" [sic] on, I'm down with. [ranton]The first bit... let me be frank. There is no such thing as too educated. There is no social good in ignorance. There is no virtue in "educated enough." There is virtue in "educated" and very little in "not." It can be fiscally non-optimal, yes, and it can definitely be a little silly to spend money on information and training you're not going to use and shortly forget, but there actually is an absolute social good in the spread and integration of good information -- and most accredited college courses fall somewhere in that category. There's definitely room for a greater proliferation of good public-access information (and we're seeing it, by hook and crook!), but calling education in excess of the absolute necessity somehow wasted is... short sighted, is about the best way I can put it.

There's some good beyond money going on here, but [/rantoff] even if you're just going by money, even with the problems we're having, people without college educations are in a hell of a lot worse situation than those that do have them, and their children and children's children are a lot more likely to be in little better situations.

Quote

This guy explains it better than me:
http://www.senseoncents.com/2011/04/are-student-loans-an-impending-bubble-is-higher-education-a-scam/

Hey, I've actually seen that before, though the fellow you're linking actually didn't write like, almost any of that. The original article. (http://nplusonemag.com/bad-education) I vaguely remember n+1 doing some interesting stuff.

And yeah, there's some serious issues with the american school systems right now, that that article highlights. Notice one of the major points it hit on? A lot of what's caused this problem is the introduction of for-profit universities and a shift in college leadership (from educators to CEOs). Seems like the solution there might be making higher education fully government run and a free-ride for citizens ;) Obviously not if they fail out, but if they can make the cut and pass the classes...

It's well agreed tuition is getting out of control, though. That's frankly one of the biggest problems the education sector has right now and just about any damn body actually involved in the education process (Both teachers and students, basically) will tell you that.

Actually on topic: Anyone know if any of the candidates have a position on that? I know there's a lot of people that very much realize that there's a very strong lean toward "degree or shit wages," and that the education sector (especially the for-profit stuff!) is starting to crook folks harder than we can really accept, but is there much voice raising about it in the Republican (or Democrat, really) party?

Anyway, as to this

Quote

Of course not, but do you think those who are teaching those classes are going to enlighten you or possible students to what kind of job prospects they may or may not have in that field (or any other sociology field)?

I'm actually between bachelors and masters in a "soft" degree. Almost every teacher I've met, both in my particular field and in related ones, have been absolutely straightforward about the difficulties getting a job in the field. There's also been a definite upswing on the local levels emphasizing information like that. So yeah, I'm pretty certain they're going to enlighten the students as to the job prospects they (probably don't) have in that field.

And... it's 1 AM. Which is probably why this is as long as it is. Aqui, if I see any need to keep going on this subject past whatever responses this ramble garners, I'll start another thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 21, 2012, 02:06:20 am

Quote from: Montague on February 20, 2012, 11:04:13 pm

That article assumes sequestration cuts take place. That would be the "doomsday" spending cuts intended to be so drastic and unpalatable that a bipartisan budget would be basically forced to compromise on a new budget. It was the thing they thought up when they decided to raise the debt ceiling again. Chances are, those sequestration cuts will not go into effect. Probably an agreement on a new budget will be reached in a dramatic last-minute session, after which they'll take another vacation.

While that outlook was using current law, including sequestration cuts, most of the improvement is not due to the sequestration cuts.  Without them, we'd still be on a sustainable path.

And like I said, this is assuming current law or paygo.  If congress doesn't keep to paygo, things look very different.  But if we keep to paygo, we don't have a long term deficit crises.  Which is completely at odds with what all our nations pundits and elites tell you.  And hence it's common knowledge that we have an entitlements crises when actually we have a "might not stick to paygo" crises.

Obvious why really as paygo probably means higher taxes on the wealthy...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 21, 2012, 02:22:23 am

Sorry, as an outsider... what is paygo?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 21, 2012, 02:26:14 am

9 pages since I went to bed last night, good work kids.

  Oh, and never argue with an idiot, people may not be able to tell the difference

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 02:27:36 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on February 21, 2012, 02:22:23 am

Sorry, as an outsider... what is paygo?

Paygo! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO) Not to be confused with Prego, which is a spaghetti sauce. Or... whatever else sounds or is spelled vaguely similar to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SirAaronIII on February 21, 2012, 02:36:56 am

At first I read those all as Faygo.  Whoops.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 21, 2012, 02:39:06 am

I doubt that anything to do with our gub'mint could ever be that syrupy sweet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SirAaronIII on February 21, 2012, 02:46:15 am

Indeed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 02:53:17 am

Betcha' we could baste and cook some of the politicians.

Though now the mental image of republican candidates with a fine layer of syrup and marinade is trying to insinuate itself into my brain and this is really not going to a happy place really really fast argh.

I'm remembering an old TMNT comic where the turtles got honey poured all over them and now everything is sticky and glistening and it's just bad man it's just bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 21, 2012, 03:01:28 am

Why am I sticky and naked? Did I miss something fun?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 03:06:33 am

Is that Simpsons or Futurama? I'm pretty sure it's one of the two :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 21, 2012, 03:13:27 am

Futurama. It's one of the only lines I know from the show.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 21, 2012, 08:38:32 am

Man, this thread gets seriously herpaderp when there's no primaries for three weeks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 08:51:54 am

Quote

Want to be a psychologist? Make your own job, if you can't find one!Or you know, plan properly.

Just wanted to say - the sheer number of restrictions on "making your own job" are fracking absurd. I wish their were actual small-government candidates who made it a point to try and remove many of those protectionist, authoritarian licensing and regulation provisions to allow people to self-employ, legally, easier.

I know lots and lots of good entrepreneurs, providing services people want, and not one of them started out doing things legally because making your own job, legally, is nearly impossible.

I mean, fuck - we recently had some students who were giving weaves and touch up cuts shut down hard because they couldn't afford to pay for the 500 licensing fee just to apply. In addition, the law prohibits anyone without a college degree from cutting hair. Ever. Under any circumstances. And, in fact, they can decide to not give you a license after all if they just don't like you.

It's pretty messed up, all told.

Unfortunately, the Republican's are just as big supporters of this sort of bullshit as the Democrats are,

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 21, 2012, 08:56:58 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 08:51:54 am

In addition, the law prohibits anyone without a college degree from cutting hair. Ever. Under any circumstances.

Wait, bullshit! Citation, please?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 09:19:10 am

Eh, sorry, that's not entirely accurate. It prohibits them from cutting hair FOR money, every, under any circumstances.

Sorry about that, sort of an important bit to leave out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 21, 2012, 09:26:01 am

Around here it's illegal to set up any sort of shop without a license. That includes lemonade stands and yard sales and the like.

No one actually cares. The law's unenforced unless large scale sales (cars, etc) are being made.


I don't think any 12 year old cutting their friend's hair for 5 bucks is going to get arrested.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2012, 09:31:24 am

But it does allow the police to abuse people based off of personal preference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 09:45:40 am

People shouldn't have to break the law to do things everyone finds acceptable to do. And sometimes, it DOES get enforced.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 21, 2012, 09:48:30 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 09:19:10 am

Eh, sorry, that's not entirely accurate. It prohibits them from cutting hair FOR money, every, under any circumstances.

Sorry about that, sort of an important bit to leave out.

Citation, please.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 10:00:51 am

Man, I'm all over the place this morning. I can't believe I wrote college. I meant high school. Bluh, I'm just going to slam my face into the wall for a while over here. Keep getting colleges and high schools mixed up. Not the only place it has happened recently.

http://www.beautyschools.edu/About_The_Industry/Licensing_Requirements

Is at least a cite for THAT bit. Bluh bluh bluh. The actual stuff is here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXX-313-A.htm

Though that's not all of it.

I still see it as unacceptable, but probably a lot less crazy sounding than what I wrote to you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on February 21, 2012, 02:09:07 pm

How Rick Santorum could take Republicans down with him (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-santorum-could-take-republicans-down-with-him/2012/02/20/gIQA8Af8PR_story.html)

Interesting Washington Post Op. Ed with much insight or troll-baiting article? Why not both?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 21, 2012, 02:32:37 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 10:00:51 am

Man, I'm all over the place this morning. I can't believe I wrote college. I meant high school. Bluh, I'm just going to slam my face into the wall for a while over here. Keep getting colleges and high schools mixed up. Not the only place it has happened recently.

http://www.beautyschools.edu/About_The_Industry/Licensing_Requirements

Is at least a cite for THAT bit. Bluh bluh bluh. The actual stuff is here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXX-313-A.htm

Though that's not all of it.

I still see it as unacceptable, but probably a lot less crazy sounding than what I wrote to you.

Thank you!

It's the curse of being a historian's child, I suppose: bad arguments, in terms of drawing the wrong conclusion from the evidence, I can deal with, but nothing ticks me off more than uncited evidence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2012, 03:53:34 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn-eejMcmuA

And this sort of shit is why Santorum shouldn't be president. The man honestly believes that stuff, I think. It's just... crazy. Complete and total insanity - he just makes stuff up in his own head, and then seems to believe it 100%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 04:03:01 pm

Standard question, you know if there's a transcript of that somewhere? Beyond really not wanting to actually hear someone say what the article connected to that video is mentioning, I don't want to bother th'other folks in the house with the noise.

If not... bleh. Bleh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 21, 2012, 04:12:42 pm

I can't wait to see the source he has for that one.

Oh right, and proof that Rick Santorum can create diplomatic incidents even though he has no foreign policy at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2012, 04:20:09 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on February 21, 2012, 04:12:42 pm

I can't wait to see the source he has for that one.

I would bet money that he'd play the religion card if asked for a source.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 21, 2012, 04:33:33 pm

I'm all for Santorum winning the nomination. Obama would have the kind of lopsided win we haven't seen in the country since Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984. If he keeps up with the crazy red-meat social conservatism, I don't even think Santorum wins his home state. That kind of an electoral win can be used as a rhetorical hammer, arguing you have a massive mandate from the people and an utter repudiation of the other party's policies (even it was mostly a repudiation of the candidate).

You'd also have an energized Democratic turnout, because....President Santorum. Yeah, makes my skin crawl too. Energized turnout + probably a depressed Republican turnout = tectonic shift in Congress. Could reset the clock back to before the "Tea Party Revolution" in 2010. And suddenly shit starts getting done again. With a much lower chance of a Tea Party-type surge in 2014.


EDIT: Remember "Operation Chaos", back in 2008 when Rush Limbaugh urged Republicans in open primary states to go vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries? Well, payback's a bitch. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065052/-Announcing-Operation-Hilarity-Let-s-keep-the-GOP-clown-show-going-)

Summary: DailyKos is calling for Democrats and independents to turn out in the open primary states and vote for Rick Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2012, 06:03:53 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 21, 2012, 04:33:33 pm

President Santorum.

Impeaching the President: Lightning Round Challenge

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 21, 2012, 06:56:51 pm

It's just kind of amazing to me how every Republican candidate has managed to squander their virtues in this campaign season. I remember a few pages back when we were saying stuff like "Romney should be threatened by Santorum, unlike Gingrich, because Santorum doesn't have all that baggage....."

And now he's saddled himself with some exceptional baggage. I think it's getting to the point where even Santorum is a liability to the Republican party at large.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 21, 2012, 09:00:39 pm

Quote

Quote

2. I have not yet met an unemployed Occupier that was not a student. (Except for a homeless guy, but he technically makes a living carving scrimshaw and selling it at the farmer's market.) I may be in a smallish town, but we're not all jobless layabouts, you know!

Berserkly students would like to have a word with you.

Not only did you misspell Berkeley (I think), but you didn't read what I wrote.

Quote

Quote

3. If the people are too educated, they need to put their education to use. Want to be a psychologist? Make your own job, if you can't find one! Or you know, plan properly.

That is easy for you too say, it is harder to understand when there is absolutely no job prospects in the place you live.  It is hard enough to move, but it is even harder when you have loans that need to be paid back, find a job, new place, while surviving and enjoying yourself, if you can. 

If you are saying these people are not trying to find work, then it is either because there is no job prospects or school did a very bad job at preparing them for actual life.

If it was so easy then everybody would be self employed, rich and successful.  Plan properly?  Kind of hard to do when you are being pressured be your friends/parents/teachers to goto school and get an education.

I am not saying that 'these people aren't trying to find work' at all. I'm saying this: if you knowingly get a degree when you know there aren't many job opportunities (not hard to do research), you should be prepared. If you don't get your dream job you have two options: suck it up and take another job, or make your own. Not all fields can make their own jobs. It's a lot harder to be an independent anthropologist than an independent programmer. Planning properly isn't necessarily making sure that you get a job in your field, planning properly is making sure that you have a job at all. That's the important thing.

I understand the situation you're describing: I can't stay in the town I live in. There are literally no job openings except at the lumber mill, and I don't meet the weight requirement. To remedy this, I'm moving out and going to college to learn a marketable skill. Or, failing that, to find a job.

And all this brings us back on topic: Public Education.

Ricky Shitfoam Rick Santorum is against public education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/us/politics/santorum-defends-remarks-on-obama-and-public-schools.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/us/politics/santorum-defends-remarks-on-obama-and-public-schools.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/rick-santorum-takes-on-pr_n_1289533.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/rick-santorum-takes-on-pr_n_1289533.html)
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/20/tp-santorum-defends-attack-on-obama-public-schools/ (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/20/tp-santorum-defends-attack-on-obama-public-schools/)

I'm personally of the opinion that the government has a duty to help its citizens get educated, so that we can all reap the benefits. (Better jobs, a workforce that isn't just manual labor, etc.) We'll never outcompete the third world with basic manual labor, it makes sense that we should try to encourage people to get degrees. Why we aren't telling students that math/science/engineering/compsci degrees are needed more often I don't know. There are jobs in that field, and people are willing to pay to go to college. Connect the dots => jobs. Problem solved, eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 21, 2012, 09:20:44 pm

Quote

Why we aren't telling students that math/science/engineering/compsci degrees are needed more often I don't know.

It's said, every day, in colleges around the US. They urge, they beg and plead with people to go into mathematics, engineering and computer science. They tell students there will be employers shiving each other on the convention floor to take their applications during job fairs.

After going through the American education system to a bachelors....honestly. The problem is us. The kids who go to college wanting to get an MBA because they don't like math or science. I'm not throwing stones, I got a degree in journalism. Not because I hate math and science, but because they were subjects that made me feel stupid and I didn't have the intellectual fortitude to do any more than I had to, to graduate.

Fast forward a couple years, I'm not working in a job using my degree, but in a job that computer science would have been mighty useful in. Parents don't want to hear it but their kids have small dreams. I know I did. Or more correctly, no dreams. I don't know if I'm honestly representative of my generation, but my sentiment was shared by a lot of my peers in college. Get in, get your degree, get the fuck out, get a job. That was our priority.

So until we can learn to re-instill the love of learning and the respect for it in younger generations, no amount of money is going to get people more educated in the shit America has fallen way behind in. And in this political climate, where it's still pretty much ok to dog on intellectuals and culturally it's ok to still ridicule nerds and geeks, it ain't gonna happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 21, 2012, 09:32:02 pm

Well, we could do more of what the current administration has been doing: Start up science competitions, grant scholarships for kids going to specific degrees, or hell, do that second thing more. There is no better incentive than free money. A lot of people just go to college to get a degree, because society expects them to. A lot of these people are really bright. However, if they're paying for something, they want it to be something they enjoy. I get the feeling that a lot more people would be willing to do math if the government essentially paid for them to do it. (Or at least gave them a few thousand dollars.)

As for the science competitions, I can say that they're working fairly well here. The Department of Energy's National Science Bowl just got a big funding boost, and they used it to spread out the regions and let more schools in. One of the new ones is around where I live, and it's now the largest regional competition in the US. This weekend, there will be 30 schools there. 24 of them have never gone before. The smallest team, mine, is sending 15 people. The opportunity to actually do science things before college can be pretty helpful. Science in a classroom is pretty dull. Science on your own is not. The same goes for Science Olympiad or the National Science Fair. Interest is what we need.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 21, 2012, 09:37:12 pm

I hate to frame it in these terms, but we need to find a way to make this shit cool for younger generations. Every attempt to do that comes off as so tacky it actually has the opposite effect. But there was a time, in America and just generally, where scientists were rock stars. They weren't just respected, everyone knew who they were and they gave a shit about their work. People aspired to be like that. Scientists and mathematicians are still respected by the public......but not publicly.

Unfortunately, the business of making entertainers into role models is one of the few things we can actually say we rock at in America. It's like the only industry in America that didn't tank at least once in the last decade.

So yeah. Get 'em while they're young and start treating math and science (and the people that do them) with real respect in the public sphere. It's one thing hearing the president say it. It's almost like your parents or your teacher saying it. You expect to hear it from them. Hearing from other corners as well would be better.

Which is why, despite Mythbusters being science-lite, I appreciate what they do. Because they're making science approachable to people while still being true to who they are. Blowing shit up being cool is something anyone can understand. If you teach them something in the process, and they find learning how shit blows interesting, then you've potentially just made a future scientist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 21, 2012, 09:46:11 pm

Damnit nenjin, you ninja'd me. Had just put down the eating spoon for a second to note that we would likely get some absolutely tremendous interest boosts in the hard sciences with some curriculum and teaching standards (and incentives) changes. You get a massive change of atmosphere when you've got a teacher actually interested/invested in the subject teaching a sane sized class an actually effective (i.e. not specifically catered to pass a test) curriculum.

Better support for students actually interested in the subjects would be awesome, too. As an example, I know the major reason I'm in the soft instead of hard fields right now is because I got hijacked by the system back in 4th grade; school wouldn't let me take advanced maths for math class credit. You're probably not going to get a 4th grader to doubleup on mathematics on top of everything else, unfortunately, especially when half of that is stuff they literally did years previous. Because of that, I basically stopped studying math (and coasted from 4th to about 10th grade :-\).

Between that and some decent media exposure (Stuff like myth busters would probably count, I guess. I'm not up to date on TV shows) we could probably see some changes going down.

And maybe a few people ragging too hard on geeks blown up with home made IEDs, but there's a cost to everything.

Anyway, santorum against public education? Add another black mark to the list. Bleh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2012, 09:49:07 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 21, 2012, 09:37:12 pm

Which is why, despite Mythbusters being science-lite, I appreciate what they do. Because they're making science approachable to people while still being true to who they are. Blowing shit up being cool is something anyone can understand. If you teach them something in the process, and they find learning how shit blows interesting, then you've potentially just made a future scientist.

I hereby dub this idea the Sagan Effect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 21, 2012, 09:57:07 pm

Mr. Wizard, anyone? I watched alllllll the time as a kid.

(I don't know if I really count though. My dad obsessively fed me stuff about Davinci and tons of other high-minded stuff as a kid. And I turned out to mostly be a bum who only now is like "shit, I should have sincerely started caring about stuff like this years ago." I think plenty of kids in America are smart...they just lack the reasons to capitalize on their gifts because they weren't ever forced to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 21, 2012, 10:20:09 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 21, 2012, 09:57:07 pm

Mr. Wizard, anyone? I watched alllllll the time as a kid.

(I don't know if I really count though. My dad obsessively fed me stuff about Davinci and tons of other high-minded stuff as a kid. And I turned out to mostly be a bum who only now is like "shit, I should have sincerely started caring about stuff like this years ago." I think plenty of kids in America are smart...they just lack the reasons to capitalize on their gifts because they weren't ever forced to.

Or had reason to or motivation. Let's be honest here; being smart and being cool are portrayed as inversely proportional in society. My sister's 10 year old friend up and said "being dumb is cool". Okay. The Department of Education is one thing which really needs funding. Fuck your oil, Mr. Bush, fuck your bailout, fuck your foreign aid. AID THE GODDAMN KIDS YOU'VE SCREWED OVER BEFORE BITCHING ABOUT THE STATE OF THE WORLD.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 10:26:14 pm

Know what America needs? More science fairs. Real ones, not just going through the motions where half the kids make a baking soda volcano while the other half attach wires to various produce. Let the kids or adults choose a topic that interests them and let them explore it. Give tangible prizes to encourage creativity and effort. Combine this with the aforementioned sci-lite sources and high quality media for the heavier stuff (remember that mini-series last year, starring Stephen Hawking? That was awesome shit), and hopefully Americans will start liking science and math again.

If nothing else, I respect Obama for running science fairs and taking part in them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 21, 2012, 10:29:51 pm

Hell, while we're at it. Let's fucking fix discovery and history channels. I'm sure they'd love some subsidies in exchange fro real science/history shit showing up on their channels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 10:32:06 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 21, 2012, 10:29:51 pm

Hell, while we're at it. Let's fucking fix discovery and history channels. I'm sure they'd love some subsidies in exchange fro real science/history shit showing up on their channels.

True that. Fewer aliens and biblical stories, more real science (and history).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 21, 2012, 10:33:41 pm

It should also be mentioned that a person can be incredibly intelligent without being hard science intelligent, and shouldn't be at such a disadvantage just for lacking the specific talents that are most in demand at a given time. 

I went into computer science initially.  While I could understand programming logic easily, I simply couldn't handle the level of ability to manage technical details.  I could struggle through it, but I didn't think I would come out of it at a level where I would be competitive in the job market.  So I switched to something that I was better suited for.  I found 3d art was a perfect fit for me.  It wasn't exactly what I wanted to do with my life, nor was it what I was best at... but it seemed like just the right compromise between "enjoy it well enough" and "quite good at it."  Too bad it's a viciously competitive job market.

Besides, the world needs proper historians, philosophers, anthropologists, etc.  We really don't want those academic traditions to disappear.  They do incredibly valuable things for us.  They just don't directly produce material value, so they don't get material rewards.  It's really a shame.

I just get annoyed when conversations like this focus on how people should mold themselves to fit the demands of capitalist society, instead of recognizing how capitalist society often fails to be reasonable in its demands.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 21, 2012, 10:39:26 pm

Alright alright, we've had enough back-patting for one night.

Jesus, when the Hell is that primary going to get here?  For now, let's talk about how Gingrich's billionaire bankroller is saying he might dump up to another hundred million dollars (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/53447555-68/adelson-romney-gingrich-obama.html.csp) into Gingrich's campaign, provided he (and the PACs he legally doesn't run) stops attacking Romney.  Because he'd be happy with either of them winning, as long as Santorum doesn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 21, 2012, 10:39:44 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 21, 2012, 10:32:06 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 21, 2012, 10:29:51 pm

Hell, while we're at it. Let's fucking fix discovery and history channels. I'm sure they'd love some subsidies in exchange fro real science/history shit showing up on their channels.

True that. Fewer aliens and biblical stories, more real science (and history).

And Bigfoot. Don't forget Bigfoot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 21, 2012, 10:51:33 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 21, 2012, 10:39:26 pm

Alright alright, we've had enough back-patting for one night.

Jesus, when the Hell is that primary going to get here?  For now, let's talk about how Gingrich's billionaire bankroller is saying he might dump up to another hundred million dollars (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/53447555-68/adelson-romney-gingrich-obama.html.csp) into Gingrich's campaign, provided he (and the PACs he legally doesn't run) stops attacking Romney.  Because he'd be happy with either of them winning, as long as Santorum doesn't.

One week. Like I said, three weeks without a race to discuss, and it gets all herp to da derp up in this joint.


More and more pundits are beginning to frame the Michigan primary in apocalyptic terms. Romney's Gettysburg, or Romney's Waterloo, or just "Holy fucking shit, are we SERIOUSLY going to nominate Rev. Analslime?"

FWIW, I don't think this is going to be over until at least May or June. Most of the states don't have that many delegates, and they're mostly proportional races. Neither candidate will be able to build a big enough lead to put this thing away until Texas and California get into the mix. And last I heard, Texas was likely going to delay its primary back from April to late May. We could be sitting in late May with both candidates in a dead heat, likely with Gingrich and Paul out of the race. If those two more or less split (say, California goes for Romney, and Texas goes strongly for Santorum)....see you in Tampa, folks! Bring your riot gear!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 21, 2012, 10:56:34 pm

I honestly hope Santorum gets the nomination at this point, if only because it means I'll get to watch an Obama vs. Santorum vs. Paul debate.

They'd utterly destroy Santorum. Granted, Paul has his own brand of crazy going on, but it isn't Santorphrenia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 21, 2012, 10:57:50 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 21, 2012, 10:51:33 pm

or just "Holy fucking shit, are we SERIOUSLY going to nominate Rev. Analslime?"

I laughed less at the "Analslime" and more at the usage of "Rev." to refer to a Catholic. I'm not sure what kind of nerd that makes me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 21, 2012, 11:06:18 pm

In avoiding crass humour... unique upon the interwubs?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 01:51:45 am

Quote

Jesus, when the Hell is that primary going to get here?  For now, let's talk about how Gingrich's billionaire bankroller is saying he might dump up to another hundred million dollars into Gingrich's campaign, provided he (and the PACs he legally doesn't run) stops attacking Romney.  Because he'd be happy with either of them winning, as long as Santorum doesn't.

I'm thinking he's just investing in the business of Newt, because that guy has to be earning someone money at this point for anyone to care. When he's done with the primaries he's gonna hit the lecture circuit, write another book and generally try to stay as close to politics as he can without actually being elected to something again. He kind of reminds of Blagojevich, if Blagojevich calling everyone's bluff had actually worked. Repeatedly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 22, 2012, 01:57:05 am

Okay, self help books and promotional speeches can make a fair bit of money, but *over $100 million*?!

The value of a president in your pocket, sure, that may be worth it, but I doubt Newt is worth that much for anything else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 22, 2012, 10:27:41 am

Nate Silver had an interesting article about Romney's lack of campaign income (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/romneys-money-problems/#more-26475).  Some highlights:

He's down to 7.7 million in cash after having spent 18.8 million and taken in only 6.5 million in January.
He's spending a lot less on campaign infrastructure then a typical primary winner would.  There are a lot of major states where he only has a single office.
The other campaigns are taking in slightly less then Romney and spending a buttload less.
The other republicans took in a little less then Romney but spent a lot less.
None of the republicans are doing well in the small donors field which means they will be increasingly dependent on superPACs which have no contribution limits
Obama is doing underwhelmingly in fundraising himself but still standing head and shoulders above the republicans

It should be interesting to see what happens to Romney if he doesn't show improvement in February.  Without ad blitzes, can he remain competitive?  And what will the republicans do if he loses?  Weak as Romney is, they could be running a candidate with no cash or organization to speak of.  IIRC, every 21 face to face conversations between a campaign volunteer and a worker results in another voter making it to the polls.  Kinda hard to get those people to the polls if you don't even have an office to hand out the clipboards to your volunteers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 22, 2012, 10:39:16 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on February 22, 2012, 01:57:05 am

Okay, self help books and promotional speeches can make a fair bit of money, but *over $100 million*?!

The value of a president in your pocket, sure, that may be worth it, but I doubt Newt is worth that much for anything else.

My theory? Adelson has devised technology that runs purely on smug, hypocritical self-righteousness. Gingrich is his reactor core.


New Poll Data! Because seriously....what else is there to talk about without going off into 5-page political diatribes?

National:
Two new polls still show Santorum leading Romney nationally, but by differing margins. Quinnipiac has Santorum at +8, while an AP poll has Santorum at a mere +1.

Also, a slate of new polls pitting Obama against the various challengers shows Obama beating any and all of them in the general election. Average margins of victory:
vs. Romney: +5
vs. Santorum: +6
vs. Gingrich: +10.5
vs. Paul: +9

Arizona:
New NBC News poll shows Romney at +16 to Santorum. That's a major change from the poll trends that had been showing the race getting tight. Two other polls show Romney at +10 and +4, so it's difficult to tell what's going on here without looking deeper at the sample and methodology for each.

Michigan:
NBC News poll again, showing Romney at a mere +2. Mitchell/Rosetta Stone also showing Romney at +2. Rasmussen continues evidencing a Santorum bias with showing Santorum at +4 here.


Even with the apparent bump back up in Arizona, this isn't great news for Romney. The narrative being created is that Arizona is small potatoes, and it's all about Michigan, because it's Romney's "home state". New Hampshire was also "Romney turf", as is Masschusetts. Not sure how many "home states" a guy can have.  ???

Failure to win Michigan is being spun as a potential campaign killer. Yet despite that, Romney continues to spout the line that the automakers bailout was a terrible idea and that Michigan's economy would be as good if not better had the automakers been allowed to fail. Probably not the brightest thing to say in a state where over 30 percent of the population either works in the auto industry, or works for an industry that depends on the auto industry. Also could be why in hypothetical "Obama v. various GOP candidate" type polls in Michigan, Obama is winning by anywhere from 18 to 28 points. I think you can say Michigan is a safe blue state in the fall.

Wisconsin:
Marquette University ran a slew of polls. Verdict? Santorum at +16, and Ron Paul just a point out of 2nd place. Romney is none too popular up there.
But Obama is still polling over 50% against any of the GOP field, with anywhere from an 11 to 23 point lead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 22, 2012, 11:02:17 am

Santorum:Democrats are anti-science. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381369-503544/santorum-democrats-are-anti-science-not-me/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on February 22, 2012, 11:25:34 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 22, 2012, 11:02:17 am

Santorum:Democrats are anti-science. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381369-503544/santorum-democrats-are-anti-science-not-me/)

The fact that people can seriously continue to claim that global warming is based on "phony studies" and be taken seriously is completely ludicrous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 11:37:32 am

Santorum is anti-reality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 22, 2012, 01:13:34 pm

So, is it too late for Gringrich or Ron Paul to win the nomination?

How does that even work?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 22, 2012, 01:15:34 pm

I think its too late for anyone to "win" the nomination.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 22, 2012, 01:37:38 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 22, 2012, 01:13:34 pm

So, is it too late for Gringrich or Ron Paul to win the nomination?

How does that even work?

Not by any means, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where they manage to do so (other than the other three candidates dying due to a meteor hitting the debates or something).

A candidate needs a bare majority of delegates at the convention to receive the nomination. For that GOP, that's 1191 delegates. At this point, there isn't even a universal answer to how many pledged delegates each one has (much less unpledged), but the rough estimate is that Romney leads with 104 pledged, Santorum has 36 pledged, Gingrich has 34 pledged, and Paul has 28 pledged. There's still a ton of unpledged delegates out there to be divvyed up too. In theory, these should break according to the proportions that each candidate won their state by (or in the remaining winner-take-all contests, they should all vote for whoever won their state.) But they are not procedurally obligated to do so. (That's the difference between pledged and unpledged).

Supposedly, in some of the caucus states, the Paul camp has been working to secure the support of the unpledged delegates, even when he's coming in 3rd or 4th place. And when push comes to shove, if nobody has won enough pledged delegates to win outright before the convention, it comes down to that big pool of unpledged delegates. If the party bosses and the campaigns push and pull and shove and wheedle enough to get enough of them to flip their votes, anything can happen. However, if the end result is significantly out of joint with what would be expected if the unpledged delegates voted based on the primary/caucus results, you can expect all hell to break loose within the ranks.

But I don't see the party establishment pushing and prodding to sway people for Gingrich or Paul. If anything, they'd likely try to pull unpledged delegates over to Romney, even if Romney didn't win according to the primary results. Which would result in a delicious civil war within the GOP and quite possibly a third-party run by Santorum and/or Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 22, 2012, 01:55:45 pm

What happens if (as seems likely) the delegates are divvied up so that no candidate has anything like a majority?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 22, 2012, 01:58:06 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 22, 2012, 01:55:45 pm

What happens if (as seems likely) the delegates are divvied up so that no candidate has anything like a majority?

Then they have to broker a deal. Sometimes it means that 2 existing candidates team up as president/vice president, perhaps they all come together and put someone who wasn't even running as the candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 22, 2012, 02:09:50 pm

It would be hilarious if the Ron Paul backroom efforts mean that he comes in a distant 3rd place on the 1st round of voting (when delagates generally vote like they were told to by the voters) but ends up the nominee because his people abused the caucus rules so effectively.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 22, 2012, 02:31:50 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 22, 2012, 01:55:45 pm

What happens if (as seems likely) the delegates are divvied up so that no candidate has anything like a majority?

Then they use the little known fall-back method for choosing a Republican candidate:

TRIAL BY STONE!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1266/267469-skeksis_the_dark_crystal_super.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 22, 2012, 03:39:21 pm

That is the most accurate depiction of the Republican party leadership I have ever seen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on February 22, 2012, 03:51:10 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 22, 2012, 02:31:50 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 22, 2012, 01:55:45 pm

What happens if (as seems likely) the delegates are divvied up so that no candidate has anything like a majority?

Then they use the little known fall-back method for choosing a Republican candidate:

TRIAL BY STONE!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1266/267469-skeksis_the_dark_crystal_super.jpg)

That's ridiculous, everyone knows that they decide it by majong matches.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 03:53:29 pm

Finish this analogy: The Skeksis are to Gelflings as Republicans are to.....?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 22, 2012, 04:13:24 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 03:53:29 pm

Finish this analogy: The Skeksis are to Gelflings as Republicans are too.....?

Illegal immigrants? Muslims? Gays?

I guess ask yourself, "Who would a Republiskek send the Garthim after?"
I guess that makes the Democrats the Mystics: good at heart, but slow, feeble and in decline.

Most importantly, if we're going to stretch the analogy to the breaking point...who's Fizzgigg?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 04:20:09 pm

Why, the American people of course! Loveable, violent, crazy and covered in hair.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 22, 2012, 04:21:43 pm

I take offense to that last part :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 05:06:46 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/bennett-obamacare-gop/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Just another Op-ed piece directed at Obama care....

It makes me see red that Republicans get away with calling the abortion decision "suppressing their religious freedoms", when in reality, they're pissed because someone won't ENFORCE their religious beliefs, i.e. validate their religious oppression. I'm so fucking sick of the double-speak in American politics today. I'm sick of a snake tongue coming out of every politicians' mouth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 22, 2012, 05:11:36 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 22, 2012, 02:31:50 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 22, 2012, 01:55:45 pm

What happens if (as seems likely) the delegates are divvied up so that no candidate has anything like a majority?

Then they use the little known fall-back method for choosing a Republican candidate:

TRIAL BY STONE!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1266/267469-skeksis_the_dark_crystal_super.jpg)

What is this from?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 05:20:52 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 22, 2012, 05:11:36 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 22, 2012, 02:31:50 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 22, 2012, 01:55:45 pm

What happens if (as seems likely) the delegates are divvied up so that no candidate has anything like a majority?

Then they use the little known fall-back method for choosing a Republican candidate:

TRIAL BY STONE!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1266/267469-skeksis_the_dark_crystal_super.jpg)

What is this from?

Possibly the most awesome thing Jim Hanson ever did. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 22, 2012, 05:50:04 pm

So the 80s were completely nuts, in a good way. Cool.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 22, 2012, 05:51:08 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 05:20:52 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 22, 2012, 05:11:36 pm

What is this from?

Possibly the most awesome thing Jim Hanson ever did. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/)

Do not listen to this person.  He is not your friend.  He does not have your best interests at heart.  And Jim Henson other did many great things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 05:55:52 pm

Eh? What are you on about?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 22, 2012, 08:43:48 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 22, 2012, 05:51:08 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 05:20:52 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 22, 2012, 05:11:36 pm

What is this from?

Possibly the most awesome thing Jim Hanson ever did. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/)

Do not listen to this person.  He is not your friend.  He does not have your best interests at heart.  And Jim Henson other did many great things.

I believe you out of order a word have.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 09:34:12 pm

Man Colbert has some of the best writers in TV.

"...Gingrich's campaign is on life support after [these primaries]. And as we know, when something Newt is with gets sick he moves on to something else."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 22, 2012, 09:36:03 pm

...OUCH.

Not that he doesn't deserve it, but still...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 22, 2012, 10:04:18 pm

That is beautiful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 22, 2012, 10:07:46 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 22, 2012, 09:34:12 pm

Man Colbert has some of the best writers in TV.

"...Gingrich's campaign is on life support after [these primaries]. And as we know, when something Newt is with gets sick he moves on to something else."

It was either Colbert or Stewart (their writers anyway) who made the connection between Gingrich's ads with Pelosi about the Earth being sick and wanting to go live on the Moon.  It's crass, but it's easy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 12:15:52 am

Chart of small vs. big donors:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/200-donations-final.png?uuid=DmcJ0F1mEeGnKZdjFNxFkg)

It's interesting to see how Romney isn't that far behind Obama in total fundraising, given that he is so far behind in cash on hand (7.7 million vs. nearly 100 million IIRC).  He's been spending a lot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 23, 2012, 01:20:03 am

Obama does have several advantages as an incumbent. He does not have to fight off a pack of rabid dogs in the primary, and that costs a lot. Plus all of Obama's existing public appearances as president act as free publicity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 23, 2012, 10:57:47 am

Plus Obama rode an eagle to Pakistan and personally tore Osama's head off with his bare hands.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 23, 2012, 12:07:28 pm

At least he learnt something from LotR.


...Wait, does that mean Obama is favoured by Manwë? Man, Iran and Korea better get their shot together before Tulkas comes stomping ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on February 23, 2012, 02:28:40 pm

Wtf? Just watched the news. Apparently some Republican (Sanctorum I assume) claimed that over 10% of Dutch deaths every year are because of Euthanasia with half of them being involuntary. Other American news sites than claimed that 'the Dutch' were outraged because of these obviously false statements (in reality 2% of deaths are because of euthanasia and none are involuntary).

Seriously?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 02:32:14 pm

Santorum lives in his own little fantasy land.

And yes, he is currently leading the polls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 23, 2012, 02:39:08 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on February 23, 2012, 02:28:40 pm

Wtf? Just watched the news. Apparently some Republican (Sanctorum I assume) claimed that over 10% of Dutch deaths every year are because of Euthanasia with half of them being involuntary. Other American news sites than claimed that 'the Dutch' were outraged because of these obviously false statements (in reality 2% of deaths are because of euthanasia and none are involuntary).

Seriously?

Oh sure, that's what you WANT us to believe. (Note: this response can be applied to pretty much ANYTHING anyone ever says to refute an argument, if you're a Republican.)

Yeah, he's starting to get into Yogi Berra territory with his numbers. I'm expecting him to say that being a good President is half physical, half mental and half spiritual.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 03:25:06 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 23, 2012, 10:57:47 am

Plus Obama rode an eagle to Pakistan and personally tore Osama's head off with his bare hands.

He also needs another term to fix the economy which was totally not his fault!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 03:47:28 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on February 23, 2012, 02:28:40 pm

Wtf? Just watched the news. Apparently some Republican (Sanctorum I assume) claimed that over 10% of Dutch deaths every year are because of Euthanasia with half of them being involuntary. Other American news sites than claimed that 'the Dutch' were outraged because of these obviously false statements (in reality 2% of deaths are because of euthanasia and none are involuntary).

Seriously?

Well, are you not outraged at these obviously false statements?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 23, 2012, 03:51:21 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 03:25:06 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 23, 2012, 10:57:47 am

Plus Obama rode an eagle to Pakistan and personally tore Osama's head off with his bare hands.

He also needs another term to fix the economy which was totally not his fault!

If that was an attempt at sarcasm, it failed. Because seriously....not his fault.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 23, 2012, 03:55:10 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 03:25:06 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on February 23, 2012, 10:57:47 am

Plus Obama rode an eagle to Pakistan and personally tore Osama's head off with his bare hands.

He also needs another term to fix the economy which was totally not his fault!

Yes. The economy was not his fault. We know this because it went all to hell before he entered office.

Yes. All the economic plans of his competitors are inherently destructive to the economy, so he does need another term to "save" it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 23, 2012, 04:17:55 pm

The economy is Obama's fault in the same way as any deaths would be if he were in that thought experiment where you have a train on course for a group of 10 people, and a lever that will put it on a course where it only hits one of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:21:14 pm

Oh I know sarcasm was evident, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to throw that out there to see who would bite! :)

But yeah, in the soon to be 4 years since taking office, Obama hasn't done anything to fix the problem with the economy.  Hell, he couldn't even his own congress to pass a budget from with the government tries to work within (1000+ days without a budget). 

Quote from: Nadaka on February 23, 2012, 03:55:10 pm

Yes. The economy was not his fault. We know this because it went all to hell before he entered office.

Yes, it was terrible when he entered office.  However, his whole presidency has done nothing to even come close to turning it around.  Cash for Clunkers?  Failed.  The keystone pipeline?  Can't lose the environmentalist vote, so I'll make a decision until after the election.  His trumpeting of 'green tech' industries?  Nothing.  He hasn't even done anything to fix anything.  Taxation?  He hasn't even made a decision on the Bush tax cuts (he says he will.. in the future).  Entitlement reform?  Oil dependency on foreign countries (middle east)?  Tackling the debt? 

Quote

Yes. All the economic plans of his competitors are inherently destructive to the economy, so he does need another term to "save" it.

Really?  You mean the alternative, which the republicans are offering which amounts to doing something, is inherently more destructive to the economy then doing nothing? 

Man, I guess opening up the oil fields in and around America for drilling is evil, you know, creating all those jobs for people out of work and in need of jobs.  Creating all that wealth for the American government to tax is also evil!  Same with driving down the price of oil and energy. 

Oh, they're evil because they don't want the Bush tax cuts to expire.  We need to let them expire so EVERYONE pays more taxes. 

And so on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:25:18 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 23, 2012, 04:17:55 pm

The economy is Obama's fault in the same way as any deaths would be if he were in that thought experiment where you have a train on course for a group of 10 people, and a lever that will put it on a course where it only hits one of them.

Nah. The more real-life comparison would be, "It was John Cretien's fault for giving Stephan Harper such a terrible economy that he couldn't do anything with it, he needed another term to fix it!"  *cough*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 04:27:46 pm

I honestly don't think Obama OR McCain would have accomplished anything that would have come close to "saving" the economy - that ship was sunk.

And dealing in what-ifs doesn't get us very far.

But most of the Republican rhetoric up to this point doesn't seem like it would do any more to help than Obama's stuff did. (And yes, it is very possible for doing something to be worse than doing nothing. If you get cut, lighting you on fire in an attempt to staunch the bleeding could very well be WORSE than leaving you be)

Who knows though. The Republican leadership have stated outright they'd be willing to sink the economy to take the presidency, so I'm not sure how much of Obama's ineffectiveness is his own fault or not. I certainly don't see the Republican field as showing any more signs of /competency/, anyways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 23, 2012, 04:34:38 pm

Most of what the Republicans have offered is "Cut ALL the taxes! Stop spending ANY money! (except for things in my district, and defense spending)"

That's not "offering something", that's akin to "Give everybody in America a magic pony for free!" It's so far from realistic that it doesn't even merit discussion.

In essence, they want us to be a much larger version of Greece, only they'd cut taxes too so the whole thing would implode even faster.
I think a lot of people (my staunch Republican father-in-law, for instance) who don't fault Obama that harshly because they realize he's faced an opposition party that has been operating in scorched-earth mode since about two weeks after Inauguration Day.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:37:20 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 04:27:46 pm

But most of the Republican rhetoric up to this point doesn't seem like it would do any more to help than Obama's stuff did. (And yes, it is very possible for doing something to be worse than doing nothing. If you get cut, lighting you on fire in an attempt to staunch the bleeding could very well be WORSE than leaving you be).

Indeed, that line of thinking is what lead to the eventual housing market bubble exploding. 

Quote

Who knows though. The Republican leadership have stated outright they'd be willing to sink the economy to take the presidency, so I'm not sure how much of Obama's ineffectiveness is his own fault or not. I certainly don't see the Republican field as showing any more signs of /competency/, anyways.

Do you have a direct quote to back that statement up?  I doubt it but whatever.  And how could the Republicans sink the economy?  You mean by compromising with Democrats repeatedly on a myriad of issues? 

Lets remember here, back when Democrats had the majority to pass the PPACA, they did nothing to fix the economy.  They didn't pass a budget (1000+ days now), or any meaningful reform to fix government spending, taxation, or enact their own economic policies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 23, 2012, 04:43:03 pm

Saying Obama is "doing nothing" for the economy is extremely ignorant. He has done a lot, and tried to do much more. He could have done more before the senate was taken over by hooligans who wanted to destroy the economy in order to ensure that Obama would not get a second term and stonewalling every attempt at compromise. But fighting for a sluggish recovery is a much better option than letting those traitors in the tea party burn this country to the ground.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:58:00 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 23, 2012, 04:34:38 pm

Most of what the Republicans have offered is "Cut ALL the taxes! Stop spending ANY money! (except for things in my district, and defense spending)"

We both know that extreme is highly unlikely. 

They are more for keeping the bush tax cuts in place and, you know, ensuring those 46% of Americans who pay no tax to have some skin in the game.  But whatever, apparently taxing the rich is "good" and not doing so is "evil", heh. 

Quote

That's not "offering something", that's akin to "Give everybody in America a magic pony for free!" It's so far from realistic that it doesn't even merit discussion.

Uh, no.  What Obama is doing is trying to "Give everybody in America a magic pony for free!" through the PPACA and sweet college loans. 

And, uh.. what specific examples can you cite where Republicans are offering something for free?

Quote

In essence, they want us to be a much larger version of Greece, only they'd cut taxes too so the whole thing would implode even faster.

Really?  How so? 

You mean those Republicans who advocate for controlling and reigning in government spending across the board are pushing for another Greece?  Drilling for oil?  Yeah, I suppose a government who wants another Greece would do that. 

Go read up on all the news regarding the California government having to cut essential services across the board because they are in debt and can't meet their budget goals WITHOUT raising taxes and getting federal assistance.  California is a microcosm for what Democrats can do with their economic policies.  California IS the next Greece.

Quote

I think a lot of people (my staunch Republican father-in-law, for instance) who don't fault Obama that harshly because they realize he's faced an opposition party that has been operating in scorched-earth mode since about two weeks after Inauguration Day.

Enough so that they stopped the passage of the PPACA (!), enough so that they stopped Democrats with full control from passing a budget, and all of their other policies! 

Man, yeah, when Democrats had full control for Obama's first 2 and a half years, they sure did cause enough problems for Democrats, enough so they scared them into doing NOTHING. 

Oh, they were even more obstinate when they got back enough control to make things even.  They did this by... playing nice and compromising on issues?  Ok. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 05:00:54 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:58:00 pm

46% of Americans who pay no tax

This is what we call a "lie".

Care to qualify that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:12:40 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 23, 2012, 04:43:03 pm

Saying Obama is "doing nothing" for the economy is extremely ignorant.

How so? 

Quote

He has done a lot, and tried to do much more.

Like... what?  Bear with me here when I harp on the fact that Obama and the Democrats had full control do to anything they wanted for the first two and a half years of his presidency.  This is why Obamacare (PPACA) was passed. 

Did he pass a budget when he had a chance and time to do so?  No, rather, he would focus on other areas that needed attention. 

Now, if you can provide proof aside from the few I have cited, such as Cash for Clunkers, his stance on the Keystone Pipeline, then please provide them.

Quote

He could have done more before the senate was taken over by hooligans who wanted to destroy the economy in order to ensure that Obama would not get a second term and stonewalling every attempt at compromise.

Again, he didn't do ANYTHING when he did have full control.  The only thing he did was pass the PPACA, and they are still trying to work on it, hell.. the CBO has to reissue its preliminary report on Obamacare because parts of the bill were unworkable. 

And I don't see how Republicans or Tea Partiers are for "Destroying the economy" (aside from what you hear from leftist news outlets) when they are advocating for reigning in government spending.  Is their not wanting to tax the rich back to the stoneage really that much of an ideological sticking point?  I don't see how wanting to restrict the power of the EPA and loosen environmental restrictions on companies so they can explore and drill for oil an issue that would make them WANT to destroy the economy? 

Remember people, Obama himself has delayed his decision on the Keystone Pipeline, a Pipeline that would bring in whatever jobs and money it could into the economy, and also boost and strength relations with Canada.  Instead, to win the environmentalist vote, he decided to delay the decision until after the election.  In this specific example, the Republicans did not put a gun to his head and force him to do it, because they are for it too. 

Quote

But fighting for a sluggish recovery is a much better option than letting those traitors in the tea party burn this country to the ground.

Really?  You mean because the Tea Party is specifically for fiscal sanity?  Damn, I suppose expecting a government to run within its means and not rack up $15 trillion debt within 11 years is something that only traitors think of!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 23, 2012, 05:14:08 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:21:14 pm

Really?  You mean the alternative, which the republicans are offering which amounts to doing something, is inherently more destructive to the economy then doing nothing? 

Man, I guess opening up the oil fields in and around America for drilling is evil, you know, creating all those jobs for people out of work and in need of jobs.  Creating all that wealth for the American government to tax is also evil!  Same with driving down the price of oil and energy. 

And this is where you prove you really have no idea what you're talking about.  Opening new oil fields is not the problem, neither is building guaranteed-to-spill pipelines right over America's largest water table.  Not to mention every realistic appreciation of the "jobs" created by such products, i.e. appreciations by people who aren't being paid to make it happen, put it at a couple thousand temporary positions maybe.

American oil production and number of functioning wells has been increasing every year since 2007.  American oil consumption has actually reduced a bit in the same time frame (mostly because people don't have enough money to do more driving than they absolutely need, and there's less shipping going on).  The inflated price of oil and gas is largely due to completely unregulated commodity speculation, driven into overdrive by automatic stock trading, which is in turn based on global insecurity about Europe's economy and the physical stability of the Middle East.  And if you're going to blame things like that on the American President, especially how Obama has reacted to these situations, you really are an ideologue.

Really, dude, you need to turn off the Fox News and Drudge Report, and get some actual information instead of good soundbites.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:18:05 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 05:00:54 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:58:00 pm

46% of Americans who pay no tax

This is what we call a "lie".

Care to qualify that?

Nope, I got that one wrong!  Confused it with income tax rates :O

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 05:22:47 pm

And even then I'm pretty sure that's only federal income tax rates, isn't it? (Do you have a cite for that number, by the way? I've heard that 80% of statistics are made up, and another 10% are wrong!)

Quote

And I don't see how Republicans or Tea Partiers are for "Destroying the economy" (aside from what you hear from leftist news outlets) when they are advocating for reigning in government spending.

Not Republicans as in your average Republican, who is probably gonna be pro-economy as a general rule, but Republican Politicians who see victory as more important than collateral damage. I guarantee there are at least SOME Republicans who sincerely hope the economy suddenly nosedives, at the very least (just as I'm sure some Democratic politicians hoped for the same during Bush's terms)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:27:55 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 23, 2012, 05:14:08 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 04:21:14 pm

Really?  You mean the alternative, which the republicans are offering which amounts to doing something, is inherently more destructive to the economy then doing nothing? 

Man, I guess opening up the oil fields in and around America for drilling is evil, you know, creating all those jobs for people out of work and in need of jobs.  Creating all that wealth for the American government to tax is also evil!  Same with driving down the price of oil and energy. 

And this is where you prove you really have no idea what you're talking about.  Opening new oil fields is not the problem, neither is building guaranteed-to-spill pipelines right over America's largest water table.  Not to mention every realistic appreciation of the "jobs" created by such products, i.e. appreciations by people who aren't being paid to make it happen, put it at a couple thousand temporary positions maybe.

American oil production and number of functioning wells has been increasing every year since 2007.  American oil consumption has actually reduced a bit in the same time frame (mostly because people don't have enough money to do more driving than they absolutely need, and there's less shipping going on).  The inflated price of oil and gas is largely due to completely unregulated commodity speculation, driven into overdrive by automatic stock trading, which is in turn based on global insecurity about Europe's economy and the physical stability of the Middle East.  And if you're going to blame things like that on the American President, especially how Obama has reacted to these situations, you really are an ideologue.

Really, dude, you need to turn off the Fox News and Drudge Report, and get some actual information instead of good soundbites.

*Le sigh*

The more oil you drill for and produce in your own country, the less need for you to buy oil from foreign countries.  That means half of what you said would be irrelevant. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 05:30:37 pm

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 23, 2012, 05:31:22 pm

NinjaBoot, I think it's sufficent to say that we live in alternate planes of reality. And I'm going to leave it at that, because we've been down this road before. Scroll up a few pages, or scroll through the umpteen hundred Progressive Rage pages. And because as I said just a handful of pages back, this thread isn't for arguing this kind of stupid bullshit. It's for discussing the election horserace. Period.

To that end, have some new poll data! It's crunchy and fresh from the poll fields of the Midwest...

National:
Gallup showing Santorum at +7

Michigan:
Detroit Free Press poll shows the state at Santorum +3, despite the Free Press's recent endorsement of Romney.

Pennsylvania:
For the first time, we're getting poll data on the GOP race in Santorum's home state. Not surprisingly, he's winning. What is surprising is how strongly he's winning, at a whopping +29 (45% to Romney's 16%). This is in a state where just six years ago, he got roundly thumped in his bid for re-election to the Senate.

Georgia:
In yet another "home state" poll, Gingrich is still clinging to hope in his home state of Georgia, riding at +5 in the Peach State according to Rasmussen. The bigger news is who he's fending off. Gingrich is at 33, followed by Santorum at 28, Romney at 20 and Ron Paul at 9.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 23, 2012, 05:32:37 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:27:55 pm

The more oil you drill for and produce in your own country, the less need for you to buy oil from foreign countries.  That means half of what you said would be irrelevant.

You're confusing production for price.  Producing more oil in the United States does not necessarily make oil cheaper, because there's this thing called the globe, and it has an economy.  When you grasp that, then you might think about scraping off that Drill Baby Drill bumpersticker.  Yes, I know it's catchy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 23, 2012, 05:36:39 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 05:30:37 pm

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

Awww, but we love a good kerfluffle with the Russians! Really, most of what constitutes modern America derives from the great Cold Kerfluffle and kerfluffle-related activities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:48:53 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 05:22:47 pm

And even then I'm pretty sure that's only federal income tax rates, isn't it? (Do you have a cite for that number, by the way? I've heard that 80% of statistics are made up, and another 10% are wrong!)

Dude, its over 9000%! 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html

And on, I was wrong to assume that they didn't pay zero taxes! 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

Quote

Quote

And I don't see how Republicans or Tea Partiers are for "Destroying the economy" (aside from what you hear from leftist news outlets) when they are advocating for reigning in government spending.

Not Republicans as in your average Republican, who is probably gonna be pro-economy as a general rule, but Republican Politicians who see victory as more important than collateral damage. I guarantee there are at least SOME Republicans who sincerely hope the economy suddenly nosedives, at the very least (just as I'm sure some Democratic politicians hoped for the same during Bush's terms)

As opposed to the current president?  Again, he is not making a decision on the Keystone Pipeline until after the election because?  He wants the environmentalist vote.  Again, he is not making a decision on an economic issue that will positively affect the country, no matter how small, because he wants the environmentalist vote.  If you can argue otherwise, then please do so!  Its better then just saying the other party is doing it (how are they again?) and not bothering to address what the current president is already doing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 23, 2012, 05:55:13 pm

I argue that it will not positively affect the nation, and hope that his waiting to take action is because he intends not to support it, but doesn't want to give Republicans another thing to use against him (because of the general assumption among them that it's going to positively affect the nation). It's not so much about gaining the environmentalist vote, as it is denying the Republicans the ability to recruit on economic grounds that he believes are somewhere between mistaken and fraudulent.

Again, I hope. I fully expect to be proven wrong, but that's mostly because 9 times out of 10, anything I've said I hope for regarding the Obama administration has not been what they've done. Though that's massively better than anything I could expect from a Republican administration, and reflects more on the fact that I don't say anything at all about most things than it does on anything else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:55:42 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 05:30:37 pm

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation

"The shale contains largely untapped natural gas reserves"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 23, 2012, 06:02:19 pm

Those with weak hearts look away, as the hilarity may kill you.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:48:53 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html

And on, I was wrong to assume that they didn't pay zero taxes! 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

Quote

But like most statistics, it is often misunderstood -- and, in the case of those trying to stir political outrage, misrepresented.

For tax year 2010, roughly 45% of households, or about 69 million, will end up owing nothing in federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even end up getting paid money from the federal government.

That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.

And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -- which support Social Security and Medicare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:10:02 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on February 23, 2012, 05:55:13 pm

I argue that it will not positively affect the nation, and hope that his waiting to take action is because he intends not to support it, but doesn't want to give Republicans another thing to use against him (because of the general assumption among them that it's going to positively affect the nation).

Ok.

So you are basically saying that the issue is not the economic effect the Keystone Pipeline would have on the nation, rather, in a political sense, it negatively effects his reelection chances and him delaying his decision for political reasons is best for the nation?  I doubt that so I'll assume its because you are saying that the Keystone Pipeline's economic impact on the nation would pale in comparison to all the environmental issues it would create. 

Quote

It's not so much about gaining the environmentalist vote, as it is denying the Republicans the ability to recruit on economic grounds that he believes are somewhere between mistaken and fraudulent.

Ok, so it is purely for political reasons then.  Thank you for proving me right on that fact. 

With that out of the way, how are they mistaken and fraudulent for saying delaying the Keystone Pipeline is a negative thing?  Instead of selling our oil to our closet neighbor and ally, we are now having to resort to selling it to china.  Instead of ensuring whatever jobs and economic growth derives from this act, if he does approve it, he is instead saying his reelection campaign is more important than the health of the American economy? 

Quote

Again, I hope. I fully expect to be proven wrong, but that's mostly because 9 times out of 10, anything I've said I hope for regarding the Obama administration has not been what they've done. Though that's massively better than anything I could expect from a Republican administration, and reflects more on the fact that I don't say anything at all about most things than it does on anything else.

You mean Bush?  Come on, we all know which "Republican Administration" we are talking about, as the majority of us were too young to ever remember the Regan Administration. 

Ontopic, these issues (keystone pipeline and the economic effect of drilling for oil) are issues regarding the American Election because these regard issues that these Candidates will have to address.  Just because the media wants to focus on social issues all the time does not lessen these issues and their impact.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:10:59 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on February 23, 2012, 06:02:19 pm

Those with weak hearts look away, as the hilarity may kill you.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:48:53 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html

And on, I was wrong to assume that they didn't pay zero taxes! 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

Quote

But like most statistics, it is often misunderstood -- and, in the case of those trying to stir political outrage, misrepresented.

For tax year 2010, roughly 45% of households, or about 69 million, will end up owing nothing in federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even end up getting paid money from the federal government.

That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.

And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -- which support Social Security and Medicare.

Why do you think I posted it?  I admitted I was wrong! 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 23, 2012, 06:12:01 pm

They were probably confused. Reread exactly what you said you were wrong about. :P
I got it, but I was wondering if anyone else would take it as written.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 23, 2012, 06:28:44 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:55:42 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 05:30:37 pm

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation

"The shale contains largely untapped natural gas reserves"

Isn't that the bullshit that poisons the groundwater so much people can set their tap water on fire? And now threatens to poison the reservoir the whole of New York and New Jersey takes their water from? Yeah, avoiding that sounds really bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 06:31:37 pm

It must be strange to live in a world where the need to transition from oil isn't obvious  But it comes down to culture war like it always done.  I was at a debate where the Democrat said that green energy was a good thing and the audience boo'd so loud you couldn't hear the end of his sentence.  These sounded like the sort of rage filled cat calls you'd expect if he said that he wanted to gay marry Osama.  The effects of this stupidity are going to be felt for decades as these idiots are preventing us from making extremely crucial investments in our future.  He wasn't even saying that we should be spending more money or we should do energy taxes or proposing a policy.  Just generally saying that green energy was good and they hated that very sentiment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 06:34:15 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 23, 2012, 06:28:44 pm

Isn't that the bullshit that poisons the groundwater so much people can set their tap water on fire? And now threatens to poison the reservoir the whole of New York and New Jersey takes their water from? Yeah, avoiding that sounds really bad.

Hydrofracking, yes. The flaming tapwater is from methane getting into the aquifers, but there are other issues as well. Still, flaming tapwater. Doesn't get much more dramatic than that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 23, 2012, 06:35:08 pm

Flaming brown tapwater, I think, would be marginally more dramatic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:35:39 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 23, 2012, 06:28:44 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 05:55:42 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 05:30:37 pm

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation

"The shale contains largely untapped natural gas reserves"

Isn't that the bullshit that poisons the groundwater so much people can set their tap water on fire? And now threatens to poison the reservoir the whole of New York and New Jersey takes their water from? Yeah, avoiding that sounds really bad.

Evidence?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 06:37:46 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:35:39 pm

Evidence?

After an exhaustive search consisting of typing "flaming tap water" into google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnnQ17SH_A

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 23, 2012, 06:39:07 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 06:37:46 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:35:39 pm

Evidence?

After an exhaustive search consisting of typing "flaming tap water" into google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnnQ17SH_A

Here's something.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:45:04 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 06:31:37 pm

It must be strange to live in a world where the need to transition from oil isn't obvious  But it comes down to culture war like it always done.  I was at a debate where the Democrat said that green energy was a good thing and the audience boo'd so loud you couldn't hear the end of his sentence.  These sounded like the sort of rage filled cat calls you'd expect if he said that he wanted to gay marry Osama.  The effects of this stupidity are going to be felt for decades as these idiots are preventing us from making extremely crucial investments in our future.  He wasn't even saying that we should be spending more money or we should do energy taxes or proposing a policy.  Just generally saying that green energy was good and they hated that very sentiment.

Republicans wouldn't be against Green Energy if it wasn't being funded by tax payers.

Have you ever read what happened to Solyndra? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

$535 million of taxpayer money gone!  Yeah, private collectors got paid out through bankrupty court, but not the tax payers!  Pretty good investment huh?

I am (and most people) not arguing against the need to transition to green energy.  The whole deal is with government having such power to essentially pick who gets a loan and who doesn't, and unfortunately this is heavily subjected to political partisanship (BOTH sides).  If it was done in a more equal manner, for example, through tax breaks, then that is perfectly fine.

If private industry is unable to offer a viable alternative in the form of green energy, then why should government fund these capitalistic ventures? 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 06:48:50 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:45:04 pm

Republicans wouldn't be against Green Energy if it wasn't being funded by tax payers.

Did you read what I wrote?  He wasn't proposing anything in the least.  Merely expressing the sentiment that green technologies were good.  And they expressed rage in reaction.

And yes, I have heard of Solyndra.  Sometimes when you invest in speculative technologies it doesn't work out.  If we didn't invest in things that lost money sometimes then we wouldn't have electronics or airplanes, let alone stuff like global telecommunications.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 06:50:15 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:45:04 pm

If private industry is unable to offer a viable alternative in the form of green energy, then why should government fund these capitalistic ventures?

Because this is one of those issues where not allowing government involvement risks, oh, I don't know, total ecological and economic collapse in the course of the upcoming century.

Think of it this way: If we're self-sustainable, that means that China can't control or outdo us, and the United States stays clean and beautiful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:54:42 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 23, 2012, 06:39:07 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 06:37:46 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:35:39 pm

Evidence?

After an exhaustive search consisting of typing "flaming tap water" into google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnnQ17SH_A

Here's something.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

And so on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:01:27 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on February 23, 2012, 06:50:15 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:45:04 pm

If private industry is unable to offer a viable alternative in the form of green energy, then why should government fund these capitalistic ventures?

Because this is one of those issues where not allowing government involvement risks, oh, I don't know, total ecological and economic collapse in the course of the upcoming century.

Think of it this way: If we're self-sustainable, that means that China can't control or outdo us, and the United States stays clean and beautiful.

You mean that by expecting private industry to offer a viable alternative to green energy, this involves the American government throwing all environmental policies out the window overnight?  Come on. 

If you want to be self-sustainable, then getting off foreign oil through realistic ventures in drilling for oil around your country is the best bet.  You cannot expect a whole country to transition from one energy to another energy source that is highly unreliable in terms of providing constant output (solar panels, wind turbines) while providing a cheap enough energy source for everyone, including all those poor people struggling to make ends meet.  At best the current technology can only supplement what is already in place, expecting it to be the sole provider of future outputs when the technology isn't even there yet is absurd.

Economic collapse?  That will only happen if you DON'T bother to drill for oil and take your own energy productions into your own hands.  Believing that affordable green energy is around the corner without any signs of it is what is going to bring you to economic collapse, because energy prices will be so high that people can't afford to drive, or pay for heating, or prices will go through the roof because of all the ancilleary (sp) costs surrounding gas, oil and its impact on businesses will be immeasurable. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 07:02:09 pm

Wow you are saying that articles existing that say the wealthy companies that can afford to hire scientists and have many on their payrolls aren't hurting anyone?

Why exactly is it liberals that have a reputation for being naive?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 23, 2012, 07:04:47 pm

Even if fracking doesn't directly cause groundwater pollution, the problem remains that companies trying to trim their budgets take short cuts that do. Until that problem is addressed, fracking might as well cause ground water pollution. While that's not a reason to reject bids to open new drill sites, it is a reason to exercise restraint on approval, thoroughly vet energy companies doing the drilling, most importantly, real oversight.

I'm fine with fracking if it turns out to not directly cause contamination...what I'm not ok with is the relationship between the energy department and energy companies. It wasn't that long ago that they were throwing parties complete with hookers for government officials. If the cost of new "old" energy sources is an unavoidable level of contamination and corruption.....then it's not worth it IMO, that money is better spent on innovators, even if there's a risk they'll fail.

As for Solyndra, as I understand it, materials cost is what killed them. They thought they could produce solar energy panels for far cheaper than they actually could.

Might as well drop this down while I'm at it:

(http://i.imgur.com/gkIDu.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:14:49 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 06:48:50 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:45:04 pm

Republicans wouldn't be against Green Energy if it wasn't being funded by tax payers.

Did you read what I wrote?  He wasn't proposing anything in the least.  Merely expressing the sentiment that green technologies were good.  And they expressed rage in reaction.

Why is that?  Maybe because the generally accepted fact is that green tech wouldn't be where it is at without government help?  That maybe, if green energy was such a good idea and really a money maker, it would be totally invested and funded by people who believe in it, and not expecting everybody, through taxation, to fund these ventures? 

Quote

And yes, I have heard of Solyndra.  Sometimes when you invest in speculative technologies it doesn't work out.

The ends justify the means don't they? 

Quote

If we didn't invest in things that lost money sometimes then we wouldn't have electronics or airplanes, let alone stuff like global telecommunications.

The government didn't hand out multimillion-dollar loans without any strings attached, or any sort of thorough review of what they are investing in.  If you really did read about Solyndra, you would note that the government seemed to disregard all the red flags that flew up during the vetting process for companies such as this.  You would also notice that apparently even after it was known that this would have a HUGE chance of being a catastrophic failure, they still went ahead with it!  Does common sense need to be thrown out the window when it comes to ideological issues that lead to extreme bias?   

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:16:13 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 07:02:09 pm

Wow you are saying that articles existing that say the wealthy companies that can afford to hire scientists and have many on their payrolls aren't hurting anyone?

Why exactly is it liberals that have a reputation for being naive?

And people say I believe in a conspiracy, heh.

And for the issue, that last link I posted was referring to a University having done the study.  So yeah, I guess wealthy companies own scientists who are in Universities.  Go figure!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 07:18:12 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:14:49 pm

Quote

And yes, I have heard of Solyndra.  Sometimes when you invest in speculative technologies it doesn't work out.

The ends justify the means don't they? 

Um... yes?

The end in this case are something we want, namely research.
The means in this case are spending money.

So yes I would say the ends justify the means.

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:14:49 pm

The government didn't hand out multimillion-dollar loans without any strings attached, or any sort of thorough review of what they are investing in.

Have you never taken a history class?

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:16:13 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 07:02:09 pm

Wow you are saying that articles existing that say the wealthy companies that can afford to hire scientists and have many on their payrolls aren't hurting anyone?

Why exactly is it liberals that have a reputation for being naive?

And people say I believe in a conspiracy, heh.

No, a conspiracy is where a bunch of non-connected people are collaborated.  What I was suggesting was nothing that deserves that title.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 23, 2012, 07:19:14 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:54:42 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

And so on.

Did you even read these articles? Let's see.

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

Quote

Instance of environmental hazards were caused by factors common to all oil and gas operations, including casing failures and the mishandling of waste water once it is brought above ground for storage and eventual processing at a waste treatment plant.

Quote

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

Quote

The study reported that many problems blamed on hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.

Quote

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

Quote

He said more research is needed to confirm what activities are causing groundwater pollution, but it is suspected the problems are the same as those affecting the broader petroleum industry.

Whether "fracking" or the petroleum industry in general are causing problems, they're still problems, and still caused by the petroleum industry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 07:25:03 pm

Just to elaborate on the "conspiracy" thing, let me give a comparison example.  I am currently helping my dad crunch the numbers for some medical research that a company wants done.  They want this done because it's going to be a selling point for their product.  My dad is doing this research be cause they gave him a chunk of cash for doing it.  This research in no way compromises his ability to continue to practice medicine in the best way he can and continue to advise his patients to the best of his ability.

Nothing illegal and nothing unethical about this whole endeavor.  But they want it because this particular research makes them look good.  So getting it costs them a pittance.

This is what in the non-political world we call "the way the world works".  You can find the data that looks good and get scholarly articles published that highlight that data.  All it takes is money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:25:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 23, 2012, 07:04:47 pm

Even if fracking doesn't directly cause groundwater pollution, the problem remains that companies trying to trim their budgets take short cuts that do.

In countries that don't have such a stringent law in regards to how they go about their businesses when dealing with the environment, I highly doubt it.  In years past you can make this argument, but nowadays the environmentalists create so much negative press that companies often go out of their ways to ensure they keep the highest standard possible when dealing with the environment. 

Take BP spill for example:  instead of punishing the company and then letting them, or a new company drill, you have let Cuba jump in and start drilling for themselves.  No way to regulate those Cuban drillers, or subject them to EPA regulations or policy. 

Quote

Until that problem is addressed, fracking might as well cause ground water pollution. While that's not a reason to reject bids to open new drill sites, it is a reason to exercise restraint on approval, thoroughly vet energy companies doing the drilling, most importantly, real oversight.

Indeed, the process must be followed.  But then at the same time, it must also be relaxed in a way that can actually let companies drill in the first place. 

Quote

I'm fine with fracking if it turns out to not directly cause contamination...what I'm not ok with is the relationship between the energy department and energy companies.

You mean what is currently happening with the EPA and Green tech?  Different party, different companies.  The means by which government picks winners and losers needs to be addressed, so as to limit these kinds of relationships. 

Quote

It wasn't that long ago that they were throwing parties complete with hookers for government officials. If the cost of new "old" energy sources is an unavoidable level of contamination and corruption.....then it's not worth it IMO, that money is better spent on innovators, even if there's a risk they'll fail.

Even at the point of driving up the cost of energy around the country and driving up the cost of goods, services, and everything else?

Quote

As for Solyndra, as I understand it, materials cost is what killed them. They thought they could produce solar energy panels for far cheaper than they actually could.

This was something that was found out during the vetting process.  Due to political pressure, they signed off on it and gave Joe Biden a nice Photo Op for $535 million. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 23, 2012, 07:25:53 pm

Hey people:
(http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/meh.ro5722.jpg)

Stick to the election discussion, plskthnxbai.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:27:02 pm

Quote from: G-Flex on February 23, 2012, 07:19:14 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 06:54:42 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

And so on.

Did you even read these articles? Let's see.

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

Quote

Instance of environmental hazards were caused by factors common to all oil and gas operations, including casing failures and the mishandling of waste water once it is brought above ground for storage and eventual processing at a waste treatment plant.

Quote

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

Quote

The study reported that many problems blamed on hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.

Quote

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

Quote

He said more research is needed to confirm what activities are causing groundwater pollution, but it is suspected the problems are the same as those affecting the broader petroleum industry.

Whether "fracking" or the petroleum industry in general are causing problems, they're still problems, and still caused by the petroleum industry.

The issue was with fracking to begin with, not the petroleum industry as a whole. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:32:51 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 23, 2012, 07:25:53 pm

Hey people:
(http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/meh.ro5722.jpg)

Stick to the election discussion, plskthnxbai.

Sirus, at least contribute something productive to this discussion instead of trying to be witty. kthxbai.

Quote from: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 07:25:03 pm

Just to elaborate on the "conspiracy" thing, let me give a comparison example.  I am currently helping my dad crunch the numbers for some medical research that a company wants done.  They want this done because it's going to be a selling point for their product.  My dad is doing this research be cause they gave him a chunk of cash for doing it.  This research in no way compromises his ability to continue to practice medicine in the best way he can and continue to advise his patients to the best of his ability.

Nothing illegal and nothing unethical about this whole endeavor.  But they want it because this particular research makes them look good.  So getting it costs them a pittance.

This is what in the non-political world we call "the way the world works".  You can find the data that looks good and get scholarly articles published that highlight that data.  All it takes is money.

So obviously this does not apply to whatever reports you produce, but it applies to mine, because the issue I argue for is automatically wrong and subjected to heavy bias and influence from companies and people wanting to produce their view that would best protect their interests.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 23, 2012, 07:35:31 pm

Quote

Even at the point of driving up the cost of energy around the country and driving up the cost of goods, services, and everything else?

Yes, even at the cost of driving up energy prices (even though I think phrasing it that way is disingenuous. Markets drive prices. Fracking won't single handedly save the higher cost of production everyone faces today. That's a fantasy.) To me the renewed interest in natural gas isn't energy companies racing to increase our energy supply...it's businessmen racing to capitalize on the higher cost of energy, using a source that is both more domestically available and lacking the bad press of oil.

And for the record, I'm so sick of seeing articles about "$4 gas on the horizon" and "$5 gas coming soon?" Rising energy prices are a reality we need to deal with using a long-term perspective, instead of seeking short-term solutions to the problem so we can get back to $2/gallon gas.

Lastly, we're already off-rails, but can we not turn this into another spat? I know you're goading each other, but, can you both back down for the sake of the thread?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 23, 2012, 07:36:38 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:32:51 pm

Sirus, at least contribute something productive to this discussion instead of trying to be witty. kthxbai.

This is absolutely laughable.

At this point, I am actually going to ask everyone, you especially though, to settle down.  This is going nowhere, you're bloating the Hell out of my thread because you haven't learned how to condense quotes, and I'm tired of watching it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on February 23, 2012, 07:38:22 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:25:35 pm

Quote

Until that problem is addressed, fracking might as well cause ground water pollution. While that's not a reason to reject bids to open new drill sites, it is a reason to exercise restraint on approval, thoroughly vet energy companies doing the drilling, most importantly, real oversight.

Indeed, the process must be followed.  But then at the same time, it must also be relaxed in a way that can actually let companies drill in the first place. 

Clearly the oil industry is so victimized.  Yes, their profit reports have been consistently record-breaking almost every single quarter for as long as I can remember, but they're not record-breaking enough!  How can they be expected to create jobs and offer fair wages and prices when their executives aren't even trillionaires yet?

Edit:  Sorry Aqizzar.  Didn't see your last post until after I'd thrown this one up.  I've tried to avoid participating in this, but... my god.  I promise no more from me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 23, 2012, 07:39:18 pm

I think we need to change the rules so we have two caucuses a week from January until June, to prevent long delays in our thread making.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 23, 2012, 07:40:19 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:32:51 pm

So obviously this does not apply to whatever reports you produce, but it applies to mine, because the issue I argue for is automatically wrong and subjected to heavy bias and influence from companies and people wanting to produce their view that would best protect their interests.

Uh yeah it does apply to the reports I produce.  My numbers are good for this company, that's why they want me producing them instead of wasting my time writing my little pony fan fiction.  Likewise reports that say fracking data isn't conclusive are good for natural gas companies so they find someone to write those reports.  The only difference is the amount of money involved.  In the case I offered, 100k was enough to hire 10 doctors to give them 10 studies.  For tens of millions of dollars you can get a heck of a lot more then that and pick and chose.

Again, I am not supposing any shadowy figures or evil conspiracies.  Just being blunt about the way the world works.  People buy things that are useful to them and that are completely legal to buy...

I remember when I learned that big companies cared about profits more then being good guys.  It was traumatic for me.  I was four.

Reports exist that fraking isn't bad because there are powerful interests that want such reports to exist.  Hence a healthy skepticism is needed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 23, 2012, 07:40:31 pm

Quote

Sirus, at least contribute something productive to this discussion instead of trying to be witty. kthxbai.

I'm not contributing to this discussion, because it's irrelevant to the main topic. You guys want to get reported, fine by me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:41:13 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 23, 2012, 07:36:38 pm

Quote from: NinjaBoot on February 23, 2012, 07:32:51 pm

Sirus, at least contribute something productive to this discussion instead of trying to be witty. kthxbai.

This is absolutely laughable.

At this point, I am actually going to ask everyone, you especially though, to settle down.  This is going nowhere, you're bloating the Hell out of my thread because you haven't learned how to condense quotes, and I'm tired of watching it.

Alright then, I'll stop posting on your thread if that would please you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 24, 2012, 11:43:01 am

Day 18 of the "Are we there yet??" update: the long, relentless Bataan Death March to the primaries.

Starting off with some non-poll stuff first.

Remember poor Buddy Roemer? He's finally said "Screw the GOP" and is trying to get the nomination under the Americans Elect (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/24/shut_out_by_gop_roemer_tries_new_path_americans_elect_113241.html) banner.

Perhaps in an attempt to back out of what they sense is a losing proposition in the "Vagina Wars" of late, the GOP is now making quite the kerfluffle about gas prices. Even though the average US gas price is only up to where it was about six months ago and despite the fact that the US President does not, in fact, determine the price of gas. Of course, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around on this issue, given that Democrats were howling about gas prices in 2008 when it was politically advantageous to do so (and admittedly, gas prices peaked about 50 cents/gal higher then than they are now).

I didn't watch the Arizona debates, but the general consensus is that it didn't really change anything. Santorum could really have put his foot on Romney's throat by having a solid debate performance, but since he didn't...


Now, on to the poll data:
National:
Rasmussen has some new general election polls showing Obama beating either Romney or Santorum in the fall by 6-7 points.

Michigan:
Good news for Team Romney this morning, as two seperate polls show the state narrowly swinging back to Romney. Rasmussen (which as we've noted before, seems to have a front-runner bias) shows the state at +6 for Mitt, and Mitchell/Rosetta Stone has it as +3.

Arizona:
Rasmussen also showing Arizona swinging back towards Romney, at +13, up five points from their own poll one week ago.

Here's the thing though...Michigan is proportional, so a close loss by Santorum isn't much different from a close win in terms of delegates. It's all about the narrative of this being Romney's "home state". For Romney, a narrow win isn't great, but it's still better than any kind of loss.

Arizona is winner-take-all, but it's not a huge state to begin with and it's penalized half its delegates for jumping its primary ahead of Super Tuesday. A win either way is not a game-changer. Again, it's about narrative. If Romney wins, it's expected. If he loses, especially given how far ahead he was at the beginning of February, it raises eyebrows.

Looking ahead, any momentum Romney gets out of wins in these two (if he indeed does win) is probably stalled out a week later on Super Tuesday. We've got:

Alaska (27 proportional delegates, closed caucus)
Georgia (76 proportional+ delegates, open primary)
Idaho (32 non-binding delegates, closed caucus)
Massachusetts (41 proportional+ delegates, open primary)
North Dakota (28 non-binding delegates, closed caucus)
Ohio (66 proportional++ delegates, open primary)
Oklahoma (43 proportional++ delegates, closed primary)
Tennessee (58 proportional++ delegates, open primary)
Vermont (17 hybrid delegates, open primary)
Virginia (49 hybrid++ delegates, open primary)

Okay, so what the hell does "proportional+" and "hybrid++" and such mean?
Proportional: Delegate pool is allocated to the candidates to match, as closely as possible, the proportions of the popular vote they got in the primary.
Proportional+: Delegates are awarded by Congressional districts won, with an additional portion awarded to the statewide winner.
Proportional++: As above, but if the statewide winner goes over a certain threshold (typically 50%), the entire delegate pool is awarded to that candidate. In essence, the race turns into a winner-take-all if there's a majority winner.
Hybrid: Some portion of the delegate pool is awarded by district, some portion to the statewide winner, and some proportional to the overall vote percentages.
Hybrid++: As Hybrid, but adds the "over 50% win turns the whole thing into winner-take-all" condition.

Why do we have so many variations on how to award delegates in a primary/caucus? I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA. D:

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 24, 2012, 11:51:25 am

It's sad that I'm a huge political nerd who follows politics year round and I'm still looking at the list of upcoming primaries and groaning.  Why is this shit so complicated?  Still, valiant work there RedKing.

I think that even a minor win by Santorum in Michigan makes this very close to a tossup race.  Santorum has done a lot better work consolidating the non-Romney votes (not the same as anti-Romney) then the smart money said he should have been able to do.  Romney is behind in national polls.  Romney will probably need to severely cut back on his ad spending soon.  Romney will gain in delegates but Santorum will have solidified his position and made this a 1 vs 1 race, exactly the situation he wants.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 24, 2012, 11:54:07 am

Fracking has some similarities to geothermal wells; you dig down to naturally hot rock, cool it with water to crack it and make water channels, then fill the channels to produce upwelling steam. This can cause detectable tremors, but in general it's pretty good.

Now, natural gas is not perfect, but it has some qualities that make it a good compromise for transforming our economy:

1: Energy density similar to other fuels- batteries still can't match it, and hydrogen can't be compressed very well, or at least cheaply. If we want a different fuel, then it's going to have to be Ngas.
2: While far from elven tree forest dancy happy pony-type clean, it's better than oil and far, far better than coal.
3: There's pretty good-sized reserves of it in the US. I won't venture to guess how long they'd last because those predictions aren't great, but at least it will tide us over while we develop better sources of energy.

Now, the downsides:
1: Fracking hazards: yes, there are definitely hazards to fracking. It won't cause Florida to sink into the sea or create burning death-fields like that coalmine that's still burning somewhere. Honestly, it's probably no worse than regular oil mining when it comes to polution. If someone wants to frack in an area, then you monitor the water quality regularly, and make them responsible for any changes. They do that when they set up a garbage dump; my aunt gets free drinking water to supplement well water because they're close to a county dump.
2: The same old oil barons will get the natural gas wells, and the profit. Now, communities that allow fracking are running a risk... so why not have them benefit directly from the well's success?
3: I won't go into details here, but someone else will, I'm sure, explain that natural gas sneaks out of the tank at night and breaks into people's houses and messes up the place.

So, I can't say that it's good, but I think that in some places it might be good, and that it is certainly better than continuing to use oil. So here's my proposal:

Do everything locally. On a county-by-county basis, people vote whether or not to be a part of a nationwide "fracking permitted union" or whatever. All counties in this union have the same natural gas mining laws- otherwise it would be a mess of conflicting regulations that nobody wants. In an FPU county, frackers need to explicitly select the region they'll be working, and the potentially effected area cannot include any non-FPU counties. Anyone in that region can get drinking water delivered or a filtration system, no questions asked. In addition, a profit sharing system is set up for all the effected people (possibly based on tax credit).

If the well goes well, then the miners get to make a profit, the end users get cleaner, cheaper power, and the inhabitants of the region get paid for taking the risk of letting them set up- plus a level of security from any potential water problems.

If the well goes bad, then the company has to clean up their mess, the people in the area get to keep the water and filters, and communities that didn't want it would never have to deal with it at all.

I, personally, would vote to be in the FPU... I guess the biggest problem is that if you vote against it and your county goes in anyway, then, well, that's what democracy can do sometimes, and why even in FPU counties, there's heavy protection for the inhabitants from potential side effects of the wells.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 24, 2012, 12:41:37 pm

There is a new thread to discussing fraking.  Please move your post to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 24, 2012, 12:55:32 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 24, 2012, 12:41:37 pm

There is a new thread to discussing fraking.  Please get the frak over there.

FTFY.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 24, 2012, 01:22:21 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 24, 2012, 12:55:32 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 24, 2012, 12:41:37 pm

There is a new thread to discussing fraking.  Please get the frak over there.

FTFY.

I honestly lol'd :P

Any new election coverage? Or is this just a slow part of the campaign?
The news around here mostly just talks about Whitney Houston. Again. And again. And again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 24, 2012, 01:35:34 pm

Slow part of the campaign. Last primary was on Feb. 6, next ones aren't until the 28th. After that, it picks up appreciably though. March 6th, there will be 10 states on one day (scroll up a few posts and see my post about how WTF the variety of electoral apportionment schemes there are).

I think after "Super Tuesday", we may see the field narrow to 3. Unless Ron Paul wins a state outright (and best odds of that at the moment are probably North Dakota, which is non-binding anyways), I don't see how he rationally presses ahead with his campaign. Of course, this is Ron Paul. He might just drop out and seek the Reform party nomination. Or the Libertarian nomination.

If Gingrich doesn't win Georgia or any other state, I think he might finally drop out as well, and quite possibly back Santorum. Which *could* be a game-changer. Uniting behind a single anti-Romney might give the hard Right the edge it needs to put Romney away for good. At least until the power brokers in the party get most of those unpledged delegates to vote Romney at the convention in return for future favors....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 24, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 24, 2012, 01:35:34 pm

I think after "Super Tuesday", we may see the field narrow to 3. Unless Ron Paul wins a state outright (and best odds of that at the moment are probably North Dakota, which is non-binding anyways), I don't see how he rationally presses ahead with his campaign. Of course, this is Ron Paul. He might just drop out and seek the Reform party nomination. Or the Libertarian nomination.

Ron Paul just wants the attention, mostly. The small chance of getting elected is just a bonus. Honestly, he's been successful in having more popularity and influence this year than ever before. I don't see him winning this one, but the next time he tries he'll be a little closer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on February 24, 2012, 01:51:20 pm

Ron Paul never came into this with the belief that he had a chance of winning.
He is just trying to raise awareness for his libertarian cause, even though he knows he will lose, and he won't drop out for sure (since he has done the same thing a few times already and didn't drop out).

But I am unsure about Gingrich dropping out even if he loses pretty badly, I guess we will see what happens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 24, 2012, 01:59:35 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on February 24, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Ron Paul just wants the attention, mostly. The small chance of getting elected is just a bonus. Honestly, he's been successful in having more popularity and influence this year than ever before. I don't see him winning this one, but the next time he tries he'll be a little closer.

A little closer to 80. If he's taking the "incremental build" approach to campaigning, he either has a grossly over-optimistic sense of his own mortality, or he knows something we don't. Has anyone checked to see if there are bodies drained of blood found after his campaign stops?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 24, 2012, 02:23:41 pm

Well, there is one, but it's the same guy at all the stops.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 24, 2012, 02:37:45 pm

Add another absurd Gingrich campaign promise: $2.50 gas under his presidency. He's swiftly running out of things to promise. Anymore, and all he's going to have left is promising to resurrect Jesus the day after the inauguration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 24, 2012, 02:41:50 pm

He'll promise a free tax break for every third marriage. You even get one of those punch cards to keep track.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 24, 2012, 02:42:07 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 24, 2012, 02:37:45 pm

Add another absurd Gingrich campaign promise: $2.50 gas under his presidency. He's swiftly running out of things to promise. Anymore, and all he's going to have left is promising to resurrect Jesus the day after the inauguration.

Well that promise is pretty easy to keep.  Push the red button.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 24, 2012, 02:44:04 pm

Quote

You even get one of those punch cards to keep track.

The real question is, which days AREN'T double punch days in Gingrich's world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 24, 2012, 02:44:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 24, 2012, 02:42:07 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 24, 2012, 02:37:45 pm

Add another absurd Gingrich campaign promise: $2.50 gas under his presidency. He's swiftly running out of things to promise. Anymore, and all he's going to have left is promising to resurrect Jesus the day after the inauguration.

Well that promise is pretty easy to keep.  Push the red button.

My hope would be that he would do this, only to find that for safety's sake, they rewired the nuclear football decades ago to zap whoever pushes the button with 40,000 volts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 24, 2012, 03:12:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 24, 2012, 02:44:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 24, 2012, 02:42:07 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 24, 2012, 02:37:45 pm

Add another absurd Gingrich campaign promise: $2.50 gas under his presidency. He's swiftly running out of things to promise. Anymore, and all he's going to have left is promising to resurrect Jesus the day after the inauguration.

Well that promise is pretty easy to keep.  Push the red button.

My hope would be that he would do this, only to find that for safety's sake, they rewired the nuclear football decades ago to zap whoever pushes the button with 40,000 volts.

How does nuking shit make gas prices drop? Surely they'd spike instead?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2012, 03:14:26 pm

The latter promise, not former.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 24, 2012, 03:15:05 pm

Surely the logic works the same as the argument that cutting funding to NASA will result in a moon base. Clearly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Solifuge on February 25, 2012, 07:27:22 am

Spoiler: We interrupt this thread to bring you breaking news. (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/GalR3.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/FoCMQ.jpg)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rational debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 25, 2012, 11:19:45 am

What the heck is wrong with that guys face, middle left in the first one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 25, 2012, 02:48:25 pm

One might argue that eating a wife is better than abandoning her during an illness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on February 25, 2012, 04:39:57 pm

I'm scared by how much I LIKE that little piece of propaganda. xD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 25, 2012, 08:14:50 pm

Gives "A Modest Proposal" a whole new meaning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 25, 2012, 08:31:03 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 25, 2012, 08:14:50 pm

Gives "A Modest Proposal" a whole new meaning.

I'm not sure I understand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Solifuge on February 25, 2012, 08:40:37 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 25, 2012, 08:14:50 pm

Gives "A Modest Proposal" a whole new meaning.

A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html), by Jonathan Swift.

A Modest Proposal (http://mediavoicesforchildren.org/?p=10264), by Newt Gingrich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on February 25, 2012, 09:13:02 pm

Quote

Of course, it was a satirical effort to shock the upper class about their heartless attitudes towards the poor.

Quote

Newt Gingrich’s modest proposal is for poor kids to work as junior janitors. He wasn’t kidding.

Hint: You're doing it wrong, Newt. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on February 25, 2012, 09:14:41 pm

Quote from: greatorder on February 24, 2012, 07:27:08 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 24, 2012, 03:15:05 pm

Surely the logic works the same as the argument that cutting funding to NASA will result in a moon base. Clearly.

the current funding to NASA will be cut until all they can afford is a fucking toy rocket powered by vinegar and bicarbonate of soda >.>

Mentos and coke will take us to SPAAAAACE!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on February 25, 2012, 09:44:50 pm

Pssh, if NASA wants to go to space, give them LSD! It's cheaper than rockets and that other crap~

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lysabild on February 25, 2012, 10:35:00 pm

Quote from: Descan on February 25, 2012, 09:44:50 pm

Pssh, if NASA wants to go to space, give them LSD! It's cheaper than rockets and that other crap~

Space is overrated, far too long travel times, it's cold and it's dark. I'd rather visit Finland for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 25, 2012, 10:44:13 pm

Quote from: Twi on February 25, 2012, 09:13:02 pm

Quote

Of course, it was a satirical effort to shock the upper class about their heartless attitudes towards the poor.

Quote

Newt Gingrich’s modest proposal is for poor kids to work as junior janitors. He wasn’t kidding.

Hint: You're doing it wrong, Newt. :P

What's wrong with kids sweeping floors in their schools?

That's straight up 'civic virtue' as liberals are supposed to love that sort of thing. Is it because a fat ugly Republican guy brought it up?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 25, 2012, 10:50:05 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 25, 2012, 10:44:13 pm

Quote from: Twi on February 25, 2012, 09:13:02 pm

Quote

Of course, it was a satirical effort to shock the upper class about their heartless attitudes towards the poor.

Quote

Newt Gingrich’s modest proposal is for poor kids to work as junior janitors. He wasn’t kidding.

Hint: You're doing it wrong, Newt. :P

What's wrong with kids sweeping floors in their schools?

That's straight up 'civic virtue' as liberals are supposed to love that sort of thing. Is it because a fat ugly Republican guy brought it up?

No. Because it is forced child labor. Full stop.

It is also intended to put adult janitors out of a job.

It also places a labor requirement on schooling that is supposed to be free.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 25, 2012, 10:58:33 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 25, 2012, 10:50:05 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 25, 2012, 10:44:13 pm

Quote from: Twi on February 25, 2012, 09:13:02 pm

Quote

Of course, it was a satirical effort to shock the upper class about their heartless attitudes towards the poor.

Quote

Newt Gingrich’s modest proposal is for poor kids to work as junior janitors. He wasn’t kidding.

Hint: You're doing it wrong, Newt. :P

What's wrong with kids sweeping floors in their schools?

That's straight up 'civic virtue' as liberals are supposed to love that sort of thing. Is it because a fat ugly Republican guy brought it up?

No. Because it is forced child labor. Full stop.

It is also intended to put adult janitors out of a job.

It also places a labor requirement on schooling that is supposed to be free.

What if the kids volunteer for such work?

Belive it or not, janitors can find work in other feilds, besides taxpayer funded facilities. There is endless demand for janitors in the private sector, just look in the local Craigslist or whatever. They are not bottom-rung, needy welfare cases that need government assistance in finding employment.

Also, nothing in this world is 'free'. Free schooling is bought and paid for by somebody else. Having students pitch in for enabling free schooling is not depriving them of their schooling. It is helping maintain that institution, purchasing it through work on their own behalf. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 25, 2012, 11:54:08 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 25, 2012, 10:50:05 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 25, 2012, 10:44:13 pm

Quote from: Twi on February 25, 2012, 09:13:02 pm

Quote

Of course, it was a satirical effort to shock the upper class about their heartless attitudes towards the poor.

Quote

Newt Gingrich’s modest proposal is for poor kids to work as junior janitors. He wasn’t kidding.

Hint: You're doing it wrong, Newt. :P

What's wrong with kids sweeping floors in their schools?

That's straight up 'civic virtue' as liberals are supposed to love that sort of thing. Is it because a fat ugly Republican guy brought it up?

No. Because it is forced child labor. Full stop.

Like requiring students to preform 40 hours of "community involvement" if they wish to graduate highschool?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 25, 2012, 11:56:27 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 25, 2012, 11:54:08 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 25, 2012, 10:50:05 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 25, 2012, 10:44:13 pm

Quote from: Twi on February 25, 2012, 09:13:02 pm

Quote

Of course, it was a satirical effort to shock the upper class about their heartless attitudes towards the poor.

Quote

Newt Gingrich’s modest proposal is for poor kids to work as junior janitors. He wasn’t kidding.

Hint: You're doing it wrong, Newt. :P

What's wrong with kids sweeping floors in their schools?

That's straight up 'civic virtue' as liberals are supposed to love that sort of thing. Is it because a fat ugly Republican guy brought it up?

No. Because it is forced child labor. Full stop.

Like requiring students to preform 40 hours of "community involvement" if they wish to graduate highschool?

Eh? I never had to do that, and neither have my relatives. What state is this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 26, 2012, 12:03:18 am

Ontario in Canada. I thought it was fucking dumb, but everyone seems to think it is a wonderful idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 26, 2012, 12:27:45 am

Mind you, I would consider "spend 40 hours doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING (your choice) to benefit to the community you live in" and "do this specific job so we don't have to pay an adult to do it" to be qualitatively different things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 26, 2012, 01:10:11 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 26, 2012, 12:27:45 am

Mind you, I would consider "spend 40 hours doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING (your choice) to benefit to the community you live in" and "do this specific job so we don't have to pay an adult to do it" to be qualitatively different things.

This. Pretty much every academic association, etc. I've seen, both in high school and at university, requires some arbitrary number of hours of community service/volunteer work to "round out your life experience" and such. Let me say from experience that a couple hours a week of volunteer work (often at a rather cushy location where you don't have much to do beyond sitting around, occasionally answering phones and sweeping up) is very different from even a part time job in a fast food joint or retail location, much less 40 hours/week of manual labor. I'm not opposed to high school age kids having jobs (hell, I think it's a good thing, earning some income and getting a taste of some sort of responsibility and work ethic), but it shouldn't be a requirement for kids to go to school.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Pnx on February 26, 2012, 01:20:45 am

I remember in my elementary school when autumn came and all the leaves fell one or two of the teachers would go to the tool shed and get out the rakes and brooms and ask for volunteers to help sweep up all the leaves, there was never any shortage of volunteers, but there was always a shortage of rakes and brooms, so I would put on my gloves and help move the leaves by hand.

Oh, and we were also responsible for keeping our desks clean, once a week we got out sponges and cleaned all the desks. I remember when I was sick for over a month with mono I came back to find my desk was incredibly filthy. It really surprised me that it got so dirty so fast.

But I guess that's a little different?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 26, 2012, 02:33:20 am

Asking the kids to rake up some leaves is a bit differnt to forcing them to scrub toilets out of school hours for little/no pay just because they live below the poverty line

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 26, 2012, 06:22:42 am

Quote

Eh? I never had to do that, and neither have my relatives. What state is this?

It was a requirement here in Nebraska, at least when I was in school.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2012, 06:42:43 am

Especially targeting poor kids, because they obviously need to learn how to works because we all know poverty is caused by genetics moral deficiencies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 26, 2012, 06:58:17 am

That is so fucking out of this world. In any other place, that would have been if not political suicide, then at least the political equivalent of sawing your own legs off.

My mind doesn't even want to acknowledge it as a possible reality. Gingrich exposed as professional troll, read all about it. Next proposal about turning poor schools into Santa's Workshops to make toys for the rich kids?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on February 26, 2012, 03:29:21 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 25, 2012, 11:54:08 pm

Like requiring students to preform 40 hours of "community involvement" if they wish to graduate highschool?

40 hours is not a whole lot of time for four years. Moreover, everyone has to do it. Equality is important here.

(My school doesn't require any, but you get a silver sticker on your diploma for 50 hours or a gold seal if you got 100+. I have something like 350 by now. It's not a lot of work, but I chose to do it because I enjoy being over-scheduled.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 26, 2012, 05:00:42 pm

No, we're all wrong, Newt was obviously correct. Think about it: We're doing these poor kids a valuable service by teaching them how to work. They obviously aren't familiar with working, or they wouldn't be poor, right? It isn't as if there are reasons apart from laziness for someone to not have a six figure income. As an added bonus, by performing long hours of menial labor for little or no pay, we prepare them for their ideal role in society!

 ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 26, 2012, 05:10:40 pm

My school makes us do a hundred hours. And then gradually put in place a number of arbitrary restrictions on what can be earned where and when to prevent people from getting hours quickly or efficiently.

I hate my school's administration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 26, 2012, 05:15:10 pm

My school refused to accept the ~400 hours of community service I'd done over two summers my sophmore and junior years. Even though I had documentation from both the Food Bank and the Children's Zoo, basically telling them they'd have hired me as a full-time employee had I been able to stay, they made me do something in-state. I could have gotten angry, but after 400 hours of non-voluntary volunteer service, 40 hours seemed pretty trivial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 26, 2012, 05:40:29 pm

Why is everybody assuming the kids volunteering to clean school facilities will be poor?

What's wrong with paying volunteers to do labor?

Or say it isn't voluntary and every student is required to clean facilities for say the last 30 minutes of the school day?

Since when do rich kids go to public school anyways?

What the hell sort of liberalism are the teaching these days anyways? Voluntary labor for the benefit of the community is supposed to be a virtue, not some sort of victimization or maryterdom. What the fuck guys?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 26, 2012, 06:05:24 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 05:40:29 pm

Why is everybody assuming the kids volunteering to clean school facilities will be poor?

What's wrong with paying volunteers to do labor?

Or say it isn't voluntary and every student is required to clean facilities for say the last 30 minutes of the school day?

Since when do rich kids go to public school anyways?

What the hell sort of liberalism are the teaching these days anyways? Voluntary labor for the benefit of the community is supposed to be a virtue, not some sort of victimization or maryterdom. What the fuck guys?

You are missing the part where it is not voluntary. And where the kids don't get paid. And that it is part of the complete reversal of the labor laws explicitly designed to prevent children from being exploited.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on February 26, 2012, 06:18:00 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 05:40:29 pm

Why is everybody assuming the kids volunteering to clean school facilities will be poor?

Quote

Since when do rich kids go to public school anyways?

You answered your own question

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 26, 2012, 06:05:24 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 05:40:29 pm

Why is everybody assuming the kids volunteering to clean school facilities will be poor?

What's wrong with paying volunteers to do labor?

Or say it isn't voluntary and every student is required to clean facilities for say the last 30 minutes of the school day?

Since when do rich kids go to public school anyways?

What the hell sort of liberalism are the teaching these days anyways? Voluntary labor for the benefit of the community is supposed to be a virtue, not some sort of victimization or maryterdom. What the fuck guys?

You are missing the part where it is not voluntary. And where the kids don't get paid. And that it is part of the complete reversal of the labor laws explicitly designed to prevent children from being exploited.

Compulsory education, sending kids to school at 7am sharp for 8 hours is basically work anyways. Pushing a broom in a facility students use is not quite like sending them to work in the acid mines for similar shift. Helping to maintain the facilities they use is not an unreasonable idea. It's being to sound like poor kids are going to be deprived of an education to scrub toliets 8 hours a day and this is certainly not how it would be implimented.

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on February 26, 2012, 06:18:00 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 05:40:29 pm

Why is everybody assuming the kids volunteering to clean school facilities will be poor?

Quote

Since when do rich kids go to public school anyways?

You answered your own question

There are other social-economic classes besides poor and rich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 26, 2012, 06:35:10 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Compulsory education, sending kids to school at 7am sharp for 8 hours is basically work anyways. Pushing a broom in a facility students use is not quite like sending them to work in the acid mines for similar shift. Helping to maintain the facilities they use is not an unreasonable idea. It's being to sound like poor kids are going to be deprived of an education to scrub toliets 8 hours a day and this is certainly not how it would be implimented.

Yeah, going to school is practically a job, and kids shouldn't be forced to do more than that. After school is for homework and having fun, not being forced to clean toilets without pay.

Tell me, Montague, would you take a job where besides working for eight hours, you also had to clean your work place without extra pay? On your own time?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 26, 2012, 06:40:46 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 26, 2012, 06:05:24 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 05:40:29 pm

Why is everybody assuming the kids volunteering to clean school facilities will be poor?

What's wrong with paying volunteers to do labor?

Or say it isn't voluntary and every student is required to clean facilities for say the last 30 minutes of the school day?

Since when do rich kids go to public school anyways?

What the hell sort of liberalism are the teaching these days anyways? Voluntary labor for the benefit of the community is supposed to be a virtue, not some sort of victimization or maryterdom. What the fuck guys?

You are missing the part where it is not voluntary. And where the kids don't get paid. And that it is part of the complete reversal of the labor laws explicitly designed to prevent children from being exploited.

Compulsory education, sending kids to school at 7am sharp for 8 hours is basically work anyways. Pushing a broom in a facility students use is not quite like sending them to work in the acid mines for similar shift. Helping to maintain the facilities they use is not an unreasonable idea. It's being to sound like poor kids are going to be deprived of an education to scrub toliets 8 hours a day and this is certainly not how it would be implimented.

Public school has very little in common with working. I rarely, if ever, saw anyone from the worst dropout-to-be to the best honor student put as much effort into a full day of school as someone would into half an hour of work. Sitting around in mildly uncomfortable chairs pretending to pay attention while writing/reading/texting/playing hearts in a classroom where the worst that can happen if you screw up is being sent to a room where (joy!) you get to sleep for the rest of the school day? I'll take that any day even over a relatively simple job (apart from the whole "not getting paid for doing a job to allow me to continue going to school" thing). This is a direct attempt to circumvent laws that protect against child labor, and it is anything but voluntary. Just because they're doing janitorial work instead of working around limb-mangling machinery doesn't make it right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:41:05 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 26, 2012, 06:35:10 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Compulsory education, sending kids to school at 7am sharp for 8 hours is basically work anyways. Pushing a broom in a facility students use is not quite like sending them to work in the acid mines for similar shift. Helping to maintain the facilities they use is not an unreasonable idea. It's being to sound like poor kids are going to be deprived of an education to scrub toliets 8 hours a day and this is certainly not how it would be implimented.

Yeah, going to school is practically a job, and kids shouldn't be forced to do more than that. After school is for homework and having fun, not being forced to clean toilets without pay.

Tell me, Montague, would you take a job where besides working for eight hours, you also had to clean your work place without extra pay? On your own time?

If I was paid sufficiently, why not? If it was a condition of employment, or in this case, a condition required to recieve education at no personal expensive, pushing a broom for a half hour a day to help maintain that institution does not sound unreasonable to me. That is civic virtue. Giving to your community.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 26, 2012, 06:42:59 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:41:05 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 26, 2012, 06:35:10 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Compulsory education, sending kids to school at 7am sharp for 8 hours is basically work anyways. Pushing a broom in a facility students use is not quite like sending them to work in the acid mines for similar shift. Helping to maintain the facilities they use is not an unreasonable idea. It's being to sound like poor kids are going to be deprived of an education to scrub toliets 8 hours a day and this is certainly not how it would be implimented.

Yeah, going to school is practically a job, and kids shouldn't be forced to do more than that. After school is for homework and having fun, not being forced to clean toilets without pay.

Tell me, Montague, would you take a job where besides working for eight hours, you also had to clean your work place without extra pay? On your own time?

If I was paid sufficiently, why not? If it was a condition of employment, or in this case, a condition required to recieve education at no personal expensive, pushing a broom for a half hour a day to help maintain that institution does not sound unreasonable to me. That is civic virtue. Giving to your community.

They aren't being paid. They aren't doing it voluntarily (well, they're doing it "voluntarily"). Handing someone a mop and saying to them, "Go clean that hallway if you want to keep going to school" isn't someone choosing to give back to their community.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 06:43:38 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:41:05 pm

If I was paid sufficiently, why not? If it was a condition of employment, or in this case, a condition required to recieve education at no personal expensive, pushing a broom for a half hour a day to help maintain that institution does not sound unreasonable to me. That is civic virtue. Giving to your community.

You keep changing the parameters of the proposition.  There would be no pay.  It would not be voluntary.  Those there the conditions Newt Gingrich laid out when he made the half-assed speech in the first place, that's being argued about.

It's not like it was a serious proposition anyway, it was just a speech to make the people he was talking to feel good about themselves by crapping on poor people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 26, 2012, 07:09:49 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 06:43:38 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 06:41:05 pm

If I was paid sufficiently, why not? If it was a condition of employment, or in this case, a condition required to recieve education at no personal expensive, pushing a broom for a half hour a day to help maintain that institution does not sound unreasonable to me. That is civic virtue. Giving to your community.

You keep changing the parameters of the proposition.  There would be no pay.  It would not be voluntary.  Those there the conditions Newt Gingrich laid out when he made the half-assed speech in the first place, that's being argued about.

It's not like it was a serious proposition anyway, it was just a speech to make the people he was talking to feel good about themselves by crapping on poor people.

I'm not really even arguing the actual implimentation of the law, because like you said, it's not a serious proposition and I know it'll never actually happen in my lifetime.

It's the principle of the idea. What it means to partake in a 'free' education. What civic responsibility might mean. What are people, kids even, expected to do to maintain the institutions they benefit from?

I don't think Ol' Newt was trying to suggest poor people scrub shitters for 8 hours a day and rich kids can enjoy public schooling with pristine toliets to poop in. I think he was trying to bring up a point that public institutions are not 'free' they are bought and paid for by somebody. To make people more involved in the maintaince of these institutions as a condition of using them is not so different from collecting taxes from everyone and then spending it on providing these things. It's basically the same philosophical idea. Everybody pays it for it, everybody can use them. Everybody uses it, everyone must pay for it.

This is basically civil virtue. It's a left-wing concept that is distinct from right-wing ideals of individualism and responsibility. It is a public facility that is maintained by the public. How that is done is a matter of policy, not ideology.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 07:21:54 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 07:09:49 pm

This is basically civil virtue. It's a left-wing concept that is distinct from right-wing ideals of individualism and responsibility. It is a public facility that is maintained by the public. How that is done is a matter of policy, not ideology.

Hey, I have a problem with the ideology itself.  Namely in your case, the ideology that anyone under at least age fifteen compulsorily owes something to society.

Likewise, I don't believe children are to blame for their conditions.  A policy like the one Gingrich suggested, requiring poor children to maintain a facility for the privilege of using it, a privilege their wealthier counterparts would continue to enjoy for free, reflects an ideology that I want kept out of my policies entirely.  I don't know what ideology it is exactly, but if that's the kind of practical conclusion that he could reach by it, I know I don't like it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 26, 2012, 07:28:25 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 07:21:54 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 07:09:49 pm

This is basically civil virtue. It's a left-wing concept that is distinct from right-wing ideals of individualism and responsibility. It is a public facility that is maintained by the public. How that is done is a matter of policy, not ideology.

Hey, I have a problem with the ideology itself.  Namely in your case, the ideology that anyone under at least age fifteen compulsorily owes something to society.

Likewise, I don't believe children are to blame for their conditions.  A policy like the one Gingrich suggested, requiring poor children to maintain a facility for the privilege of using it, a privilege their wealthier counterparts would continue to enjoy for free, reflects an ideology that I want kept out of my policies entirely.  I don't know what ideology it is exactly, but if that's the kind of practical conclusion that he could reach by it, I know I don't like it.

Why would it just be poor kids again? Anybody using that public school would be required to help maintain it. Or it would at least request volunteers. Are poors kids more likely to volunteer for work then rich kids? Does individual merit have anything to do with it? If more poor kids volunteer to sweep floors does that make them victims somehow?

You don't believe people owe something to the society they benefit from being a part of?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 07:33:32 pm

At that age?  No, I do not.  I do not believe children owe anything to anyone except respect.  Which to an extent, is already reflected in school policy, since I've never seen an elementary school where the students were not, all of them, semi-responsible for keeping the classrooms in order.  That is, orderly enough, before the actual janitors come in.  Extending that upwards, say requiring high schoolers to do some (small, and pre-arranged) amount of community service or something, is likewise practiced in some areas, and I don't deny the principles behind it.

The difference is, once again because you keep trying to change it, is that it is not divided along any kind of lines among the students in question.  Which is exactly what Gingrich's original proposal was, when he quite specifically said that children of poor people (and yes, he said poor people) don't grow up with any notion of work ethic, and should have it instilled in them by being required to maintain their public schools.  That is exactly what was on the table.  And you keep ignoring that, because you want to have some completely different argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 26, 2012, 07:35:51 pm

You have it backwards Montague. Society owes children the education, not the other way around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on February 26, 2012, 07:40:01 pm

It might be a good idea to make all children clean up their waste in toilets somehow. Can't tell you how many times I walked in and saw someone's business in the sinks, on the floor, or in a urinal. When children are confronted the costs of clean-up, it might greatly increase social pressure on these offenders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 26, 2012, 07:45:00 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 07:33:32 pm

At that age?  No, I do not.  I do not believe children owe anything to anyone except respect.  Which to an extent, is already reflected in school policy, since I've never seen an elementary school where the students were not, all of them, semi-responsible for keeping the classrooms in order.  That is, orderly enough, before the actual janitors come in.  Extending that upwards, say requiring high schoolers to do some (small, and pre-arranged) amount of community service or something, is likewise practiced in some areas, and I don't deny the principles behind it.

The difference is, once again because you keep trying to change it, is that it is not divided along any kind of lines among the students in question.  Which is exactly what Gingrich's original proposal was, when he quite specifically said that children of poor people (and yes, he said poor people) don't grow up with any notion of work ethic, and should have it instilled in them by being required to maintain their public schools.  That is exactly what was on the table.  And you keep ignoring that, because you want to have some completely different argument.

Like I said, I am not defending Newt Gringrich beyond the fuzziest of concepts he might have spouted. Sorry if I am not really arguing from Newt's point of view, because I am not Newt Gringrich. The disscussion inspired me to dicuss exploring the idea of civic merit and how kids taking over the role of janitors in the public schools and how society and themselves might benefit from and how that idea, in itself, may be worth merit. I have to assume, from what everybody is saying that Newt Gringrich explictly said "Poor kids should clean up the public schools but not anybody else" which is an idea I do not hold myself.

So besides that, you say, kids attending public school do have some measure of responsibility inheriant in attending the schools, say they cannot completely trash the classroom or clog the bathroom toliets day after day. How does that fundamentally differ from mandating their behavior to the effect that they have to clean the facilities they dirty or maintain the public property they benefit from?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 07:48:51 pm

Quote from: Montague on February 26, 2012, 07:45:00 pm

So besides that, you say, kids attending public school do have some measure of responsibility inheriant in attending the schools, say they cannot completely trash the classroom or clog the bathroom toliets day after day. How does that fundamentally differ from mandating their behavior to the effect that they have to clean the facilities they dirty or maintain the public property they benefit from?

It doesn't, which nobody's really arguing about.  It's how you think separating that idea, from the original idea of responsibility being delineated by economic class, is somehow a trivial distinction.  Nobody is saying it's a bad thing for kids to be involved in taking care of their schools (to the extent that it's about character building, not about replacing the janitorial staff).  Which is I why I think the argument can be dropped.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on February 26, 2012, 07:57:08 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 26, 2012, 07:48:51 pm

It doesn't, which nobody's really arguing about.  It's how you think separating that idea, from the original idea of responsibility being delineated by economic class, is somehow a trivial distinction.  Nobody is saying it's a bad thing for kids to be involved in taking care of their schools (to the extent that it's about character building, not about replacing the janitorial staff).  Which is I why I think the argument can be dropped.

Also, my opinion and political veiwpoint probably differs from that of Newt Gringrich, as such, isn't align with the topic of the Republican primary and so is off-topic and I should shut up anyways, so I concur that the argument can be dropped.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on February 26, 2012, 08:08:20 pm

Getting a little back on the rails of the topic, Santorum was here to "headline the Chattanooga Tea Party’s Liberty Forum".[Chattanooga Times Free Press]

"In law enforcement, we believe, in my administration, the government should only be involved in peoples lives in things they cannot do for themselves." says the Hamilton County Sheriff. "I've seen what can happen to young people who are not kept on track," he says. "One of my responsibilities, is to oversee the SRO program,    It's not a babysitting program," he says. "We're there to mentor."

"We've all seen our government overstep its bounds," the vice president of the local Tea Party says. "I really really like president Bush, except when he was governing, our conservative president governed like a liberal." he says.

Those are just some of the earlier highlights, here's the article that provides a transcript of it: http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/25/live-chattanooga-liberty-forum-rick-santorum/ (http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/25/live-chattanooga-liberty-forum-rick-santorum/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nilik on February 26, 2012, 08:53:46 pm

The sad thing is compared with this new batch of looneys Bush really does look like a liberal in comparison.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 26, 2012, 09:53:52 pm

So can we just raise FDR and Lincoln from the dead and run them for President and Vice President as independents? Roosevelt could use his magical liberal powers to fix our problems, and Lincoln could use his freakish stature and strength to emancipate the GOP candidates' limbs from their bodies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 12:40:40 am

Newt Gingrich wants to cut federal payroll by more then 100%. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/wtf_newt.php?ref=fpblg)  I hope he fires himself twice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on February 27, 2012, 03:23:43 am

Apparently Mitt Romney (http://spreadingromney.com/) is now a bad word.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on February 27, 2012, 03:25:53 am

Huh. So we've got Santorum and Romney, who's going to pull something out for Gingrich and Paul?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 27, 2012, 06:16:14 am

I dont think you could get away with turning paul into a swear, especially in america.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 27, 2012, 06:35:05 am

Quote from: Frumple on February 27, 2012, 03:25:53 am

Huh. So we've got Santorum and Romney, who's going to pull something out for Gingrich and Paul?

Gingrich already sounds like one of those quaint Britishy curse words. *hits door with toes* "Gingrich!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on February 27, 2012, 07:30:04 am

I think Newt Gingrich's name would make a great harry potter villain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on February 27, 2012, 07:32:45 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 12:40:40 am

Newt Gingrich wants to cut federal payroll by more then 100%. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/wtf_newt.php?ref=fpblg)  I hope he fires himself twice.

There's something misleading about this article.

It assumes that payroll is the only place you'd save money by firing those people, which is not the case. If you fire someone, you're also saving money on all the resources he uses. A fired employee no longer needs to use a computer, have a desk, work in a building, or any of the other costs associated with people. And he wasn't even just talking about firing people, he was talking about reforming the way the system is managed in general.

Gingrich is a bit nuts, but it's ridiculous to think that the only cost associated with civil service is payroll.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 07:40:33 am

Quote from: G-Flex on February 27, 2012, 07:32:45 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 12:40:40 am

Newt Gingrich wants to cut federal payroll by more then 100%. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/wtf_newt.php?ref=fpblg)  I hope he fires himself twice.

There's something misleading about this article.

It assumes that payroll is the only place you'd save money by firing those people, which is not the case. If you fire someone, you're also saving money on all the resources he uses. A fired employee no longer needs to use a computer, have a desk, work in a building, or any of the other costs associated with people. And he wasn't even just talking about firing people, he was talking about reforming the way the system is managed in general.

Gingrich is a bit nuts, but it's ridiculous to think that the only cost associated with civil service is payroll.

Okay, you can chose to use that interpretation.  But the entire non-military discretionary budget of the United States is less then 500 billion.  So he is still talking about cutting the budget by more then the entire amount of the budget.

Meanwhile: Romney, friend of NASCAR team owners (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-i-have-some-great-friends-who-are?ref=fpblg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2012, 07:40:57 am

It's also ridiculous to think you can save so much money from the Civil Service without abolishing it altogether. But yeah, that article is misleading.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 07:44:15 am

Quote from: Sheb on February 27, 2012, 07:40:57 am

It's also ridiculous to think you can save so much money from the Civil Service without abolishing it altogether. But yeah, that article is misleading.

I'm sorry but what is misleading about it?

Quote from: Gingrich

“I think that, if we were prepared to repeal the 130-year-old civil service laws, go to a modern management system, we could save a minimum of $500 billion a year with a better system.”

Did the article misrepresent his views?  Is there some universe in which these views aren't crazy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on February 27, 2012, 10:40:50 am

He clearly just took lessons from Rick Santorum in statistics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 27, 2012, 11:38:29 am

Look, the way the budget is put together, there are only three things that matter. In order, they are:

- The Military
- Medicare
- Pensions

If you eliminated, completely eliminated, everything else we would still be over budget. Any politician who says they will balance the budget with modest cuts is lying and an idiot.

If you want to balance the budget, your only option is something like this:

- End all wars and cut the remaining military budget by 50%.
- Reform medicine by shutting down HMOs and health insurance companies and rebuilding something more like the vastly more efficient European systems. OR simply stop providing any state-sponsored medicine and let the Baby Boomers die of obesity, diabetes, and pneumonia. I'm cool with either. Point is, we need to spend 50% less on medicine and take care of at least as many people as we do now.
- Reform pensions and salaries. It is heartbreaking to do this, but the numbers don't lie. The amount paid in salaries to no-longer-working federal workers is staggering.
- Quadruple the NASA budget. This is a meaningless increase- if I recall correctly, it's less than 1% of the military budget- and the explosion in R&D would be amazing.
- Raise taxes on the wealthy. Fix the capital gains exploit. Basic stuff.

Moving on to economic issues:
- Overhaul regulation. Small businesses are in a hopeless position; they are often expected to pay thousands of dollars merely to operate, and often the legislation that creates these limitations is more-or-less designed by the larger companies that dominate that field to act as a barrier to entry- effectively using the government to force a monopoly. While regulation to protect employees and avoid externalities is essential, so too is allowing new businesses to enter the market to compete with the cartels and monopolies that dominate the current economy.

- Replace oil in five years. Natural gas is the best bet- the US can mine it itself. The earthquake fears are quackery and the more serious concerns are universal to all oil mining, and foolish to foist off on others.

-Refresh the nuclear industry. Our current plants are decades old. We need more capacity and more safety. We will open a permanent nuclear waste repository somewhere like Nevada, and I don't care if there's three people there who don't like it. We need to get the waste away from its current storage places, concrete pools at maximum capacity on plant property. We will rebuild every existing power plant to be totally modern and we will build new plants as well.

The war on drugs, and other 'vice' enforcement, is a trivial amount of money. It's probably only a few times larger than the NASA budget. While it must be stopped immediately, it is not for economic reasons.

Reconstruct the justice department, from the top down. There is obvious, deep-seated corruption- that is the only real explanation for the total lack of prosecution over the massive economic crimes committed in the last few years.

Execute the supreme court for this whole "citizens united" treason business.

So yeah, and politician that does not subscribe to at least those beliefs is a lying scumbag that should be shot, drowned, poisoned and shot again.

Oh, and that's not touching on moral issues (stop drug war and go aggressive on the culture war, pro-civil-rights).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 12:30:40 pm

I've worked for small businesses and the picture you paint of heavy regulation is foreign to me.  You can talk about specific industries with specific problems but in that case you are talking about specific industries not "small businesses".

Federal pensions amount to about 75 billion a year.  A significant chunk of change but hardly the cause of our budgetary problems.  And do you really want to both default on contractual obligations and chase away the people who are still going into government service?

New nuclear power plants cost more per watt then green energy.  Or at least they would if they didn't keep getting slowed or stopped because the costs are so high.  The cost of solar and wind is going down while the cost of new nuclear is not.  Why would anyone want to build another watt of new nuclear is beyond me.  Well actually it's not beyond me.  Nuclear is the "sensible" "moderate" position that shows you aren't an ideologue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 27, 2012, 12:39:41 pm

Building new feeder breeder reactors is also the only practical way to recycle "spent" nuclear fuel and solve the long term nuclear waste storage issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 12:52:05 pm

And solar power either requires expensive batteries that reduce your cost effectiveness calculations massively, or some sort of baseline power system to handle long lulls (usually coal based).

And let's be honest - those solar power calculations are based on areas ripe for solar exploitation or wind based turbines. Not everywhere in the world is like that, and those places still need power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 27, 2012, 12:55:19 pm

Solar thermal plants do not have the drawbacks of photovoltaic cells. A sufficient heat reservoir will be able to produce power overnight or longer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 01:02:33 pm

Since overnight is basically the bare minimum, and certainly not enough to have any meaningful effect on the need for a baseline method of power generation, I would certainly hope so.

But I'm not talking about mere overnight use, but rather places that have long spells of excessively overcast weather.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 27, 2012, 01:09:15 pm

Those are the locations you build nuclear plants, or you invest in a robust and efficient national power grid to distribute power, or both.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 01:14:08 pm

Which was exactly what I was saying, yes. Though at leas tin the US that second option is effectively impossible due to physics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 27, 2012, 01:21:55 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 01:14:08 pm

Which was exactly what I was saying, yes. Though at leas tin the US that second option is effectively impossible due to physics.

HVDC has a cost effective range of about 2500 miles, possibly more with superconducting cable (and that is becoming more practical as higher temperature superconductors are discovered/invented).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 01:45:58 pm

Huh... researching it, that sort of system is more viable than I'd originally understood to be the case - and apparently they've gotten line loss and whatnot down well below 15%, which is actually pretty impressive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 02:27:20 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 12:52:05 pm

And solar power either requires expensive batteries that reduce your cost effectiveness calculations massively, or some sort of baseline power system to handle long lulls (usually coal based).

Which wouldn't be a problem for another decade even with a very ambitious solar plant construction cycle.  Non-fossil fuel energy is just such a small part of the portfolio right now.  Give another decade for the cost of PV to keep falling and you can afford some more transmission loss and redundancy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on February 27, 2012, 03:18:38 pm

Yes. And to provide electricity for the next decade, we need nuclear. I'd prefer to go directly to renewables, but they aren't mature yet. Merely using more oil is not an option either, and coal is an atrocity that we can only hope that we will survive to regret.

We use a multi-stage fuel process- the breeder reactors- and phase out oil. Replacing gasoline, natural gas. (It's got electrolytes!) It's reasonably portable and energy-dense, can be produced here, and isn't as bad as oil.

At the same time, we will invest heavily in getting what renewables are available deployed. Eventually, the price of new renewable developments will become lower than nuclear, and we will finally phase into a mix of those sources.

Also, we will beat the Japanese to building a space elevator. Yes, it would be a technical challenge, but the materials are inches away, and the reward of building one is nothing more or less than a total monopoly on spaceflight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 04:09:46 pm

What do you mean they aren't mature?  They are cheaper per-watt then nuclear.  If we installed them as quickly as possible they still wouldn't cut into our slack energy generation for at least a decade.  What's the problem?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 04:15:59 pm

Quote

They are cheaper per-watt then nuclear.

Do you actually have a cite for this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 27, 2012, 04:25:09 pm

Sup dudes.  OP updated slightly, just in time before I have to do it again for Michigan, which I guess will actually matter for something.

My cleaned up OP is also thirty thousand characters, 3/4 of the limit for one post.  I might need to stick stuff somewhere for storage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 27, 2012, 05:01:22 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 27, 2012, 04:25:09 pm

Sup dudes.  OP updated slightly, just in time before I have to do it again for Michigan, which I guess will actually matter for something.

My cleaned up OP is also thirty thousand characters, 3/4 of the limit for one post.  I might need to stick stuff somewhere for storage.

If things get too full in the OP... you could move sections to their own posts. Those posts are linked in the OP, and the end of those posts link back to the OP for convenience. Its like building a hyper linked index out of forum posts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 07:50:22 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 04:15:59 pm

Quote

They are cheaper per-watt then nuclear.

Do you actually have a cite for this?

AFAIK since 1988 the only nuclear plant construction we have done has been finishing the second reactor on Watts Bar.  All other nuclear plant construction projects have been shelved due to costs.

It's costing them 2.5 billion dollars to finish the second generator at Watts Bar and it will generate around 1.1 billion watts.  That's about 2.3 dollars/watt for a project that was nearly finished.  It is expected to finish in 2014, a 7 year timeline for a project described as "80% done" when started by it's proponents (TVA, .  So give a 10% adjustment for inflation.  Give a 50% adjustment for the fact that a solar plant could have had 6 and a half years of power generation during the time that this project has been under construction compared to a generous 6 month schedule for putting up a solar farm.  Oh and they are expecting cost overruns but we won't count those because we don't know how big they are yet.

So that's $3.80/watt just to finish an "80% done" project.  Compare that to solar panels where you can easily find prices of $1/watt online with a brief search.  Large scale projects can beat that.  For solar we should expect about 30% efficiency during the daytime when it's peak demand and 0% efficiency at night.  So that's $3.33/watt for solar to give us power during the hours that currently dictate our power needs.  Yes if we build a ton of solar then we need to worry about night supply.  But even a really ambitious program won't run into those problems for a long, long time.  Yes the panel themselves aren't the whole cost but they are the bulk of the cost, installation is pretty cheap and there is little maintenance.  So we are looking at something about in the range of Watts Bar, assuming the expected cost overruns don't happen.

And keep in mind that Watts Bar was a lot cheaper then we should expect for a new nuclear plant where they are starting from scratch.  Such a plant won't be piggybacking on the first generator and won't have a lot of construction work left over from the 80s that wasn't finished.  But despite those savings Watts Bar still has trouble competing with solar in the peak demand hours that actually dictate our power capacity needs.  If Watts Bar can barely compete then it's no surprise that we aren't building nuclear plants in this country.  They just aren't economically viable.  And the cost estimates for nuclear keep rising while the costs of solar power are going to keep their steady downward trajectory.

Maybe there are a few more projects like Watts Bar, where it makes sense to resume earlier shelved construction and the costs can be contained with better management and planning.  But breaking new ground?  That's just not going to make sense unless things change a lot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 27, 2012, 08:29:41 pm

Mind if we actually use some data now?

Let's keep it simple with wiki's list of estimates from various governments. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates)

The US works things out for plants and supplies coming on in 2016. This excludes any external incentives and most external non-regulated costs. The only nod to such externalities is a minor 3% increase in carbon intensive technologies.

Spoiler: US Costs (click to show/hide)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif)

I'd note that nuclear here is higher than coal because coal doesn't include external costs while nuclear does (it's heavily regulated plus healthy and safety risks are fairly direct, so easily estimated). The total costs of nuclear are projected as flatted (less variation) than any other source, which results in lower maximums and less variation.

Going to European estimates, far more external costs are rolled in. Coal is basically out of the window once EU regulations enter the picture. Solar is actually estimated as far cheaper in the UK, with a lot of regional variance, but still more costly than coal.

My problem with saying we need more nuclear is that we do need a good 5 years, minimum, to get nuclear plants online. Probably more. The massive slump in production means we have lost much of the trained labour we need to roll out new plants, meaning a lot of training needed. You don't want to ever cut any corners in the licensing procedure either. You can't really fast track new nuclear plants. We really needed to approve and start a new generation a decade ago. As it is we are losing an entire generation of plants with nothing much to replace them.

Affordable renewables don't really scale to cover the gap, while coal and gas are pretty stupid options even with capture schemes (I've only seen one that works and that requires building your plant on an old natural gas mine). Oil is a non starter. And we simply aren't going to cut energy consumption that much and really don't want to from a technological/social point of view.

Basically, no good answers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 08:46:16 pm

I'm sorry but there is no data for nuclear energy.  We haven't built a new plant in decades.  Honestly I trust my speculation a lot better then the official estimates because only the optimistic estimates are going to get published, as evidenced by the cost overruns of the projects that do happen.

There is data for solar of course, but I was trying to bring up the metric of watts/dollar not kilowatts/dollar and the latter is more obscure so I was just too lazy to look it up.  Watts/dollar is why we need to make the shift because solar solves our peak demand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 27, 2012, 09:22:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 12:30:40 pm

New nuclear power plants cost more per watt then green energy.  Or at least they would if they didn't keep getting slowed or stopped because the costs are so high.  The cost of solar and wind is going down while the cost of new nuclear is not.  Why would anyone want to build another watt of new nuclear is beyond me.  Well actually it's not beyond me.  Nuclear is the "sensible" "moderate" position that shows you aren't an ideologue.

In startup costs only. Here in Ontario Nuclear generates one kWh for 4-6 cents, and we pay 80.2 cents per kWh on average for green energy. Of course that's due to a ridiculous subsidy, that's probably there to buy votes from farmers.

Woah, those posts were hefty, but I thought some numbers from here would be good, and the great Wiki brings us this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif/626px-Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif)

As we can see only Wind power beats it and it is roughly 50% the cost of solar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 27, 2012, 09:25:08 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on February 27, 2012, 04:25:09 pm

Sup dudes.  OP updated slightly, just in time before I have to do it again for Michigan, which I guess will actually matter for something.

My cleaned up OP is also thirty thousand characters, 3/4 of the limit for one post.  I might need to stick stuff somewhere for storage.

*spittake*
There's a limit?!  :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on February 27, 2012, 09:46:59 pm

Just read the intro (again) and dear god, caucasus are crazy hopefully ron paul wins them all.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 27, 2012, 09:48:29 pm

Maniac, I'm not sure if you can use the US opposition to new nuclear plants as justification for why we shouldn't build new nuclear plants. And it's not particularly fair to roll subsidies into your green energy efficiency calculations either.

There are plenty of countries in the world where reliable data for nuclear costs per hour can be found, and I'm pretty sure those are the ones we should be going with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 09:53:13 pm

Those estimates of nuclear costs are based on unrealistic costs and timetables though.  The real world experience has been that they come in over budget and late.  People expect to build plants in 6-7 years and then 2 years later they haven't even broken ground.  The Watts Bar will (hopefully) be finished in 7 years and that was building on a huge amount of previously done work.

And solar energy gives us power at peak hours.  Half the capacity of new nuclear or coal is nighttime capacity when we have excess capacity just because nuclear and coal can't be shut off at night.  So a comparison of watt-hours to watt-hours is misleading.  That is why I brought up watts despite there being less readily available stuff for that.  My original statement is that nuclear was passed in watts, not watt-hours.

What subsidies was I rolling into my green energy calculations?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 12:54:38 am

Obama is hosting a blues concert at the White House. He is now the coolest president in recent history.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 28, 2012, 12:56:05 am

You finally picked up on that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 01:06:00 am

Picked up on what? The concert, or Obama's coolness?

I just heard the sound of blues from the living room TV, and wandered in to see Barack leading into the song Sweet Home Chicago.
I knew Obama was cool, at least in comparison to Bush, the only other president from my lifetime that I paid attention to. The concert just made it official.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 01:09:58 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 01:06:00 am

Picked up on what? The concert, or Obama's coolness?

I just heard the sound of blues from the living room TV, and wandered in to see Barack leading into the song Sweet Home Chicago.
I knew Obama was cool, at least in comparison to Bush, the only other president from my lifetime that I paid attention to. The concert just made it official.

Meh, Clinton played the Saxaphone on the Arsenio Hall show.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on February 28, 2012, 01:12:07 am

Quote from: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 01:06:00 am

I knew Obama was cool, at least in comparison to Bush

The stuff growing in my shower is cooler than bush, and less hazardous to my health

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 28, 2012, 09:54:56 am

After three weary weeks in the wilderness, drifting from policy argument to random name-calling...we have finally arrived at the Promised Land, my children: there be some primary shit going down in this hizzy tonight!

So, one last peek at the polls as Michiganders and Arizones head to their polls:

National
Newest Gallup tracking poll shows Romney back on top at +4, suggesting Santorum's momentum may be evaporating in the face of Rick Santorum being Rick Santorum.

Michigan
PPP has Santorum at +1, Mitchell/Rosetta Stone has Romney at +1. Translation: Who the hell knows? Both polls show Romney at 37%, Gingrich at 9%. Either way, the final result is going to be more about narrative than delegate count. MI is proportional (and penalized half its delegates), and I think it's safe to say the final margin of victory is going to be slim either way, so Romney and Santorum will come out of Michigan with roughly the same results. Either way, it's going to be an underwhelming result for Romney in his "home state" to only net around 37%.

If he wins, his narrative will be "It was a tough race, but we won!" while Santorum's will be "we came >< that close to picking off the supposed "inevitable candidate in his own backyard."
If he loses, Santorum will be crowing about the victory, and I have no idea how Team Romney spins it.
Even if he wins, it may be a Pyrrhic victory. Romney's spent a LOT of money trying to salvage Michigan, because of the psychological effect of not carrying your home state, even though delegate-wise it's a small fish.

Arizona:
Most recent polls put the state safely for Romney at +12 to +14. Santorum was recently booed during the last Arizona debate.


End result: I think Romney wins the battle, but loses the war. He'll come out of tonight with a bigger lead in delegates than he started with (due to a Michigan split-decision and a win in Arizona) but his image as the "inevitable" candidate has been shaken to the core. If he fails to win Michigan, it's arguable that he doesn't even win the battle. Big-ticket donors could begin deserting him in droves. Not that they'll flock to Santorum, but more that they'll accept that it just isn't in the cards for the GOP this cycle and target their money at the Congressional races instead.


I may be online during some of the election returns, but instead of watching four guys politely try to beat each other's brains out and score points in front of raucous, screaming crowds of supporters with few rules and those rules inconsistently enforced....I'll be at a hockey game. It's much the same thing, only with 12 guys instead of 4.  :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 12:22:41 pm

Ron Paul may do better than expected in Michigan.

Dearborn Michigan is home to one of the largest Islamic and Arabic communities in the US. Most of their leadership is throwing in support of Ron Paul, based mostly on his stance on foreign relations.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republican-candidates-avoid-direct-outreach-michigan-muslims-arab-134539124.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 28, 2012, 01:06:09 pm

I noticed the polls were all over the place with Paul in MI. Anywhere from 9% to 16%. Which means "3rd place" or "tied for 3rd place".  :P
He's still not going to do well enough to pull more than a handful of delegates.

Even though I think Gingrich will get roflstomped in both states tonight, I think he hangs in there until next week, because he's somehow hoping that Georgia becomes the center of the universe and winning there will give him +100 Prestige.  ::)

No idea when Ron Paul decides to drop out and run 3rd party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on February 28, 2012, 01:27:42 pm

Paul isn't going to go third party. Even ignoring the rumours about Rand Paul getting the veep nod (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ana-marie-cox-blog/2012/feb/27/post-palin-logic-behind-gop-vp-pick), the Pauls have a lot to gain from staying in the Republican party and a hell of a lot to lose if Ron shows it the middle finger.

Ron is the one who gains the most if it gets to a brokered convention. He is likely to hold a decent stash of delegates and may even be able to play the kingmaker. That's a lot more power he can gather within the party ahead of the next cycle, shared between him and his son.


As to the polls, would have to read the cross tabs. I know that back in 2008 a lot of polls were using old or flat out wrong data for their weightings, using traditionally low turnout figures for young voters and minorities so underestimating the candidates those groups overwhelmingly supported. Then it was mostly Obama with a couple of times Paul being under counted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 01:35:16 pm

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/02/27/poll-given-choice-between-romney-and-santorum-most-voters-choose-suicide/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 28, 2012, 07:26:40 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 27, 2012, 09:53:13 pm

Those estimates of nuclear costs are based on unrealistic costs and timetables though.  The real world experience has been that they come in over budget and late.  People expect to build plants in 6-7 years and then 2 years later they haven't even broken ground.  The Watts Bar will (hopefully) be finished in 7 years and that was building on a huge amount of previously done work.

And solar energy gives us power at peak hours.  Half the capacity of new nuclear or coal is nighttime capacity when we have excess capacity just because nuclear and coal can't be shut off at night.  So a comparison of watt-hours to watt-hours is misleading.  That is why I brought up watts despite there being less readily available stuff for that.  My original statement is that nuclear was passed in watts, not watt-hours.

What subsidies was I rolling into my green energy calculations?

Perhaps then we should do what propnents of nuclear suggest and use it to generate baseload capacity with more flexible sources being used in peak hours, like solar or biomass or even oil until it runs out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 28, 2012, 07:33:43 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 28, 2012, 07:26:40 pm

Perhaps then we should do what propnents of nuclear suggest and use it to generate baseload capacity with more flexible sources being used in peak hours, like solar or biomass or even oil until it runs out.

But we have baseload capacity out the wazzoo.  American energy needs are leveling off in recent years.  Yes we are going to retire some of that capacity and will need new capacity to meet peak demand.  But we should be meeting that peak demand with wind and solar that works best in those peak hours.

Maybe two decades down the line wind and solar will be a large enough part of our energy portfolio that we need to be worried about baseload capacity and then we start building nuclear for our needs three decades from today.  But over reliance on green energy sources isn't remotely a problem yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 28, 2012, 07:36:11 pm

I can't remember, is this the second or third time multiple pages have been devoted to arguing the economic merits of nuclear power?  Might even be the fourth.

C'mon, where are my exit polls.  I'm F5ing like a madman here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 28, 2012, 07:39:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 28, 2012, 07:33:43 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 28, 2012, 07:26:40 pm

Perhaps then we should do what propnents of nuclear suggest and use it to generate baseload capacity with more flexible sources being used in peak hours, like solar or biomass or even oil until it runs out.

But we have baseload capacity out the wazzoo.  American energy needs are leveling off in recent years.  Yes we are going to retire some of that capacity and will need new capacity to meet peak demand.  But we should be meeting that peak demand with wind and solar that works best in those peak hours.

Maybe two decades down the line wind and solar will be a large enough part of our energy portfolio that we need to be worried about baseload capacity and then we start building nuclear for our needs three decades from today.  But over reliance on green energy sources isn't remotely a problem yet.

However most of our baseload capacity comes from fossil fuels, which we all agree is a terrible long term plan. Why don't we begin replacing oil/gas power stations with nuclear stations so we don't get fucked as oil becomes increasingly scarce and eventually vanishes altogether.

EDIT: In addition weaning ourselves (or yourselves, as I'm Canadian) off oil will reduce the need to invade Middle Eastern countries over imaginary weapons.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 07:53:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 01:35:16 pm

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/02/27/poll-given-choice-between-romney-and-santorum-most-voters-choose-suicide/

Judging by the contents of the other articles on that site, I kinda doubt the authenticity of this one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 07:57:07 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 07:53:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 01:35:16 pm

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/02/27/poll-given-choice-between-romney-and-santorum-most-voters-choose-suicide/

Judging by the contents of the other articles on that site, I kinda doubt the authenticity of this one.

Inconceivable!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 07:58:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 07:57:07 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 07:53:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 01:35:16 pm

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/02/27/poll-given-choice-between-romney-and-santorum-most-voters-choose-suicide/

Judging by the contents of the other articles on that site, I kinda doubt the authenticity of this one.

Inconceivable!

I'm just saying, can't people link to actual articles instead of Onion wannabes? It isn't like Santorum doesn't say crazy things every other day, there has to be some material out there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on February 28, 2012, 08:01:21 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 07:53:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 01:35:16 pm

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/02/27/poll-given-choice-between-romney-and-santorum-most-voters-choose-suicide/

Judging by the contents of the other articles on that site, I kinda doubt the authenticity of this one.

Yeah, its a joke new site, like the Onion.

Also from this site:

Quote from: Parts of a letter from Kim Jong-un to the voters of Iowa

...
If you think about it, I am the most Republican candidate of all.  In North Korea, we have no taxes.  We have achieved that through a conservative policy of no jobs.  Also, we have no wasteful “big government” programs providing food, shelter, or safe drinking water.  And am I pro-life?  Well, try this on for size: I believe that life begins at conception and ends at starvation.
...
I think when you look at all the facts, voters of Iowa, you’ll realize that Kim Jong-un is the Republican who most deserves your vote.  And if you’re still not convinced, remember this: at least I’m not Mitt Romney.

Quote from: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 07:58:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 07:57:07 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 07:53:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on February 28, 2012, 01:35:16 pm

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/02/27/poll-given-choice-between-romney-and-santorum-most-voters-choose-suicide/

Judging by the contents of the other articles on that site, I kinda doubt the authenticity of this one.

Inconceivable!

I'm just saying, can't people link to actual articles instead of Onion wannabes? It isn't like Santorum doesn't say crazy things every other day, there has to be some material out there.

Meh, Santorum saying crazy stuff isn't really news or important though, since he says it so often.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 28, 2012, 08:02:40 pm

Well, that's true. It's just that he tops himself so often :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 28, 2012, 08:04:08 pm

Goddamn.  MSNBC already has (really crappy) exit polls, Fox News has jack squat.  C'mon, this is why you guys exist.

Michigan isn't actually closed, because it extends across two time-zones.  Arizona won't be done until later tonight, but absolutely every prediction says it'll be Romney by at least 10%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on February 28, 2012, 08:08:04 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 28, 2012, 07:39:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on February 28, 2012, 07:33:43 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on February 28, 2012, 07:26:40 pm

Perhaps then we should do what propnents of nuclear suggest and use it to generate baseload capacity with more flexible sources being used in peak hours, like solar or biomass or even oil until it runs out.

But we have baseload capacity out the wazzoo.  American energy needs are leveling off in recent years.  Yes we are going to retire some of that capacity and will need new capacity to meet peak demand.  But we should be meeting that peak demand with wind and solar that works best in those peak hours.

Maybe two decades down the line wind and solar will be a large enough part of our energy portfolio that we need to be worried about baseload capacity and then we start building nuclear for our needs three decades from today.  But over reliance on green energy sources isn't remotely a problem yet.

However most of our baseload capacity comes from fossil fuels, which we all agree is a terrible long term plan. Why don't we begin replacing oil/gas power stations with nuclear stations so we don't get fucked as oil becomes increasingly scarce and eventually vanishes altogether.

EDIT: In addition weaning ourselves (or yourselves, as I'm Canadian) off oil will reduce the need to invade Middle Eastern countries over imaginary weapons.

The last thing the oil companies want is instability in areas which produce large amounts of oil. Like, say, a pair of U.S.-lead wars in the Middle East. If we're going to throw around blame for Iraq, we could at least do it properly and go after the neocons and the Israel lobby.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on February 28, 2012, 08:18:35 pm

Have some funny linkage!

Presidential candidates getting sued over FB use! (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/presidential-candidates-face-patent-lawsuit-for-using-facebook.ars)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on February 28, 2012, 08:47:40 pm

The LA Times is reporting on the exit polls: a full 10% of voters admitted to being evil liberal Democrats, (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-exit-polls-democrats-michigan-primary-20120228,0,6201649.story) which is probably less than the actual number who are- probably lots didn't admit it. Indeed, they might turn the race in Santorum's favor; right now the LA Times is reporting only 6.4% of precincts reporting, but Romney and Santorum are neck-and-neck. Is Michigan going to send delegates proportionally like it's supposed to, or pull a Florida?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 28, 2012, 09:22:14 pm

With 30% of the vote in for Michigan, Romney is leading Santorum by about ten thousand votes out of about three hundred thousand total.  So, pretty close so far.  And rural areas always take longer to come in.

Now 60% of the vote counted, Romney's lead over Santorum continues to widen.  Looks like Rick missed the chance to strike while the iron was hot, unless some twenty five thousand votes for him suddenly spring from the Upper Peninsula.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 28, 2012, 10:01:58 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on February 28, 2012, 08:47:40 pm

The LA Times is reporting on the exit polls: a full 10% of voters admitted to being evil liberal Democrats, (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-exit-polls-democrats-michigan-primary-20120228,0,6201649.story) which is probably less than the actual number who are- probably lots didn't admit it. Indeed, they might turn the race in Santorum's favor; right now the LA Times is reporting only 6.4% of precincts reporting, but Romney and Santorum are neck-and-neck. Is Michigan going to send delegates proportionally like it's supposed to, or pull a Florida?

That article says only 50% of the democrats voted for Santorum in their exit polling.  So that's only a 5% operation hilarity voter block and the other 5% are just registered democrats who liked one of the republicans.  Still if this thing is right down to the wire, that block could swing it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 28, 2012, 10:17:16 pm

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/michigan-primary-feb-28/exit-polls) exit poling is equally interesting.  Maybe the number I find most intriguing: a whopping 20% of the electorate was under the age of 40, and 60% were over 50.

You hear a lot of wonks talk about "Reagan Democrats" as a significant voting block.  How many of them actually exist is an open question (since most of them are probably just Republicans now), but the fact is that anyone who could have voted for Reagan would today be at least 50/46 years old (1980/1984).  Of course, someone who was 20ish in the 1980s probably wasn't a "Reagan Democrat" then anyway.

Other than that, the rest of the questions break down in much the ways one would expect, including Support/Opposition to the Tea Party.  Of those who said they Strongly Oppose the Tea Party, a whole 12% of respondents, about half voted for Santorum.  Those are your Democratic "chaos voters" who were willing to identify themselves.  Since other than that, not a huge about of Tea Party difference.

Also, NBC is now willing to call Michigan for Romney.  Santorum is halfway through his [ _____ ] speech, since he doesn't actually know if he won or lost let but he isn't going to let that stop him from throwing some haymakers at Obama while the cameras are still running.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 28, 2012, 10:34:26 pm

Back from a fresh hockey victory, only to find...dammit, Santorum! You had Romney on the ropes and you let 'im get away from you! Bad crazy theocrat! Bad! No Jesus for you!

So, umm....yeah. Looks like a clean sweep for Romney, though pretty much as I predicted early in the day: Arizona was a given but it's penalized half its delegates and doesn't amount to much. Michigan will be roughly a split decision. Romney still has a big lead in delegates, but Santorum now moves into the #2 spot in the delegate race. Gingrich is actually doing worse than his polling numbers (7% in Michigan, 16% in Arizona). Ron Paul placed at 12% in Michigan, which is right about in the median of where various polls had him.

Be interesting to see how the media narrative shakes out tomorrow. Does Romney get credit for taking 40%+ in his home state, or does it count as an "underperform" that he only won by 4%? Santorum will certainly be saying that given his far lower ad expenditures, it shows that he can take on the big boys and that Romney only won by throwing money at the race (which is less money he has to throw at Obama).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 28, 2012, 10:40:33 pm

Quote from: RedKing on February 28, 2012, 10:34:26 pm

Be interesting to see how the media narrative shakes out tomorrow. Does Romney get credit for taking 40%+ in his home state, or does it count as an "underperform" that he only won by 4%? Santorum will certainly be saying that given his far lower ad expenditures, it shows that he can take on the big boys and that Romney only won by throwing money at the race (which is less money he has to throw at Obama).

Santorum will try to milk it for all its worth, yes.  Romney with all his money, all his time, all his name recognition, and a four year head start, won Michigan by a smaller margin than he did in 2008 (when he beat McCain by 9%, versus today's 4%).  And he didn't win the nomination in 2008 either.  Like Florida, Romney is winning, but nowhere near as well or as easily as everyone in the world expected right up until January 2nd.  Santorum, Gingrich, and a good chunk of the Republican party are hoping the rest of the party stops believing he's "inevitable" before it becomes genuinely true, and they're going to point to results like this for the reason why, to be sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 28, 2012, 10:48:58 pm

Definitely sets up an interesting Super Tuesday. Especially given the dearth of polling data (which I expect will be fixed toot sweet over the next week) in most of the states involved. Last I remember, Santorum was crushing in Ohio, Gingrich was hanging on for dear life in Georgia, and Ron Paul was doubling down in North Dakota (with no poll data yet).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 29, 2012, 12:30:42 am

Still he is going to be spinning a loss rather then milking a victory.  At least limping to victory in Michigan let's Romney attract new fundraising which he desperately needs.  Santorum on the other hand needs to keep people from concluding that Romney is inevitably going to squeak by and lining up behind him to bring this ugly spectacle to an end.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on February 29, 2012, 01:48:05 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 28, 2012, 10:48:58 pm

and Ron Paul was doubling down in North Dakota (with no poll data yet).

How is this a good idea? I mean, no offense to North Dakotans, but even if everyone one of them was a delegate that is still only seven delegates. Why is he 'doubling down' there?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 29, 2012, 09:05:07 am

Quote from: Criptfeind on February 29, 2012, 01:48:05 am

Quote from: RedKing on February 28, 2012, 10:48:58 pm

and Ron Paul was doubling down in North Dakota (with no poll data yet).

How is this a good idea? I mean, no offense to North Dakotans, but even if everyone one of them was a delegate that is still only seven delegates. Why is he 'doubling down' there?

Old rule of asymmetric warfare: Hit 'em where they ain't. Nobody else is spending any real time or money in North Dakota. Winning one state (even if it is Outer Fargostan) would be a new level of achivement for Ron Paul, something he can tell his great-grandchildren about. (Seriously...dude's old enough that he has four great-grandchildren.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 29, 2012, 11:02:44 am

I move that we officially change the name of North Dakota to Fargostan.  South Dakota should be South Fargostan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 29, 2012, 11:16:24 am

Quote from: mainiac on February 29, 2012, 11:02:44 am

I move that we officially change the name of North Dakota to Fargostan.  South Dakota should be South Fargostan.

No, I prefer Inner and Outer Fargostan. Evokes more of a sense of desolate steppe wastes....which is more or less an apt description of the Dakotas.

Note: I feel thoroughly entitled to pick on the Dakotas, as I have family there and spent a fair bit of time as a kid visiting. It's flat, it's mostly empty, it's f**king freezing in the winter and scorching in the summer. To wit, it's America's Mongolia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 29, 2012, 12:32:42 pm

Does it have hordes of horse-riding barbarians? Because that would be awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on February 29, 2012, 12:33:56 pm

Quote from: Sirus on February 29, 2012, 12:32:42 pm

Does it have hordes of horse-riding barbarians? Because that would be awesome.

Actually... It does, and they even wear funny hats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 12:36:23 pm

I never really thought about it, but yeah, throw some dudes in furs on horseback and let them ride around, you could call anything in the Midwest Mongolia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on February 29, 2012, 02:39:39 pm

Do you guys think that Romney is going to get a bump going into super Tuesday?  Because a lot of the polls show him not doing great across the board.  Obama was trailing Clinton until Super Tuesday.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 29, 2012, 02:59:01 pm

I don't see much bumpitude from last night's results. Even his own "victory" speech, he had to admit that they didn't win Michigan by much. If anything, I think it secured Santorum's position as the anti-Romney, given how poorly Gingrich fared.

Delegate-wise, Romney came out of Michigan with 14, Santorum with 12. Romney got all 29 of Arizona's, but they're small fry compared to a number of other states.

It'll take a couple of days for the state polls to catch up with any carryover effect from the MI/AZ elections. But my guess would be that'll you see a slight (1-2%) intensification for the front-runners in the states where we have some recent poll data (i.e. Santorum gains slightly in Ohio, Romney gains slightly in Massachusetts). I don't know that that holds true for Gingrich in Georgia. At some point, people have to realize that Newt's ship has sailed.

In the absence of poll data on most of the Super Tuesday states, my gut reaction would be to say Santorum wins Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee. Romney wins Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia. I think Gingrich makes his heroic last stand in Georgia, but then is finished as a relevant candidate. No idea on Wyoming -- it's rural as all hell, which favors Santorum, but it's also a Rocky Mountain state, which typically has favored Romney because of at least some Mormon population and the higher name recognition. But then, that didn't save him in Colorado, so who knows?

The other issue is that these races are almost entirely proportional, so it's tough for either one of them to run away with this thing. Even if Santorum wins 6 states to Romney's 3, the overall delegate lead will probably still remain with Romney, although smaller.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 29, 2012, 03:06:57 pm

I don't see how any democrats could ever vote for Santorum, even for oils. If I was American, I wouldn't want him anywhere near even a chance, no matter how small, of becoming president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 03:07:52 pm

I think Romney is going to get the "reality check" bump, when Republicans have to finally settle on something. To me Santorum makes for great political theater, but his own rhetoric has put his chances of the nomination in the "got nothing else to lose" column.

And right now, Republicans don't seem that desperate to me. Having a lame duck candidate get soundly defeated by Obama is better than having someone with Santorum's views come to define the mainstream Republican party, while still getting soundly thrashed.

While I'm sure a contingent of the Republican party would love to embrace his extremist views, I think he leaves a bad taste in the mouths of just about all the moderates. Even staunch Christians are having a hard time agreeing with Santorum, particularly when he starts going off the cuff about what he thinks religion means.

Romney may not excite hardly anyone, but I think this whole Santorum thing has just been Republicans desperately entertaining any idea that seems more exciting than the guy they should be running with.

I mean, they must feel exactly how Democrats felt with Kerry. To me the choice between Romney and Santorum for Republicans is akin to the choice between Kerry or, say, Al Sharpton for Democrats. Sharpton may generate buzz, but his own mouth becomes his worst enemy after a certain point. Santorum strikes me the same way. Maybe he's far more reserved when he's not stumping for the White House.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 29, 2012, 03:16:07 pm

One thing I'm curious to see is how Virgina turns out.  Since only Romney and Ron Paul will actually be listed on the ballot (Santorum and Gingrich totally spaced), I'm wonder if the Santorum and Gingrich PACs will make some isolated effort to pose as the Paul campaign, to try to deny Romney any percentage they can.  Especially since Paul himself has probably written it off, since Virginia isn't a caucus state.

By the way, most of the Super Tuesday states are actually district-winner-take-all, like South Carolina was.  Even if the percentages are really close, it's entirely possible for one candidate to sweep a bunch of votes from a state if they get the plurality in a lot of counties.  Ironically, Massachusetts is not one, being straight proportional, so I expect a lot of hay to be made over how large or small Romney's take is in another home state.

Quote from: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 03:07:52 pm

I mean, they must feel exactly how Democrats felt with Kerry. To me the choice between Romney and Santorum for Republicans is akin to the choice between Kerry or, say, Al Sharpton for Democrats. Sharpton may generate buzz, but his own mouth becomes his worst enemy after a certain point. Santorum strikes me the same way. Maybe he's far more reserved when he's not stumping for the White House.

As if Romney needed any more comparisons to Kerry.  I'm sure he hates it when people say that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on February 29, 2012, 03:19:52 pm

Quote from: scriver on February 29, 2012, 03:06:57 pm

I don't see how any democrats could ever vote for Santorum, even for oils. If I was American, I wouldn't want him anywhere near even a chance, no matter how small, of becoming president.

Those votes are likely due to trying to sabotage the Republican candidacy after the primary, the idea being that Santorum is entirely unelectable, and repugnant enough to the general population that voter turnout will spike for the sole purpose of voting against him. I think they might give too much credit to the people who currently don't plan on voting, and too little to the "anybody but Obama" mindset, but we might see.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on February 29, 2012, 03:28:59 pm

Hehe, yeah, that's what I meant. But the thought of him even being close to having a chance...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 29, 2012, 03:40:08 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 03:07:52 pm

While I'm sure a contingent of the Republican party would love to embrace his extremist views, I think he leaves a bad taste in the mouths of just about all the moderates.

Yes, all five of them that are still in the party at this point.  ::)

Seriously, the GOP has run moderates out of the party on a rail the last few years. 2010 saw a pretty effective internal pogrom that pitted Tea Party types against moderate Republicans in primary races across the country. The Tea Party won more than half of those and disenchanted a lot of the moderate base. The polarization and obstructionism that followed the 2010 election further disenchanted the moderates who were left. Just yesterday, moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) announced she's not running for re-election and cited the polarization in Congress as a major factor. That pretty much leaves Susan Collins as the lone Republican Senator who could actually be expected to compromise with the Democrats on *any* issue. Maybe Richard Lugar and Scott Brown if you catch them on a good day, although they're both under pressure to tow the party line or face a hardcore primary opponent. The guys like Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chaffee are gone (and both are persona non grata within the Party).

See, there's a significant number of people remaining within the GOP who've drunk enough of their own Kool-Aid to believe that they are the majority opinion in the country, and that America's silent majority is looking for a strong WASPy (or hell....just white and Christian in a pinch) male who will put America back on the Christian foundation it was built upon (at least, in their understanding of history). They also tend to believe that all of America's problems, be they economic, foreign policy, environmental, crime, what have you....are caused by not being religious enough. These are the people Santorum is appealing to when he says that seperation of church and state makes him want to throw up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 03:48:51 pm

Actually, one benefit Santorum has brought to this whole process is that moderate Republicans are being prompted to express their views. Gingrich didn't cause that to happen, probably because he has "political operative" stamped on his forehead and most didn't feel the need to respond.

But Santorum has a grass roots persona that I think makes moderate Republicans go "Ok, wait a minute, I think it's time I remind someone who actually speaks for me." Like Santorum is just credible enough he warrants refutation.

Also, I draw a pretty sharp distinction between Moderate Republican as Voter, and Moderate Republican as Politician. There are still plenty of moderate Republican voters, even if their moderate politician counter-parts were effectively run out of office by the Tea Party.

Quote

See, there's a significant number of people remaining within the GOP who've drunk enough of their own Kool-Aid to believe that they are the majority opinion in the country, and that America's silent majority is looking for a strong WASPy (or hell....just white and Christian in a pinch) male who will put America back on the Christian foundation it was built upon (at least, in their understanding of history).

I believe these people are a far smaller demographic than the media would have us believe. The numbers of any political/social group seem much larger when they are dominating national conversations. Again, tons and tons of political theater that I don't think actually speaks to how people will vote when they have to consider the outcomes of their decision.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on February 29, 2012, 03:59:35 pm

yo, been watching this thread, but have yet to post(I think). However, this bit (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorum-focuses-on-reaching-out-to-women-adviser-says-they-are-a-macgyver-campaign/) from santorum I just couldn't let pass

If you don't want to read the entire article, here's the main point from it(He's talking about the deceleration of independence here):
“The men and women who signed that declaration wrote the final phrase, ‘We pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor,” Santorum said.

Does anyone ELSE see anything wrong with this statement?  :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on February 29, 2012, 04:02:04 pm

Quote from: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 03:48:51 pm

But Santorum has a grass roots persona that I think makes moderate Republicans go "Ok, wait a minute, I think it's time I remind someone who actually speaks for me." Like Santorum is just credible enough he warrants refutation.

Also, I draw a pretty sharp distinction between Moderate Republican as Voter, and Moderate Republican as Politician. There are still plenty of moderate Republican voters, even if their moderate politician counter-parts were effectively run out of office by the Tea Party.

Yes, a critical distinction needs to be made between Republican-identifying voters at large, and the actual Republicans holding and running (against each other) for offices.  The real KoolAid problem is at the top, and Olympia Snowe's departure is a strong sign of that (not that she didn't have her problems with the Democrats, but she made no bones about the ossification and obstinacy of her colleagues).

I agree that Santorum's prominence, even if he doesn't get the nomination, could easily lead to a new movement in the Republican party in the next election cycle, especially if the Republicans get their clocks cleaned in Congressional elections.  There will be no small number of people saying, "If we lost at all, it's because we still weren't conservative and absolute enough," just like they do every time they lose.  But I think that this cycle might finally be what gets a serious, genuinely ground-up demand in the party (and it would have to be ground-up, since only the true believers and truly craven are left in the national party management) for Republican candidates who talk like ordinary people with ordinary gray areas about non-government issues.  I don't know how far it would get if it happens, but it'll be a bloody fight no matter what.

Of course, that's exactly what the Tea Party was supposed to be, and was for about five weeks in 2009 before the Republican bankrollers bought the name and dressed up God Guns n' Gays as fiscal conservatism.  It's hard to imagine that exact same co-opting not happening again in such a scenario.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on February 29, 2012, 04:04:50 pm

Quote from: tryrar on February 29, 2012, 03:59:35 pm

yo, been watching this thread, but have yet to post(I think). However, this bit (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorum-focuses-on-reaching-out-to-women-adviser-says-they-are-a-macgyver-campaign/) from santorum I just couldn't let pass

If you don't want to read the entire article, here's the main point from it(He's talking about the deceleration of independence here):
“The men and women who signed that declaration wrote the final phrase, ‘We pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor,” Santorum said.

Does anyone ELSE see anything wrong with this statement?  :D

Well, I don't think any women signed the DoI, considering that women weren't allowed into politics yet. I could be wrong, I don't have it handy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on February 29, 2012, 04:05:25 pm

But as the number of moderate options for them to vote for diminish, so will the party membership and voting patterns. My father-in-law has been a lifelong Republican, of the fiscal conservative/social libertarian "New England"-style Republicanism. He's so fed up with the Republican party at the national, state and local levels that he's planning on changing his registration to Independent this cycle. Likewise certain Republican friends of mine. They don't even want an indirect association with the sort of asshattery that is regularly coming to stand for "Republican ideals". Like when the local County Commission chair attacks a sustainability study as some nefarious tool of a "UN one-world-government conspiracy" or ramrods through a resolution stating that our county supports an anti-gay-marriage amendment on the ballot without any public input and without any poll data to support that assertion.

OTOH, some other Republican friends (mostly ex-friends now) have gone the other route, immersing themselves in the culture war to the point where we simply can't speak to one another. They've got the kind of blind fervor I'd expect to see out of a jihadi.

This is why I'm all for Santorum getting the nomination. Not only will he lose to Obama, but he'll break the Republican Party as we know it, and finally divorce the unholy marriage of fiscal conservatism and religious conservatism that Reagan created. Let the Bible-thumpers have its discarded husk, and create a new secular, rational fiscal conservative party. Might find a lot of people interested.

Quote from: tryrar on February 29, 2012, 03:59:35 pm

talking about the deceleration of independence here

Heh....I know that's a typo, but it seemed oddly appropriate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 04:08:57 pm

Quote

Of course, that's exactly what the Tea Party was supposed to be, and was for about five weeks in 2009 before the Republican bankrollers bought the name and dressed up God Guns n' Gays as fiscal conservatism.  It's hard to imagine that exact same co-opting not happening again in such a scenario.

And I think that's the real issue with the Republican party, and most likely the Democratic party. When the current mode falls out of fashion, the bankrollers retreat from leadership positions, bide their time and wait for a new movement to emerge. Then they fund it, capture it, market it, re-frame it and take it back to the "core" ideology. It almost happened with the Occupy movement, if ya'll remember, until they basically got labeled as criminals.

The real irony would be if Santorum were to win the nomination and moderate Republicans broke out and tried to form a stable 3rd party. I'd eat my hat, but hell, I might join in that happened. The differences between moderate democrats and republicans are sometimes so minor, it feels like we're already halfway to a 3rd party....we just need to commit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 29, 2012, 06:31:40 pm

Really, we do need to undo the fiscal/social merger that the Republicans are. It doesn't work; one cannot advocate less government and more government at the same time. I'd love to see the Republicans collapse, because the Democrats would too within a president or two, and you guys could finally get some other options into your political spectrum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 07:00:40 pm

In the interest of bi-partisan criticism, we need to sever the fiscal-anything links as much as possible.

While I find the Republican obsession with money and social engineering outrageous, I find the the Democrat version just as bad, if not worse. Democrats go in for garden variety corruption, the kind you simply go to jail for. Republicans go in for corruption and trying to re-shape the political and social landscape at the same time. And that actually, I think, gives them a lot of cover.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on February 29, 2012, 07:04:35 pm

Well, go big or go home.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on February 29, 2012, 07:52:12 pm

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/?hpt=hp_t3

Quote

"The tragedy here is that everybody I know who comes to the United States Senate, comes to get something done. And that's the real reason they come here," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, who is one of those moderates retiring this year. "And yet people are sort of pulled apart by this process and end up in warring camps, a kind of perpetual partisan tug of war which forgets the people who were good enough to send us here and the country that we pledged ourselves when we took our oath to support. You know, I hope people listen to the words Olympia Snowe spoke yesterday and that particularly members of the Senate respond."

If anyone was part of that irony discussion a little while ago, you have an example right here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 09:09:12 am

And if there's anyone who knows something about forgetting the people who elected you to office and the country you pledged yourself to support, it's Joe Lieberman. What a mensch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on March 01, 2012, 09:54:57 am

Mensch? As in human?

Anyway, I saw something about a US third party on the news a few days ago. They had enough signatures but lacked a good candidate. Anything happened regarding that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 10:46:05 am

Quote from: Dutchling on March 01, 2012, 09:54:57 am

Mensch? As in human?

Anyway, I saw something about a US third party on the news a few days ago. They had enough signatures but lacked a good candidate. Anything happened regarding that?

Whoops...Yiddish fail. I should have said schmuck.

I haven't seen anything about a new major third party. I suppose the Greens and Libertarians are always still around (and lack a good candidate).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2012, 10:53:48 am

I suppose if you said it sarcastically, it still works.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 01, 2012, 10:59:02 am

Quote from: Dutchling on March 01, 2012, 09:54:57 am

Mensch? As in human?

Anyway, I saw something about a US third party on the news a few days ago. They had enough signatures but lacked a good candidate. Anything happened regarding that?

The 3 largest 3rd parties in the US are Libertarian, Reform, and Green.

Libertarians have Gary Johnson and possibly a few other contenders. Ralph Nader has been the guy for both Reform and Green in the past, but I don't know what they are up to this year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 11:07:00 am

Quote from: Nadaka on March 01, 2012, 10:59:02 am

Quote from: Dutchling on March 01, 2012, 09:54:57 am

Mensch? As in human?

Anyway, I saw something about a US third party on the news a few days ago. They had enough signatures but lacked a good candidate. Anything happened regarding that?

The 3 largest 3rd parties in the US are Libertarian, Reform, and Green.

Libertarians have Gary Johnson and possibly a few other contenders. Ralph Nader has been the guy for both Reform and Green in the past, but I don't know what they are up to this year.

Looks like Buddy Roemer might try to get their nomination, although I had read he was going through the Americans Elect party. It's all froth at the fringe in the big picture, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2012, 11:10:01 am

That's really code for a Santorum dig, isn't it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 11:10:52 am

I don't understand why they even run presidential candidates. It seems like they'd be much better off putting all their effort towards getting invested somewhere regionally and getting a few congresscritters elected. I've never even lived in a place where they've RUN people for congress, best I can tell. Only third party I ever hear about is the Cool Moose party.

I'm generally up on things, so the only way I can justify it is that the third parties just aren't really trying to do anything real.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2012, 11:15:04 am

Define "real." They have objectives and agendas. But most of them are considered radical in mainstream American politics.

The real problem for them is they are so far divorced from the business of government that they don't have tangible access. They don't sit on any committees, seat (almost?) no members in either house and don't have the funds to buy advertising. So. It's awfully hard to have a tangible impact on the American political scene as a political party from your backyard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 11:16:03 am

This just in: Andrew Breitbart dead at 43. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dies-natural-causes-website-reports/)

They say it's ill-favored to dance on someone's grave, so I'll just leave it at that.


New poll in Tennessee shows the state at +21 for Santorum, which is what I'd expect. Rasmussen has a national poll with Romney flying out to a +16 lead, but as I've said time and again, Rasmussen consistently seems to put the momentum front-runner several points higher than everyone else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 11:36:04 am

Something real, as in something they can accomplish with the funds they have to realize goals and increase their own power base. They are playing at being political parties instead of doing the work needed to become one that's worth paying any attention to. There is absolutely NO reason to waste any time on a Presidential election when they could be trying to make an impact.

You know what was pretty awesome that a third party did?

They got John Eder elected. And he was awesome. And accomplished some good stuff. The ONLY reason he lost was because he engaged in some sketchy robocalling that alienated a bunch of his major supporters. That is the sort of thing I'd like to see more of - I'd like to see the third parties supporting and pushing for local candidates to get actual government positions.

They are obviously screwing something up, because they've only got two other legislators elected, and both turned on the green party immediately afterwards, dropping them as nothing but baggage and switching party affiliation.

That's BAD. When you get three people total elected, and then they turn on you?

I'm sorry, that just tells me its a party not worth supporting. And this is the STRONGEST of the third parties, from what I understand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 11:45:56 am

IMHO, the vast majority of third parties candidates in this country are either people who are really trying to make a difference but are too divorced from reality to realize they're having zero effect or they're egotists doing it to feel important. And often they're both (see: Nader, Ralph).

I can totally understand not wanting to run as either Dem or Republican. If I ever ran for office, I'd be loath to slap either label on. But you know what? I'd just run as "Independent" rather than going to the trouble of creating the "New American Progressive Patriot Liberty Freedom Party of America". These parties are small, and stay small and frequently splinter for the same reason that you'll find umpteen hundred different churches in a small rural town or seventy flavors of Communist party in a given country: People with strong beliefs often have strong egos. And if things aren't going to be done their way, then they'll start their OWN party/church/faction!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on March 01, 2012, 11:48:55 am

A current survey of the offices held by major third parties in the US (according to Wikipedia):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/xJDUj.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/kevc7.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/vIxOW.png)

There's some independents in the Senate, and probably in some state legislatures as well, but third parties might as well not exist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 11:51:13 am

And I maintain that when you have a better chance getting elected by not involving yourself with a party at all, that is the fault of the management of the third parties. There are NO serious national-based third parties or even many regional parties in the US right now - The local Green party in Maine, barely affiliated with the national party, is pretty much all there is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 11:58:53 am

Also has to do with popular perception. Running as independent is seen as a reasonable (if somewhat suicidal) option. Once you proclaim allegiance to an actual third-party, it flags you as some kind of radical weirdo.

Given that their fundraising and ground game are so weak, there's really no upside to running third-party as a candidate. You're better off on your own, IMHO.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 01, 2012, 12:03:24 pm

One of the reasons that a lot of these 3rd parties don't do much locally is that the issues they care the most about are primarily national issues. Greens want to protect the whole environment, Libertarians want to neuter the federal government. And Reform? I kinda lost track of them after they went schizophrenic and put Pat Robertson in charge.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 01, 2012, 12:04:12 pm

My favorite president was an independent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 12:06:31 pm

Quote

One of the reasons that a lot of these 3rd parties don't do much locally is that the issues they care the most about are primarily national issues. Greens want to protect the whole environment, Libertarians want to neuter the federal government.

Well, then, they aren't going to get anywhere. It's really that simply. If you don't put the work in, you're not going to get anywhere.

And are there really not any Libertarian, Green, or Reform issues that can be addressed on the state level? That seems unlikely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 12:11:35 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on March 01, 2012, 12:04:12 pm

My favorite president was an independent.

He also didn't care for political parties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 01, 2012, 12:17:04 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 12:06:31 pm

And are there really not any Libertarian, Green, or Reform issues that can be addressed on the state level? That seems unlikely.

There are tons.  I wish the libertarians would actually bring their anti regulation fervor to bear on some local level stuff where we seriously do need deregulation.  But they would never do that.  It just doesn't fit with their raison d'etre.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2012, 12:39:12 pm

Which is stupid. You build support for the party and its ideals at the local and state level, demonstrate they can be achieved in that scope, then you go on to preach your national platform.

Their approach is completely backasswards. As though they can really be heard on the national stage above the drone of the other two parties and the scorn of the media.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 12:52:15 pm

Which goes back to what I said. It's about ego, not producing results. Look at groups like the Moral Majority movement back in the 80s. They knew how to do it right...they targeted seemingly minor (but actually quite potent) races like school boards and county commissioners and stealthed their way into thousands of communities. Why can't the Left pull off a manuever like that? (beyond the natural problem of "the Left" being a hydra with 1000 heads and no brain)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on March 01, 2012, 06:29:28 pm

Perhaps issues like the environment are not as capable of producing people truly committed to action as religious or moral ones?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 01, 2012, 06:48:49 pm

Something interesting: California is planning to change its primary system after the 2012 elections.  Instead of the current system - common across the country, where each registered party holds its own vote, and the winner of that gets a designated slot on the ballot - they're adopting a system very similar to Louisiana's "primary" system.  Pretty much everybody who gets enough signatures is placed on a statewide ballot, and then the two highest placers from that are the general election candidates.  They can even be from the same party, as long as they're the two highest votes.

Louisiana adopted it back in the Jim Crow era as a way of making sure only party would ever be in power, but it's wound up having a moderating effect on the elections.  Normally, each party's candidates are picked by the 5-10% of the population who give enough shits about their party's plank to turn out, dragging the general election toward the most stalwart platform guys.  With this system, you get exactly two choices in the general election (as opposed to usually just two), but they're both chosen by a plurality of the whole population, necessarily making them considerably more "centrist" (if that's your thing).

Of course, it also means you're likely to be choosing between the two best funded candidates who can get the necessary recognition, and it often means that you're still getting one candidate from each party.  Instead of holding a primary, the state's party leadership just picks a guy to back as the "real" representative, to spend the party's money on.  Still, it's theoretically a moderating development, and I think another half-dozen states are considering the same thing.

Quote from: RedKing on March 01, 2012, 11:16:03 am

This just in: Andrew Breitbart dead at 43. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dies-natural-causes-website-reports/)

Huh.  Well, that's sad.  Funny that I haven't heard mention of it anywhere on TV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 01, 2012, 06:52:28 pm

Is there anything in this system to prevent parties from holding primaries to decide who to back in the general primary?  It sounds to me like it's essentially a two tiered election system like the french presidency.  First comes the free for all election, then is a 1 on 1 runoff.  It's just calling the first election a primary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 01, 2012, 07:08:36 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 01, 2012, 06:52:28 pm

Is there anything in this system to prevent parties from holding primaries to decide who to back in the general primary?  It sounds to me like it's essentially a two tiered election system like the french presidency.  First comes the free for all election, then is a 1 on 1 runoff.  It's just calling the first election a primary.

Nope, that's exactly what I was a saying.  Basically, you can have each party picking its own candidate by some non-regulated means, then pushing them over anyone else for the primary round.  It actually does work better than it sounds - in Louisiana, they typically have a good half dozen major primary candidates, with at least two from each party.  I'm sure there's more complications than the pitch lets on, but it does at least work equitably, whether or not it's actually "better".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on March 01, 2012, 07:08:42 pm

I wish we had more than two parties. Its getting to be this really 'good vs evil vibe' coming from all of it. Where its more effective to call your enemy the devil because the only other choice anyone has is you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 07:11:57 pm

The problem is that while the party can pick whoever it wants, you just need one person with an ego big enough to say "BUT I WANT TO RUN TOO!" to spoil it.

I can honestly see it working much better with an AV system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 01, 2012, 07:47:18 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on March 01, 2012, 07:08:42 pm

I wish we had more than two parties. Its getting to be this really 'good vs evil vibe' coming from all of it. Where its more effective to call your enemy the devil because the only other choice anyone has is you.

Its not really black and white. Imo its closer to charcoal vs dark black.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 01, 2012, 08:59:15 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 01, 2012, 07:11:57 pm

The problem is that while the party can pick whoever it wants, you just need one person with an ego big enough to say "BUT I WANT TO RUN TOO!" to spoil it.

Someone with an ego big enough and a substantial following and a lot of fundraising and a stature high enough to not just get ignored by the media.  That narrows the field of egoist politicians a lot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 02, 2012, 11:13:13 am

New polls! Dancers not included.

National:
Rasmussen shows Obama beating both the GOP front-runners, +6 over Romney, +3 over Santorum. Kinda WTF that Santorum is outperforming Romney in the general election polls, but it is what is.

Ohio:
Two different polls show Santorum's lead in the state slipping slightly, to an aggregate +3 over Romney.

Washington state:
Romney at +5. My guess is that you'd see the breakdown divide pretty sharply geographically, with Republicans in the western half of the state breaking hard for Romney and the eastern half of the state breaking for Santorum.

North Carolina:
I wish I could say I'm surprised, but it's Santorum +6. The really surprising bit is that the breakdown is

Santorum: 31%
Romney: 25%
Gingrich: 23%
Paul: 8%

HTH is Gingrich doing that well here?? Some weird solidarity with Georgia because we're both former CSA states or something?? I'm doubly ashamed of our Republican Tarheels.

Wisconsin:
Santorum by a whopping +16. Little bit surprised, given Wisconsin's general trend of being a progressive state, but I guess it's like California -- when the GOP is a minority, they just get that much more radicalized.

Tennessee:
Santorum by +21. Not surprised in the least. Ron Paul has the potential to snag 3rd place here.

Virginia:
Romney by +35. Of course, Santorum and Gingrich aren't even on the ballot here, so it's a 2-person race. Even with that, "Undecided/Other" (23%) is outperforming Ron Paul (21%).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 02, 2012, 11:16:59 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 02, 2012, 11:13:13 am

Virginia:
Romney by +35. Of course, Santorum and Gingrich aren't even on the ballot here, so it's a 2-person race. Even with that, "Undecided/Other" (23%) is outperforming Ron Paul (21%).

Trololol.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on March 02, 2012, 01:55:02 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 02, 2012, 11:13:13 am

Tennessee:
Santorum by +21. Not surprised in the least. Ron Paul has the potential to snag 3rd place here.

No surprises whatsoever there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2012, 10:30:26 am

So I was hearing TV in the distance again and wanted to fact-check m'own understanding of the situation, specifically re: this contraception foofaraw.

From what I understand, and the first time I heard about anything large-scale involving it, it started(?) with the feds withdrawing funding from institutions (such as catholic hospitals, yes.) that did not provide contraceptive access (along with a few other things, of course, but contraceptives is what I'm specifically interested in, here.). There wasn't, so far as I understood, any other (or any, period, really) coercive aspect to the decision -- nothing forcing institutions that didn't want to provide contraceptives to provide them. They just couldn't expect federal funding if they didn't.

Did the situation change when I wasn't paying attention? Was my initial impression inaccurate? I'm asking because, from my understanding of the situation, the general public message getting out against the federal decision seems like a baldfaced lie, and given the at-least media pervasiveness of the message, that seems a bit bold even for the normal rabblerousers. Can someone a bit more up to date on the situation clarify?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 04, 2012, 10:50:46 am

What changed is that the folks who see contraception as immoral and want to make it illegal decided to make a big wedge issue about it.

Just like the death panels from a couple years ago, the whole thing is a big Republican lie, basically.

Nothing is new in the legislation, Obama had nothing to do with it, it's been the way it is for years from what I understand, someone just felt the need to make a big deal about nothing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2012, 10:58:32 am

Personally i don't think a hospital should be limiting the choice of treatment based on the religious views of the owners. It's not like a kosher diner or something where you can just go buy food elsewhere if you want pork etc.

A hospital is a major piece of infrastructure which serves a large region - basically a near monopoly in many areas. You can't assume that every client is going to have the exact same needs and opinions on treatment as the owners. And if you're not providing the services which are required to maintain you as the hospital in that area, then the funding should go to someone who WILL provided the basic services.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2012, 11:07:54 am

@Gryph: Yeah, I guess that just surprises me somehow, at least that no one is (or seems to, or at least that I've noticed) being a bit more overt calling them on blatant lying. I guess I expected at least some form policy or legislation shift to have sprung up while I wasn't looking and triggered all this nonsense :-\

I really shouldn't expect dignity from public figures anymore, I guess.

Re: Reelya, I'm not really interested in that :P

The underlying aspects aren't what concerns me (I'm basically on the same line as you are, t'be honest), really, it's whether or not my understanding of the media uproar is accurate. I.e. whether the stuff being rambled about by the political candidates is even remotely honest. I was hoping I was wrong, really. It's kinda' disrespectful to everyone involved to be pushing about something that literally has no truth to it, if that's actually what's going on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 04, 2012, 11:29:16 am

Yes and no. The kerfluffle was over whether or not non-church religious institutions could opt out of insurance coverage for contraception for their employees. There was already an exemption in the law as written for churches. But this language did not cover religious-funded institutions which are not churches, such as schools and hospitals. There's nothing about Federal funding involved AFAIK.

So effectively, this meant that when Sacred Heart hospital buys insurance coverage for its employees, it cannot tell the insurance company "Oh, and btw...we don't want any birth control coverage for our employees, even though it's part of the package we bought."

There is actually nothing preventing a private insurance company from creating an insurance package which doesn't cover contraception and selling that to their Catholic clients, if there's such a big demand. OMG....a market solution! Which Republicans are quite willing to ignore if it makes for good political theater.

Also ignores the fact that some 90% of American Catholic women report using birth control. That's one big area where American Catholics have long been willing to tell the Pope to fuck off in comparison to Europeans. What the Church doesn't like is that its own employees (who may not be Catholics themselves, mind you) can tell them to fuck off, not just lay parishoners.

Of course, a lot of this is dog-whistling. Privately, the argument is that "if they can do this with contraception, they can do it with abortion". So the specter of "government-mandated abortion coverage" is being used to drum up support among the base without actually invoking something so patently ridiculous out in the open. Problem being, the approach is utterly tone-deaf and the image that's resulted is "OMG Republicans want to ban condoms". Which is also totally wrong, but hey...it's an image they helped create themeselves.


Romney wins utterly non-binding straw poll in Washington state. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017655790_caucuses04.html) Ron Paul comes in 2nd, with Santorum a very close 3rd. Of course, nobody actually gets any delegates out of it, so it's a beauty contest. And one you'd expect Romney to do well in.

Quote

Attending his first caucus at the Labor Temple in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood, Dillon Smith, 31, vowed to write in Paul's name no matter who is on the ballot in November.

"I would rather die than vote for any of the other candidates," said Smith, because the country needs someone who will "basically slit the throat of the federal government."

So....it has come to this. Let's elect someone who will slit our collective throat.  ::)



Newest polls:

National:

Gallup has Romney back in front at +14 nationally. Are we beginning to see "primary fatigue" and a general sense of "F**k it, we're going to lose anyways, just put the rich guy in and hope for the best"?

Because Rasmussen's latest polls show no change: Romney or Santorum, they both lose to Obama nationally.

Georgia:
Gingrich has this one in hand, at +14-20. There must be something powerful strong in that peach cobbler down there.

Ohio:
Santorum clings to hope here, at +2. Focus is increasingly turning to Ohio as the "make or break state" on Tuesday, if only because it's the most competitive of the races. Intrade (http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/) seems to have decided the state is going to go Romney, but Nate Silver still gives Santorum a 2/3 shot of winning.

Tennessee:
Where MTSU's poll had Santorum at +21 just a couple of days ago and Vanderbilt's at +18 just before that, Rasmussen's poll shows him at a mere +4. Either his support has plummeted for some inexplicable reason, or once again Scott Rasmussen wouldn't know how to conduct a proper poll if it bit him in the ass. I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2012, 12:01:28 pm

Thanks Red, that was exactly th'clarification I was looking for. Definitely doesn't look like the horrific restriction of religious practice it seems to be getting spun as :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 04, 2012, 12:19:48 pm

Quote from: Frumple on March 04, 2012, 12:01:28 pm

Thanks Red, that was exactly th'clarification I was looking for. Definitely doesn't look like the horrific restriction of religious practice it seems to be getting spun as :-\

Yeah, really. It's not that they're forced to pay for contraception (which is how it's being spun), it's that they're being prevented from opting out of the benefit if it's part of the plan they purchase. And honestly, most insurance plans DON'T cover birth control to begin with. I don't see the insurance companies lining up to say, "Welp, sorry but our hands are tied. We INSIST on giving you birth control coverage." I'm sure some diocese somewhere will make the asshat choice to drop insurance coverage altogether, so that it can be spun as "Obama and those damn liberals are so hellbent on getting taxpayer-funded condoms into the hands of our children that they'd rather see people go WITHOUT coverage than allow the religious exemption".  ::)

And the attempted amendment that the GOP tried to pass was just idiotic. It would have allowed ANY employer to opt-out of paying for coverage of ANY type of benefit that they had "a religious or moral objection to".

Boss is a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't believe in blood transfusions? Okay, you'll have to pay for that yourself.
Boss is Christian Scientist and doesn't beieve in medicine period?? You're screwed.
Get cancer and the boss doesn't want to have to pay increasing premiums because your long-term care is being penalized by the insurance company? He can just claim he has a "moral objection" to chemotherapy.

It would have been a giant can of worms. Thankfully, there were enough Republicans that also realized this and voted it down. This isn't a First Amendment issue. It isn't even a speech issue. It's a labor rights issue. Employees are not the property of their employer. And the fact that employers already make major decisions about healthcare coverage when they choose what plans to offer. The counterargument seems to boil down to, "If your employer pays your insurance premiums, they get to decide. Money talks."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 11:03:41 am

1 day to Super Tuesday!

Polls so new they still have that "new poll smell":

National:
NBC News has Romney at +6

Ohio:
Three new polls, and we have Romney +3, Romney +1 and Santorum +1. In short, who the hell knows?

Tennessee:
Perhaps I owe Rasmussen an apology after deprecating his poll the other day for showing Santorum's support to have evaporated. Two more polls released today, and they show the state as Santorum +5 and Romney +1. Pretty shocking turn of events there. If Romney wins Tennessee, that's a major coup for Team Romney in terms of the narrative, because it shows Romney can win in a hard red Southern state that's not chock full of Cubans and elderly snowbirds.

Georgia:
Two more polls confirm that Gingrich has a 20+ point lead in the Peach State. I have no idea how he thinks he can turn a win here into any kind of larger momentum, but that certainly seems to be his plan. According to comments from his campaign, he intends to try and focus on the South. My guess is that this is a gambit to be a kingmaker. He can't win by taking the South, but he can certainly amass a big enough block of delegates to swing the final outcome depending on who he backs. Maybe he's looking for a VP slot. Romney/Gingrich or Santorum/Gingrich, anyone?

If Newt sides with Romney after all the shit he's talked...he'll be burned in effigy within the Tea Party ranks, but it might clear the slate for the establishment, where he's been kinda persona non grata for some years. And let's face it, the establishment throws better cocktail parties.

If he sides with Santorum, the insurgent takeover of the party will be complete. And the big money will dry up, because the sane rich people who just want a party that keeps their taxes low will want nothing to do with the "Let's set up the first church on the moon!" folks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 05, 2012, 11:15:20 am

Argh Somebody open a window or kill a skunk or something! Anything to get rid of the poll smell!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 11:22:23 am

But it's the sweet, sweet smell of Republican despair! With a slight taint of Newt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 05, 2012, 12:01:44 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on March 05, 2012, 12:11:44 pm

+1 to RedKing for the breakdown on Primary news.

Quote from: RedKing on March 04, 2012, 12:19:48 pm

*snip*
It would have been a giant can of worms. Thankfully, there were enough Republicans that also realized this and voted it down. This isn't a First Amendment issue. It isn't even a speech issue. It's a labor rights issue. Employees are not the property of their employer. And the fact that employers already make major decisions about healthcare coverage when they choose what plans to offer. The counterargument seems to boil down to, "If your employer pays your insurance premiums, they get to decide. Money talks."

 

In another universe, after the passing of this amendment, employers of companies of all sizes in America take up a new religion, some obscure cult-like christian religion.  They don't believe in modern day medicine or treatment.
In other news, record profits are forecasted for the economy and unemployment goes down as injured and sick employees are let go and deemed unemployable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on March 05, 2012, 12:14:51 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 05, 2012, 12:01:44 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

I don't get it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 05, 2012, 12:17:05 pm

The funny thing is, most people who read that wouldn't put themselves in the "incompetent and thus shouldn't vote" pile. Self demonstrating article?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 05, 2012, 12:21:13 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 05, 2012, 12:17:05 pm

The funny thing is, most people who read that wouldn't put themselves in the "incompetent and thus shouldn't vote" pile. Self demonstrating article?

Probably.

I don't think there is an "incompetent and thus shouldn't vote" pile. However there is a pile of people who could become more competent at voting if we had a stronger civics education program.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 12:32:47 pm

Just as an interesting sidenote, here's the current delegate count (roughly...due to all the non-binding caucuses and arcane bullshit, no one can be sure of the actual count yet):

Romney: 173
Santorum: 74
Paul: 37
Gingrich: 33

Now here's what the count would be if the primaries had all been the "traditional" winner-take-all binding primaries:
Romney: 245
Santorum: 104
Gingrich: 25
Paul: 0

This is why in past seasons, the race is typically down to 2-3 people by the time shit gets real. The mass expansion of proportional primaries and caucuses has been a big impediment to one person racking up a bunch of tight victories early on and getting a commanding lead in delegates. Or in other words, this kind of clusterf**k isn't going away. It's the new normal. Which makes me wonder if a lot more people will be running in future Presidential contests, given that a theoretical non-starter like Ron Paul is still in 3rd place (and continues to focus on subverting the caucus process to milk delegates out of states where he's not even getting 20% of the popular vote). You don't need to be the front-runner (in fact it's much easier if you're not), you just need consistent 2nd and 3rd place wins to rack up those delegates. Margin of win is now as important as the win itself. And because every single race tomorrow is some flavor of proportional, this won't be the knockout punch for any of the candidates.

Initially, it was looking like Santorum might actually take the majority of the races. Now it's looking more even but it's going to come down to margin. Romney will run away with Massachusetts, but it's still proportional. Santorum is looking to run away with Oklahoma, and OK is one of those Proportional++ states I referenced several pages back wherein if he wins an outright majority (a distinct possibility...he's polling at 43% as of a few weeks ago), then it becomes winner-take-all. That's 43 delegates which takes a pretty big bite out of the gap between them.

OH and TN are also Proportional++ states, but those look like they'll be very close races, so they're basically a 50/50 split. Where Santorum might have the edge in those races is that the delegates are awarded based on districts won. Romney's support tends to be geographically concentrated, so he'll win a relatively small number of districts clumped in urban areas. Santorum will likely win large swathes of the rural state, which should translate into more districts.

Virginia is an odd bird, and potentially the biggest win of the night (and biggest controversy) for Romney. As I understand it, it's a semi-open primary and winners are awarded delegates based on districts won with a bonus set awarded to the statewide winner. BUT...if one candidate gets a majority, the whole thing becomes winner-take-all. Santorum and Gingrich are not even on the ballot in Virginia. As a result, Romney is polling near 70% in Virginia. Which could wind up giving him all 49 delegates outright -- a small chunk compared to the grand total he needs to win, but it could very well be the margin of win by the end of this thing. Especially crucial if Santorum wins OK outright, as it nullifies his big gain there. But controversial because of the arcane rules and the fact that the Virginia state GOP apparently changed the rules to get on the ballot as late as November 2011 (http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/12/26/did-the-va-gop-change-the-rules-on-primary-ballot-access-in-november-2011/), which caused Gingrich's application to get tossed and caused Rick Santorum to not even try to get on the ballot (to be fair, I honestly don't think he thought he'd still be in this thing by this point).

To sum up the article linked above, there was a lawsuit regarding how the signatures to file should be verified. End result was that the state GOP bumped up their "automatic threshold" from 10,000 to 15,000. Meaning that if you present 15,000 signatures of people ostensibly wanting you to run for President, they don't get validated and you're on the ballot. Less than 15,000 and the signatures have to be validated. Too many get thrown out (as happened for Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich) and drop you below a certain threshhold (which I can't seem to find), and you're off the list. Romney was the only one to submit 15,000 signatures, suggesting that they didn't do a good job of getting the word out about the rule change. Expect to see Team Gingrich and Team Paul file suit and call on Team Romney to allow their list of signatures to be validated. To his credit, even though Paul's submission was below the 15,000 mark it passed validation. It does kind of make me go WTF that these other candidates submitted *that many* fake and/or invalid signatures. Is this just a normal practice?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 12:51:42 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 05, 2012, 12:01:44 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

Fallacious article much?

Suppose that I have a system where there are a 400 districts, each with 5k or so people in them choosing a representative from two candidates.  Suppose that 100 people in each district know with perfect accuracy who the "right" candidate is and the others chose on a coin flip.  The odds of a given district choosing the "right" candidate are about 92%.  The odds of a majority of the districts choosing the "wrong" candidates are less then 10^-100.  Those odds are about the same as if you chose three completely random atoms from the entire mass of the earth and chose the same atom each time.  The odds grow even more remote if you increase the size of the districts but keep the number of "smart" voters at the same proportion.

Now there are tons of gaping holes in this model, don't think I'm saying the electorate is like that.  But it's just to show that the article is based on fallacious premises.  It doesn't account for the extensive work that people have done on ideological signaling, median voters, etc.  If anything, my model is closer to what the article imagines then the real electorate.  People aren't limited to their own knowledge.  It would have taken me a looooong time to come up with the binomial coefficients used in the calculations of the preceding paragraph.  But even as a highschooler I was able to use (and sometimes understand) z-scores because people had already figured this stuff out, it entered the general knowledge pool and someone taught it to me.

The problem with the electorate isn't that a sufficient number of people are "smart".  You don't need a single voter who understands every last issue for democracy to thrive.  The problems are systematic biases in the way that we signal information to each other and the way that we weigh people's votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 05, 2012, 01:29:03 pm

I think the point is that when people decide on what makes a candidate "good", they're looking at qualities that are usually not relevant. Case in point, the "Well he seems like a guy I'd want to have a beer with" reasoning. It isn't that they're choosing with a coin flip, but that they're rationally making decisions on flawed assumptions. It's adding to existing research, not ignoring it, although I will say the actual news article is written in typically sensationalist fashion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 05, 2012, 01:29:39 pm

I'll accept what that article is saying... provided we're talking about individual issues, not reality where candidates represent you on multiple issues. Also, I'm taking the assumption that "competence" translates to "doing what the voter wants them to do, effectively" and not "doing what's 'right.'"

So if we were to put to a vote say... economics, it'd probably be best that those with knowledge of economics actually vote about it. Those people would be able to pick out the candidate most suited to do what they want them to do, whereas a random selection of people would chose a candidate that says they'll do what they promise to do, but might not be the most effective at it.


Back to reality, candidates generally represent us on multiple issues, especially at the federal level. Just how much crap does the President of the US have to deal with? Those economists would be choosing a candidate that has to deal with social issues, the military, etc etc, which is NOT their area of expertise. And if we want to educate the public so they'll vote more reasonably, you'll have to educate them on "everything" for them to chose better candidates overall, and that's a hell of a lot of stuff to educate them on. Every little bit helps I guess, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 01:45:54 pm

Hmmm....just crunched some numbers regarding current polling percentages and likely delegate totals, and Virginia is going to be a big topic of discussion after tonight. Here's my hypothetical breakdown of the delegate counts in each non-caucus state, based on most recent poll data:

MA:
Romney - 26
Santorum - 7
Gingrich - 4
Paul - 4

OK:
Santorum - 20
Gingrich - 10
Romney - 9
Paul - 4

VT:
Romney - 6
Santorum - 5
Gingrich - 3
Paul - 3

Virginia*:
Romney - 49
Paul - 0

OH:
Romney - 23
Santorum - 22
Gingrich - 11
Paul - 10

TN:
Santorum - 20
Romney - 18
Gingrich - 15
Paul - 5

GA:
Gingrich - 35
Romney - 20
Santorum - 16
Paul - 5

Totals:
Romney - 151
Santorum - 90
Gingrich - 78
Paul -31

Take away that Virginia "win", and Romney and Santorum have almost equal nights (102 vs. 90). The other story is that if you combine Santorum and Gingrich, they'll still outdo Romney even with Virginia left in play. That observation will lead perhaps to an intensification of the rivalry between the two camps as each calls on the other to drop out in the name of "supporting true conservatism".

If Oklahoma goes >50% for Santorum, the final count should be around:
Romney - 142
Santorum - 113
Gingrich - 68
Paul - 27

Which would make Virginia even more of a controversy, because without it Santorum wins the night.

TL;DR: Most of the races won't change the basic math between Romney and Santorum, no matter who wins. The big ones to watch are Oklahoma (to see if it goes over 50% for Santorum), Ohio and Tennessee (more for bragging rights and a few extra delegates than anything). The big one to talk about is Virginia. Lawsuits, ho!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 02:12:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on March 05, 2012, 01:29:39 pm

Back to reality, candidates generally represent us on multiple issues, especially at the federal level. Just how much crap does the President of the US have to deal with? Those economists would be choosing a candidate that has to deal with social issues, the military, etc etc, which is NOT their area of expertise. And if we want to educate the public so they'll vote more reasonably, you'll have to educate them on "everything" for them to chose better candidates overall, and that's a hell of a lot of stuff to educate them on. Every little bit helps I guess, though.

I develop my opinions from aggregators, news, blogs, even this forum.  I understand a very narrow range of the issues.  However I know that if something were really important then my aggregators would bring it to my attention.  I'm going to listen to a chunk of what people say across the spectrum so if there is something to say then somebody will know it and say it.  It's up to me whether I listen but there are outlets for me to tell me that this is something important.

While this process has perhaps grown more sophisticated recently (perhaps), it's hardly new.  This is what lead to the rise of ideological thought and ideological parties in the 18th century.  People wanted sources for opinions representing conservatives or liberals or whatever so parties and newspapers and politicians arose that could give examples of those viewpoints.  Thus they could trust that it would be in the ideological interest of the ideologues to bring egregious stuff to their attention.  If anything the only disruption to this came very recently, republicans decided that rather then giving examples of what is conservatism in the american political spectrum they would just label anything the president said unconservative.  Thus we can't rely on our conservative channels to give us conservative viewpoints anymore, instead they give us the republican viewpoint.  But until very recently, these channels were working pretty well.

So if you have a thesis that basically boils down to these aggregation channels can not exist, then you are wrong.  They empirically do exist and have existed in this country for more then two centuries, not to mention existing all over the globe.  People don't need to understand everything, they never had, they never will and democracy works just fine without it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 05, 2012, 03:46:32 pm

So, I don't see where this one has been mentioned yet.  Santorum was busy in Ohio over the weekend, giving speeches about the dizzying hydra of his parochial interpretation of the world (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/rick-santorums-last-ditch-romneycare-push/253993/).  No one article does it justice, as he rambles back and forth between attacking Obama and Romney.

Quote

The problem with socialized medicine – socialized anything?  It’s a narcotic. You don’t even know what you’re missing. You don’t even see the dynamism of life, and the economy, because you’ve been given something for nothing, and you’re happy to have it.

But we won't talk about one of the great underlying causes of childhood obesity, which is the instability of the community, the neighborhood and the family.

I love it because the left says, 'equality, equality.' Where does that concept come from? Does it come from Islam? Does it come from other cultures around the world? ... No, it comes it comes from our culture and tradition, from the Judeo-Christian ethic.

So... The economy and/or quality of life is going down because people are doped up on free healthcare (I'm sure the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" people will be happy to hear that), childhood health problems are caused by divorce and/or gay people, and the Obama Administration and/or Romney's former administration are Islamo-Fascists who reject and/or copycat Christian equality because they want to force equality on everyone.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Great White Hope of the true conservatives.  At least he's not yakking about birth control now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 03:55:07 pm

I....gay marriage causes fat kids? LOLWUT

And let's mock equality because it's those godless liberals taking something from the BIBLE. Stupid sexy Bible.

Wow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 05, 2012, 03:56:11 pm

I, uh. Aqi, was that a straight line of speech, that quote? I mean, was that actually said in order, just like that, in one sit down? Not... not broken up, or something, just... just like that? please say no please say no please say no oh gods

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 05, 2012, 05:00:41 pm

Quote from: Frumple on March 05, 2012, 03:56:11 pm

I, uh. Aqi, was that a straight line of speech, that quote?

They're all real lines yes, but I have to believe that there was some kind of segue between them.

By the way, new NBC/WSJ national poll numbers out on Romney show a 28% Approval vs. 39% Disapproval.  That's getting into Gingrich territory, and supposedly he's in serious danger of being overtaken by Ron Paul in Virginia.  That truckload of endorsers he won over the weekend are probably feeling a little awkward now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 05:05:27 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 05, 2012, 05:00:41 pm

supposedly he's in serious danger of being overtaken by Ron Paul in Virginia.

*spittake*

Fwa..wha??? Link, por favor? That would be HUGE (see previous ramblings about delegate numbers and Virginia).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 05, 2012, 05:15:44 pm

I kind of always knew he was going to speech himself right out of the race. But I figure once you've started on one non-sensical diatribe, it's bad form to stop midway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 05, 2012, 05:26:56 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 05:05:27 pm

Fwa..wha??? Link, por favor? That would be HUGE (see previous ramblings about delegate numbers and Virginia).

Yeah, that was some definitely off-base hyperbole.  Damn television.  Romney's definitely walking away with Virginia.

Other interesting NBC/WSJ polls, asking people which party they feel does a better job of reaching out to non-base people.  Nationally, 55% Democrats vs. 26% Republicans.  In the category itself, 35% of self-identified Republicans said the Democratic party is better at attracting the non-hardcore to vote for them.  Along with a "what word comes to mind" question coming back like 80% negative for the Republican primary process, among Republican voters even, that is going to be some very concerning news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on March 05, 2012, 05:42:46 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 05, 2012, 05:26:56 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 05:05:27 pm

Fwa..wha??? Link, por favor? That would be HUGE (see previous ramblings about delegate numbers and Virginia).

Yeah, that was some definitely off-base hyperbole.  Damn television.  Romney's definitely walking away with Virginia.

Other interesting NBC/WSJ polls, asking people which party they feel does a better job of reaching out to non-base people.  Nationally, 55% Democrats vs. 26% Republicans.  In the category itself, 35% of self-identified Republicans said the Democratic party is better at attracting the non-hardcore to vote for them.  Along with a "what word comes to mind" question coming back like 80% negative for the Republican primary process, among Republican voters even, that is going to be some very concerning news.

Given how destructive all this super-pac competition is, maybe in future races Republicans will agree not to publicly campaign in the primaries via smearing, and will instead work out backroom deals so that only one major candidate will run and amass all the superpac money. Other prospective candidates will run, but they will be Huntsmans or Pauls and lack the money to destroy the image of the intended frontrunner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 05:54:32 pm

I think if Romney wins an outright majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday, this race will probably start to wind down.  Nate Silver's current estimate is for Romney to win 51% of the Super Tuesday delegates and for Santorum to slip behind Gingrich in the delegate counts.

So sadly the republican firing squad might be coming to it's end.  Maybe the slowbro-speeded scandal about Romney supporting the individual mandate at the national level will cause a fluke upset on Super Tuesday but I think there's a good chance this is going to be wrapping up.

Quote from: darkflagrance on March 05, 2012, 05:42:46 pm

Given how destructive all this super-pac competition is, maybe in future races Republicans will agree not to publicly campaign in the primaries via smearing, and will instead work out backroom deals so that only one major candidate will run and amass all the superpac money. Other prospective candidates will run, but they will be Huntsmans or Pauls and lack the money to destroy the image of the intended frontrunner.

I doubt it.  There is a party for people who care about the greater good.  It's called the Democratic party.  It's no accident that the batch of GOP prospects are the sort of people they are.  They are representative of national level GOP politicians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on March 05, 2012, 06:02:00 pm

I hope the republican race doesn't end, because for each day it keeps going is another shot in the foot for republicans as a whole

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 05, 2012, 07:47:02 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on March 05, 2012, 06:02:00 pm

I hope the republican race doesn't end, because for each day it keeps going is another shot in the foot for republicans as a whole

Hear, hear. Though I'd be cool with it winding down early with Santorum as America's Hope for a More Patriotic Future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 07:52:40 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 05:54:32 pm

I think if Romney wins an outright majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday, this race will probably start to wind down.  Nate Silver's current estimate is for Romney to win 51% of the Super Tuesday delegates and for Santorum to slip behind Gingrich in the delegate counts.

So sadly the republican firing squad might be coming to it's end.  Maybe the slowbro-speeded scandal about Romney supporting the individual mandate at the national level will cause a fluke upset on Super Tuesday but I think there's a good chance this is going to be wrapping up.

I can't agree at all. Looking at the math, Romney has a tough hill to climb to make 1144 delegates by the convention, with all the proportional races out there. Winning California would be a big step in that direction, but winning Texas is going to be a very tough proposition. And if Santorum and Gingrich join forces (and delegates), they'll overtake him.

Romney has burnt through his war chest clawing to stay in front. As time drags on and he fails to seal the deal, the money is going to dry up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 05, 2012, 07:53:49 pm

Surely if he wins the nomination he'll be able to get all the campaign donations he wants from large corporations?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 08:03:48 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 05, 2012, 07:53:49 pm

Surely if he wins the nomination he'll be able to get all the campaign donations he wants from large corporations?

If you're a company, are you going to waste your money with a candidate who you don't think has any real shot at winning? Corps will dump their bribes campaign donations into the Congressional races instead. They'll max out the single contribution to the candidate fund ($10K) because that's chump change. They'll likely give the same amount to Obama, because big companies are smart enough to hedge their bets. But the unlimited donations to the SuperPAC...that'll be sorely lacking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 08:43:52 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 07:52:40 pm

And if Santorum and Gingrich join forces (and delegates), they'll overtake him.

That would require them to like each other.  Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is an asshole too.

Even if Romney is slightly behind an absolute majority, people will see the writing on the wall.  If there is a clear second place candidate who stands a chance in a brokered convention, it makes sense to try taking it all the way.  But Santorum and Gingrich are both falling pretty far behind.  Romney has more then 50% of the delegates to date.  If Romney wins a majority tomorrow then he'll probably have 3 times as many as either Gingrich or Santorum.  What's the point of fighting on at that point?

Suppose that Romney only has 45% of the delegates come convention time.  It would be ugly to give him the nomination and lead to some bad optics.  But to deny him the nomination and give it to someone who had 30%?  That would be a shitstorm.  And to nominate a dark horse in this day and age is basically to concede the election to Obama.

It's possible that Romney can lose this thing.  But he'd need to start losing states and having the other guys catch up in the delegate counts.  If it doesn't happen tomorrow, when is it going to happen?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 05, 2012, 08:53:45 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 05, 2012, 05:26:56 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 05:05:27 pm

Fwa..wha??? Link, por favor? That would be HUGE (see previous ramblings about delegate numbers and Virginia).

Yeah, that was some definitely off-base hyperbole.  Damn television.  Romney's definitely walking away with Virginia.

Other interesting NBC/WSJ polls, asking people which party they feel does a better job of reaching out to non-base people.  Nationally, 55% Democrats vs. 26% Republicans.  In the category itself, 35% of self-identified Republicans said the Democratic party is better at attracting the non-hardcore to vote for them.  Along with a "what word comes to mind" question coming back like 80% negative for the Republican primary process, among Republican voters even, that is going to be some very concerning news.

I'm not too surprised, as if you look at Gallup polls, republicans are far closer to being a monoculture (73% conservative) whereas only 38% of Democrats self-identify as liberals. So Republicans have more tendency to pander to their base supporters / live in an echo chamber than democrats do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 09:58:17 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 08:43:52 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 07:52:40 pm

And if Santorum and Gingrich join forces (and delegates), they'll overtake him.

That would require them to like each other.  Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is an asshole too.

Even if Romney is slightly behind an absolute majority, people will see the writing on the wall.  If there is a clear second place candidate who stands a chance in a brokered convention, it makes sense to try taking it all the way.  But Santorum and Gingrich are both falling pretty far behind.  Romney has more then 50% of the delegates to date.  If Romney wins a majority tomorrow then he'll probably have 3 times as many as either Gingrich or Santorum.  What's the point of fighting on at that point?

Suppose that Romney only has 45% of the delegates come convention time.  It would be ugly to give him the nomination and lead to some bad optics.  But to deny him the nomination and give it to someone who had 30%?  That would be a shitstorm.  And to nominate a dark horse in this day and age is basically to concede the election to Obama.

It's possible that Romney can lose this thing.  But he'd need to start losing states and having the other guys catch up in the delegate counts.  If it doesn't happen tomorrow, when is it going to happen?

Well, let's go through the remainder of this month. I think he has a tough fight in Kansas on Saturday. I think he loses Alabama and Mississippi next Tuesday (wins Hawaii though). I think he has a very tough fight in Missouri after that. By the time the next debate rolls around on the 19th, he may well have lost 4 of the 5 state contests between Super Tuesday and that debate. Of course, those are all proportional so he'll still be ahead in delegates, just with a narrowing lead. After that, Illiinois favors Romney but Louisiana favors either Gingrich or Santorum. Still proportional, so they probably cancel each other out.

April will be a very interesting month. Three winner-take-all contests to start off (Wisconsin, Maryland, D.C.), followed by another huge 3-week gap, and then 5 races on Apr 24th: New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware. I think if Romney puts the dagger in, that's the day he does it. Those races all favor him with the exception of Pennsylvania (but they're also all proportional) He still likely won't have enough delegates to clinch, but it might be enough to convince the other to concede.

BUT....here's the thing: after 4/24, the races swing back towards favoring the God-guns-and-gays camp.
5/8: NC, IN, WV
5/15: NE, OR
5/22: KY, AR
5/29: TX

Of those eight races, only Oregon naturally favors Romney. And Texas is a Proportional++ state: if the anti-Romney vote has dropped to one candidate, they could very potentially pull 50%+ and get all 155 delegates. Knowing those states are coming up on the slate could convince Santorum and/or Gingrich to stay in through May.

That sets up Armageddon: the winner-take-all closed primary for 172 delegates in California on June 5. Should favor Romney, but if the anti-Romney forces are anywhere within striking distance, they're going to pour every dollar and dirty trick into that race.

The real potential stumbling block is if Gingrich *and* Santorum hang on that long, they're going to wind up cannibalizing votes from each other, and you potentially see Romney winning states with 33-35%. With only a single anti-Romney candidate, they possibly get 50% in a few of those Proportional++ states and take big chunks out of the lead. Even without that, those low of a win percentages, he's simply not going to net enough candidates to avoid a brokered convention. If Romney's going to win this thing before the convention, he's got to do so convincingly. He's got to start winning states with 45-50% (and doing it only in states that will never ever go Republican in a general election doesn't help his case that he's a "true conservative".)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 11:17:27 pm

You are making some assumptions.  For one thing, proportional states aren't necessarily going to be close contests.  For instance Romney will probably build up more in Illinois then he loses in Louisiana.

And what makes you sure that Gingrich voters will coalesce behind Santorum or vice versa?  I think there's an element of that but we already saw it.  When Santorum looked weak Gingrich gained some but not enough to pass Romney.  When Gingrich looked weak, Santorum gained some but not enough to pass Romney.  Plenty of voters have told pollsters that Romney was their second choice.

I'm not saying that Romney can't lose.  But he is the only guy who can win by running out the clock.  Time is on his side.  If he wins an outright majority on Super Tuesday, his opponents are going to have a hard time looking viable.

April might be a tough month for Romney but that's a long way into the future.  Will his opponents be able to keep a campaign going for that long?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 06, 2012, 12:52:01 am

Quote

If you're a company, are you going to waste your money with a candidate who you don't think has any real shot at winning? Corps will dump their bribes campaign donations into the Congressional races instead. They'll max out the single contribution to the candidate fund ($10K) because that's chump change. They'll likely give the same amount to Obama, because big companies are smart enough to hedge their bets. But the unlimited donations to the SuperPAC...that'll be sorely lacking.

So what does that make Gingrich, then? I think you're underestimating the value of their investment, even if the candidate loses. Running these campaigns is as much a business as it is a process. It's funding ad agencies, pollsters, political operatives, networks...not to mention control over the issues. In terms of crafting the narrative for all Republicans, pouring money into the candidate that is willing to represent your views, even if they won't win, gives you control over the party and the conversation. Even if it's a stupid, destructive conversation that is terrible for the country.

So I don't see Romney's war chest drying up if he wins the nomination. For better or worse, Candidate Romney will speak for the Republican party, and those who have a vested interest in the Republican Party's view point will make sure Romney stays on their line of thought.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 09:06:53 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 05, 2012, 11:17:27 pm

You are making some assumptions.  For one thing, proportional states aren't necessarily going to be close contests.  For instance Romney will probably build up more in Illinois then he loses in Louisiana.

And what makes you sure that Gingrich voters will coalesce behind Santorum or vice versa?  I think there's an element of that but we already saw it.  When Santorum looked weak Gingrich gained some but not enough to pass Romney.  When Gingrich looked weak, Santorum gained some but not enough to pass Romney.  Plenty of voters have told pollsters that Romney was their second choice.

I'm not saying that Romney can't lose.  But he is the only guy who can win by running out the clock.  Time is on his side.  If he wins an outright majority on Super Tuesday, his opponents are going to have a hard time looking viable.

April might be a tough month for Romney but that's a long way into the future.  Will his opponents be able to keep a campaign going for that long?

I guess it's the "outright majority" bit that I object to. Seems too arbitrary. If he gets 60-70% of the available delegates? Yeah, I'll concede the point. 51%? Not over by a long shot. I feel like the media are clamoring to inject drama into their analysis, to keep ratings high. If they all said, "Yeah, today could be interesting but likely nothing will be decided today" then people aren't going to tune in to watch the results as much. If they say, "Today is the Ultimate Showdown Steel Cage Death Match Faceoff!!" then people will tune in. Last week, everyone kept saying "Michigan is Romney's Gettysburg". Turned out to not be that big of a deal. Honestly, I think some of the "analysis" I've read didn't even realize that these races are proportional. They were written as though Romney could sweep in, claim 400 delegates and walk away with the thing. My own estimates have him increasing his lead by a mere 50-60 delegates, and almost all of that from the certain-to-be-challenged Virginia primary.


That said.....TUESDAY! TUESDAY! TUESDAY!! It's the All-Star National Republican Nominating Event of the Millenium!
See the biggest and baddest in rhetoric-crushing monster pols! MITTFOOT! NEWTZILLA!
And the book-burning, nitro-lubricated SLICK RICK!
Also see Grandpa Crazypants in the Gold Standard Express!
Admission is free to the public (not counting the millions of public dollars spent on this bullshit). BE THERE!


Now then.....you know what's coming next.
Can you say "new polls"? I knew you could.

National:
Stunning new tracking poll from Gallup shows Romney up +16 nationally. This might be the biggest argument in favor of the "Romney's going to win the whole thing" side, moreso than the arcane math. Romney's polling at 38%, which is the highest he's been (or that ANY single candidate has been at) since the whole race began. An NBC News poll shows Romney at a much more modest +6.

Two new "Obama vs. X" polls out and as usual, Obama just says "COME AT ME BROS" and beats everybody.

Ohio:
No less than five new polls out, and the results run from Romney +5 to Santorum +4, with the average being Romney by around 1%, which is well within margin of error for most polls. End result: Nobody's likely to know this one till it hits 100% reported tonight.

Tenneessee:
To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise! Surprise, Surprise!" This is now a 3-way race. Two new polls out:
WeAskAmerica: Romney 30, Santorum 29, Gingrich 29, Paul 12
PPP: Santorum 34, Romney 29, Gingrich 27

Don't ask me how Gingrich is making a third comeback in the Southern states. I'd say dude sold his soul, but after everything he's done I'm not sure he could get a Diet Coke and a smile for it, much less a never-ending series of campaign resurrections.

Georgia:
Five new polls out. Four show Gingrich with a 20+ point lead in the state. Rasmussen shows him at +10, once again implying that Rasmussen's preferred polling method involves monkeys, dartboards and a prodigious amount of alcohol.


So....my personal predictions for tonight:
Georgia: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul -- Gingrich by a big margin
Ohio: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul -- very tight outcome
Tennessee: Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul -- also very tight 3-way outcome, but I think the rural folks get out the vote for Santorum
Massachusetts: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul -- Romney may break 50% here, but it's not a Proportional++ contest
Oklahoma: Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, Paul -- don't think Santorum breaks the 50% barrier
Vermont: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul -- Romney wins by about 6%
Virginia*: Romney, Paul -- Romney breaks 50% easily, takes all the delegates, and the court challenges are filed before the vote count is even over with.

No place/win/show predictions for the caucus states (Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho) because they're just so volatile. But I think Ron Paul does well in all three, and I think Romney does well in Idaho.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 09:50:55 am

I don't tune into the mainstream media at all on primary contests.  So they aren't poisoning my brain here.

I'm confused by what you say with him pulling ahead by only 50-60 delegates.  Your state predictions look a lot like Nate Silvers projections.  But Silver's math has him pulling ahead of each of his opponents by about 130-150 delegates.  Do you mean that he is going to only gain 50-60 on his opponents combined?  Because that's a fantastic night compared to only gaining 50-60 on the second place guy (which is still a strong night).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on March 06, 2012, 10:32:47 am

Looks similar to Nate's Romney downside projection. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/a-guide-to-super-tuesday-scenarios/#more-27687)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/06/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-3romneydown/fivethirtyeight-3romneydown-blog480.jpg)
It's pretty much a perfect storm, but even without everything going wrong it's possible that he could end up with a two figure advantage rather than three.

I'd note that Nate see's the upside for Santorum being if Gingrich does badly enough to drop out of the race. I actually think that Gingrich doing decently is more of a gain. The more delegates Gingrich takes from Romney (likely ones Santorum couldn't win himself) the more likely the race is extended and some sort of deal between the not-Romney candidates can take place. Or a violent mess occurs at the convention where absolutely anyone could win. The best case for Santorum is that a delegate-rich Gingrich drops out and endorses Santorum either fairly close to the convention or one of the remaining big rounds of voting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 11:18:05 am

Quote from: palsch on March 06, 2012, 10:32:47 am

Looks similar to Nate's Romney downside projection. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/a-guide-to-super-tuesday-scenarios/#more-27687)

The downside projection calls for Romney to lose Ohio by a decent margin and have the sort of weakness across the board that would correlate with that performance.  If RedKing expects Romney to win Ohio, even narrowly, then he is projecting something more in line with the base projection.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 11:43:17 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 09:50:55 am

I don't tune into the mainstream media at all on primary contests.  So they aren't poisoning my brain here.

I'm confused by what you say with him pulling ahead by only 50-60 delegates.  Your state predictions look a lot like Nate Silvers projections.  But Silver's math has him pulling ahead of each of his opponents by about 130-150 delegates.  Do you mean that he is going to only gain 50-60 on his opponents combined?  Because that's a fantastic night compared to only gaining 50-60 on the second place guy (which is still a strong night).

No, I meant 50-60 on Santorum. Look back at the numbers I posted:

Quote from: RedKing on March 05, 2012, 01:45:54 pm

Hmmm....just crunched some numbers regarding current polling percentages and likely delegate totals, and Virginia is going to be a big topic of discussion after tonight. Here's my hypothetical breakdown of the delegate counts in each non-caucus state, based on most recent poll data:

MA:
Romney - 26
Santorum - 7
Gingrich - 4
Paul - 4

OK:
Santorum - 20
Gingrich - 10
Romney - 9
Paul - 4

VT:
Romney - 6
Santorum - 5
Gingrich - 3
Paul - 3

Virginia*:
Romney - 49
Paul - 0

OH:
Romney - 23
Santorum - 22
Gingrich - 11
Paul - 10

TN:
Santorum - 20
Romney - 18
Gingrich - 15
Paul - 5

GA:
Gingrich - 35
Romney - 20
Santorum - 16
Paul - 5

Totals:
Romney - 151
Santorum - 90
Gingrich - 78
Paul -31

Take away that Virginia "win", and Romney and Santorum have almost equal nights (102 vs. 90). The other story is that if you combine Santorum and Gingrich, they'll still outdo Romney even with Virginia left in play. That observation will lead perhaps to an intensification of the rivalry between the two camps as each calls on the other to drop out in the name of "supporting true conservatism".

If Oklahoma goes >50% for Santorum, the final count should be around:
Romney - 142
Santorum - 113
Gingrich - 68
Paul - 27

So even with my "expected" count, Romney only gains 61 delegates over Santorum. Granted, that does still leave him with about a 150 delegate lead. But 150 isn't that much measured against the grand total.

Comparing my numbers to Nate's, it's pretty clear he expects Romney to have a better night all around than I do. For instance, he's predicting a virtual sweep of Massachusetts, which unless I missed a memo, isn't Proportional++. He's also projecting all of Idaho to go to Romney, and I didn't include the caucus states in my projection. He's also projecting Gingrich to get a bigger share of delegates in Georgia than I do. I also have Vermont more competitive, although that's a minor effect.

We'll have to see how it pans out. Nate Silver does this shit for a living, I'm just the equivalent of a fantasy footballer. But I'm sticking by my numbers for now.  :)
Admittedly, Nate probably knows the intricacies of the various state breakpoints and delegate share breakdowns better than I do, which could make a big difference...I was just calculating straight proportional shares for the most part, rather than trying to estimate based on district wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 12:18:39 pm

Must have missed your tallies before.  Silly me.

Your analysis strikes me as being more in tune with a few days back, before all the bad polls came in for Santorum.

There are a couple impossibilities in your predictions, Massachusetts for instance cannot return 4 delegates each to Gingrich and Paul, there is a viability threshold of 15%.  A more likely result is Romney getting 75% of those delegates or getting 100% if Santorum doesn't pull 15% either.  Ohio is another place where Gingrich and Paul will probably get shut out like this.

I also have a hard time seeing some of these predictions you are implying.  Vermont returns a close decision?  Romney only pulls 3rd place in Oklahoma?  These results would indicate that Romney is much weaker then his polling has indicated to date.

And finally you are ignoring Idaho.  Romney could very well pull 51% in Idaho and get all 32 of it's delegates.  Those 32 delegates would be a bigger haul then any of his opponents are likely to pull in any state but Georgia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 12:31:18 pm

See, I didn't know about the "viability threshold" for MA. That's the kind of minutiae that probably renders my projection invalid.

And as I said, I explicitly left out all the caucus states, because:
1. Distinct lack of poll data.
2. Non-binding results. Romney could win 90% of the vote in Idaho, and Ron Paul supporters could work the caucus system to wind up with the majority of the delegates (which has been his stated strategy)

I honestly do think Romney narrowly finishes 3rd in Oklahoma. Santorum has the state in hand, and I think Gingrich's "Southern Surge" spills over enough to bump him ahead of Romney. Oklahoma is VERY rural and VERY conservative. I don't see Romney getting more than 10-15% outside of OKC and possibly Tulsa. And even there, I don't think he wins a single district.

Most recent poll data I could find for Vermont showed Santorum doing surprisingly well up there, so my breakdown reflects that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 03:41:12 pm

I haven't seen any recent polling data out of Vermont.  All the old polling data I saw showed him comfortably ahead though and given the states political character I would imagine Romney would be a shoe-in.

Romney was polling about even with Gingrich in Oklahoma before his numbers took an uptick in the past few days.  If he underperforms there, I would expect him to underperform across the board and to lose in Ohio for instance, i.e. to be doing worse then expectations.

Non-binding or no, a Romney win in Idaho still makes him look strong.  Do you think that Santorum is going to campaign on the slogan "It's okay, Romney isn't really ahead because Ron Paul is going to usurp Romney's delegates through an undemocratic process!"  The question isn't whether a candidate can use these delegates to strongarm people at the RNC.  The question is whether they can stay in the race for another month.  Ron Pauls questionable delegate shenanigans do nothing to make Santorum look more viable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 06, 2012, 03:48:23 pm

Well, no, they make Romney look less viable to a cursory examiner, and when the front-runner's main draw is that he's the most viable candidate (which is an absurd thing to be campaigning on, but that's where we are I guess), that's going to make everyone else look better by comparison. I still expect Romney to come out ahead, I just think it's a question of how much longer the circus goes on, and I'm beginning to think it's "Until the convention".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 04:05:21 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on March 06, 2012, 03:48:23 pm

Well, no, they make Romney look less viable to a cursory examiner,

A cursory examiner isn't going to be aware of Ron Paul's backroom antics.  A cursory examiner is going to see "Romney won the vote" and maybe "delegate totals say he's got more then half."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 04:36:51 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 03:41:12 pm

I haven't seen any recent polling data out of Vermont.  All the old polling data I saw showed him comfortably ahead though and given the states political character I would imagine Romney would be a shoe-in.

Castleton State College (http://www.castleton.edu/polling/feb12/2_27_12results.htm) ran a poll in late February. Final tally was:

Romney - 34
Santorum - 27
Paul - 14
Gingrich -10

Granted it was a relatively small sample size (236), but it was likely voters as opposed to registered voters. And among the self-identified Republicans, Romney and Santorum were running dead even at 35% each. It's only the slight Independent support and the Dem support that nudges him ahead of Santorum in the full primary. It *is* an open primary, but it's hard to tell how many Dems will bother drawing an (R) ballot just to screw with things. And if they do, would they be more likely to vote for Romney or vote someone else to try and throw a wrench into the works? Might be a more interesting race than people are expecting...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 05:22:30 pm

That's not what I'd call up to date.  Romney has gained like 10 points on Santorum in national trend polling since that poll was taken (Feb 11-22).  Add 10 points to that 7 point margin and you get... a 17 point Romney blowout.  I'm not saying that I expect 17 points, but I would definitely expect Romney to be better then 7 points ahead in Vermont if we see a dead heat in Ohio.

Polling data is good, but don't assume that you should be slavishly obedient to it's predictions.  Using what you already know about the state and the fact that you know the race momentum has changed in the intervening time is an important filter for it when you have less then rigorous polling.  If it was a 1000 person survey done in the past week then I'd be much more inclined to believe that it was a close race.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 07:15:58 pm

On the other hand

Quote from: Nate Silver

No votes have been counted yet, but CNN's exit poll in Vermont found that both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were over the 20 percent threshold required to receive delegates there. (Our guess was that this would be true for Mr. Paul but not Mr. Santorum.)

If the exit poll results hold up, Mr. Romney would carry about 8 to 10 delegates out of the 17 that Vermont awards, versus 4 or 5 for Mr. Paul and about 4 for Mr. Santorum. Still, the exit poll sample size was especially small in Vermont, so we should watch carefully as actual results trickle in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 06, 2012, 08:37:13 pm

Rick Santorum running away with the early vote in Tennessee, now predicted to win the state.  That'll be a feather in his cap.
EDIT: Santorum also predicted to win Oklahoma.  He's got a respectable little sandcastle going now.

Newt Gingrich is winning Georgia exactly as expected, but depending on how well he does, Romney or Santorum (or even both) could be knocked below the 20% Viability Threshold for a share of the votes.

Romney winning handily in Virginia, Massachusetts, and Vermont.  Still a question of margins, but the headlines are already set.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 08:59:24 pm

Feeling a bit vindicated on Vermont (although it's Ron Paul that's dogging Romney along with Slick Rick).

But I wish to God I'd read this article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/06/politics/super-tuesday-winner-take-all/index.html) before coming up with my projection. FINALLY, a good article explaining the crazy-ass different rules regarding how these states are proportional or not. For instance, Virginia is a winner-take-all if someone breaks 50% *AND* wins every Congressional district. That second condition changes everything, because I can totally see Ron Paul winning a district or two in the southwestern part of the state (the Appalachian "neck").

EDIT: Vote totals from Virginia make it a much closer race than earlier polls suggested, at 59-41. Paul narrowly won a swath of counties from Patrick straight up north to Craig county. Interestingly enough, he also won slim majorities in the Norfolk/Portsmouth area. Maybe there's enough sailors that are liking his "no more foreign wars" stance?

Where Mitt really cleaned up was in NoVa, like Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria counties---the greater DC metro area. You can expect to see that used against him as proof that Romney's "the DC insider candidate".


It's still early going in Massachusetts, but Santorum is only at 12% in 2nd place. If nobody but Romney hits 15%, the state becomes winner-take-all.


Santorum appears to be winning Tennessee by a pretty wide margin, while Ohio is still very much neck and neck.

Gingrich is mopping up in Georgia with 48%, BUT he would need to hold all other challengers below 20% *and* win every district in order to claim the whole thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 09:59:16 pm

Santorum has taken the lead in Ohio. If he takes Ohio *and* Tennessee with the margin he has there (and Oklahoma and North Dakota, as it looks like he will)....there's a lot of hay to made out of this. Those big margins in Massachusetts and Northern Virginia almost become a liability, with the label "Massachusetts liberal" and "D.C. insider" slapped all over him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on March 06, 2012, 10:08:46 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 09:59:16 pm

Santorum has taken the lead in Ohio. If he takes Ohio *and* Tennessee with the margin he has there (and Oklahoma and North Dakota, as it looks like he will)....there's a lot of hay to made out of this. Those big margins in Massachusetts and Northern Virginia almost become a liability, with the label "Massachusetts liberal" and "D.C. insider" slapped all over him.

*lives in Ohio*
FUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
I am ashamed to live here now. >_>
And honestly a bit puzzled. Remind me why Santorum is big in Ohio? I'm sorta a newb at politics and don't remember most of what I read here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 06, 2012, 10:19:17 pm

Still watching Ohio - with 66% of the vote reporting, Santorum is in the lead by about thirteen thousand votes out of about seven hundred thousand (38% to 36%).  Wow.  This one could go down the wire, as the most urban and most rural areas keep reporting.  C'mon, gimme something good in the next 45 minutes.

Quote from: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 09:59:16 pm

Santorum has taken the lead in Ohio. If he takes Ohio *and* Tennessee with the margin he has there (and Oklahoma and North Dakota, as it looks like he will)....there's a lot of hay to made out of this. Those big margins in Massachusetts and Northern Virginia almost become a liability, with the label "Massachusetts liberal" and "D.C. insider" slapped all over him.

He was going to be stuck with those labels no matter what the votes were.  It will be interesting to see the counties around D.C. going 99% for him though, that might be noteworthy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: roflgar on March 06, 2012, 10:19:29 pm

Don't feel too bad Twi, I live in PA.

We made the mistake of electing that clown (and by "we" I mean people who aren't me since I was a child at the time).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 10:26:11 pm

Well looking at the map, outside of the big four metro areas (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo) Santorum cleaned up. That's a lot of small-town rural Americana out there.

Thing is, I just crunched some numbers, and if I'm doing the math right, Romney will probably suffer a less-than-impressive night and STILL come out with a lead that is 100 delegates higher than it was going in. The reason? He'll almost certainly keep everyone below the 15% threshold in Massachusetts and thus pick up ALL 41 delegates there. And even though he didn't sweep Virginia, He'll wind up with 43 of 49 (and more importantly, Rick Santorum gets zilch), and finally the way the Idaho caucuses are structured, it's virtually a winner-take-all contest. Early results are heavily in Romney's favor, so that's another 32.

So right there, from those three states he has 116 delegates and Santorum picks up a goose egg. Santorum wasn't able to shut out the competition in Oklahoma, so he winds up having to share delegates with Romney there, and in TN and OH and GA even with the wins. He whittles away at Romney's lead, but he can't whittle away in giant chunks like Romney got in the three above.

Vermont ends up being a small net bonus for Romney, and Alaska is still voting but it's not a large number of delegates.

Right now, Romney looks poised to win four, Santorum to win four, Gingrich to win one. Even if Santorum takes Alaska and thus wins the lion's share of the night, his wins will be paltry in terms of delegates compared to Romney's wins, because of the vagaries of the different state rules. You can bank on the Virginia primary being taken to the courts by somebody, because that's a major blow to the various anti-Romney forces.

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 06, 2012, 10:19:17 pm

He was going to be stuck with those labels no matter what the votes were.  It will be interesting to see the counties around D.C. going 99% for him though, that might be noteworthy.

Nah, they're not that lopsided, but they are roughly 65-35 in favor of Romney over Paul. I'm surprised Paul got 35%, considering he wants to "slit the throat of Federal government" and those counties are more or less utterly tied to the Federal government for their livelihoods.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 06, 2012, 10:33:10 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 10:26:11 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 06, 2012, 10:19:17 pm

He was going to be stuck with those labels no matter what the votes were.  It will be interesting to see the counties around D.C. going 99% for him though, that might be noteworthy.

Nah, they're not that lopsided, but they are roughly 65-35 in favor of Romney over Paul. I'm surprised Paul got 35%, considering he wants to "slit the throat of Federal government" and those counties are more or less utterly tied to the Federal government for their livelihoods.

Yeah, that might actually work for him, if he winds up doing worse around D.C. proper than he does statewide.  Since most of the people around D.C. voting in the primary are Republicans who work in or for the federal government, you'd figure they'd be for the "thinking man's conservative" candidate.  Maybe there's a lot of plucky young College Republicans around there, boosting up Paul.

Also, North Dakota has been called for Santorum.  States are not equal in the slightest, but saying you clearly won in three states is pretty impressive for anyone.  Ohio is still too close to call, although the total number of counties are mostly going for Santorum - like Michigan, the Santorum/Romney county breakdown looks almost exactly like a population-density map.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 10:37:31 pm

Mitt still has a shot in Ohio, because Cleveland and Cincy still aren't fully in. Cincy is at 78% reporting, and Cleveland at only 41%. Those are some sizable vote blocks, and they're both trending pretty heavy for Romney (48-30 in Cincy, 47-31 in Cleveland).

Most, but not all of the rural areas are 100% in. Given that the gap is only about 7,000 votes...yeah. Cleveland alone might erase that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 06, 2012, 10:46:11 pm

Likewise, Cincinnati is supposedly the conservative talk-radio capital of America.  Provided that's true, I honestly don't know how Ohio's urban areas will break down, in terms of Republican vs. Republican, but it does sound like Santorum should be winning the usually-Romney urbanized Republican vote.

85% in, and the race has narrowed to Santorum winning by about two thousand votes.  There's a whole lot of campaign staffers chewing their nails right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 10:56:45 pm

Doing the math in my head, I think Romney pulls this one out by a hair. Probably close enough for a recount.

Also, saw that Sarah Palin commented that she's "open" to jumping into the race if there's a brokered convention. How freakin' awesome would that be? And how very Palinesque..."I don't want to do any that hard stuff like campaigning and fundraising, but you know...if you boys want to just go ahead and make me Queen then yah, I'd be up for that, ya betcha."  ::)

Meanwhile, Newt's victory speech in Georgia was mostly about gas prices, himself and how unfair the liberal media elites are to him.

Alex Castellanos had a pretty good observation earlier:

Quote

This is a scary night for Mitt Romney. Santorum is going to be able to look him in the eye tomorrow and say, 'You outspent me to three to one in Tennessee, four to one in Ohio, and in 90 of 95 counties in Tennessee, I beat you, and in Ohio, we don't know.' This is getting scary-close for Romney. This a near-death experience.

EDIT: Also, amusing tweet:

Quote

@ BenjySarlin : If Romney's the Death Star, Ohio is looking like a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 06, 2012, 11:06:31 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 10:56:45 pm

Also, saw that Sarah Palin commented that she's "open" to jumping into the race if there's a brokered convention. How freakin' awesome would that be? And how very Palinesque..."I don't want to do any that hard stuff like campaigning and fundraising, but you know...if you boys want to just go ahead and make me Queen then yah, I'd be up for that, ya betcha."  ::)

Well, that was basically how she got on the ticket last time.  And if Romney, and McCain, and Dole, and probably more examples than anyone would be comfortable with suggest, the Republican party does love its past losers.

But, yeah, we all know ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 10:56:45 pm

Meanwhile, Newt's victory speech in Georgia was mostly about gas prices, himself and how unfair the liberal media elites are to him.

I always love hearing people suggest Gingrich is the "intellectual" candidate, basically for no other reason except that he's been calling himself a genius for eighteen years.  That speech made me want to stab my ears with a pencil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 06, 2012, 11:14:32 pm

Big chunk of votes in from Cleveland and Cincy, and Romney is now in the lead by 5500. With still another 40% or so of Cleveland to report. I think he'll actually win by 8,000 or more. Probably enough for a 2% margin of victory. Team Romney has got to having a HUGE sigh of momentary relief, while Rick Santorum is probably using the sort of language that he'd insist he never uses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 11:22:42 pm

Should be interesting to see if Santorum pulls just above or just below the 20% threshhold in Georgia.  Could lead to Gingrich dropping out if he goes over that.

Overall this is looking a lot like Silver's middleground projection, which should mean Romney gaining about 150 on Santorum and 140 on Gingrich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on March 06, 2012, 11:26:51 pm

Romney now up by 7000, with 93% of the total in, or about 85k ballots to count left. At this point it looks like Romney's got it, but only by about 1%, though nearly all remaining counties have been pretty relatively strongly for Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on March 06, 2012, 11:37:18 pm

I hope Santorum wins so much, want this to be as hard as possible for Mitt Romney to win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 12:03:57 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 06, 2012, 11:22:42 pm

Should be interesting to see if Santorum pulls just above or just below the 20% threshhold in Georgia.  Could lead to Gingrich dropping out if he goes over that.

Honestly, I'm beginning to think the only way Gingrich pulls out is if his campaign bus runs over him. And even then, his bloated corpse might just get up and complain that he was the target of a liberal conspiracy and vow to continue running shuffling awkwardly for President of the United States of America and our tasty braaaaiiiinsss.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 07, 2012, 12:05:12 am

Rick Santorum: "higher-income people don’t have to pay taxes if they don’t want to." (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/05/santorum-higher-income-people-dont-have-to-pay-taxes/)

Also, not that it'll really matter, but Obama won the Oklahoma Primary-with only 57% of the vote. (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/Primary/OK)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 07, 2012, 12:15:10 am

Quote

And even then, his bloated corpse might just get up and complain that he was the target of a liberal conspiracy and vow to continue running shuffling awkwardly for President of the United States of America and our tasty braaaaiiiinsss.

DWTS.

Just you wait.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on March 07, 2012, 12:17:23 am

The BBC reporters just summed it up pretty well: 'He [Gingrich]'s still talking about his winning the nomination. No one else is; but he still is.'

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 07, 2012, 12:27:48 am

Kinda off-topic, but whatever happened to NinjaBoot? Did he get muted or banned?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 12:43:35 am

He's not in the moderation log. I think he was asked to take his spiels to a separate thread. He did, and then that thread appears to have died. So yeah...dunno.

[/quote]

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 07, 2012, 12:05:12 am

Also, not that it'll really matter, but Obama won the Oklahoma Primary-with only 57% of the vote. (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/Primary/OK)

Hah. 18% went to Randall Terry -- a virulent anti-abortion nut who's running as a Democrat for the lulz. Not that it matters. If you ever see Oklahoma turn blue on a general election map, be absolutely terrified because I'm pretty sure that's one of the Signs of the Apocalypse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 07, 2012, 12:47:54 am

Yeah, I posted in the other thread a few times. The reason I ask here is because that one is dead and this one isn't.
Oh well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on March 07, 2012, 01:12:11 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17282260

Romney narrowly takes Ohio.

Quote from: BBC

The drawn-out nomination fight, which has been waged in large part through negative television adverts, has taken a toll on the Republican party, polling suggests.

Oh, really?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on March 07, 2012, 06:13:43 am

Republicans see long, drawn out and hard fought Democratic primary contest energise the base and establish a powerful ground game that Obama rides to the presidency.

Republicans create a long, drawn out and hard fought Republican primary contest that completely demoralises the base while outsourcing their ground game to PACs dependent on a handful of billionaires.

You could almost say Obama won this election back during the primaries of '08. But I wouldn't because that would be tempting fate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 10:23:57 am

Another piece of electoral news that slipped through the cracks last night:

Dennis Kucinich lost his primary battle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kucinich-faces-uphill-battle-for-redistricted-seat/2012/03/05/gIQA6MFrvR_story.html) last night. This wasn't some kind of rejection of progressivism or an insurgency, but rather a result of redistricting which pitted two Democratic incumbents against each other.

EDIT: Oh lawd....and Joe the Plumber won the GOP primary (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/07/joe-the-plumber-wins-gop-primary-in-ohio/?hpt=hp_t2) to face off with the Dem who beat Kucinich. Small world.


Not much to report, poll-wise. National tracking poll shows Romney at +10 (this would have been conducted prior to last night). Obama still beating all challengers, even with slightly negative approval ratings.

Next up on the slate: Slightly Super Saturday, with four contests at stake:

Kansas (40 delegates)
Guam (9 delegates)
Northern Marianas (9 delegates)
Virgin Islands (9 delegates)

I think it's safe to say none of the candidates willl be visiting the various islands. Not a lot of poll data out there for Kansas, but my gut says it's inherently going to favor Santorum. Let's remember, this is the same state that tried to ban evolution, make creationism part of the school curriculum, is the home of Westboro Baptist Church, and is just kinda generally "Jesusland" outside of Lawrence and Kansas City. However, it's a caucus, not a primary. Which means all sorts of weirdness could happen.


DOUBLE-EDIT:
Voters Slowly Realizing Santorum Believes Every Deranged Word That Comes Out Of His Mouth (http://www.theonion.com/articles/voters-slowly-realizing-santorum-believes-every-de,27518/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 11:50:05 am

Most likely true as well. I mean, no matter how bad the other two sound, at least you know they are most likely lying. Santorum though is actually crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2012, 12:14:29 pm

Unfortunately, as an onion article, the data therein is false.

People still don't realize he believes what he says. May the gods of the outer ring have mercy on us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2012, 12:28:45 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on March 07, 2012, 11:50:05 am

Most likely true as well. I mean, no matter how bad the other two sound, at least you know they are most likely lying. Santorum though is actually crazy.

How do you tell when Gingrich is lying?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

His lips move.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 07, 2012, 12:31:37 pm

Aside from the state of the union, Obama's biggest campaign move has been to have the Republicans exist. And it remains by far the most effective.

However, this is not a good thing. The democrats don't need to do anything to secure the liberal vote. If Obama was turned into a tree by some kind of wizard, then he would still handily defeat the republicans by virtue of not being a philanderer, a christian taliban, or a monopolist.*

When the liberal option is a man who operates a vicious internal witch-hunt, explodes growth in police-state internal monitoring (drones, TSA, buzzwords, ect.) coddles banks and billionaire criminals, and who thinks a moderate approach to diplomacy with Iran is "We won't attack unless we decide to, or Israel tells us to"... then you have to ask yourself what state our politics is in.

In order to have a strong liberal side, you need a strong conservative side. I want to have to study carefully the positions both sides make, and make agonizing moral choices to determine which side is really the one I want to support.

This isn't an election- it's a mugging. We're being given the choice between giving up all our cash, or getting our faces smashed in. And all our cash taken.

*Oh, or a borderline insane idealist gold-fetishist supported by the Klan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Really? I mean....really? Okay, so Obama has turned out to be more of a Clintonian centrist than an FDR New Dealer, but seriously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2012, 12:48:59 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Really? I mean....really? Okay, so Obama has turned out to be more of a Clintonian centrist than an FDR New Dealer, but seriously.

+1

I find Obama's reversals on civil liberties to be genuinely confusing but other then that he's really what you'd expect given the American political framework you have to work with.  You could resurrect FDR or LBJ and make them president today and you'd probably get results pretty darn similar to Obama.  FDR and LBJ probably would infringe on the same civil liberties that Obama has to boot.  Obama doesn't have a congress that is 90% New Dealers like FDR.  And FDR did a stupidly premature pivot to hard currency and closing the budget deficit in 1937, pretty closely mimicking Obama's biggest mistake.  LBJ only got medicare and medicaid as a watered down compromise of what he originally wanted.

In other news, Intrade has Romney up to 89% chance of being the nominee.  Pretty close to his all time high again.  About what you'd expect seeing as Super Tuesday had no big surprises and he got slightly more then half the delegates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 04:15:03 pm

You knew it was only a matter of time: Santorum's main SuperPAC calls on Gingrich to drop out of the race. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57392386-503544/pro-santorum-super-pac-calls-on-gingrich-to-drop-out/)


In more WTF??!? news, Pat Robertson made a speech on the 700 Club (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-pat-robertson-20120306,0,658940.story?track=icymi) in which he first called for decriminalizing marijuana (!!),
blamed "liberals" for tough drug sentencing (??),
and then insinuated that people whose homes were destroyed by the recent tornadoes were partly at fault for not praying hard enough, because

Quote

“If enough people were praying, He would intervene. You could pray. Jesus stilled the storm. You could still storms.”

(?!!?#$%!&??)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2012, 04:23:52 pm

Many "liberal" politicians are the ones responsible for tough drug sentencing - it scores them easy points to counteract the normal "soft on crime" view of liberals and lets them convert some independents. I'd say overall there are more anti-drug politicians on the right than the left, but more anti-drug PEOPLE on the left.

It's a weird thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2012, 04:24:27 pm

I think Robertson is genuinely senile now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 07, 2012, 04:26:19 pm

Yea. You shouldn't expect anything out of ol' Pat's mouth to be full of anything but WTF.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2012, 04:26:42 pm

I think he's been that way for a long time, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: roflgar on March 07, 2012, 04:38:32 pm

I think he just loves money, and he gets a loooooot of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 07, 2012, 04:49:43 pm

I will henceforth refer to him as "Pot Robertson" and assume that any and all sense he fails to make isn't senility, it's just the weed talking.

A round-up of the op-ed headlines this morning is hilarious, and shows just how confused the situation is.

It Ain't Over, And Won't Be For a While - Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
It's Over: It Will Be Romney vs. Obama - Peter Wehner, CNN

No, the GOP Isn't Doomed - Rich Lowry, FOX News
The Real Winner On Super Tuesday? Obama - Ruy Teixeira, Foreign Policy

Barack Obama: Israel's Best Friend - Thomas Friedman, New York Times
Can Israel Trust Obama? - Thomas Sowell, Investor's Business Daily

Romney Takes Another Step Towards Nomination - Carl Cannon, RCP
No Clear Path to Nomination Now For Rommney - Avlon & Jacobs, Daily Beast

Basically for any one viewpoint a pundit has, there's an equal and opposite reality that another pundit lives in.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: roflgar on March 07, 2012, 10:12:39 pm

But that's how it goes down whenever literally anything happens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 09, 2012, 10:24:26 am

Polls, we got 'em!

National
Obama vs. Romney? Obama +4
Obama vs. Santorum? Obama +8
Obama vs. a small, cute puppy? TIE GAME.

Alabama
Yesterday, poll had Santorum at +4, today's poll has Romney at +10?? That's a pretty big divergence, which makes me think a lot of people just haven't gotten around to making up their minds. Hopefully more data will come out over the weekend before next Tuesday. Unclear if Gingrich is eating into Santorum's base, or Alabamians are quite as asshat-crazy as I expected, or what.

New York
Romney turf (+15), but Santorum is polling a surprising 23% to Romney's 38%. Romney is not a strong buy, which is a surprise given his essentially New England Republican motif.

California
Yes, it's a long ways out. But Romney only has a 6-point lead on Santorum at this point (28-22). Santorum is actually tied for 2nd with "Undecided" (although this poll was taken before Super Tuesday, apparently). This is potentially huge down the road -- California is a BIG chunk of delegates, and it's winner-take-all. If Santorum were to take California and a sizeable chunk of Texas....he could cut deeply into Romney's lead.

It's Caucus Day tomorrow in Kansas (40 delegates) and in three island races (Guam, N. Marianas, Virgin Islands, 9 delegates each). No poll data available for any of those. My guess would be that Santorum edges Romney for Kansas, and Romney wins pretty easily in the islands (for one thing, much of the US territories in Polynesia have a sizeable Mormon population in them). Word is, if Romney wins the Virgin Islands Rush Limbaugh will start referring to them as the "Slutty Islands".  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 09, 2012, 10:49:17 am

If Santorum doesn't win California it's very hard for him to win a plurality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 09, 2012, 11:46:53 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 09, 2012, 10:49:17 am

If Santorum doesn't win California it's very hard for him to win a plurality.

Agreed. Which is why I'm still leaning towards this being a brokered convention either way. The difference is who's in the lead going into the convention, and what share of delegates they have. If Romney wins California, he probably goes in with 40-49% of the delegates and has a stronger case for being the nominee. If he loses California, he may still go in as the frontrunner, but with only a 35-40% share and a much more tenuous case for his candidacy. In a scenario like that, I still think some Faustian bargain between Santorum and Gingrich will be struck, that they'll agree to a joint ticket and pool their delegates. The big question would be who's on top and who's bottom. (and when you parse that with Santorum involved....it just gets messy).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 09, 2012, 11:54:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 09, 2012, 11:46:53 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 09, 2012, 10:49:17 am

If Santorum doesn't win California it's very hard for him to win a plurality.

Agreed. Which is why I'm still leaning towards this being a brokered convention either way. The difference is who's in the lead going into the convention, and what share of delegates they have. If Romney wins California, he probably goes in with 40-49% of the delegates

I'd give you even odds that he has 50+%.  He has 50+% right now and the schedule in front of him is fairly favorable long term, he's expected to win most of the winner take all states and split the delegates in the states he loses.  If you left all other things equal and switched California from Romney to Santorum, then Romney would still be expected to have plurality, just not majority.  But if California switches then Santorum is probably having momentum elsewhere so all other things aren't equal.

Furthermore the superdelegates generally are friendlier to Romney then the other candidates.  Even if Romney does badly and only takes 45% of the pledged delegates, the super delegates will probably give him the nod to avoid a brokered convention.  It's only if Romney hits a real wall and does really badly that the super delegates can't push him over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 09, 2012, 03:36:58 pm

Although if he only has 45% of the pledged delegates, and it comes down to the unpledged delegates basically "handing" him the nomination...that's going to have about the same amount of blowback within the party as a brokered convention would. Either way, it's going to be seen as the "smoke-filled backroom" and the establishment "stealing" the nomination for Romney.

Which, if Romney loses, means they'll once again deduce the moral of the story to be "We lost because we weren't rabid ENOUGH." 2014 mid-term elections will see the "liberal" Tea Party supplanted by the Fatherland Party and their paramilitary arm.  ::)

So who knows...maybe it's best for all if a wounded and exhausted Romney wins the nomination, only to be deserted by the far-right and steamrolled by the Left.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 09, 2012, 04:13:28 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 09, 2012, 03:36:58 pm

Although if he only has 45% of the pledged delegates, and it comes down to the unpledged delegates basically "handing" him the nomination...that's going to have about the same amount of blowback within the party as a brokered convention would. Either way, it's going to be seen as the "smoke-filled backroom" and the establishment "stealing" the nomination for Romney.

Super-delegates gave Obama the nomination in 2008.  Some people grumbled but it was hardly a repeat of the 1968 democratic convention fiasco.  Super delegates pushing a candidate over the top isn't ideal but it's not an actual brokered convention which makes for truly horrible optics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 09, 2012, 05:03:54 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 09, 2012, 04:13:28 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 09, 2012, 03:36:58 pm

Although if he only has 45% of the pledged delegates, and it comes down to the unpledged delegates basically "handing" him the nomination...that's going to have about the same amount of blowback within the party as a brokered convention would. Either way, it's going to be seen as the "smoke-filled backroom" and the establishment "stealing" the nomination for Romney.

Super-delegates gave Obama the nomination in 2008.  Some people grumbled but it was hardly a repeat of the 1968 democratic convention fiasco.  Super delegates pushing a candidate over the top isn't ideal but it's not an actual brokered convention which makes for truly horrible optics.

Yeah, but Obama was the "insurgent" candidate. If the superdelegates had given it to Clinton, I think it would have been a whole different story. The "PUMA" crowd was nothing compared to what pissed-off Obama supporters would have been.

Same way that if the superdelegates end up giving it to Santorum or Gingrich, there will be grumbling and rolling of eyes among the GOP establishment but they're not exactly going to be ranting and railing and gnashing teeth (at least in public).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 09, 2012, 08:36:36 pm

For the record, Romney has to obtain something like 47% of all remaining delegates to reach the 1144 needed for an automatic majority nomination, Santorum needs to get about 65% of the remainder.  It sounds impossible for Santorum to make it over the top, but it's hardly inconceivable that Romney could get less than half of all remaining votes, especially if any bit of his money dries up.  When he has to spend six times as much as Santorum to achieve slightly better than parity in places like Ohio, that is a campaign on a rickety platform.

Interesting parsing from the exit polls: in Ohio at least, Romney and Santorum were about equally matched in preference (about 35-40% apiece) for all voters, except those with incomes over $200,000 who Romney ran away with, just enough to push him into victory.  Wealthy people tend to vote in higher percentages than other demographics by average (greater political literacy, personal interest, ability to take off a Tuesday afternoon), and don't vary much between elections.  Pollsters have actually seen a noticeable increase in voter turnout among the highest-polled-for income brackets across almost every race in the Republican primary, virtually all of them saying they're for Romney.  He actually is a "Movement Candidate" - it's a movement of wealthy people.

Also, the Democratic primary in Ohio, a primary with essentially one name on the ballot, had higher voter turnout than any one Republican's total votes.  Yes, Romney got 457k votes, and the Ohio Democratic Party got about 480k people to turn out to cast a purely symbolic vote for Obama in their primary.  Intriguing.  Meanwhile, leprechaun Representative Dennis Kuicinich lost his primary renomination for his redistricted seat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rep-marcy-kaptur-beats-rep-dennis-kuicinich-in-ohio-democratic-primary/2012/03/06/gIQA5vO5vR_blog.html).  Yes, he won't be losing his Congressional seat because of redistricting, he'll be departing Congress because a different Democrat foisted him out.

And just because it's my thread, here's a Sarah Palin word salad for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTOV1sOZ4J8&feature=g-logo&context=G2468270FOAAAAAAAAAA).  Yeah yeah, posted by Think Progress, it's her on Fox and it was on YouTube's frontpage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 10, 2012, 01:49:14 am

Quote

Meanwhile, leprechaun Representative Dennis Kuicinich lost his primary renomination for his redistricted seat.  Yes, he won't be losing his Congressional seat because of redistricting, he'll be departing Congress because a different Democrat foisted him out.

I always thought he was a gnome Representative, myself. Those ears, man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on March 10, 2012, 02:08:59 am

Quote

Interesting parsing from the exit polls: in Ohio at least, Romney and Santorum were about equally matched in preference (about 35-40% apiece) for all voters, except those with incomes over $200,000 who Romney ran away with, just enough to push him into victory.  Wealthy people tend to vote in higher percentages than other demographics by average (greater political literacy, personal interest, ability to take off a Tuesday afternoon), and don't vary much between elections.  Pollsters have actually seen a noticeable increase in voter turnout among the highest-polled-for income brackets across almost every race in the Republican primary, virtually all of them saying they're for Romney.  He actually is a "Movement Candidate" - it's a movement of wealthy people.

Well, Romney did win Ohio by *puts on sunglasses* one percent.  8)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on March 10, 2012, 02:12:26 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 09, 2012, 08:36:36 pm

And just because it's my thread, here's a Sarah Palin word salad for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTOV1sOZ4J8&feature=g-logo&context=G2468270FOAAAAAAAAAA).  Yeah yeah, posted by Think Progress, it's her on Fox and it was on YouTube's frontpage.

I didn't make it to the end. What the hell was she babbling about?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on March 10, 2012, 02:23:31 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on March 10, 2012, 02:12:26 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 09, 2012, 08:36:36 pm

And just because it's my thread, here's a Sarah Palin word salad for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTOV1sOZ4J8&feature=g-logo&context=G2468270FOAAAAAAAAAA).  Yeah yeah, posted by Think Progress, it's her on Fox and it was on YouTube's frontpage.

I didn't make it to the end. What the hell was she babbling about?

Apparently it isn't the social conservatives that want to roll the clock back to the 1800s.   ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 10, 2012, 03:16:00 am

My favorite parts about the video?
1: The like/dislike bar.
2: The last part of the URL:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

AAAAAAAAAA

Least favorite part is the commentators saying that modern Democrats are aligned with the KKK.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on March 10, 2012, 03:24:20 am

"I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" -Talking Heads All Over

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on March 10, 2012, 09:52:39 am

That woman takes talking shit to an artform

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 10, 2012, 10:50:29 am

How can you talk for so long and yet not provide anything at all to back up your main statement?  I mean, at least she had a point this time, but she just rambled randomly for the rest of her talk without explaining how Obama wants to take America back to before the Civil War at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 10, 2012, 01:45:59 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 10, 2012, 10:50:29 am

How can you talk for so long and yet not provide anything at all to back up your main statement?  I mean, at least she had a point this time, but she just rambled randomly for the rest of her talk without explaining how Obama wants to take America back to before the Civil War at all.

Do you watch much Fox News? Because that's SOP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on March 10, 2012, 11:05:47 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on March 10, 2012, 09:52:39 am

That woman takes talking shit to an artform

Abstract art, maybe.

In other news, Santorum takes Kansas, Romney takes Wyoming. Nothing really unexpected there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 11, 2012, 01:13:54 am

I find it odd that Newt is polling #1 in Mississippi, followed by Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 11, 2012, 01:17:39 am

Quote from: alway on March 10, 2012, 11:05:47 pm

In other news, Santorum takes Kansas, Romney takes Wyoming. Nothing really unexpected there.

Santorum beat expectations though, which is good news for those of us who want this clown show to continue.  It was actually the state where he gained the most delegates on Romney so far.  If Romney had just done 2% lower it would have been a shutout though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on March 11, 2012, 03:12:29 am

I'm in agreement with the above, let the show train-wreck drag on for the full course...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 11, 2012, 06:01:16 am

Quote from: Nadaka on March 11, 2012, 01:13:54 am

I find it odd that Newt is polling #1 in Mississippi, followed by Romney.

Newt's "one of us". Southern conservatives like to vote for fellow good-ol'-boys. Whereas that Santorum feller is not only a carpetbagging Yankee, but probably comes off a bit too strident and preachy. As much as religion is of import in the South, there's also a saying that the reason Baptists are so keen to go to church on Sunday is because they need to make up for what they did on Saturday night. Newt is the kind of guy that they'd be out drinking with on Saturday night. (Although honestly, he uses too many 50-cent words. If Rick Perry was still in the race, he'd be obliterating Gingrich in the South...Perry seems like the kind of guy who actually has been out drinking most Saturday nights...)

That Romney is in 2nd...yeah, that's a bit odd. Maybe Santorum dissed the Confederate flag or something.

EDIT:
Nate Silver, hoopy frood that he is, put up this map to show how geographically-bounded the candidates' wins have been:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7185/6970712445_8ac8c9ab08_b.jpg)

That bodes ill for Santorum, because frankly he's winning the "flyover states". Which inherently have lower population and fewer delegates than the two coasts that Romney is winning. Also, it means (not that this is shocking revelation or anything) that he's winning in states the GOP is likely to carry in November anyways. Romney's winning the swing states and blue states. The blue states are meaningless for the most part. There is no way that Massachusetts goes GOP in the general election. But winning the swing states does bolster Romney's argument for being the more competitive candidate to some extent.

The counter-argument to that being that diehard conservatives may be so disenchanted with a Romney candidacy that they'll stay home or vote 3rd party in protest, losing the swing states and possibly even costing him a few traditionally red ones. Could be a mirror image of 2004, where a deeply unpopular G.W. Bush won a bigger margin of victory for re-election than he did for his initial election, in part because of lukewarm support for John Kerry. Even though most people on the blue side of the spectrum would have voted for a dead woodchuck before they voted for Bush, and third party votes were extremely low because of what happened with Nader and Gore in 2000, the enthusiasm wasn't there. Which meant lower fundraising, weaker ground game, sluggish GOTV efforts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 11, 2012, 11:56:35 am

Believe it or not I would have thought that Mississippi would go for either Ron Paul... or don't shoot me... Obama. They are the only two left in the race with religion compatible with the Southern Baptist Convention. They can always get away with not wanting Obama by claiming he is a secret muslim, but both Mormons and Catholics are considered heretics in the SBC. I suppose Newt may be getting a boost down there because his commitment to Catholicism is about as strong as his commitment to his current wife (who is catholic and converted him).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 11, 2012, 12:06:49 pm

A few nitpicks
-The 2004 electorate was not disengaged.  2004 had the highest voter participation rate since 1964, especially in battleground states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2004US_election_map.svg).
-Kerry did not depress the base.  When you are running against a wartime president who just cut taxes, unemployment is low, has more money then you and you are saddled with minority positions on the two highest profile social issues (partial-birth abortion, gay marriage) you are a massive, massive underdog.  That Kerry turned it into a squeaker is actually pretty darn impressive.
-Santorum isn't just winning states that are solidly republican.  Minnesota is one of the most reliably democratic states in the union.  Iowa is a swing state, Missouri and Colorado are both potentially in play.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 11, 2012, 12:13:48 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 11, 2012, 11:56:35 am

Believe it or not I would have thought that Mississippi would go for either Ron Paul... or don't shoot me... Obama. They are the only two left in the race with religion compatible with the Southern Baptist Convention. They can always get away with not wanting Obama by claiming he is a secret muslim, but both Mormons and Catholics are considered heretics in the SBC. I suppose Newt may be getting a boost down there because his commitment to Catholicism is about as strong as his commitment to his current wife (who is catholic and converted him).

I now wish that did happen. It certainly would have been interesting to see a Democrat candidate win a Republican  primary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 12, 2012, 07:44:10 am

So, I suppose it's over now. Romney will win the convention, grudgingly, and lose the general election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darkwind3 on March 12, 2012, 08:32:38 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 12, 2012, 07:44:10 am

So, I suppose it's over now. Romney will win the convention, grudgingly, and lose the general election.

Every single time this thing has looked like it's over, something has happened. I'm pretty sure Gingrich, at least, has said he's in this all the way until the convention, and Ron Paul is never dropping out. Not sure about Santorum, but considering he's in second place right now, I can't see him dropping out either. Every candidate has their own personal billionaire willing to drop a couple mil to see their favored horse run a little farther, so I don't see how this will end any time soon.

And if you just mean that Romney is probably winning the nomination, Romney has always been the presumptive nominee. It's a testament to his unlikeability that the man has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so many times.

e: "he is winning nominee" is not good english

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on March 12, 2012, 09:09:19 am

Quote from: Darkwind3 on March 12, 2012, 08:32:38 am

And if you just mean that Romney is the probably winning nominee, Romney has always been the presumptive nominee. It's a testament to his unlikeability that the man has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so many times.

You need to become a political writer. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 12, 2012, 03:36:20 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-more-half-mississippi-voters-obama-muslim-192027518.html

Yea, you know how I mentioned that mississippians can always claim the secret muslim card as a way to discount Obama. I now have figures to back up that claim.

Only 12% of likely GOP voters in Mississippi correctly knew Obama's religion, while ?52%? said he was a muslim.

Question marks because it isn't explicitly stating in the article, rather infered from 100% -12% - 36%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on March 12, 2012, 04:53:40 pm

52% is the number reported in the PPP survey, yeah. And 66% of surveyed Mississippian Republicans don't believe in evolution either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on March 12, 2012, 05:48:29 pm

Can I vote for you guys to kick Mississippi out? I mean, I'm not American, but still. Please?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 12, 2012, 05:50:40 pm

In the Civil War, they wanted out.

Now we can't get rid of them! :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 12, 2012, 05:53:11 pm

Quote from: Descan on March 12, 2012, 05:48:29 pm

Can I vote for you guys to kick Mississippi out? I mean, I'm not American, but still. Please?

The southern 6 counties + Forrest county are fine. It is the delta/klan counties that hold the state back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: NobodyPro on March 12, 2012, 05:58:46 pm

It's official, the populations South Carolina and Georgia will be sent to the moon to colonise it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 12, 2012, 06:08:27 pm

Now that's some political graft I can believe in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 07:32:16 am

Quote from: NobodyPro on March 12, 2012, 05:58:46 pm

It's official, the populations South Carolina and Georgia will be sent to the moon to colonise it.

And North Carolina will hereby annex the vacated territory, to protect it from infestation by Florida. Besides, we could use the Lebensraum.

In other news, expect to see half-junked lunar rovers on cinderblocks in front of each lunar habitat.



EDIT:

It's Gameday in the Deep South! Alabama and Mississippi are on the clock, and both states are a virtual 3-way race at this point. Latest polls:

National:
For the first time in quite a while, a national general election poll shows Obama losing. Specifically, the ABC News/Washington Post *and* Rasmussen both have a hypothetical Romney v. Obama matchup showing a Romney win, at +2 and +3 respectively. CBS News/NY Times still has Obama at +3 in the same matchup. Obama still beating all other challengers in every other poll.

Alabama
PPP has the following results:
Romney - 31%
Gingrich - 30%
Santorum - 29%
Paul - 8%

The aggregate of polls over the last couple of days seems to show a miniscule Romney lead overall in Alabama (which, it should be remembered, has a tight cluster of highly educated and well-to-do engineer types in and around Huntsville). Gingrich appears to narrowly have 2nd, with Santorum bringing up 3rd. But the margins are so tight that if someone sneezes wrong in a campaign stop today, it could change the poll positions.

Mississippi
Not a lot of poll data to go on, but so far it looks like Gingrich, Romney, Santorum in that order. The fact that Santorum has slid to 3rd place in these two Bible Belt states puts a heavy pall on his chances. Gingrich's strategy of targeting the South appears to be working for him, mostly at Santorum's expense. If and when Romney wins the nomination, there are going to be a lot of people looking back at these two races and saying this is where the last real chance to stop him fell through. Be interesting to see if it creates a broader split between the "Tea Party" types and the evangelical social conservative crowd.

Louisiana
Santorum - 25%
Romney - 21%
Gingrich - 20%
Paul - 6%

Santorum might be getting a bit of a boost from the higher-than-average Catholic representation in the Bayou State (but then Newt is Catholic as well, even if he keeps that on the down low). Be worth watching to see if Santorum loses this edge in LA if he loses Alabama and Mississippi.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 01:54:38 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-dangers-carbon-dioxide-tell-plant-152230291.html

"... is the only candidate directly opposed to Obama on energy policy", "global warming is a hoax", "How dangerous is carbon dioxide, ask a plant!", etc.

I would also personally note that that first quote is factually incorrect. All candidates, including Obama are looking to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 13, 2012, 02:16:09 pm

"Those living on or near the Gulf Coast in particular know the impact these extreme environmental positions can have on the region's economy."

Ummm...yeah is the GOP memory on Gulf environmental problems really that short...it seems it is. ;_;

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 02:37:58 pm

Someone should challenge Santorum to sit in a room full of carbon dioxide for a few minutes. After all, it's harmless, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 13, 2012, 03:11:31 pm

If it's good enough for the plants, by God, it's good enough for Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 13, 2012, 03:33:40 pm

Plants crave, etc., etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 13, 2012, 05:57:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 13, 2012, 02:37:58 pm

Someone should challenge Santorum to sit in a room full of carbon dioxide for a few minutes. After all, it's harmless, right?

I whole-heartedly support this idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on March 13, 2012, 06:12:07 pm

Rick Santorum said "Vote for Ron Paul, that's what you should do".

Seriously (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G106jlvZYmQ).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 13, 2012, 06:19:24 pm

I cannot believe I'm saying the next 5 words, but in Rick Santorum's defense, the impression that the quote you provided gives is tremendously at odds with the meaning the video's context adds. I mean, I'll be the first to agree that when being confronted with the hypocrisy of the stereotypical politician, saying that you should vote for someone else if you're looking for fanatical consistency is a poor choice*, but let's not be disingenuous here.

*Although, really, the only good choice is to say, "Yes, I have since realized that I erred when I cast those votes, and for that I sincerely apologize to the American people, and promise to exercise the vigilance expected of me now that I've had time to reflect on the matter and decide what truly is the right course", but of course admitting past wrong is anathema to a politician so that will never happen

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on March 13, 2012, 07:24:51 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on March 13, 2012, 03:33:40 pm

Plants crave, etc., etc.

Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator? (http://www.brawndo.com/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 13, 2012, 07:28:08 pm

Alabama and Mississippi votes being counted as we speak.  In both states, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich were all neck-and-neck-and-jowel in poling, and remain so with 1% of the vote in.  Romney is "expected" to win Mississippi, because of the support of the Haley Barber machine, but it's still up in the air.  Both states use "proportional" representation, but not the same system.  It's relatively percentile in Mississippi, but sorta winner-take-most, runner-up-take-some in Alabama.

Will Gingrich have a legitimate reason to remain in the race?  Will political connection hand Romney another squeaker?  Will an electorate wherein about 13% believe Obama is really a Christian flock to the one Republican candidate whose religious views people can clearly delineate?  Will Ron Paul actually win a delegate?  Will Aqizzar ever bother updating the OP prior to the following election day?

Tune in, turn on, and don't drop out, we don't tolerate no wacky tobacky smokin' in these parts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 13, 2012, 07:47:23 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on March 13, 2012, 06:19:24 pm

I cannot believe I'm saying the next 5 words, but in Rick Santorum's defense, the impression that the quote you provided gives is tremendously at odds with the meaning the video's context adds. I mean, I'll be the first to agree that when being confronted with the hypocrisy of the stereotypical politician, saying that you should vote for someone else if you're looking for fanatical consistency is a poor choice*, but let's not be disingenuous here.

That doesn't seem to be what he's saying.  It's more like "Look, I don't agree with you, I don't regret voting for those measures, vote for Ron Paul if those are your views".  Rick Santorum doesn't believe in limited government, so "How are these measures limited governance?" is basically a nonsense question to him since he agrees that they aren't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 13, 2012, 08:47:35 pm

With 65% in for Mississippi, Santorum leads Gingrich, then Romney, at like 33/31/30, a spread of just a few thousand votes between them.  Alabama still way too early to call with only about 20% counted, but Santorum leading Gingrich by a few thousand with Romney right behind.

Meanwhile, lower overall turnout compared to 2008, and of those voting a higher proportion call themselves "Evangelical", to the tune of 37% then vs nearly 50% now.  Oh yeah, and 97% White.

EDIT: Now with almost 30% in for Alabama, NBC is calling it for Santorum, but I would recommend they keep the crow on the burner.  I wouldn't call it settled until at least half the vote is in.

EDIT: Fox getting reading to call it as well.  I still say it's premature, but I'm just one guy after all.  Meanwhile, Mississippi counted to 80%, still a leading spread of just five thousand votes between the three of them.

EDIT: Mississippi still "too close to call" somehow, compared to Alabama, with 97% of the vote counted, and Santorum leading Gingrich by about three thousand votes, Romney about that far behind him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 13, 2012, 09:57:04 pm

Fuck it, I'm doubleposting and nobody can stop me.

Rick Santorum has won both Alabama and Mississippi, Gingrich placed a close second in both, Romney a close third in each.  Romney spent almost four times as much money as either of them.  The proportional delegate rules in each means that Gingrich will be getting a fair number of consolation points, Romney virtually none.

Gingrich may well drop out, now that the last area he was expected to do well in has come and gone without a legitimate victory, and certainly his one main source of funding could easily dry up tomorrow.  Next up is Illinois, which is likely to be a very close two-way match following the example of Michigan and Ohio, and could easily go for Santorum now that people are likely to write off Gingrich as a lost cause.

Technically next up is the Hawaii caucus sometime tomorrow, but with all of 14 delegates and Ron Paul likely to get most of them, from a state no Republican will ever win, nobody gives a shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 13, 2012, 10:08:12 pm

So if Gingrich drops out what happens to his delegates?  Do they get to rechoose who they're going to vote for?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 13, 2012, 10:15:31 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 13, 2012, 07:47:23 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on March 13, 2012, 06:19:24 pm

I cannot believe I'm saying the next 5 words, but in Rick Santorum's defense, the impression that the quote you provided gives is tremendously at odds with the meaning the video's context adds. I mean, I'll be the first to agree that when being confronted with the hypocrisy of the stereotypical politician, saying that you should vote for someone else if you're looking for fanatical consistency is a poor choice*, but let's not be disingenuous here.

That doesn't seem to be what he's saying.  It's more like "Look, I don't agree with you, I don't regret voting for those measures, vote for Ron Paul if those are your views".  Rick Santorum doesn't believe in limited government, so "How are these measures limited governance?" is basically a nonsense question to him since he agrees that they aren't.

Ah, okay. The impression I got that he was saying he doesn't care about those particular issues, and the tone in which he said it gave me the sense that it was akin to telling somebody "You might as well throw your vote away, you're not getting what you want, anyway". Possibly I'm expecting nobody in the party to display respect for Paul for the duration of the primaries, which might be coloring my interpretation. I can't really make a convincing argument one way or the other, it's just I don't think he was being entirely sincere about it.

If that was an honest suggestion to vote for one's actual preference instead of based on "viability", then I guess Santorum earns one more respect point for integrity relative to other candidates, which remains entirely worthless since I detest most of his actual policies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 11:11:45 pm

So this set of wins, that's actually kind of big for Santorum, isn't it?

Man, every time this thing starts winding down...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on March 13, 2012, 11:24:17 pm

Hurray, the clown circus continues!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 13, 2012, 11:28:02 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2012, 11:11:45 pm

So this set of wins, that's actually kind of big for Santorum, isn't it?

Not really big, more like small fry but must win.

If it causes Gingrich to drop out, it would improve his vote share.  But it would also decrease the odds of a brokered convention as there would be less vote splitting.  He only caught up to Romney by 10 delegates out of 69.  If Santorum won the same proportion of the remaining delegates, he'd still be behind Romney.  And this wasn't exactly the most Romney friendly territory.  Still, this does keep alive the possibility of a brokered convention, which is best case scenario... for democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 13, 2012, 11:35:23 pm

I get the impression that everyone has given up on the idea of getting the people who support you to vote. And now the election game is all about how to get the other guys people to not vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 13, 2012, 11:36:12 pm

Sadly that has always been how it is. Even more so in the general election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 13, 2012, 11:53:01 pm

I think Gingrich just wants to watch it all burn. He's gonna go all the way, like Ross Perot, reborn then grown old and corpulent again. He's going to tax Republicans a little bit for not supporting him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 14, 2012, 07:52:42 am

Okay....so polling is obviously worth jack in close races. Santorum was polling in 3rd place yesterday and won 'Bama pretty solidly and narrowly squeaked out Mississippi. Romney won the Hawaii caucuses, but meh....Ron Paul is using his golden magic to woo those caucus delegates anyways.
Romney also got 9 delegates out of American Samoa, which is hardly surprising considering that somewhere around 25% of Samoans are Mormon.

So it's on to the Missouri caucuses on Saturday, Puerto Rico on Sunday, and then....Republican Debate #61309857489206 on Monday.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on March 14, 2012, 10:16:58 am

Didn't Missouri vote already?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 10:29:46 am

In the speach this morning where Obama was welcoming P.M. Cameron to the White House, he made a joke about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington). This annoyed me greatly. And I can almost guarantee that the  conservative blogosphere will explode in outrage over this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on March 14, 2012, 10:33:18 am

Could you share the joke with us please?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 10:36:32 am

I am sure its on youtube by now, but I can't really verify with my work bandwidth.

It was something close to:

The last time we had the British in the White House, it was under slightly different circumstances. And they really lit up the place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on March 14, 2012, 10:48:20 am

That happened 200 years ago. The Americans of that time are nothing like the Americans of this time and ditto for the British. Amount I care: Zero.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 14, 2012, 10:52:38 am

I welcome Republicans getting their panties in a twist over this, personally. Nothing like a stupid debate over propriety as it applies to something 200 years ago, to underscore why they don't deserve to be elected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 14, 2012, 10:54:17 am

Aye cript, but you forget that a fair amount of the conservatives still have their head stuck up the ass of 200-years-ago!America (or at least their imagination of that time period ::)). They'll make a nice little hullabaloo over it, though probably with emphasis on little.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on March 14, 2012, 10:56:47 am

Quote from: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 10:36:32 am

I am sure its on youtube by now, but I can't really verify with my work bandwidth.

It was something close to:

The last time we had the British in the White House, it was under slightly different circumstances. And they really lit up the place.

Hehe.
Obama's a funny guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 14, 2012, 11:25:28 am

Was Cameron offended?  No?  Then what does it matter?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 14, 2012, 11:31:09 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 14, 2012, 11:25:28 am

Was Cameron offended?  No?  Then what does it matter?

It's an election year. Everything matters, especially the things that don't matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 11:33:26 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 14, 2012, 11:25:28 am

Was Cameron offended?  No?  Then what does it matter?

I was mildly offended, I don't think that is the kind of joke that the president should be making. I don't think I am unique in that among potential Obama voters. There will be a lot of people pointing to this as some kind of proof that Obama is trying to destroy America. Both of those things can impact his reelection.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 11:34:47 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 14, 2012, 11:25:28 am

Was Cameron offended?  No?  Then what does it matter?

It was a self depreciating joke on behalf of the Americans, not a poke at the British.

Obama hinting that Amurica ever failed at anything ever is of course grounds for treason charges.

Completely baseless speculation: I hear that FDR made the same joke when J.M. Keynes stayed at the white house.  Keynes was so offended he vowed never returned to return to the US.  He later relented but they had to organize the Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire so that he could attend while spending as little time outside British territory as possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 14, 2012, 11:35:38 am

Quote

There will be a lot of people pointing to this as some kind of proof that Obama is trying to destroy America. Both of those things can impact his reelection.

Then those people are idiots, and we shouldn't value their political opinions. When most other politicians get away with spewing vile, false trash from their mouth holes on a daily basis, trying to stick it to the president for making a completely tasteful joke about one of our allies is beyond hypocritical.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 14, 2012, 11:43:28 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 11:34:47 am

It was a self depreciating joke on behalf of the Americans, not a poke at the British.

...How?  "Last time you were here you set fire to things".  What element of that is self deprecating as opposed to gentle ribbing of the other party?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 14, 2012, 11:47:54 am

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with it being a pretty decent joke. Not great, but mildly amusing, and certainly not offensive. Then again, I think there's a difference between a joke and being disrespectful of the dead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 11:49:33 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 14, 2012, 11:43:28 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 11:34:47 am

It was a self depreciating joke on behalf of the Americans, not a poke at the British.

...How?  "Last time you were here you set fire to things".  What element of that is self deprecating as opposed to gentle ribbing of the other party?

Because it was a war?  In wars it's generally considered a pretty bang up job of things to set fire to your opponents capitol.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 11:53:11 am

Quote from: nenjin on March 14, 2012, 11:35:38 am

Quote

There will be a lot of people pointing to this as some kind of proof that Obama is trying to destroy America. Both of those things can impact his reelection.

Then those people are idiots, and we shouldn't value their political opinions. When most other politicians get away with spewing vile, false trash from their mouth holes on a daily basis, trying to stick it to the president for making a completely tasteful joke about one of his allies is beyond hypocritical.

Yes, those people ARE idiots. But they vote, and therefor their opinions do have value in an election year, value for Obama's opponents.

The joke wasn't about our allies, it was about the one and only time since the founding of America that our Capitol was invaded and destroyed by a foreign power. It would be similar to the PM of Japan making a Hiroshima joke while welcoming an American President. Or the PM of Israel making a holocaust joke while welcoming the German Chancellor. I know it is just a joke, but it was in bad taste given the circumstance.

Plus Obama has zero comedic timing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 12:12:21 pm

Lighten up, dude. It was 200 years ago. Don't the Brits still joke about how Americans should quit pretending to be revolutionaries and return to the Empire, or demand a refund on the tea thrown into Boston Harbor?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 14, 2012, 12:14:52 pm

No one here recalls the burning of the Washington as anything remotely close to the Holocaust or Hiroshima, either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 14, 2012, 12:17:13 pm

IMHO the order of magnitude between the British pointing out to the young USA who still ruled the roost, and the killing of hundreds of thousands in seconds by the atom bombs and the living hell that was the holocaust is very, very different. I dont think they are in any way a fair comparison.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 12:19:09 pm

According to Wikipedia, approximately 31 people died in the burning of Washington DC, the vast majority of them accidentally. So yeah, comparing it to the Holocaust is pretty tacky.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 14, 2012, 12:23:38 pm

Yeah, it doesn't really occupy the same position in the minds of most people, and for good reason (both the magnitude of the events, all of which are "not good" but to wildly varying degrees, let's be honest, and the time since they occurred). There's a fair chunk of the populace who won't even get the joke until it's explained to them that they should be outraged, and why. Although, for that matter, I'd absolutely love either of those joke possibilities you outlined, depending on the particular joke. Dismissing the pain of those wronged as meaningless or a fraud? Absolutely out of the question. Otherwise, have a blast.

I'd be okay with a Genghis Khan joke being made to a Mongolian diplomat visiting Russia, provided the joke was made without malice and offended neither of the people involved (I don't have a fucking clue what the political situation between the two is, or how either culture deals with that bit of history, so maybe it would be likely to offend, but assume for the sake of example that it wouldn't). In the latter case, I'd still be okay with it as long as a sincere apology was made.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: warhammer651 on March 14, 2012, 12:26:13 pm

If anything, I think most Americans around here regard the burning of Washington as a "Gotta respect the brits/Canadians" point rather than a  "SHAME TO OUR NATIONAL PRIDE" point

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 14, 2012, 12:48:41 pm

Can't you see how this brainless tearing-apart of a flippant remark is tearing us apart?  Some conservative talking heads are going to "blast" Obama for "joking" about how the British sacked D.C. during the War of 1812, and about seven people who already hated Obama anyway are going to care.  There, it's done.

Meanwhile, as OP, I have an announcement to make.  I have no fucking idea how the Republican delegate count is supposed to add up, or even how to talk about it.  The first four Google results are RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html), CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R), NPR's Tracker (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144456395/primary-calendar-republican-delegates-and-whats-at-stake-in-each-state), and Tea Party Cheer (http://teapartycheer.com/election-info/republican-delegate-count/2012-republican-delegate-count/).  No two of them have the same total count for any one candidate, and they have wildly different ideas about how some states are apportioned, and even different dates for when some of them are supposed to vote - especially the ones that have already "voted" but will later hold a caucus for the real count, like Missouri, which everyone keeps saying happens on Saturday but the websites say won't count until April.

This is no goddamn way to pick a Presidential candidate.  When a nation's worth of professional reporters cannot come to an agreement on who has how many votes, your system is too convoluted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 14, 2012, 12:56:09 pm

Ah, now the candidates tear each other to pieces all over again to decide who truly wins. It's like a neverending train of lunacy :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 01:05:29 pm

Oh wow, trying to compare those numbers I just learned that RNC rules could invalidate the winner take all proportions out of Florida and Arizona.  That could be a pretty big deal.

Looking at the three different legitimate news sources Aqizzar posted, I have the impression that NPR is avoiding assuming that state caucuses are going to follow the primaries where they are not explicitly bound to do so while RCP and CBS are assuming such.  I don't know what the differences between RCP and CBS are though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 14, 2012, 02:21:08 pm

And now we have the president of Newt Gingrich's SuperPAC, while mightily attempting to defend his candidate, admitting on live television that Gingrich has missed his last possible window for a nomination, and will now remain in the race for the express purpose of denying Romney the nomination.  I wonder if Newt knows that...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 14, 2012, 02:27:13 pm

Yeah, a lot of the variation has to do with how people are handling caucuses and "unbound" delegates (for instance, in some states the large bulk of delegates are awarded in some flavor of proportional, but then there's a handful of state delegates who are unbound, but assumed to vote for the "winner" of the state but are not required to do so).

Given that Ron Paul has been going after these caucus and unbound delegates like a starving lion after a thick, juicy ribeye, it's probably better to err on the side of caution and only count the bound delegates.

@Aqizzar: I think he does. If you look at his comments, he's not saying "I'm going to win", he's saying "I'm not going to drop out". He knows he can't be king, but he still sure as hell thinks he can be a kingmaker.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 03:01:39 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 14, 2012, 02:27:13 pm

Given that Ron Paul has been going after these caucus and unbound delegates like a starving lion after a thick, juicy ribeye, it's probably better to err on the side of caution and only count the bound delegates.

I wouldn't take it that far.  The candidate who won the primary is going to be seen as having a legitimate claim on these delegates, unlike Ron Paul.  It's pretty unlikely that they are just going to stand pat and ignore the caucuses (well maybe Newt).  I'd expect Paul to do better then his fair share, but not a huge portion better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 03:05:35 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html

Long story short: with each republican candidate spending most of his time trying to cast the other republican candidates as a worse scumbag, it looks like people are becoming more favorable to Obama. His lead over Romney has gone from about 4% to about 12%, breaching the line that puts him over 50% line. His lead when matched against the other republican candidates is even wider.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 14, 2012, 03:14:13 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 03:05:35 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html

Long story short: with each republican candidate spending most of his time trying to cast the other republican candidates as a worse scumbag, it looks like people are becoming more favorable to Obama. His lead over Romney has gone from about 4% to about 12%, breaching the line that puts him over 50% line. His lead when matched against the other republican candidates is even wider.

While generally true that Obama is beating the GOP field, I wouldn't overstate this one poll. Just a couple of days ago, I was mentioning how we had the first polls in months that actually showed Romney beating Obama in the general election. There's still a lot of volatility out there, and a lot of consolidation that will happen once the GOP settles on a nominee. Just as the "Anybody But Bush" mentality meant that John Kerry didn't see all that depressed a turnout (with apologies to mainiac, since you've commented on this before, but Kerry was NOT that popular of a candidate with the base), the anti-Obama furor on the Right means they'll vote for whoever gets the nod, even if they can't stand the guy. The biggest up-for-grabs chunk of voters are going to be that "mushy middle" of low-information voters whose political opinions are very malleable and prone to influence by high-profile stories. In that respect, yeah...having the GOP beat the hell out of each other publicly is a big help to Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 14, 2012, 03:18:49 pm

Quote

I wonder if Newt knows that...

He's probably just reveling in the fact that, while he's not going to be president, he still has the power to have an impact on politics. Even if that impact is to weaken his own party even further. But why does he honestly care? He's going on to quasi-political stardom after this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on March 14, 2012, 06:55:55 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 14, 2012, 03:05:35 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html

Long story short: with each republican candidate spending most of his time trying to cast the other republican candidates as a worse scumbag, it looks like people are becoming more favorable to Obama. His lead over Romney has gone from about 4% to about 12%, breaching the line that puts him over 50% line. His lead when matched against the other republican candidates is even wider.

Saw a poll similar to that earlier that showed Ron Paul leading on Obama in a theoretical election between the two.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 14, 2012, 07:03:04 pm

Tbh, I think Paul is the only one that stands a remote chance of beating Obama, in terms of who John Q would be willing to vote for. All the other Republicans are poster-children for the kind of candidates that actually manage to motivate the democratic base.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 07:43:08 pm

Paul has never faced a competitive election in anything vaguely resembling the typical american electorate.  He would get positively creamed in a national race against Obama.  Paul's extremist views go unnoticed because nobody but internet tough guys ever bothers to call bullshit on the fact that he loathes the social programs that Americans overwhelmingly support not to mention his cultural extremism.  If he actually had Obama '12 and the DNC gunning for him he'd probably do worse then Hoover in '32.

Paul is a boxer who's never taken a fall... because he's never been in a boxing match.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 14, 2012, 08:04:46 pm

I don't disagree with that sentiment. But what I think he does have going for him is he seems to genuinely care about his particular issues and that does resonate with people. (Those that aren't aware of all of his positions, at any rate.) When he's ranting about our wars, it doesn't have the same rabid partisan frothiness that you get when Santorum opens his mouth, or all varieties of canned responses like you get with Romney. And he hasn't proposed moon bases.

So really I think he's the only one among Republicans that can motivate disillusioned moderates into voting against Obama. But when no one in the media will take him seriously, he's basically never going to get the chance to do that. When he attacks the administration's foreign and fiscal policy, he's got an audience that agrees with him. I don't know if that would be enough for it to even be a fight....but I think he'd have a better chance of a truly "interesting" election than with Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 14, 2012, 08:41:12 pm

In a run between Ron Paul and Obama, I'D vote for Ron, but that's because I want to secede and found my own nation anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on March 14, 2012, 11:45:53 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on March 14, 2012, 08:41:12 pm

In a run between Ron Paul and Obama, I'D vote for Ron, but that's because I want to secede and found my own nation anyway.

Because you think Ron Paul would be less likely to start the most mismatched civil war in history to get your one-man nation back into the union?  Or because you think that you'd get loads of immigrants once people figure out what Ron Paul is really like?

Personally in your position I'd vote Obama.  Sure, you're probably right about the immigrants (if that is indeed what you are thinking) but what if you run out of food?  I wouldn't expect any foreign aid out of our favorite libertarian.  Maybe if you're lucky, that reduced government of his won't be able to stop you from illegally immigrating back to America.  But if you go down that road, I hope you've got a lot of cash on hand (or are really good at stealing things) cause otherwise you can't expect the government to pay for your food.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 15, 2012, 08:03:49 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 14, 2012, 07:43:08 pm

Paul is a boxer who's never taken a fall... because he's never been in a boxing match.

+1.


On that note, there's a slew of national-level polls out this morning.

National
Obama's Approval Rating:
Pew Research - Approve 50%, Disapprove 41%
Bloomberg - Approve 48%, Disapprove 47%
FOX News - Approve 47%, Disapprove 45%
Rasmussen - Approve 47%, Disapprove 52%

General Election - Obama vs. Romney:
Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +11
Bloomberg - TIE
Pew Research - Obama +12
Rasmussen - Romney +2
FOX News - Obama +4

General Election - Obama vs. Santorum:
Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +10
Bloomberg - Obama +6
Pew Research - Obama +18
Rasmussen - Obama +1
FOX News - Obama +12

General Election - Obama vs. Gingrich:
Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +17
Bloomberg - Obama +11
FOX News - Obama +18

General Election - Obama vs. Paul:
Bloomberg - Obama +5
FOX News - Obama +12

North Carolina
Romney on top of Santorum now in the Tarheel State by +4. Some good news for Team Obama in this crucial swing state, as a new PPP poll shows Obama winning here against all potential challengers. Tightest matchup is against Romney (Obama +3), widest is vs. Gingrich (Obama +9). Far from a done deal, but given that there's an outgoing unpopular Democratic governor and a Republican legislature this is a good starting point.

Texas
Poll the other day showed a narrow Romney lead, new poll by WPA shows Santorum up +8. Congressman Paul is only pulling 8% in his home state.

Pennsylvania
Santorum, OTOH, looks safe in his home state, up +14 to Romney. Quinnipiac poll shows Obama winning the Keystone State against all challengers, from +1 (Santorum) to +13 (Gingrich). Pattern seems to hold that Gingrich is the least electable Republican in the field (but don't try to tell Newt that...)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 15, 2012, 04:17:03 pm

Well, if you haven't had a TV on today, the Obama Administration has officially begun its general election campaign (as opposed to giving the press secretary snarky soundbites to make), by sending out Uncle Joe "Boxcar" Biden (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/national_world&id=8581951) to give short-word speeches touting every accomplishment the administration can point to that isn't the healthcare bill.  Complete with overblown press releases and this crap (http://www.barackobama.com/welcome-back-joe).  I was wondering when we'd get to hear from Biden again, they seem to have kept him on a tight leash for the last year or so.  Meanwhile, Obama calling a Ginrich-who-will-not-be-named a founding member of the Flat Earth Society, as his rebuttal to the gas price "issue".  Welp, I guess we can kiss any legislation goodbye for the next eight months, but I'm pretty sure everyone was expecting that already.

Jesus Christ, I really need to update the OP.  That Super Tuesday list is huge.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:25:25 pm

I like how even FOX News is admitting that Obama has better odds.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 15, 2012, 08:33:16 pm

Quote from: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 06:25:25 pm

I like how even FOX News is admitting that Obama has better odds.

Well leading while your opponents trash each other is easy.

Quote from: RedKing on March 15, 2012, 08:03:49 am

North Carolina
Romney on top of Santorum now in the Tarheel State by +4. Some good news for Team Obama in this crucial swing state, as a new PPP poll shows Obama winning here against all potential challengers. Tightest matchup is against Romney (Obama +3), widest is vs. Gingrich (Obama +9). Far from a done deal, but given that there's an outgoing unpopular Democratic governor and a Republican legislature this is a good starting point.

It's interesting that North Carolina is a swing state.  It's also really good news for democrats.  If North Carolina goes for Obama he is virtually guarenteed re-election.  Large portions of the country are basically noncompetitive at this point.  The only big blocks left seem to be:

Midwestern (75 electoral votes) (conservative to liberal)
Indianna (11) , Missouri (10), Iowa (6), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania(20), Wisconsin (10)

South-East (57 electoral votes) (conservative to liberal)
North Carolina(15), Florida(29), Virginia(13)

The remaining competitive votes, Colorodo (9), Nevada (6), New Mexico, New Hampshire (4), Nebraska 2nd District (1) are few and far between. 

Most states are either really likely democratic or republican.  There are 212 democratic votes (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Delaware, DC, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine).
There are 170 republican votes (Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montanna, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska at large, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Lousianna, Arkansaw, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina).

If North Carolina is a tossup, then it's a good bet that Obama is going to win Florida and Virginia.  Any factors that help him in NC will resonate there and they are more liberal culturally.  And if he wins those plus the likely democrats, he's already up to 269 votes.  Then he'd just need one more vote in any other place in the country to win it.

So imagine if the republican nominee wins every all but one competitive contest outside the south but loses those three.  This includes Wisconsin where Obama leads Romney by 10 and Santorum by 7 and Pennsylvania where he leads them by 5.  The republican also appeals in New Hampshire, who's social libertarianism is much at odds with the Midwestern key working class block.  He picks up both the hookers of Nevada and the yuppies of Colorado.  He manages to take New Mexico which is 46% Hispanic.  Imagine he does all of these things but loses Nebraska's tiny and urban 2nd district (Omaha).  He's had a really, really strong night, appealed to very disparate demographics and almost certainly won the popular vote.

...But he loses the college 268 to 270. (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=hSM)

I don't think the term "electoral lock" is appropriate, but as the system is set right up it really favors a democratic candidate.  A large electoral block is solidly democratic.  As a result a democratic candidate has many different paths to victory while a republican candidate has to dominate everywhere.  An even halfassed performance by democrats will win.  Imagine a democrat loses every competative race but Pennsylvania and Florida.  Good 'nuff (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=hSN).  Imagine a Democrat wins the midwest, that'll do (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=hSS).  Imagine a democrat only wins the states they've won in the past 5 straight elections, then add in Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico who's demographics have all made the states much more liberal in the past decade and which should grow more liberal in time.  Well that's exactly half the country (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=hSP).  Imagine come 2016 that Arizona is majority non-white and a Hispanic democratic nominee manages to take it along with Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida even while getting clobbered elsewhere.  Hola Presidente. (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=hSR)  It's possible for a democrat to lose a competitive election.  But there are a lot of ways for the democrat to win.

This situation won't hold for ever of course.  But it's interesting to see how the republicans have painted themselves into a cultural identity corner.  And also it may lead to this counting finally abolishing the horribly outdated electoral voting system and moving to a direct vote.  It's already popular with liberals and many democratic states have signed the interstate compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact).  If the republican establishment decides it's in their self interest and republican states start joining direct elections start looking quite possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 08:38:36 pm

So what exactly would that compact do? From a brief glance-over, it seems like it would do away with the electoral college and make the presidential election a pure popular vote. Is that the gist of it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 15, 2012, 08:45:35 pm

Nebraska isn't really in contest, IMO. Lincoln and Omaha are liberal enclaves in an otherwise completely red state. Elections are one of the few times the out counties manage to trump to the capital cities. And iirc I think Omaha tends to vote red.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 15, 2012, 09:16:00 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 15, 2012, 08:45:35 pm

Nebraska isn't really in contest, IMO. Lincoln and Omaha are liberal enclaves in an otherwise completely red state. Elections are one of the few times the out counties manage to trump to the capital cities. And iirc I think Omaha tends to vote red.

Obama won the Nebraska 2nd district in 2008.  He lost the state as a whole but Nebraska law says that the winner of each of the congressional districts get one elector.  That elector could potentially break a tie in favor the the democrats.

Quote from: Sirus on March 15, 2012, 08:38:36 pm

So what exactly would that compact do? From a brief glance-over, it seems like it would do away with the electoral college and make the presidential election a pure popular vote. Is that the gist of it?

The states would legally oblige themselves to cast all their electors in favor of the candidate who wins the national vote.  However this agreement only comes into effect once a sufficient number of states sign the compact as to win every election, i.e. states with 270 electoral votes combined.  So it defacto abolishes the electoral college but only requires about half the state legislatures to agree rather then the much higher theash hold for a constitutional amendment.  Right now the compact has 49% of the electoral votes it needs to come into effect.

And now for something completely different:
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0y2lpLxTk1qcyv0d.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 08:46:18 am

Meanwhile in Santorumland...they're banning the porn. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html)

Could be a bad move electorally, considering that conservative-leaning areas tend to be the biggest porn subscribers (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html).  :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 16, 2012, 09:06:31 am

Santorum lies as he breathes. Saw some clips of him on the Daily Show last night claiming that in the Netherlands people wear "Do not Euthanize me" bracelets and that 10% of hospital deaths are accidental euthanization.

And then his campaign manager said what's important is "what's in his heart" when a Dutch reporter called them on it.

Because not having a healthy respect for the truth, yeah, that's a value we should all cherish. Santorum 2012: Reality is what you make of it.

If Santorum were less of a rabid conservative, he could have easily stolen the nomination right out from under Romney. But he's become so smugly satisfied with his performance he feels free to say any stupid thing he thinks someone will believe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 09:23:00 am

Well you know...Republicans are fond of proclaiming things that are "not meant to be a factual statement". (Thank you Jon Kyl, for giving us the most mockworthy quote of 2011)

Besides, the GOP base isn't particularly interested in facts, they want "truth". Stephen Colbert gets this as much as anyone I can think of...I mean, one of his very first shows discussed the whole concept of "truthiness" as it applies to the punditry, and it's so dead-on.


EDIT: See, it's simple. You develop an idea. Then you look for data to support your idea. If there's data which contradicts your idea, you dismiss it as liberal bias and disinformation. If the overwhelming body of data contradicts you, it's obviously a liberal conspiracy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 16, 2012, 09:32:23 am

I believe Colbert put it best when he said "I promise to feel the news at you."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 11:22:19 am

Reminder: Tomorrow there's a "makeup" caucus in Missouri, after the state GOP deliberately vacated the state's own set primary back in February (in order to avoid losing half their delegates for jumping early). Rick Santorum won that "beauty contest" primary pretty handily, with 55.2% of the votes.

Team Romney has been arguing ever since then that the primary win was meaningless and caucus-goers should not feel bound in any way to those results. Based on some early caucuses, Missourians may not agree. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/early-glimpse-of-missouri-caucuses-shows-support-for-santorum/)

Be interesting if Santorum were to the entire 53 delegates up for grabs. He did in fact win every single county in Missouri, even the urban ones containing St. Louis and Kansas City. Certainly doesn't put him close to Romney, but it continues to chip away at that lead and at the narrative that Team Romney increasingly tries to invoke: Mitt is going to win this whole thing eventually anyways, so why don't all the others just go ahead and drop out and save everybody the time and (especially) money, please? For the love of God, please?!!??

Any gains Santorum makes in Puerto Rico will likely be undercut by Puerto Rico, though. His "lrn 2 speek English noobs" thing will hurt him there, although strategically that was probably done more with states like Texas and California in mind, hoping to appeal to the nativists there (which could more than offset the 23 delegates PR's worth).

Which brings up Illinois next Tuesday. Most recent polls show Romney with about a 4-6 point lead there. That lead could be fragile if he makes any kind of gaffe and/or Santorum is perceived to come out of the weekend with any kind of momentum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 16, 2012, 01:16:57 pm

Nate Silver had a good post a while back that showed that Illinois is basically a must-win state for Santorum if he wants to force a brokered convention.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/how-daunting-is-santorums-delegate-math/#more-28081

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 16, 2012, 02:59:55 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 11:22:19 am

Reminder: Tomorrow there's a "makeup" caucus in Missouri, after the state GOP deliberately vacated the state's own set primary back in February (in order to avoid losing half their delegates for jumping early). Rick Santorum won that "beauty contest" primary pretty handily, with 55.2% of the votes.

Can someone please explain to me how this calendar works?  So, I think it's like: Missouri was bound by law to hold an election, but in order to not lose half their delegates, they made a separate caucus to take place later (tomorrow), but then the caucus seats won't be ratified or something until late April.  Right?

As long as "caucuses" and "unbound delegates" exist, I have to wonder why even bother having an election.  Fuck, if I was a party chairman, I'd want to go to a straight primary, just so my party doesn't look like a bunch of idiots when we don't have an answer for who's actually winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 03:57:03 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 16, 2012, 02:59:55 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 11:22:19 am

Reminder: Tomorrow there's a "makeup" caucus in Missouri, after the state GOP deliberately vacated the state's own set primary back in February (in order to avoid losing half their delegates for jumping early). Rick Santorum won that "beauty contest" primary pretty handily, with 55.2% of the votes.

Can someone please explain to me how this calendar works?  So, I think it's like: Missouri was bound by law to hold an election, but in order to not lose half their delegates, they made a separate caucus to take place later (tomorrow), but then the caucus seats won't be ratified or something until late April.  Right?

As long as "caucuses" and "unbound delegates" exist, I have to wonder why even bother having an election.  Fuck, if I was a party chairman, I'd want to go to a straight primary, just so my party doesn't look like a bunch of idiots when we don't have an answer for who's actually winning.

Bingo. Here's the situation as I understand it: Several months ago when all the state Republican parties were playing "who can cut in front of the line the most?", an impressionable young Missouri GOP thought it sounded like fun and moved their primary up to early February. Finally, when we were facing the specter of Iowa and New Hampshire moving their caucus/primary into December of the previous year, the RNC said, "Okay, this is bullshit. Anbody other than Iowa and New Hampshire that holds their primary before Super Tuesday, we're gonna bitchslap half the delegates out of you."

Most of the "claim jumper" states said, "Nuh uh, you're not the boss of me!" and stayed where they were and got bitchslapped. But Missouri got scared and said "Oh...okay, we'd better move back to mid-March then."

Enter the Democrat-controlled state legislature and Democrat Governor, who said "Oh...gee, I dunno...that's an awful lot of work for the Board of Elections to go reschedule their vacations and stuff...I think you're going to have to ask us nicely." So the Republicans introduced a bill to move the primary back to March, and the Democrats laughed and said "Nope! Enjoy your bitchslap, noobs!"

So in desperation to avoid the bitchslap, the Missouri GOP said "Okay, we're only having a primary in February because state law forces us to! Don't hurt us! We're not going to pay any attention to the results, and we'll hold a caucus in March instead to pick the delegates."

The national GOP was pacified by the sacrifice, and withheld its bitchslap.

And that's how we got to this state of affairs. I hadn't heard anything about a late April anything, but shit...the way this thing has played out so far, I wouldn't be surprised.

Now here's the interesting bit: if all the local caucuses decide they're going to abide by the February result, it can be argued that they really did hold a meaningful primary prior to the penalty-mark deadline. If things get super-tight, I could see Team Romney arguing to the RNC that Missouri should be penalized half its delegates on that basis, which would cut Santorum's total and slightly reduce the overall total needed to hit 50% (by about 11-12 delegates, if I'm right). Wouldn't THAT be a hoot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 16, 2012, 03:58:47 pm

Quote

Fuck, if I was a party chairman, I'd want to go to a straight primary, just so my party doesn't look like a bunch of idiots when we don't have an answer for who's actually winning.

Oh come now. How can you expect anyone to turn a profit off the primaries if there's no circus to fund and spend at?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 16, 2012, 04:23:46 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 16, 2012, 03:57:03 pm

And that's how we got to this state of affairs. I hadn't heard anything about a late April anything, but shit...the way this thing has played out so far, I wouldn't be surprised.

Yeah, I forgot about the Missouri Dem-controlled government having a field day by making the state Republican party squirm.  But as for the April thing, I'm going by the note on NPR's tracker (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144456395/primary-calendar-republican-delegates-and-whats-at-stake-in-each-state) (I was watching it originally because it was near the top of Google), wherein it states: "Missouri's delegates are chosen at district level conventions on April 21 and the state convention on June 2, and are bound to particular presidential candidates."  I don't know what that means, and I don't know where they're getting it from.

Reminds me of something noted a few days back, that Santorum's campaign finally hired a dedicated "delegate manager" for the express purpose of cajoling and bartering unbound and partially-bound delegates.  That was a big part of how Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008, and Romney's been at it since before Iowa, which is part of why he has such a massive "reported" delegate total despite the races frequently being as close as they are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on March 16, 2012, 10:36:56 pm

America, you so crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: roflgar on March 17, 2012, 07:07:12 pm

You know it, baby.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 17, 2012, 07:33:20 pm

Insanity, you so American.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 17, 2012, 07:35:36 pm

Crap, reminds me that I'm still two weeks behind on updating the OP list.  Fuuuck.

Hey, hows that Missouri caucus going today?  Insanely, I hear. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-17/missouri-GOP-caucus/53587822/1)

Quote

There was no declared winner from Missouri's nearly 140 local caucuses. That's because state party rules did not require delegates to be bound to any particular candidate and no straw poll was conducted. Rather, the local caucuses were to elect 2,123 people to advance to congressional district conventions April 21 and a state convention June 2. It's at those meetings that the bulk of Missouri's 52 delegates will be bound to presidential candidates.

Holy crap, at least that answers my calendar question.  Okay, a winnowing process where you start with 2123 people is still not a good way to hold an election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on March 17, 2012, 10:49:13 pm

Does Missouri win the award for Worst Nomination Process, or did that already go out to a state?

EDIT: And why did they try to move up their primary in the first place if it takes them two months to decide on a winner?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 17, 2012, 11:23:48 pm

Every time I watch this whole trainwreck of a process, I think "I don't want this. I never wanted to grow up with this system. There are a bunch of bad choices and one person who is a mediocre choice against them."

You know who I want to vote for?

(http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp118/dhokarena56/fopperyandwhim2012.png)

Hell, Reinhard would be a better choice than the Trunicht knockoffs running.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 17, 2012, 11:44:39 pm

Quote from: Karlito on March 17, 2012, 10:49:13 pm

Does Missouri win the award for Worst Nomination Process, or did that already go out to a state?

EDIT: And why did they try to move up their primary in the first place if it takes them two months to decide on a winner?

So they can decide on a winner before the new president is sworn in?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on March 18, 2012, 12:12:54 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 17, 2012, 07:35:36 pm

Crap, reminds me that I'm still two weeks behind on updating the OP list.  Fuuuck.

Hey, hows that Missouri caucus going today?  Insanely, I hear. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-17/missouri-GOP-caucus/53587822/1)

Quote

There was no declared winner from Missouri's nearly 140 local caucuses. That's because state party rules did not require delegates to be bound to any particular candidate and no straw poll was conducted. Rather, the local caucuses were to elect 2,123 people to advance to congressional district conventions April 21 and a state convention June 2. It's at those meetings that the bulk of Missouri's 52 delegates will be bound to presidential candidates.

Holy crap, at least that answers my calendar question.  Okay, a winnowing process where you start with 2123 people is still not a good way to hold an election.

Jesus FUCKING Christ. How has your entire government not collapsed in an orgy of lawsuits yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 18, 2012, 12:22:11 am

Tradition mostly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 18, 2012, 01:45:15 am

Give us a couple more decades. We're trying as hard as we can. It's just hard to get legal briefs to copulate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 18, 2012, 06:17:26 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 17, 2012, 07:35:36 pm

Crap, reminds me that I'm still two weeks behind on updating the OP list.  Fuuuck.

Hey, hows that Missouri caucus going today?  Insanely, I hear. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-17/missouri-GOP-caucus/53587822/1)

Quote

There was no declared winner from Missouri's nearly 140 local caucuses. That's because state party rules did not require delegates to be bound to any particular candidate and no straw poll was conducted. Rather, the local caucuses were to elect 2,123 people to advance to congressional district conventions April 21 and a state convention June 2. It's at those meetings that the bulk of Missouri's 52 delegates will be bound to presidential candidates.

That's awesome. It's like voting has become some sort of quantum experiment constrained by the Heisenberg principle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2012, 09:09:11 am

I wonder how many of those 52 delegates will Ron Paul gets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 18, 2012, 09:13:09 am

53 of them, of course. How, no one will be able to figure out -- not even Ron Paul -- but it'll go through anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 18, 2012, 02:01:43 pm

Quote from: Zrk2

Jesus FUCKING Christ. How has your entire government not collapsed in an orgy of lawsuits yet?

Actually, it's pretty much become a tradition since Bush/Gore that there will be at least one contested recount per election. Or maybe it's that voter fraud is now an inescapable part of the election process. (Thanks Diebold)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 18, 2012, 04:07:08 pm

How'd the Puerto Rico primary shape up? I assume it went for Romney...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on March 18, 2012, 05:36:34 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 18, 2012, 04:07:08 pm

How'd the Puerto Rico primary shape up? I assume it went for Romney...

Not over yet but likely Romney

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: micelus on March 18, 2012, 06:55:01 pm

Excuse my ignorance, but it was my belief that Puerto Rico was currently illegible from electing a president, or does that only apply at the actual elections rather than the primaries? Note, I'm not American.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 18, 2012, 07:05:15 pm

Quote from: micelus on March 18, 2012, 06:55:01 pm

Excuse my ignorance, but it was my belief that Puerto Rico was currently illegible from electing a president, or does that only apply at the actual elections rather than the primaries? Note, I'm not American.

Territories do not have seats on the electoral college, so no they can't have a final "real"  vote in the presidency. But every party can run its primaries as it sees fit, including in territories.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on March 18, 2012, 10:20:09 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 18, 2012, 07:05:15 pm

Quote from: micelus on March 18, 2012, 06:55:01 pm

Excuse my ignorance, but it was my belief that Puerto Rico was currently illegible from electing a president, or does that only apply at the actual elections rather than the primaries? Note, I'm not American.

Territories do not have seats on the electoral college, so no they can't have a final "real"  vote in the presidency. But every party can run its primaries as it sees fit, including in territories.

Well everyone who is in the party gets to vote in the primary, and people in territories are allowed to join the Democratic or Republican party, even though they don't really influence anything outside of the territory. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 18, 2012, 11:16:58 pm

Just in: Romney promises statehood for PR, grabs 20 delegates out of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 18, 2012, 11:19:48 pm

Here's a horrifying thought for you all to muse on: Rick Santorum is almost certainly the single most honest politician in this entire election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 18, 2012, 11:22:45 pm

Yeah, that's his pretty standard thing. Probably been brought up a few times already.

Pro: He actually means what he says, at least mostly.
Con: He actually means what he says, at least mostly.

If nothing else, it makes it really easy to see precisely why you should not under any circumstances vote for the guy :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on March 18, 2012, 11:23:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 18, 2012, 11:19:48 pm

Here's a horrifying thought for you all to muse on: Rick Santorum is almost certainly the single most honest politician in this entire election.

Ron Paul will run forever because he believes in his ideology far more than money means to him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 18, 2012, 11:25:45 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on March 18, 2012, 11:23:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 18, 2012, 11:19:48 pm

Here's a horrifying thought for you all to muse on: Rick Santorum is almost certainly the single most honest politician in this entire election.

Ron Paul will run forever because he believes in his ideology far more than money means to him.

Even so, someone with such a libertarian bent is probably stretching the truth at least a little bit as to not scare away the moderate majority.

Santorum just does not give a fuck about anyone's opinion on him. It would be heroically audacious if not for the fact that his unadulterated opinions are a reactionary horror show.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 18, 2012, 11:28:58 pm

That is Santorum's great redeeming point. I'd give my left hand if all politicians from now on were as honest as Santorum is. Unfortunately, Santorum is honest about the sorts of things that Santorum believes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 18, 2012, 11:51:29 pm

How do we know that Santorum is honest, anyway? Especially considering that he hasn't been elected. Presidents say all kinds of things on the trail. Bush said that he wanted to step away from unilateral action, and avoid conflict with other nations.

Two wars, eight years later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: fqllve on March 19, 2012, 12:08:20 am

While I'm not necessarily trying to defend anyone here, it's important to remember that first, someone on the campaign trail doesn't really know what it's going to be like to be president, they may have a good idea but at the end of the day it's gonna end up a lot more difficult than they expected. Also, the situation changes and a president has to be willing to adapt to those changes. So not every claim made on the campaign trail that isn't followed through on is necessarily a lie, I'm sure we could find a huge list of examples that were pretty obviously ones, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 19, 2012, 07:54:41 am

Quote from: Capntastic on March 18, 2012, 11:23:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 18, 2012, 11:19:48 pm

Here's a horrifying thought for you all to muse on: Rick Santorum is almost certainly the single most honest politician in this entire election.

Ron Paul will run forever because he believes in his ideology Ron Paul far more than his supporters' money means to him.

FTFY

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2012, 08:29:46 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 18, 2012, 11:28:58 pm

That is Santorum's great redeeming point. I'd give my left hand if all politicians from now on were as honest as Santorum is. Unfortunately, Santorum is honest about the sorts of things that Santorum believes.

Awesome. Now to just get around the fact he truly believes horribly backward, stupid, misogynist, creepy-religious things....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 19, 2012, 08:36:16 am

Quote from: nenjin on March 19, 2012, 08:29:46 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 18, 2012, 11:28:58 pm

That is Santorum's great redeeming point. I'd give my left hand if all politicians from now on were as honest as Santorum is. Unfortunately, Santorum is honest about the sorts of things that Santorum believes.

Awesome. Now to just get around the fact he truly believes horribly backward, stupid, misogynist, creepy-religious things....

Yea, you don't say that it is a redeeming feature of a wolf that his isn't cloaked in the skin of the sheep he has killed.

And... I was going to Godwin this, but you get the point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 19, 2012, 08:46:07 am

So...the Missouri caucuses were apparently even a bigger clusterfuck than we realized (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/raucous-gop-caucus-in-st-peters-is-shut-down/article_a8eb35ec-7050-11e1-acac-0019bb30f31a.html). Some quick hits from that article:

• Largest caucus in the state shut down before actually choosing any delegates because of near-riot. Two Ron Paul supporters arrested.
• Some caucuses in the large cities of St. Louis and Kansas City actually postponed to next weekend, to avoid conflict with St. Patrick's Day.
• Apparently, the caucus delegates chosen this weekend will go to another set of caucuses in April, and the delegates selected there will go to yet another set of caucuses in May to select the delegates to go to Tampa.

In the meantime, Romney wins Puerto Rico and tomorrow we get a primary in Illinois. Polling supports a pretty solid Romney win (around 40-45%), followed by Santorum in the low 30's, Gingrich around 13-15%, and Paul at about 8-10%. BUT...Illinois is unique in being a "loophole primary", in which you're not voting for the candidate per se, you're voting for the delegate. Each candidate for delegate is required to list their Presidential candidate preference, which will be listed on the ballot. Voters then directly elect the delegates they want, per Congressional district. Oh, and its an open primary (so the potential for monkeywrenching exists), and AFAIK of all the delegate candidates running, only 2 have stated preferences (both for Romney) with the rest being listed as "Uncommitted". Although by law they are not bound to the preference that they state.

So in short, WTF ILLINOIS? Did you guys have a bet with Missouri as to who could come up with the most fucked-up primary system?

To put this in practical terms: Let's say I'm a Santorum supporter. I don't go to the polls to vote for Santorum. I go to vote for 3-5 people out of a slate of maybe 10, to be delegates. Pretty much all of them are blank slates because they don't tell me who they're going to vote for. And even if they do, they could be lying through their teeth and change their vote at any time. For all I know, the two that listed Romney could be Ron Paul sleeper agents. It's like someone heard about a parliamentary system but didn't actually read the details.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 19, 2012, 10:03:16 am

I was only 12 when the last primaries happened, and didn't give a flip about them, but is this level of pointless complexity common, or is what's going on with Missouri and Illinois something that happens most every election?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: roflgar on March 19, 2012, 10:59:56 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 19, 2012, 10:03:16 am

I was only 12 when the last primaries happened, and didn't give a flip about them, but is this level of pointless complexity common, or is what's going on with Missouri and Illinois something that happens most every election?

it happens in those places, yes.

because really, there wasn't enough retarded things going on in the world already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on March 19, 2012, 11:03:00 am

Quote from: Nadaka on March 19, 2012, 08:36:16 am

Yea, you don't say that it is a redeeming feature of a wolf that his isn't cloaked in the skin of the sheep he has killed.

No, the redeeming factor of a wolf is that it isn't a bear :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2012, 11:04:51 am

See, a bear will probably snap your vertebrae in the process of eating you, killing you before its finished.

So in that sense, I'd rather be eaten by a bear than gnawed on by a Wolf until I bleed to death or die of shock.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2012, 08:52:40 pm

And on that cheerful note....here's a preview of the House Republican Tax "Reform" plan for 2013. (http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/19/news/economy/house-gop-budget/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2) The one Romney would, I'm sure, want to sign in a heartbeat, should he win the nomination and election. Heck, I'm sure all Republican candidates except Ron Paul would sign that. Changing the US tax system to a territory-based tax code? Who doesn't want that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on March 19, 2012, 08:56:05 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 19, 2012, 08:52:40 pm

And on that cheerful note....here's a preview of the House Republican Tax "Reform" plan for 2013. (http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/19/news/economy/house-gop-budget/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2) The one Romney would, I'm sure, want to sign in a heartbeat, should he win the nomination and election. Heck, I'm sure all Republican candidates except Ron Paul would sign that. Changing the US tax system to a territory-based tax code? Who doesn't want that?

My economics knowledge is insufficient.
Why is this so terrible?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 19, 2012, 09:00:42 pm

Massively increase the deficit, help the super-rich at the expense of the middle-low incomes, etc.  Basically what you'd expect from a Republican tax proposal.

And apart from anything else, isn't having a massive tax spike well... stupid?  It can genuinely damage incentives.  If getting a pay rise would suddenly cause you to pay 15% more tax then maybe you'd want to avoid it.  Wheras with a smoother tax rate rise you'd take home more money for a greater salary in all cases, meaning you'd have an incentive to get a pay rise at any income level (although Republicans might maintain that the fact that you're losing 35% of it to tax would still magically demotivate you).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on March 19, 2012, 09:02:15 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 19, 2012, 09:00:42 pm

Massively increase the deficit, help the super-rich at the expense of the middle-low incomes, etc.  Basically what you'd expect from a Republican tax proposal.

Ah, that explains a lot.
:P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 19, 2012, 09:07:21 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 19, 2012, 09:00:42 pm

If getting a pay rise would suddenly cause you to pay 15% more tax then maybe you'd want to avoid it.  Wheras with a smoother tax rate rise you'd take home more money for a greater salary in all cases, meaning you'd have an incentive to get a pay rise at any income level (although Republicans might maintain that the fact that you're losing 35% of it to tax would still magically demotivate you).

Just for the record, that is not how tax rates work (http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/slight-misunderstanding-of-marginal-tax-brackets.html).  Getting a pay raise will never ever cause you to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes, that's what the "brackets" (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm) are all about.

I know you're probably just misinformed about that, but I meet people all the freakin' time who insist on believing the "getting a raise can cost you income because of taxes" myth, and reject any explanation to the contrary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on March 19, 2012, 09:11:20 pm

I think that was his point, because if I read it right they were losing some of the brackets. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darkwind3 on March 19, 2012, 09:12:57 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on March 19, 2012, 09:00:42 pm

Massively increase the deficit, help the super-rich at the expense of the middle-low incomes, etc.  Basically what you'd expect from a Republican tax proposal.

And apart from anything else, isn't having a massive tax spike well... stupid?  It can genuinely damage incentives.  If getting a pay rise would suddenly cause you to pay 15% more tax then maybe you'd want to avoid it.  Wheras with a smoother tax rate rise you'd take home more money for a greater salary in all cases, meaning you'd have an incentive to get a pay rise at any income level (although Republicans might maintain that the fact that you're losing 35% of it to tax would still magically demotivate you).

fakeedit: Beaten, but to elaborate a little bit n case someone for some reason doesn't want to read Aqizzar's links: tax rates are marginal, that's why they're rates. That means if, say, you have a $0-$100,000 tax bracket at 10%, and a $100,000+ at 25%, but you have an income of $1,000,000, you pay only 10% on your first hundred thousand (for $10,000 in taxes there), and 25% on the rest (for $225,000, and $235,000 total). If you earn $100,001, you pay 10% on the $100,000 and 25% on the $1.

This example is highly simplified obviously, but that's basically how taxes work. Being in that 25% bracket wouldn't mean you pay 25% on your entire income, just the part not covered by the (presumably) lower brackets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2012, 09:20:59 pm

Quote

Why is this so terrible?

To explain my point, a territory-based tax code would basically allow American corporations to bring all of their money back to the U.S. and actually pay less tax on foreign business transactions than they do now. Currently, we tax money corporations make abroad when they bring it home. So they keep vast sums of wealth in off-shore banks. The change proposed to the tax system would only require US corporations to pay the taxes to the governments they do business with. (Currently what happens now is they get to write off those expenses when they file their taxes here in the U.S., to avoid taxing the same profit twice.)

So in essence, U.S.-based corporations would be able to re-inject all their money back into US holdings while contributing even less to the general health of US finances. Which they would then turn around and re-invest back into foreign business dealings. It would save them time, effort and they'd quit having to hide half of their holdings from the US government. At the cost of the taxes we do manage to get from them for their foreign business dealings. Nice deal for them, innit?

It's basically a Republican wet dream of free enterprise and zero government regulation or taxation (beyond the earnings they make with the American economy, which we know they won't unless we essentially pay them for that privilege by making it cheaper and more attractive to do business here than in 3rd world countries.), which they would sell as a "job creator" with "all the money corporations would suddenly re-invest in the American economy."

And that's before we even ever get to the tax bracket shenanigans.

Between SOPA/ACTA/NSA.....and this tax plan, the only thing we're missing from Shadowrun is the goddamn magic and dragons and shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 19, 2012, 10:32:06 pm

Yeah, if you think about it:

Everyone in the US pays the same amount in taxes on each dollar they earn. It's just that the "n"th dollar has a higher tax rate than the ones before it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 19, 2012, 11:01:45 pm

What would make sense would be a calculus based tax system where instead of brackets you literally tax every dollar slightly more then the dollar before it.  It might sound like a lot of math but it isn't actually, instead you'd just find you taxable income (as you do now) then type it into the IRS website tax calculator to find out what your liability is.  Alternatively for the internet adverse you could just do your taxes according to a bracket then have the IRS send you a refund for the difference between the brackets and the more modern system.

But we are a country that doesn't even have proportional representation or a carbon tax so something like this is a distant, distant pipe dream.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on March 19, 2012, 11:05:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 19, 2012, 11:01:45 pm

What would make sense would be a calculus based tax system where instead of brackets you literally tax every dollar slightly more then the dollar before it.  It might sound like a lot of math but it isn't actually, instead you'd just find you taxable income (as you do now) then type it into the IRS website tax calculator to find out what your liability is.  Alternatively for the internet adverse you could just do your taxes according to a bracket then have the IRS send you a refund for the difference between the brackets and the more modern system.

But we are a country that doesn't even have proportional representation or a carbon tax so something like this is a distant, distant pipe dream.

That, and from what my friends that did economics/business at uni told me, calculus is *far* above the level of maths most economics majors are taught to deal with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 19, 2012, 11:12:08 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 19, 2012, 11:01:45 pm

What would make sense would be a calculus based tax system...

Yeah, the real problem with that is, you want a tax system where the average citizen could (at least theoretically) work out their taxes longhand, to see if anything has gone amiss.  I'll be the first to admit that it's a tragedy the only tax plans that can be sold through Congress are either ones a highschool dropout can understand (even though most ordinary people still refuse to learn it) riddled with side effects only a trained accountant could ever find, but a tax system that requires an engineering calculator and/or a bachelor's of mathematics is a bridge too far.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on March 19, 2012, 11:14:43 pm

9/9/9! :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 19, 2012, 11:39:00 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 19, 2012, 11:12:08 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 19, 2012, 11:01:45 pm

What would make sense would be a calculus based tax system...

Yeah, the real problem with that is, you want a tax system where the average citizen could (at least theoretically) work out their taxes longhand, to see if anything has gone amiss.  I'll be the first to admit that it's a tragedy the only tax plans that can be sold through Congress are either ones a highschool dropout can understand (even though most ordinary people still refuse to learn it) riddled with side effects only a trained accountant could ever find, but a tax system that requires an engineering calculator and/or a bachelor's of mathematics is a bridge too far.

Well it might seem less clear, but also keep in mind that this tax system makes the progressiveness of the system much more explicit.  You can't pull the bullshit that Bush pulled and claim that most of your cut goes to people at the bottom at the same time that you decrease the progressiveness of the tax system.  If you make the tax system more regressive then it's written right there in the coefficient.

You don't need a BA in math or an engineering calculator to do integral calculus.  Highschoolers can do integral calculus.  Sure most people aren't comfortable with integral calculus, but most people aren't comfortable with the current 5 bracket system.  And if you don't want to do the math, just log onto the IRS website.

Quote from: MaximumZero on March 19, 2012, 11:14:43 pm

9/9/9! :P

Works great in SimCity!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 19, 2012, 11:41:44 pm

Quote

You don't need a BA in math or an engineering calculator to do integral calculus.  Highschoolers can do integral calculus.

Got any statistics on that one? Just because math comes easily to you doesn't mean that most Americans can do it. Hell, I don't even know what integral calculus is, and I'm well on my way to an associate's degree (working on a bachelor after that).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 12:00:12 am

Integral calculus?  I.E. calculus involving integrals?

In a nutshell it's where you have a function of how something changes and you find the total change.  So if I have a function of the speed that I drive over time, I can find my distance traveled.  If I know the pull of gravity, I can find the speed and velocity that things fall at.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 12:03:36 am

Let me rephrase that: I don't know calculus. I've never taken a calculus class. I'm sure I could figure it out, I did ok in advanced algebra, but if you shoved some calculus formulas in front of me right now I'd never figure it out. Expecting some blue-collar worker who hasn't taken a math class since he got his G.E.D. to understand it well enough to do his taxes is a little much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 12:06:42 am

Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 12:03:36 am

Let me rephrase that: I don't know calculus. I've never taken a calculus class. I'm sure I could figure it out, I did ok in advanced algebra, but if you shoved some calculus formulas in front of me right now I'd never figure it out. Expecting some blue-collar worker who hasn't taken a math class since he got his G.E.D. to understand it well enough to do his taxes is a little much.

Again, you would no longer need to know calculus to do your taxes then you would need to know the advanced accounting and econometrics behind the COLA adjustments to pay your taxes under the current system.  You'd just plug your taxable income into the approximation formula and then get your tax rebate for the difference a few weeks later.  Or go online and type your number into the IRS website and get the result.  The point here is that we have machines to do these things, so why not let the machines do them?  Instead we insist on humans doing them and have to dumb them down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 12:13:27 am

Quote from: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 12:06:42 am

Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 12:03:36 am

Let me rephrase that: I don't know calculus. I've never taken a calculus class. I'm sure I could figure it out, I did ok in advanced algebra, but if you shoved some calculus formulas in front of me right now I'd never figure it out. Expecting some blue-collar worker who hasn't taken a math class since he got his G.E.D. to understand it well enough to do his taxes is a little much.

Again, you would no longer need to know calculus to do your taxes then you would need to know the advanced accounting and econometrics behind the COLA adjustments to pay your taxes under the current system.  You'd just plug your taxable income into the approximation formula and then get your tax rebate for the difference a few weeks later.  Or go online and type your number into the IRS website and get the result.  The point here is that we have machines to do these things, so why not let the machines do them?  Instead we insist on humans doing them and have to dumb them down.

Not everyone has access to the proper machines. Or are you offering free internet service and computers for every American?
I'm not entirely sure what COLA adjustments and econometrics are; my father (who never attended college and wasn't exactly a stellar high school student) and I do taxes by hand, using those federal booklets you can pick up just about anywhere. Once we finish, we plug the numbers into the IRS website or whatever to get a second opinion, as it were. The numbers tend to match up. Are we and the websites screwing up, or is calculus so easy to understand that your entire argument is invalid?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 12:33:34 am

Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 12:13:27 am

Not everyone has access to the proper machines. Or are you offering free internet service and computers for every American?
I'm not entirely sure what COLA adjustments and econometrics are; my father (who never attended college and wasn't exactly a stellar high school student) and I do taxes by hand, using those federal booklets you can pick up just about anywhere. Once we finish, we plug the numbers into the IRS website or whatever to get a second opinion, as it were. The numbers tend to match up. Are we and the websites screwing up, or is calculus so easy to understand that your entire argument is invalid?

If you don't have internet access then you do your taxes the old fashioned way and get a refund for the difference.

Cost Of Living Adjustments are factored into a number of federal statutes and affect the taxes that you pay.  The fact that you can pay these taxes without even knowing what COLA are is my point.  The actual measurement of what the real cost of living increases are is a monumental undertaking of economic measurement ("econometrics") and the subject of more then a little debate.  While we have a variety of tools such as the Consumer Price Index, we still are not capable of hitting the mark exactly.

Calculus isn't all that hard IMHO.  I'm betting you probably could learn it pretty quickly if you desired to do so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2012, 12:40:02 am

Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 12:13:27 am

Not everyone has access to the proper machines. Or are you offering free internet service and computers for every American?
I'm not entirely sure what COLA adjustments and econometrics are; my father (who never attended college and wasn't exactly a stellar high school student) and I do taxes by hand, using those federal booklets you can pick up just about anywhere. Once we finish, we plug the numbers into the IRS website or whatever to get a second opinion, as it were. The numbers tend to match up. Are we and the websites screwing up, or is calculus so easy to understand that your entire argument is invalid?

To the first, Siri: Library. Liiiiibrary. Doesn't even need internet access though, just a calculator able to run the formula. Chain the bloody thing to the wall if it's that bad in the area or just produce some calculators strictly able to do the formula.

But yeah, we sorta' do offer free (albeit limited) internet service to pretty much every American. Just sayin'.

Anyway, the basic kind of calculus mainiac's talking about really isn't exactly rocket science; we're talking stuff like figuring out velocity, not anything fancy (I've seen this taught to average 5th graders, alright? Don't need to 'know calculus' to punch numbers through a single formula :P). Also pretty sure that someone could just translate the formula into plain english if the formula itself was really that scary and incomprehensible for people. Then it'd just take maybe some multiplication or whatever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 12:58:18 am

Alright, well I'm gonna call this discussion quits before Aqizzar sends his angry dog after us again. Yes, this topic started when someone posted a proposed tax reform, but it's kinda veered off course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: C27 on March 20, 2012, 01:22:25 am

I know who I'm voting for this year! (http://pooshlmer.com/wakaba/src/1332201060824.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 01:24:43 am

Quote from: C27 on March 20, 2012, 01:22:25 am

I know who I'm voting for this year! (http://pooshlmer.com/wakaba/src/1332201060824.png)

Error message? Alright, but I have to warn you that it's a hardcore supporter of war in the Middle East.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: G-Flex on March 20, 2012, 03:08:05 am

Quote from: Frumple on March 20, 2012, 12:40:02 am

To the first, Siri: Library. Liiiiibrary. Doesn't even need internet access though, just a calculator able to run the formula. Chain the bloody thing to the wall if it's that bad in the area or just produce some calculators strictly able to do the formula.

But yeah, we sorta' do offer free (albeit limited) internet service to pretty much every American. Just sayin'.

Far fewer than "pretty much every American" has at-all-consistent access to the Internet, or even to a functional public library. They don't all necessarily have the time or opportunity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2012, 03:13:46 am

S'why I noted the 'albeit limited' part and said nothing about consistent. I'm very much aware of the difficulties involved, yes. For the limited use noted, it's doable (if certainly not easy, for some) in most cases.

But yeah, as with a number of public services a lot of libraries could use some shoring up. Poor things don't get nearly as much appreciation as they deserve :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2012, 07:41:39 am

Quote from: Sirus on March 20, 2012, 01:24:43 am

Quote from: C27 on March 20, 2012, 01:22:25 am

I know who I'm voting for this year! (http://pooshlmer.com/wakaba/src/1332201060824.png)

Error message? Alright, but I have to warn you that it's a hardcore supporter of war in the Middle East.

Copy into address bar or resend the page so it doesn't count as a hotlink once you get there. Need to send the request without a referrer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on March 20, 2012, 07:48:54 am

I'm still all for Cthulhu.

Not that I can vote or anything :V

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2012, 07:51:05 am

Hastur Hastur Hastur 2012!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on March 20, 2012, 07:53:24 am

You called?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 20, 2012, 08:48:48 am

I'm not sure if this guy is a Republican or Democrat (http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0901/president-pedobear-president-pedobear-leader-disaster-lol-ep-demotivational-poster-1231143863.jpg)

(http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/design/10352916/type/png/width/190/height/190/pedobear-for-president_design.png)

Paid for by the committee to elect Pedobear

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PhantomSpaceMan on March 20, 2012, 08:49:15 am

What I want I want to know is, why is Hydra still campaigning against Dagon when they could simply join on the same ticket with Dagon as president for the general election? Would they not better serve the will of Cthulhu that way?


Allow me to get the thread back on track with a question, what happens to a candidate's delegates after they drop out of the race? Do they simply drop out and not cast a vote for another candidate or what?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 08:53:56 am

Quote

What I want I want to know is, why is Hydra still campaigning against Dagon when they could simply join on the same ticket with Dagon as president for the general election? Would they not better serve the will of Cthulhu that way?

Hydra disagrees with Dagon about female reproductive rights. Dagon believes they have the right to make babies for him to eat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2012, 09:54:18 am

Dogar/Kazon? That's the ticket I want.

Also, how do people add those dotted lines under their popups? I'm beginning to suspect no one ever looks at them in my posts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 20, 2012, 10:13:59 am

Quote from: Reelya on March 20, 2012, 08:48:48 am

I'm not sure if this guy is a Republican or Democrat (http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0901/president-pedobear-president-pedobear-leader-disaster-lol-ep-demotivational-poster-1231143863.jpg)

(http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/design/10352916/type/png/width/190/height/190/pedobear-for-president_design.png)

Paid for by the committee to elect Pedobear

Republican. Democrats have secretaries, not pages.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on March 20, 2012, 10:19:49 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2012, 09:54:18 am

Dogar/Kazon? That's the ticket I want.

Also, how do people add those dotted lines under their popups? I'm beginning to suspect no one ever looks at them in my posts.

You mean the [abbr] tag text? It's dotted now, if you're wondering. Some computers don't seem to be able to see them, and I can't see they're there on my phone either (so possibly tablets and the like can't either?). I've only seen [acronym] tags before though. I'm not sure what the difference is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 10:56:12 am

I'm actually thinking a Gozer/Quetzalcotl ticket might be pretty viable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2012, 11:05:30 am

Quote from: PhantomSpaceMan on March 20, 2012, 08:49:15 am

Allow me to get the thread back on track with a question, what happens to a candidate's delegates after they drop out of the race? Do they simply drop out and not cast a vote for another candidate or what?

Typically, the candidate who drops out endorses one of the remaining candidate. His delegates are not bound to follow the candidate's lead, but often do.

Illinois election today! Romney is very likely to win, in no small part because he's outspending everyone else by orders of magnitude. One article stated he outspent Santorum 21-to-1 in the Chicago metro area. So Romney is proving that he can win votes, but is incredibly inefficient at doing so. He's a coal-fired Titanic, compared to Santorum's solar-powered speedboat. And Ron Paul's gold-powered tugboat. And Gingrich's private yacht which is actually powered by Newt's own self-righteousness. And then there's poor Buddy Roemer, floating in a life preserver.

Yeah, that metaphor kinda went off the rails at some point.  ???


But it's worth remembering that because of Illinois' insane loophole primary system, the popular vote and the delegate outcome have no causal connection. Romney could win 50% of the popular vote and wind up with 2 delegates, because they're almost all running as "uncommitted" delegates which allows them to throw their eventual support behind whoever they want. I certainly don't think there's ANY chance that bribery could possibly ever come into play in THIS situation.[/suspiciouslystridentdenial]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 20, 2012, 11:56:28 am

Santorum's done. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/20/rick-santorum-says-he-doesnt-give-a-damn-about-the-unemployed-jobs-dont-matter-to-me-video/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2012, 12:38:54 pm

I like how he says he's going to create jobs in such a way that it seems like he's saying he isn't.
Most presidential candidates would say the exact opposite thing :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 01:16:30 pm

Nothing like a politically self-inflicted gunshot wound. Well played Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 20, 2012, 03:26:49 pm

The supporters he has now don't care. Santorum is a cult leader- what he says is automatically assumed to be good; the cultist's worldview shifts around to fit it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: roflgar on March 20, 2012, 03:53:59 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 20, 2012, 11:56:28 am

Santorum's done. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/20/rick-santorum-says-he-doesnt-give-a-damn-about-the-unemployed-jobs-dont-matter-to-me-video/)

I have a joy boner right now.

This is made even better by the fact that this fucker is going to keep going.

hhhhhrrrrrrrgggggnnnnn...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2012, 04:01:15 pm

Whereas Romney's answer to EVERYTHING is "I make moar jobs!" From a campaign event at Bradly University yesterday:

Quote

ROMNEY: The best thing I can do for student debt is get you a good job when you come out.

Quote

ROMNEY: The best thing I can do for home values is to get the 8.3 percent of people in this country that are out of work back to work.

Apparently the Mitt formula is "The best thing I can do for X is make more jobs." Jobs will end the wars in the Middle East, free the Syrian people, cure AIDS and fix global warming.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2012, 04:08:56 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 20, 2012, 04:01:15 pm

Apparently the Mitt formula is "The best thing I can do for X is make more jobs." Jobs will end the wars in the Middle East, free the Syrian people, cure AIDS and fix global warming.

Diplomats, soldiers, scientists, doctors, and engineers :P

Of course, that's only if the politicians, CEOs, and various other administrative folks learn to STFU and listen the people that actually know wth they're doing.

Hahahahahaha.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 20, 2012, 04:19:00 pm

Sure that's the real Mitt Romney? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on March 20, 2012, 04:38:12 pm

Quote from: PhantomSpaceMan on March 20, 2012, 08:49:15 am

Allow me to get the thread back on track with a question, what happens to a candidate's delegates after they drop out of the race? Do they simply drop out and not cast a vote for another candidate or what?

The Republicans have this strange rule that you need a plurality (read bigest share, not majority) in at least 5 states in order to be able to be voted for at the convention, which is something newt gingerich and paul haven't accomplished, so the big question is who will their delegates vote for? Here is the direct quote of the rule.

"Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination."

So the candidite can't be nominated at the convention,a dn hence can't be voted for. I think if a candidite fails in the first round of voting all the delegates get to vote for whomever they wish.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 04:40:21 pm

Do they have to have a plurality at the caucuses/primaries or do they have to have a plurality on the convention floor?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 20, 2012, 04:49:22 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 04:40:21 pm

Do they have to have a plurality at the caucuses/primaries or do they have to have a plurality on the convention floor?

That's a good question, especially with cases like Mississippi where Santorum won the plurality of the primary but Romney was awarded more of the state's delegates (13 to 12 that is) thanks to the "unbound" delegates (read: party chairmen saying who the nominee will be).  Thanks to the way the race has already shaken out, I don't think that's going to come into contention though.  If Santorum doesn't have a plurality of actual delegates from at least five states by the end, it's safe to guess that Romney will have more than 1144 anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 20, 2012, 04:52:19 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 20, 2012, 04:01:15 pm

Whereas Romney's answer to EVERYTHING is "I make moar jobs!" From a campaign event at Bradly University yesterday:

Quote

ROMNEY: The best thing I can do for student debt is get you a good job when you come out.

Quote

ROMNEY: The best thing I can do for home values is to get the 8.3 percent of people in this country that are out of work back to work.

Apparently the Mitt formula is "The best thing I can do for X is make more jobs." Jobs will end the wars in the Middle East, free the Syrian people, cure AIDS and fix global warming.

In those two case (student loans and mortgage issues), yes, jobs are at least part of the solution.

However Romney doesn't really have any plan for creating jobs.

He has a plan for cutting the tax on wealthy people and corporations.

And that only produces jobs under a rapidly expanding market, and nearly every domestic market is nearly saturated.
And only if domestic jobs have a lower overall cost than foreign jobs + shipping costs.
And only if those that lower cost of the domestic jobs are apparent no later than the next quarter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 20, 2012, 05:32:08 pm

No modern US politician can fix the economy. The reason is, they're all lawyers. Of course they try to treat the US economy as a service industry, and of course they see unions as a universally deadly threat. They have no idea how a manufacturing business works.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on March 20, 2012, 05:46:30 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 19, 2012, 09:07:21 pm

Just for the record, that is not how tax rates work (http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/slight-misunderstanding-of-marginal-tax-brackets.html).  Getting a pay raise will never ever cause you to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes, that's what the "brackets" (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm) are all about.

I know you're probably just misinformed about that, but I meet people all the freakin' time who insist on believing the "getting a raise can cost you income because of taxes" myth, and reject any explanation to the contrary.

Didn't know that one (the UK tax system being kindof weird doesn't help here - you kindof lose your lower bands as you earn more).  Still sucks though, and even if earning more can't leave you with less I don't think a sudden huge spike is helpful.  It'd still make employers reluctant to pay past a certain point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 05:52:49 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 20, 2012, 04:49:22 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 04:40:21 pm

Do they have to have a plurality at the caucuses/primaries or do they have to have a plurality on the convention floor?

That's a good question, especially with cases like Mississippi where Santorum won the plurality of the primary but Romney was awarded more of the state's delegates (13 to 12 that is) thanks to the "unbound" delegates (read: party chairmen saying who the nominee will be).  Thanks to the way the race has already shaken out, I don't think that's going to come into contention though.  If Santorum doesn't have a plurality of actual delegates from at least five states by the end, it's safe to guess that Romney will have more than 1144 anyway.

I was thinking a different angle.  Suppose in the first round of voting, Gingrich has only 2 states, South Carolina and Georgia.  But the first round doesn't have a majority so there's a second round, where suddenly everyone decides they really like Newt (mass head trauma?).  Can he have a plurality of the states in this second round or is he disqualified because he never won enough primaries/caucuses?

People talk about dark horses, which these rules would disqualify if you needed the plurality of caucuses.  But this rule seems to be practically meaningless if it's based on support on the floor.  A candidate that completely sweeps the biggest 4 states gets like 600 votes from them.  It's kinda hard to see how they could get another 600 votes from the remaining states without taking a plurality in a single one of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 20, 2012, 06:28:37 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 05:52:49 pm

People talk about dark horses, which these rules would disqualify if you needed the plurality of caucuses.  But this rule seems to be practically meaningless if it's based on support on the floor.  A candidate that completely sweeps the biggest 4 states gets like 600 votes from them.  It's kinda hard to see how they could get another 600 votes from the remaining states without taking a plurality in a single one of them.

I didn't think about it at first, but given all the (intrinsically hyperbolic) talk of a "brokered convention", whereby somebody who didn't even actually run is trotted out and nominated, I'm going to take a stab in the dark that "plurality in at least five states" means "delegate votes at the convention", since there's no other way that scenario would be possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 06:33:16 pm

I thought I was alone on this....but I'm kind of expecting the Republican convention to be a "real" convention this time around, because neither Santorum or Gingrich seem to give a fuck about the prevailing party opinion. So if they've got delegates...why not take the convention seriously? Romney is so vulnerable that I think Santorum could actually take the nomination in one of those "seat of your pants" conventions.

I just don't see either of them going this far and then saying "Oh, the guys in the back room want to call this one? Sure, let me just get out of the way."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 20, 2012, 06:49:39 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 06:33:16 pm

I just don't see either of them going this far and then saying "Oh, the guys in the back room want to call this one? Sure, let me just get out of the way."

To be perfectly fair, that's what a lot of people said about Hilary Clinton too, at much this same stage of the primaries, and look how that turned out.

Do Rick Santorum and/or Newt Gingrich have bigger, more self-serving egos than Hilary Clinton, or is their fiery opposition to Romney going to disappear the moment the race ends?  That's an open question, although I think history is bearing out in Clinton's favor in regard to the former.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 06:59:31 pm

Then again, we didn't see Hilary self-destructing on the way to the convention. Both Santorum and Gingrich, on the other hand....When you're acting in a way that completely embarrasses the party, and instead of moderating, you double down...yeah. This Republican nomination to me has exceeded the Democratic nomination in terms of media hype and coverage, and unlike Hilary v. Obama, there isn't a clear "Oooohhh we'd really like that guy" candidate among the Republicans. In a race to the bottom, I expect all of them to duke it out at the convention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 07:04:40 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 06:59:31 pm

Both Newt and Gingrich.

Huh, both Newt AND Gingrich?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 20, 2012, 07:19:53 pm

Newts and Santorumanders are difficult pests to get rid of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 07:20:52 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on March 20, 2012, 07:04:40 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 06:59:31 pm

Both Newt and Gingrich.

Huh, both Newt AND Gingrich?  :P

You mean what I know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2012, 07:36:50 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on March 20, 2012, 07:19:53 pm

Newts and Santorumanders are difficult pests to get rid of.

Do... do Santorumanders evolve into Santorumeleons and then Santorizards?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2012, 07:38:00 pm

No. They don't believe in evolution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 07:40:56 pm

A brokered convention isn't going to happen unless Santorum and Gingrich start getting bigger shares of the remaining delegates.  If Romney just keeps his current pace he will cinch the nomination with a little breathing space.  No matter the size of their egos, if Romney has the support of a plurality, then there will not be a brokered convention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 20, 2012, 07:59:39 pm

By the way, news networks calling Illinois for Romney: With 20% of the vote in, Romney's running away with a serious majority, and all exit polls suggest the same should hold true through the rest of the count.  Santorum might narrow a bit, but this one looks pretty closed.

I will officially the first person to jump on the "Santorum is as good as over" bandwagon.  It's definitely just a question of whether Romney will reach 1144 by the end, and whether he'll need the unboard delegates to get over the top.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 20, 2012, 08:03:10 pm

I don't know, I think the superdelegates are probably going to be more on Santorum's side than Romney's.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2012, 08:10:22 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 20, 2012, 08:03:10 pm

I don't know, I think the superdelegates are probably going to be more on Santorum's side than Romney's.

Based on what evidence?  Romney leads in the super delegates who have publicly made endorsements so far.  Why would they intentionally destroy their party if they don't feel strongly about the issue to make an endorsement yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 20, 2012, 08:12:38 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 20, 2012, 08:03:10 pm

I don't know, I think the superdelegates are probably going to be more on Santorum's side than Romney's.

So far they haven't been.  See Mississippi, where Romney came in third with 29%, and took 13 delegates to Santorum's 12.

Speaking of which, I hadn't heard this yet, but that Saturday caucus in Missouri?  A significant number of delegates have not been awarded, because so many precincts became so contentious, they were shut down by police before they could finalize a vote.  How they're going to allocate their votes eventually, no one knows yet.

EDIT: Interesting exit poll: 33% of Illinois Republicans think Santorum is too "conservative", 42% think Romney isn't "conservative" enough.  One's staking new ground in American conservatism, the other is a panderbear trying to match him every step of the way.  I'm going out on a limb and saying that your average "base" Republican voter, i.e. a member of the 10-20% of the party that votes in primaries, does not know what they actually want in a candidate, but know they're not really seeing it in either of these guys.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2012, 07:35:36 am

I'm not writing Santorum off yet. This has happened previously, where Romney scored a double-digit win and everyone was ready to crown him with the victor's laurels. And then Santorum won the next three in a row.

Louisiana is coming up this Saturday, and recent polls show Santorum with a 13-point lead, roughly comparable with Romney's margin in Illinois. If he can take Wisconsin and Maryland (both winner-take-all) on 4/4, he's still alive. (Romney will take the District of Columbia.)

I'll grant that the math isn't terribly favorable for anybody else at this point though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2012, 08:05:56 am

How any right-thinking and non-brainwashed women can seriously say they support Santorum's rather obnoxious misogyny blows my entire mind. That is the only thing that stands out to me about this whole primary, women Republicans are either self-defeating or inherently mentally retarded. But the fact that he is not viewed dis-favorably by 43% of the general women populace scares me, the PBS Newshour pointed out last week that Santorum, compared to Obama, has only a 9% gap in women opinion.

How does this happen in today's society? Or is misogyny a new attractive thing with women? Because I sure see disrespectful men being treated more and more like the norm than the exception in society in general as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2012, 08:29:34 am

It's complicated. There's a very entrenched culture of shame and disempowerment that goes hand in hand with certain conservative strains of Christianity in the United States. I have a good friend who is still struggling to come to grips with having been raised in that kind of environment and even though she's out of that and utterly rejected it and is married to a great guy (one of my best friends in RL), she finds herself having all these knee-jerk responses to things that stem from being raised to believe that we're all miserable, dirty sinners (and women in particular...remember, this is all Eve's fault) and that our only hope is to do everything we can to make God like us enough not to throw us into Hell for eternity.

I'm guessing a lot of the female support is along pro-lifer lines. Women can be some of the most strident anti-abortionists, if they see childbirth as their sole redeeming feature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2012, 08:34:06 am

You'd think his support of the innocent little babies [aka the fear of women *gasp* choosing their fate regarding their uterus] would fall of deaf ears considering he supports none of the rights that women hold today. That's mostly what I'm getting at, the fact that he is viewed almost positively [statistically] makes me want to puke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2012, 08:58:42 am

If you think the patriarchy and misogyny isn't propped up up by enablers in the group discriminated against... You don't understand much of the history of feminism. Many of the most vociferous opponents at each step of the process of securing women's rights were women, often those who felt their own, stable, "acceptable" role in society would be weakened. Hell, the "antifeminism" movement was STARTED by a woman -  Phyllis Schlafly.

The way things are wouldn't BE the way things are were if women weren't busy arguing against their own interests as a group. After all, they outnumber men. But many of them don't see themselves as a group but rather two groups - the "good, proper" women and "those dirty immoral sluts". And those who see themselves in the first group are, in my experience, more than willing to damage themselves if they think it will hurt those in the second group more.

Of course those distinctions don't really exist, but humans have an incredible ability to screw themselves over out of fear, spite, and sincere belief. And the fact, of course, that many of them WANT the privileges associated with their former status more than they want equal rights., and they are often "winning" under that unequal system, so why would they want it to change?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2012, 09:07:22 am

I'm talking about those women not affiliated with Christianity or any offshoots [and/or political fronts] yet are still taking Santorum as a good leader, unless a whopping 43% of this country's women are die-hard enablers and downright treasonous to their own gender. 20%, maybe, but the rest is still a huge mystery. Does the rest of his support come from simply not knowing a damn thing about him? I'm led to believe that, as it's true in most of the American public's decisions regarding public officials.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 21, 2012, 09:13:26 am

I'd argue 30% of voters at least only know a portion of what their candidate has said, voted for or believes. The rest rides purely on perception. And in that regard, Santorum "looks likeable."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 21, 2012, 10:42:05 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 21, 2012, 07:35:36 am

I'll grant that the math isn't terribly favorable for anybody else at this point though.

This.

Also, as a resident of Maryland's conservative regions, I'd be very surprised if Santorum wins this state.  Romney will probably clean up around Baltimore, Washington and Annapolis where most of the states voters live.  The republicans in these areas are wealthy and should make up most of the primary ballots.  The eastern shore is rural but affluent so shouldn't favor Santorum too strongly.  The southern region is religious and conservative but there's not too much of it so he should only rack up a few tens of thousands there.  The west is rural and relatively poor by Maryland standards but isn't enough to drown out the margins that Romney will have from the rest of the state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2012, 11:11:20 am

Yeah, given the levels of support Romney was getting in NoVa, he'll probably win Maryland. Can't actually find any polling data yet for MD, but I'm sure some will come out over the next week or two. I think Santorum does have a good shot to win Wisconsin, though.

I can still hold out hope that either Santorum's or Gingrich's campaign will collapse and one of them will concede and strengthen the other. Based on every poll out there, an Obama v. Gingrich general election would be the most lopsided ass-whooping since Reagan v. Mondale.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 21, 2012, 11:12:47 am

A potato could run against Gingrich and probably win at this point. Which would be really interesting because voters would have a difficult time telling them apart.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2012, 11:21:01 am

Quote from: nenjin on March 21, 2012, 11:12:47 am

A potato could run against Gingrich and probably win at this point. Which would be really interesting because voters would have a difficult time telling them apart.

Moral superiority. That's the dead giveaway. If the potato wants more than one person to butter it at the same time, that's Gingrich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on March 21, 2012, 05:33:35 pm

Oh, I thought you meant "morally superior". I.E. the tuber.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Old Bones on March 21, 2012, 05:41:09 pm

The republican candidate hopefuls are all ridiculous jokes. They try to get votes by trying to prove how conservative they are.

Oh and also they all hate the fuck out of gay people. That group includes me so they can all go fuck themselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 21, 2012, 07:15:53 pm

Quote

As [Jeb] Bush’s endorsement rattled about Twitter and the blogosphere, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom flubbed a question on CNN when he was asked if the campaign plans to retool its message in the general election

“I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign, everything changes,” Fehrnstrom said. “It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch, you can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

Nothing to see here, just one of Mitt Romney's top advisers doing his every opponent's work for them (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706497/for-mitt-romney-etch-a-sketch.html).  Once again, one wonders how well Mitt Romney would be doing if everybody didn't keep trying to shoot him in the foot, or conversely if he didn't have all the money and connections in the world to campaign with.

Oh yeah, and former governor of Florida Jedidiah "The Smart One" Bush endorsed Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2012, 07:45:11 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 21, 2012, 07:15:53 pm

Oh yeah, and former governor of Florida Jedidiah "The Smart One" Bush endorsed Romney.

Pretty much everyone I know in Florida: "Welp. There's another mark against Romney."

Though my acquaintances in this state are over represented by those affiliated with the public education system. Protip: Most teachers in Florida (that I know, anyway) hate Jeb's guts with a violent passion.

Did see that on TV in passing, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on March 22, 2012, 12:11:50 am

Forgive me, maybe I'm a bit too cynical, but I don't really see what all the fuss about the Etch a sketch comment is about. It just sounds like a good opportunity for Romney's rivals to throw themed criticism at him rather than a significant gaffe in and of itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 22, 2012, 12:19:32 am

Quote

Forgive me, maybe I'm a bit too cynical, but I don't really see what all the fuss about the Etch a sketch comment is about.

I think the problem here is you're not cynical enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 22, 2012, 07:41:23 am

Quote from: darkflagrance on March 22, 2012, 12:11:50 am

Forgive me, maybe I'm a bit too cynical, but I don't really see what all the fuss about the Etch a sketch comment is about. It just sounds like a good opportunity for Romney's rivals to throw themed criticism at him rather than a significant gaffe in and of itself.

He's saying that all the promises of conservatism that Romney has made so far will go out the window the second the primaries are over.  Kinda matters since Romney has a reputation for flip flopping.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 22, 2012, 09:46:03 am

The amusing part is of course, that Fehrnstrom is just saying a truth of modern campaigning: you run to your base in the primary, and to the middle in the general election. Both parties do it, and every candidate does it (except maybe Santorum and possibly Ron Paul -- which is why both are inherently unelectable).

But there's two things Fehrnstrom should have thought about:
A. It's a public secret that no candidate will admit to.
B. Your candidate in particular has an image problem with the base, who think he's only playing at being a conservative to begin with.

The fun part is that because this primary has gone on so long and become a "Who Wants To Be A Fringe Right-Winger?" contest, all the candidates have run so hard to the right that they're going to have a *very* hard time re-centering their campaigns for the general election. If it had stayed focused on the economy, Romney could have nuanced his way back to a centrist profile. But by forcing him to stake out solidly right-wing positions on things like immigration, reproductive rights and global warming, it gets a lot tougher for him to run as a centrist without coming off as completely fake and shifting to both the GOP base and the general electorate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: zekiel321 on March 22, 2012, 03:02:09 pm

Quote from: darkflagrance on March 22, 2012, 12:11:50 am

Forgive me, maybe I'm a bit too cynical, but I don't really see what all the fuss about the Etch a sketch comment is about. It just sounds like a good opportunity for Romney's rivals to throw themed criticism at him rather than a significant gaffe in and of itself.

It's pretty significant since they are basically admitting they can erase anything that's been done then start over. Although it feels like that's how politics is in general, it isn't suppose to be said out loud lol. Well at least they found their new bumpersticker design hah
(http://rlv.zcache.com/romney_like_an_etch_a_sketch_bumper_sticker-p128135739696374229f82_325.jpg) (http://votesaver.com/romney_like_an_etch_a_sketch_bumper_sticker~128135739696374229)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2012, 04:15:00 pm

To an innocent and foreign spectator like myself, this all feels a lot like Obama is going to win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 22, 2012, 04:19:50 pm

Probably, but I don't want to be optimistic.

Back in 2000, I thought Bush couldn't possibly win.

And then in 2004 I thought Bush couldn't possibly win.

Not that Obama is a particularly good president.

We are screwed either way, its just that Obama isn't quite as big of a prick.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 22, 2012, 04:23:09 pm

I think I'd rather have a prick who isn't racing to disassemble our civil rights, than a suave democratic president who is more than willing to shred our protections for the sake of industry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 22, 2012, 04:27:05 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 22, 2012, 04:23:09 pm

I think I'd rather have a prick who isn't racing to disassemble our civil rights, than a suave democratic president who is more than willing to shred our protections for the sake of industry.

... does that first bit describe any of the major runners?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 22, 2012, 04:28:17 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 22, 2012, 04:23:09 pm

I think I'd rather have a prick who isn't racing to disassemble our civil rights, than a suave democratic president who is more than willing to shred our protections for the sake of industry.

So you would rather have a stilted republican who is racing to disassemble our civil rights and shred our protections for the sake of industry at a greater rate?

We have two choices:
D: destruction of our rights and protections for the sake of industry, with a tiny sliver of economic recovery.
R: destruction of our rights and protections for the sake of industry, total economic collapse and the rise the neo-christian taliban.

Edit: wow, so this is what my idea of optimism looks like...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2012, 04:35:13 pm

Those are very bleak prospects indeed. Civil rights and freedoms are what made America great, it's terrible to see them being dismantled for the sake of big business and industry.

To quote a previous user on this site, I find it sad that the American people seem to have the stark choice between right wing or very right wing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 22, 2012, 04:36:07 pm

You see, that is why I want to secede, but when I suggest it everyone thinks I'm crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2012, 04:38:52 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on March 22, 2012, 04:36:07 pm

You see, that is why I want to secede, but when I suggest it everyone thinks I'm crazy.

I don't think you're crazy. Secession is all the rage here, most of which I support. If secession will benefit you - go for it. California is enormous; just secede, embrace Mexican immigration and take on Spanish as a second official language. Become completely bilingual. It would do a lot of good for your children.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on March 22, 2012, 05:40:14 pm

The US has no official language. Romney didn't know that before Puerto Rico, apparently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: roflgar on March 22, 2012, 06:50:39 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on March 22, 2012, 05:40:14 pm

The US has no official language. Romney didn't know that before Puerto Rico, apparently.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be sure to speak out against discriminating against Spanish speaking people, then leap to defend the american way (of only speaking EnglishAmerican)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on March 22, 2012, 08:44:54 pm

Quote from: roflgar on March 22, 2012, 06:50:39 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on March 22, 2012, 05:40:14 pm

The US has no official language. Romney didn't know that before Puerto Rico, apparently.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be sure to speak out against discriminating against Spanish speaking people, then leap to defend the american way (of only speaking EnglishAmerican)

yeah calling it english would make Mitt seem too foriegn  :P.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 23, 2012, 12:03:10 am

I knew that Santorum gaffed on the Puerto Rico language thing, but Romney too?? Link?

Quote from: nenjin on March 22, 2012, 04:23:09 pm

I think I'd rather have a prick who isn't racing to disassemble our civil rights, than a suave democratic president who is more than willing to shred our protections for the sake of industry.

Lol, perhaps you're not cynical enough either ;)

Republicans are just as much anti-rights as anyone. Remember that a Republican controlled congress and senate passed the NDAA, but they only mention Obama's name in the news. I wonder why? I can't see any Republican president repealing this sort of thing.

More % of Republicans voted for NDAA than Democrats, but I see lots of stories claiming the Republicans are against it. Total red-herring right there. Obama did add a signing statement pledging not to use the anti-US citizen provisions of the bill. But really, he had little choice but to sign, because it's tied to the operations budget for ongoing military actions like Afghanistan. That's reality vs wishful sentiments. The idea that Obama can pull troops out of places all over the globe anytime he feels like it is nonsense. It's not just US troops, USA has friends and allies fighting around the place. They're not going to like you much if you abandon them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on March 23, 2012, 02:52:21 am

Politics, all about shafting others by adding unrelated shit to important shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ECrownofFire on March 23, 2012, 07:10:03 am

"Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary" (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1)

It's a VERY long PDF (200 pages), this (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31011714/downloads/Evidence%20of%20Algorithm%20Vote%20Flipping%20in%20GOP%20Primary%20Elections%20Layman%27s%20Executive%20Summary.pdf) is a summary.

It's... interesting, to say the least.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 07:53:19 am

Yeah....not sure what to make of that. It certainly would be easier to hide this kind of trend with a candidate like Romney because urban areas are often the last to report in, so everyone expects a bump for Romney late.

EDIT: My biggest reservation re: this honestly is that it seems to have been a product of the Ron Paul crowd, and frankly there's never been a conspiracy story they didn't like. There's also a distinct lack of sourcing on data. How were they able to get the precinct-level data *in the order it was tabulated*? Where's the link to that data so someone can independently construct their own analysis?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on March 23, 2012, 09:34:46 am

Quote from: ECrownofFire on March 23, 2012, 07:10:03 am

"Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary" (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1)

It's a VERY long PDF (200 pages), this (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31011714/downloads/Evidence%20of%20Algorithm%20Vote%20Flipping%20in%20GOP%20Primary%20Elections%20Layman%27s%20Executive%20Summary.pdf) is a summary.

It's... interesting, to say the least.

With this in hand, I want to see voter fraud.  That would just top the whole Republican train wreck quite nicely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 23, 2012, 09:49:42 am

Someone should tell the Republicans that they should save their vote rigging Ace-In-The-Hole for the general elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 23, 2012, 09:50:47 am

Each party has the right to pick its candidate as it sees fit. Either by appointment, vote or some other method. As skeezy and dishonest that manipulation of primary voting appears to be, as far as I know it isn't explicitly illegal. Doing the same thing in an actual election however, would be another matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 10:05:47 am

Quote from: Nadaka on March 23, 2012, 09:50:47 am

Each party has the right to pick its candidate as it sees fit. Either by appointment, vote or some other method. As skeezy and dishonest that manipulation of primary voting appears to be, as far as I know it isn't explicitly illegal. Doing the same thing in an actual election however, would be another matter.

I'm pretty sure electoral fraud is illegal in primaries as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on March 23, 2012, 10:13:37 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 10:05:47 am

Quote from: Nadaka on March 23, 2012, 09:50:47 am

Each party has the right to pick its candidate as it sees fit. Either by appointment, vote or some other method. As skeezy and dishonest that manipulation of primary voting appears to be, as far as I know it isn't explicitly illegal. Doing the same thing in an actual election however, would be another matter.

I'm pretty sure electoral fraud is illegal in primaries as well.

Going forward, even if it isn't illegal, they've basically shot themselves in the foot their own leg off anyways...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 23, 2012, 10:19:14 am

We can hope so, at least.

I wonder what 2016 will hold. I hope the Republicans nominate Huntsman. I like Huntsman. His tax stance is not exactly to be praised, but you can't have everything, and he's certainly sane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 10:21:17 am

I will continue to give my vote to anyone who opposes the war on some drugs, as long as they are at least moderately sane.

My vote will likely remain buried, untouched, in the back yard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 10:53:12 am

Yeah, 2016 might be wild. I can't seriously see the Democrats lining up behind Biden as the heir-apparent, assuming Obama wins this fall. Might be another scenario like 2008 where there's no incumbent or Vice President running and it's a real free-for-all.

I still have hopes that Brian Schweitzer (Dem. Governor of Montana) make take a shot at the WH. Eh is a cool guy who uses a branding iron to veto shit and doesn't afraid of anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 23, 2012, 01:30:28 pm

Out on the campaign trail, Rick Santorum kinda sorta said (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/santorum-might-as-well-have-obama-over-romney/) he'd rather see Obama reelected than Mitt Romney win.

Quote

"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. "You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there."

Santorum added: "If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future."

80% chance he sets the land speed record for backpedaling, 20% chance he doubles down and makes "a vote for Romney might as well be a vote for Obama" his new stump speech.  No doubt he's taking shitloads of heat for it, but the grand irony is that people like George Will and William F. Buckley have been basically saying the same thing since January.

Quote from: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 10:53:12 am

Yeah, 2016 might be wild. I can't seriously see the Democrats lining up behind Biden as the heir-apparent, assuming Obama wins this fall. Might be another scenario like 2008 where there's no incumbent or Vice President running and it's a real free-for-all.

I still have hopes that Brian Schweitzer (Dem. Governor of Montana) make take a shot at the WH. Eh is a cool guy who uses a branding iron to veto shit and doesn't afraid of anything.

Speaking hypothetically of an Obama reelection, I can't even see Biden running in 2016.  He'll only be a year or two older than John McCain was when he ran in 2008, but that would still make him the oldest man ever to run for President.  I do kinda expect Hilary Clinton to run, and while I also expect her to lose the nomination again, I can't imagine to whom.  How many Democrats are there with the national recognition and wherewithal to run after two terms of a Democrat President?  Brian Schweitzer's not impossible, but he sounds more like "also-ran to VP" material; Jennifer Granholm maybe; Bill Richardson will probably run again; I've heard mention of Andrew Cuomo, who's certainly in the realm of possibility, and that's everyone I can think of.  There's a few other governors out there like Bev Perdue who might think they can try, and that's enough for a field, but none I can see as of now winning against what's likely to be a very well bolstered Republican opposition.

Honestly, if Obama does get reelected, he'd have to learn to walk on water like Reagan and FDR if he hopes to see the third time in a century for a successor of the same party after two terms.  A lot of people are wondering why there's all these "reasonable" republicans like Chris Christie sitting out this election, and the easiest guess is because they know 2016 will almost automatically go to the Republican.

_{Yes, that was an FDR joke.  Savor it.}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 01:53:12 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 23, 2012, 01:30:28 pm

Out on the campaign trail, Rick Santorum kinda sorta said (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/santorum-might-as-well-have-obama-over-romney/) he'd rather see Obama reelected than Mitt Romney win.

Quote

"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. "You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there."

Santorum added: "If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future."

80% chance he sets the land speed record for backpedaling, 20% chance he doubles down and makes "a vote for Romney might as well be a vote for Obama" his new stump speech.  No doubt he's taking shitloads of heat for it, but the grand irony is that people like George Will and William F. Buckley have been basically saying the same thing since January.

Wow. Buckley actually rose from the dead to criticize Romney? Well, there goes the zombie vote.  ;D

Quote from: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 10:53:12 am

Yeah, 2016 might be wild. I can't seriously see the Democrats lining up behind Biden as the heir-apparent, assuming Obama wins this fall. Might be another scenario like 2008 where there's no incumbent or Vice President running and it's a real free-for-all.

I still have hopes that Brian Schweitzer (Dem. Governor of Montana) make take a shot at the WH. Eh is a cool guy who uses a branding iron to veto shit and doesn't afraid of anything.

Quote

Speaking hypothetically of an Obama reelection, I can't even see Biden running in 2016.  He'll only be a year or two older than John McCain was when he ran in 2008, but that would still make him the oldest man ever to run for President.  I do kinda expect Hilary Clinton to run, and while I also expect her to lose the nomination again, I can't imagine to whom.  How many Democrats are there with the national recognition and wherewithal to run after two terms of a Democrat President?  Brian Schweitzer's not impossible, but he sounds more like "also-ran to VP" material; Jennifer Granholm maybe; Bill Richardson will probably run again; I've heard mention of Andrew Cuomo, who's certainly in the realm of possibility, and that's everyone I can think of.  There's a few other governors out there like Bev Perdue who might think they can try, and that's enough for a field, but none I can see as of now winning against what's likely to be a very well bolstered Republican opposition.

There is no way in all that is holy that Bev Perdue will run for President. She's not even running for re-election as Governor, because she knows she'd lose. I mean hell...*I* voted for the Libertarian candidate, that's how unimpressive she was.

Cuomo's got a shot, although Northeastern Dems have a hard time in the general election. Eliott Spitzer would have been a strong candidate if he coulda kept it in his pants. Richardson.....he might run, won't win. Granholm's got potential, although you might see a minor "birther" movement since she was born in Vancouver. I wouldn't put it past Rahm Emanuel to throw his hat in the ring. There's also Antonio Villaragosa...he's got some name recognition and he'd be a lock for the not-insubstantial Hispanic vote (although he brings a fair amount of personal baggage too)

But man, wouldn't THAT rub the GOP's balls raw...a black President followed by a Hispanic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 23, 2012, 01:58:32 pm

Well, I didn't realize Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada.  So she's out.  I mean legally, she can't be elected as a foreign born citizen.

I've never even heard of Antonio Villaraigosa, and while automatically locking up 20% of the national vote isn't necessarily a bad thing, it'll be a cold day in Hell when a mayor of Los Angeles with a name like 'Villaraigosa" comes close to winning a general election, at least by 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:02:00 pm

You legally be elected as a foreign born citizen. McCain was foreign born.

Being foreign born doesn't stop you from being natural born - at least not legally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 23, 2012, 02:02:55 pm

One of these days, we're going to have to actually, legally define what that term means.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 23, 2012, 02:03:59 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:02:00 pm

You legally be elected as a foreign born citizen. McCain was foreign born.

Being foreign born doesn't stop you from being natural born - at least not legally.

Nope, you do have to actually be born in American territory.  McCain was born to American citizens, one of them a serving member of the military, on diplomatic territory in the Panama canal zone.  That's good enough to count.  Vancouver, Canada is not American territory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 23, 2012, 02:06:53 pm

It's a silly rule in any case, and I wouldn't be surprised if we got rid of it one of these days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:08:32 pm

No, being President only requires you to be natural born. You do not have to actually be born on US soil. It's why the Obama thing is utterly stupid. There is no legal requirement for a president to be born on US soil, they just need to be natural born i.e. a US citizen from birth. And that ALSO doesn't require being born on US soil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 02:11:40 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:08:32 pm

No, being President only requires you to be natural born. You do not have to actually be born on US soil. It's why the Obama thing is utterly stupid. There is no legal requirement for a president to be born on US soil, they just need to be natural born i.e. a US citizen from birth. And that ALSO doesn't require being born on US soil.

^^^^^^^^^
This.

As long as one of her parents was American, she's a natural-born citizen. We use a mixture of jus soli and jus sanguinis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 23, 2012, 02:12:13 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:08:32 pm

No, being President only requires you to be natural born. You do not have to actually be born on US soil. It's why the Obama thing is utterly stupid. There is no legal requirement for a president to be born on US soil, they just need to be natural born i.e. a US citizen from birth. And that ALSO doesn't require being born on US soil.

For instance John McCain was born in Panama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:12:54 pm

Nadaka, you didn't actually read the last couple posts did you? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on March 23, 2012, 02:13:17 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on March 23, 2012, 02:06:53 pm

It's a silly rule in any case, and I wouldn't be surprised if we got rid of it one of these days.

I agree it is and that you should, but I doubt it's going to happen in the current overly nationalistic political climate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 23, 2012, 02:13:51 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:08:32 pm

No, being President only requires you to be natural born. You do not have to actually be born on US soil. It's why the Obama thing is utterly stupid. There is no legal requirement for a president to be born on US soil, they just need to be natural born i.e. a US citizen from birth. And that ALSO doesn't require being born on US soil.

Okay fine, I forgot the technicality of American citizens traveling abroad, but I find it hard to believe Granholm specifically isn't disqualified.  I don't know her life story, but according to Wikipedia's sourcing, she was born in 1959 and despite living in America somehow didn't actually become a citizen until 1980.  Ergo, I'm betting she would not count as "natural born".  By the sound of it, her parents were Canadian citizens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:17:07 pm

Okay, yeah, if she was not eligible to be a citizen at birth, she's out. (Note, you could have just taken a while to get it made official, which is allowed, but I think you have to do it... before your 18th birthday or something? And then it's like... retroactive. You were ALWAYS a citizen. But again, that still requires you to be eligible since birth. That doesn't seem to apply here.).

Neither of her parents were citizens, AND she wasn't born on US soil, so she's right out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 23, 2012, 02:19:17 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 02:12:54 pm

Nadaka, you didn't actually read the last couple posts did you? :P

Define "read"? Maybe McCain is just my fnord.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 02:38:03 pm

Huh. Okay, I thought her parents were Americans. Nevermind.

And McCain was born in the "Panama Canal Zone", which technically *is* (or at least was, until Carter handed over the Canal to Panama) American territory. The same way that many American military bases and embassies overseas are technically part of the United States.

And in McCain's case, his parents were also Americans, so he holds birth citizenship by right of blood *and* right of soil.


Anyhoo....to re-rail this a bit, let's look ahead to tomorrow:

SATURDAY! SATURDAY! SATURDAY! It's the the Bungle in the Bayou! The Creole Caucus! The Voodoo Vote! That's right, it's Louisiana Primary Time!
Aaaaaand Santorum's gonna win. Well, that was exciting.

Main questions are: win by how much, and will Gingrich do badly enough to think about dropping out? Since I don't see Gingrich dropping out even if he somehow got negative votes, the latter is more rhetorical then anything.


The bigger news is that Romney has a double-digit lead in polling in Wisconsin. That's a huge flip from Santorum's 16-point lead a month ago. Might be a sign that the "inevitability" narrative is beginning to finally take hold. Of course, that latest poll was before the "Etch-A-Sketch" gaffe, so who knows?

Wisconsin is winner-take-all, so it really becomes a must-win for anyone other than Romney if they want to try and drag this thing out to the convention. If (as the polls suggest now) Romney takes Wisconsin *and* Maryland, then he probably clinches it sometime in early June (say, after winning California).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on March 23, 2012, 03:02:14 pm

It's fascinating that you actually have to have been born in the USA or have an American parent of some description to become President of the US. It sort of goes against the whole American Dream idea, doesn't it? Anyone can "make it" right the way to the top in the USA if they work hard, unless you're an immigrant. Isn't wanting to be American and to serve the country good enough?

I'm also not very clear on American "something-vote" terminology like the Voodoo Vote or the Zombie Vote and so on. I've been reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail though, so is the "freak vote" going to Ron Paul?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on March 23, 2012, 03:05:56 pm

Well, I certainly understand why the voting population is so low in the US; everybody's so out-tired of all the politicsing so when the actual election comes around nobody has any will left. Obama's going to have an easy win if only because his base isn't completely depleted and demoralized yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 23, 2012, 03:07:11 pm

Quote

I've been reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail though, so is the "freak vote" going to Ron Paul?

He only wishes.

Quote

It sort of goes against the whole American Dream idea, doesn't it? Anyone can "make it" right the way to the top in the USA if they work hard, unless you're an immigrant. Isn't wanting to be American and to serve the country good enough?

The theory is that a Generation Zero immigrant still retains strong emotional and patriotic ties to their homeland, that naturalization doesn't eliminate. Therefore they have the potential for a conflict of interest between what's best for the US vs. what's best for their country of origin.

For example, what would a former Iraqi president's foreign policy be toward their country of origin? They might give it too much aid, not enough aid....for reasons that could be driven by something other than prudent policy.

That's the theory, at any rate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 23, 2012, 03:07:42 pm

To what extent are the Republicans starting to realize that their liberal Muslim enemy is probably going to win in November?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 03:09:30 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on March 23, 2012, 03:02:14 pm

I'm also not very clear on American "something-vote" terminology like the Voodoo Vote or the Zombie Vote and so on. I've been reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail though, so is the "freak vote" going to Ron Paul?

Well, the "Voodoo Vote" was just me coming up with lame alliterative phrases to describe an election in Louisiana. The "zombie vote" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Aqizzar's reference to William F. Buckley criticizing Romney (Buckley died in 2008), suggesting that because of that "Zombie-Americans" would be swayed away.

But yeah, you'll see a lot of references to the youth vote, the soccer mom vote, the Hispanic vote, the black vote, etc. as if every demographic voted as monolithic entities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 23, 2012, 03:13:57 pm

The presidential naturalized citizen rule was basically created for the same reason as the separation of church and state rule - to avoid divided loyalties to foreign powers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 23, 2012, 03:29:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 03:09:30 pm

Well, the "Voodoo Vote" was just me coming up with lame alliterative phrases to describe an election in Louisiana. The "zombie vote" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Aqizzar's reference to William F. Buckley criticizing Romney (Buckley died in 2008), suggesting that because of that "Zombie-Americans" would be swayed away.

Dammit, I was talking about William F. Buckley Junior, y'know the guy who took up his father's commentator mantel.  I didn't think it'd be necessary to distinguish him from the dead one.

Waitaminute, the dead one is Junior... Okay, I know goddamn well he has a son who's also political commentator, I didn't just drop in from the twilight zone here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 03:42:41 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 23, 2012, 03:29:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 23, 2012, 03:09:30 pm

Well, the "Voodoo Vote" was just me coming up with lame alliterative phrases to describe an election in Louisiana. The "zombie vote" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Aqizzar's reference to William F. Buckley criticizing Romney (Buckley died in 2008), suggesting that because of that "Zombie-Americans" would be swayed away.

Dammit, I was talking about William F. Buckley Junior, y'know the guy who took up his father's commentator mantel.  I didn't think it'd be necessary to distinguish him from the dead one.

Waitaminute, the dead one is Junior... Okay, I know goddamn well he has a son who's also political commentator, I didn't just drop in from the twilight zone here.

It's Buckleys all the way down.  :P

He did have one son, Christopher Buckley, who's an author and satirist, but he infamously penned an op-ed in 2008 stating that he was voting for Obama, and subsequently resigned from the National Review and was more or less excommunicated by the Right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 23, 2012, 11:05:39 pm

I looked up Christopher Buckley and decided he's a dick. Writes witty satire but he talks out his arse and is a bit ignorant and racist.

Called the Chinese mere brainless copiers because they built a stealth fighter the J-20. He said in the article they copied it from crashed pieces of an F-117 (which i found after some research, was a rumor which was going around). He also claimed no Chinese had ever won a Nobel Prize, which is patently false.

Spoiler: Plane Pictures (click to show/hide)

Here's the F-117

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg/300px-F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg)

And here's the Chinese J-20

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__rQoK9r_ycs/TSTgeKAd-ZI/AAAAAAAAAFM/Lvh00XYkSck/s1600/PLA%2BJ-20%2B%25E5%258C%25BF%25E8%25B9%25A4%25E6%2588%25B0%25E6%25A9%259F%2B%2528171%2529.jpg)

It has more similarities with an F-22 but it's definitely influenced, and not a copy, the lines are totally different, and according to aviation websites it's quite a bit bigger than an F-22 and they're theorizing that it has quite a bit more fuel payload (F-22 designed for combat over europe, J-20 designed for naval recon etc)

(http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fifthgenerationfighters.jpg)

Just goes to show that old line about how asians can "only copy" the more creative and superior whites won't die any time soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on March 24, 2012, 02:27:12 am

I like to think of it as 'improvement'.  Take your idea and make it better for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on March 24, 2012, 03:41:19 am

Quote from: Reelya on March 23, 2012, 11:05:39 pm

I looked up Christopher Buckley and decided he's a dick. Writes witty satire but he talks out his arse and is a bit ignorant and racist.

Called the Chinese mere brainless copiers because they built a stealth fighter the J-20. He said in the article they copied it from crashed pieces of an F-117 (which i found after some research, was a rumor which was going around). He also claimed no Chinese had ever won a Nobel Prize, which is patently false.

Spoiler: Plane Pictures (click to show/hide)

Here's the F-117

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg/300px-F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg)

And here's the Chinese J-20

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__rQoK9r_ycs/TSTgeKAd-ZI/AAAAAAAAAFM/Lvh00XYkSck/s1600/PLA%2BJ-20%2B%25E5%258C%25BF%25E8%25B9%25A4%25E6%2588%25B0%25E6%25A9%259F%2B%2528171%2529.jpg)

It has more similarities with an F-22 but it's definitely influenced, and not a copy, the lines are totally different, and according to aviation websites it's quite a bit bigger than an F-22 and they're theorizing that it has quite a bit more fuel payload (F-22 designed for combat over europe, J-20 designed for naval recon etc)

(http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fifthgenerationfighters.jpg)

Just goes to show that old line about how asians can "only copy" the more creative and superior whites won't die any time soon.

To bad the engines are russian made, because the chinese ones are so shoddy they get about 30-hours of flight time out of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 24, 2012, 08:35:20 am

Let me just add a little interprimary levity here with Scumbag Santorum. (http://memegenerator.net/instance/16345054?urlName=Scumbag-Rick-Santorum&browsingOrder=New&browsingTimeSpan=AllTime) (Yes, I know that Louisiana is up today, but it's almost a foregone conclusion.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 24, 2012, 09:51:10 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on March 24, 2012, 03:41:19 am

To bad the engines are russian made, because the chinese ones are so shoddy they get about 30-hours of flight time out of them.

No different to Boeing using Rolls Royce engines. I think racism is similar to sexism in that another race is mocked for doing things that ones own country does already.

And for the "copying" thing. Technology isn't at the "race" level, it's at the "person" level, but people act like they, personally, invented everything their "race" (or country, etc) invented (and usually 99% of that was cultural imports to start with). Let's list things Christopher Buckley has personally invented :-

.
.
.

Yet he mocks aviation engineers in China who are coming up with perfectly servicable supersonic jet fighter designs. I'm sure those engineers are a damn sight smarter than he is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on March 24, 2012, 11:36:49 am

Read that as "I'm sure those engines are a damn sight smarter than he is."

Still might work. Not exactly a dig at the guy so much as a joke about how complex modern engineering gets, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on March 24, 2012, 06:53:12 pm

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/24/10847614-dick-cheney-recovering-at-hospital-after-heart-transplant (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/24/10847614-dick-cheney-recovering-at-hospital-after-heart-transplant)

(tears up organ donor card)

Anyway, wouldn't this be more of an Implant?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on March 24, 2012, 10:51:44 pm

For anyone who's not seen the classic comic "This Modern World" here's the latest relevant strips:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TMW2012-03-07colorlowres1.jpg)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TMW2012-02-15colorlowres.jpg)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TMW2012-02-08colorlowres2.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 24, 2012, 11:13:40 pm

As proprietor, all I have to say is ehhh.

Goddamn, how many primaries do I have to catch up on?  I've been busy lately folks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 25, 2012, 06:01:22 am

So, in a turn of events that comes as a surprise to absolutely no one, Rick Santorum wins the Louisiana primary.

The final tally is:

Rick Santorum - 91,305 (49%)
Mitt Romney - 49,749 (27%)
Newt Gingrich - 29,655 (16%)
Ron Paul - 11,460 (6%)

Santorum won every single parish (this is Louisiana, where they don't have counties...the whole place is mostly a holdover from 18th-century France) with the exception of Orleans parish (New Orleans). This winds up being a minor win for Romney, because he keeps Santorum from turning the race into a clean sweep and nabbing all the delegates.

No more races for the next 10 days so expect things to get a bit herpaderp, both in here and on the national stage as well. That's enough time for Santorum to make up the deficits he faces in Wisconsin if he pushes hard and Team Romney continues to make "Etch-A-Sketch" type gaffes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 25, 2012, 09:00:59 am

I would be very surprised if team Romney screws up like "Etch-A-Sketch" again between now and Wisconsin.

Shame that Santorum couldn't have knocked another couple points of Romney's tally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 27, 2012, 07:22:35 pm

Republican vote suppression efforts in Florida appear to be a success.  Registrations are down by 80k from 2008 as many voter registration groups have abandoned the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/restrictions-on-voter-registration-in-florida-have-groups-opting-out.html?hp

Democracy!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:26:38 pm

Perhaps I'm not seeing through the legalise, but what's wrong with requiring groups to turn in paperwork quickly? And why are so many groups not operating in protest?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 27, 2012, 07:32:13 pm

Quote from: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:26:38 pm

Perhaps I'm not seeing through the legalise, but what's wrong with requiring groups to turn in paperwork quickly? And why are so many groups not operating in protest?

Because it is quick enough that a lot of groups can't make that deadline. Leaving scores of people thinking they are registered, when they really are not. Because they think they are registered but are not, they will be denied their vote when they arrive unknowingly at the polling station.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 27, 2012, 07:36:25 pm

It's not so much that they're not operating in protest, it's that they can't afford to operate under the "two days or a penalty fine" rule.  It's hard to process voter registration applications that fast, especially if they want to make sure they get every right the first time, so they don't get turned into the next ACORN because a few wacky names get lost in the mix.


Meanwhile, a legal battle over some election process in Maine three years ago has "confidential" memos in the National Organization for Marriage" (http://www.mail.com/news/us/1162696-gay-marriage-foes-sought-to-split-gays-blacks.html#.7518-stage-hero1-6), wherein they specifically describe trying to gin up conflicts between Black, Hispanic, and Gay "groups" to crack up the Democratic party's typical voter base.  In other words, very much like the campaigns seen in California's "Prop 8" election a couple years ago, where a gay-marriage referendum was brought down by record turnout of religious blacks, thanks to "voter drive" actions funded by traditionally Republican groups from out of state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on March 27, 2012, 07:37:22 pm

The article sort of mentions this, but the voter fraud these regulations are ostensibly supposed to prevent never actually existed in the first place, so they basically just make it harder for people to register to vote with nothing good gained in return.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:37:59 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 27, 2012, 07:32:13 pm

Quote from: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:26:38 pm

Perhaps I'm not seeing through the legalise, but what's wrong with requiring groups to turn in paperwork quickly? And why are so many groups not operating in protest?

Because it is quick enough that a lot of groups can't make that deadline. Leaving scores of people thinking they are registered, when they really are not. Because they think they are registered but are not, they will be denied their vote when they arrive unknowingly at the polling station.

So, the solution is to not let them register at all? How does that help?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 27, 2012, 07:41:54 pm

Quote from: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:37:59 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 27, 2012, 07:32:13 pm

Quote from: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:26:38 pm

Perhaps I'm not seeing through the legalise, but what's wrong with requiring groups to turn in paperwork quickly? And why are so many groups not operating in protest?

Because it is quick enough that a lot of groups can't make that deadline. Leaving scores of people thinking they are registered, when they really are not. Because they think they are registered but are not, they will be denied their vote when they arrive unknowingly at the polling station.

So, the solution is to not let them register at all? How does that help?

You're missing the point.  It's not about blocking people from registering to vote, you can always do that, it's about making it harder for private organizations that already operate on a shoestring budget (i.e. the Women's League of Voters and such) to hold public registration drives.  If they can't afford to operate in Florida, what do you expect them to do?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:45:15 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 27, 2012, 07:41:54 pm

Quote from: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:37:59 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on March 27, 2012, 07:32:13 pm

Quote from: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:26:38 pm

Perhaps I'm not seeing through the legalise, but what's wrong with requiring groups to turn in paperwork quickly? And why are so many groups not operating in protest?

Because it is quick enough that a lot of groups can't make that deadline. Leaving scores of people thinking they are registered, when they really are not. Because they think they are registered but are not, they will be denied their vote when they arrive unknowingly at the polling station.

So, the solution is to not let them register at all? How does that help?

You're missing the point.  It's not about blocking people from registering to vote, you can always do that, it's about making it harder for organizations that already operate on a shoestring budget (i.e. the Women's League of Voters and such) to hold registration drives.  If they can't afford to operate in Florida, what do you expect them to do?

Ask for donations? Tell the groups they're reaching out to that the groups are being fined for trying to help people? Hell, get the ACLU to help out, I don't care. Point is, giving up without a fight doesn't solve anything, and limits the number of voters far more than getting people registered and then risking a fine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 27, 2012, 07:47:15 pm

Well, they're probably doing that right now but the point is that going into the 2012 election cycle, it's become financially and legally prohibitive for groups that were already very-much-non-profit to operate as normal.  They can fight about it all they want, and I'm sure they are, but in the here and now they can't afford to do anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 27, 2012, 07:51:09 pm

All I'm saying is that I fail to see how refusing to operate, even if only for a few hours, is "fighting it".

In case there were any misunderstandings, I don't approve of what Florida is doing here, but I don't think Women's League of Voters etc is doing enough to change it, especially if they're choosing zero new voters over any new voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 27, 2012, 07:58:06 pm

... did you read the article Siri? Folks are taking it to the court. Folks are raising awareness on the issue. Some are still trying to get new voters in, yes, but some can't afford to get over the new hurdles. This isn't a refusal for those ones, it is an incapable. There's a difference. They're fighting in other ways, but that particular avenue is blocked to them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 28, 2012, 12:39:45 am

Like I said, I'm terrible at comprehending this stuff. That's why I come here, so I can sort through the chaff and get the salient bits.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 28, 2012, 07:57:50 am

Signs that Mr. Newt's Wild Ride might be coming to an end:

Gingrich cuts 1/3 of staff, fires campaign manager (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gingrich-replaces-campaign-manager-cuts-staff-2012-03-28?link=MW_latest_news)

Newt continues to say that he thinks he can be the "choice" candidate if it comes down to a brokered convention, while ignoring the fact that getting the nomination that way would make him even *more* unpalatable than he already is. But I'm suspecting Shel Adelson is about to cut off the money spigot to Newt's superPAC. Thing is, Adelson's more likely to switch over to Team Romney than Team Frothy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 28, 2012, 09:23:30 am

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-paul-allege-dirty-tricks-santorum-supporters-223345588.html

In the Missouri caucus santorum supporters (who were in minority compared to Romney and Ron Paul supporters) delayed the caucus until enough Romney and Paul supporters left in order to win the advantage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 28, 2012, 10:01:55 am

Did not the honorable gentleman Paul previously express his intention to use exactly this sort of behavior in order to obtain a favorable outcome for himself in caucuses such as this one?  I can not begin to imagine the amount of chagrin that he must be feeling now that he finds himself not to be the instigator of this stratagem but instead the recipient of this load of Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 28, 2012, 10:34:04 am

Spoiler: You mean to say that they're not playing far? (click to show/hide)

(http://howtobecomeaparamedic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/shock.jpg)

Unbelievable! Unexpected! Unpossible!

Yeah, saw that one coming.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 29, 2012, 01:03:33 pm

Romney and Paul: We am shocked, shocked that there's shenanigans going on in this election.
Caucuses: Your delegates, sirs.
Romney and Paul: Oh, thank you very much.  Now everybody out, at once!

---

So, earlier this week, in a not-at-all surprising repeat of a few months ago (and a few months before that), Newt Gingrich fired his campaign manager and half the staff.  Yesterday, rumors started abounding that Sheldon Adelson would be turning off the spigot to Gingrich's SuperPAC (twenty million dollars on a losing campaign, for those who get the reference).  Today, the Washington Times (a storied news source, to say the least) insists that Gingrich and Romney held a secret meeting over the weekend (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/28/newt-no-deal-romney-end-campaign/), possibly discussing a deal for Gingrich to drop out of the race.

Just in case, y'know, you didn't already think Gingrich's goose was cooked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 01:45:58 pm

And just in case you thought Newt was serious about "fighting the establishment". He just wanted a nicer chair closer to the bar.

So...polls.

Obama's approval rating? +6, -7 or a dead tie, depending on who you ask.

Some good news for the WH is that in hypotheticals against Romney and Santorum (pollsters are even bothering with Gingrich and Paul at this point), Obama continues to win against both in key states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. And Wisconsin is solidly blue (+10 or greater margin for Obama against all challengers). Florida is nearly up to that level, at +7 vs Romney and +10 vs Santorum. All that strident anti-immigration talk comes back to bite you in the ass when you have a state that is nearly 20% Latino.

Wisconsin continues to hold at around 8-10 points in favor of Romney. Losing winner-take-all Wisconsin will be a death knell for Santorum's chances. Couple that with an almost certain loss in winner-take-all Maryland, and Romney could bump his lead up by 80 delegates just like that. Santorum might hang around and win a few more flyover states like Nebraska, but barring a gaffe of monumental proportions I don't see Romney losing this thing. At this point, I don't even see it going to a brokered convention. Even if Gingrich drops out, I don't think enough of his camp diverts to Santorum to give him the edge he needs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on March 29, 2012, 02:02:42 pm

It's terrifying how much money has been spent on failed presidential nomination campaigns/presidential campaigns like Muskie's and Gingrich's when it could have been spent more wisely on stuff that could actually benefit the population.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 02:12:46 pm

Well...it could be argued that *not* electing a Republican President benefits the population. So to the extent that Newt's campaign has prolonged the race and weakened Romney's support and cash reserves...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/087/427/Slow-Clap.gif)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on March 29, 2012, 02:29:09 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 01:45:58 pm

And just in case you thought Newt was serious about "fighting the establishment". He just wanted a nicer chair closer to the bar.

So...polls.

Obama's approval rating? +6, -7 or a dead tie, depending on who you ask.

Some good news for the WH is that in hypotheticals against Romney and Santorum (pollsters are even bothering with Gingrich and Paul at this point), Obama continues to win against both in key states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. And Wisconsin is solidly blue (+10 or greater margin for Obama against all challengers). Florida is nearly up to that level, at +7 vs Romney and +10 vs Santorum. All that strident anti-immigration talk comes back to bite you in the ass when you have a state that is nearly 20% Latino.

It's kinda worrying though that the margin isn't wider.  Romney is getting dragged down by bad publicity from the primaries.  Once that is accounted for this looks too close for comfort.

On the other hand given how polarized the country is, a lead of that size might actually be pretty much the biggest lead possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 02:49:08 pm

Quote from: mainiac on March 29, 2012, 02:29:09 pm

On the other hand given how polarized the country is, a lead of that size might actually be pretty much the biggest lead possible.

I would say this. There's an ABO (Anybody But Obama) sentiment out there to mirror the ABB feeling in 2004. There are enough people who are just deadset in their minds that our President is an illegal Kenyan crypto-Muslim Socialist who is out to destroy their way of life because he just hates freedom and/or is sent by the Devil himself. You're not likely to see much poll movement out of those folks, even if unemployment dropped to 1% and gas prices were at a $1/gallon. They're no longer concerned with real-world actions and results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on March 29, 2012, 03:39:56 pm

Quote from: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 02:12:46 pm

Well...it could be argued that *not* electing a Republican President benefits the population. So to the extent that Newt's campaign has prolonged the race and weakened Romney's support and cash reserves...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/087/427/Slow-Clap.gif)

True, but I know at least a million or so in that wasted bundle of cash could have been spent cleaning up the hospital I was born in. The conditions there are terrible and people have to bring their own blankets sometimes. MRSA and everything. Is 20 million really worth prolonging the race? Don't Santorum and Ron Paul already do that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 29, 2012, 03:45:57 pm

Oh, I know. Problem being, there's so many things out there that need money, that your hospital probably wouldn't have seen a dime even if the money all went to good causes. For that matter, think of how much money gets spent building a new casino in Vegas. The money isn't exactly wasted, as it gets spent on salaries and printing and travel costs and so forth and so it does percolate into the larger economy. (I think we've had this discussion earlier in this thread.)

In some ways, it's one of the few "trickle-down" scenarios that actually does trickle down from the rich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 29, 2012, 04:02:53 pm

Newt Gingrich is to the primaries as Charlie Sheen is to the Hollywood establishment. I figured at some point, his backers were going to realize they weren't getting any sort of return on their investment as Gingrich's stock fell pretty much everywhere. I'm surprised it took this long, but I suspect he's had more planned with his backers than just trying to *ahem* win the the primaries. I'm thinking whatever those prospects were got significantly dimmer.

So now he's going to do what Sheen did, and go completely maverick, get even louder and more absurd......before retreating and latching on to any life line that people will throw him. Personally, I can't wait to see him on DWTS with that corpse he married his wife.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Realmfighter on March 29, 2012, 06:46:31 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on March 29, 2012, 03:39:56 pm

True, but I know at least a million or so in that wasted bundle of cash could have been spent cleaning up the hospital I was born in. The conditions there are terrible and people have to bring their own blankets sometimes. MRSA and everything. Is 20 million really worth prolonging the race? Don't Santorum and Ron Paul already do that?

Look at it this way, would the people who payed these insane sums supporting the candidates give that money to the needy if their wasn't this insanity to spend it on?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: trees on March 30, 2012, 05:59:36 am

So Santorum made a pretty big slip-up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nzyvo8SKa0M#t=2066s). If the link doesn't work properly, jump to 0:34:26.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on March 30, 2012, 06:40:16 am

Yeouch.

Not much else that cut off word could be, either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on March 30, 2012, 07:46:33 am

Wow. Yup, that's gonna set him back a ways. (Though I'm sure some people will ignore it just to avoid Romney.) There also seems to be a bit of an Anyone-But-Romney attitude already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on March 30, 2012, 07:51:49 am

It could be 'nincompoop'

But yeah, no.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on March 30, 2012, 07:53:09 am

I haven't watched the video, but judging from Blarg's post I think he meant to say "ninja".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 08:01:03 am

That is the ultimate Freudian slip. It's going to take some serious effort to break this record.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 08:03:54 am

Quote from: nenjin on March 29, 2012, 04:02:53 pm

Newt Gingrich is to the primaries as Charlie Sheen is to the Hollywood establishment. I figured at some point, his backers were going to realize they weren't getting any sort of return on their investment as Gingrich's stock fell pretty much everywhere. I'm surprised it took this long, but I suspect he's had more planned with his backers than just trying to *ahem* win the the primaries. I'm thinking whatever those prospects were got significantly dimmer.

So now he's going to do what Sheen did, and go completely maverick, get even louder and more absurd......before retreating and latching on to any life line that people will throw him. Personally, I can't wait to see him on DWTS with that corpse he married his wife.

If Gingrich goes on some coke-fueled rant about having tiger blood and Adonis DNA....I'm voting for him, just because.


And I can't watch the vid with sound here at work, but I gather Santorum averted dropping the N-word in a rather sloppy fashion. Hard to say if that was a gaffe or desperate dog-whistling to get the racist vote. Dunno about Wisconsin, but you'd be surprised how many rednecks Maryland has.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 30, 2012, 08:05:23 am

It could be something else... But govornment N***** is a common way people down here in south eastern dixistan refer to Obama in casual conversation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 08:18:12 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 08:03:54 am

And I can't watch the vid with sound here at work, but I gather Santorum averted dropping the N-word in a rather sloppy fashion. Hard to say if that was a gaffe or desperate dog-whistling to get the racist vote. Dunno about Wisconsin, but you'd be surprised how many rednecks Maryland has.

He didn't even really avert it.

Quote from: Rick Santorum

We know, we know the candidate Barack Obama was he like, the anti-war government nig-  uh...the uh, America was a source for....

Quote from: Nadaka on March 30, 2012, 08:05:23 am

It could be something else... But govornment N***** is a common way people down here in south eastern dixistan refer to Obama in casual conversation.

Oh knock it off. Southerners are no more racist than the rest of the nation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 30, 2012, 08:25:31 am

Maybe. But I don't have to listen to northern or western racists nearly every time I go out in public.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 08:26:48 am

It sounds like that may be more of a problem in your local community than anything else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on March 30, 2012, 08:29:49 am

I've moved around a lot on the gulf coast, ms, fl, la, al. It doesn't really change that much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 08:29:58 am

IIRC, Nadaka lives in a concentrated patch of unreconstructed Panhandlestan. So his view might be a bit bleaker than ours. I get all huffy sometimes about how "we're not like that anymore!" and then I go half an hour outside of Raleigh and I'm like, "Oh....I forgot about these folks."  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 30, 2012, 08:32:58 am

Now, MetalSlime, if southerners aren't more racist, they are at least a damn sight more casual about being so, in my experience. Its got a lot more places you can be pretty much openly racist without any sort of fallout than, say, New England.

And that sort of public acceptance of racist attitudes is likely to indicate that they might, overall, be a bit more racist.

(Not to say any individual is more racist, or that racists don't exist anywhere else, or that everywhere in the south is equally racist.)

Here in New England, the ONLY time I've heard that sort of casual racism in conversation is speaking with people over 70 or people from the south.

And /visiting/ the south...

Mind you my experience IS limited to Virginia and Texas, which aren't exactly the deep south, and Florida, which is basically where New England sends all its crazy racists. :P

To second the above, though, southern cities are generally fine, it just deteriorates pretty rapidly once you move outside them. And anecdotes don't prove much of anything of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 09:21:41 am

I think if anything, it's just that we're more....comfortable (for lack of a better word) with racism here. It's worth noting that the South also has the largest (by percentage) African-American populations. Which, IMHO, creates two different kinds of racism.

In the South, it's a "familiarity breeds contempt" sort of thing. Racism tends to be generated out of all the little petty squabbles and inter-community competition for resources, and race is an easy target. Point of example: my late grandfather, while a saint of a man, was also a product of his upbringing. If a white guy cut him off in traffic, that was a "dum-dum". If a black guy cut him off, that was a "dirty n****r". He wasn't particularly any more incensed than he was with the white guy, it was just easier (and ingrained) to denigrate their skin color than their actions. But at the same time, I feel like it's a mile wide and only a few inches deep. Put five black college kids in Carolina blue basketball uniforms and put them on the court, and those rednecks will be cheering them on like they were their own children. There's almost no job here (other than maybe corporate executive) where you're not going to have at least one black co-worker. And chances are, they're going to be a pretty decent person. Which is why you get a lot of cognitive dissonance like "Some of my best friends are black" and "There's black people and then there's n*****s".

Meanwhile, you have places like Idaho, New Hampshire, Montana and Arizona that are hotbeds of violent, strident white supremacy and have almost no African-American population. In the absence of living, breathing black people to remind you on a daily basis that they're just like everyone else, it allows those supremacists to demonize and dehumanize and caricature minorities to the point that they can self-justify radical violence. The racism there (where it exists) is narrow but deep.

And it's often multi-faceted. My mother was born in Montana, and her mother's family was racist on a different tack: black people were more a curiosity than anything in Montana. But Mexicans and Native Americans were strictly verboten as potential mates (because after all, they were the hired help). Which of course, meant that two of my grandmother's sisters promptly married a pair of Mexican brothers who were farm laborers. Funny how that works. And then my family themselves were Volga Germans, which meant they weren't fully trusted by the US during WWII.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 09:27:24 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 09:21:41 am

Which of course, meant that two of my grandmother's sisters promptly married a pair of Mexican brothers who were farm laborers. Funny how that works.

If I didn't know any better; I'd say that the universe seems to enjoy tormenting the intolerant by forcing their subject of hatred into their families. For example, the number of anti-gay people with gay children is just plain bizarre. That might be an interesting subject for a sociological-genealogical study, actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 09:33:15 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 09:27:24 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 09:21:41 am

Which of course, meant that two of my grandmother's sisters promptly married a pair of Mexican brothers who were farm laborers. Funny how that works.

If I didn't know any better; I'd say that the universe seems to enjoy tormenting the intolerant by forcing their subject of hatred into their families. For example, the number of anti-gay people with gay children is just plain bizarre. That might be an interesting subject for a sociological-genealogical study, actually.

Crap. This means my daughter is destined to hook up with some frat douchebag from New Jersey. Time to fetch the shotgun.
*cha-CHINK*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 30, 2012, 09:49:24 am

I'm sorry MSH. I just got back from 3 days in Dixie. And people I'd never met before basically did the exact same thing Santorum did, in my presence. This time, it was someone parking the car in a more secure location, as far from the "Negros at the apartments as possible." And you know what wasn't what he meant to say when it come out as "Nneeeeee.....gros." That's just one example I heard in 3 days down there. Redking is right, familiarity breeds contempt.

I've lived down there for years prior to this, and I can say, without qualification, that if there's one place in the US you're going to here N******, it's in the South. I've lived the above situation countless times in a hundred trips down South, among dozens and dozens of very nice white folks. It's just how they roll down there, with a half-smile and a wink about what is really meant.

Does that mean Southern people are more racist? I don't honestly know. Maybe we're all racist, but Southern people don't self-censor as much (especially when they're in all white company.) Saying the South culturally doesn't have strong racial sentiments is, at best, revisionism, and at worst, dishonest. And I say that as someone who really does love the South.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 09:51:38 am

As RedKing pointed out; having all-white company in the South is actually quite a rarity. There are even a few regions in the South where there are more black people than white people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 30, 2012, 10:05:44 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 09:51:38 am

As RedKing pointed out; having all-white company in the South is actually quite a rarity. There are even a few regions in the South where there are more black people than white people.

Are we talking about sitting down at Denny's or Crackerbarrel? Because then I'd agree.

When you're sitting in a heavy truck yard full of good ole' boys, it's a crock. And that's when you get the uncensored version.

It's one of the great oddities of the South that they are both unfailingly polite in public yet can harbor some fairly racist attitudes in closed company.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 10:42:10 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2012, 09:51:38 am

As RedKing pointed out; having all-white company in the South is actually quite a rarity. There are even a few regions in the South where there are more black people than white people.

Well, yes and no. Having an all-white workforce or lunchroom is rare. Having an all-white gathering is pretty common. Even in the absence of legal segregation, there's de facto self-segregation. Church congregations tend to be very racially homogenous. White people go to "white churches" (typically Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Southern Baptist), black people go to "black churches" (typically A.M.E. or some obscure evangelical sect like Church of God of Prophecy).

Also, neighborhoods (especially outside major urban areas) will be pretty heavily homogenous.

One of the real melting pot areas is food. A good barbecue joint will have a racially and socio-economically mixed clientele. You can go to Clyde Cooper's in downtown Raleigh, and find elderly black women dining next to white corporate managers. And that's been true for decades. Even back when there were segregated lunch counters, they were still going to the same restaurants.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on March 30, 2012, 10:57:26 am

Quote from: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 09:21:41 am

I think if anything, it's just that we're more....comfortable (for lack of a better word) with racism here. It's worth noting that the South also has the largest (by percentage) African-American populations. Which, IMHO, creates two different kinds of racism.

In the South, it's a "familiarity breeds contempt" sort of thing. Racism tends to be generated out of all the little petty squabbles and inter-community competition for resources, and race is an easy target. Point of example: my late grandfather, while a saint of a man, was also a product of his upbringing. If a white guy cut him off in traffic, that was a "dum-dum". If a black guy cut him off, that was a "dirty n****r". He wasn't particularly any more incensed than he was with the white guy, it was just easier (and ingrained) to denigrate their skin color than their actions. But at the same time, I feel like it's a mile wide and only a few inches deep. Put five black college kids in Carolina blue basketball uniforms and put them on the court, and those rednecks will be cheering them on like they were their own children. There's almost no job here (other than maybe corporate executive) where you're not going to have at least one black co-worker. And chances are, they're going to be a pretty decent person. Which is why you get a lot of cognitive dissonance like "Some of my best friends are black" and "There's black people and then there's n*****s".

Meanwhile, you have places like Idaho, New Hampshire, Montana and Arizona that are hotbeds of violent, strident white supremacy and have almost no African-American population. In the absence of living, breathing black people to remind you on a daily basis that they're just like everyone else, it allows those supremacists to demonize and dehumanize and caricature minorities to the point that they can self-justify radical violence. The racism there (where it exists) is narrow but deep.

Those are some excellent points. I see that all the time among the young people up here in the Scottish Highlands, namely the farming guys. They'll do exactly the same thing as you've described - when they have a problem with a black fellow or a south asian or whatever, they'll instantly go for insulting his skin colour/race i.e. "that n****" or "p*ki bastard". Although, the problem is that it blends with the second type you describe. The Scottish Highlands must be one of the most ethnically homogynous places in the whole of the UK - white as can be. As a result, there is a lot of racism simmering under the surface, but it's not quite as violent or... well, extreme as you're describing. It's quite casual. It never comes to anything, and it's more about ignorance than anything else. They just don't know or understand these people, so they'll say stupid stuff, make racist jokes etc. The interesting thing is though, when they meet a black person or an indian or whatever, they're uncomfortable - not because they don't like the person, they just don't really know how to act. More often than not though, they become very accepting over time. I'm glad it hasn't led to any really radical or extreme levels of racism cropping up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 01:24:39 pm

To re-rail somewhat (while continuing in the "Rick Santorum is a Vile Excuse For A Human Being" trend), I found this story that I hadn't heard much of, about how during a campaign stop at a bowling alley in Wisconsin, Santorum stopped a kid from using a pink bowling ball (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/rick-santorum-bowling_n_1386504.html?ref=elections-2012). With the comment, "You're not going to use the pink bowling ball. We're not gonna let you do that. Not on camera." He later added, "Friends don't let friends use pink balls."

Perhaps like Green Lantern, Super Santorum's weakness is color-based. Pink is his kryptonite. Or perhaps, he's just an utter douchebag who thinks using a pink ball will make the kid gay, and that being seen anywhere in the vicinity of someone who even hints at being gay might spread TEH GAY COOTIES to him and alienate his base.

Maybe the kid likes pink. Maybe the ball was the only 6lb he could find, and thanks to Slick Rick, he was bullied into using a manly black ball twice its weight.

Maybe Santorum just likes big, heavy black balls more than he does pink ones. (Yes, that's meant with all the entendre it can muster.)


My son likes pink. And just the other day, apropros of nothing, he announced, "I LIKE BALLS!". Am I afraid he's going to turn gay? No. For one thing, it's not something to 'fear'. Two, he's two.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on March 30, 2012, 01:27:31 pm

I really want Santorum to win. No better way to end a nation than with a ruler having a conniption fit over ball color.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on March 30, 2012, 01:39:59 pm

Real men aren't afraid of wearing pink.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on March 30, 2012, 02:05:56 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 30, 2012, 01:39:59 pm

Real men aren't afraid of wearing pink.

They are if it clashes with the green hotpants.  Its called style.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 30, 2012, 02:22:37 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on March 30, 2012, 01:27:31 pm

I really want Santorum to win. No better way to end a nation than with a ruler having a conniption fit over ball color.

I'd rather the nation not end, thank you very much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on March 30, 2012, 02:27:52 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 29, 2012, 01:03:33 pm

So, earlier this week, in a not-at-all surprising repeat of a few months ago (and a few months before that), Newt Gingrich fired his campaign manager and half the staff.  Yesterday, rumors started abounding that Sheldon Adelson would be turning off the spigot to Gingrich's SuperPAC (twenty million dollars on a losing campaign, for those who get the reference).  Today, the Washington Times (a storied news source, to say the least) insists that Gingrich and Romney held a secret meeting over the weekend (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/28/newt-no-deal-romney-end-campaign/), possibly discussing a deal for Gingrich to drop out of the race.

Just in case, y'know, you didn't already think Gingrich's goose was cooked.

Gingrich says he expects Romney to be the nominee (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/gingrich-tells-wisconsin-radio-state-i-think-mitt-romney-is-clearly-the-front-runner/2012/03/30/gIQA2BgMlS_story.html), and basically just wants to hang around to make sure he gets some attention before the general election starts.  I have this crazy notion that Gingrich might even be a factor in Romney's campaign, both of them denying until they're blue in the face all the nasty things they said about each other.

Now it's just a matter of how long before Santorum climbs aboard, and whether Paul will host his own convention across town again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on March 30, 2012, 03:00:43 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 30, 2012, 02:27:52 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on March 29, 2012, 01:03:33 pm

So, earlier this week, in a not-at-all surprising repeat of a few months ago (and a few months before that), Newt Gingrich fired his campaign manager and half the staff.  Yesterday, rumors started abounding that Sheldon Adelson would be turning off the spigot to Gingrich's SuperPAC (twenty million dollars on a losing campaign, for those who get the reference).  Today, the Washington Times (a storied news source, to say the least) insists that Gingrich and Romney held a secret meeting over the weekend (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/28/newt-no-deal-romney-end-campaign/), possibly discussing a deal for Gingrich to drop out of the race.

Just in case, y'know, you didn't already think Gingrich's goose was cooked.

Gingrich says he expects Romney to be the nominee (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/gingrich-tells-wisconsin-radio-state-i-think-mitt-romney-is-clearly-the-front-runner/2012/03/30/gIQA2BgMlS_story.html), and basically just wants to hang around to make sure he gets some attention before the general election starts.  I have this crazy notion that Gingrich might even be a factor in Romney's campaign, both of them denying until they're blue in the face all the nasty things they said about each other.

Now it's just a matter of how long before Santorum climbs aboard, and whether Paul will host his own convention across town again.

Romney/Gingrich 2012? That'd be a lark. He'd inherit all the negative ratings that Gingrich brings without a lot of upside.

Maybe Gingrich is just negotiating for the position of Ambassador to Jose Cuervo Island. It's about time for him to hunt for an upgrade wife.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on March 30, 2012, 03:52:30 pm

Quote from: jester on March 30, 2012, 02:05:56 pm

Quote from: nenjin on March 30, 2012, 01:39:59 pm

Real men aren't afraid of wearing pink.

They are if it clashes with the green hotpants.  Its called style.

You overestimate the world's fashion sense. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on March 30, 2012, 03:56:04 pm

... it could probably work with some kind of flower motif. Pink over green's common enough on flowering plants.

What? Flowers are awesome. Bugger that gender association nonsense, eh wot. But yeah, venus flytrap suit. Or watermelon. Nothin' tastes sweeter than a watermelon rind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on March 30, 2012, 04:03:55 pm

In my LP, I'm currently flying a 200-meter-long death machine with twin missile launchers and a powerful laser. It's called the Pansy. Flowers are indeed awesome :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 02, 2012, 07:58:29 pm

Anything new from Rick's corner of the crazy room?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on April 02, 2012, 08:05:49 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on April 02, 2012, 07:58:29 pm

Anything new from Rick's corner of the crazy room?

Not particularly, except that he's adamantly refusing to accept the idea that he's almost certainly not going to win.  More something something college is anti-American, and bombing Wisconsin Planned Parenthood outlets is not good guys but it still shouldn't exist in the first place, and so on and so forth.

Oh yeah, and despite the national chairman of the Republican Party, Reince Priebus (look it up) saying the RNC is being Wisconsin governor Scott Walker 100% Do or Die come Hell or high water, neither Republican wunderkind Congressman Paul Ryan nor any of the Presidential candidates will come within fifty miles of the guy.  That'll be fun tomorrow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 02, 2012, 08:25:31 pm

Wait, there are Republicans who will go near Scott Walker? I thought he was doomed when he got more recall signatures than original votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 03, 2012, 08:13:45 am

Polls Romney likely to win Maryland by 20 points or so and he'll most certainly take DC by storm, but Romney's 10-point lead as of last week has weakened to about 6-8 point this morning. Still likely to win but it won't be the thumping he was hoping to give. Of course, WI is winner-take-all, so a 50.1% victory is just as good as a 65% victory would be in terms of the horserace.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 03, 2012, 09:53:11 pm

Romney looks like he's gonna pick up around 75 delegates on Santorum tonight.  Exit polls still haven't registered a Santorum delegate tonight but he'll probably pick up a congress district somewhere.

Somewhat surprised to see that Santorum is loosing every congressional district in Maryland.  I figured he would scrape one out in the west or the east.  But he's losing even the more socially conservative counties in Maryland.

At this point I think it's a matter of time before Santorum drops out.  There's no way he can avoid a Romney majority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2012, 09:54:42 pm

It doesn't matter at this point. Everything will be decided at the convention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 03, 2012, 10:19:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 03, 2012, 09:54:42 pm

It doesn't matter at this point. Everything will be decided at the convention.

No, Romney will almost certainly have a majority before then.  Look at this: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/romney-probabilities

Edit: Interesting to see that Ron Paul edged out Gingrich in all three contests.  Changes nothing but it shows how irrelevant Gingrich has become.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 04, 2012, 08:03:15 am

Yeah, last night was the beginning of the end as far as the GOP race goes. But of course, Santorum isn't going to drop out yet because he still has races in Pennsylvania and Nebraska coming up which could go well for him. And Gingrich is just in it for the lolz at this point. Plus he may think he still has a chance to ride that Dixie cachet to victory in North Carolina (he won't). Ron Paul will hang around just because Ron Paul.


EDIT: Oh, and just in case there was any doubt, Barack Obama officially clinched the Democratic nomination last night.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 04, 2012, 08:44:44 am

I really hope he keeps his rally out of downtown when he comes here, or confines it to a hotel somewhere. I really don't want to have to listen to Santorum blaring out of over a PA system echoing over half of downtown.

Then again, if his researchers are worth snot, they'll probably realize coming to Lincoln to stump is a waste of time and money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 04, 2012, 09:29:23 am

Bleah, Gingrich is in town here today. At least he's not doing any public events here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Africa on April 04, 2012, 06:09:05 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 04, 2012, 08:44:44 am

I really hope he keeps his rally out of downtown when he comes here, or confines it to a hotel somewhere. I really don't want to have to listen to Santorum blaring out of over a PA system echoing over half of downtown.

Then again, if his researchers are worth snot, they'll probably realize coming to Lincoln to stump is a waste of time and money.

Haha, when you talked about "downtown," I pictured Rick Santorum setting up a stage in downtown Philly somewhere and the sheer mayhem that would erupt. I'm pretty sure hundreds or thousands of streakers in rainbow garb would appear out of nowhere and rush the stage, among other things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 04, 2012, 06:12:45 pm

Quote from: Africa on April 04, 2012, 06:09:05 pm

Haha, when you talked about "downtown," I pictured Rick Santorum setting up a stage in downtown Philly somewhere and the sheer mayhem that would erupt. I'm pretty sure hundreds or thousands of streakers in rainbow garb would appear out of nowhere and rush the stage, among other things.

Fields and fields of penises as far as the eye can see!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on April 04, 2012, 06:15:07 pm

I wonder how much it costs to get down to Philly...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 04, 2012, 06:17:52 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 04, 2012, 09:29:23 am

Bleah, Gingrich is in town here today. At least he's not doing any public events here.

Wait, he is? I missed this; why is he here at all?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on April 04, 2012, 07:21:30 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 04, 2012, 08:03:15 am

Yeah, last night was the beginning of the end as far as the GOP race goes. But of course, Santorum isn't going to drop out yet because he still has races in Pennsylvania and Nebraska coming up which could go well for him. And Gingrich is just in it for the lolz at this point. Plus he may think he still has a chance to ride that Dixie cachet to victory in North Carolina (he won't). Ron Paul will hang around just because Ron Paul.

I don't think it was the beginning of the end so much as the end of the beginning we were all wondering when we'd see.  When the history books are written, they'll probably point to Santorum losing Michigan and Ohio, only by a hair but still losing them, as the signal that the race was really over.  Santorum's well on his way to losing Pennsylvania, and that being a likely possibility is as good a reason as any to write him as closed for good.

Obviously, Obama and Romney are pretty confident in that being the case.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 05, 2012, 04:41:48 pm

He was destined to lose, TBH. He's too freaking backwards to stand a reasonable chance, even if some of the crazier right-wingers gave him a bit of an affair with mainstream conservatism.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/475/15/15.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 12:08:13 pm

Okay, with Romney all but a foregone conclusion at this point, let's turn our attention to the second fiddle. Who is he likely to choose as his running-mate?

The fun thing about being picked as VP is, you don't have to give up your day job if you lose (unless you're also running for re-election which can be tricky). So the guys who sat out the main event like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are on the table.

FWIW, I think Romney needs someone to his right (to ground the ticket as solidly conservative) not so far that he needs a telescope to find them (i.e. don't expect to see a Romney/Santorum ticket any time in this plane of existence).

Experience is not nearly as crucial a criterion for VP candidate. Look at Dan Quayle, John Edwards, etc.

I have my own pick that I think would be a bold and clever move for the GOP, but I withholding comment because I want to see what other people are thinking first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 06, 2012, 12:09:47 pm

I'd vote for Romney if Vermin Supreme was his running mate.

Ponies for everyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on April 06, 2012, 12:13:21 pm

That's not fair. I'd vote Santorum/Vermin Supreme.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 06, 2012, 12:15:52 pm

Dan Quayle? Really?

It'd be like Joe Biden, but turned up to eleven.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 12:18:53 pm

I think it's safe to say there won't be a "compromise" ticket with any of the other candidates as VP. Gingrich might be holding out for the post, but he won't get it. Neither will Perry, Cain, or Bachmann.

Chris Christie is an option, but that'd give you a guy from MA and a guy from NJ. First GOP ticket in ages that didn't have somebody from the South (even if just nominally).

Jeb Bush is more conservative and Southern, but he's got that whole "last name makes you want to scream and run for the exits" thing going on.

Paul Ryan's name has surfaced over and over, but Ryan's lost a lot of cachet since the budget standoff last year. Boehner doesn't want the job, and he's about as popular with the red meat GOP activists as Obama.

@dhokarena: No, no no....I was saying Quayle was an example of a guy with little experience that was still picked as a running mate. Gawd, it'd be loltastic if something posessed Romney to pick Quayle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on April 06, 2012, 12:58:19 pm

They might pick someone to the right of Romney, but they really need to be careful of another Palin if they go that direction. Alternatively, Romney could go crazynuts and pick someone to the left of him to try to get more of the disillusioned democrat vote. Once the GOP nomination is in his bag, he doesn't really need to pander out to the wing anymore. People will vote for him just because of the R next to his name on the ballot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 06, 2012, 01:00:56 pm

Generally it seems like anyone with a bright political future will refuse the VP nomination. It's a thankless job that most politicians consider a dead end.

So yeah. I'm fairly interested to see who they stick with Romney, because I'm guessing it will be someone so green that they can't reasonably reject a position like that in government. It'll also have to be someone who hasn't come out against Romney.

Quote

he doesn't really need to pander out to the wing anymore

I don't know about that. He'll still be fundraising the whole time, so he'll have to continue to pander to core Republican values, and so by extension, pander to the party interests.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on April 06, 2012, 01:06:06 pm

SuperPACs make fundraising, especially for people like Romney a bit of a non-issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 06, 2012, 01:08:33 pm

Well, consider that quite a few presidents were vice presidents previously. It's a job that grants you a little bit of credibility as far as a presidential campaign is considered. That said, I really doubt that Biden will run in 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 06, 2012, 01:10:33 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 06, 2012, 01:08:33 pm

That said, I really doubt that Biden will run in 2016.

Who the hell is Joe Biden?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 06, 2012, 01:14:25 pm

Quote from: sluissa on April 06, 2012, 01:06:06 pm

SuperPACs make fundraising, especially for people like Romney a bit of a non-issue.

It changes the game but it hardly makes fundraising a non-issue.  Obama raised three quarter billion dollars (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php) last election.  Romney despite all his vaunted big money backers is still a long ways (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php) from that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 01:22:57 pm

Well, it means he has to pander to the corporate interests of the Party, not necessarily the God-guns-and-gays elements of the party. He has an inherent advantage with the corporatists already.

But yeah, he can't pivot too soon back to the middle (and there are signs he's already in mid-pivot) or he risks a voter backlash among the far-right Republicans, especially if a guy like Santorum or Tancredo runs a third-party bid.

There's a fine art to becoming a centrist after having spent months trying to out-conservative the conservatives, and I feel like Romney doesn't have that level of smoothness. Waiting on a "I voted for it beofre I voted against it" moment.

FWIW, I think Gov. Nikki Haley in SC would be an incredibly shrewd choice (even if she's already said she'd turn it down). The primaries have absolutely KILLED the GOP's numbers with women. Putting up a woman for VP stems the bleeding, and enables them to say "Look, we're more progressive than the Dems! We have an ethnic minority female on our ticket, and they just have another old white guy."

As alluded to there, she's an Indian-American (of Punjabi Sikh parentage), and for the GOP she's the best kind of ethnic: the one that can be easily mistaken for white at a casual glance.

She identifies as both Sikh and Methodist (don't ask me how you pull that one off), so the religion thing could be sidestepped (and if the Dems really start to poke at that, it makes them come off poorly for insinuating there's something wrong with religious minorities).

She's relatively young for a major pol (38), physically attractive, a native Southerner, married to a career military man, and is seen as a rising star in the GOP. In a lot of ways, she's everything Mitt Romney isn't, and so enables them to push the ticket as much more inclusive.

But....as I said to start with, she's already on record as saying she'd turn it down. People have a way of changing their mind when the fruit is actually dangled in front of them, but it's an instant hit to her credibility if she takes the job now.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 06, 2012, 01:10:33 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 06, 2012, 01:08:33 pm

That said, I really doubt that Biden will run in 2016.

Who the hell is Joe Biden?

He's Ed McMahon to Obama's Johnny Carson. Although it just dawned on me, you don't even see them together that often.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 06, 2012, 01:36:11 pm

Nikki Haley would be a pretty big gamble.  It would mean that to the bigoted eye the GOP ticket would consist of two non-Christians, Mormon and Sikh.  But still, it's not like bigots would ever vote for the conservative candidate so maybe Romney won't care about alienating them.

But seriously, risking that kind of base alienation is something that Romney might risk if he continues to trial in the polls and feels like it's worth taking a gamble.  If the race tightens a bit (which I expect it will with the divisive primary over), then I expect him to go with a white guy from Congress or the Senate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 06, 2012, 01:46:54 pm

On that note....Bobby Jindal?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 06, 2012, 01:56:14 pm

You mean Kenneth from 30 Rock?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_toxDcNZARlM/St3qFo_xaOI/AAAAAAAADQk/gAMu7e5zIq8/s400/bobby-jindal-kenneth-parcell.jpg)

Nah, Jindal had his day in the spotlight (delivering the GOP response to Obama's first SOTU address), and he tanked hard. He kinda rebounded some with the way he responded to disaster relief in Louisiana (which is to say, he actually responded and didn't fuck it up) but he's had a low profile the last couple of years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 06, 2012, 03:53:47 pm

Whoever responds to the SOTU is basically a sacrificial lamb.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 10, 2012, 02:05:19 pm

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rick-santorum-suspends-presidential-campaign/story?id=16109635

Rick Santorum dropped out. Who knows, will Gingrich pick up the delegates and come back in? Will Mitt Romney get the nomination as planned? Or will someone finally vote for Ron Paul? (Not likely.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on April 10, 2012, 02:40:56 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 10, 2012, 02:05:19 pm

Who knows, will Gingrich pick up the delegates and come back in? Will Mitt Romney get the nomination as planned? Or will someone finally vote for Ron Paul? (Not likely.)

I'm betting all three.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on April 10, 2012, 02:41:12 pm

Quote

The announcement comes the day after Santorum's 3-year-old daughter Bella was released from the hospital -- her second trip this year. Bella suffers from a rare and often fatal disorder called Trisomy 18.
...
He mentioned Bella and her condition as one of the reasons he joined the race -- to look out for Americans like her, who he said are "left behind."

Of course, campaigning against health care is the best way to help Americans with incurable congenital disorders!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 10, 2012, 02:41:36 pm

I think that's Game Over. I don't see Gingrich picking up that many of Santorum's supporters, who are probably busy engaging in the sort of mental gymnastics required to do an about-face and support Romney in the general election.

I'd expect Romney to start winning states outright now (better than 50%). If he still doesn't, then the GOP gots some 'splainin to do. Those majority wins mean this whole thing will be wrapped up before the convention. So much for seeing riots in Tampa.

The big event now will be picking the Veep. Wonder if he'll do it before the convention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 10, 2012, 02:55:31 pm

It was already game over.  Romney has already won quite a few states with %50+.  He won two of the past three contests with %50+.  Romney got about as many delegates on April 3rd as Santorum took on Super Tuesday.

Santorum dropping out changes nothing.  Romney already had a lock on winning without a brokered convention.  He was already pivoting to the general and wasn't doing any more debates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 10, 2012, 05:52:20 pm

Oh well. Santorum 2016?

Dear lord, let us hope not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on April 10, 2012, 07:05:44 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 10, 2012, 02:41:36 pm

I think that's Game Over. I don't see Gingrich picking up that many of Santorum's supporters, who are probably busy engaging in the sort of mental gymnastics required to do an about-face and support Romney in the general election.

I feel both more and less like a heel for not updating the OP since... the Tuesday before Super Tuesday if I'm not mistaken.  Fare thee well, Rick.  You had a good run for a guy who couldn't be elected in a million years.

Not that this thread is going anywhere, aw Hell naw.  We've got seven months left before the election, and it's going to be a long long road.

For instance, George Bush is back (http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/04/10/george-w-bush-i-wish-they-werent-called-the-bush-tax-cuts/).  I wonder how long it'll be before Mitt Romney has to formally accept his endorsement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 10, 2012, 09:03:58 pm

You know, the thing that irked me about him possibly the most- run-of-the-mill bigotry is, at the end of the day, something that will be safely ignored, after all- is that there was one issue on which he was, on one level, entirely right, just for entirely wrong reasons, and that's the American family. Now, don't get me wrong- the reason the American family is going through trouble at the moment isn't gay people marrying, and it's certainly not welfare. It's the fact that America has taken the '50s suburban dream and the assumption that any generation is going to be better off than its parents to its logical conclusion, in which any generation must be better off than its parents, and the danger has just intensified as secure, well-paid blue-collar manufacturing jobs which just required a high school diploma have been replaced by better-paid, but less secure office jobs that require ever-increasing levels of education. There's also his bashing of single mothers. Well, Mr. Santorum, we're now in an age where mom can support a kid, and fairly prosperously, too. Still, if the idea of fidelity to one's partner is something we want to uphold, not something I'm against by any means, let's figure out why it's failing- I suspect it's more the fault of us guys than the womenfolk.

My father, for example, is the chair of the history department at a nationally-respected prep school in a major American city. That means the family (happily un-divorced and at no point near it) can afford to send me, since we get half off tuition plus a pretty good need-based aid package. So I'm growing up around rich kids, often the sons and daughters of executives or the owners of prosperous small business chains. Although they don't show it, my (senior) classmates are getting back their college replies, and I'm certain that a number of them go home and have severe breakdowns because they didn't get into an Ivy. My plans are to become an academic involved with either foreign languages or (hopefully) linguistics, and academics aren't really subjected to the ups and downs of the job market in quite the same way; the job market for most profs is always bad, the job market for people who speak multiple languages [especially Portuguese, Mandarin, Arabic, etc.] almost always good, and neither of these are really influenced by recessions very much. Even so, like everyone in my age group, my biggest worry is having a decent job when I'm 30 years old. My parents, of course, having secure jobs and having grown up in the postwar economic boom decades, tell me not to worry about it too much. They may be right- America, luckily, doesn't idolize working for the same company your entire life like Japan does, which created an entire generation of parent-dependent NEETs who couldn't find a job once the '90s recession hit. Even so, the idea of working for 9 or 10 bucks an hour at age 30 because there's nothing better is a very real fear for my generation, and one we should address. My more cynical side would reply that if you're going to go to college to get a good job, get a degree in something for which jobs are plentiful. That's easy for me to say, being a budding polyglot who sneers at majors in "leisure studies", but we were promised collectively, as a generation, that there would be jobs available for the MBAs we took on tens of thousands of dollars of debt to acquire. Nobody's at fault, really, not even the Baby Boomers- you can't really hold an entire generation at fault collectively, even if they've probably screwed the pooch on global warming and are obstructing dialogue about what to do with Social Security- but it does need to be addressed, and that may well mean changing the way we think about college.

However, and unfortunately, Santorum's righteous crusade against TEH GAYZ on behalf of THE CHILDREN has likely delayed constructive national discussion on this sort of thing for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 10, 2012, 10:27:25 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on April 10, 2012, 09:03:58 pm

-Your entire post-

A lot of my classmates went off to liberal arts collages, I knew back then that was a horrible idea for job security. I went to a technical school, I learned a trade, and I got a decent job after I got my certificate. Most of my high school classmates realized a bit to late that there isn't a whole lot you can do with an English degree, most of them are working in fast food joints, or gas stations. I'm thinking about getting a welding certificate just in case things go to shit, it never hurts to have a few practical, marketable skills.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 10, 2012, 10:31:05 pm

You are much smarter than many an English major running around... I'm just going to learn Chinese, Portuguese and Pashto and hope that means job security.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 10, 2012, 10:44:44 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on April 10, 2012, 10:31:05 pm

You are much smarter than many an English major running around... I'm just going to learn Chinese, Portuguese and Pashto and hope that means job security.

Chinese and portuguese? You bet you can find a job, with how much trade we have with china & south america.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on April 10, 2012, 10:47:54 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 10, 2012, 02:05:19 pm

Rick Santorum dropped out.

And nothing of value was lost.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 10, 2012, 11:08:58 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on April 10, 2012, 10:44:44 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on April 10, 2012, 10:31:05 pm

You are much smarter than many an English major running around... I'm just going to learn Chinese, Portuguese and Pashto and hope that means job security.

Chinese and portuguese? You bet you can find a job, with how much trade we have with china & south america.

Won't likely have a business degree, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 10, 2012, 11:14:52 pm

You don't need a business degree to be a translator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 10, 2012, 11:16:40 pm

Translators into English get paid crap. Really. It was truly misfortunate that I was born in the Anglosphere in this respect, since it's so very hard to be trusted to translate into any language but your native.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 10, 2012, 11:32:07 pm

Quote from: greatorder on April 10, 2012, 11:14:24 pm

suddenly, the average intelligence of the candidates went up sevenfold!

His intelligence was negative?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2012, 11:54:45 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 10, 2012, 11:32:07 pm

Quote from: greatorder on April 10, 2012, 11:14:24 pm

suddenly, the average intelligence of the candidates went up sevenfold!

His intelligence was negative?

Now now, that would require the average intelligence of the rest of the group to be 0. We know carrots have an IQ of at least 2, and I'm sure we can agree that Gingrich et al aren't stupider than a carrot. As stupid *AS*, perhaps, but not stupider.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 10, 2012, 11:56:51 pm

I don't know, man. You don't see the Carrot Economy crashing straight into the ground. It is far more like a gradual growth, actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 12:05:23 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2012, 11:54:45 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 10, 2012, 11:32:07 pm

Quote from: greatorder on April 10, 2012, 11:14:24 pm

suddenly, the average intelligence of the candidates went up sevenfold!

His intelligence was negative?

Now now, that would require the average intelligence of the rest of the group to be 0. We know carrots have an IQ of at least 2, and I'm sure we can agree that Gingrich et al aren't stupider than a carrot. As stupid *AS*, perhaps, but not stupider.

Check your math.  If Rick Santorum has an intelligence of 0 then removing him from an average only increases the average by a factor of 1/n where n is the number of candidates remaining.  I.E. removing him from an average of 4 candidates only increases the average to 133% of what it was before.  If removing him increases the intelligence by a factor of 7, that implies either that he has negative intelligence or that there are 21 Rick Santorums running for president.

Yes, picture that in your mind.  21 Rick Santorums running for president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 11, 2012, 12:06:54 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on April 10, 2012, 05:52:20 pm

Oh well. Santorum 2016?

Dear lord, let us hope not.

He has been comparing himself to Reagan. In one of those articles he pointed out that Reagan lost to Ford, but Ford lose the general election. (But then Reagan came back for two terms! What a card, that Reagan guy.)

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on April 10, 2012, 10:27:25 pm

A lot of my classmates went off to liberal arts colleges, I knew back then that was a horrible idea for job security.

Depends on what you go for. I am personally going to a liberal arts college, but will be taking almost solely physics and computer science classes. (Hence; Liberal Arts in the Physical and Computer Sciences is the official line that will be on my diploma in a few years.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 11, 2012, 12:14:53 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on April 11, 2012, 12:06:54 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on April 10, 2012, 10:27:25 pm

A lot of my classmates went off to liberal arts colleges, I knew back then that was a horrible idea for job security.

Depends on what you go for. I am personally going to a liberal arts college, but will be taking almost solely physics and computer science classes. (Hence; Liberal Arts in the Physical and Computer Sciences is the official line that will be on my diploma in a few years.)

In short you're going to school for something practical instead of say... english lit & communications.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 11, 2012, 12:30:08 am

Yes. Whatever you do, don't let your diploma say "Bachelor's in Liberal Arts" and be done with it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 12:38:35 am

I know a guy who has a BS in English composition.  I believe he was the only guy in his school's history to get a BS in that major.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 11, 2012, 02:10:58 am

Quote from: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 12:05:23 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2012, 11:54:45 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 10, 2012, 11:32:07 pm

Quote from: greatorder on April 10, 2012, 11:14:24 pm

suddenly, the average intelligence of the candidates went up sevenfold!

His intelligence was negative?

Now now, that would require the average intelligence of the rest of the group to be 0. We know carrots have an IQ of at least 2, and I'm sure we can agree that Gingrich et al aren't stupider than a carrot. As stupid *AS*, perhaps, but not stupider.

Check your math.  If Rick Santorum has an intelligence of 0 then removing him from an average only increases the average by a factor of 1/n where n is the number of candidates remaining.  I.E. removing him from an average of 4 candidates only increases the average to 133% of what it was before.  If removing him increases the intelligence by a factor of 7, that implies either that he has negative intelligence or that there are 21 Rick Santorums running for president.

Yes, picture that in your mind.  21 Rick Santorums running for president.

Herp a derp. Missed the sevenfold bit. Yeah... that's a scary thought.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on April 11, 2012, 02:10:59 am

Quote from: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 12:05:23 am

Yes, picture that in your mind.  21 Rick Santorums running for president.

Holy shit. It's like... it's perfect. Can we just have this for the Republican primaries for the rest of ever?

Oh, wait. The degree of his near-success suggests that we probably will. Campaign strategies in general are all about short-term gratification, seems like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 11, 2012, 11:25:48 am

I almost want a republican in charge. We're looking at a lot of unavoidable disasters in the next few years... major climate change, further economic collapse, etc. It'd be terrible if these ended up being blamed on a supposed liberal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 11, 2012, 11:30:03 am

The blame is ultimately irrelevant to the problem. If things are going tits up in the next two years, it doesn't really matter whose watch it happened on. Everyone will get blame for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 11, 2012, 11:47:11 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on April 11, 2012, 11:25:48 am

I almost want a republican in charge. We're looking at a lot of unavoidable disasters in the next few years... major climate change, further economic collapse, etc. It'd be terrible if these ended up being blamed on a supposed liberal.

What makes you think they won't blame it on liberals anyway?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 11, 2012, 11:47:48 am

<3 (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2012/04/10/vice-presidential-prognosticatin-2/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 11, 2012, 12:05:43 pm

A Dwarf:

Pros:
- Conservative values of Industry and Cupidity.
- Legendary Liar.
- Shows willingness to eat kittens, putting him on par with other outstanding republican VPs.

Cons:
- Needs alcohol to get through the working day.
- Prone to violent fits of rage.
- Short, a critical failing for the voting public.

In all seriousness though, a Ron Paul or Paul Ron Ryan VP would be interesting, and maybe even a smart move. It's either that, or they find a black woman republican- of which there's probably three or four- and nominate her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 11, 2012, 12:54:49 pm

They won't let Ron Paul anywhere near the establishment, for fear he'll run amok and go off the cue cards.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 11, 2012, 12:57:25 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 11, 2012, 12:54:49 pm

They won't let Ron Paul anywhere near the establishment, for fear he'll run amok and go off the cue cards.

Yet they let Sarah Palin do it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 11, 2012, 01:05:25 pm

Sarah Palin is a good conservative soldier. She may have a big mouth that she occasionally doesn't know when to keep shut, but she's not an independent actor to the degree Ron Paul is.

You're not going to hear Palin start deriding American military interests or our foreign policy (unless it's a pure-Obama policy.) Ron Paul, on the other hand, has far more to say about what's wrong with America in a general sense that he has to say about anything else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 11, 2012, 02:17:21 pm

Quote from: palsch on April 11, 2012, 11:47:48 am

<3 (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2012/04/10/vice-presidential-prognosticatin-2/)

I rather like Mirror Universe Obama.

Fluttershy (did I get that right?) and T-Pain get Honorable Mention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on April 11, 2012, 02:29:29 pm

Rainbow Dash. But Fluttershy also has wings, so you get half-credit.

I'd probably vote for the sexy pirate, myself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on April 11, 2012, 02:45:40 pm

I'd vote for Romney/Benedict.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 11, 2012, 02:51:26 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on April 11, 2012, 02:45:40 pm

I'd vote for Romney/Benedict.

If only because the GOP is against cloning and stem cells, so they'd be hard-pressed to come up with a Stormtrooper army.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 03:37:12 pm

Clearly Romney/Romney is the only way to go.

MLP can't happen.  Friendship and magic both go against the GOP base.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on April 11, 2012, 03:47:49 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on April 10, 2012, 10:27:25 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on April 10, 2012, 09:03:58 pm

-Your entire post-

A lot of my classmates went off to liberal arts collages, I knew back then that was a horrible idea for job security. I went to a technical school, I learned a trade, and I got a decent job after I got my certificate. Most of my high school classmates realized a bit to late that there isn't a whole lot you can do with an English degree, most of them are working in fast food joints, or gas stations. I'm thinking about getting a welding certificate just in case things go to shit, it never hurts to have a few practical, marketable skills.

What trade do you have?

Quote from: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 12:05:23 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on April 10, 2012, 11:54:45 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 10, 2012, 11:32:07 pm

Quote from: greatorder on April 10, 2012, 11:14:24 pm

suddenly, the average intelligence of the candidates went up sevenfold!

His intelligence was negative?

Now now, that would require the average intelligence of the rest of the group to be 0. We know carrots have an IQ of at least 2, and I'm sure we can agree that Gingrich et al aren't stupider than a carrot. As stupid *AS*, perhaps, but not stupider.

Check your math.  If Rick Santorum has an intelligence of 0 then removing him from an average only increases the average by a factor of 1/n where n is the number of candidates remaining.  I.E. removing him from an average of 4 candidates only increases the average to 133% of what it was before.  If removing him increases the intelligence by a factor of 7, that implies either that he has negative intelligence or that there are 21 Rick Santorums running for president.

Yes, picture that in your mind.  21 Rick Santorums running for president.

I'm picturing this as a literal race. Ben Hur style.

Quote from: nenjin on April 11, 2012, 12:54:49 pm

They won't let Ron Paul anywhere near the establishment, for fear he'll run armok and go off the cue cards.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 03:37:12 pm

Clearly Romney/Romney is the only way to go.

MLP can't happen.  Friendship and magic both go against the GOP base.

*Insert your own Christianity quip here.*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 03:51:03 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on April 11, 2012, 03:47:49 pm

*Insert your own Christianity quip here.*

http://www.butnotyet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/republican_jesus_sml.gif

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 11, 2012, 04:42:15 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on April 11, 2012, 03:47:49 pm

What trade do you have?

Electronics, I mostly just find out why things don't work. Most of the work can be done visually, it's usually just a errant bit of solder or a broken component.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on April 11, 2012, 06:43:46 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 11, 2012, 03:51:03 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on April 11, 2012, 03:47:49 pm

*Insert your own Christianity quip here.*

http://www.butnotyet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/republican_jesus_sml.gif

Ah yes, good ol' supply side Jesus (http://www.bobonline.net/progxiansd/ssj/index.html). I'm betting that's already been posted somewhere in this thread at some point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on April 13, 2012, 02:50:02 pm

Slightly relevant, the rules of the primaries are so complicated that they have obtained a spot on this page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Calvinball).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wayward Device on April 13, 2012, 05:43:04 pm

This thread continues to be a treasure trove of win. I love you Supply Side Jesus. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 18, 2012, 12:44:23 pm

So...even though it's now a foregone conclusion that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States, everybody still has to go through the process and ritual of the actual votes before they can allow that. It's kind of like giving a condemned man his last meal. Where, in this analogy, the condemned man is the Republican Party, and their last meal will be Romney's nutsack. They may not enjoy it, but they're too busy telling themselves it's better than the alternative.


Next Tuesday is a mini-Super Tuesday, what with five states on the ballot, absolutely none of which give Newt Gingrich a chance in Hell of milking his Southern cred for votes: Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. PA was the best shot of anybody stopping him but with Santorum out now, Romney will sweep all five unless something mindboggling happens between now and then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on April 18, 2012, 12:47:23 pm

Suddenly, Herman Cain gathers all the votes, despite being out of the race. It all comes down to, "We didn't want the votes to go to Romney." Ron Paul's reaction at 11.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 18, 2012, 01:11:43 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on April 18, 2012, 12:47:23 pm

Suddenly, Herman Cain gathers all the votes, despite being out of the race. It all comes down to, "We didn't want the votes to go to Romney." Ron Paul's reaction at 11.

Is it too much to wish for Sarah Palin's grandstanding ass to "hear the call of 'real' America" and jump in, to screw things up good?  :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 01:14:06 pm

I like how conservatives are already publicly perking up about their candidate, just as Colbert lampooned weeks ago. It's like the 5 stages of grief have a political analog.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 18, 2012, 01:28:39 pm

There's also a lot of talk about how this election "is a referendum, not a choice". I.e. "it's not about whether or not we put up a good candidate, it's purely about whether you like Obama or not!"

That's a dangerous gambit, because if the economy improves or Obama handles some foreign policy crisis deftly (yeah, who I am kidding...) then they're sunk. They're basically putting all their money on Obama screwing up and/or the economy continuing to do poorly and/or conservatives pundits blaming everything from European fiscal insolvency to the state of American Idol on him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on April 18, 2012, 01:49:52 pm

So what you're saying is, the logical extreme of "strategic voting" has come about as a matter of official policy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 18, 2012, 01:53:03 pm

More or less. Now that their electoral fortunes are explicitly being based on Obama's poll numbers and job performance, rather than their own accomplishments or ideas, it's utterly in their own self-interest to try and wreck our collective shit as hard as possible. All while denying any blame for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 18, 2012, 01:59:32 pm

Good thing gas prices are going back down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 02:04:20 pm

I think the media and politicians vastly over-estimate how much Americans care about $1 to $1.5 fluctuations in gas prices. Mega corps and industry may care a great deal, but I think the issue gets overplayed everywhere in America. It's like "Are we paying as much as Europe yet?" "No." "Are we even close." "No." "Ok. Then why are your gums still flapping about gas prices?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 18, 2012, 02:05:10 pm

Ugh. This election is going to suck.

I really don't want to vote for Romney or Obama. I'm typically more liberal than not, although that's been somewhat subject to change over the past couple of years as I've been growing more wary of handing any more control over ANYTHING to a government that has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be inept, corrupt, and rife with a combination of corporate sellouts and plain old imbeciles. I also am not particularly impressed with Obama's tenure as POTUS, and feel that while ideologically he's pretty solid, he seriously lacks in administrative skills and is overambitious in terms of the number of directions he tries to take the country in today's economic context.

Romney I feel would probably be a better administrator, but the cost of having him as president would be having a prez who's undoubtedly out-of-touch and too blue-blooded to have much of a grip on the reality felt by 99% of the country. I don't think he is particularly conservative (which is a blessing - IMHO he's pretty moderate at heart, but has swung his stance further to the right to try to appeal to more Republicans), but I do fear he'd hand over even more control of the country to corporate America, Wall Street, et cetera without any concern for the division of classes and the imminent collapse of the middle class.

Not that Obama has done a lot to stave off the imminent collapse of the middle class. He hasn't exactly made the economic ladder particularly accessible again. I know he's only had four years, but his 'pragmatism' seems to have boiled down to 'throw a lot of money at it and hope something good comes of it', the main issue with that philosophy being that we really don't have the money to throw.

So yeah. I have no idea who I'll be voting for, unless some third-party candidate comes out of the blue and puts them both to shame.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 18, 2012, 02:10:24 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 18, 2012, 01:53:03 pm

it's utterly in their own self-interest to try and wreck our collective shit as hard as possible...

I find this hilarious. It is so damn true and it makes no sense. Seeing as how such a small percentage of the population is actually wealthy, and the Republican party stands for the wealthy and not the poor, how do they win elections? By sheer political brilliance. They convince a vast majority of people that it is in their interest for a small minority to benefit. What was once written about only in dystopian fiction is now a reality. Manipulation of the uneducated masses in such a way that they believe their undoing is really their salvation.

Obama might lose this one purely due to the fact that his opposition doesn't care how well he does. He'll screw up SOMETHING, and that's more than enough to maintain the roughly 50/50 split in this country. He just has to screw up a little bit harder and he'll lose the last few independents that actually make a difference. This is all assuming that his 50% actually come out to vote. Anyone who supported his campaign "platform" (we don't really have those anymore, just vague ideas like change or reform that aren't binding) is disillusioned by the fact that nothing happened, and anyone who voted to show racial pride or to open up the seat of President to minorities won't show up again.

Also, are we ever going to get socialized medicine? This whole "everyone pays and the poor receive" is getting old. What about "everyone pays and everyone receives?" Maybe if we didn't half-ass people would vote for it because they'd benefit. I'm tired of avoiding the doctor and being terrified I'm going to get cancer and die bankrupt and destitute.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on April 18, 2012, 02:12:26 pm

Quote from: Lord Dullard on April 18, 2012, 02:05:10 pm

Ugh. This election is going to suck.

I really don't want to vote for Romney or Obama. I'm typically more liberal than not, although that's been somewhat subject to change over the past couple of years as I've been growing more wary of handing any more control over ANYTHING to a government that has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be inept, corrupt, and rife with a combination of corporate sellouts and plain old imbeciles. I also am not particularly impressed with Obama's tenure as POTUS, and feel that while ideologically he's pretty solid, he seriously lacks in administrative skills and is overambitious in terms of the number of directions he tries to take the country in today's economic context.

Romney I feel would probably be a better administrator, but the cost of having him as president would be having a prez who's undoubtedly out-of-touch and too blue-blooded to have much of a grip on the reality felt by 99% of the country. I don't think he is particularly conservative (which is a blessing - IMHO he's pretty moderate at heart, but has swung his stance further to the right to try to appeal to more Republicans), but I do fear he'd hand over even more control of the country to corporate America, Wall Street, et cetera without any concern for the division of classes and the imminent collapse of the middle class.

Not that Obama has done a lot to stave off the imminent collapse of the middle class. He hasn't exactly made the economic ladder particularly accessible again. I know he's only had four years, but his 'pragmatism' seems to have boiled down to 'throw a lot of money at it and hope something good comes of it', the main issue with that philosophy being that we really don't have the money to throw.

So yeah. I have no idea who I'll be voting for, unless some third-party candidate comes out of the blue and puts them both to shame.

Sorry, I'm not eligible until 2020.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 18, 2012, 02:15:20 pm

I'm not going to be voting for president at this point. I can't in good conscience choose either of them. Which is unfortunate, but eh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 18, 2012, 02:20:52 pm

Honestly I think this country is screwed unless/until we get a third party whose byline is 'anti-corruption'. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing the biggest problem with our political system right now, which is the campaign process. Even BEFORE Citizens United it was completely screwed up.

In my pipe-dream world, a MODERATE party full of people willing to set aside ideological radicalism in exchange for cool-headed compromise would start out small by taking localities, then move up to state governments, and finally federal. The platform would be 'moderation and integrity', with a staunch fervor for politically witch-hunting the corrupt and hypocritical (especially among their own ranks). And the trick up their sleeve would be that they would control the SWING vote because of their moderate stance, so they wouldn't have to control a large portion of Congress - just the middle ten percent or so, which is a much more attainable goal than a majority and would, practically speaking, be just as powerful as the 40% of the other two parties. No point in even trying for the presidency - leave that to the crazies, and instead just endorse whichever candidate makes it more clear that they will cater to compromise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 02:25:25 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 18, 2012, 02:15:20 pm

I'm not going to be voting for president at this point. I can't in good conscience choose either of them. Which is unfortunate, but eh.

Unfortunately I feel the same way. I feel like voting for Obama this time around is giving tacit approval for how the bailout was handled, PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, reversing himself on Guantanamo, NDAA, vastly expanding the power of the intelligence community....jesus, I've lost track of how many issues I feel like Obama has been on the wrong side of. And not the grudging "sorry I have no choice" wrong side, but the enthusiastic supporter of wrong shit side.

Honestly, when he's not at the podium, I have a hard time distinguishing him from a Conservative Republican president. Do as I say, not as I do, and all that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on April 18, 2012, 02:27:00 pm

Seriously why is Cfoofoo not candidating yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 02:29:13 pm

Moderates have no business compromising between a right wing party and an ultra right wing party.

Darvi: this post was going to contain the phrase "One does not compromise with Cthulhu." And it still does.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 18, 2012, 02:30:25 pm

Hah, I was just about to add that a moderate party would be way too liberal to ever get elected.

It's funny, but Obama's one (and only, as far as I can tell) "Liberal" triumph was... a Republican health care proposal implemented on the national level.

...right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 18, 2012, 02:31:45 pm

Well, agreed on that, anyway.

ETA:

Weird, I remember that the last time I wrote anything of a vaguely political nature on this board, the general response was 'zomg, there are liberal B12ers!?'. What happened?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 18, 2012, 02:41:56 pm

I'm guessing everyone here stayed the same and politics changed. I think Bill Maher was the one that said something along the lines of "the left moved to the right, and the right moved into a mental institution." And it's been fairly recent too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 18, 2012, 02:44:33 pm

So in other words, we need technocrats in power rather than ideologues. Have to say, it's worked pretty well for the PRC. We used to mock the Soviets and the Chinese for appointing people to high office based on how much cheerleading for socialism and praise Lenin/Stalin/Mao they could muster, rather than their abilities to do the job. Only "orthodox" political beliefs were allowed, and dissenters were pushed to the fringe of the Party.

Now we have Republicans who get selected to run for President based on how much cheerleading for capitalism and praise for Ronald Reagan they can muster, and dissenters are pushed to the fringe of the Party. At least Jon Huntsman is lucky that nobody came after him with an ice axe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 02:51:41 pm

With all due respect, the PRC is pretty terribly run as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 18, 2012, 02:53:33 pm

Yeah, but they're actually improving, given their history over the last half a century. We're doing the opposite.

Also, yeah, still terrible, and I'd much rather deal with our government (at least this decade - I dunno about the next few).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 18, 2012, 02:55:49 pm

They're "improving" in the sense that they're headed towards a violent revolution, yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 18, 2012, 03:01:59 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 18, 2012, 02:41:56 pm

I'm guessing everyone here stayed the same and politics changed. I think Bill Maher was the one that said something along the lines of "the left moved to the right, and the right moved into a mental institution." And it's been fairly recent too.

Also, we've been getting older.  People move to the right as they get older.  That doesn't mean it's a good thing; it's also a sign of dying idealism.  Politics needs young people who believe very strongly in liberal ideas.

...I can't see myself voting for Romney, but I'm not terrified of him like I was by McCain.  Once I'm back home I'll have to try and find the website again, but I saw one that showed various politicians' publicly-stated opinions on various issues.  Aside from a small handle of social-freedom issues (which admittedly really pushed my buttons), it looks like some of his policies over the years are things that I really agree with.  I mean...god, we NEED a president who's going to take a hard stance on immigration reform by going after businesses and letting things play out from there.  I don't think he's a moron when it comes to foreign policy, he really doesn't seem like the kind of guy who has something to prove where wars are concerned, he seems to have a good grasp of American states' rights as individual social experiments (like they were originally intended), and for the most part he's willing to keep his hands off of things that I don't want his hands on.  He implemented some health care stuff as a governor that was pretty novel, for a Republican at least.  In fact my biggest beef with him is that he willingly associates himself with the Republican party.  If he didn't owe them anything, and I could trust him not to get into partisan politics, he just might get my vote after all.

...Though I do wish I could find a politician who wants to raise my taxes.  I'm not in a low bracket, and I can take it; we need more social services, and I don't want to burden people who make less than I do.  Give me more taxes.  *grabby hands*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 18, 2012, 03:08:18 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on April 18, 2012, 02:55:49 pm

They're "improving" in the sense that they're headed towards a violent revolution, yes.

Western media seems to have an obsession over playing guessing games about if and when the Chinese government will collapse. I'm writing it off as BS until I see more clear indicators that it's going to happen. I don't trust a government (and by extension media) filled with a lot of right-wing babble to accurately predict when an autocratic self-labeled 'communist' regime is going to collapse, since it's in the interest of the government to make them look shakier than they are.

I remember reading about the 'imminent collapse of the PRC within five years' over a decade ago. Didn't mean it was going to happen just because somebody declared it was.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 18, 2012, 03:15:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 02:51:41 pm

With all due respect, the PRC is pretty terribly run as well.

But far, FAR less terribly run than they were. No more "Oops, 60 million people starved to death because we collectivized agriculture, and the local party officials overstated their production, causing us to take too much for the urban allotment and leaving the farmers to die. Oh, and we finally started using real science instead of Lysenkoism."

Ain't easy to run a country that big. At least they're looking for people based on how well they can do the job. Now they just need to find a way to work "and not take massive bribes to ignore the best decision" into the mix. But then, hell...we don't even bother with the last one. We just call it "lobbying".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 03:34:23 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/secret-looking-ted-nugent-violent-anti-obama-message-225142639.html

So... Threatening the president? inciting criminal acts? conspiracy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Fenrir on April 18, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 03:34:23 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/secret-looking-ted-nugent-violent-anti-obama-message-225142639.html

So... Threatening the president? inciting criminal acts? conspiracy?

None, I would guess. He used a violent metaphor, but I doubt it was meant as an explict instruction.

I wish he had cited his sources, as I would like to know how many of our soliders have had their legs blown off “for the Constitution”.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 18, 2012, 03:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fenrir on April 18, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 03:34:23 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/secret-looking-ted-nugent-violent-anti-obama-message-225142639.html

So... Threatening the president? inciting criminal acts? conspiracy?

None, I would guess. He used a violent metaphor, but I doubt it was meant as an explict instruction.

I wish he had cited his sources, as I would like to know how many of our soliders have had their legs blown off “for the Constitution”.

Saying "I'll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year" is not a metaphor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 18, 2012, 03:54:35 pm

Hopefully the mayor of Indonesia is a fair man (or woman). As a suburb of the great city of Indonesia, America may be in serious trouble if we have to compete with other school districts for the favor of the city government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 18, 2012, 03:56:26 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 18, 2012, 03:53:07 pm

Quote from: Fenrir on April 18, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on April 18, 2012, 03:34:23 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/secret-looking-ted-nugent-violent-anti-obama-message-225142639.html

So... Threatening the president? inciting criminal acts? conspiracy?

None, I would guess. He used a violent metaphor, but I doubt it was meant as an explict instruction.

I wish he had cited his sources, as I would like to know how many of our soliders have had their legs blown off “for the Constitution”.

Saying "I'll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year" is not a metaphor.

Hyperbole sounds more like it. I think he's implying that he's going to kill him, when really he's just going to throw shoes at him. That's how all the cool kids attack presidents.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 18, 2012, 03:58:44 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 18, 2012, 03:01:59 pm

Once I'm back home I'll have to try and find the website again, but I saw one that showed various politicians' publicly-stated opinions on various issues.  Aside from a small handle of social-freedom issues (which admittedly really pushed my buttons), it looks like some of his policies over the years are things that I really agree with.

"Over the years" being the operative words here.  Romney voiced a lot of views ten years back that he now disavows.  The center of his campaign is an attack on the policy that he himself brought to national attention for christssake.  If it weren't for Mitt Romney, there would be no Obamacare because it would still just be an idea a few guys at the Heritage institution were kicking around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 18, 2012, 04:01:37 pm

I don't give an ass what someone says during their primary campaign.  They're going to lie through their teeth about how far they lean to their party's side, then lean back to moderate for the general.  Past opinions when there wasn't as much at stake are a much better indicator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 18, 2012, 04:05:33 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 02:25:25 pm

Unfortunately I feel the same way. I feel like voting for Obama this time around is giving tacit approval for how the bailout was handled, PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, reversing himself on Guantanamo, NDAA, vastly expanding the power of the intelligence community....jesus, I've lost track of how many issues I feel like Obama has been on the wrong side of. And not the grudging "sorry I have no choice" wrong side, but the enthusiastic supporter of wrong shit side.

Erm, what side would that be?

Only the intelligence issue is truly on Obama. And I'm honestly not 100% on what this refers to. CIA drone strikes? It's the only real aspect I've seen that could be referred to as an expansion of the intelligence community.

The bailout was partly on him, but was a compromise with excess fat (mostly ineffective tax cuts) to get it through quickly. And that was only the parts passed after he came into office; much of the outlay was under Bush. And I'd argue that the bailout was largely successful and pretty much the best that could be achieved at the time. His overall economic efforts have been solid, given he doesn't control the purse strings.

On PIPA/SOPA the administration came out strongly against them. ACTA is a legacy issue, ongoing from long before Obama's time and with a strange life of it's own. He has backed it, but from a US point of view it's strongly in the national interest with few drawbacks. It's the rest of us who get screwed.

Guantanamo's closure has been blocked at every attempt by congress, combined with some of the realities of the situation. Moving the prisoners held there elsewhere or getting them through the courts has been a serious problem and there have been many obstructions. In particular read the intended portions of the NDAA which deal with detainee transfers.

And on the NDAA, it didn't change anything. It didn't remove any rights from US citizens and didn't create any powers that the US government didn't already claim and exercise. Obama fought against certain aspects that would have made things harder and managed to get them watered down enough to effectively ignore. He is fighting against the last dregs of those provisions now in trying to transfer more detainees to civilian courts.

Seriously, my biggest issue with Obama is the expansion of executive power claims, which is directly in opposition to his claims on the campaign trail in 2008. I understand and honestly expected a reversal, but was hoping he would exceed my expectations, not disappoint them. I'd still vote for him again (registration as a non-resident citizen is a bitch). He has been extremely strong in most areas that matter to me. Given another term I'd expect a lot more, including in areas he has already enjoyed success (still much work to be done in gay rights and healthcare and he could afford to expend more capital on them this time around).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 04:40:45 pm

Quote

The bailout was partly on him, but was a compromise with excess fat (mostly ineffective tax cuts) to get it through quickly. And that was only the parts passed after he came into office; much of the outlay was under Bush. And I'd argue that the bailout was largely successful and pretty much the best that could be achieved at the time. His overall economic efforts have been solid, given he doesn't control the purse strings.

He put industry people in charge of the bail out to fix a problem the financial industry created. That was my main gripe with it to begin with. As to what the "best" we could have achieved is, it's business as usual in America again as far as corporations are concerned. I don't call that a resounding success, unless success for you was the status quo.

Quote

On PIPA/SOPA the administration came out strongly against them. ACTA is a legacy issue, ongoing from long before Obama's time and with a strange life of it's own. He has backed it, but from a US point of view it's strongly in the national interest with few drawbacks. It's the rest of us who get screwed.

From a US citizen's point of view, it sucks. I don't see why you're defending it or his decision to back it 100%.

Quote

Guantanamo's closure has been blocked at every attempt by congress, combined with some of the realities of the situation. Moving the prisoners held there elsewhere or getting them through the courts has been a serious problem and there have been many obstructions. In particular read the intended portions of the NDAA which deal with detainee transfers.

I have read about it. The president has basically ceded that Guantanamo will never close, and the detainees there will likely be detained for the rest of their natural lives at that facility. As long as that facility still stands, it can be used as a place for rendition and extra-judicial prison sentences...the exact reasons he said he wanted to close it.

Quote

And on the NDAA, it didn't change anything. It didn't remove any rights from US citizens and didn't create any powers that the US government didn't already claim and exercise. Obama fought against certain aspects that would have made things harder and managed to get them watered down enough to effectively ignore. He is fighting against the last dregs of those provisions now in trying to transfer more detainees to civilian courts.

It only took Congress to add the language explicitly stating what the act did or did not do. As it was originally conceived, it was so ambiguous it HAD to be clarified. That's not the behavior I expect of democratic presidents. And his whole "I agree not to make use of these provisions during my presidency" was a PR stunt, said in full light of the fact that the act will exist beyond his presidency. Again, this is not what I expect of a liberal democrat.

I simply don't trust what he says now, or where what he does honestly comes from. As I've said elsewhere, it's ALWAYS a one-two punch with that man, where he gives you something you want with one hand, then slaps you across the face with the other. I believe in compromise, but I get the distinct impression the nature of his compromises are decided within the industry before the public ever hears about them. I don't feel like we get equal representation in the president's considerations, at all. We're merely the people he has to explain himself to once his deals have been struck and because of his oration people take what he says at face value.

I voted for him on the promise that he'd work against the Washington political and lobbying machine, and he's shown me that he can't get into their pocket fast enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 18, 2012, 06:59:59 pm

As an Australian, a citizen of a country that generally has very strong ties to yours; I beg you, please, for the love of all that is holy, do not let another republican in power soon. The last time you guys did that, we ended up in a war on the other side of the world, that we're only just now pulling the troops out of.

That, and our opposition leader is basically a republican of the Gods, Guns and Gays schtick. He doesn't need the electoral boost that would come from a US government that shares his views :/

Even if you're disillusioned with your choices, choosing the wrong can still make the rest of the world suffer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 18, 2012, 08:15:43 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 04:40:45 pm

He put industry people in charge of the bail out to fix a problem the financial industry created. That was my main gripe with it to begin with. As to what the "best" we could have achieved is, it's business as usual in America again as far as corporations are concerned. I don't call that a resounding success, unless success for you was the status quo.

Success was avoiding a full blown depression.

You can argue that the banking collapse should have been used as an excuse to destroy the banking system and create a new socialist order, and I had friends online and IRL who genuinely thought we were heading into a revolutionary phase (but then some of them thought that about the London riots...). But from the point of view of the man trying to keep people alive, in their houses and out of bankruptcy, further disruption was something to be avoided.

The actual banking reform bills that were fought for alongside the bailout are robust and they needed to come from industry faces to have any sort of chance of getting through. Their enforcement has been largely blocked by congressional forces outside Obama's control. He has used the workarounds available to him but there are drastic limits to his powers in financial areas.

Quote

From a US citizen's point of view, it sucks. I don't see why you're defending it or his decision to back it 100%.

ACTA doesn't change US laws. It's an international treaty designed broadly to bring international IP laws in line with US laws so that patents and other IP can be enforced overseas more easily. (Certain) Industry interests are massively advantaged and the average citizen isn't going to see any change.

As a British/EU citizen, it's a horrible treaty and I don't think any other government should ever have signed it and that's a voting point with me. As a US citizen I oppose it on principle, out of solidarity with other nations. If I were in the US government, charged with acting in the provincial interests of those I represent? Hard call. It's broadly good for the US overall and unless the forces on the other side started coming up with serious policy proposals for reform there isn't really another path open. IP law is a total mess with gross inconsistencies and holes. You either come up with reforms or patches, and no serious government level reform has ever gotten off the ground.

For the record, I think there needs to be serious and fundamental copyright reform on the international level soon. ACTA was the opposite of the way to go about things. But none of that is on Obama as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

I have read about it. The president has basically ceded that Guantanamo will never close, and the detainees there will likely be detained for the rest of their natural lives at that facility. As long as that facility still stands, it can be used as a place for rendition and extra-judicial prison sentences...the exact reasons he said he wanted to close it.

Erm, he is still fighting hard to get the place closed. I can't imagine any steps he could have taken that he hasn't. Arguably he has overreached executive authority in a few cases (although I don't believe he has).

When Obama came into office he ordered a review of all prisoners. They found that many of them had few records attached to their cases. Combine the lack of information with the legal minefield of the circumstances the prisoners were captured and held and you have a near impossible ball to untangle. The eventual review found that 48 of the prisoners held could not be prosecuted but also could not be released for security reasons. The rest were cleared for release or trial. Getting those prisoners released, however, means securing extradition for people whose legal status is entirely up in the air, and where their release to other nations may be harmful either to that nation, the individual or others. Every single prisoner's case is complex, long winded and involves fighting congressional blocks as well as vested interests within the US government that are fighting to cover their own backs.

Short of accidentally blowing the whole place up I doubt there was any way to detangle the ball in the time he has had. I'm not even sure if it's possible in the next four. In any case, it's certainly impossible now for any further prisoners to be taken there and GTMO itself was never used for rendition.

Quote

It only took Congress to add the language explicitly stating what the act did or did not do. As it was originally conceived, it was so ambiguous it HAD to be clarified. That's not the behavior I expect of democratic presidents. And his whole "I agree not to make use of these provisions during my presidency" was a PR stunt, said in full light of the fact that the act will exist beyond his presidency. Again, this is not what I expect of a liberal democrat.

Yeah, that was a PR stunt because those provisions were not there in the first place. He was speaking to public fears through a signing statement, not actually ignoring any provisions contained within the law. Well, he did do that, but only with the provisions supposed to make GTMO prisoners impossible to transfer off of the island.

And to be clear, the US government has claimed the right to detail without trial US citizens on US soil since 2002 and José Padilla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)). The authorisation (supposedly) comes from the AUMF. The thing is, they would have to be incredibly careful. Absolutely nothing in any US law, not the NDAA or AUMF, remove habeas rights from US citizens, in any circumstances. Even GTMO prisoners have habeas rights. That means they can only detain someone for as long as it takes their case to get in front of the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the law to be dismissed. In Padilla's case they rapidly transferred him out of detention before this point was reached.

And yes, all of this is utter bullshit. It's also a legal quagmire that has had no real oversight from congress before the NDAA (and even then absolutely none within it; no version of the law I saw substantially changed detention law beyond the GTMO provisions). Obama has not actually done much in this area either way, backing off some of the arguments used in the Bush era. Getting attention focused on things by congress would really help things move in this area, which is why I hoped the NDAA would lead to a substantial review and writing (not rewriting, just writing) of US detention law and policy. No luck yet, but here's hoping.


I don't know, maybe I'm too focused on process these days but I'm getting more and more frustrated with people reacting to bills that basically restate the status quo as the end of the world, or when they blame Obama for things that he actually made better or didn't have control over. I'm starting to find it hard to understand this general perception of him as a traitor and crook when the actions trotted out to prove this are so often someone else's or the actual best path possible for the situation. And then the complete ignoring of the points I'd actually love to see him taken to task for...

But then I'm also of the view that any ethical man who spent a year as president would probably be due some jail time at the end of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 18, 2012, 08:17:56 pm

If people are refering to TARP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program) as the bailout, can I point out that it happened before Obama even won election, let alone was in office?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 08:34:19 pm

I don't call him a traitor, but I do feel like in the name of economic recovery sacrificed he many chances to make a real change in the system. The things I do root for are shot down by Republicans before they can even take wing. I'm old enough to know that most promises are broken even by the best presidents, but that doesn't make it any easier to accept that you voted for someone who basically held the status quo up (at the alternative of things really falling apart), or inspire confidence that his second term will be better. At one point I argued that re-elected, he'd act with more decisively and in keeping with the whole "change" thing.

But now I'm honestly not sure I want to know what he's thinking of doing with his second term. I'm sure there's something in there I'll like. (Probably energy policy.) But there are things I'm kind of terrified he'll show support for (like CISPA.) Republicans would fall over each other to endorse CISPA, but if I'm basing my opinion of CISPA on principles, I can't vote for Obama with a clear conscious.

I don't honestly think Romney can win, with or without me voting in the general election. So unlike previous elections, I don't have the threat of "the worst of all evils" hanging over my decision to vote for a candidate I'm not sure about.

Quote

If people are refering to TARP as the bailout, can I point out that it happened before Obama even won election, let alone was in office?

He was in office when he appointed Geithner to run it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 18, 2012, 08:41:31 pm

I like the status quo.  My formative years for politics were 2000-2006, during which things kept going from bad to worse.  Incremental progress is as good as it gets in my experience.  Status quo looks pretty good from my perspective.  Status quo means we are succeeding at running out the clock until the demographics of the country change.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on April 18, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 18, 2012, 08:41:31 pm

I like the status quo.  My formative years for politics were 2000-2006, during which things kept going from bad to worse.  Incremental progress is as good as it gets in my experience.  Status quo looks pretty good from my perspective.  Status quo means we are succeeding at running out the clock until the demographics of the country change.

Warmongering facist dictatorship run off slave labor ftw!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 18, 2012, 09:22:24 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 08:34:19 pm

But there are things I'm kind of terrified he'll show support for (like CISPA.) Republicans would fall over each other to endorse CISPA, but if I'm basing my opinion of CISPA on principles, I can't vote for Obama with a clear conscious.

I don't think CISPA is even an issue yet. For one thing it's being significantly changed even before it's brought to the House floor and opened to amendments. For another the real action on the serious cybersecurity provisions has been happening in the Senate, with the Lieberman/McCain duelling bills. It's massively, massively boring and bogged down in details, but at the same time is critical to how the US government can respond to external and internal threats to internet infrastructure in the future.

Also an entirely separate version was introduced into the House on Tuesday which I haven't even started trying to read yet. So it looks like we have two competing House bills and two competing Senate bills, all with their own takes on the information sharing requirements and all with potential IP law significance (although I believe only the initial Rogers-Ruppersberger House bill had direct references to IP violations which are all being stripped).

My big push here is simple; NUANCE!!!!! There are a lot of complicated issues at stake here and people panicking over vague, far from written bills is starting to turn me off those groups. There should be an effort to understand the goals, explore the problems and issues and push and lobby for sensible and acceptable solutions. Or at least make a significant argument on the merits of the underlying bill, rather than a vague concept or principle that may or may not actually be represented or violated by the actual bill itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 09:33:04 pm

Quote

There are a lot of complicated issues at stake here and people panicking over vague, far from written bills is starting to turn me off those groups. There should be an effort to understand the goals, explore the problems and issues and push and lobby for sensible and acceptable solutions. Or at least make a significant argument on the merits of the underlying bill, rather than a vague concept or principle that may or may not actually be represented or violated by the actual bill itself.

Just so we're clear here, my decision not to vote for Obama amounts to panic in your opinion? I.e., the rational thing is to vote for the man in spite of my misgivings? I think they call that hope.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on April 19, 2012, 12:23:29 am

Quote from: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 02:25:25 pm

reversing himself on Guantanamo

Executive Order 13492 disagrees. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13492) The only problem is that Congress has to decide what to do with them... and it won't.

I'm voting for Obama. I think that if he wins, the Republicans will have less of that 'one-term-president' furor going on, and maybe some good bills can be passed. Right now they're all posturing for the crowd in an attempt to make Obama look bad, and fucking everything up in the process.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2012, 02:39:16 am

Quote from: palsch on April 18, 2012, 08:15:43 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 04:40:45 pm

He put industry people in charge of the bail out to fix a problem the financial industry created. That was my main gripe with it to begin with. As to what the "best" we could have achieved is, it's business as usual in America again as far as corporations are concerned. I don't call that a resounding success, unless success for you was the status quo.

Success was avoiding a full blown depression.

You can argue that the banking collapse should have been used as an excuse to destroy the banking system and create a new socialist order, and I had friends online and IRL who genuinely thought we were heading into a revolutionary phase (but then some of them thought that about the London riots...). But from the point of view of the man trying to keep people alive, in their houses and out of bankruptcy, further disruption was something to be avoided.

The actual banking reform bills that were fought for alongside the bailout are robust and they needed to come from industry faces to have any sort of chance of getting through. Their enforcement has been largely blocked by congressional forces outside Obama's control. He has used the workarounds available to him but there are drastic limits to his powers in financial areas.

See the Swedish banking crisis of the 90's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_banking_rescue). Looking back, it was basically a crisis drill for the American situation, all set up so the US government would know what to do when it hit.

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on April 18, 2012, 06:59:59 pm

As an Australian, a citizen of a country that generally has very strong ties to yours; I beg you, please, for the love of all that is holy, do not let another republican in power soon. The last time you guys did that, we ended up in a war on the other side of the world, that we're only just now pulling the troops out of.

Pff, you think that's bad? Sweden ended up in a war on the other side of the world, and broke our record of more than 200 years of peace. And we're not even pulling out our troops yet.

I'm bitter about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 19, 2012, 08:22:04 am

Quote from: nenjin on April 18, 2012, 09:33:04 pm

Just so we're clear here, my decision not to vote for Obama amounts to panic in your opinion? I.e., the rational thing is to vote for the man in spite of my misgivings? I think they call that hope.

No. I'm saying that at least some of your misgivings are due to the current climate of panic around bills like the NDAA, SOPA/PIPA and others that does not reflect any actual actions of the Obama administration. The vague anger at government (which is entirely justified and to be expected) is being directed towards Obama without any analysis of the actual reasons people are getting angry.

And yes, I realise this sounds somewhat arrogant, but when people say that SOPA is a reason to vote against Obama when he opposed the bill I'm thinking the reasoned opposition often isn't.

In any case, that particular paragraph was targeted at those screaming about CISPA without addressing the actual details of the bill, or people screaming about attempts to enforce copyright law without any discussion of copyright reform.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 19, 2012, 09:25:26 am

Quote from: scriver on April 19, 2012, 02:39:16 am

See the Swedish banking crisis of the 90's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_banking_rescue). Looking back, it was basically a crisis drill for the American situation, all set up so the US government would know what to do when it hit.

The nice thing about the Swedish experience is that it lead to Sweden being completely prepared when things hit the fan the next time.  At some point in the future, apologists for the people who fucked this up will muddy the waters and say "no one could have done better".  And Sweden will be there to provide a perfect example for how a country could very much do better.  Having this counter example should be useful in preventing the death of rational thought in economics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2012, 09:50:35 am

...Are you sarcasming at me or is my meter broken?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 19, 2012, 09:52:46 am

Quote from: jester on April 18, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 18, 2012, 08:41:31 pm

I like the status quo.  My formative years for politics were 2000-2006, during which things kept going from bad to worse.  Incremental progress is as good as it gets in my experience.  Status quo looks pretty good from my perspective.  Status quo means we are succeeding at running out the clock until the demographics of the country change.

Warmongering facist dictatorship run off slave labor ftw!

Hyperbole much?  ???

Even in the worst of the Bush years, that wouldn't have been an accurate label. (It was a lot closer to that label, but thankfully did not reach that level.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 19, 2012, 10:13:57 am

Quote from: mainiac on April 19, 2012, 09:25:26 am

...preventing the death of rational thought in economics.

Hmm... perhaps we can use some similar technique to prevent the sinking of the Titanic, or the second world war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 19, 2012, 10:18:19 am

Quote from: scriver on April 19, 2012, 09:50:35 am

...Are you sarcasming at me or is my meter broken?

I'm a big fan of the Swedish response to the 2007 crises.  In particular the prudent way that you maintained a budget surplus in the good years ahead of time so that you could take timely action when things went south.  Sweden hasn't shredded it's social net but will still had a budget surplus last year.  Yes you weren't completely unexposed, but you have managed the pain far better then the rest of Europe and North America.

Quote from: PTTG?? on April 19, 2012, 10:13:57 am

Quote from: mainiac on April 19, 2012, 09:25:26 am

...preventing the death of rational thought in economics.

Hmm... perhaps we can use some similar technique to prevent the sinking of the Titanic, or the second world war.

Hey just because they're ignored in many places doesn't mean there aren't a lot of rational economists still out there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on April 19, 2012, 11:09:39 am

To be honest, I find it difficult to call any economist rational or irrational. They're all mostly pulling from magic 8 balls.


Economics are chaos theory incarnate. It's like asking the weatherman whether it will rain 4 months from now. They can make a weak prediction based on seasonal and geographic conditions, but no hard answers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2012, 11:28:45 am

Quote from: mainiac on April 19, 2012, 10:18:19 am

Quote from: scriver on April 19, 2012, 09:50:35 am

...Are you sarcasming at me or is my meter broken?

I'm a big fan of the Swedish response to the 2007 crises.  In particular the prudent way that you maintained a budget surplus in the good years ahead of time so that you could take timely action when things went south.  Sweden hasn't shredded it's social net but will still had a budget surplus last year.  Yes you weren't completely unexposed, but you have managed the pain far better then the rest of Europe and North America..

...I'm still not sure whether you are sarcastic or not :P

Nonetheless, it should be noted that both the EU the "Alliance" (the coalition of the four main right parties - excluding the neonazis) have been busy dismantling or undermining parts of the social system this last decade.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on April 19, 2012, 05:49:26 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 19, 2012, 09:52:46 am

Quote from: jester on April 18, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 18, 2012, 08:41:31 pm

I like the status quo.  My formative years for politics were 2000-2006, during which things kept going from bad to worse.  Incremental progress is as good as it gets in my experience.  Status quo looks pretty good from my perspective.  Status quo means we are succeeding at running out the clock until the demographics of the country change.

Warmongering facist dictatorship run off slave labor ftw!

Hyperbole much?  ???

Even in the worst of the Bush years, that wouldn't have been an accurate label. (It was a lot closer to that label, but thankfully did not reach that level.)

Meant that was where you would end up if the downward spiral continued

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 19, 2012, 08:29:05 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 19, 2012, 09:52:46 am

Quote from: jester on April 18, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 18, 2012, 08:41:31 pm

I like the status quo.  My formative years for politics were 2000-2006, during which things kept going from bad to worse.  Incremental progress is as good as it gets in my experience.  Status quo looks pretty good from my perspective.  Status quo means we are succeeding at running out the clock until the demographics of the country change.

Warmongering facist dictatorship run off slave labor ftw!

Hyperbole much?  ???

Even in the worst of the Bush years, that wouldn't have been an accurate label. (It was a lot closer to that label, but thankfully did not reach that level.)

 ??? Bush was worse than Obama, but Obama hasn't exactly done anything to reverse the damage. The government has, for the most part, remained just as opaque. And the laws introduced during the Bush years that have trampled on the individual rights of Americans have been pretty much full retained (or even extended) under O.

He hasn't dragged us into any more major wars (yet, we'll see what happens with Iran if he's re-elected) or been as RAH RAH AMERICA, but the practical difference other than the 'no more wars' thing has been pretty much nil. I don't even think McCain would have brought us into another war anyway, since our economy couldn't have handled it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 20, 2012, 07:28:12 am

Quote from: Lord Dullard on April 19, 2012, 08:29:05 pm

??? Bush was worse than Obama, but Obama hasn't exactly done anything to reverse the damage. The government has, for the most part, remained just as opaque. And the laws introduced during the Bush years that have trampled on the individual rights of Americans have been pretty much full retained (or even extended) under O.

Obama certainly doesn't get a pass from me on civil liberties or openness, but in some areas he has been better than Bush. Sort of.

For example, in the case of extra-judicial killings using drones overseas the Obama administration has published legal memos and given speeches outlining their legal justification. Bush relied heavily on secret memos and legal reasoning hidden behind the state secret act executive privilege for his expansions of executive power. So at least we know what and why Obama is doing what he is doing.

So... yay?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on April 20, 2012, 08:37:48 am

I'm sure Romney will do better then Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 20, 2012, 09:32:13 am

Quote from: Zangi on April 20, 2012, 08:37:48 am

I'm sure Romney will do better then Obama.

On issues of liberty they are probably similar. But Obama has the advantage on economic policy. Our dwindling liberties won't matter as much if we barely have the resources to survive much less express those liberties when Romney gets his chance to gut the middle class and the social security and welfare services for fun and profit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 20, 2012, 10:07:05 am

Quote from: Nadaka on April 20, 2012, 09:32:13 am

his chance to gut the middle class and the social security and welfare services for fun and profit.

I think you are a few years to late.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 10:57:12 am

Anyone else wishing that Clinton had won out over Obama in '08 during the primaries? I wouldn't mind starting to pay off our debt to China. Plus, the first female president would have been a huge stride for the country. I still find it amazing that half of our population didn't swamp the voting booths during the primaries for her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 20, 2012, 11:29:31 am

I don't know if Hilary Clinton would have been much better. Sure she had more exposure from being first lady, but she had a similar amount of legislative experience. And she has a stronger gun control voting record than Obama, so the people bashing Obama for his "radical hippie commie comin' to take our guns" agenda would have even more to bitch about. And she was involved in several "think of the children" initiatives related to censoring video games IIRC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 20, 2012, 11:44:22 am

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 10:57:12 am

Anyone else wishing that Clinton had won out over Obama in '08 during the primaries? I wouldn't mind starting to pay off our debt to China. Plus, the first female president would have been a huge stride for the country. I still find it amazing that half of our population didn't swamp the voting booths during the primaries for her.

No.

I'm fairly certain that Obama has been a better president than Clinton would have been. He was far superior in pretty much every policy area back in the primaries, even before Clinton's campaign went into meltdown mode, and he was a far stronger candidate for the general election.

In the areas that seem to matter around here, Clinton was a worse choice. She was very much an establishment politician who was deeply invested in business as usual. She is far more conservative than Obama in many areas, with the possible exception of gay rights. A history of being more hawkish on war issues, more flawed when it came to civil liberties, more or less a British Tory when it comes to economic issues. Obama shifted right a bit. Clinton was already there.

I'd love to see a viable female candidate, and it may be that Clinton gets a chance in 2016. But she isn't someone I could get massively excited about on her own merits. Obama, in 2008, was. And he has done enough to retain my support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 11:48:25 am

Well I was more referring to what Bill did when he was in (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2009.png) with the whole deficit thing and how she'd more than likely show more of the same. Sadly the whole gun control thing doesn't matter all that much, seeing as how the majority (Not all. Please don't kill me gun people of B12. I like you all I swear) of people who get up in arms over their guns wouldn't vote for a woman anyhow.

And the Democratic party needs someone with a backbone. Obama's a likable guy. But he's already compromised on too many things, while the Republicans didn't have to when Bush was in office. Honestly though, I just miss Bill and wish he were back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on April 20, 2012, 11:51:49 am

Everyone misses Bill. He was one chilled out motherf***er, and could play a pretty mean sax. Bloody impeachments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on April 20, 2012, 11:54:10 am

I'd like to put into consideration... again... that a good portion of the Republicans sitting somewhere important, are big fans of the lame duck mantra... "No second term for Obama" from practically the beginning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on April 20, 2012, 11:54:28 am

Forget Bill, we need Franklin Delano Roosevelt to rise from the grave for another term. He'd probably whip this economy into shape, or at least be willing to try.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:00:16 pm

I still have the vague suspicion that there's ONE big reason why no one likes Hilary, and it's not her policies. It becomes more apparent with people who are too stupid to defend their views. I remember asking around in 08 and hearing "Well, she's just a bitch!" and "Ugh, why would I vote for HER?" from people who knew nothing about politics and had only heard of the primaries from passing glances at the news or because Obama was running. While I have no doubt that his race alienated a great deal of people, I also have no doubt that it earned him a great deal of support and interested young people in being a part of history. However, while we may be a partially racist society, we have been almost entirely patriarchal since the founding of the country. Well, her time came and passed so I suppose crying about it isn't going to change anything.

FDR would be shot for being socialist

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on April 20, 2012, 12:03:52 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:00:16 pm

FDR would be shot for being socialist

That wouldn't be a problem, as he'd be undead :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:08:37 pm

Quote from: Sirus on April 20, 2012, 12:03:52 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:00:16 pm

FDR would be shot for being socialist

That wouldn't be a problem, as he'd be undead :)

Awesome! Once again the U.S.A. would be the leading cause of "brain drain" in developing countries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on April 20, 2012, 12:12:14 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:08:37 pm

Quote from: Sirus on April 20, 2012, 12:03:52 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:00:16 pm

FDR would be shot for being socialist

That wouldn't be a problem, as he'd be undead :)

Awesome! Once again the U.S.A. would be the leading cause of "brain drain" in developing countries.

Screw dem developing countries! It's their fault that they're poor!
</typical Tea Partier>

In all seriousness, there's plenty of brain power here in the States. It's just sadly underutilized.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 20, 2012, 12:33:48 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:00:16 pm

I still have the vague suspicion that there's ONE big reason why no one likes Hilary, and it's not her policies. It becomes more apparent with people who are too stupid to defend their views. I remember asking around in 08 and hearing "Well, she's just a bitch!" and "Ugh, why would I vote for HER?" from people who knew nothing about politics and had only heard of the primaries from passing glances at the news or because Obama was running. While I have no doubt that his race alienated a great deal of people, I also have no doubt that it earned him a great deal of support and interested young people in being a part of history. However, while we may be a partially racist society, we have been almost entirely patriarchal since the founding of the country. Well, her time came and passed so I suppose crying about it isn't going to change anything.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I actually agree with most of this.

I wanted to dive back into the 2008 primaries and find some of my discussions about her on another forum. There was fairly little rational discussion of Hillary outside a few core members. Even opposing her I spent more time defending her from assholes.

Her biggest problem was (and probably still is, but less so since her time in State) that she was a counter-culture figure who was, in realistic terms, a moderate conservative policy wise, similar to Bill. Combine that with what lots of people have described as a ruthless and ambitious personality (that mostly comes from people I've spoken to and articles out of Arkansas, before her time in the White House and Senate) and you have a figure who is hard to get people behind.

This article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that-why-obama-matters/6445/?single_page=true) is a nice piece on how the early Clinton vs Giuliani match-up was pretty much a proxy Vietnam era fight. Obama belonged to the newer generation (he was a late boomer, but born to a mid-boom mother who is closer to Clinton in age than he is).

Actually, that article does a good job of explaining why I threw my lot in with Obama over Clinton early.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:42:12 pm

Yeah, I can see why rational people would be afraid of a president like Hilary. But most people don't read articles, or think about this rationally. That's the problem. But for all of those who do I understand. You have to live here while I'm a dual citizen. If I choose the risky candidate and they wind up screwing the country up I can just head back to Canada. Even though they're going crazy conservative now. Why can't we go crazy liberal? I'd like crazy liberal. Let's get free healthcare, gay rights, and an amendment stating that life begins by the same benchmark as when it ends, higher brain function.

Granted, much like FDR, I'd be shot for running under this platform. Or rather I'd actually be running UNDER the platform, as I'd probably be 6 feet deep for just mentioning it before it actually gained any support at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 20, 2012, 12:49:26 pm

I think some of her opposition came from opposition to our royalist streak.  Bush clinton clinton bush bush clinton?  That's a little too much for an awful lot of people.  Twenty-four years of two families in power.  It's important to oppose that on principle alone.

Also, we saw what happened with Bush the Junior:  When a relative of an ex-president gets into power, they have something to prove.  That's dangerous as all hell.  You'd already have a little of that coming from anyone who's a "first"...first black president, first jewish president, first woman president, whatever.  I'd rather have someone who's chill take the lead there.  She wasn't chill.

Mostly though it was the first issue to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on April 20, 2012, 12:52:50 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:42:12 pm

Yeah, I can see why rational people would be afraid of a president like Hilary. But most people don't read articles, or think about this rationally. That's the problem. But for all of those who do I understand. You have to live here while I'm a dual citizen. If I choose the risky candidate and they wind up screwing the country up I can just head back to Canada. Even though they're going crazy conservative now. Why can't we go crazy liberal? I'd like crazy liberal. Let's get free healthcare, gay rights, and an amendment stating that life begins by the same benchmark as when it ends, higher brain function.

Granted, much like FDR, I'd be shot for running under this platform. Or rather I'd actually be running UNDER the platform, as I'd probably be 6 feet deep for just mentioning it before it actually gained any support at all.

The paranoia about socialist values in this country is REALLY annoying.

I blame it on the Russians. If those jackasses hadn't started the ball rolling on Marxism by putting a bunch of authoritarian extremists into power and calling them 'communists', the Cold War wouldn't have been necessitated and we'd be in a completely different boat. Bah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on April 20, 2012, 06:47:59 pm

Quote from: Lord Dullard on April 20, 2012, 12:52:50 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 20, 2012, 12:42:12 pm

Yeah, I can see why rational people would be afraid of a president like Hilary. But most people don't read articles, or think about this rationally. That's the problem. But for all of those who do I understand. You have to live here while I'm a dual citizen. If I choose the risky candidate and they wind up screwing the country up I can just head back to Canada. Even though they're going crazy conservative now. Why can't we go crazy liberal? I'd like crazy liberal. Let's get free healthcare, gay rights, and an amendment stating that life begins by the same benchmark as when it ends, higher brain function.

Granted, much like FDR, I'd be shot for running under this platform. Or rather I'd actually be running UNDER the platform, as I'd probably be 6 feet deep for just mentioning it before it actually gained any support at all.

The paranoia about socialist values in this country is REALLY annoying.

I blame it on the Russians. If those jackasses hadn't started the ball rolling on Marxism by putting a bunch of authoritarian extremists into power and calling them 'communists', the Cold War wouldn't have been necessitated and we'd be in a completely different boat. Bah.

SEE? THOSE COMMIE BASTARDS RUIN EVERYTHING!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on April 20, 2012, 07:31:09 pm

Honestly, I'd say it's Stalin's fault. Lenin was rather authoritarian, but I think he probably actually believed in achieving a utopia. Stalin was just in it for his own gain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on April 21, 2012, 02:28:13 am

Blame the Iron Law of Oligarchy and human reproductive independance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on April 21, 2012, 04:11:57 am

Lenin wasn't that much of a believer either. He made sure that many of the other influential leaders and ideologues who were stronger supporters of the ideology were either exiled or dead early on in his reign. The Soviet Communism was basically doomed (even leaving out the economics issues) to fail as soon as Lenin's faction got into power. Stalin taking over was just the last nail in the coffin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 24, 2012, 12:53:15 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/why-jon-huntsman-is-leaving-the-gop--not-because-they%E2%80%99re-communists-.html

John Huntsman may be leaving the GOP soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on April 24, 2012, 12:56:11 pm

Quote

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Huntsman was painting with a brush so broad as to compare the Republican Party with Communist China. For one thing, Huntsman is not yet under house arrest with his Internet access forbidden.

Pics or I don't believe it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 24, 2012, 01:46:04 pm

I liked that article. Hunstman seems like a sharp cookie. And he "gets" China and the *correct* reason to be worried about them (rising youth nationalism), rather than the outdated one (OMG THEYRE COMMIES!).

More power to him and any attempts he makes to forge a Third Way type party.


Oh, BTW, there's five primaries today. Any guesses as to who'll win? Yeah, that guy. Turnout is expected to be way down now that the race is essentially just in the victory lap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on April 24, 2012, 01:47:32 pm

This might have been said before in this thread, but what happened to Santorum's votes anyway?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 24, 2012, 01:52:17 pm

The delegates went to Ron Paul, mostly - its how he's managed to win two states, and looks likely to win more.

His victory in Minnesota was incredible - he received five times as much support as Romney.

Of course, this has been the ronpauls game plan all along, and it still wont be enough to give him the win - he's still playing, but its a losing game.


Also - god damn it, but I /like/ Hunstman. He really seemed like the only candidate willing to focus on doing his god damn job once he got elected. Eh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on April 24, 2012, 01:54:45 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on April 24, 2012, 01:47:32 pm

This might have been said before in this thread, but what happened to Santorum's votes anyway?

His delegates? It depends on the state and type.

The superdelegates have always been free to vote for whoever they want. He had two of those.

About 95 of his delegates came from non-binding caucuses and primaries. They can vote for whoever they want come the convention.

The remaining 188 are bound to vote for him until he decides to release them or the second round of convention voting.

Little bit more comprehensive breakdown here (http://news.yahoo.com/fate-rick-santorums-delegates-004141733--abc-news-politics.html).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 24, 2012, 02:29:08 pm

Well, I for one would like to see the GOP split with a Huntsman style moderate right party growing in popularity as the radical right currently in charge fade into obscurity.

Of course I would also like to see a left party split off from the democrats and grow in popularity as the current slightly right in charge fade into obscurity (or at least to produce a decent 3 or 4 way split).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on April 24, 2012, 05:10:17 pm

A four-way split would be nice. This is probably what would happen if Britain recolonised the US- UKIP would get the crazy republicans, the Conservatives would get the moderate Republicans and the blue dog Democrats, and the rest of the democrats would be split between Labour and the Lib Dems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 06:10:27 pm

Well that's the most plausible path I've seen to a four way split actually happening without the US first instituting proportional representation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on April 24, 2012, 07:24:01 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 06:10:27 pm

Well that's the most plausible path I've seen to a four way split actually happening without the US first instituting proportional representation.

And that in itself is impossible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 07:34:27 pm

Unlikely I'll grant you but not impossible.  I don't think there's anybody in the country who actually likes the first past the post system.  Maybe if the direct elections movement succeeds we could see a movement for an amendment to institute proportional representation be next.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on April 24, 2012, 07:39:38 pm

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 07:40:51 pm

Quote from: Sirus on April 24, 2012, 07:39:38 pm

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

Proportional representation means that if you cast your votes for losing candidates, then your votes go to "at large" districts.  So if 5% of people cast their votes for the green candidates the green party gets 5% of the seats, regardless of the fact that they probably lost every election in the country.  Thus all votes count equally, regardless of districts.  Look it up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 24, 2012, 07:47:38 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on April 24, 2012, 05:10:17 pm

A four-way split would be nice. This is probably what would happen if Britain recolonised the US- UKIP would get the crazy republicans, the Conservatives would get the moderate Republicans and the blue dog Democrats, and the rest of the democrats would be split between Labour and the Lib Dems.

Ah yes, what the crazy US conservatives really care about is withdrawing the UK from the EU :P.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on April 24, 2012, 08:00:13 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 07:40:51 pm

Quote from: Sirus on April 24, 2012, 07:39:38 pm

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

Proportional representation means that if you cast your votes for losing candidates, then your votes go to "at large" districts.  So if 5% of people cast their votes for the green candidates the green party gets 5% of the seats, regardless of the fact that they probably lost every election in the country.  Thus all votes count equally, regardless of districts.  Look it up.

Damn you, English. You and your words that can mean one thing when put together but something different when put together slightly differently. :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on April 24, 2012, 08:35:58 pm

Quote from: Sirus on April 24, 2012, 08:00:13 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 07:40:51 pm

Quote from: Sirus on April 24, 2012, 07:39:38 pm

Er, don't we already have proportional representation, or something like it? The states with more population have more representatives. We also have two senators from each states, regardless of population, so low-pop states aren't completely pushed around.

Proportional representation means that if you cast your votes for losing candidates, then your votes go to "at large" districts.  So if 5% of people cast their votes for the green candidates the green party gets 5% of the seats, regardless of the fact that they probably lost every election in the country.  Thus all votes count equally, regardless of districts.  Look it up.

Damn you, English. You and your words that can mean one thing when put together but something different when put together slightly differently. :(

Yeah its technichly a proportional representation voting system, not proportional represntation of the population.

Quote from: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 07:34:27 pm

Unlikely I'll grant you but not impossible.  I don't think there's anybody in the country who actually likes the first past the post system.  Maybe if the direct elections movement succeeds we could see a movement for an amendment to institute proportional representation be next.

I don't think its that people like the first past the post system, its that the majority of voters just don't give a shit. If it were put to referendum I tihink first past the post would win on the basis of momentum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 24, 2012, 08:36:49 pm

Oh hey, Mitt projected to win all five races by 50%+.

Though honestly, it kinda says something that he's only in the mid-50s in some of those states, considering his opposition consists of Gingrich and Ron Paul. Especially interesting that Santorum is currently in 2nd place in Pennsylvania, despite not being in the race anymore. There's still a significant "Anybody But Romney" contingent out there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on April 24, 2012, 10:59:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 07:34:27 pm

Unlikely I'll grant you but not impossible.  I don't think there's anybody in the country who actually likes the first past the post system.  Maybe if the direct elections movement succeeds we could see a movement for an amendment to institute proportional representation be next.

It has a few things going for it:
1) Its what is specified in the holy constitution, and is so central to what it says that it is exceedingly unlikely to be changed.
2) It is massively beneficial to those in power, right now dems+reps control 98% of the senate. If it changed then almost undoubtedly +20 senators would lose their jobs, and they would have no clue if it would be them or not before it happens.
3) It would eradicate the unfair representation all of the smaller states have (and thus they would almost surely oppose it), it it didn't eradicate it (eg. by making each state have equal effect on those chosen even if they have 1/10 of the population), then all of the larger states would oppose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 11:19:47 pm

Proportional representation would probably take place by expanding upon the existing representation, not replacing it.  And my gut tells me that it would only happen in the House, not the Senate.  It would not make much sense in the Senate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 24, 2012, 11:20:43 pm

Adding party proportionality wouldn't necessarilly eliminate the large vs small state dynamic.

For instance, in the house representatives could be proportionally allocated within the state. Of course this means that a lot of smaller states will get odd results. For instance a 2 senator state will almost always put up 1 each (D & R) and a 3 senator state will almost always elect 1 D, 1 R, and 1 3rd party candidate. It wouldn't be without its own unique quirks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 24, 2012, 11:30:17 pm

That's an interesting idea.  But I don't think it would be adopted because if people are trying to reform the Senate they'd probably not be interested in preserving the disproportionate representation of the small states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 25, 2012, 10:10:37 am

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/25/breaking-gingrich-to-end-white-house-bid/?hpt=hp_t1

So it looks like the Great White Dope is finally ready to cede to reality. Kind of a pity actually, I was hoping he'd take his rampaging ego all the way to convention so it would actually be watchable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 02:50:16 pm

Ugg.  Small states are supposed to have disproportionate representation, because states act like some kind of half-assed country in a weird not-quite-UN.

I may not always like what states' rights lets crazy right-wing states get away with, but I like knowing that some crazy state on the other end of the spectrum could do things I approve of, and have a fair amount of sway in the federal government even if they have low population.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 25, 2012, 03:04:56 pm

I like the ability of smaller states to at least have some representation against states like California. Otherwise it would be the equivalent of turn-of-the-century New York in terms of its political weight.

And I really don't feel like subsidizing half of California's problems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 03:11:48 pm

Since a person living in California or New York is less human than one living in North Dakota or Alaska, and deserves less representation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

Each state is designed to allow a different way of life.  All are treated as equally valid even if they don't have so much population.  This allows people to move freely, choose the life they want, instead of being tyrranized by the majority.

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 25, 2012, 03:25:46 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 25, 2012, 03:04:56 pm

I like the ability of smaller states to at least have some representation against states like California. Otherwise it would be the equivalent of turn-of-the-century New York in terms of its political weight.

And I really don't feel like subsidizing half of California's problems.

You are aware that states like California and New York subsidize half the fly over states problems?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on April 25, 2012, 04:28:20 pm

I completely understand the "states' rights" viewpoint (even if I don't agree with the seemingly common reasons for speaking for it). I hate how the EU is able to overrule our laws and morals. Similarly, I despise the influence the UK, France and Germany hold over it. One of the major reasons the EU is doomed to fail (and why I want us to secede ASAP) is that the big players seems incapable to understand cooperation as anything other than "what's best for me".

Err... This was supposed to be related somehow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:31:39 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

This is interesting... "argument from providing two extremely specific cases and pretending that no others exist".

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

It's equally valid.  Hence each person living the Alaskan way of life should be entitled to as much representation as each person living the New York way of life.

Quote from: scriver on April 25, 2012, 04:28:20 pm

I completely understand the "states' rights" viewpoint (even if I don't agree with the seemingly common reasons for speaking for it). I hate how the EU is able to overrule our laws and morals. Similarly, I despise the influence the UK, France and Germany hold over it. One of the major reasons the EU is doomed to fail (and why I want us to secede ASAP) is that the big players seems incapable to understand cooperation as anything other than "what's best for me".

I don't think the UK has too much EU influence at the moment seeing as how we manage to keep marginalising ourselves (by, say, being the only one to reject the latest treaty).  If anything we're more likely to secede considering the Conservatives are now in the "anti-EU/ total nutbag alliance".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on April 25, 2012, 04:35:51 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on April 25, 2012, 03:25:46 pm

Quote from: nenjin on April 25, 2012, 03:04:56 pm

I like the ability of smaller states to at least have some representation against states like California. Otherwise it would be the equivalent of turn-of-the-century New York in terms of its political weight.

And I really don't feel like subsidizing half of California's problems.

You are aware that states like California and New York subsidize half the fly over states problems?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

Considering other states don't have half the problems that California does due to its population size and standard of living (irrigating a desert), I don't know if that's quite accurate.

California may contribute more to the tax pool than they get back, but that doesn't mean they're effectively carrying half the United States. I'd be ok with California getting more of their share of federal spending (because christ, they need it), but if we were doing a truly proportional system, California would steam roll half the country because a) it has the highest population and b) it has the biggest financial problems. I wouldn't want to fall into a system where California keeps growing and requires an ever bigger share of federal spending to support itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:37:08 pm

It wouldn't though since California doesn't represent over 50% of the nation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 04:46:30 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:31:39 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

This is interesting... "argument from providing two extremely specific cases and pretending that no others exist".

I...What?  That's exactly how it works.  Small states have an advantage in the Senate, big states have an advantage in the House.  Those aren't extremely specific cases.  Either the Senate and House both pass a bill (trivial case), the Senate and House both kill it (trivial case), the Senate passes and the House doesn't (big states enforce their will), or the House passes and the Senate doesn't (little states enforce their will).  Those are the ONLY cases.

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:31:39 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

It's equally valid.  Hence each person living the Alaskan way of life should be entitled to as much representation as each person living the New York way of life.

And in the House of Representatives, that's how it works.  In the Senate, just as specified when our country was founded, it's governmental philosophies instead of people that duke it out.  A US citizen who lives in the States can only choose one of fifty states to live in; the limiting factor is the number of states and not the number of people.  All those possible states are given equal power, so that freedom of self-government is maintained.

I guess if you can't wrap your head around seeing governmental philosophies as actual things that exist and which need to be granted power and freedom, the whole thing is going to be very confusing.  I don't really know how to keep arguing in that case.  It's a basic fact of how our country was founded though: the states ARE granted standing as corporal entities in the Senate.  Much like a human, one state and the ideas it represents is treated in the Senate the same way that one person is treated in the House.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 04:50:13 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 03:22:01 pm

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

Each state is designed to allow a different way of life.  All are treated as equally valid even if they don't have so much population.  This allows people to move freely, choose the life they want, instead of being tyrranized by the majority.

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

A way of life doesn't have children. A way of life doesn't have a brain, or a personality. A way of life is just an abstract concept with no physical representation or conscious existence.

If we change a few arbitrary lines, Alaska or New York cease to exist. But no matter how we change the lines, there's still a total of 20,187,915 people involved. If 19,400,000+ of them want socialized medicine, and 700,000ish of them don't, why should we consider the two arguments deserving of equal (or nearly-equal) support?

Granted, a "way of life" is an emergent property of the behavior of many people. We must protect the right of people to express individualism and their cultural uniqueness wherever that expression does not limit the rights of others. As it stands, conservative, rural people have an unfair ability to curtail the rights of a much larger set of much more liberal people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on April 25, 2012, 04:53:33 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 04:31:39 pm

I don't think the UK has too much EU influence at the moment seeing as how we manage to keep marginalising ourselves (by, say, being the only one to reject the latest treaty).  If anything we're more likely to secede considering the Conservatives are now in the "anti-EU/ total nutbag alliance".

Doubtful. The only thing those opinions will amount to is more "the EU should cater to our needs!" sentiments. Look at the French elections right now, both candidates are serving their own versions of "the EU should do what we want it to".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 04:56:05 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 04:50:13 pm

If we change a few arbitrary lines, Alaska or New York cease to exist. But no matter how we change the lines, there's still a total of 20,187,915 people involved. If 19,400,000+ of them want socialized medicine, and 700,000ish of them don't, why should we consider the two arguments deserving of equal (or nearly-equal) support?

For the same reason that we can't take Canada's socialized medicine away from them because we're larger, and there's just an "arbitrary line" in between.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 04:57:01 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 04:50:13 pm

If we change a few arbitrary lines, Alaska or New York cease to exist. But no matter how we change the lines, there's still a total of 20,187,915 people involved. If 19,400,000+ of them want socialized medicine, and 700,000ish of them don't, why should we consider the two arguments deserving of equal (or nearly-equal) support?

When those 19,400,000+ are perfectly capable of implementing their desired solution in an attempt to convince the other 700,000 to do the same... yes. We should consider the arguments for or against the ability of the majority to exert its will on a remote minority, against the minorities wishes, rather than tossing aside half the arguments because the group is too small to matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 25, 2012, 05:03:16 pm

Quote from: scriver on April 25, 2012, 04:28:20 pm

I completely understand the "states' rights" viewpoint (even if I don't agree with the seemingly common reasons for speaking for it). I hate how the EU is able to overrule our laws and morals. Similarly, I despise the influence the UK, France and Germany hold over it. One of the major reasons the EU is doomed to fail (and why I want us to secede ASAP) is that the big players seems incapable to understand cooperation as anything other than "what's best for me".

Err... This was supposed to be related somehow.

The EU isn't necessarily doomed to fail. It just has to take the "Con" out of confederation.

Confederations never last. They're unstable entities that are too weak to act as they need to but too strong to put off those responsibilities.

Of course the constituents will never let that happen and thus the EU is actually doomed to fail, but in theory it could survive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 05:04:32 pm

Quote from: scriver on April 25, 2012, 04:53:33 pm

Doubtful. The only thing those opinions will amount to is more "the EU should cater to our needs!" sentiments. Look at the French elections right now, both candidates are serving their own versions of "the EU should do what we want it to".

I am not for one second saying that the French aren't trying to milk the EU for their own benefit as much as possible, or that the Germans don't have virtually complete control over it.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 04:57:01 pm

When those 19,400,000+ are perfectly capable of implementing their desired solution in an attempt to convince the other 700,000 to do the same... yes. We should consider the arguments for or against the ability of the majority to exert its will on a remote minority, against the minorities wishes, rather than tossing aside half the arguments because the group is too small to matter.

How about in those cases where they aren't?  Can the 19,400,000+ people withdraw their troops from Afghanistan?  Can they get their leaders to international summits to discuss climate change?  For example, in the healthcare case there are serious issues considering that individual states do not have the border controls required to prevent those from neighbouring states coming and using their public healthcare in spite of not paying.

I'm not sure why the tyranny of a minority is meant to be better than a tyranny of the majority.  Unless you think that people in large states are inherently inferior you're just changing who gets to screw over who (and making it so that more people are screwed over).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 05:08:27 pm

There can't be any of those troops in Afghanistan unless the majority approved, so... I fail to see how that supports your point?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on April 25, 2012, 05:11:53 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 05:08:27 pm

There can't be any of those troops in Afghanistan unless the majority approved, so... I fail to see how that supports your point?

It was an example of things NY couldn't do unilaterally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 05:14:44 pm

MrP, then it doesn't make any sense in context.

Quote

I'm not sure why the tyranny of a minority is meant to be better than a tyranny of the majority.  Unless you think that people in large states are inherently inferior you're just changing who gets to screw over who (and making it so that more people are screwed over).

I'm not really sure how "we don't want to help you to do this" is either tyranny, or somehow worse than "you have to do this". You're the only one arguing for tyranny of any group over another here - and for the "greater good" at that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 05:17:15 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 05:08:27 pm

There can't be any of those troops in Afghanistan unless the majority approved, so... I fail to see how that supports your point?

Well then, I guess California can just go and vote to bring back all our troops from Iraq and Afganistan. Sorry about that, Iowa. Hope things work out for you and Texas over there.

Oh, and the predator drones are ours too, by the way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 05:20:04 pm

I have no idea what you're even trying to argue there. Are you saying we SHOULD support the rights of minority groups by letting them independently withdraw from wars?

Because I would be 100% behind giving states that right, at least as far as their own forces go... but isn't that already the case? Can't they already back their own troops? (I'm honestly not sure, they should be able to)

Obviously they can't withdraw the ones that are working for the feds, though. Because those aren't, you know, California's property, don't live in California, and aren't working for California.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 05:23:31 pm

Also please do remember that a majority vote in house and senate is required to CHANGE things.  Things are the way they are right now because of a majority vote on both sides at some point in the past.  Changing the status quo is dangerous and a slow process.  Some states are more grounded in that status quo than others.  They get to say "Um hold up there."

Anyway we may just need to agree to disagree here, since this is pretty fundamental political opinion.

GlyphGryph, there's not really much in the way of state forces, no.  They all answer to the Commander in Chief.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 05:29:02 pm

@GlyphGlyph
No, it isn't the case, for the obvious reason that instead of having one corrupt department of defense, you'd have fifty corrupt departments of defense, none of which would be effective fighting units, except when they were fighting each other.

Plus either Iowa has it's own naval department, or else it is parasitic on the naval defense of the coastal states.

Good lord man, did you actually think that individual states could withdraw from the military? Can you imagine what would have happened every time there was a minor military setback?

There are good reasons-rare, but important good reasons- why we ceed power to greater authority. However, our current system of controlling that greater authority is unbalanced in favor of small, rural groups due to a compromise dating back to when the greatest conflict was whether or not forcing an entire ethnic group to work to death on plantations was bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 05:33:24 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 05:14:44 pm

MrP, then it doesn't make any sense in context.

Quote

I'm not sure why the tyranny of a minority is meant to be better than a tyranny of the majority.  Unless you think that people in large states are inherently inferior you're just changing who gets to screw over who (and making it so that more people are screwed over).

I'm not really sure how "we don't want to help you to do this" is either tyranny, or somehow worse than "you have to do this". You're the only one arguing for tyranny of any group over another here - and for the "greater good" at that.

It makes sense.  You were saying that any state can perform whatever policies it likes within its own borders, and I was giving counterexamples.  In this case the smaller, overrepresented people could prevent the majority of people from withdrawing from a war.  Why should a person living in Iowa have more say over what the federal troops do than a person in California?  Why should they have more say on America's treaties on global warming?  Why should they have more say on any issue that you think the federal government should perform?

Your argument is more in favour of weakening federal government rather than in favour of massively overrepresenting some people.  Maybe there's an argument for your position.  But giving smaller states a larger vote than they deserve does not help this goal.  They can stop the federal government from removing overreaches of power just as easily as they can stop them from adding them, afterall (so they might, say, stop public healthcare which you might like, but they could equally prevent the patriot act from being repealed which you would not).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 25, 2012, 05:34:51 pm

No, but you seemed to.

I simply meant that if a state has its own forces - personal militias, whatnot, should the states have any - should be withdrawable. I don't know if or to what extent those exist, however, so I'll just go with Sowelu and assume they don't.

But, as I stated quite clearly, I don't believe they should have any control over the federal army. You were the one who seemed to be advocating that, although, lets be honest, I've had no clue what you've been trying to say for your last several posts. Perhaps the misunderstanding is mutual.

But, like, where the heck did you get 50 corrupt departments of defense? I literally have absolutely no clue where you're coming from.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 05:42:16 pm

You're the one who said that you thought that individual states could withdraw from foreign wars! If they did have independent militaries deployed overseas, each capable of acting independently, they would need an independent infrastructure to support them. Which they don't have and I'm not advocating.

The point is, states can't do a lot of things, because they are restricted by the actions of other states. If you can't understand that, then there's little point in further discussion here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 05:53:44 pm

Earlier than that.  Economic reasons were pretty big.  Some small states based their entire economy on X, and if you legislated something related to X, they could get screwed big-time.  And economy != slavery most of the time, guys.  (People who treat the entire history of American civil discourse as though it was ONE SINGLE ISSUE for over two hundred years kind of piss me off.)

Also, religion...some states are dominated by one religion, and religious freedom is important.  If they have a way of life that says Y is important, then the other states shouldn't be able to take away or change Y.  It gives Utah a voice, for example.  We may not agree with their voice, and we may outvote them, but their state still gets an equal voice to stand up and say "guys? can you not put contraception in that national health care system?".  They get this voice because we treasure differences between lifestyles in this country, as much as we might not agree with them.  In the Senate, it's not their people that have a voice, but the state itself, its history and its culture.

Iowa "deserves" exactly the same vote in the Senate that California does.

They both have suffrage, period.  STATES have suffrage just like PEOPLE have suffrage.  You keep bringing individual people into the equation when headcount is not what the Senate is about!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on April 25, 2012, 06:09:49 pm

My eyes might have glazed over but I don't see how any of this ties back to the idea that in a representational democracy, smaller states with lower populations deserve a proportionally larger share of representation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 25, 2012, 06:37:33 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 05:53:44 pm

Also, religion...some states are dominated by one religion, and religious freedom is important.  If they have a way of life that says Y is important, then the other states shouldn't be able to take away or change Y.  It gives Utah a voice, for example.

Yes because the Senate does a bang up job of preventing discrimination.  It's not like they've been consistently dragging their heels on womens and gays rights for three decades.  Oh wait...  And remember when the Senate did such a great jobs preventing Arizona from profiling against Latinos?  Me neither.  And of course we know that people would never pass laws targeting the Muslim religion in America.  Except of course that laws for that exact damn purpose were on the books until they got struck down, not by the Senate but by the courts.  And this isn't even getting into the fact that the courts still have to review every attempt by deep southern states to change congressional districts before they go into effect because every few years some southern state comes up with a new plan to disenfranchise the blacks through gerrymandering.

The notion that arbitrary state lines, not population, should determine representation does about as good a job of preventing discrimination as the internet does at preventing ignorance.  The reason that nobody discriminates against the Utah Mormons is that they are conservatives and liberals don't pass laws disenfranchising their political opponents.  Utah's mighty 2% share of the Senate isn't what protects them from the discrimination that goes on every day against blacks and latinos and muslims.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 06:38:33 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 05:53:44 pm

They both have suffrage, period.

Your logic has defeated me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 25, 2012, 06:41:12 pm

Discrimination, religious or otherwise, is not in the category of things that should even be up for legislative debate in the first place. That's why the First Amendment covers religion and can be used to strike down any and all laws that discriminate against a religion. (And in an equally important manner, to strike down laws that put religion in government.)

This kind of unchallengeable baseline of human rights is what is required to ideally eliminate but realistically limit discrimination and intolerance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 06:42:45 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 06:38:33 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 05:53:44 pm

They both have suffrage, period.

Your logic has defeated me.

Go read the fucking constitution.  It's not my logic, it's a founding principle of our country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 25, 2012, 06:44:31 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 06:42:45 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 06:38:33 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 05:53:44 pm

They both have suffrage, period.

Your logic has defeated me.

Go read the fucking constitution.  It's not my logic, it's a founding principle of our country.

I thought you were arguing what should be, not what is.  Does being in the constitution grant moral authority?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 06:45:26 pm

Sure it's a founding principle.  I don't agree with that founding principle.  The constitution isn't the word of God.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 06:46:54 pm

Sorry.  My main intention here was to try and explain the motivations behind that principle to people who didn't seem to have a firm understanding.  Being personally attacked for that is...unpleasant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 25, 2012, 06:48:20 pm

They do not, by and large, seem ignorant as to the origin or mechanics of this principle to me.  Everyone but you appears to be debating what should be, not what is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 06:51:16 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on April 25, 2012, 06:46:54 pm

Sorry.  My main intention here was to try and explain the motivations behind that principle to people who didn't seem to have a firm understanding.  Being personally attacked for that is...unpleasant.

It wasn't a personal attack.  I was pointing out that you were literally saying "I am right.  Period".

But yeah.  This discussion is not exactly off-topic but probably shouldn't consume the thread.  I'll stop posting on the matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 08:08:38 pm

Back to the election, Obama's going to win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on April 25, 2012, 08:12:25 pm

Didn't the republicans manage to get him the position of satan?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 25, 2012, 08:13:47 pm

To Republicans.

To everyone else? Not so much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 25, 2012, 08:15:59 pm

You have to remember, the republicans are throwing the race. If this was professional wrestling, they'd be standing on the edge of the ring screaming about how invulnerable they are while supporters are stacking folding chairs around Obama's corner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on April 25, 2012, 08:19:45 pm

I guess you could see the refusal of much of the Republican base to vote Romney even now as a "we'd rather lose" message.  I can see the logic - the next four years are gonna be tough on whoever gets in, and there's also the fact that some portion of the Republican base hopes they can get a more nutty candidate (see Santorum) next time if Obama is hated more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 25, 2012, 10:05:20 pm

In my opinion the only difference between obama and romney is skin color.

Personally I'd rather have 4 more years of the same bullshit than 8. Not that it matters since the next president is probably going to be shit also.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on April 26, 2012, 09:17:34 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on April 25, 2012, 10:05:20 pm

In my opinion the only difference between obama and romney is skin color.

Personally I'd rather have 4 more years of the same bullshit than 8. Not that it matters since the next president is probably going to be shit also.

They are not quite that similar, but they are more alike than they are different.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 09:41:36 am

Yeah, Romney got his healthcare plan passed without caving in to the opposition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on April 26, 2012, 09:59:29 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 09:41:36 am

Yeah, Romney got his healthcare plan passed without caving in to the opposition.

Darth Muslim Obama versus "Down with the Emperor!" and "Lets do jack squat!" Republican Majority

That Rich Guy: Romney versus ... Fellow Republicans and a relatively Moderate/Democratic State?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 10:02:58 am

</sarcasm tag>

Really, its just another of the ways they were the same, since they ultimately passed practically the same healthcare plan.

Does anyone actually have any significant differences between them action-wise?

Obviously, their environments haven't been the same, so it's hard to get good concrete examples, but I'm legitimately interested.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 26, 2012, 10:57:58 am

Try reading their budgets sometime and tell me if you think they are the same.  Very short summery:

Obama, stay close to current levels, give aid to states to prevent layoffs of teachers and cops.  Slight tax increases for the rich.  Maintain the payroll tax cuts for another couple years.  Slight decrease in military spending.  Continue to grant waivers for No Child Left Behind for states that are meeting certain benchmarks.

Romney, immediately cut all domestic spending 5%.  Do further cuts to 20% on average.  Increase military spending.  Do not maintain the payroll tax cuts.  Cut the income tax rates by 20%.  Pay for these cuts the difference by unspecified reforms.  Do not give aid to states to prevent layoffs of teachers and cops.  Defund the exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act.

Budgets are the places where politicians can not hide behind evasive language and lay out what they are actually proposing.  And what they are proposing agrees almost nowhere.  The only place I can think of where their budgets actually agree is that Romney wants to maintain the reforms Obama passed on federal support for student loans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on April 26, 2012, 09:32:51 pm

What the hell. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/26/11415282-agenda-21-arizona-close-to-passing-anti-un-sustainability-bill?lite

Quote

Arizona lawmakers appear close to sending to Gov. Jan Brewer a tea party-backed bill that proponents say would stop a United Nations takeover conspiracy but that critics claim could end state and cities’ pollution-fighting efforts and even dismantle the state unemployment office.

Quote

About the Rio declaration, SB1507 says “the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerous independent, shadow organizations to surreptitiously implement this agenda around the world.”

Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, told supporters in an email that the U.N. declaration “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil,” the AzCapitolTimes.com reported. “It’s very real and it is happening.”

The Times also reported that during House debate Wednesday, Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said the declaration is connected to the “occult” of sustainability.

"The tea party and conspiracy theorists run the state now, Campbell told msnbc.com.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 09:46:11 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 26, 2012, 10:57:58 am

Romney, immediately cut all domestic spending 5%.  Do further cuts to 20% on average.  Increase military spending.  Do not maintain the payroll tax cuts.  Cut the income tax rates by 20%.  Pay for these cuts the difference by unspecified reforms.  Do not give aid to states to prevent layoffs of teachers and cops.  Defund the exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act.

Did Romney actually do these with any of his budgets? Because, having never been president, most of them don't even seem possible.

In fact, what this looks like is a whole but how he "might" be different from Obama.

What this tells me is that you either didn't read my question, or can't answer it. I'm not asking much, just a single substantive instance of implemented policy that would distinguish the two.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on April 26, 2012, 09:47:27 pm

Quote from: alway on April 26, 2012, 09:32:51 pm

What the hell.

Sadly, this is not new. Didn't we go over that one point where the idea of fixing up our infrastructure somehow led to 'THE UN IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA!!!111!!one' sometime ago? I can't remember what it was...
Otherwise, what the hell indeed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on April 26, 2012, 11:46:42 pm

Quote from: Twi on April 26, 2012, 09:47:27 pm

Quote from: alway on April 26, 2012, 09:32:51 pm

What the hell.

Sadly, this is not new. Didn't we go over that one point where the idea of fixing up our infrastructure somehow led to 'THE UN IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA!!!111!!one' sometime ago? I can't remember what it was...
Otherwise, what the hell indeed.

Somewhere in there...   "Derr tacking r jerbs!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 27, 2012, 12:51:14 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 26, 2012, 09:46:11 pm

Did Romney actually do these with any of his budgets? Because, having never been president, most of them don't even seem possible.

Well this is what his budget proposals say he will do in order to make the numbers add up.  If they seem impossible to you then I suggest you draw the natural conclusion from that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on April 27, 2012, 01:31:08 am

The problem with Arizona is that the government accurately represents the will of the people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 08:26:44 am

Quote from: Twi on April 26, 2012, 09:47:27 pm

Quote from: alway on April 26, 2012, 09:32:51 pm

What the hell.

Sadly, this is not new. Didn't we go over that one point where the idea of fixing up our infrastructure somehow led to 'THE UN IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA!!!111!!one' sometime ago? I can't remember what it was...
Otherwise, what the hell indeed.

Yup. It's an astroturf campaign that's popped up all over the country (I posted about it here in Raleigh, where the head county commissioner was all "BOO HISS local sustainability study! It's a UN plot to regulate our precious bodily fluids and our freedums!" and the Democratic members of the board were too busy going "Uhh....what?" to actually give a proper rebuttal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 09:58:41 am

Quote

Well this is what his budget proposals say he will do in order to make the numbers add up.  If they seem impossible to you then I suggest you draw the natural conclusion from that.

That it's empty rhetoric?

In other news, Obama has come up with a new way to justify failing to follow through on his campaign promises.

Deny deny deny that he ever said anything ever like that.

I mean, saying something like "When I got into office, I discovered the situation was different than I originally thought, and had to adapt accordingly". But outright denying you said the things we have recordings of, because you said it multiple times in multiple places, just seems... kind of stupid.

This is specifically the war on drugs stuff - throughout his campaign, he stated several times that he would not not interfere with state marijuana laws, that he would direct the justice department to focus their efforts elsewhere and he would do his best to leave it to the states.

Since taking over, he's done the exact opposite, and is now campaigning on "the law is the law, and we can't let states get away with breaking it, and its preposterous to think I ever said otherwise".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on April 27, 2012, 10:16:25 am

Y'know, one could campaign Obama as the first female president of America; the lack of balls would be proof of this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 10:56:58 am

And, I mean, its stuff like that where he literally has no excuse. The Republicans couldn't stop him there. He either lied about wanting to back off, or decided it wasn't worth the effort, and either way I'm pissed.

People may remember that I think the Drug War is potentially the single most important issue we face right now (though there are a number of other important issues) simply because it touches, enhances, or causes so many other areas of fucked up governance.

And it makes me sad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 11:14:59 am

NY Times is reporting that Gingrich has told Romney he will drop out of the race next week (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us/politics/gingrich-tells-romney-he-will-end-campaign.html?_r=1).

Also, not to interrupt the progressive handwringing over the failure of Obama, but I have to say, I've seen this before. Where was it? Oh yeah...all those people saying "Al Gore and George Bush are two sides of the same coin. Doesn't matter which one you elect."

Guess what? It mattered. Whatever Al Gore's failings (and he has many), I seriously doubt he would have unilaterally invaded Iraq and enacted a $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthy.

When I see something like "In my opinion the only difference between obama and romney is skin color", I just want to break out the Wayback Machine and turn the dial to 2000.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on April 27, 2012, 11:25:29 am

RedKing, I'm just cynical and disillusioned, leave me alone. Imma go back to playin' grimrock >.>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 27, 2012, 11:25:58 am

Any politician that goes into a major depression after seeing just how easily the masses can be influenced to screw themselves is okay in my book. I miss Gore, and wish we could have a highly educated, progressive president. I guess people are just uncomfortable having their country run by a man that's most likely smarter than them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on April 27, 2012, 11:29:24 am

Truth be told, I don't think there has been a President in history who wasn't far cleverer than average. Hell, Bush is probably more intelligent than most of this board's population, for all his reputation as a moron. Then again, that's not immediately obvious to voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 11:39:33 am

Quote from: Bauglir on April 27, 2012, 11:29:24 am

Truth be told, I don't think there has been a President in history who wasn't far cleverer than average. Hell, Bush is probably more intelligent than most of this board's population, for all his reputation as a moron. Then again, that's not immediately obvious to voters.

No. Just....no. Most Presidents? Yes. Bush? HELLS NO. (And I'd quibble on Pierce and Tyler, but meh.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on April 27, 2012, 11:43:06 am

Eh, I was going by undergraduate GPA (Since that's the most relevant to me, being an undergrad student) which was a 2.35 according to a quick google. Granted that was at Yale, but all presidential candidates have graduated from similar level schools. I'm not quite sure what Gore's GPA was like to be honest, but I recall hearing he has a very high IQ. I'd actually love to have all this checked seeing as how it's just what I heard when I was a kid; I hate realizing that I believe unsubstantiated facts overheard when I was a child.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 27, 2012, 11:49:45 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 09:58:41 am

Quote

Well this is what his budget proposals say he will do in order to make the numbers add up.  If they seem impossible to you then I suggest you draw the natural conclusion from that.

That it's empty rhetoric?

Okay, so you are claiming that because he is a liar, we know nothing about him.  Therefore the only logical thing to conclude is that he and Obama are exactly the same...  ::)

Yes, I suppose if you completely adopt existential angst, all politicians are the same.  But I'm gonna stick to actually trying to judge their proposals, thanks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 12:40:54 pm

Except, you know, he's a politician, who held offices and who did things?

He has a track record, so I suggest that we actually look at a track record. When you're got two people with a history, looking at that history is usually (not always) a much better predictor of future behaviour than rhetoric during a national election.

Judging fucking "proposals" from people who aren't in office for a position where politicians are notorious for reversing their stances once they earn (Remember, "I'm gonna be a uniter, not a divider!", "Read my lips, no new taxes!" and so on) is worthless, especially when you're dealing with someone who isn't an unknown, who has an actual history.

A history that includes instituting government healthcare before it was cool, I might add.

George Bush had a solidly conservative record, and Al Gore the opposite. Romney's record, meanwhile, is distinctly moderate - and so far, so is Obama's.

Edit: They are not identical, no, but their actual actions have been the same in most of the ways I care about (not in a good way). The biggest difference is that Romney will both be more likely to get things done, and easier to be pressed into doing things to placate the party leadership. Which are not insignificant, no.

I also would have loved to have had Gore as president, which is why I cast my vote for him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 27, 2012, 01:30:49 pm

Governor of Massachusetts is not the same thing as president of the US.  If he had tried an agenda like this, it never would have gotten through the state legislature.  But if he becomes president then he will almost certainly have a congress that would go with an agenda like this.

Furthermore presidential candidates have a tendency to follow through on their budget proposals.  Most of Obama's tax proposals actually have gone through.  In fact he even went further in increasing the progressivity of the system then he originally proposed by adding the temporary payroll tax cuts onto it.  Bush campaigned on what would become the Bush tax cuts.  Clinton campaigned on the balanced budgets that he stuck his neck out for in 1994.  The last president not to follow through on what he said was Bush senior and nobody wants to follow in his example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on April 27, 2012, 03:24:46 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 11:39:33 am

Quote from: Bauglir on April 27, 2012, 11:29:24 am

Truth be told, I don't think there has been a President in history who wasn't far cleverer than average. Hell, Bush is probably more intelligent than most of this board's population, for all his reputation as a moron. Then again, that's not immediately obvious to voters.

No. Just....no. Most Presidents? Yes. Bush? HELLS NO. (And I'd quibble on Pierce and Tyler, but meh.)

Don't know about the other two guys but when it comes to bush, he just wasn't a good speaker. He was good one on one, or in other small groups, but when it came to giving big speaches, he sucks. Many people who have interveiwed both bush and clinton report bush is the smarter one, even though if you hear the two speak bush sounds much dumber.

I live in NY, so even though I would have voted for Gore, it would count for shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 03:41:17 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on April 27, 2012, 03:24:46 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 11:39:33 am

Many people who have interveiwed both bush and clinton report bush is the smarter one, even though if you hear the two speak bush sounds much dumber.

Link or it didn't happen. I have *never* seen anyone say this. And I read a lot of political columns and interviews.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 27, 2012, 04:03:53 pm

Notably smart people over the age of 50 who have had plenty of outlets available to them tend to have some sort of notable achievement or two (if not many) that demonstrate their intelligence.

Can anybody think of any aspect of the younger Bush's biography that illustrates notable intelligence?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 04:05:29 pm

Quote from: mainiac on April 27, 2012, 04:03:53 pm

Notably smart people over the age of 50 who have had plenty of outlets available to them tend to have some sort of notable achievement or two (if not many) that demonstrate their intelligence.

Can anybody think of any aspect of the younger Bush's biography that illustrates notable intelligence?

He had his daddy pull some strings to get him posted to the Rio Grande instead of Vietnam? Gotta admit, it was a smart move.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 04:05:54 pm

He convinced a lot of people that he would definitely be their best bet for president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 27, 2012, 11:45:52 pm

Quote from: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 11:14:59 am

Also, not to interrupt the progressive handwringing over the failure of Obama, but I have to say, I've seen this before. Where was it? Oh yeah...all those people saying "Al Gore and George Bush are two sides of the same coin. Doesn't matter which one you elect."

I have to say... I don't actually remember anybody saying this during the 2000 election.

Quote from: Shinotsa on April 27, 2012, 11:25:58 am

Any politician that goes into a major depression after seeing just how easily the masses can be influenced to screw themselves is okay in my book. I miss Gore, and wish we could have a highly educated, progressive president. I guess people are just uncomfortable having their country run by a man that's most likely smarter than them.

But I do remember this.  Maybe this is just Indiana, but I remember people being made obviously uncomfortable by Gore for reasons that they could never clearly identify, while saying that they would vote for Bush 'because he seems like a guy you could hang out at a bar and have a drink with.'

(yaaay I finally caught up on this thread)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 27, 2012, 11:51:19 pm

Yeah, got to be honest, never really saw any real similarities between bush and gore. I heard people say the two /parties/ were the same (and while I think they are both bad, and have similarities, they also have colossal differences and different degrees of bad), but I don't recall anyone ever saying bush and gore were the same.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on April 28, 2012, 01:04:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on April 27, 2012, 11:14:59 am

Also, not to interrupt the progressive handwringing over the failure of Obama, but I have to say, I've seen this before. Where was it? Oh yeah...all those people saying "Al Gore and George Bush are two sides of the same coin. Doesn't matter which one you elect."

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 27, 2012, 11:45:52 pm

But I do remember this.  Maybe this is just Indiana, but I remember people being made obviously uncomfortable by Gore for reasons that they could never clearly identify, while saying that they would vote for Bush 'because he seems like a guy you could hang out at a bar and have a drink with.'

I heard both of those things said here in Texas 12 years ago, and even now someone will inevitably say the former when comparing Bush and Gore. It's like Godwin's Law for political ignorance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 28, 2012, 11:16:34 am

I heard Bush and Gore are the same, not just before the election but for a couple of years afterwards.  I think people only stopped it when Bush started the push up for the Iraq war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 28, 2012, 09:29:34 pm

So... there was a little buzz about Obama over the last couple pages, but I was disappointed by how it played out.  I know I've weighed on this before in the early days of this thread, so I'll try to make it worthwhile by being more informative.

I'm not sure you can exactly say that he's expanded the scope and powers of the intelligence community, but he has actively worked to maintain the unhealthy level of power that the Bush administration set up before him.  Then there's that whole secrecy thing...

Most notably, the infamous Patriot Act used to require yearly extensions, and in 2011 many republicans were even beginning to question its legitimacy after 10 years of being highly controversial and well known as a source of abuse.  Then Obama himself said 'Hey let's go ahead and extend that for 4 years this time (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/09/obama-seeks-longer-patriot-act-extension-republicans/)', and signed that extension a couple months later, without even making any significant attempt to reform the act in the process as far as I'm aware.

The ratio of Freedom of Information Act requests denied by the government has significantly increased under Obama as compared to Bush (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/under-obama-administration-freedom-information-act-still-shackles).  You could say that this would be a failure but not necessarily a misdeed on his part, but then I don't understand why he would blatantly lie about the actions and achievements of his administration when confronted on the issue.  There have been many complaints about agencies, including some which Obama should have significant influence over as commander-in-chief, adopting extremely prohibitive new FOIA request processes since he took office.

Most alarmingly, the DoJ tried to push a new set of rules for FOIA requests in 2011 (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/10/28/obamas-doj-seeks-to-weaken-the-foia/), most infamously including the ability to respond to a request as if the documents in question don't even exist.  There's a good summary of the implications of this here (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/10/foia-obama-wants-license-lie/119851). 

Quote

There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn't exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.

This is widely considered to directly reflect Obama's personal stance, since the people responsible for this proposal were appointed by and directly report to him.

So the only sources of information on government (and corporate in areas where the lines between the two tend to blur) behavior we're left with are what they feel like telling us and whistleblowers.  Great, because Obama pledged to improve protections for whistleblowers, right? (http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/)

Quote

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Actually, his administration has been the harshest on whistleblowers in American history (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/obamas_unprecedented_war_on_whistleblowers/) by every possible metric.  Bradley Manning may be the highest profile case, where Obama has been explicity approving of his inhumane treatment and has even lied about the circumstances of the case (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110422/11513814002/obama-says-its-okay-to-treat-manning-way-hes-been-treated-because-he-broke-law.shtml), but he is far from the only one (http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/journalists_casualties_in_the_war_on_whistleblowers/).  Apparently the information you expose to the public doesn't even have to be classified (http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/nsa_whistle_blower_obama_worse_than_bush/) (though it's a miracle if you find anything that isn't (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-year-secrecy-jumped-shark)).

Not bad for someone who proclaimed government transparency to be one of his major platforms, and who still claims to have succeeded at giving us the most transparent government in history...

Just for fun, I'll throw in his escalation of drone warfare, which is a human rights disaster (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/). 

The war in Iraq is not over, as much as Obama loves to take credit for that.  It's just being fought almost exclusively by mercenaries like Blackwater now (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/no_the_u_s_is_not_leaving_iraq/).  Blackwater themselves are getting contracts again, too, but under the name Academi.  They have to change names every couple years because their extralegal violence is so infamous.  Hell of a comforting thought, right?

And on the corporate alliance/fuck-the-environment-for-profit side of things, we have stuff like a top Monsanto VP being appointed senior food safety adviser to the FDA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-escobar/hes-back-former-vp-at-mon_b_228792.html) and approving 27 offshore drilling projects in the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (http://environment.about.com/b/2010/05/10/obama-administration-approves-27-offshore-drilling-projects-after-gulf-oil-spill.htm).

The reason I'm putting so much effort into this is he genuinely fucking scares me.  People who I normally consider to be well informed and intelligent actually trust him, and it scares me.  He can directly lie to the public and undermine our ability to defend ourselves against corruption, and look like some kind of superhero while he's doing it.  I don't think he's actually actually as corrupt as a republican and I do think he's actually done some good things... but all the good things he's done are related to temporary good fortunes, while the civil protections he's undermining take decades of fighting tooth and nail to get back once they're gone.  He's also setting the stage for his successors to do even more horrible things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on April 28, 2012, 10:48:22 pm

While it's all very troubling it's not like it's shocking or unprecedented.  This is kiddie stuff compared to the kind of stuff pulled by Regan or Nixon or LBJ or FDR...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 28, 2012, 10:50:24 pm

No, it's pretty much the same level of crazy. Now we just see more of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on April 28, 2012, 10:51:01 pm

The fact that's its not shocking or unprecedented is what's most disturbing about it, honestly. :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on April 28, 2012, 11:18:14 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on April 28, 2012, 09:29:34 pm

And on the corporate alliance/fuck-the-environment-for-profit side of things, we have stuff like a top Monsanto VP being appointed senior food safety adviser to the FDA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-escobar/hes-back-former-vp-at-mon_b_228792.html)

Not to downplay this or anything else you said, but Monsanto has had former higher-ups working in government positions for years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Political_contributions) Check out Food, Inc. for a thorough examination of how Monsanto has been pulling legal strings to ruin people's lives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 29, 2012, 01:26:23 am

I'm not saying any of it is unprecedented (except the record-breaking prosecution of whistleblowers and perhaps the sheer absurdity of many secrecy measures) or that Obama is the worst anything ever.  I'm just saying that there are plenty of very strong and legitimate reasons not to trust or support him.  I wanted to spotlight the most clear-cut of them (that I know off the top of my head and can dig up sources on with a little bit of searching), because it seems like every critical discussion of Obama ends up being really vague or just plain crazy.  I could list more, but I would either have to do a lot more research or start getting into stuff that's based on more personal measures and interpretations. 

I can see why people would vote for him, given their range of choices.  I get nervous when people talk about him as anything better than the lesser of two evils.  Sure, put him in office to keep the other guy out of office, but then don't let his charisma lower your guard.  He needs to be kept on a very fucking tight leash.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on April 29, 2012, 01:41:15 am

Gandhi could be elected president of the US*, and you'd still have to keep him on a tight leash. The American Presidency has too much power and responsibility packed into a single office.


* figure of speech, impossibility in reality

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on April 29, 2012, 02:03:41 am

Despite the fact that the Executive is the weakest of the three branches of the government

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on April 29, 2012, 03:05:03 am

I just remembered one thing I was planning to include in that big post.  Too delicious to let it go.

Obama publically opposed SOPA but supported ACTA.  That's been mentioned here in this thread recently, I know.  For the first time ever, I even heard an argument as to why that would kind of make sense a little, even if it's still not acceptable.  Does anyone else remember the best part about that whole ACTA thing?  Obama thought keeping it a secret from the public for as long as possible was a matter of national security :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 12:13:52 pm

Oh hey, just a reminder: there's primaries today. Specifically in Indiana, West Virginia and my home state of North Carolina, as well as special elections in Wisconsin to determine who will run in the recall election against Gov. Walker.

Particularly noteworthy on the NC ballot is a "Defense of Marriage" Amendment, which would constitutionally bar same-sex marriage (which is already illegal in NC). The fate of the amendment is up in the air. Initially it was projected to pass because of the GOP turnout for the primary, but with the primary already more or less decided (and the GOP primary for Governor is a joke...1 real candidate and 5 also-rans), GOP turnout may dwindle. And the anti-amendment forces have managed to outraise funds for the campaign at almost a 2:1 advantage against the pro-amendment camp. Maybe we'll get lucky and not reinforce the notion of North Carolina as Yet Another Redneck State.

For my part, as an Indie I could pick which ballot I wanted so I took the Republican ballot and voted for Ron Paul, just to stave off the day that Romney can officially claim the candidacy. Plus, there's a handful of GOP folks on the ballot that are actually not crazy and deserve a little love (like our Sec. of Agriculture, who's actually done a good job the last few years, especially in promoting local markets, organic farming and niche industries like zymurgy and vinoculture).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 08, 2012, 12:47:27 pm

I would like to reflect for a moment on the mindset of a man that would make it a priority to ensure that people he will never meet will not only not be happy, but will be specifically barred from being happy, twice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 08, 2012, 06:55:13 pm

In Indiana, for the Senate seat, teabagger Richard Mourdock unseated 6-term incumbent Richard Lugar in the GOP primary.  For Democrats, that's good news because Mourdock is seen as easier to beat than Lugar was.

Results: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2012/by_state/IN_Page_0508.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2012/by_state/IN_Page_0508.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS)

Senate's at the bottom.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 08:19:05 pm

Aaaaand, with about 35% of precincts reporting, the anti-marriage amendment looks poised to pass, along strongly urban/rural lines. Guess my state is more hick than I was willing to admit to myself. Only counties where the "no" vote is in the majority are the ones with major universities (and oddly enough, Vance County which is kinda podunk).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on May 08, 2012, 08:30:58 pm

Condolences if it manages to get through, bleh.

At least you'll be able to laugh that more heterosexual rights have been stripped than homosexual ones. It... it's something. Better than absolutely nothing, for some variance of better.

M'still kinda' pissed about amendment two... and it's been over a year now :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 08, 2012, 08:55:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 08:19:05 pm

Aaaaand, with about 35% of precincts reporting, the anti-marriage amendment looks poised to pass, along strongly urban/rural lines. Guess my state is more hick than I was willing to admit to myself. Only counties where the "no" vote is in the majority are the ones with major universities (and oddly enough, Vance County which is kinda podunk).

Any idea how the suburban areas voted?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 08, 2012, 09:05:05 pm

Wait... how can a state constitutionally bar something? I thought the constitution required federal level politics to influence? ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 08, 2012, 09:07:39 pm

Each state has its own constitution, from there it tends to just follow the U.S. constitution, except they tend to be more specific about many matters, such as taxation, funding for state highways, etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 08, 2012, 09:10:27 pm

And gays. And dumb social conservative shit like that. 'Cuz fuck 'em. THEY DUN TOOKED ER JERBS.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 09:14:17 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on May 08, 2012, 09:10:27 pm

And gays. And dumb social conservative shit like that. 'Cuz fuck 'em. THEY DUN TOOKED ER JERBS.

Yep. Lurleen done went to beauty school and evrything, and she can't get no job cutting hair onnacount of teh gays.
'Least now I don' hafta worry about marryin' no gay feller. I'se a-might concerned 'bout that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 08, 2012, 09:20:28 pm

Ah. So can state constitution overpower federal at all? I.e. if Capitol hill passed a law allowing gay marriage (yes, yes, unlikely as it is), would NC be allowed to refuse? I'm assuming not, but your country's politics are pretty arcane...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:24:40 pm

Full Faith and Credit means they can still make it illegal in their own state, even constitutionally, but since its a contract, they'd have to honor it if it happened in another one.

Only reason they don't have to honour it now is because of federal laws to the contrary.

But yeah, the Supreme Court can overturn state constitution elements, but the federal congress can't /broaden/ the laws like that and force states to marry people they don't want to be allowed to marry - or they aren't supposed to be able to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on May 08, 2012, 09:26:29 pm

Federal laws take precedence over state laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause). But same sex marriage is currently not recognized at the federal level and that probably won't change any time soon.

_{Damn ninjas.}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 09:32:47 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on May 08, 2012, 09:20:28 pm

Ah. So can state constitution overpower federal at all? I.e. if Capitol hill passed a law allowing gay marriage (yes, yes, unlikely as it is), would NC be allowed to refuse? I'm assuming not, but your country's politics are pretty arcane...

Therein lies the rub. Federal law trumps state constitution, but the way it's written, all powers not explicitly granted to the US Congress are supposed to devolve to the states. This is the crux of the whole "States' Rights" argument. States (particularly the gay-hatin' ones) are going to argue that since there is nothing specifically in the Constitution empowering Congress to determine the definition of "marriage", then it is left to each state to decide. Congress, for its part, could probably argue that it falls either under interstate commerce (because we have a patchwork where a couple could be legally married in their home state and not in another state) or that such state constitutions are in violation of the Constitution, specifically with regards to equal protections and "pursuit of happiness".

Last time we had a situation where someone could have different legal statuses in different states, it was over slavery. We know how that turned out. There's already been an instance I know of where a lesbian couple were on vacation in a state that didn't recognize it (I want to say either Texas or Florida) and one fell gravely ill. The hospital and local law enforcement refused to allow her partner any kind of visitation rights, and she finally died in the hospital, alone. IIRC, the lawsuit failed in state court, because they were in accordance with state law. Dunno what ever became of that case, but I'm guessing it didn't go to Federal court.

@GlyphGryph: Actually, states are not legally bound to honor marriages from other states or countries. They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states.



EDIT: Also, a quick note to say that although the Dems may stand to pick up a seat now that Dick Lugar is out, the man deserves some credit: he was instrumental in crafting the legislation that allowed us to help the remnants of the Soviet Union safely downsize their nuclear arsenal. That's no small thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 08, 2012, 09:39:14 pm

Quote

Congress, for its part, could probably argue that it falls either under interstate commerce (because we have a patchwork where a couple could be legally married in their home state and not in another state) or that such state constitutions are in violation of the Constitution, specifically with regards to equal protections and "pursuit of happiness".

Is it Interstate Commerce? I thought the main federal argument was the inability to resolve Full Faith and Credit because states where Gay Marriage is illegal would just flat out refuse to recognize it. (At which point it becomes interstate commerce when insurance, property rights ect....extend over state lines.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:40:09 pm

Quote

@GlyphGryph: Actually, states are not legally bound to honor marriages from other states or countries. They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. 

The question was whether or not they would have to if federal laws against it were lifted. The federal laws are the only thing getting them out from under Article IV Section I right now. It's still sort of bullshit, of course, but with the federal governments backing there's not much to be said about it.

If that /changed/, and the feds started recognizing same sex marriages in any form, no state constitution could prevent them from being recognized as a legal marriage.

It should also be noticed that the situation, as is, is almost certainly unconstitutional, at least by precedent of the clause's application to marriage law, but decisions have been... split. And the Supreme Court is less than interested in ruling on it.

Essentially,

Quote

@GlyphGryph: Actually, states are not legally bound to honor marriages from other states or countries.

They are legally bound, but they're ignoring that fact about as hard as Massachusetts is ignoring the fact that medical marijuana is illegal. And the Feds aren't sending in raiding parties to make sure the GayBan states are recognizing marriages, because federal law is with them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 08, 2012, 11:53:08 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 08, 2012, 09:40:09 pm

And the Feds aren't sending in raiding parties to make sure the GayBan states are recognizing marriages, because federal law is with them.

This gave me a mental image of bands of adventurers setting out in pink armor and wizard robes to enforce the federal government's gay agenda.  The rogues wear leather while the bards are already gay enough just by being bards.  I think that we can all agree that this would be a far, far better system of governance then what we go going on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 09, 2012, 12:48:15 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 09:32:47 pm

They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states.

"Greetings. We're North Carolina and we're telling you, gay citizens of San Francisco, that your marriage is fake. Please respect our rights and rescind your marriage license. Thank you."

They should just include a mandatory provision to forcefully annul gay marriages [In NC territory of course! It's STATE's rights!] being conducted/participated in inside the state, because, fuck it, that's what god wants.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on May 09, 2012, 01:08:22 am

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 09, 2012, 04:16:23 am

Quote from: lemon10 on May 09, 2012, 01:08:22 am

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

Constitution? What's that? Not more important than the bible!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 05:34:53 am

Quote from: lemon10 on May 09, 2012, 01:08:22 am

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

Not too difficult as we already made such a constitutional amendment a century and a half back.

Quote from: Ammendment XIV, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And there is not exactly a dearth of examples of congress intervening to protect personal rights at the state level.

This is coming on top of the original text specifying that rights and privileges in one state can not be denied at another and explicitly granting the supreme court jurisdiction in legal disputes between the states.  So no states do not have the freedom to go around denying people rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 07:20:21 am

They would argue they're not denying them rights. Gay men have the right to get married to a woman just like any other man.  ::)

Found this, which is great for countering any sort of Biblical argument about "God's word that marriage = 1 man + 1 woman".

Spoiler: O RLY? (click to show/hide)

(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/306191_792538759046_23503538_35552549_2056959939_n.jpg)

Speaking of which, the next person I hear whining that Christians are politically persecuted in this country gets a big, tall glass of "Shut The Hell Up".  >:(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 07:26:25 am

Quote

It would require a change to the federal constitution (like they did with slavery) to override a states choice on same sex marriage, anything else would probably be unconstitutional (since control of stuff like that is supposed to go to the states).

Except part of what made the North so upset was the fact that even if they made slavery illegal, slaves in their states were still slaves if they were slaves to a southerner.

A state can decide whether or not it wants to let two people get married in their state - that's their right. They CANNOT decide a marriage performed in another state is invalid, even if those people are currently in the state that banned it. That is NOT their right, as per the constitution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 07:44:47 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 07:20:21 am

They would argue they're not denying them rights. Gay men have the right to get married to a woman just like any other man.  ::)

Well yeah they'd argue it.  But I have a really hard time seeing how the Supreme Court could uphold such a principle (once the federal government has defined marriage equality as a right) without striking down say... Loving vs. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) while they're at it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 07:48:44 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on May 09, 2012, 12:48:15 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 08, 2012, 09:32:47 pm

They do so as customary law, but AFAIK this amendment specifically bars North Carolina from legally recognizing same-sex marriages from other states.

"Greetings. We're North Carolina and we're telling you, gay citizens of San Francisco, that your marriage is fake. Please respect our rights and rescind your marriage license. Thank you."

They should just include a mandatory provision to forcefully annul gay marriages [In NC territory of course! It's STATE's rights!] being conducted/participated in inside the state, because, fuck it, that's what god wants.

They can't annul the marriage, but they can refuse to recognize any rights accorded by marriage while they're in North Carolina (such as hospital visitation). Of course, this hearkens back to slave states refusing to recognizing a freedman's status, leading to the occasional case where a free black visiting the south was re-enslaved.  :-[


@mainiac: You're not the only one I've seen bringing up Loving v. Virginia in this context. Problem being, NC is not setting any radical precedents here. There's similar anti-SSM amendments in the constitutions of over two dozen states already. Somebody can bring a court challenge, but I don't see anything here that's going to give them a leg up over all the court challenges that have been tried in other states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 09:56:51 am

I'm not talking about within the current framework.  I'm talking about a hypothetical future where the federal government has affirmed a right to marriage equality for same sex couples.  Saying that the states have the right to ignore that would be a radical, radical new precedent.  Right now the states are free to do whatever they want to marriage equality because no such right is explicitly defined.  But were such a right to be explicitly defined the federal government clearly has the authority to strike down any state law that strips individual citizens of their rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 10:19:32 am

And you expect Congress to do this when exactly? Before or after they give us all magic ponies that shit rainbows? Cause I don't see any Congressional majority for that in the next 15 years, minimum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 10:24:23 am

Probably wanna take discussion of theoretical future super-Congresses to the Progressive thread, as it's unlikely to happen in the upcoming elections (which is what this thread is for, last I checked).

Here's a question for the folks in this thread: what are your local rules regarding independents and party elections? In my state, registered independent or non-partisan voters (like myself) do not get to vote in primaries. On the plus side, I don't get junk mail from a half-dozen presidential nominees either, but I'm wondering what it's like elsewhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 10:31:29 am

I'm an independent (technically, an "Unaffiliated" voter). So yesterday, I had the option of the Dem primary ballot, the Republican primary ballot (which is what I chose), the Libertarian ballot (which had almost no candidates), or the Unaffiliated ballot which only had the supposedly non-partisan judicial races and the marriage amendment question.

Now, about 10 years ago, independents could ONLY have chosen the Unaffiliated ballot. Ever since they opened it up to allow indies to choose their primary ballot, the number of people registering independent/unaffiliated has grown dramatically.

Since I'm not registered with any party, I don't get the political junk mail. My wife is a card-carrying Democrat with a history of organizing and fundraising, so she does. I'll be curious to see if I start getting GOP junk mail. In theory, my vote is secret but I'm not entirely sure that my choice of ballot is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 10:44:35 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 10:19:32 am

And you expect Congress to do this when exactly? Before or after they give us all magic ponies that shit rainbows? Cause I don't see any Congressional majority for that in the next 15 years, minimum.

I expect it to happen a long time before Alabama overturns it's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 10:46:21 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 10:31:29 am

I'm an independent (technically, an "Unaffiliated" voter). So yesterday, I had the option of the Dem primary ballot, the Republican primary ballot (which is what I chose), the Libertarian ballot (which had almost no candidates), or the Unaffiliated ballot which only had the supposedly non-partisan judicial races and the marriage amendment question.

Now, about 10 years ago, independents could ONLY have chosen the Unaffiliated ballot. Ever since they opened it up to allow indies to choose their primary ballot, the number of people registering independent/unaffiliated has grown dramatically.

Since I'm not registered with any party, I don't get the political junk mail. My wife is a card-carrying Democrat with a history of organizing and fundraising, so she does. I'll be curious to see if I start getting GOP junk mail. In theory, my vote is secret but I'm not entirely sure that my choice of ballot is.

That sounds like a better system. At least you get to participate in preliminary stuff without getting the junk mail :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 09, 2012, 10:53:29 am

You have to choose between the Republican ballot and the referendum?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on May 09, 2012, 11:08:17 am

No, I'm pretty sure the whole point of the referendum is that everybody gets to vote in it. The marriage amendment question was on every ballot, it's just that the unaffiliated ballot didn't have any actual candidates. Although the whole idea of having an important ballot initiative on a primary ballot is a little mystifying to me.

As another unaffiliated voter, I also have to say that the lack of junk mail is pretty enjoyable. I did participate in a by-phone PPP poll a few weeks ago, but that's been about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 09, 2012, 12:14:37 pm

It seems like it could bias the vote, considering that as far as I can tell there's basically no competition in the Dem primaries, meaning that the turnout of Republicans would likely be inflated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 12:23:40 pm

That is why they did it that way, I imagine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 09, 2012, 12:47:36 pm

Another thing I don't get is why don't you people organize elections on sunday and/or holidays. Just makes it much easier for everyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 12:52:31 pm

Because then it would be too easy for people to vote. And if we make it easy for people to vote, voter fraud will obviously increase.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 12:56:49 pm

Or at least, that's the talking point.  Realistically, voter fraud is extremely rare; the turnout here in Minnesota routinely reaches >70% during Presidential elections, yet there is less than 1% of "fraud", and most of those are simply honest mistakes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 12:59:08 pm

And the argument that more votes equals more voter fraud, even if perfectly true, means absolutely nothing since it says nothing about the percentage of fraudulent to non-fraudulent, which is what really matters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 01:01:50 pm

The Bush administration launched a 5 year justice department investigation to look for cases of voter fraud throughout the nation.  In all they found about 120 illegal voters in the entire investigation.  Not one of those cases was an instance of double voting or intentionally submitting illicit information in order to vote, rather they were cases of people no knowing they were ineligible.  Charges were only brought up against 86 people nationwide over the 5 years.

So yeah, voter fraud is not a big issue in the US.  What's stunning is how little we have.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on May 09, 2012, 01:47:01 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 01:01:50 pm

The Bush administration launched a 5 year justice department investigation to look for cases of voter fraud throughout the nation. 

Dont know what you hear in the US but in the rest of the world the bush administration is fairly notorious for being connected with things that look a hell of alot like voter fraud

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 09, 2012, 01:52:33 pm

No, voter fraud is the voter frauding, what Bush did was having the Supreme Court hand him the presidency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 02:06:35 pm

There are lots of ways to corruptify elections without vote fraud. Vote counting fraud is pretty popular. Driving legitimate votes away from polls. Shutting down or moving polls in districts likely to vote for your opponent. Repeated "miscounts".

None of those are "voter fraud", because none are fraud initiated by the voters.

Still electoral fraud(?) though, or something like that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on May 09, 2012, 02:11:41 pm

Nah, I mean all the dodgy taking people off the election roles, not allowing people to enroll, not counting certain votes, paying to make vote machines that can be altered/defrauded in ways that cannot be detected, shutting down investigations into these issues, etc, etc.......


Ninjaed... Well ok then, if thats what is meant by 'voter fraud'  though frankly I find the idea that any one person could embark on a serious campaign to change the political landscape on their lonesome seems a bit farcical.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on May 09, 2012, 02:37:28 pm

As I said a while back on Slashdot:

"Diebold even ran a poll to determine which voting method people prefer, out of 100 people 65 preferred electronic voting, 45 preferred paper, and 5 George W. Bush."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:46:56 pm

This been posted in this thread yet? Its kind of a big deal... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 02:47:59 pm

I believe I speak for everyone here:

It's about fucking time, Mr. President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 02:48:07 pm

Quote

I find the idea that any one person could embark on a serious campaign to change the political landscape on their lonesome seems a bit farcical.

Thats because it is (nowadays, anyway. There have been times when it was a HUGE problem. There were some huge pro and anti-slavery groups that would pretty much roam from state to state to territory and back, voting as many times in as many places as possible).

The problem is really when voter fraud is organized - get a large enough group committed to it and you can cause serious damage, becuase even if they are (or at least were) open about what they were doing, the nature of a secret ballot makes it very hard to tell which votes are fraudulent and need to be tossed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on May 09, 2012, 02:51:09 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:46:56 pm

This been posted in this thread yet? Its kind of a big deal... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

Hell yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 09, 2012, 02:53:22 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on May 09, 2012, 02:46:56 pm

This been posted in this thread yet? Its kind of a big deal... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102)

Welp, he's got my vote.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I mean, he kinda had it anyway since I'm not about to vote Republican and there aren't very many strong candidates, but this is the clincher.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 02:56:43 pm

I guess this guy finally won him over: http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-blasts-obamas-evasive-stance-on-gay-marriage,28146/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 09, 2012, 02:59:33 pm

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle....wait.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 03:02:51 pm

More like the kettle calling the kettle... oh I see what you did there!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 09, 2012, 04:00:16 pm

Day late (literally) and a dollar short, IMHO.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 04:03:57 pm

I'm pretty amazed at his ability to manage to make something so impressive (being the first President to publicly support gay marriage) make him seem so... uh, can't even think of the word... at the same time.

Like, Biden is the only one that's come out of this with any respect for me, Obama just feels like he got backed into a corner and just randomly decided which way to dart.

On the other hand, he darted the right way. So at least there's some evidence of liberal beliefs under there.

At least he's finally given me a reason to vote for him. I may just cast a presidential vote this year after all...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 04:05:25 pm

Obama is a midwesterner culturally; he's never going to be gung-ho about something, it's just not in the culture here.  Even if he is very pro or against something, he's going to be coy about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on May 09, 2012, 04:15:20 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 04:03:57 pm

I'm pretty amazed at his ability to manage to make something so impressive (being the first President to publicly support gay marriage) make him seem so... uh, can't even think of the word... at the same time.

Patrick and Teresa Nielsen Hayden (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/013905.html#739019);

Quote

PNH: "One could wish he looked a little less like he'd been forced into it."

TNH: "True, but it's very enjoyable that he was forced into it by a Catholic."

[OFFSTAGE: Sound of bishops exploding.]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 09, 2012, 04:19:44 pm

*resists urge to make a altar boy jokes*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 04:53:01 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 04:03:57 pm

Like, Biden is the only one that's come out of this with any respect for me, Obama just feels like he got backed into a corner and just randomly decided which way to dart.

While I slightly agree with you on the backed into a corner part, the random part seems pretty off base.  Obama's been a cautious but consistent advocate of gay rights.  When don't ask don't tell died it died with a whimper not a bang but those of us following the process closely knew that it was coming.

Let the iconic moments be the happy moments, like gay couples marrying after years of waiting, not the fights you picked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 04:55:14 pm

Perhaps the President can use this to lobby against many of the anti-gay marriage amendments that are on the ballot this fall.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 04:55:35 pm

Yeah, but I honestly didn't know if he'd react by closing down and denying or by coming out and supporting. When this happened not to long ago on the medical marijuana, he basically full-on reversed everything he'd done and said by that point to come out against it. I was afraid he was going to do that again, and really had no feeling in advance as to which way he'd end up.

I'm sure that's the side he WANTS to be on, personally, in favour of gay marriage, but political reelection considerations seem to take priority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:26:14 pm

'Course, as he's a representative of the people, changing his stance based on what he thinks most people want might be seen as a good thing. Added benefit of getting himself reelected, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on May 09, 2012, 05:54:44 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:26:14 pm

Added benefit of getting himself reelected, too.

You have to be joking.  This took huge balls on his part re: the elections, because the states that it would get him favor in (west coast, New York) are all going to vote for him anyway, and the battleground states might not be so happy about this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 09, 2012, 05:56:17 pm

I'm still going to the green party as the most mainstream liberal third party. I still want to tell the Democrats that they aren't liberal enough, and you can't do that by voting for them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 05:57:58 pm

You are aware PTTG, that all that does it split the vote and allows people you disagree with even more to end up winning.  Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty never won a majority of voters, but got two terms because of people voting for the Independence Party candidates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 09, 2012, 06:05:58 pm

That, to me, would be the main advantage in switching to something like AV or runoff voting (they have it for the French presidential elections, which as a consequence are very popular and allow people to vote for whatever obscure candidate they like without splitting the vote... well, except in really weird situations).  You could make a protest vote while also keeping out whoever you don't like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 06:08:55 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on May 09, 2012, 05:54:44 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:26:14 pm

Added benefit of getting himself reelected, too.

You have to be joking.  This took huge balls on his part re: the elections, because the states that it would get him favor in (west coast, New York) are all going to vote for him anyway, and the battleground states might not be so happy about this.

Right right, but I was referring to any political candidate going against their personal views for political reasons. Not necessarily Obama (and I've no reason to believe his personal views are against gay marriage either).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2012, 06:11:04 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on May 09, 2012, 06:05:58 pm

That, to me, would be the main advantage in switching to something like AV or runoff voting (they have it for the French presidential elections, which as a consequence are very popular and allow people to vote for whatever obscure candidate they like without splitting the vote... well, except in really weird situations).  You could make a protest vote while also keeping out whoever you don't like.

Which would be a great plan except for the part where the people in power would never allow it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 06:17:10 pm

Runoff voting is done in some major cities, such as Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Portland, ME.  So it's not an untried concept.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 06:56:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 09, 2012, 06:11:04 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on May 09, 2012, 06:05:58 pm

That, to me, would be the main advantage in switching to something like AV or runoff voting (they have it for the French presidential elections, which as a consequence are very popular and allow people to vote for whatever obscure candidate they like without splitting the vote... well, except in really weird situations).  You could make a protest vote while also keeping out whoever you don't like.

Which would be a great plan except for the part where the people in power would never allow it.

Sort of like how the 17th amendment would never pass?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Alexhans on May 09, 2012, 07:07:49 pm

Quote from: Sowelu on May 09, 2012, 05:54:44 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 05:26:14 pm

Added benefit of getting himself reelected, too.

You have to be joking.  This took huge balls on his part re: the elections, because the states that it would get him favor in (west coast, New York) are all going to vote for him anyway, and the battleground states might not be so happy about this.

I don't think so.   I think that they interpreted the move was adequate at this point. 

Do you all think Joe Biden's declaration (and the amount of reporting about it) is just a coincidence? 

They tested the waters and decided it was time.  I think that, overall.  It was a smart political move. 

And I still despise single issue voters.  Intensely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 09, 2012, 07:18:00 pm

Quote

Do you all think Joe Biden's declaration (and the amount of reporting about it) is just a coincidence?

It's pretty typical for VPs to play the Bulldog on issues so president can appear to remain above the fray, judiciously weighing the opinions of the whole country. In this particular instance, I think it was an attempt to show liberal democrats the administration is still "blue" on social issues and reassure them. Except I think it had the opposite effect. It's telling that Biden, who gets treated like a walking punchline, looks like he's on the right side of the issue compared to Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Solifuge on May 09, 2012, 09:03:17 pm

Quote from: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 05:57:58 pm

You are aware PTTG, that all that does it split the vote and allows people you disagree with even more to end up winning.  Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty never won a majority of voters, but got two terms because of people voting for the Independence Party candidates.

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 09:06:26 pm

Then come up with a viable third party candidate, for once.  People like Jesse Ventura don't come around very often.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 09:15:08 pm

One could just as easily argue he got two terms because not ENOUGH people voted for the Independents, you know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 09:16:30 pm

Point.  For the record, this is why I support runoff voting, or something better than first-past-the-post.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 09, 2012, 09:31:23 pm

Quote from: Solifuge on May 09, 2012, 09:03:17 pm

Quote from: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 05:57:58 pm

You are aware PTTG, that all that does it split the vote and allows people you disagree with even more to end up winning.  Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty never won a majority of voters, but got two terms because of people voting for the Independence Party candidates.

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

Depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  I overheard my boss get a phoneback call from the RNC today.  He actually got testy with the poor schmuck, saying he'd given up being a Republican and might chip in a few bucks if Romney becomes conservative before the election.  I asked him if he was going to vote for Romney.  His exact answer was, "Of fucking course".  So, if you're a Democratic strategist, you'd be pretty keen on turning people off from third-party candidates that'd compete for the same ideological space as a sitting Democrat, because their chief competition probably isn't going to have the same concern.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 10:04:04 pm

Though I would like to mention that run-off voting is pretty much strictly inferior to (and more expensive than) approval voting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on May 09, 2012, 10:29:34 pm

Quote from: Solifuge on May 09, 2012, 09:03:17 pm

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

It isn't circular, it is a spiral. It is true because enough other people believe it is, kind of like the reason why money is valuable.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 10:04:04 pm

Though I would like to mention that run-off voting is pretty much strictly inferior to (and more expensive than) approval voting.

What part is inferior other than the cost?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 10:38:45 pm

Well, there are two general philosophies behind election results - basing it around the most desired candidate, or the candidate desired by the most people, and approval voting is superior from both sides at selecting the candidate that best matches the criteria.

There are whole swathes of the Internet dedicated to running the numbers and scenarios around this stuff if you're interested, I worked through it all once to satisfy my curiosity and promptly forgot all the details. I could probably dig some stuff back up, though...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on May 09, 2012, 10:41:54 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 10:04:04 pm

Though I would like to mention that run-off voting is pretty much strictly inferior to (and more expensive than) approval voting.

But at the same time its strictly superior to what we have in the US.

Quote from: Solifuge on May 09, 2012, 09:03:17 pm

Quote from: Jervill on May 09, 2012, 05:57:58 pm

You are aware PTTG, that all that does it split the vote and allows people you disagree with even more to end up winning.  Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty never won a majority of voters, but got two terms because of people voting for the Independence Party candidates.

I've always hated the "Don't split the vote!" argument against voting 3rd Party. It's only valid if people believe that it is, and thus are afraid to vote 3rd party... circular logic at its finest.

We can't really have more then two parties in the united states, it doesn't really work with our voting system.
If a third party does come about, and is powerful enough to rally rival one of the two more powerful parties (for a significant duration), then it basically means that one of the parties is dead or dying.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there has ever really been three viable parties (if I am wrong, could someone point me at a period in american history where we had three viable parties for at least a dozen years)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 10:45:54 pm

Yes, run-offs systems are inferior to AV systems in several ways, but not by much. In standard scenarios, the different was small, and even in worst case scenarios IRV, at least, was still twice as effective at reflecting voter desires than FPTP. (AV is 4 or 5 times in worst case conditions - most of its advantage does come from edge cases that will not matter in most elections, but do occasionally occur)

And there have been successful third parties, but they tend to be regional parties. It's possible to have two /different/ parties in every state and end up with a stable system that results in in a hundred different parties in the senate with FPTP. It's just.. vanishingly unlikely, considering (especially nowadays) the benefits of national organizational support.

Though up until recently, and even today among the Dems, we actually have more than two "parties" in government - but they end up falling under one umbrella or the other almost solely for support purposes. *blue dog democrats cough*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 11:13:04 pm

If people are just dying to vote for viable 3rd party candidates then why can't these candidates win in democratic or republican primaries, most of which are open to independent voters?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 09, 2012, 11:19:00 pm

Because that doesn't make any sense at all? -_o

Then they wouldn't be third parties. And they'd still have to work within the chosen party's organization, which means well fuck getting enough support if your platform is cross party, so you end up playing to the base and owing favours and getting beat out because the base shows up a lot more than independents when you're talking about a party built for the base.

In essence - if half the independents for the guy in the republican primary, and half in dem primary, /he still loses/. Vote splitting in reverse! And I can't think of many states that let you vote in both.

But yah, you don't win a party primary without party support. Look at Gary Johnson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 11:27:23 pm

Political parties are very much a "rich get richer" scheme in the US, since people tend to vote for candidates they know actually exist. Of all the noise that hits your ears daily, the large parties will be spewing a much larger share of said noise, and the small ones get drown out.


I would say third parties would have a much greater chance of success in the US if every party had equal access. That's practically impossible to accomplish. Hence, the proposed changes to voting systems instead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: thegoatgod_pan on May 10, 2012, 05:07:19 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 09, 2012, 11:27:23 pm

Political parties are very much a "rich get richer" scheme in the US, since people tend to vote for candidates they know actually exist. Of all the noise that hits your ears daily, the large parties will be spewing a much larger share of said noise, and the small ones get drown out.


I would say third parties would have a much greater chance of success in the US if every party had equal access. That's practically impossible to accomplish. Hence, the proposed changes to voting systems instead.

See I just don't see why one would vote for a third party. E.g. as a liberal I support the democrats.  If democrats piss me off it's because they are either not liberal enough, or pursue a cause I don't consider primary/or think of as a waste of political capital (e.g. california failing with gay marriage but banning McDonalds happy meals from San Francisco--good job liberal voters, fail to protect civil liberties but install nanny government).  I imagine conservatives feel the same with all their RINO and tea-party nonsense. 

So what exactly could a third party offer? Those who argue for a "mix-of-the-best-idea" purple party politics...well...I am just not convinced the right has good ideas, or even really ideas--as far as I can tell the right-wing can barely decide what they themselves stand behind.

E.g. if a left-wing person is generally and dependably pro-environment, pro-gay, pro-choice etc (with exceptions and some variations), a conservative may or may not be pro-business or pro-life depending it if its a bible-belt conservative or a wall street conservative, tea party or corporate boardroom.

If it is difficult to produce a coherent right-wing platform, there is certainly little hope of gleaning the best of it and combining it with the best of left-wing ideas. Conservatives are having a hell of a time deciding what they stand for this election, but they sure know what they stand against, which again makes a compromise near-impossible (and I don't blame them, after Bush, our tea-party congress and this election season I really can't take republicans seriously as thinkers or even people with good intentions for the country~~and I imagine they feel likewise about Obama)

So really a third party would have to offer something not already offered, which is...well nothing, madness; Ron Paul's legalize heroin and shut-down public education or Nader's vote-for-the-left-to-divide-the-left--radicalized versions of the two main parties.

There is no purple states for us...just red and blue, and the older I get the less I care if red states want , say, an oil pipeline poisoning their land in exchange for corporate profits or an education system which will produce no scientifically competent students. Republicans like voting against their own interests for the sake of god, capitalism and delusions of imperial grandeur--let 'em. /rant over

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 06:09:10 am

Quote

See I just don't see why one would vote for a third party. E.g. as a liberal I support the democrats.  If democrats piss me off it's because they are either not liberal enough

You just answered your own question. If the party that is closest to you isn't close enough, why wouldn't you want to support one that's closer?

You also seem to be under this radical assumption that every third party is some strange combination of the Republicans and Democrats. Policy-wise, both parties are mostly identical (though the parts where they differ are often big deals). If people value things in opposition to policies both parties hold, why would they vote for either? And that's the position where third parties really show their strength.

See the Pirate Party in Europe for a recent example of being "the only party on the block to take a certain stance people think is incredibly important".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 10, 2012, 06:53:08 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 06:09:10 am

Quote

See I just don't see why one would vote for a third party. E.g. as a liberal I support the democrats.  If democrats piss me off it's because they are either not liberal enough

You just answered your own question. If the party that is closest to you isn't close enough, why wouldn't you want to support one that's closer?

To repeat the point that apparently sailed right past your head:

Quote from: mainiac on May 09, 2012, 11:13:04 pm

If people are just dying to vote for viable 3rd party candidates then why can't these candidates win in democratic or republican primaries, most of which are open to independent voters?

This is why Ralph Nadar has 0% of the influence that Denis Kucinich has despite having a substantially larger base of support.  It's a winner take all system, you have to actually win the darn election to win the election.  And if you are to the left of the democrats but can't win a democratic primary you are not viable in a general election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 07:07:51 am

You... you don't really seem to have a grasp of how this works. You do realize that other countries with different systems have multiple parties, right? That get elected?

Do you seriously think the Pirate Party platform, for example, would have /any/ influence at all if they had run as some other  party? Fuck no! They would have been bloody trounced, because they are running in a primary for people who vehemently disagree with them. Yet they STILL managed to win elections in Euro countries.

Tell me - how does that make any sense with your strange logic there?

If you run in the democratic party then you have to get the support of the democratic votes to win, despite democratic voters being a minority of voters. Same for the republican primary.

Do you think Bernie Sanders and Lieberman had no influence, then?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on May 10, 2012, 07:27:11 am

I'm a fan of AV and pushed for it in the UK referendum, but I'm much less convinced it would work in the US.

In the UK it was a direct counter to the form of tactical voting that already existed. That is to say, people in the UK would often vote to keep a particular party out based on their perceived notions of the others. This lead to absurdities like people voting Labour when their preferred Lib Dems were actually in second place, closer to Tories they so desperately wanted to beat (I grew up in a constituency this happened in).

The problem in the US is more about building third parties. Without existing parties that people actually prefer over the Big Two you aren't going to get much benefit from AV, and frankly it's flaws are more likely to cause problems. There are three big ones I see.

1) Insufficient candidates and hard partisanship can defeat the purpose.

AV is based on the winning candidate being preferred by the majority of the population more than the other options. This means that, ideally, no candidate would win with less than 50% of the vote. Usually when you have a large enough number of parties representing a continuum or at least range of views this is how it plays out; people are more willing to rank parties that they might not otherwise vote for to show preference over the ones they truly despise, so the preferences trickle down till someone gains the consent of a majority.

But in cases like the Burlington mayoral race in 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#2006_Burlington_results) there simply weren't enough candidates and the vote was too partisan. A full 10% of voters registered only a first preference for the immediately eliminated Republican, leaving Bob Kiss to win with only 48% of the voters registering a preference for him. And this was in a state and election with a strong third party (who won).

"Only" 48% sounds weird compared to a FPTP system, but AV gains a hefty chunk of it's moral justification from actually resulting in majorities, and situations where pluralities can win introduce other errors.

2) Counting orders can make a difference.

This is especially true in heavily partisan races where people don't register second or lower choices and the overall vote depends on a plurality. Some counting systems eliminate all candidates under some threshold (or even everyone other than the two largest parties) immediately while others eliminate them in order from lowest to highest from the first elimination to the winner. In some situations this can change the result of the vote, the former more quickly giving lower preference votes to the biggest parties while the latter allows a consensus choice to build from smaller parties.

3) Weakens mandates.

Especially in cases where either of the above apply and so the AV system itself has given a weaker mandate than it usually does. Especially in the early years you can expect a lot of attacking winning candidates based on their winning on second or lower preference votes. In my view this is part of the point; you have to fight to remain attractive to a wider swath of the population than previously. But in many cases AV could make it harder for such representatives to claim the authority to push their agenda. That can hurt the population that elected them more than having a strong representative who won with a bare plurality in FPTP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 07:40:02 am

palsch, I... I honestly have no idea what you are describing, but that's definitely not an AV system.

Did you mean to say IRV? IRV is the one that does rankings. Or Range Voting, that does rankings too. There is no "counting order" for AV. There is no "preference order".

The first is true, but significantly less likely to occur than in FPTP, so not sure how its a problem?

Overall, your post is terribly confusing.

You even explicitly link to a race that didn't use AV.

Edit: So, just looked it up, and apparently the UK has a vastly different definition of the acronym AV than I'm familiar with. To clarify, no one here was calling TopUp (how does that get shortened to fucking AV?) the better system, but rather Approval Voting. Top-up is pretty terrible, but maybe better than what was there? I dunno. Why not just straight IRV then? It seems so random.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 10, 2012, 08:09:20 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 07:07:51 am

You... you don't really seem to have a grasp of how this works. You do realize that other countries with different systems have multiple parties, right? That get elected?

But....we're talking in the context of the US elections here. What other countries have or don't have is irrelevant to the discussion. In the US FPTP system, 3rd parties serve no real electoral purpose. They can try to help move the debate, and very rarely you get a situation where they can peel marginal votes from one or both main parties (think Perot in 1992). But by and large, they're political masturbation.

Oh, and Sanders and Lieberman both ran as independents rather than 3rd party...and both essentially caucus as Democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on May 10, 2012, 08:12:50 am

Quote from: palsch on May 10, 2012, 07:27:11 am

But in cases like the Burlington mayoral race in 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#2006_Burlington_results) there simply weren't enough candidates and the vote was too partisan. A full 10% of voters registered only a first preference for the immediately eliminated Republican, leaving Bob Kiss to win with only 48% of the voters registering a preference for him. And this was in a state and election with a strong third party (who won).

"Only" 48% sounds weird compared to a FPTP system, but AV gains a hefty chunk of it's moral justification from actually resulting in majorities, and situations where pluralities can win introduce other errors.

In any case, we voted in a President with only 48% of the votes going to him. So yeah, either way, doesn't really sound any worse than what we already have.

Honestly, any reasonable alternative would be better than the way things go now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 08:15:18 am

Quote

In the US FPTP system, 3rd parties serve no real electoral purpose.

-_____-

Yes. That is the issue. He was arguing that they would continue to serve no electoral purpose in systems other than FPTP.

And, less electorally, they serve the purpose of changing the narrative. 3rd parties mostly gain significance by losing it, as one of the larger parties shifts to steal their votes. But that's not meaningless! And occasionally they topple a major party completely.

And yes, Independent is strictly superior to third party with the way our system works at the moment, by far, simply because it allows them to caucus with a major party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on May 10, 2012, 08:23:27 am

Surely if a 3rd party got say, 25% of the vote then the other 2 parties would have to at least look at instituting some of their policies?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 10, 2012, 08:28:55 am

That's only really possible with a party split, ala the bull moose party. Generally the two parties have a decent handle on what people want (when they're not issuing propaganda telling people what they want), plus the fact most people consider 3rd party votes wasted votes, all of which means that a large 3rd party turnout is extremely unlikely.


Were it to happen without a party split, one (or both) parties would've really screwed up and put forth candidates damn near no one wants.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 10, 2012, 09:26:30 am

I could definitely see the Republicans splitting within the next decade- the Santorum crowd keeps hogging the discourse, and the Huntsman/Romney coalition of the party say "screw this, we're out of here".

Bottom line: sooner or later the Santorum crowd of the Republicans will spin itself into irrelevance. That is incontrovertible. The question is when it will happen.

Here's the thing, kids, and I say this as the son of a historian. Liberals cannot win right now. What we are going to have to accept that we're doing for probably the next two decades is that we're not dominating the national discourse, we can't currently dominate the national discourse, and the best we can do is play the waiting game.

I think, too, that liberalism is starting to shoot itself in the foot and needs to remake itself. The Left (communism aside) in the 20th century focused on the social safety net, and that's a battle that it won, in some cases all too well- I'm as bemused by the absurdity of European pension plans as any (moderate) conservative. The last major real battle that needs to be won on that end is giving America universal healthcare, and Lord willing and the creek don't rise, we'll have won that within the next decade. Right now what we need to do with the safety net is to make sure that it's economically sustainable, that it doesn't pay out more than it really needs to, and also that (in the case of welfare) it pays people to learn marketable skills rather than just handing out unemployment checks. Obviously things like housing subsidization, food stamps and the like need to be kept. But by and large, kids, we've won the great battles of the 20th century. They're being tested right now, for sure, what with right-wing crazies trying to turn the clock back to 1890 and with the great demographic booms of the century getting into the twilight of their years, but they're not going to be dismantled wholesale. We need to figure out how to make them smarter, for sure, but we're not going to get rid of them.

What will the great battles of the Left be in the 21st century? Cautiously, I argue that they'll be global warming and the dethronement of the corporation. Social issues right now will be little more than a footnote. They're important, to be sure, but above all else what's going to be needed is a change in the American cultural climate. That's already happening- most kids are less homophobic than their elders- and you can't do much to legislate it along. Global warming is a crapshoot right now, and I doubt we'll do much about it until there's either a major famine somewhere or an important part of the First World is flooded. As for the anti-corporatist crowd, one of the things that worries me about OWS and its ilk is that they don't offer much in the way of alternatives. It's very easy to just propose dismantling the modern corporation, and the easiest part of the battle will be, in fact, dismantling it; but most people in the Western world work for a corporation, corporations drive most economic growth, and I'll want to see some actual, constructive alternatives before I'll sign the bill that shreds them. It can't be a command economy- everyone has accepted that since the Wall came down. And there are some jobs so huge that only big somethings can possibly take them on. I don't know what those new somethings are yet, but you can bet I'll want to see a few ideas before destroying the current somethings.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on May 10, 2012, 09:48:02 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 07:40:02 am

Edit: So, just looked it up, and apparently the UK has a vastly different definition of the acronym AV than I'm familiar with. To clarify, no one here was calling TopUp (how does that get shortened to fucking AV?) the better system, but rather Approval Voting. Top-up is pretty terrible, but maybe better than what was there? I dunno. Why not just straight IRV then? It seems so random.

Alternative Vote (AV) in the UK is Instant Runoff Voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) (IRV) in some other places, but I'd not seen anyone propose Approval Voting with a straight face for a long time so hadn't considered that version of the acronym.

To be clear, approval voting fails a couple of the standards desired by most reform advocates. The first and formost being that it doesn't always elect the majority preference. Because votes aren't ranked your second/third/whatever preference is given equal weight to your first. If a candidate is the second or third preference of 60% of the community he can still beat the man who is the first preference of 55%. It also encourages insincerity from voters, ignoring secondary preferences or acceptable compromise candidates because acknowledging such a preference would harm their first choice's chances.

I'm not entirely clear where you got TopUp from unless you meant Alternative Vote Plus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote_Plus). That was the form strongly endorsed by the commission Labour brought in to look at potential reforms. This was then entirely ignored by both that government and the subsequent Con/Lib coalition. The point of that and other additional member systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system) is to reduce the disproportionality introduced by constituency representation. It allows people to directly select individuals to represent them while also representing the broader party preferences of the population at large.

AV (UK form) doesn't have any additional member lists or anything beyond the single member elected from each constituency. You simply rank the candidates in order of preference. It is, in my eyes, the strongest form of single member election possible, with the caveats I laid out in the previous post. My problem with advocating for it in the US is that it won't solve any of the current inherent problems by itself (when it directly addressed a number of relevant issues in the UK) and under the current system it's flaws are enhanced while it's benefits are weakened.

Quote from: sluissa on May 10, 2012, 08:12:50 am

In any case, we voted in a President with only 48% of the votes going to him. So yeah, either way, doesn't really sound any worse than what we already have.

It's a hefty cost to assume if you don't see any real benefit from it.

But you also have to consider that third point with the reduced mandates for candidates. A candidate who wins with 48% of the FPTP vote has a fairly strong mandate as such high percentages are relatively strong endorsements. 48% in the second or third round of an AV election, after all but one other candidates have dropped out and you have claimed a double figure percentage of that in second preference votes, is not a strong endorsement by the standards of the system.

My view is that AV could work in the US, but the more significant barriers to third parties and the highly partisan barriers between parties need to be resolved first, or at least in parallel.

You could try to use AV to force this, by, say, allocating public funds in accordance with first preference vote totals. But that would require massive campaign finance reform that, given SCOTUS rulings, would likely require constitutional amendments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 10:14:56 am

The benefit of Approval Voting is that it /isn't/ a hefty cost to assume, is the thing. And your problems with it simple... don't hold up. Though I'm honestly confused as to why you believe the candidate with 55% support should beat the one with 60% support, whatever. It doesn't really matter and this whole thing probably deserves its own thread anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 10, 2012, 11:10:25 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 07:07:51 am

You... you don't really seem to have a grasp of how this works. You do realize that other countries with different systems have multiple parties, right? That get elected?

Yes, and I am a big fan of us changing the system.  But that doesn't change the fact that what's keeping 3rd parties out of the spotlight isn't some monopolistic pressures, it's that there isn't any 3rd party block big enough to win.  If your issue is with our lack of proportional representation then your issue is with our lack of proportional representation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 11:16:20 am

Quote

But that doesn't change the fact that what's keeping 3rd parties out of the spotlight isn't some monopolistic pressures, it's that there isn't any 3rd party block big enough to win.

So the reason there's no large third parties is because... there's no large third parties. And its not monopolistic pressure, its just the fact that voting for a third party would be a wasted vote, because of monopolistic pressure.

Right.

And who the hell said anything abotu porportial representation? You don't need proportional representation to get a variety of parties, you just need a non-fptp system. Otherwise, third parties are killed on the vine, as it were - as you argue, there will never be a powerful third party (in most cases) simply because there aren't any powerful third parties.

A change to the voting system means they no longer need to be so powerful to gain power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 10, 2012, 11:19:31 am

Let's say we have 3 candidates, A B and C.

Candidate A is part of the corrupt and increasingly spineless left wing party (that generally competes with the right wing party every election).  You don't think he'd be hugely damaging, but you know that a vote for him is a vote for the system as it stands.

Candidate B is an absolutely insane member of the right wing party.  He wants to ban homosexuality and burn every book that mentions the word sex.  The idea of him being elected is horrifying.

Candidate C is an independant candidate who supports almost everything you do.  He's also proved very effective at rooting out political corruption.

As a voter under Approval Voting, what do you do?  You could just vote for C, but that's a big risk - if C doesn't have enough support then you could in fact be allowing B to get in.  You could vote A and C, but that's effectively voting for the two party system - party A wouldn't even feel the loss of a vote.  If a significant proportion of the voters feel the way you do, candidate A could be elected in spite of having very lukewarm support from people voting against the horrifying prospect of B (in this way he could gain 60% of the vote with most of that being people who just hate B vs C's 55% of the vote from people who think he's definitely the best candidate).  If anything I feel like Approval Voting helps entrench two parties even more than FPTP.

Under Alternative Vote/IRV you can put C down as your first choice and A as your second.  That way if there's enough support for C he wins, and if there isn't then your vote at least tries to keep B out.  In other words, you don't have to vote tactically in the same way.  You can vote against the two party system and avoid the risk of helping the worse of the two parties to get in.

But uh... yeah.  I guess palsch is right in that it probably wouldn't be nearly as effective in the US as in countries which have viable third parties already established (not sure I agree with his points though - 1 and 3 aren't any better under FPTP and 2 isn't a problem if you count the votes as if it were a runoff every time).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 11:30:23 am

Quote

As a voter under Approval Voting, what do you do?  You could just vote for C, but that's a big risk - if C doesn't have enough support then you could in fact be allowing B to get in.  You could vote A and C, but that's effectively voting for the two party system - party A wouldn't even feel the loss of a vote.  If a significant proportion of the voters feel the way you do, candidate A could be elected in spite of having very lukewarm support from people voting against the horrifying prospect of B (in this way he could gain 60% of the vote with most of that being people who just hate B vs C's 55% of the vote from people who think he's definitely the best candidate).  If anything I feel like Approval Voting helps entrench two parties even more than FPTP.

The only way A could be elected is if there were both a significant amount of people vote for A but not C, an insignificant number that just voted C, and none that voted B and C. If thats the case, than yes - A should win - they have the most support, and are the ones the voters chose. A was, after all, more popular.

If C is really superior to A, then everyone who voted A would have also voted C, and he couldn't have won. And any other voters that voted just C or B and C, or whatever and C, would have pushed them to victory. The only way for A to win is if more people want A to win. But at least C's popularity gets recorded, and the next election may well be differently, because if they come that close to victory they can't exactly be ignored any more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on May 10, 2012, 12:06:17 pm

What if the breakdown looked like this?

A - 20% voted only for A, 0% voted A and B, 40% voted A and C
B - 25% voted only for B, 0% voted A and B, 5% voted B and C
C - 10% voted only for C, 40% voted A and C, 5% voted B and C

Let's also assume that we can safely say that that 40% block voted as it did largely out of fear of B's large minority of extremely vocal supporters. Effective advertising, or tradition (such as if the US transitioned out of FPTP), resulted in A being largely seen as the more "viable" candidate, particularly because they also have a large devoted base. Had this not been the case, in our hypothetical scenario that presumes nigh-omniscience, half of those votes would have been C only.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 12:34:26 pm

Its not perfect. Nothing is. But it's better the FPTP in the same situation, trivial to implement, and IRV has its own flawed situations. Statistically, Approval has less of these situations than IRV.

Anyways, I'm not really interested in having this argument, and none of them are remotely close to my preferred system, so this will be my last post on it.

While they've obviously chosen their desired system, http://scorevoting.net/ is a really good source for further information, especially the discussion areas branched off of it.

I think the variant of IRV+Approval they came up with was actually pretty cool and might interest some - basically, IRV, but you could put as many options as desired down for each "preference" level.

There's a lot of good science and in depth discussions, fat better than anything I can manage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 10, 2012, 03:58:51 pm

I... don't think it's a better option than IRV.  IRV is basically saying "I want this guy, and if I can't have him I'll go with this other person".  The scoring system... I still see it as very prone to tactical voting.  In the A, B, C example I gave above you'd probably still want to give A 100% in order to block B, otherwise you could be allowing B in (in other words voting anything other than 100% is like giving yourself less than one vote).  And while that example is obviously exagerated I feel it is something that can kindof happen for many people who would like to vote a third party, thus meaning it doesn't really address the problem it seeks to eliminate.  Wheras most of the situations where IRV goes awry are really strange (A's supporters find B the second best option, B's supporters find C the second best option and C's supporters find A the second best option... I'd be interested if anyone could provide me with a real life situation in which this could happen).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on May 10, 2012, 04:08:23 pm

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0510/Does-it-matter-if-Mitt-Romney-was-a-bully-in-high-school

Quote

Does it matter if Mitt Romney misbehaved in high school? That question arises due to a report in Thursday’s Washington Post that when he was a senior at suburban Detroit’s Cranbrook school, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee led a “posse” that held down and forcibly cut the long blond hair of a nonconformist junior.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Mitt said at the time, according to fellow student Matthew Friedemann, quoted in the Post.

Huh. Up until now I'd just considered Mitt Romney to be a stiff-necked, boring rich guy. But I'm thinking that anybody who behaved like that in high school is, or at least was for a good portion of their life, a complete asshat...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 10, 2012, 04:08:47 pm

So....

Quote from: Leafsnail on May 10, 2012, 11:19:31 am

Candidate A is part of the corrupt and increasingly spineless left wing party (that generally competes with the right wing party every election).  You don't think he'd be hugely damaging, but you know that a vote for him is a vote for the system as it stands.

Barrack Obama.

Quote

Candidate B is an absolutely insane member of the right wing party.  He wants to ban homosexuality and burn every book that mentions the word sex.  The idea of him being elected is horrifying.

Rick Santorum.

Quote

Candidate C is an independant candidate who supports almost everything you do.  He's also proved very effective at rooting out political corruption.

Imaginary.

Just saying, I've never seen a politician that I even mostly agree with run for high office, much less one who supports almost everything I do. IRV doesn't change that there aren't many decent politicians left in the system at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 10, 2012, 04:15:54 pm

But it does mean that if there were a good politician who agrees with you they might stand a chance of being elected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on May 10, 2012, 04:19:47 pm

It also gives you more than two choices to pick from. With more choices, the chance that there's someone out there you might agree with more goes up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 04:21:10 pm

Quote

Just saying, I've never seen a politician that I even mostly agree with run for high office, much less one who supports almost everything I do. IRV doesn't change that there aren't many decent politicians left in the system at all.

I dunno, I think Huntsman's at least pretty good, if not perfect.

Anyways, as to your questions, the site I linked as decent answers to pretty much anything your wondering about, and the discussions pages far more details.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 10, 2012, 05:02:42 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 11:16:20 am

Quote

But that doesn't change the fact that what's keeping 3rd parties out of the spotlight isn't some monopolistic pressures, it's that there isn't any 3rd party block big enough to win.

So the reason there's no large third parties is because... there's no large third parties. And its not monopolistic pressure, its just the fact that voting for a third party would be a wasted vote, because of monopolistic pressure.

Right.

Okay, let me break this down really slowly.  The reasons why 3rd parties don't exist is because all else being equal, they would lose 1 on 1 elections vs. democrats or republicans.  If I made a party to the left of the democrats or to the right of the republicans it would not be competitive in as many districts.  This is because of a process called "democracy" where the aggregate of the voters matter.

It's not that 3rd parties can't get off the ground it's that an insufficient number of voters want such and agenda.
Where is the evidence for this?  It's the fact that we have primary elections in both parties.  If people are dissatisfied with the party status quo, they can run from the party's wing and move the party.  This is exactly what we've been seeing in republican primaries lately.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 05:20:00 pm

Then why are third parties so capable of getting off the ground in countries with other systems? After all, they too could just coalesce into two parties, right? They've got primaries too. Why vote to the party that's further to the right? Why doesn't the Pirate Party, for example, just run its candidates under the establishment party?

Oh wait, because the left-right dichotomy is total bullshit and a very large portion of the population couldn't give a damn about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the third party movements in the US, as of late, have been incredibly weak. But you're minimizing the fact that countries that use, say, IRV, have significant third party presence, and ours doesn't, with that being the only significant difference politically. Do you really put that all down to... culture, I guess? Since I don't think "that's democracy" adequately explains it.

Edit: I may be biased by living in a part of the country where satisfaction with both parties is rather low, and we have a good deal of Independents and even some third parties already in government. And I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more if people weren't so focused on stopping the other guy from winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 10, 2012, 05:26:30 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 05:20:00 pm

Then why are third parties so capable of getting off the ground in countries with other systems? After all, they too could just coalesce into two parties, right? They've got primaries too. Why vote to the party that's further to the right? Why doesn't the Pirate Party, for example, just run its candidates under the establishment party?

Oh wait, because the left-right dichotomy is total bullshit and a very large portion of the population couldn't give a damn about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the third party movements in the US, as of late, have been incredibly weak. But you're minimizing the fact that countries that use, say, IRV, have significant third party presence, and ours doesn't, with that being the only significant difference politically. Do you really put that all down to... culture, I guess? Since I don't think "that's democracy" adequately explains it.

Edit: I may be biased by living in a part of the country where satisfaction with both parties is rather low, and we have a good deal of Independents and even some third parties already in government. And I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot more if people weren't so focused on stopping the other guy from winning.

Countries with different party systems have different parties.  Democrats and Republicans are representative of the largest coalitions possible in the US.  Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 05:30:46 pm

Quote

Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

You keep coming back to this, but since I'm not talking about those countries, well...

And argh, I was done with this conversation forever ago. Whatever, you win, I'm wrong, the current US system is perfectly fine.

So, opinions about Romney holding a guy down with his friends (when younger) and cutting off his hair, saying  ‘He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!’

Will it harm his chances, or help? Who knows!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 10, 2012, 05:37:10 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 05:30:46 pm

Quote

Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

You keep coming back to this, but since I'm not talking about those countries, well...

And argh, I was done with this conversation forever ago. Whatever, you win, I'm wrong, the current US system is perfectly fine.

So, opinions about Romney holding a guy down with his friends (when younger) and cutting off his hair, saying  ‘He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!’

Will it harm his chances, or help? Who knows!

Come on, I never said that things were fine with our system.  We're honestly not that far apart anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on May 10, 2012, 06:16:17 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 10, 2012, 05:30:46 pm

Quote

Countries with proportional party systems don't have the same incentive to hew to a coalition maximizing strategy.

You keep coming back to this, but since I'm not talking about those countries, well...

And argh, I was done with this conversation forever ago. Whatever, you win, I'm wrong, the current US system is perfectly fine.

So, opinions about Romney holding a guy down with his friends (when younger) and cutting off his hair, saying  ‘He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!’

Will it harm his chances, or help? Who knows!

Probably about the same as John McCain calling his wife a cunt.  In front of reporters.  Stay classy, GOP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 10, 2012, 06:23:37 pm

Alright, that's it.  Shut up all of you.  I've seen so goddamn many circular arguments about what the "better" voting system is on the Internet, I don't even want to talk about the crap.  New thread if you want it that bad.

And I hadn't heard anything about Romney hacking a hippie's locks.  I really want to believe it, somebody link me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 10, 2012, 06:33:09 pm

Via the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 10, 2012, 08:24:31 pm

It's this year's aqua buddha!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 09:40:13 am

Y'know...boys will be boys. This is just like Abu Ghraib...a harmless school prank. I believe the term Romney used is "hijinks".


More to the point though, this helps get a handle on who Mitt Romney is. I had thought that possibly he was just the nerd who studied hard and got really rich and was kinda cold because he spent most of his social skill points in levelling up Business.

But now I know the type: rich daddy's boy who thinks he's hot shit and rests at the pinnacle of the high school pecking order. He's the villain in a John Hughes movie. If he had been born a little later, he'd have worn a pastel Izod blazer and driven a Porsche, laughing as his thug buddies torment the outcasts.

He's Draco-fucking-Malfoy, all grown up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 10:42:33 am

It was a long, long time ago.  While I would agree with the assessment that Romney is a bit of a turd, shouldn't we base that assessment on his adult years?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 11, 2012, 11:06:38 am

I did a lot of stuff I'm not proud of as a kid, and I've changed becoming an adult.

But holding someone down and tormenting them isn't something I ever did. So I find it hard to excuse youthful behavior that I never indulged in. I may have broken other people's shit, said some stuff I'm not proud of. But singling people out for torment I think speaks to something deeper than youthful transgressions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 12:18:19 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 10:42:33 am

It was a long, long time ago.  While I would agree with the assessment that Romney is a bit of a turd, shouldn't we base that assessment on his adult years?

So there's a statute of limitations on being a douchebag?

I'm not saying he should be charged with assault and battery at this stage of the game, but yeah, I do think it's at least noteworthy as an insight into his character. Moreover, if the GOP can make hay out of the fact that the President of the United States attended school in Indonesia for a few years, then I can damn well make hay out of the fact that their candidate was a fucking bully.

I don't think this'll change anything electorally. Republicans will say, "Aww, he was just being a kid." Hell, they'll like him more because he did what they'd have like to have done in that situation. Democrats will continue to dislike him, and this just hardens that dislike. Independents....well, I find it hard to believe at this point that there's many indies that haven't yet formed an opinion. And whatever opinion they already have will determine how they process this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Dullard on May 11, 2012, 12:31:35 pm

Yeah, I don't necessarily know that it will make a huge difference either. The gay community will probably already be behind Obama considering his coming out in support of equal marriage rights.

Also, Bush was a cokehead, a drunk, and a crappy student, and somehow that didn't make much of a difference during his elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 01:16:48 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 12:18:19 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 10:42:33 am

It was a long, long time ago.  While I would agree with the assessment that Romney is a bit of a turd, shouldn't we base that assessment on his adult years?

So there's a statute of limitations on being a douchebag?

Oh we're back to begging the question by false analogy?

So teenagers should be prosecuted as adults?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 11, 2012, 01:18:45 pm

A strange thing about American politics; black people voting is bad for gays. Apparently the black religious community is very strong. Just this morning I heard an interview of a black preacher who said that gay marriage is like bestiality, and strongly forbidden by the bible. He said it was not a civil rights issue and does not compare to interracial marriage because being black is not a choice, like being gay is.

I really wanted to ask him when he chose to be straight. I know I didn't; when I see a woman, I will think to myself, she looks nice. Looking at a man, well, nothing against him personally, but I'm not interested. At no point do I make any "choice".

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the only parts of the bible that say anything about gay people are in the old testament. Now, modern Christians know that Jesus's whole shtick was making the old testament invalid. He comes down, dies, and in this is a sacrifice that "fulfills" every law and requirement of the old testament. Whenever people bring up the old testament as an argument about religion, it's pointed out that Jesus eliminated the old bad laws with his sacrifice.

There isn't any leeway here- either Jesus completely erased the old testament and replaced it with his teachings- which never, not even once, mention gays- or every word of the old testament is totally true... which means that every person who so much as flipped a light switch on a Saturday is a mortal sinner. If gays are bad, then bacon is outlawed. If the bible is against homosexuals, then you may not cut your hair (and also, incidentally, must never let your hair reach your collar. Don't ask me how).

I feel terrible writing this, but yeah, long-term cultural oppression spurred by ignorance has begotten economic strife and poor access to education, creating yet more ignorance and leading almost inevitably to more oppression despite progress in the recent past. Ultimately creating a cycle that can only be broken by many generations of constant social justice and cultural introspection.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 01:22:38 pm

Where did I say he should be prosecuted? I'm not considering this as a legal issue, I'm considering it as one of character. Yeah, kids make "youthful indiscretions" that don't necessarily reflect on their adult behavior.

That said, I don't qualify an incident like this as "youthful indiscretion". Because down that line of thinking, Matthew Shepard's killers were just "a prank gone wrong".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 11, 2012, 07:50:57 pm

It is worth noting that Paul does talk about homosexuality in the NT, whereas he never talks about bacon or hair-cutting. This is not simply a Leviticus-only issue.


</devil's advocate>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 07:54:47 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 11, 2012, 01:22:38 pm

Where did I say he should be prosecuted?

Quote from: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 01:16:48 pm

Oh we're back to begging the question by false analogy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 11, 2012, 07:56:59 pm

This is egregiously offtopic, but yeah I do think there's a statute of limitations on being a douchebag. People change over time, you know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on May 11, 2012, 08:24:02 pm

The statute of limitations on douchebaggery is when the perpetrator regrets doing it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 09:15:17 pm

So everyone who doesn't remember every last douchebag thing they did as a teenager and regret those things is still a douchebag?  Newsflash, that's pretty much everybody.  Teenagers are horrible people, thankfully most people stop being teenagers after a few years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 11, 2012, 09:19:47 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 09:15:17 pm

So everyone who doesn't remember every last douchebag thing they did as a teenager and regret those things is still a douchebag?  Newsflash, that's pretty much everybody.  Teenagers are horrible people, thankfully most people stop being teenagers after a few years.

I did some douchebag stuff as a teenager.  I never shagged a guy down with my friends and cut off his hair.  There are degrees to being a jerk.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 11, 2012, 09:21:16 pm

It's a bit presumptuous to say all teenagers are jerks, too.



Back to election stuff, eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 09:36:50 pm

So...is this thread just presidential election?  Or are house, senate, and gubernatorial races fair game as well?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 11, 2012, 09:40:19 pm

Quote from: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 09:36:50 pm

So...is this thread just presidential election?  Or are house, senate, and gubernatorial races fair game as well?

If you have anything interesting to say about any other American elections, the floor is yours.  I just figured there wouldn't be much for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 11, 2012, 09:40:55 pm

In other news it looks like the Senate ahs a 50-50 chance of going republican according to the TV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 11, 2012, 09:46:56 pm

So, rumor has it (it was on the teevee, so it must be true!) that Romney is eyeing Rick Snyder, he who is attempting to dismantle Michigan's government and install his own puppets, as a possible candidate for his veep.

Could that be any more horrible and/or ridiculous?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 09:51:15 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on May 11, 2012, 09:40:55 pm

In other news it looks like the Senate ahs a 50-50 chance of going republican according to the TV.

Not likely.  On the surface, it looks as if the Republicans can win it simply because the Dems defend many more seats, however, many democratic incumbents are quite popular.  Take Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) for example, they sit in so-called swing states and it's unlikely either of them will lose. Especially so in Klobuchar's case.  The Democrats also have a shot at retaking Massachusetts's seat from Scott Brown, and Angus King (I-ME) will most likely take Olympia Snowe's seat.  Nevada's senate seat is also a potential democratic pickup, and after Pete Hoekstra's epic screw up (an extremely racist ad against Debbie Stebenow) it looks like the democrats may hold Michigan's seat as well.

All that, or I'm completely wrong and am being too optimistic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on May 11, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on May 11, 2012, 09:46:56 pm

Could that be any more horrible and/or ridiculous?

Santorum/Snyder.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 10:19:10 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on May 11, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on May 11, 2012, 09:46:56 pm

Could that be any more horrible and/or ridiculous?

Santorum/Snyder.

Or Romney/Walker (WI), or Rick Scott (FL), or Chris Christie (NJ)...there are plenty of bad Republican governors he could choose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on May 11, 2012, 10:24:02 pm

Hitler/Stalin would be worse.

It's not Godwin since I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on May 11, 2012, 11:56:57 pm

Quote from: Descan on May 11, 2012, 10:24:02 pm

Hitler/Stalin would be worse.

It's not Godwin since I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler. :P

Actually, that probably would be fine. They'd both be dead within the week. They fucking hated each other, as I recall.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 12, 2012, 01:25:24 am

Quote from: Bauglir on May 11, 2012, 11:56:57 pm

Quote from: Descan on May 11, 2012, 10:24:02 pm

Hitler/Stalin would be worse.

It's not Godwin since I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler. :P

Actually, that probably would be fine. They'd both be dead within the week. They fucking hated each other, as I recall.

Correctly recalled, thoroughly understated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 12, 2012, 03:18:26 am

May I just ask: the fuck is with all the dudes named Rick in politics?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on May 12, 2012, 03:31:09 am

They got called Dick when they were kids.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 12, 2012, 03:31:51 am

Quote from: Descan on May 12, 2012, 03:31:09 am

They got called Dick when they were kids.

They still do, just now it's a description.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on May 12, 2012, 03:43:10 am

It's not that a lot of people in politics are called Rick.

It's that a lot of people named Rick go into politics.

Because they were called Dick when they were younger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 12, 2012, 03:45:51 am

...and if they were going to be named after genitals, well, they'd just be the gosh-golly-darn biggest members they could be!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on May 12, 2012, 09:09:29 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on May 11, 2012, 07:50:57 pm

It is worth noting that Paul does talk about homosexuality in the NT, whereas he never talks about bacon or hair-cutting. This is not simply a Leviticus-only issue.


</devil's advocate>

[Citation needed] Those references are under translational dispute. Source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 12, 2012, 09:58:19 am

Quote from: Jervill on May 11, 2012, 09:51:15 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on May 11, 2012, 09:40:55 pm

In other news it looks like the Senate ahs a 50-50 chance of going republican according to the TV.

Not likely.  On the surface, it looks as if the Republicans can win it simply because the Dems defend many more seats, however, many democratic incumbents are quite popular.  Take Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) for example, they sit in so-called swing states and it's unlikely either of them will lose. Especially so in Klobuchar's case.  The Democrats also have a shot at retaking Massachusetts's seat from Scott Brown, and Angus King (I-ME) will most likely take Olympia Snowe's seat.  Nevada's senate seat is also a potential democratic pickup, and after Pete Hoekstra's epic screw up (an extremely racist ad against Debbie Stebenow) it looks like the democrats may hold Michigan's seat as well.

All that, or I'm completely wrong and am being too optimistic.

You aren't overly optimistic about these races but they aren't the ones to be worried about.  Neither of those are considered among the democratic vulnerabilities. 

The top democratic vulnerabilities are North Dakota and Nebraska, where the incumbents are retiring and the democrats are severe underdogs.  Their other vulnerabilities are places where they're behind in the polls like Montana, Missouri and Wisconsin.  Either the democrats are going to have to make up their deficits in these races or they're going to have to make up for loses here with multiple pickups in other places while holding the open seat in Virginia which is a dead heat.

Most likely several races go together.  If things break even slightly in favor of the democrats, they'll hang on, narrowly.  If things break slightly in favor of republican's, they'll take a narrow majority.  If the needle doesn't budge, it stays a tossup.  So I'd say that 50-50 is a pretty good assessment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on May 13, 2012, 12:44:28 am

From what I've seen around, quite a bit of action may be seen for the House elections, where the Democrats are trying to 'take back' that branch of the government.

Quote from: mainiac on May 11, 2012, 09:15:17 pm

Teenagers are horrible people

>_>

SEGUE!

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ (http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412)
I'm sorry, any Baby Boomers out there, but I'm suddenly feeling antipathy to those above the age of 40. I'm actually kind of surprised how angry that article made me. I think I'm going to have new subject matter when I next get an opportunity to protest down on Main Street.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 13, 2012, 12:50:06 am

Yeah, I'm pretty much done with hearing the older generations complain as well. They are holding the rest of us back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 13, 2012, 12:52:47 am

I dearly hope all this age hate is meant to be ironic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on May 13, 2012, 02:18:49 am

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Kaijyuu. (Unless you're referring to the fact that your age is 2007 according to your profile.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 13, 2012, 03:28:45 am

Think about it like this, Barbar: Everyone younger than us is a moron. Everyone older than us is nothing more than a nattering jackass who deserves all the blame for the current situation we're in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on May 13, 2012, 03:39:59 am

So what do you think Santorum's running mate is gonna be like?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 13, 2012, 03:49:41 am

Quote from: Capntastic on May 13, 2012, 03:39:59 am

So what do you think Santorum's running mate is gonna be like?

I thought he was dropping/did drop out?  ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on May 13, 2012, 04:01:04 am

I meant 'was', sorry, watching a video and being dumb.

To clarify:  Who do you think would tolerate being his second?  What sort of personalty would that be?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 13, 2012, 04:04:40 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on May 13, 2012, 02:18:49 am

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Kaijyuu. (Unless you're referring to the fact that your age is 2007 according to your profile.)

I mean I'm hoping people are being sarcastic when they say all teenagers are jackasses and everyone over 40 is a nutcase.


As for my age, well... it was a secret, but I'm actually Ra's Al Ghul. Don't tell Batman. I've been beaten up one too many times by the Detective.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 13, 2012, 04:21:42 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 13, 2012, 04:04:40 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on May 13, 2012, 02:18:49 am

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Kaijyuu. (Unless you're referring to the fact that your age is 2007 according to your profile.)

I mean I'm hoping people are being sarcastic when they say all teenagers are jackasses and everyone over 40 is a nutcase.


As for my age, well... it was a secret, but I'm actually Ra's Al Ghul. Don't tell Batman. I've been beaten up one too many times by the Detective.

Oh, don't worry. I knew you were here all along.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 13, 2012, 04:36:07 am

I should have known.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 13, 2012, 04:42:40 am

I don't know what I can say, other then...
<-------

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 13, 2012, 05:49:45 am

Quote from: Blargityblarg on May 12, 2012, 03:18:26 am

May I just ask: the fuck is with all the dudes named Rick in politics?

They're all secretly Adventure Cores. This actually explains a lot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 13, 2012, 08:18:42 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 13, 2012, 04:04:40 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on May 13, 2012, 02:18:49 am

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Kaijyuu. (Unless you're referring to the fact that your age is 2007 according to your profile.)

I mean I'm hoping people are being sarcastic when they say all teenagers are jackasses and everyone over 40 is a nutcase.

I don't know about Barbarossa, but I didn't say that. My lack of sympathy is directed specifically at the Baby Boomer generation for bringing us to economic ruin, hoarding most of the nation's money and assets, and generally taking a dismissive attitude towards younger people for suffering due to the aforementioned problems that they themselves caused.

These are certainly not absolute factors, but as a generation, that is how I see the Baby Boomers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Little on May 13, 2012, 04:14:05 pm

Romney has declared he's against gay marriage, I still don't understand how people can honestly care about two gays getting married when there's much bigger issues. Up here in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for years, and we aren't debating whether or not we should be marrying dogs or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 13, 2012, 04:19:26 pm

Quote from: Little on May 13, 2012, 04:14:05 pm

Romney has declared he's against gay marriage, I still don't understand how people can honestly care about two gays getting married when there's much bigger issues. Up here in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for years, and we aren't debating whether or not we should be marrying dogs or not.

That's because Canada is full of godless liberal socialist Nazis. No one cares what you sinners do.

:P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 13, 2012, 04:41:18 pm

I must say I'm surprised too. Over here, marriage has been equal for years, and no one is even considering a rollback. Well, some bishops and stuff aren't happy, but no politician (even the one that opposed it back in the day) dare raise the issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 13, 2012, 06:23:39 pm

http://www.theonion.com/articles/future-us-history-students-its-pretty-embarrassing,19099/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on May 13, 2012, 06:24:17 pm

You all seem to fail to understand that absorbing large quantities of backwards social beliefs is our side of the deal. The minute we begin to head down the road towards not being radically anachronistic in our widely held beliefs is the minute the web of sorcery comes crashing down, we stop winning wars, our economy goes to bunk, and... Wait a second.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 13, 2012, 08:12:16 pm

Quote from: Little on May 13, 2012, 04:14:05 pm

Romney has declared he's against gay marriage, I still don't understand how people can honestly care about two gays getting married when there's much bigger issues. Up here in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for years, and we aren't debating whether or not we should be marrying dogs or not.

To be fair we almost reopened abortion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 13, 2012, 08:45:49 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 13, 2012, 06:23:39 pm

http://www.theonion.com/articles/future-us-history-students-its-pretty-embarrassing,19099/

I'm pretty happy that some of the stuff in that article is being proven wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 14, 2012, 07:46:53 am

Quote from: Sheb on May 13, 2012, 04:41:18 pm

I must say I'm surprised too. Over here, marriage has been equal for years, and no one is even considering a rollback. Well, some bishops and stuff aren't happy, but no politician (even the one that opposed it back in the day) dare raise the issue.

Probably because they realize that gay votes count just as much as "regular" ones. Our pols seem to have a hard time realizing that (or grossly underestimating the number of LGBT voters out there).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 14, 2012, 07:49:42 am

Or they realize that gay voters are used to pols not caring, and thus will vote on other things and don't need to be courted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on May 14, 2012, 09:20:00 am

I just watched the interview with Herman Cain that John Oliver did for the Daily Show a couple of weeks back. I have to be honest with you, that is one awesome guy ;D I really wish he got to be head of some state that is much more insignificant that the US so we could watch all the hilarities ensuing.

Also, googling "Pizza President" when I can't remember his name is also great.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 14, 2012, 09:25:22 am

Quote from: scriver on May 14, 2012, 09:20:00 am

I just watched the interview with Herman Cain that John Oliver did for the Daily Show a couple of weeks back. I have to be honest with you, that is one awesome guy ;D I really wish he got to be head of some state that is much more insignificant that the US so we could watch all the hilarities ensuing.

Also, googling "Pizza President" when I can't remember his name is also great.

Maybe he can run for President of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 14, 2012, 09:30:28 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 14, 2012, 09:25:22 am

Quote from: scriver on May 14, 2012, 09:20:00 am

I just watched the interview with Herman Cain that John Oliver did for the Daily Show a couple of weeks back. I have to be honest with you, that is one awesome guy ;D I really wish he got to be head of some state that is much more insignificant that the US so we could watch all the hilarities ensuing.

Also, googling "Pizza President" when I can't remember his name is also great.

Maybe he can run for President of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

Unfortunately, I hear part of their constitution requires the president be able to pronounce the name of the country without being a fucking asshole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on May 14, 2012, 09:37:06 am

But he's like three Berlusconis at the same time! WE NEED HIM TO SURVIVE.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 14, 2012, 08:41:02 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 14, 2012, 09:30:28 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 14, 2012, 09:25:22 am

Quote from: scriver on May 14, 2012, 09:20:00 am

I just watched the interview with Herman Cain that John Oliver did for the Daily Show a couple of weeks back. I have to be honest with you, that is one awesome guy ;D I really wish he got to be head of some state that is much more insignificant that the US so we could watch all the hilarities ensuing.

Also, googling "Pizza President" when I can't remember his name is also great.

Maybe he can run for President of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

Unfortunately, I hear part of their constitution requires the president be able to pronounce the name of the country without being a fucking asshole.

Maybe he can be supreme pizza overlord of Som-ali-alia instead?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on May 14, 2012, 08:51:15 pm

Archibald, King of the Hobo's for president 2012.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 14, 2012, 08:58:19 pm

I'd prefer King Radical.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 14, 2012, 09:00:52 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on May 14, 2012, 08:41:02 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 14, 2012, 09:30:28 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 14, 2012, 09:25:22 am

Quote from: scriver on May 14, 2012, 09:20:00 am

I just watched the interview with Herman Cain that John Oliver did for the Daily Show a couple of weeks back. I have to be honest with you, that is one awesome guy ;D I really wish he got to be head of some state that is much more insignificant that the US so we could watch all the hilarities ensuing.

Also, googling "Pizza President" when I can't remember his name is also great.

Maybe he can run for President of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

Unfortunately, I hear part of their constitution requires the president be able to pronounce the name of the country without being a fucking asshole.

Maybe he can be supreme pizza overlord of Som-ali-alia instead?

Somallahuakbaria

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Yannanth on May 15, 2012, 06:08:46 am

Ahh, the famous "3 G's" of American politics. Gays, guns and God.

Never change, America. Never change. ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 15, 2012, 10:11:53 am

We couldn't, even if we wanted to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on May 15, 2012, 11:15:07 am

Heard on the radio about some people saying something along the lines: "Jesus is not in the polls this year.  But, I'd vote Romney anyways since he is the lesser of two evils."

Honest to Jah...  I'd bet at least 1/3rd of America would willingly choose to turn the US of A into a christian/catholic theocracy given half the chance...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on May 15, 2012, 11:24:08 am

Catholic? I thought the US was mostly protestant?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 15, 2012, 11:35:38 am

Yes, but around a quarter of them are catholics. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_US#Main_religious_preferences_of_Americans)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on May 15, 2012, 11:39:41 am

Quote from: Dutchling on May 15, 2012, 11:24:08 am

Catholic? I thought the US was mostly protestant?

So...  I should just stick with Christian?   It would cover Catholic, Protestant and most of them other offshoots?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 15, 2012, 11:42:13 am

Quote from: Dutchling on May 15, 2012, 11:24:08 am

Catholic? I thought the US was mostly protestant?

Catholics are the largest single denomination. But broadly speaking, Protestants are the largest grouping. Of course, that's a pretty wide array of Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.

Quote from: Zangi on May 15, 2012, 11:39:41 am

Quote from: Dutchling on May 15, 2012, 11:24:08 am

Catholic? I thought the US was mostly protestant?

So...  I should just stick with Christian?   It would cover Catholic, Protestant and most of them other offshoots?

Heh....except that the hardcore Southern Baptists and Pentecostals don't consider Catholics Christian and the fact that nobody considers the Mormons Christian other than themselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 15, 2012, 12:44:17 pm

I think I'm prepared to accept Mormons as Christian.  They do believe in Jesus after all.  And I don't think they'd ever leave my doorstep if I told them they weren't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 15, 2012, 01:07:38 pm

Yeah....but they also believe Jesus went to North America after the Resurrection and preached to the Native Americans (who were actually the Lost Tribes of Israel). They also believe God lives near a specific star called Kolob. That's just scratching the surface...not to slag on any Mormons among us, but IMHO it's 19th-century Scientology when it comes to the wackiness of the cosmology and doctrine.

Belief in Jesus doesn't make everyone a Christian in the eyes of the mainstream Christian community (example, the Taiping rebels in China, whose leader not only believed in Jesus but claimed to be his younger brother).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 15, 2012, 01:34:46 pm

I have a hard time siding with South Park on this one. I've known a few Mormons, all generally very nice, clean living people. But if you believe something that is totally absurd, I've got to ask: do you act on those beliefs? Otherwise what do your beliefs mean? What about supporting a religious corporation based around those beliefs?

I'm willing to accept Mormons as Christian (not like I ultimately care since I'm not one), but there are things in their belief system that don't even come close to squaring with reality. And that's an issue the church needs to address.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on May 15, 2012, 01:42:35 pm

Yeah, I accept Mormons as Christian.  They are not all that much weirder than Catholics.  (Try to look at Catholicism from the viewpoint of a complete outsider--it's super bizarre.)  Actually, most religions are totally weird in some way or other, including more mainstream Christianity.

As for most Mormons being nice people, it seems to be very true if you don't live in Utah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 01:42:59 pm

That's all belief systems, really. They tend to tone it down the older they get, and Mormonism is still really young.

Still seem pretty Christian to me, since they consider Jesus the Christ and all, which is like the most important attribute of being Christian. Maybe the only one, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 01:57:55 pm

I don't think beliefs get tamer as they go.  1st century Christianity actually had a lot less arcane stuff in it then what we have today.  We just don't notice because the weird stuff is hidden away behind super boring religious trappings.  But in the 1st century is was basically "oh yeah, the prophets forgot to mention that souls totally are a real thing, now be good and your soul will make it into heaven."  It's since then that we've added in all the angels and spirits and daemons and divine-mortal paradoxes and purgatory (whoops! retracted!) and miracles and divine inspiration and predestination and whatnot.

Just consider Easter and Christmas.  Easter is the most holy day in Christianity although most people don't realize that and it's religious trappings have probably changed the least since the 1st century.  We dress up in nice clothes so we can be told that Jesus rose from the dead and we should all be happy now.  Simple, straightforward and not that bizarre.  Compare that to all the stuff we've built up around Christmas, just on the religious side of things.  None of that stuff existed in the 1st century except for the bare bones of the stories.  It's all been created since then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 02:03:16 pm

Well, Easter isn't exactly a Christian holider, either. It was just sort of retconned into being so. And Christmas hasn't been Christian in a long time (same for halloween). Thats pretty much completely secular insanity with a religious origin.

Christianity is a bit weird because it would basically incorporate any belief it came across in an attempt to convert people by saying "see, you won't REALLY have to change that much, you can just add Jesus to whatever you have!" and that finding its way into core doctrine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 15, 2012, 02:05:08 pm

Catholicism: Making religious expy since 33AD.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 15, 2012, 02:27:55 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 15, 2012, 01:34:46 pm

I have a hard time siding with South Park on this one. I've known a few Mormons, all generally very nice, clean living people. But if you believe something that is totally absurd, I've got to ask: do you act on those beliefs? Otherwise what do your beliefs mean? What about supporting a religious corporation based around those beliefs?

I'm willing to accept Mormons as Christian (not like I ultimately care since I'm not one), but there are things in their belief system that don't even come close to squaring with reality. And that's an issue the church needs to address.

Sorry, but that's hardly unique to Mormonism. Every religion has some bizarre facets that don't agree with reality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 15, 2012, 02:39:09 pm

While that's true, Mormons believe some stuff that is re-authoring history that's still contemporary to us. You can argue that Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha might have lived so long ago that any evidence of them would have been destroyed. That doesn't make me more likely to believe, but it does makes me less likely to demand an answer. Modern day saints (which is what the upper echelon of the Mormon church believes itself to be) have to stand up to modern day scrutiny. And I have to look sideways at someone who decides not to exercise that level of critical thinking about things they claim they believe in. I actually listened to about.....6 hours of a closed meeting among higher up Mormon church leaders, and some of the stuff they take on faith is a little hard to fathom, because it's vested in temporal authority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 15, 2012, 03:06:13 pm

Election thread guys?  I guess Mitt Romney makes it tangentially relevant but really not relevant enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 03:18:44 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 02:03:16 pm

Well, Easter isn't exactly a Christian holider, either. It was just sort of retconned into being so.

Uh no, easter is the entire point of the holiday.  Without that resurrection stuff it's not christianity.

Quote from: Leafsnail on May 15, 2012, 03:06:13 pm

Election thread guys?  I guess Mitt Romney makes it tangentially relevant but really not relevant enough.

Derailing is the entire point of this thread I thought?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:21:22 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 03:18:44 pm

Well, Easter isn't exactly a Christian holider, either. It was just sort of retconned into being so.

[/quote]
Yes, the ressurection bit was the retcon. That wasn't originally there. Originally it was about eggs and rabbits and stuff. Then the Jesus zombie got dropped on top of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 03:23:07 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:21:22 pm

Yes, the ressurection bit was the retcon. That wasn't originally there. Originally it was about eggs and rabbits and stuff. Then the Jesus zombie got dropped on top of it.

Brilliant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 15, 2012, 03:23:44 pm

Easter Bunny/Santa Claus 2012:  No more fictional than an honest politician!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:28:52 pm

I can't really understand how the Easter Bunny got on the top of the ticket. Santa is clearly the better organizer. I would have thought that, plus his natural "I'd go for a drink with the guy down at the pub, seems a right good chap" sort of demeanor would really resonate with the voters.

The Holiday party pushing that damned rabbit so hard isn't going to end well, I swear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 15, 2012, 03:39:57 pm

For that matter, why use two holiday figures that mostly resonate as Christian? That'll turn off all the Muslims, Hindus, and other religious folks. Perhaps Santa can run with Kwanzabot or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 15, 2012, 03:40:23 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:21:22 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 03:18:44 pm

Well, Easter isn't exactly a Christian holider, either. It was just sort of retconned into being so.

Yes, the ressurection bit was the retcon. That wasn't originally there. Originally it was about eggs and rabbits and stuff. Then the Jesus zombie got dropped on top of it.

Seriously, Easter and Christmas are rebrandings of earlier pagan holidays revolving around the rebirth of the sun and the resurrection of the natural world.

Aaaaanyway... Let's take a step back here and consider that the republicans face a serious morale problem because even though thier current nominal candidate is from an Abrahamic religion, is a christian, is specifically from a popularly american form of christianity, and in every large and small way virtually identical to the average christian in religious beliefs... he isn't christian enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:45:20 pm

Hindus LOVE santa, at least the ones I've met. I think he was a great VP choice.
(And they didn't even bother to change the name of Easter, since that's still the Pagan name)

But yeah, back on topic - is there actually evidence of voters in significant quantities that won't vote for him because he's a Mormon? I've heard rumblings, but they died down since his primary victory became undeniable...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 15, 2012, 03:58:55 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:28:52 pm

I can't really understand how the Easter Bunny got on the top of the ticket. Santa is clearly the better organizer. I would have thought that, plus his natural "I'd go for a drink with the guy down at the pub, seems a right good chap" sort of demeanor would really resonate with the voters.

The Holiday party pushing that damned rabbit so hard isn't going to end well, I swear.

It's because nobody with a beard has been elected President since Benjamin Harrison. EB might have to trim those whiskers though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 15, 2012, 04:51:34 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 15, 2012, 03:58:55 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:28:52 pm

I can't really understand how the Easter Bunny got on the top of the ticket. Santa is clearly the better organizer. I would have thought that, plus his natural "I'd go for a drink with the guy down at the pub, seems a right good chap" sort of demeanor would really resonate with the voters.

The Holiday party pushing that damned rabbit so hard isn't going to end well, I swear.

It's because nobody with a beard has been elected President since Benjamin Harrison. EB might have to trim those whiskers though.

I can just imagine the news headlines on that one.

"Candidate Scott's Beard: Sign of Muslim Extremism?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on May 15, 2012, 04:59:42 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:45:20 pm

But yeah, back on topic - is there actually evidence of voters in significant quantities that won't vote for him because he's a Mormon? I've heard rumblings, but they died down since his primary victory became undeniable...

I can't imagine people who wouldn't vote for Romney because he is Mormon / not Christian enough would vote for Darth Obama.
A demoralized 'Voting for Jesus' demographic though?  I'd hit that.


I love the derails that happen here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 15, 2012, 05:03:58 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 15, 2012, 03:40:23 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 03:21:22 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 03:18:44 pm

Well, Easter isn't exactly a Christian holider, either. It was just sort of retconned into being so.

Yes, the ressurection bit was the retcon. That wasn't originally there. Originally it was about eggs and rabbits and stuff. Then the Jesus zombie got dropped on top of it.

Seriously, Easter and Christmas are rebrandings of earlier pagan holidays revolving around the rebirth of the sun and the resurrection of the natural world.

Aaaaanyway... Let's take a step back here and consider that the republicans face a serious morale problem because even though thier current nominal candidate is from an Abrahamic religion, is a christian, is specifically from a popularly american form of christianity, and in every large and small way virtually identical to the average christian in religious beliefs... he isn't christian enough.

Except it isn't virtually identical by a long shot! The adding on of new scripture, and we're talking supposed new revelations rather than spare bits and pieces of the Apocrypha? The Ten Lost Tribes ending up in the Americas? The classification of non-Mormon Christians as Gentiles?


If you ask any Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christian with a grounding in theology, they will tell you that Mormonism is NOT mainstream Christianity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on May 15, 2012, 05:34:34 pm

Not mallknstream does not mean anything in this context. I mean, Palin is part of one of those beliefs who think we're living in the final days - that's as far from mainstream Christianity you can get, and she was "Christian enough".

As for Mormonism being Christian... In my mind, if Gnosticism counts, then Mormonism isn't especially too different either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on May 15, 2012, 05:47:10 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 15, 2012, 04:51:34 pm

"Candidate Scott's Beard: Sign of Muslim Extremism?"

My name is Scott and I have a beard.

You have no idea just how much "ohgodwhat?" is on my face right now. xD Only nominally similar, but still... Why'd you pick Scott?! D: ARE YOU WATCHING ME?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on May 15, 2012, 05:55:23 pm

He probably meant Little Scotty Klopfenstein.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 07:10:38 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 15, 2012, 03:40:23 pm

Seriously, Easter and Christmas are rebrandings of earlier pagan holidays revolving around the rebirth of the sun and the resurrection of the natural world.

Have you ever been to an Easter rite?  That's not what Easter is about.  Yeah some of that snuck in because of the time of the year.  But that's not the core of Easter.  The core of Easter is the miracle of the resurrection, literally the most central component of Christian faith.  If you think it's a celebration of spring you are completely missing the point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 15, 2012, 07:17:58 pm

I believe his point was these holidays have been repurposed for christianity, not that they are (today) pagan holidays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 07:25:14 pm

Quote

Have you ever been to an Easter rite?  That's not what Easter is about.  Yeah some of that snuck in because of the time of the year.  But that's not the core of Easter.  The core of Easter is the miracle of the resurrection, literally the most central component of Christian faith.  If you think it's a celebration of spring you are completely missing the point.

Seriously. Retconned. That's not what Easter was about. Easter was already a holiday before Jesus ever came along, so the idea is kind of silly. There is a reason it's called "Easter" and not "Jesus".

Because Easter is the goddess of spring and fertility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 15, 2012, 07:36:39 pm

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2vhzxa9.gif)

Blah blah elections blah blah blah. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/15/usa-campaign-idUSL1E8GF99M20120515)

I don't deny that Obama and Romney giving dueling commencement addresses, Romney at a university that dedicates a whole course to teaching it's students how to combat Mormonism and it's "occult origins", is interesting election stuff.  But it's getting a mite huffy in here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 07:42:40 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 07:25:14 pm

Seriously. Retconned.

Seriously, not.  Like half the new testament is people talking about the miracle of the resurrection and the salvation.  It is the most central aspect of the entire religion.

Yes there were spring festivals before.  But Easter is not a spring festival.  It is a festival about the resurrection and the promise of salvation.  And this is pretty much the most basic of the tenets of Christianity, right after "do unto others".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on May 15, 2012, 07:54:17 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 07:42:40 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 07:25:14 pm

Seriously. Retconned.

Seriously, not.  Like half the new testament is people talking about the miracle of the resurrection and the salvation.  It is the most central aspect of the entire religion.

Yes there were spring festivals before.  But Easter is not a spring festival.  It is a festival about the resurrection and the promise of salvation.  And this is pretty much the most basic of the tenets of Christianity, right after "do unto others".

Christianity is not exactly the first religion to have a major figure die for three days then miraculously come back to life.  But yeah, Easter /was previously/ a spring festival, prior to Christianity coming in and saying "Look, we have a holiday in Spring too, you don't have to lose your holiday, just change it to ours".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 15, 2012, 07:54:34 pm

What are you smoking, Maniac? Pass it around.

Yes, Easter is nowadays a celebration about the resurrection and blah blah blah. What they're saying is Easter was not always like that, but was once upon a time a 100% pagan holiday. Christianity adopted and morphed it over time into what it is today. All those things you're talking about were tenants of Christianity long before Easter became part of the religion at all.




Also I can't tell if that picture is stop motion or just a bad gif. If it's stop motion, that's a credit to whoever made it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 15, 2012, 07:57:16 pm

So, how 'bout that election news? Anybody hear anything crazy from the teaparty lately?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 15, 2012, 07:59:42 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on May 15, 2012, 07:57:16 pm

So, how 'bout that election news? Anybody hear anything crazy from the teaparty lately?

Nobody's heard anything crazy from the Tea Party since around November 9th of 2010.  After they won a bunch of elections, the Koch money dried up and they scattered to the dusty wind from whence they came.  At this point, nobody even bothers trying to remind first-term Republicans around the country that they were elected promising "all fiscal no social".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 15, 2012, 08:00:56 pm

Coke money? That explains it all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 08:03:27 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 15, 2012, 07:54:34 pm

Yes, Easter is nowadays a celebration about the resurrection and blah blah blah. What they're saying is Easter was not always like that, but was once upon a time a 100% pagan holiday.

And I've said like five times now, yes there were earlier holidays on the same day.  But if you take even the remotest look at the actual religious practices they bear no resemblance.  May day also takes place in spring.  I suppose that's a rip off of pagan practices?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on May 15, 2012, 08:26:40 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on May 15, 2012, 05:55:23 pm

He probably meant Little Scotty Klopfenstein.

I was sure he meant Scott Calvin.
Damn you, 90's!

Quote from: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 08:03:27 pm

And I've said like five times now, yes there were earlier holidays on the same day.  But if you take even the remotest look at the actual religious practices they bear no resemblance.  May day also takes place in spring.  I suppose that's a rip off of pagan practices?

::) Yes, yes it is. Just like Ēostre. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre)

So, I decided to take a peek at the Google 'election news' listings. I immediately turned back after reading the line, "Obama Campaign Depicts Romney as 'Job-Destroying Vampire.'"

This is going to be one hell of a time to own a TV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 15, 2012, 08:34:22 pm

Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know,) on May Day, first thing:

Quote

May Day is related to the Celtic festival of Beltane and the Germanic festival of Walpurgis Night. May Day falls exactly half a year from November 1, another cross-quarter day which is also associated with various northern European pagan and the year in the Northern hemisphere, and it has traditionally been an occasion for popular and often raucous celebrations.

As Europe became Christianized, the pagan holidays lost their religious character and either changed into popular secular celebrations, as with May Day, or were merged with or replaced by new Christian holidays as with Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and All Saint's Day. In the twentieth and continuing into the twenty-first century, many neopagans began reconstructing the old traditions and celebrating May Day as a pagan religious festival again.

So yeah. Christianity steals things like icons and dates, this has been firmly established to anyone who knows anything about history.

Now, let's get back to politics, ja? It's nonsensical as it is without this ridiculous argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on May 15, 2012, 08:37:34 pm

Easter is not a retcon. It surpassed the old Easter festival, not adopted it. The majority of Christian countries have their "Easter" holidays named after Pesach, the Jewish holiday that Jesus was celebrating when he was seized (the whole last supper thing, you know). Since he then died and came back, the celebration is of that. You know, since that is the single most important event in Christianity.

It's not a retcon or a merge or a holiday moved around to deliberately overwrite another one (like Christmas or Halloween). It's a genuinely Christian holiday all the way. That there were other festivals around the same time of year which got surpassed by it (and in the almost singular case of English, passed on it's name) is just coincidence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 08:42:47 pm

Just because ancient societies had a holiday on 1st of may doesn't mean they celebrated the labor movement on the 1st of may.
Just because it's the same date doesn't mean it's celebrating the same thing.  There has been a holiday for something or other literally every day of the year going on for millennia now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 15, 2012, 08:44:01 pm

Easter is less a retcon than it is the result of one culture eating another. Still not originally Christian, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 08:45:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 15, 2012, 08:44:01 pm

Easter is less a retcon than it is the result of one culture eating another. Still not originally Christian, though.

Then what pray tell is it from?  What is the festival celebrating the fact that people go to heaven when they die that the Christians took it from?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 15, 2012, 08:47:48 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 15, 2012, 08:45:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 15, 2012, 08:44:01 pm

Easter is less a retcon than it is the result of one culture eating another. Still not originally Christian, though.

Then what pray tell is it from?  What is the festival celebrating the fact that people go to heaven when they die that the Christians took it from?

...the spirits of people have been ascending to the heavens/into the sky/what have you since the very first tribal religions formed. C'mon, man.

Furthermore, I'd really rather the Toady One not get involved in this, as religious debates flamewars tend to get threads locked. Let's drop it, shall we?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on May 15, 2012, 08:48:45 pm

We are clearly arguing past each other, trying to prove different points that the other side has already accepted.  Nothing left to be said here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 09:18:40 pm

I like the cut of your penguin hair, Sowelu.

Let us move on. (especially since the pagan traditions of Easter are incredibly obscure due to the whole "easter goddess" hoax pulled by those middle ages pranksters)

Does anyone actually have election news? Whats the current polls look like? Does Romney have a chance?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sowelu on May 15, 2012, 09:25:14 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on May 15, 2012, 09:18:40 pm

I like the cut of your penguin hair, Sowelu.

Let us move on. (especially since the pagan traditions of Easter are incredibly obscure due to the whole "easter goddess" hoax pulled by those middle ages pranksters)

Does anyone actually have election news? Whats the current polls look like? Does Romney have a chance?

I /think/ this is the same guy I followed at the last election.  http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/  He wasn't working for the NYT then, but if it is the same guy, I'll still trust him now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on May 16, 2012, 12:21:34 am

It probably is the same guy. I believe he got hired on by the NYT right around the 2010 Elections. Still seems to be the same and NYT seems to be pretty hands off about the whole thing, just giving him a better site infrastructure to write from. At least last I checked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on May 16, 2012, 03:37:50 am

That guy is annoying.

'Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mr. Romney, Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mr. Romney, Mr. Romney, Mr. Romney'

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 03:18:28 am

I'm a fan of when rich people are stupid enough to actually believe their own rhetoric. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?_r=1&hp)

Why shouldn't we repeal Citizen's United, again?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on May 17, 2012, 05:30:54 am

They want to spend 10 million dollars to make someone look bad?

Democracy wins again!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on May 17, 2012, 05:44:10 am

Democracy, where individuals can spend millions of dollars to influence the masses to vote their way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 17, 2012, 06:50:29 am

Quote

The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”

???

Where are these photos of Obama in skinny jeans dancing to Europop?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 07:32:17 am

I didn't know Able Lincoln liked Europop.


:P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 17, 2012, 08:35:21 am

I'm guessing the guy has never even seen a metro sexual if that's what he's calling Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on May 17, 2012, 08:37:02 am

To be fair, if this 10 million dollars is paying for a video of Obama dancing to Caramelldansen, it may have been somewhat justified.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 17, 2012, 08:57:40 am

How can people believe that capitalism is meritocratic after seeing crap like this?  Here's a guy who has more money to piss away then you'll probably see in your life and he clearly is a deluded idiot about the stuff he's spending it on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 17, 2012, 09:11:00 am

I'm sure that voters will be driven away in droves when they discover Obama's secret stash of Williams-Sonoma pepper mills.  ::)

Also...they plan to compare him to Abraham Lincoln? Generally recognized as one of the greatest Presidents in US History, and one of the two venerated icons of the Republican Party? About the only people to whom a Lincoln comparison would be a slur are the neo-Confederate types. Which may explain much, actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on May 17, 2012, 10:45:51 am

You'd think they'd be wary of attacking Obama over questionable stuff that happened years ago.  What with Romney having been an authoritarian bully and dead-father baptiser.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 17, 2012, 10:48:35 am

Quote

You'd think they'd be wary of attacking Obama over questionable stuff that happened years ago

These are the same people who went after him for his birth certificate.

If it was politically/socially acceptable for conservatives to criticize Obama's birth stone and birth stars, they'd do so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 17, 2012, 10:52:57 am

Next they'll be producing photographic evidence that he picked his nose as a kid, and calling him OBooger. They're clever like a really clever thing which is clever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 17, 2012, 11:39:47 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 03:18:28 am

I'm a fan of when rich people are stupid enough to actually believe their own rhetoric. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?_r=1&hp)

Why shouldn't we repeal Citizen's United, again?

Because it was a supreme court decision and is now virtually unimpeachable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on May 17, 2012, 02:17:06 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 17, 2012, 09:11:00 am

I'm sure that voters will be driven away in droves when they discover Obama's secret stash of Williams-Sonoma pepper mills.  ::)

Also...they plan to compare him to Abraham Lincoln? Generally recognized as one of the greatest Presidents in US History, and one of the two venerated icons of the Republican Party? About the only people to whom a Lincoln comparison would be a slur are the neo-Confederate types. Which may explain much, actually.

No, it appears that they are planning to try to say that he is making people think he is like Abraham Lincoln, when he really isn't.
Which seems to me to be kind of a bizarre way to attack him, but I suppose its their money and they can do what they want with it.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 17, 2012, 02:20:38 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 17, 2012, 11:39:47 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 03:18:28 am

I'm a fan of when rich people are stupid enough to actually believe their own rhetoric. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?_r=1&hp)

Why shouldn't we repeal Citizen's United, again?

Because it was a supreme court decision and is now virtually unimpeachable.

Don't we just need another supreme court decision to counter it?

Also, why don't we make all this nitpicky legislation that gets as close to being around it as possible like people do with Roe v. Wade?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 17, 2012, 02:23:08 pm

Or we could consti-mend the tution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on May 17, 2012, 02:40:18 pm

I'm still impressed by American politics; both ends of the spectrum. It's just this amazingly childish system that seems to exist within its own little bubble where even the 'personal attacks' are, well... just disconnected from anything that makes any objective sense whatsoever. Using them in real life (i.e. outside of a pants-on-head-retarded political discussion) would just get you laughed at, rather than actually insult or hurt anyone.
"Obama is bad because this preacher he was sortof associated with said THIS!"
"Oh yeah? well guess what, the guy running that ad campaign? After 9/11, he suggested that it was probably as a result of prior actions taken by the US government! What a stupid dick!"
"well you know what? You love letting people do what they want!"
"fuck you you dick, I bet if you were in charge, you'd probably want to give money to hospitals or something!"
"Money? I bet if you had your way, we'd live in some sort of egalitarian utopia where people don't need money anymore! C'mon guys, let's stop these bastards before they implement their insane 'eternal happiness and world peace' schemes!"

And so on. Please note that I'm not bothering to differentiate between the major party positions; to an outsider they're essentially schizophrenic and/or interchangeable. I'm quite sure there's some systematic differences there but it's basically like a magic eye puzzle; only sortof noticeable if you stare long enough that your eyes water up and you can't see very well anymore.
 
It just reminds me of that rather simplistic explanation (probably too simplistic, for anyone who actually knows history) of the fall of the Byzantine Empire I once heard; The reason they fell wasn't due to financial issues; the spice roads were apparently still very lucrative and Constantinople was still the richest, most powerful city in the world. It wasn't really due to structural issues; the Byzantine empire had inherited the West Roman Empire's excellent infrastructure/governmental concepts and combined them with eastern knowledge and culture, making it arguably even more a solid institution than the more-famous Western Roman Empire had been. It wasn't even due to military reasons; had they mustered their armies properly and at sensible times they could've stopped the muslim advancements fairly early on, maintained their borders and avoided that whole "invasion" thing. The empire crumbled and eventually fell because for generations the various forms of leadership of the empire did nothing but engage in short-sighted, asinine little political games and spent all of their time and energy on trying to become the next leaders of the empire. Once they were in power, they either got booted out/assassinated by the next person/faction or they focused all their attention on not getting booted out by the next person/faction.

There were no substantial reforms or efforts by those in charge because they lived in their own little bubbles of political games and bullshit. As a result, the empire stagnanted, fell apart and was eventually conquered by a guy who essentially amounted to being "a reasonably successful and opportunistic king". No-one with the power to change anything was able or willing to do so because they had to keep playing their bullshit games and focus all their attentions on dealing with the trivial issue of the day, like "Why do we keep letting Catholics do whatever it is they keep doing? Fuck those guys!" or "Seashells are immoral, let's do something about that!". Meanwhile when the entire province of somewhere-ia secceeds or another general deserts or the taxation revenue dips another 10% for no simple, obvious reason, the discussion is not "let's actually address that, find out what went wrong and maybe do something to stop that happening again", it just becomes "that's totally the fault of those other guys. Fuck them! Give me control of everything and I'll probably fix it with... stuff! Also seashells are immoral!"

Anyway, like I said. Incredibly basic, probably severely factually flawed and more divorced from the actual story I heard with every passing sentence (and yes, I just made up the reference to seashells. Couldn't think of anything better), but it's just what comes to mind every time I see American political debates. I mean, I hate Australian politics and it's probably going to follow the US' lead pretty closely for a long time, but in a kind of 'sad-bright-side' way, even when I've lost all hope for my governmental system and can't see any good chances for it to improve for the better, I can at least look at the USA and realise it's not yet that far gone, all things considered.

edit: Before anyone asks where the hell I'm getting my facts from, it's 6am and I've been awake since 7am yesterday, with 3 classes, 2 meetings, a quite long discussion with my partner about serious things, a bunch of hours on assignments and 6 hours at work in-between that time then and now. That's probably why this post is here and seems to be some sort of rant about the Byzantine empire. I dunno. It felt pretty important while I was typing it and I think it deserves at least some sort of recognition for having the bravery to be so very long at such an early time of the morning. I mean, there's sunlight coming through my curtains. Actual freakin' sunlight. I do know that the fortifications of Constantinople were really kickass and based around a concentric ring design, but during that last siege, severely undermanned and most of the defenders were mercenaries, then the guy who captured it was really civil and didn't kill everyone, which was pretty nice for the time. So at the end of the day and you're wondering what's going to happen in the future, there's always that story to hold onto.

...I'm gonna go to bed. I have research reports due now. This is totally probably not a problem. My point was not invalidated by this last paragraph, it was still a relevant observation and I'm pretty sure the story was mostly true. I'll check it tomorrow today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on May 17, 2012, 03:17:14 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gallup-poll-romney-favorable-rating-jumps-183950373.html

Ugh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 04:11:50 pm

I like Romney. He's a moral, just person. I agree that we shouldn't tax rich people at all anymore, actually. Also being gay should be illegal since Mormon Jesus says it should be that way.

Also poor people shouldn't get food stamps, they should work as indentured servents in order to get food. Lazy gits.

And women shouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to get pregnant, I propose a constitutional amendment to make every decision by a woman the choice of her closest male relative. And make getting thinking of an abortion a capital crime.

*Gold bars drop out of pockets* Oh, my bad, sorry, those are meant for congress!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 17, 2012, 04:22:33 pm

Quote from: greatorder on May 17, 2012, 04:20:06 pm

you know, I can't help but feel that most people are saying this (largely bull) crap about obama because he is black. (probably already been established, can't be bothered to check through over 200 pages)

Some of it probably is racism, but it's a fallacy to assume that all badmouthing about Obama is just because of his skin color.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 04:31:46 pm

Quote from: greatorder on May 17, 2012, 04:20:06 pm

you know, I can't help but feel that most people are saying this (largely bull) crap about obama because he is black. (probably already been established, can't be bothered to check through over 200 pages)

Our modern neo-con politicians secretly are racist? By gods!

Also I think this pretty apparent by the fact that whenever a group or committee of some such associated with (R) has a token 'intellectual black' so they can say "See! We're not racist! This guy's black and he agrees!"

Quote from: Sirus on May 17, 2012, 04:22:33 pm

Some of it probably is racism, but it's a fallacy to assume that all badmouthing about Obama is just because of his skin color.

Sure, to assume all of it is connected to race/his background is a bit silly, but for the most part it's a rather apparent fact that the modern Republican establishment simply can't handle a [half] black being president.

Anyone who says otherwise is woefully ignorant of our own country's bigotry and racism, which is typically hidden under a few layers of other issues to not make it the forefront issue, since who'd like Romney if he said "We can't elect Obama! He's Black!" [which is about the gist of opposition to him by most people I can think of who aren't going to vote for him, since they don't know anything about his policies/decisions in the last four years]

You simply cannot say the vast majority of the blind, seething hatred for him isn't the direct result of his race and retarded claims that he's a Muslim. And I say that as a white person.

[Edit: I'm tired of calling black people 'African Americans'. We're all Americans damnit(if you're born in America).]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 17, 2012, 04:44:08 pm

I know a few people who don't want to vote for Obama because he isn't left-wing enough. One of them is black himself.
*shrugs*
I'm just saying that there are valid reasons to like/dislike someone - melanin content isn't one of them.

Blind, seething hatred I would be willing to chalk up to bigotry. Disagreeing with his policies I would not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 04:46:47 pm

Quote from: Sirus on May 17, 2012, 04:44:08 pm

Blind, seething hatred I would be willing to chalk up to bigotry. Disagreeing with his policies I would not.

But, that's the issue with alot of people I know. They disagree with his policies simply on the fact that they do not like him [for the aforementioned reasons, bigotry would be a better way to summarize it] which bothers me more than simple bigotry, since they think they're the ones who should be voting and making decisions on who runs what, when they obviously have no goddamn idea what/why/how to disagree with someone without making it a personal issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 17, 2012, 05:33:34 pm

I think it depends on where in the country you live, in terms of why people dislike/like Obama. Most of the people I know in NY dislike Obama because he is too liberal on the economy.

Some of my family in the midwest however hate Obama because he is black. Some of my family and freinds in Michigan hate him because he doesn't stand up for their religious priniciples.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 05:35:00 pm

It's still a bit silly to chalk it all up to race. You're conflating any sort of personal attack against him as racism, which is frankly ridiculous. There are plently of other really damn stupid reasons for not liking him other than racism; assuming it's the most obvious (and easiest to attack!) is a classic strawman.

I shouldn't need to qualify this but since I'll get attacked otherwise: obviously yes there are plenty of racists out there who hate him due to race. It's just far, far from every republican who dislikes him as a person.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 06:12:30 pm

Hey, thanks for pointing out a point that needed no explanation as that wasn't what I was arguing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:20:13 pm

*goes back and reads*


Oops. Yep. Well replace every instance of the word "race" with "incorrectly calling him a Muslim" and there ya go :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 17, 2012, 06:24:44 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:20:13 pm

*goes back and reads*


Oops. Yep. Well replace every instance of the word "race" with "incorrectly calling him a Muslim" and there ya go :P

I'm talking about how the bigotry is usually thinly veiled under vague economic policy attacks that people really have no idea what the hell they're spewing when they say things like that. It just grinds my gears to see Ad campaigns like the one I listed before, which are obviously racially charged and motivated. Nowhere did I say every republican who happens to be white is a racist, just a disparagingly large amount of them seem to be more scared of the fact that he's not white and happens to not be a rightwing nutjob, so it gives them more motivation to just hate him for no reason other than superficial reasons.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:29:42 pm

People believing shallow propaganda seems a fact of life nowadays. And personally, I think it's far more politically motivated than anything; the racial and religious undercurrents are just to appeal to the racists and bigots out there. If Obama was a white caucasian who grew up in Kentucky, there would be other ridiculous crap being thrown at him.


I mean, look at Clinton. They had to smear him with a sex scandal, of all things. They'll throw whatever insults they can get their hands on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 17, 2012, 06:34:52 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:29:42 pm

nowadays

Dropping into my own thread to say how much I hate that word.  Or any permutation thereof like "these days" or "recently".  Nothing is Goddamn different, be cynical on your own time.

Regarding the PAC thing, I'm pretty sure the "Abraham Lincoln" comment was what the group wanted in the guy they'd stand up against Obama.  Like they said, a "metrosexual black Abraham Lincoln", to counteract the presumably metrosexual black Leon Trotsky they think Obama is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:39:01 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on May 17, 2012, 06:34:52 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:29:42 pm

nowadays

Dropping into my own thread to say how much I hate that word.  Or any permutation thereof like "these days" or "recently".  Nothing is Goddamn different, be cynical on your own time.

If it makes you feel better, I do think we're getting better, not worse :P We don't gleefully accept any propaganda thrown our way anymore (like we did during WWII).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Pnx on May 17, 2012, 10:11:12 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:39:01 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on May 17, 2012, 06:34:52 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on May 17, 2012, 06:29:42 pm

nowadays

Dropping into my own thread to say how much I hate that word.  Or any permutation thereof like "these days" or "recently".  Nothing is Goddamn different, be cynical on your own time.

If it makes you feel better, I do think we're getting better, not worse :P We don't gleefully accept any propaganda thrown our way anymore (like we did during WWII).

It sort of depends a little on what you'd call propaganda, but what about "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "the wealth will trickle down", "there's no difference between corn sugar or cane sugar", or a disturbingly large slice of what Fox News says (or doesn't say, such as in the case of Ron Paul)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 17, 2012, 10:56:14 pm

I think propaganda has grown much more sophisticated, while larger portions of the population have grown cynical/resistant.  Unfortunately, it's really easy to toss out information as propaganda just because it comes from authorities you dont' trust, and then follow your suspicions in the opposite direction, only to fall into acceptance of even worse propaganda.  I've watched intelligent people do this, and try to maintain a self-awareness that might prevent me from doing this myself.  But who knows?  We're at a point where truth is completely a matter of what sources you choose to trust, and there's very rarely a reason to choose one source over another that can be considered objectively absolute.

As for the Abraham Lincoln thing, which may be a related issue, the growing libertarian movement sees the civil war as having been a conflict over limitations of federal jurisdiction more than the issue of slavery, and hates Lincoln's guts for beginning an expansion of federal power.  This is probably why associating Obama with Lincoln is symbolic for them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on May 19, 2012, 06:31:07 pm

The Paulbots took over the Minnesota GOP nominating convention, claiming 32 of the 40 delegates from this state.  Also, their wacko candidate won the contest to be crushed by Klobuchar in November.  To be honest, I'm not quite sure what they hope to accomplish; most likely they'll just be barred from voting in the National Republican Convention in Tampa.

Of course, Minnesota has so few Republican delegates it doesn't make much of a difference unless they actually manage to stage coups in states with more delegates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on May 20, 2012, 12:29:53 pm

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet but it's important and welcome news to me:
APNewsBreak: 22 states, DC back Montana in Supreme Court corporate spending fight (http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-22-states-join-campaign-064738670.html)

Also notice the following from the article:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On Friday, Montana's case was given a boost when U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-D-R.I., signed on in support. The senators argue evidence following the Citizens United decision, where millions in unregulated money has poured into presidential elections, shows that large independent expenditures can lead to corruption.

If someone wants to make a new thread due to the importance of the issue it's cool with me but I figured I'd put it here first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on May 20, 2012, 03:31:55 pm

I just want to know who the heck the American Tradition Partnership (http://www.americantradition.org/) is.

Quote

American Tradition Partnership (ATP) is a no-compromise grassroots organization dedicated to fighting the radical environmentalist agenda. We support responsible development of natural resources and rational land use and management policies. Only together can we protect access, private property rights, and affordable energy for all Americans!

Because, honestly, that's not very enlightening.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 20, 2012, 03:39:28 pm

Well, they're a front for energy and extractive company that fight stuff like national parks, cap & trade and any environmental organization.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 03:50:24 pm

In other news, Gingrich be broke! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/20/gingrich-is-millions-in-the-hole/?hpt=hp_bn5)

Quote

Newt Gingrich ended his campaign earlier this month with nearly $4.8 million in campaign debt, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission that reflected campaign activity through the end of April.

Debts of $1 million to a charter airline company, $466,370 for security services, $181,977 for public relations consulting and $165,000 for web advertising were among the largest single figures owed. The filing also listed a debt of $580,134 to Gingrich himself for travel expenses.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Gonna take quite a few speaking engagements at Dunkin' Donuts and the Legionnaires Club to pay that off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 21, 2012, 04:05:36 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on May 17, 2012, 10:56:14 pm

As for the Abraham Lincoln thing, which may be a related issue, the growing libertarian movement sees the civil war as having been a conflict over limitations of federal jurisdiction more than the issue of slavery, and hates Lincoln's guts for beginning an expansion of federal power.

This exact thing has been lectured to me several times.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 21, 2012, 04:08:24 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 03:50:24 pm

In other news, Gingrich be broke! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/20/gingrich-is-millions-in-the-hole/?hpt=hp_bn5)

Quote

Newt Gingrich ended his campaign earlier this month with nearly $4.8 million in campaign debt, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission that reflected campaign activity through the end of April.

Debts of $1 million to a charter airline company, $466,370 for security services, $181,977 for public relations consulting and $165,000 for web advertising were among the largest single figures owed. The filing also listed a debt of $580,134 to Gingrich himself for travel expenses.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Gonna take quite a few speaking engagements at Dunkin' Donuts and the Legionnaires Club to pay that off.

Wait...Newt Gingrich owes Newt Gingrich half a million dollars? For travel expenses?? How does that even work? What, does he have to book a second seat to carry his ego in?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 04:09:47 pm

Article says he raised $23 million for his campaign....where the hell did all that money go?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2012, 05:11:29 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 04:09:47 pm

Article says he raised $23 million for his campaign....where the hell did all that money go?

Caribbean Bank Havens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 21, 2012, 05:18:46 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 04:09:47 pm

Article says he raised $23 million for his campaign....where the hell did all that money go?

Who the hell donates to Newt gingrich? besides sheldon adelson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 21, 2012, 07:43:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 21, 2012, 04:08:24 pm

Wait...Newt Gingrich owes Newt Gingrich half a million dollars? For travel expenses?? How does that even work? What, does he have to book a second seat to carry his ego in?

He has to pay himself extra to put up with Newt Gingrich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on May 21, 2012, 08:09:07 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 04:09:47 pm

Article says he raised $23 million for his campaign....where the hell did all that money go?

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/r/V/4/clinton-colombian-prostitutes.jpg)

That just became relevant again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 21, 2012, 08:11:42 pm

^ hillarious

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 21, 2012, 08:16:32 pm

That picture will always be the best picture.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 21, 2012, 08:22:34 pm

Obama's expression sells it perfectly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 08:24:14 pm

Oh I dunno. Clinton's expression like he's about to walk face first into a bosom does a pretty good job too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 21, 2012, 09:54:14 pm

It's the hands. Their hands are all perfect. The face palm contrasts wonderfully with the extended and welcoming gesture Bill is making. Really, they're both artists and we should appreciate them as such.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 21, 2012, 11:16:16 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 21, 2012, 08:24:14 pm

Oh I dunno. Clinton's expression like he's about to walk face first into a bosom does a pretty good job too.

Does any other president even have an "about to walk face first into a bosom" look?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 21, 2012, 11:17:41 pm

I bet Pres. Kennedy did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on May 21, 2012, 11:18:30 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on May 21, 2012, 11:17:41 pm

I bet Pres. Kennedy did.

The question is, did he have any other look?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on May 22, 2012, 12:05:16 am

Bush did a great boob impression

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 22, 2012, 12:10:39 am

Quote from: Bauglir on May 21, 2012, 11:18:30 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on May 21, 2012, 11:17:41 pm

I bet Pres. Kennedy did.

The question is, did he have any other look?

Considering that they called his wife "Jackie O"...probably not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 22, 2012, 12:15:07 am

What I'm wondering is, what the Hell is Robert Gibbs thinking?  He's looking at Bill like he just planted a Kick Me sign on him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 22, 2012, 12:25:25 am

I feel the grin is from Clintoning the Commander 'n Chief.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 07:50:14 am

I kind of see Clinton coming out with a Telly Savalas-style "Who loves ya baby?"

Obama's reaction is priceless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 22, 2012, 08:53:08 am

That image needs some TELEVISION' GIGANTE! music playing in the background.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 22, 2012, 09:13:36 am

I personally prefer this one.

(http://www.turdfergusonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fssvq.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on May 22, 2012, 09:38:19 am

Jobs is DEAD, Bill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 22, 2012, 10:53:36 am

I wish Clinton was back in the white house, the economy was booming, connection speeds were in the MBPS, we were terrified of Japan, and I was back in middle school.

Actually, no, that would be terrible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 10:58:36 am

We were terrified of Japan?? I must have missed that part.
I think the main boogeymen back in the 90's were rogue Soviet nukes, right-wing militia nuts, and gangsta rap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 22, 2012, 10:59:44 am

Oddly enough, Right Wing Milita Nuts are still the most dangerous terrorist groups in the US for several years running.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 22, 2012, 11:12:26 am

America, #1 baby yeah!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 22, 2012, 05:16:36 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 10:58:36 am

We were terrified of Japan?? I must have missed that part.

Remember how back in the nineties all the economists were saying that Japan would be an unstoppable industrial powerhouse that would control the global economy like they say China will now, but then Japan's population started to collapse?

I don't remember that because I was three, but I read about it later. You, on the other hand, have no excuse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 22, 2012, 05:23:06 pm

I think the rising sun fear dates back to the 80s not 90s.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on May 22, 2012, 05:39:33 pm

It started when Japan started dominating the car industry, iirc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 22, 2012, 05:41:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 22, 2012, 05:16:36 pm

Remember how back in the nineties all the economists were saying that Japan would be an unstoppable industrial powerhouse that would control the global economy like they say China will now, but then Japan's population started to collapse?

I don't remember that because I was three, but I read about it later. You, on the other hand, have no excuse.

Oh yeah, I remember that. Man, that was a silly prediction, wasn't it? I haven't thought about it for over a decade.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 22, 2012, 05:53:05 pm

By the way, just so I can get the jump on the economists again, China will also fail to become an unstoppable industrial powerhouse when the first waves of really old people start relying on Chinese state healthcare and from the social strife of the younger Chinese demanding greater rights. Said rights will have to be granted by the PRC eventually, the only question is how many provinces they lose, Soviet Union style, before they realize it. My money is actually not on Tibet going first, because the PRC has crushed rebellion there fairly effectively.

As for healthcare, if you think Medicare is a financial problem, you haven't seen anything yet. There will probably be more elderly Chinese on state healthcare in a few decades then there are people in any given U.S. state, and maybe even the U.S. as a whole someday. It helps that, given Chinese culture, the elderly are one of the few groups that probably can't be effectively marginalized by the government.

tl:dr China is going down, the only question is how far they'll fall.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 22, 2012, 07:35:55 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 22, 2012, 05:23:06 pm

I think the rising sun fear dates back to the 80s not 90s.

Yeah, there was that movie with Mr. McClane an' stuff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cainiao on May 23, 2012, 07:30:02 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 22, 2012, 05:53:05 pm

By the way, just so I can get the jump on the economists again, China will also fail to become an unstoppable industrial powerhouse when the first waves of really old people start relying on Chinese state healthcare and from the social strife of the younger Chinese demanding greater rights. Said rights will have to be granted by the PRC eventually, the only question is how many provinces they lose, Soviet Union style, before they realize it. My money is actually not on Tibet going first, because the PRC has crushed rebellion there fairly effectively.

As for healthcare, if you think Medicare is a financial problem, you haven't seen anything yet. There will probably be more elderly Chinese on state healthcare in a few decades then there are people in any given U.S. state, and maybe even the U.S. as a whole someday. It helps that, given Chinese culture, the elderly are one of the few groups that probably can't be effectively marginalized by the government.

tl:dr China is going down, the only question is how far they'll fall.

State healthcare only built up in recent years in China, most of the people still rely on their children rather than the government to cover their healthcare.

Aging would be a serious problem due to One Child policy, however the government have realize the problem and taking measures,lifting one child ban, shifting manufacture in to hinterland and pouring money into R&D.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 23, 2012, 07:39:47 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 22, 2012, 05:16:36 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 22, 2012, 10:58:36 am

We were terrified of Japan?? I must have missed that part.

Remember how back in the nineties all the economists were saying that Japan would be an unstoppable industrial powerhouse that would control the global economy like they say China will now, but then Japan's population started to collapse?

I don't remember that because I was three, but I read about it later. You, on the other hand, have no excuse.

Right false prediction, wrong decade (most of the "OMG we're all gonna work for the Japanese" stuff was late 80's). Japan was already in stagflation by 1992.

With that in mind, China's economic planners are well aware of history and trying to discourage the kind of profligate spending that helped damage Japan's economy (like when Japanese investors bought ridiculously overpriced real estate, built rooftop golf courses in Yokohama, were buying luxury SUVs like they were candy, etc.) They can't control it 100%, but they can tamp down the biggest excesses.

I know you're a pessimist on China's future, MSH. Just like I'm a cautious optimist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 23, 2012, 10:53:17 am

While China has a bit of a demographic problem, people tend to make more of it then there is.  For instance it's much less severe then Japan and I don't think anyone expects Japan to head into civil disorder.  It's much less severe then Italy and people tend not to list that among Italy's top problems.  What's much more pressing for China is that they've already plucked the low hanging fruit of industrialization and globalization.  They're running out of low productivity farmers to shift into factories.  That means the rate of growth is going to slow.  But it also means that bargaining power of workers is going to rise and those rising wages will help solve many of their problems.  Civil strife is possible but mostly because they are an autocratic regime and that happens in autocratic regimes, not because they are in some dire situation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 23, 2012, 05:13:48 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 23, 2012, 07:39:47 am

I know you're a pessimist on China's future, MSH. Just like I'm a cautious optimist.

I'm a pessimist on the future of the PRC state. China as a nation, on the other hand, will see great improvements.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 23, 2012, 05:15:46 pm

Adorable, right? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/politics/indelible-image-of-a-boys-pat-on-obamas-head-hangs-in-white-house.html) I know it's probably just to get good PR in the face of all his negative ad campaigning, but this is still ridiculously humble and a sign we still have a human as a president. Also, first instance I've seen of Obama saying 'dude.'

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on May 23, 2012, 05:32:49 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on May 23, 2012, 05:15:46 pm

Also, first instance I've seen of Obama saying 'dude.'

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 23, 2012, 05:46:03 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on May 23, 2012, 05:15:46 pm

Adorable, right? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/politics/indelible-image-of-a-boys-pat-on-obamas-head-hangs-in-white-house.html) I know it's probably just to get good PR in the face of all his negative ad campaigning, but this is still ridiculously humble and a sign we still have a human as a president. Also, first instance I've seen of Obama saying 'dude.'

I think that's something of an overstatement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 23, 2012, 05:49:58 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on May 23, 2012, 05:46:03 pm

I think that's something of an overstatement.

Eh, think what you will, I don't really care. It's a good sign when your president doesn't think he's above such things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on May 24, 2012, 09:41:53 am

So apparently Mitt Romney looks like someone.  Someone very... evil.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/542501_452943571401768_205344452828349_100691530_1111602141_n.jpg)
In case someone doesn't know, Gul Dukat was pretty much the main villain of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (in a way).  To quote one of the other characters on the show: "Some people wouldn't know reason even if it walked up and shook their hand.  You can count Gul Dukat as one of them."  He was the head of an invasion and enslavement of an entire planet, and later on a dark messiah threatening to bring the apocalypse on the same planet.  And somewhere in between, that planet's version of satan gave Gul Dukat special powers, and one of his first orders of business was to murder a pregnant woman and her unborn child "because she was in the way."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 24, 2012, 12:34:25 pm

He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 24, 2012, 12:37:42 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 24, 2012, 12:34:25 pm

He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

You deserve this. (http://yeahbutton.com/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 24, 2012, 12:48:57 pm

So Romney released his education plan.  Most interesting part is where families in public schools can apply to get money for supplemental education.  This money comes out of their public schools budget.  The public school has no say in it of course.  Rather reminds me of the republican plans to make medicare "wither on the vine" back in the 90s.  The plan then was to let healthy seniors spend all of medicare's money on the private market thus leaving medicare unable to cover it's obligations to those with high costs in the given year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 24, 2012, 09:00:11 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 24, 2012, 12:34:25 pm

He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

...Sigged? Let's see if it fits.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on May 25, 2012, 06:45:29 am

Quote from: mainiac on May 24, 2012, 12:48:57 pm

So Romney released his education plan.  Most interesting part is where families in public schools can apply to get money for supplemental education.  This money comes out of their public schools budget.  The public school has no say in it of course.

Don't forget the claims that class size has no effect on educational outcomes (http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/05/24/romney-on-how-to-fix-edumication/).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on May 25, 2012, 09:05:50 am

Quote from: palsch on May 25, 2012, 06:45:29 am

Quote from: mainiac on May 24, 2012, 12:48:57 pm

So Romney released his education plan.  Most interesting part is where families in public schools can apply to get money for supplemental education.  This money comes out of their public schools budget.  The public school has no say in it of course.

Don't forget the claims that class size has no effect on educational outcomes (http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/05/24/romney-on-how-to-fix-edumication/).

Sweet mother of Zeus, no one let this man make any decisions whatsoever regarding education, because a line like that demonstrates irrevocably that he has no goddamn idea about the subject. At freaking all. Though it'd be nice to have the full context of the statement. I don't think it's even remotely possible to spin it in a positive light, but the chance should be had, I guess.

The news post that blog linked to had something pretty rage inducing about poor families and marriage, but I guess that line's fairly standard from the conservative side nowadays. My hands, they strangle the air involuntarily, seeking a throat to constrict.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 25, 2012, 09:23:41 am

Quote

Sweet mother of Zeus, no one let this man make any decisions whatsoever regarding education, because a line like that demonstrates irrevocably that he has no goddamn idea about the subject.

Oh he knows exactly what he's doing. He's just applying his past experience in manipulating troubled assets into liquidation to the education system. If he makes the system hemorrhage money, eventually there'd be no option left except to sell it off, and by it I mean the DoE, to private education.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on May 25, 2012, 09:27:55 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 22, 2012, 05:53:05 pm

China will also fail to become an unstoppable industrial powerhouse when the first waves of really old people start relying on Chinese state healthcare

Quote from: RedKing on May 23, 2012, 07:39:47 am

With that in mind, China's economic planners are well aware of history and trying to discourage the kind of profligate spending that helped damage Japan's economy

...Aaaand suddenly China's heavy grants to the "traditional medicine" business makes total sense. They can't get old if their "treatments" fail to keep them alive first, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 25, 2012, 11:28:10 am

Imagine if we did the same thing to education we did to the prison system? Private public schools, funded by the government. Of course, there are differences. Instead of having to hold people, we'd have to keep people in school and make them educated. Which in practice just means that tests will become little more than an elaborate roll call.

I imagine such a system would work if funding for schools was based off of the ultimate income of the graduates. Imagine if after you left school, some small percentage of your income went directly back to the schools you studied in. If you schools made you a skilled doctor and you made a lot of money, well that's great, and you'll make plenty of money, and some of it would ultimately move the system forward.

Oh wait, that's just taxes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on May 25, 2012, 12:00:23 pm

Do not worry citizens, we shall still have the technical expertise to do everything in America.  We may just have an influx of edumacated people from Mainland Asia to help us out in the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 25, 2012, 12:03:46 pm

Quote from: scriver on May 25, 2012, 09:27:55 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 22, 2012, 05:53:05 pm

China will also fail to become an unstoppable industrial powerhouse when the first waves of really old people start relying on Chinese state healthcare

Quote from: RedKing on May 23, 2012, 07:39:47 am

With that in mind, China's economic planners are well aware of history and trying to discourage the kind of profligate spending that helped damage Japan's economy

...Aaaand suddenly China's heavy grants to the "traditional medicine" business makes total sense. They can't get old if their "treatments" fail to keep them alive first, right?

That won't work either. An unhealthy workforce doesn't work very well. China's massive environmental damage is going to catch up with them soon, and if they aren't ready to transition to a more sustainable industry it'll bring economic collapse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 25, 2012, 05:13:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 25, 2012, 12:03:46 pm

That won't work either. An unhealthy workforce doesn't work very well. China's massive environmental damage is going to catch up with them soon, and if they aren't ready to transition to a more sustainable industry it'll bring economic collapse.

Western countries used to have environmental problems as bad as China does now before we cleaned up our act.  It didn't lead to economic collapse, just a lot of human suffering and the loss of some natural resources.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 25, 2012, 05:19:35 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 25, 2012, 05:13:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 25, 2012, 12:03:46 pm

That won't work either. An unhealthy workforce doesn't work very well. China's massive environmental damage is going to catch up with them soon, and if they aren't ready to transition to a more sustainable industry it'll bring economic collapse.

Western countries used to have environmental problems as bad as China does now before we cleaned up our act.  It didn't lead to economic collapse, just a lot of human suffering and the loss of some natural resources.

And China isn't doing much to get away from it. It'll get worse, and eventually there will be a breaking point, such as factory workers and farmers shooting at government officials. Some of that is already happening.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cainiao on May 26, 2012, 11:13:35 am

Wow, lots of people discuss China in this "American Election Megathread", glad to see that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 26, 2012, 01:27:07 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 25, 2012, 05:19:35 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 25, 2012, 05:13:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 25, 2012, 12:03:46 pm

That won't work either. An unhealthy workforce doesn't work very well. China's massive environmental damage is going to catch up with them soon, and if they aren't ready to transition to a more sustainable industry it'll bring economic collapse.

Western countries used to have environmental problems as bad as China does now before we cleaned up our act.  It didn't lead to economic collapse, just a lot of human suffering and the loss of some natural resources.

And China isn't doing much to get away from it. It'll get worse, and eventually there will be a breaking point, such as factory workers and farmers shooting at government officials. Some of that is already happening.

Not entirely true. In many cases, when they're putting in brand new infrastructure, they're going the extra mile to make it more sustainable and "green", figuring (rightly) that they're going to have to eventually anyways, and since that kind of infrastructure is more expensive, why not do it when you're flush with cash?

Secondly, it's an issue of energy dependence. China has a 75% urbanization target for 2050, mostly in three mega-city complexes:
Bay of Bohai region (Beijing, Tianjin, and assorted metros)
Yellow River Delta (Shanghai, Hangzhou, Nanjing, etc.)
Pearl River Delta (Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, etc.)

There's also a secondary urbanization hub in Sichuan, around a Chongqing-Chengdu axis that would likely be mostly heavy industry/military in focus.

If they don't find a way to make energy-efficient, low-impact mega-cities, they're going to be literally devouring every last chunk of coal and drop of oil on the planet just to keep them running. And choking on their own waste in the process. That's why the national government is sinking a ton of yuan into R&D in this kind of stuff.

Now, that said....as always in China, the problem is that no matter how good of an idea or how altruistic the national government might be, the devil of the problem is getting local officials to follow the plan (remember the bit I mentioned about an official painting a quarry green to "comply" with directives?). The other problem is the inevitable economic ripple effects. For instance, let's say that they build 100 large-scale coal gas plants, each generating 650Mw. All that electricity could heat a lot of houses, removing the need for them to use the ubquitous bitumen cakes (China's coal is almost entirely bituminous, as opposed to cleaner-burning anthracite). However, there are tens of thousands of Chinese who make and sell these bitumen cakes as their livelihood. They're out of a job. There are various other technologies that will improve quality of life (and environmental quality) for many Chinese, but are going to put people out of work. Managing that problem is going to be crucial -- ignore too many of them, and you wind up with the seeds for a neo-Luddite social revolt.

Another reason they've got to go green is that as much coal as China produces (48% of the world total), they've only got about a 50-year reserve left at the current rate. That means they've got 50 years to develop the infrastructure for wind, hydro, nuclear, etc. and shift the country to it, or the Chinese success story is going to grind to an earth-shattering halt. I know that some people look at the scenario and recall Japan in the 1930's and the fact that their industrialization was hampered by a critical shortage of oil, and the ramifications that ended up having. I don't see that happening with China, because their histories and national character are so different. A more realistic proposition is that they'll use trade and investment to strip Africa clean of resources first.


To kind of rerail, this is why I wish to god Huntsman had managed to stay in the race longer. Romney's stance on China seems to be the classic Republican "we need to be wary of the inscrutable ChiComs" stance, and Obama's is more of a puzzled laissez-faire attitude that's more concerned with human rights issues and trade. I don't particularly subscribe to other, although Obama's is at least less dangerous. I think we need to be actively engaged, we need to be offering assistance in technical issues that benefit both countries (like environmental technology), we need to quietly maintain pressure on internal reforms but have the sense not to publicly call them out on things and make their job that much more difficult because of the inevitable "national pride" backlash, and most of all we need to recognize that China is entitled to a certain sphere of influence along their borders. I worry (especially with Republican administrations) that Taiwan could be become what Israel is: an alliance with one small state in an unfriendly neighborhood that we maintain mostly for historical reasons rather than any current realpolitik reasons.

Quote from: cainiao on May 26, 2012, 11:13:35 am

Wow, lots of people discuss China in this "American Election Megathread", glad to see that.

你好菜鸟, 我們商榷中国因为中国非常重要美国政治. 请你原谅我笔调...我是 "菜鸟" 关于国语.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 26, 2012, 09:19:53 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 26, 2012, 01:27:07 pm

Quote from: cainiao on May 26, 2012, 11:13:35 am

Wow, lots of people discuss China in this "American Election Megathread", glad to see that.

你好菜鸟, 我們商榷中国因为中国非常重要美国政治. 请你原谅我笔调...我是 "菜鸟" 关于国语.  :P

I love google translate. To wit:

Quote

Hello rookie, we are open to question because China is very important in American politics. Please forgive my tone ... I'm a "rookie" on the Mandarin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 27, 2012, 02:51:24 am

Is there some sort of environmental technology that we are keeping from the Chinese, Redking?

There's also a pretty big difference between Taiwan and Israel.  Israel routinely acts like dicks and we continue to back them up.  The Taiwanese on the other hand don't do anytime more offensive to the Chinese then existing.  They haven't even declared independence yet.

Taiwan is also much easier to support then Israel since it is an island.  It would take decades of China continuing to build up the surface navy and ASW capabilities before defending Taiwan becomes more then an afterthought.  And if we actually do get to the point where China has that sort of military capability and relations between the US and China are bad enough for it to actually matter then Taiwan would probably be a useful ally to have.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on May 27, 2012, 03:24:28 am

Quote from: mainiac on May 27, 2012, 02:51:24 am

Israel routinely acts like dicks

This is such a huge understatement, and it frustrates me how many people act with complete revulsion when you indicate that since its formation, Israel has launched "pre-emptive" attacks on most of their neighbors.  It's all more than a little unfortunate. (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on May 27, 2012, 03:37:14 am

Although to be faire "acts like dicks" is much shorter than listing all the human right abuse, mass massacre and stuff they did aver the last few decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Twi on May 27, 2012, 04:37:58 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on May 27, 2012, 03:24:28 am

Quote from: mainiac on May 27, 2012, 02:51:24 am

Israel routinely acts like dicks

This is such a huge understatement, and it frustrates me how many people act with complete revulsion when you indicate that since its formation, Israel has launched "pre-emptive" attacks on most of their neighbors.  It's all more than a little unfortunate. (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/)

Sadly, one could probably argue (and plenty of people probably do) that their neighbors are worse. Seems like there's no middle ground here: either people pay too much attention to Israel's bad stuff or too little. (If I recall correctly, there was supposedly at one point a rule in the UN saying that Israel had to be brought up every session. I am not making this up (though of course I may be mistaken).) Honestly, I don't know a ton about Israel's badness aside from preemptively attacking every time and the settlements in Palestine, the latter of which i can safely say are pretty damn stupid. And anti-Islamic sentiment...and stupid things done by ultra-orthodox communities...

Therefore:

Quote from: Sheb on May 27, 2012, 03:37:14 am

Although to be faire "acts like dicks" is much shorter than listing all the human right abuse, mass massacre and stuff they did aver the last few decades.

Enlighten me! Too lazy to read through the whole site :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 27, 2012, 04:48:06 pm

We should probably move any Israeli-Arab Conflict discussion to another thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on May 27, 2012, 08:34:56 pm

Quote from: Twi on May 27, 2012, 04:37:58 pm

Quote from: Capntastic on May 27, 2012, 03:24:28 am

Quote from: mainiac on May 27, 2012, 02:51:24 am

Israel routinely acts like dicks

This is such a huge understatement, and it frustrates me how many people act with complete revulsion when you indicate that since its formation, Israel has launched "pre-emptive" attacks on most of their neighbors.  It's all more than a little unfortunate. (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/)

Sadly, one could probably argue (and plenty of people probably do) that their neighbors are worse. Seems like there's no middle ground here: either people pay too much attention to Israel's bad stuff or too little. (If I recall correctly, there was supposedly at one point a rule in the UN saying that Israel had to be brought up every session. I am not making this up (though of course I may be mistaken).) Honestly, I don't know a ton about Israel's badness aside from preemptively attacking every time and the settlements in Palestine, the latter of which i can safely say are pretty damn stupid. And anti-Islamic sentiment...and stupid things done by ultra-orthodox communities...

Therefore:

Quote from: Sheb on May 27, 2012, 03:37:14 am

Although to be faire "acts like dicks" is much shorter than listing all the human right abuse, mass massacre and stuff they did aver the last few decades.

Enlighten me! Too lazy to read through the whole site :P

I'll try to end this derail by posting all I really have to say about the subject.  If you want to continue discussion, make another thread, but this is my end of things:

In 1967 or sometime abouts Israel decided to bomb all of Egypts airfields, etc, then rolled in with (American Made) tanks and stuff 'just in case' Egypt was planning an attack.  In 1981, Israel launched an airstrike on Iraq, destroying a nuclear reactor they were building, 'just in case'.  These are known as The Six Day War and Operation Opera, respectively, and they're two of the major ones.  Israel attacks their neighbors, funded by America and armed with American weapons, and makes itself out to be the victim.  Again, if you were living in an apartment complex and you saw one of your neighbors, Israel, break into the homes of your neighbor Egypt and Iraq, attack them, and steal their possessions, would you not begin to feel a little terrified? Would you not want to sleep with a weapon by your door?  Especially when the landlord, America, someone who claims to want peace and quiet within the complex, gives Israel guns and free rent?  It's a stupid analogy, really, but it pretty much describes what is going on, I think. 

Again, the site I linked earlier (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/) shows the current 'score' with regards to Israel occupying the territories of those around it, bulldozing entire communities, etc.  Israel's actions are unjustifiable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Pnx on May 27, 2012, 10:07:37 pm

You're forgetting all the activities of the Mossad which include such friendly things as abductions, assassinations (which they seem to prefer to do by indiscriminate bombings), and a healthy dose of torture.

Israel has a history of not being very nice to people... but to be entirely fair, its neighbours haven't been playing very nice with it either. The six day war started because Egypt was diverting a river away from Israel to prevent it getting water, and expelled UN peacekeepers and began mobilizing in the sinai peninsula (which was supposed to be a kind of DMZ). Israel attacked first to prevent Egypt from getting into a position to just roll into Israel. If they hadn't attacked when they did, there's a decent chance the war would have been much uglier.

A lot of their stuff is... difficult to excuse, but keep in mind there are two sides to the story.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 27, 2012, 10:14:33 pm

This is a topic that will spiral out of control and end with Aqizzar imaging us again if it continues here. Once again, I suggest moving it to it's own thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 27, 2012, 10:48:32 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 27, 2012, 10:14:33 pm

This is a topic that will spiral out of control and end with Aqizzar imaging us again if it continues here. Once again, I suggest moving it to it's own thread.

+1.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on May 27, 2012, 11:08:26 pm

Yeah, pretty much.  To be perfectly honest, it's part of why I don't check in very often.

I can't wait for some real American election news.  Interestingly enough, there's a round of local elections in my part of the country on Tuesday.  I know essentially nothing about any of the candidates.  Also, my phone is ringing off the goddamn hook from about five different campaigns, a good portion of them being robocalls which I'm fairly certain are illegal for cellphones.  I swear, you give one campaign some contact information, and the whole goddamn party is beating a path to your door for money for the next two years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cainiao on May 28, 2012, 07:48:37 am

Quote from: RedKing on May 26, 2012, 01:27:07 pm

Quote from: cainiao on May 26, 2012, 11:13:35 am

Wow, lots of people discuss China in this "American Election Megathread", glad to see that.

你好菜鸟, 我們商榷中国因为中国非常重要美国政治. 请你原谅我笔调...我是 "菜鸟" 关于国语.  :P

Yeah, that reminds me of this  :P:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3336/8776fee7699e8173410887bde7.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 07:57:22 am

...I'm half tempted to make that my new avatar.

So.....remember polls? They're back! (Actually, they never stopped, we just stopped paying attention to them.)

As expected, Obama's "I beat everybody, all day every day" lead in the general election has shrunk considerably as Republicans rally around their nearly-human overlord.

Recent polls:
Rasmussen: Romney +1
Gallup: Obama +2
ABC News/Washington Post: Obama +3
NBC News/Wall St. Journal: Obama +4
FOX News: Obama +7

Rasmussen, as I've noted many times, has a distinct record of being the outlier poll in tons of different races. Although part of the difference here is that Rasmussen was the only one to use "likely voters" for their sample base, as opposed to registered voters. Two other polls in early May used likely voters and both came up with narrow Romney leads. Of course, "likely" can be somewhat in the eye of the beholder. But it does speak of a small but palpable "enthusiasm gap" -- while the base of both parties are just kinda "meh...i'll vote for our guy but i'm not crazy about him", Romney benefits from a cluser of energized fringers who would vote for anyone or anything over Obama. Obama himself needs to recapture at least some of that lightning in a bottle that he had in 2008, to get the youth vote and get people on his side fired up again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 08:05:39 am

Fox is reporting +7 for Obama? I realize the strategic value of making your opponent seem like a powerful force that you must all rally together to halt, but that's overkill. And obvious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 29, 2012, 09:51:03 am

While I can't speak for the accuracy of fox's polling accuracy I don't believe they rig the numbers.  They've showed things in Obama's favor in the past too.  I'd say that fox's poll is probably a bit of an outlier in Obama's favor but fox numbers tend to jump around a bit.

Rasmussen's early numbers are basically worthless IMHO.  For their late numbers you can get pretty accurate estimates by just shifting things about 2.5% towards the democrats.  But their early numbers tend to be inconsistent and have a bias compared to the other firms even after accounting for the LV model.  It should be noted that Rasmussen does robo polling unlike the other 4 polls listed.

These numbers are a bit better then the past few weeks so I'd say there's probably a bit of noise improving Obama's numbers a hair.  I'd say it's most likely a near even thing with Obama holding a very slight lead.  However the electoral college is likely to favor Obama compared to the popular vote so I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama's chances.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 09:56:35 am

Yeah I haven't had the time to look at state-level polls and extrapolate that to an electoral college result. I'm sure Nate Silver has been doing that a couple of times a day just for shits and giggles, and I'd defer to his Nate-ness any day.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 29, 2012, 10:05:20 am

Unless Obama is found in a hotel bedroom with three Iatolas and Jim Kong Un, he's going to win. Let's not forget, Obama rode a giant eagle to Pakistan and personally ripped Osama's head off and kicked it so hard it flew back in time and killed Hitler.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on May 29, 2012, 10:13:06 am

Which means nothing unless he reminds people of that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 29, 2012, 10:32:59 am

I suspect that the Osama bump will count for less then a sunny election day would.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 10:34:40 am

Which is why you can be certain he's going to remind people of that. A lot. It's going to kind of Bizarro World to see a Democrat wrapping himself in the flag and essentially saying, "Remember that guy? Yeah, that's right. We blew his brains out on *my* watch. America, FUCK YEAHHHHHH!"

Although it does kind of deprive the Republicans of one of their oldest and stoutest campaign planks. Best they can try to argue now is maybe something about openly gay soldiers weakening the military or some shit, or some kind of obtuse hypothetical scenarios regarding Israel (which Obama has given no evidence of NOT supporting) or China. Or the fact that the automatic budget cuts (which the GOP agreed to as part of the "Super Committee" budget deadlock deal) hit the DoD, which they've been frantically trying to somehow get undone. It's almost like watching my 5-year old in action:

"Okay, you can either watch one more cartoon and then go straight to bed, or we can read a book and then go to bed. Your choice, but no whining afterwards."
"Okay, I wanna watch a cartoon."

*cue five minutes later*

"But I want a book too!!!"

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 29, 2012, 10:05:20 am

Unless Obama is found in a hotel bedroom with three Iatolas and Jim Kong Un, he's going to win. Let's not forget, Obama rode a giant eagle to Pakistan and personally ripped Osama's head off and kicked it so hard it flew back in time and killed Hitler.

Oh, and also...it wasn't an eagle, it was a corgi. And he fired cats out of his hands, hadouken-style.

Spoiler: Artist's rendition. (click to show/hide)

(http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/conrad_ruiz.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on May 29, 2012, 10:44:12 am

Dude. Banana phone. +1 appreciation. Ring ring ring ring.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on May 29, 2012, 12:16:06 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 10:34:40 am

Which is why you can be certain he's going to remind people of that. A lot. It's going to kind of Bizarro World to see a Democrat wrapping himself in the flag and essentially saying, "Remember that guy? Yeah, that's right. We blew his brains out on *my* watch. America, FUCK YEAHHHHHH!"

Speaking of which there is this lengthy piece in the Times. (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all) There is a lot to unpack there, but the first thing it puts across is that Obama is taking direct personal responsibility for all go/no-go calls on all anti-terror operations.

The tone they are trying to strike is somewhere between hardline hawkish anti-terrorist grandstanding and compassionate controlled responsible leadership. The take over at Volokh (http://volokh.com/2012/05/29/the-secret-kill-list-and-the-president/) is interesting as well;

Quote

That signal is aimed, presumably, at broad opinion-setting elites – liberal and conservative, but mostly liberal – whose visceral reactions to how the issue is framed (targeting in unconventional war or just remote execution?) matter over the long run to its institutional legitimacy. As Jack Goldsmith has pointed out in his new book, Power and Constraint, targeted killing and drone warfare are likely to be the next “detention and interrogation” ground of de-legitimation in the broader argument over counterterrorism. The Obama administration is more aware than most administrations just how important it is to hold a certain legitimacy high ground, and that starts with its framing among opinion-elites.

That is, Obama really needs to own and frame these actions in such a way that they are acceptable not just to the American people (easily done) but also to the opinion makers. I'd expect that to mean more transparency around the process, with more memos published and speeches given.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 29, 2012, 12:53:22 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 10:34:40 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 29, 2012, 10:05:20 am

Unless Obama is found in a hotel bedroom with three Iatolas and Jim Kong Un, he's going to win. Let's not forget, Obama rode a giant eagle to Pakistan and personally ripped Osama's head off and kicked it so hard it flew back in time and killed Hitler.

Oh, and also...it wasn't an eagle, it was a corgi. And he fired cats out of his hands, hadouken-style.

Spoiler: Artist's rendition. (click to show/hide)

(http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/conrad_ruiz.jpg)

Spoiler: Obama should just make his own cult already (click to show/hide)

(http://files.myfrogbag.com/q3zfhq/godkingobamabetterclockcopy.png)

If only reality were as great as art.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:04:47 pm

Would that make the GOP Chaos Space Marines?

That....oh god, that actually works.

Palin the Maverick, Primarch of the Tea Party Legion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 29, 2012, 01:21:18 pm

Palin is closer to a Warboss IMO. At least she talks like one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:31:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 29, 2012, 01:21:18 pm

Palin is closer to a Warboss IMO. At least she talks like one.

"Tax cuts for the Tax God! Wealth for the Wealth Throne!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 29, 2012, 02:24:41 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:04:47 pm

Would that make the GOP Chaos Space Marines?

That....oh god, that actually works.

Palin the Maverick, Primarch of the Tea Party Legion.

I laughed so hard at that :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 05:58:23 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:04:47 pm

Would that make the GOP Chaos Space Marines?

Spoiler: They're ALL Chaos Space Marines. Hope and Change... (click to show/hide)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/Crazael/WH40k/121997554845.jpg)

So if America is KAYOS, I guess that makes China the Imperium, Europe the Eldar, Best Korea the Dark Eldar, Japan the Tau, and Somalia the Orks. No one really fits Necrons or Tyranids, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on May 29, 2012, 06:17:52 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:31:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 29, 2012, 01:21:18 pm

Palin is closer to a Warboss IMO. At least she talks like one.

"Tax cuts for the Tax God! Wealth for the Wealth Throne!"

I was thinking more along the lines of "Moar Dakka, amirite America?!"

Quote

So if America is KAYOS, I guess that makes China the Imperium, Europe the Eldar, Best Korea the Dark Eldar, Japan the Tau, and Somalia the Orks. No one really fits Necrons or Tyranids, though.

Russia for the Necrons.

I'm not sure you can equate someone's nationality to the 'nids without instantly being racist. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 29, 2012, 06:26:03 pm

Moar Dakka, you betcha!

Why is Russia Necrons?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 06:27:04 pm

Quote from: nenjin on May 29, 2012, 06:17:52 pm

I'm not sure you can equate someone's nationality to the 'nids without instantly being racist. :P

Damn those Nidians, eating the entire planet and having too many children and throwing themselves into giant open-pit stomachs to be reduced to their base components and sucked up into the hive ship leaving a lifeless ball of bedrock behind as they continue on their rampage towards the Astronomicon.

As you can see, the metaphor breaks down fairly quickly.

Quote from: Sirus on May 29, 2012, 06:26:03 pm

Why is Russia Necrons?

Because Russia is a grim and lifeless land of death and stoicism. Just ask Deo- Just ask.... Just ask.... Just ask any Russian that isn't Deon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on May 29, 2012, 06:33:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:04:47 pm

Would that make the GOP Chaos Space Marines?

That....oh god, that actually works.

Palin the Maverick, Primarch of the Tea Party Legion.

No, the GOP is the Ecclesiarchy. "Fear the xeno, the mutant, the heretic"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 29, 2012, 07:46:27 pm

Quote from: Luke_Prowler on May 29, 2012, 06:33:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 29, 2012, 01:04:47 pm

Would that make the GOP Chaos Space Marines?

That....oh god, that actually works.

Palin the Maverick, Primarch of the Tea Party Legion.

No, the GOP is the Ecclesiarchy. "Fear the xeno, the mutant, the heretic"

OIL FOR THE OIL GOD!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 07:49:20 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on May 29, 2012, 07:46:27 pm

OIL FOR THE OIL GOD!

MONEY FOR THE MONEY THRONE!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on May 29, 2012, 08:50:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 06:27:04 pm

Quote from: Sirus on May 29, 2012, 06:26:03 pm

Why is Russia Necrons?

Because Russia is a grim and lifeless land of death and stoicism. Just ask Deo- Just ask.... Just ask.... Just ask any Russian that isn't Deon.

Russia is the land of huge boobs, duh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 30, 2012, 06:55:17 am

While we're on the topic of Obama / PR via military accomplishments... (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/singleton/)

One more major item on my list.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on May 30, 2012, 07:49:10 am

A book exerpt that acts as a companion piece to the NYT article I posted. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/27/drones-the-silent-killers.html) I think the full book is going to need reading.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on May 30, 2012, 08:45:02 pm

An interesting tidbit that just dropped on my G+ stream about elections...

Spoiler: I didn't actually know this, though I'm not too surprised. (click to show/hide)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-P9EalcBgl30/T8a6id0WumI/AAAAAAAABaI/StsEV_wQAAc/s559/tumblr_m4umd35TxU1qat9xfo1_500.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 30, 2012, 08:57:12 pm

Quote from: Japa on May 29, 2012, 08:50:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 29, 2012, 06:27:04 pm

Quote from: Sirus on May 29, 2012, 06:26:03 pm

Why is Russia Necrons?

Because Russia is a grim and lifeless land of death and stoicism. Just ask Deo- Just ask.... Just ask.... Just ask any Russian that isn't Deon.

Russia is the land of huge boobs, duh.

Never before have I wanted to go there. Japa, you just sold me a plane ticket.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on May 30, 2012, 08:59:16 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on May 30, 2012, 08:45:02 pm

An interesting tidbit that just dropped on my G+ stream about elections...

Spoiler: I didn't actually know this, though I'm not too surprised. (click to show/hide)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-P9EalcBgl30/T8a6id0WumI/AAAAAAAABaI/StsEV_wQAAc/s559/tumblr_m4umd35TxU1qat9xfo1_500.jpg)

Please tell me the ACLU or someone else has already taken this to court.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 09:40:11 pm

Quote from: Mego on May 30, 2012, 08:59:16 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on May 30, 2012, 08:45:02 pm

An interesting tidbit that just dropped on my G+ stream about elections...

Spoiler: I didn't actually know this, though I'm not too surprised. (click to show/hide)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-P9EalcBgl30/T8a6id0WumI/AAAAAAAABaI/StsEV_wQAAc/s559/tumblr_m4umd35TxU1qat9xfo1_500.jpg)

Please tell me the ACLU or someone else has already taken this to court.

It's just plain moot, actually. The US Constitution states in Article VI that "No Religious Test shall ever be a prerequisite for holding Public Office.", and that automatically trumps any religious tests imposed by the states.

There was an atheist politician in Ashville, North Carolina (also has a ban on atheists in the state constitution) who's office was challenged by this about a year ago. It never went anywhere because of the aforementioned legal override.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 30, 2012, 09:44:27 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on May 30, 2012, 08:45:02 pm

An interesting tidbit that just dropped on my G+ stream about elections...

Spoiler: I didn't actually know this, though I'm not too surprised. (click to show/hide)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-P9EalcBgl30/T8a6id0WumI/AAAAAAAABaI/StsEV_wQAAc/s559/tumblr_m4umd35TxU1qat9xfo1_500.jpg)

On the bright side in Maryland it looks like gays are going to be able to marry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/signature-count-makes-a-maryland-vote-on-same-sex-marriage-a-near-certainty/2012/05/29/gJQAz6HD0U_story.html

I heard on MSNBC like a week ago this was because the president coming out in favour of gay marriage fliped the black vote on the issue from ~-12 to ~18.
Ah ha I found an article you guyz can look at. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/24/maryland_a_36_point_black_surge_of_support_for_gay_marriage.html

See it wasn't just about politics, it did some real good. Or it might have been about politics but ended up doin good in the end anyway, who cares why he did it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on May 30, 2012, 09:46:34 pm

The Constitution also states that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion (or something along those lines). Doesn't stop politicians from trying to introduce "Christian" legislature or claiming that America is a Christian country.

It may be the majority religion here, but that still doesn't make doing the above things legal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on May 30, 2012, 10:08:28 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 09:40:11 pm

Quote from: Mego on May 30, 2012, 08:59:16 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on May 30, 2012, 08:45:02 pm

An interesting tidbit that just dropped on my G+ stream about elections...

Spoiler: I didn't actually know this, though I'm not too surprised. (click to show/hide)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-P9EalcBgl30/T8a6id0WumI/AAAAAAAABaI/StsEV_wQAAc/s559/tumblr_m4umd35TxU1qat9xfo1_500.jpg)

Please tell me the ACLU or someone else has already taken this to court.

It's just plain moot, actually. The US Constitution states in Article VI that "No Religious Test shall ever be a prerequisite for holding Public Office.", and that automatically trumps any religious tests imposed by the states.

There was an atheist politician in Ashville, North Carolina (also has a ban on atheists in the state constitution) who's office was challenged by this about a year ago. It never went anywhere because of the aforementioned legal override.

Still, those laws are unconstitutional, even if they hold no power. The First Amendment, combined with the Privileges or Immunities and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, means that those laws need to be removed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 10:12:59 pm

Quote from: Sirus on May 30, 2012, 09:46:34 pm

The Constitution also states that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion (or something along those lines). Doesn't stop politicians from trying to introduce "Christian" legislature or claiming that America is a Christian country.

Keyword is "trying". That's what the Supreme Court is for. They're the ones who are intended to dismiss legislation that contradicts the Constitution, and so far they've done a decent job separating church and state. Not as well as they could have (One Nation, Indivisible...), but certainly better than how things would be without them. As for claiming that America is a Christian nation, that's just free speech. It's stupid and inaccurate, but doesn't have any legal authority either.

I mean, if I wanted to, I could claim that America is a communist dictatorship, but that doesn't do anything to make it true. 

Quote

It may be the majority religion here, but that still doesn't make doing the above things legal.

I'm questioning just how much of a majority Christianity even is anymore. There are a lot of Americans who call themselves Christians but do basically nothing to back that title up. The actual participation in religion is lower than the polls would have you believe, especially in cities.

Quote from: Mego on May 30, 2012, 10:08:28 pm

Still, those laws are unconstitutional, even if they hold no power. The First Amendment, combined with the Privileges or Immunities and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, means that those laws need to be removed.

They aren't laws. They're constitutional articles, and that's different. A constitutional article can only be changed by an amendment, not a legal challenge. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court may overturn part of either the state or national Constitutions, although the former vote upon amendments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on May 30, 2012, 10:16:51 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 10:12:59 pm

Quote from: Mego on May 30, 2012, 10:08:28 pm

Still, those laws are unconstitutional, even if they hold no power. The First Amendment, combined with the Privileges or Immunities and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, means that those laws need to be removed.

They aren't laws. They're constitutional articles, and that's different. A constitutional article can only be changed by an amendment, not a legal challenge. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court may overturn part of either the state or national Constitutions, although the former vote upon amendments.

My bad, I missed that distinction. I should have realized that, since I live in one of those states. So, essentially, it's in the state constitutions, but has no effect?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 10:20:13 pm

Quote from: Mego on May 30, 2012, 10:16:51 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 30, 2012, 10:12:59 pm

Quote from: Mego on May 30, 2012, 10:08:28 pm

Still, those laws are unconstitutional, even if they hold no power. The First Amendment, combined with the Privileges or Immunities and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, means that those laws need to be removed.

They aren't laws. They're constitutional articles, and that's different. A constitutional article can only be changed by an amendment, not a legal challenge. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court may overturn part of either the state or national Constitutions, although the former vote upon amendments.

My bad, I missed that distinction. I should have realized that, since I live in one of those states. So, essentially, it's in the state constitutions, but has no effect?

Yes, exactly. The only ways it could ever have an effect would be if the U.S. Constitution were amended to strike the ban on religious tests for public office from Article Six, or if a state with one of these anti-atheist articles left the Union.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on May 30, 2012, 11:52:05 pm

Faux news has released an actual attack ad against Obama. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tmstx1HWX08)  Not a news story, not an impartial "here's what he did right, here's what he did wrong," it's a full on attack ad with special effects, dramatic camera angles, dramatic camera filters and even dramatic music.

The Republican party is dead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Realmfighter on May 31, 2012, 12:04:03 am

That music. I loved how they worked in DUM DUM DUM every time the terrible effects started. The video has convinced me that Obama is the main villain in a summer superhero movie though.

Spoiler: He's not the hero we want. (click to show/hide)

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/02/29/news/economy/romney_tax_deficit/romney-phoenix.gi.top.jpg)

I was going to photoshop Romney into batman, but then I tried it and it was terrible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on May 31, 2012, 12:14:39 am

Quote from: Euld on May 30, 2012, 11:52:05 pm

Faux news has released an actual attack ad against Obama. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tmstx1HWX08)  Not a news story, not an impartial "here's what he did right, here's what he did wrong," it's a full on attack ad with special effects, dramatic camera angles, dramatic camera filters and even dramatic music.

The Republican party is dead.

Would you happen to be a certain Goldstarking68 that made that exact comment on the video?

Also this is just sad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on May 31, 2012, 12:47:54 am

Indeed I am, it's my personal belief that the current Republican party needs to separate from the crazies like Fox News and form a different party altogether.  A different party full of reasonable people who use real facts to support their political leanings who don't rely on fear and hate to motivate their voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 31, 2012, 01:16:15 am

Quote from: Euld on May 31, 2012, 12:47:54 am

Indeed I am, it's my personal belief that the current Republican party needs to separate from the crazies like Fox News and form a different party altogether.  A different party full of reasonable people who use real facts to support their political leanings who don't rely on fear and hate to motivate their voters.

Are there any people in politics at all (let alone the GOP) that actually do that in the first place though?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2012, 01:32:18 am

No, but the Republican Party does have a realistic chance of facing internal fracturing now. The center-right and the far-right members of the party have less and less in common each passing year. Rick Santorum Republicans see Mitt Romney Republicans as compromised and not real conservatives, while Mitt Romney Republicans are starting to consider the possibility that their "friends" the Rick Santorum Republicans might actually be batshit insane and not the kind of conservatives they'd want to associate with.

The Democrats have an advantage on this issue, as their party has covered such a wide range of ideologies for so long that cooperation has become second nature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on May 31, 2012, 01:42:33 am

Oh, fracture, sure, I'll pay *fracture*. However it'll just fracture into crazy moral conservative people and deceitful financial conservative people, and the few sane, decent republicans will be left wondering what the hell just happened.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 07:32:40 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2012, 01:32:18 am

The Democrats have an advantage on this issue, as their party has covered such a wide range of ideologies for so long that cooperation fumbling forward while squabbling like a bunch of grade-schoolers has become second nature.

ftfy; Seriously, if the Democrats had the kind of party discipline and ruthlessness that the GOP has, the Republican party would have been ground to dust by now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 31, 2012, 10:01:20 am

I think that's unfair. Democratic politicians are by definition, the most driven, ambitious, cunning individuals in a very large group of ambitious, cunning people. To accuse them of being to naive, too willing to compromise, or else lacking in determination or strategic sense underestimates them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:21:11 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on May 31, 2012, 10:01:20 am

I think that's unfair. Democratic politicians are by definition, the most driven, ambitious, cunning individuals in a very large group of ambitious, cunning people. To accuse them of being to naive, to willing to compromise, or else lacking in determination or strategic sense underestimates them.

Just calling it like I see it. The Democratic Party has a distinct knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They can turn what should be a 20-point drubbing into a tight race through things like lack of message discipline, infighting, and not knowing when to shut up.

Drive and ambition, I'll grant you. Cunning....not always.


I think it boils down to the fact that the GOP leadership is utterly unfettered by scruples. They will blatantly renege on promises made, blatantly lie, blatantly blame the victim and project their worse vices upon their enemies (such as ranting about "spendthrift, Big Government liberals" during a period where they balooned the deficit and enlarged the Federal government) and they do so without a trace of remorse. That means they pull off some things that are totally reprehensible but totally brilliant from the standpoint of pure politics. Like swaying public opinion about healthcare by using things like "death panels", or when Karl Rove killed John McCain's chances in South Carolina by insinuating via push polls that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was *his* biracial baby, in a state known for its racism.

Democrats simply don't have that killer instinct. Which makes them better people, but worse politicians. I guess what I'm saying is that we need a party of people who are ruthlessly progressive.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 12:41:12 pm

Oh I disagree with that most strongly.  Democrat's don't do things like throw away easy wins on fringe candidates like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell.  Democrat's haven't lost themselves control of the Senate not once but twice in a single decade like the republicans did in driving Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specter out of the party in 2001 and 2009.  I'd agree that they are less then stellar when it comes to advancing their agenda but when it comes to winning elections they are the more astute party.

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on May 31, 2012, 01:42:33 am

Oh, fracture, sure, I'll pay *fracture*. However it'll just fracture into crazy moral conservative people and deceitful financial conservative people, and the few sane, decent republicans will be left wondering what the hell just happened.

All the sane republicans got drummed out of the party years ago.  If Romney is uncomfortable with the likes of Paul Ryan then he has a funny way of showing it by adopting his budget priorities.  If Romney is uncomfortable with hard right social conservatives then he has a funny way of showing it by adopting their stances on gay rights, abortion rights and immigration rights.

Even the few republicans who cast themselves as moderates don't actually push a moderate agenda.  They just push a hardline republican agenda trimmed back slightly.  Jonathan Chait put it very well when Olympia Snowe announced she wasn't running for re-election.

Quote from: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/olympia-snowes-strange-martyrdom.html

When George W. Bush proposed a huge, regressive tax cut in 2001, Snowe, sitting at the heart of a decisive block of centrists, used her leverage to support the passage of a modestly smaller and less regressive version. When Barack Obama proposed a large fiscal stimulus in 2009, Snowe (citing fears of deficits that she had helped create) decided to shave a nice round $100 billion off his figure and call it a day. If a Gingrich administration proposed spending a trillion dollars to erect a 100- foot-tall solid-gold Winston Churchill statue on Mars, Snowe would no doubt decide, after careful deliberation, that the wise course was to trim the height down to 90 feet and perhaps use a cheaper bronze alloy in the base.

There are no moderates left, just a few people who like to preen by calling themselves moderates like Snowe and Collins.  No amount of crazy will turn them off from the party, they'll just continue to do the same thing until they leave office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on May 31, 2012, 12:48:54 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:21:11 am

ruthlessly progressive.  :P

You rang? MZ for president! Rights or facepunches for everyone! You decide!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 01:17:48 pm

@mainiac: Never thought I'd be defending a Republican, but I'm unimpressed by Chait strawmanning Snowe's position. She made the Bush tax cuts smaller. She made the Obama stimulus smaller. These are both fiscally conservative positions (less change from the status quo) and politically centrist (the first one was less than the GOP wanted, the second was less than the Dems wanted).

Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee....they were moderate Republicans. Handwaving them off because they were still Republicans kind of misses the point.

A moderate Republican is still likely to be more conservative than a mainstream Democrat? *gasp* I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Quote from: MaximumZero on May 31, 2012, 12:48:54 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 10:21:11 am

ruthlessly progressive.  :P

You rang? MZ for president! Rights or facepunches for everyone! You decide!

I have to admit, I'm lol'ing at the idea of a ruthlessly progressive President.

"GAY MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE! YOU! MARRY THAT MAN!"
"But I'm not g-"
"I SAID EVERYONE!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 01:35:12 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 01:17:48 pm

@mainiac: Never thought I'd be defending a Republican, but I'm unimpressed by Chait strawmanning Snowe's position. She made the Bush tax cuts smaller. She made the Obama stimulus smaller. These are both fiscally conservative positions (less change from the status quo) and politically centrist (the first one was less than the GOP wanted, the second was less than the Dems wanted).

Sorry but you can't defend a position out of ideological consistancy unless you have consistant ideology.

In 2003 Snowe and Collins both signed on when their party wanted to create a huge entitlement give away to the drug companies in Medicare part D.  In 2003 they voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.  In neither case did they extract a pound of flesh.  They didn't need to because these were seen as centrist positions at the time.  Well they ended up being the two largest spending increases of the decade.  So when it came to fiscal conservativism they were MIA.  When it came to triangulating to the middle ground however they were spot on.

As for Lincoln Chaffee, yes, what a great moderate.  What happened to him?  Oh well he left the party and endorsed Barack Obama for president.  How does this show that moderates still exist in the GOP?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 01:53:30 pm

I didn't say they're still alive and well, I'm just saying that it's unfair to deride the few that exist as "not really moderates" just because they still...y'know, vote with their party more than 50% of the time.

There are plenty of conservative Democrats that vote with the party on a slew of issues, then break ranks on gay marriage or immigration or whatever. Are they still "hardcore liberals lite" because they vote with the Democrats a majority of the time?

In the 112th Congress, Snowe and Collins voted across party lines 32 and 30 percent of the time, respectively -- the most of any senators. Joe Lieberman only broke ranks 10% of the time, but would you say he's a hardcore liberal? Ben Nelson was the most "maverick" Dem Senator, voting across the aisle 16% of the time. So yeah...I'd say Snowe and Collins (and Scott Brown to some extent) deserve a little more credit for bucking their party, if guys like Lieberman and Nelson are going to come in for such excoriation within the Democratic Party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on May 31, 2012, 01:54:36 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 01:35:12 pm

When it came to triangulating to the middle ground however they were spot on.

Are you, by any chance, aware of what the word "moderate" means?

Quote from: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 01:35:12 pm

As for Lincoln Chaffee, yes, what a great moderate.  What happened to him?  Oh well he left the party and endorsed Barack Obama for president.  How does this show that moderates still exist in the GOP?

It shows very little, as an isolated example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 02:02:37 pm

But that's positioning not true ideology.  They position themselves as centrists no matter how far the center will move.  When the individual mandate was a republican idea they supported it as a centrist alternative to Clinton-care.  When it became Obama care suddenly they oppose it.

True moderates do exist in the democratic party.  You don't see them by looking at the party composition of the votes.  You see them in terms of what ideas of the opposition they are willing to adopt and what compromises they will accept.  And these aren't fringe members of the party, Obama, Pelosi and Reed are willing to give quite a lot in the name of compromise as you yourself were complaining just recently.

The republican party couldn't even find people to stand up to Beohner during the debt ceiling crises and say "it's wrong to hold the world economy hostage like this."  That's because true moderates are long since gone.

Quote from: Bauglir on May 31, 2012, 01:54:36 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 01:35:12 pm

When it came to triangulating to the middle ground however they were spot on.

Are you, by any chance, aware of what the word "moderate" means?

Quote from: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 01:35:12 pm

As for Lincoln Chaffee, yes, what a great moderate.  What happened to him?  Oh well he left the party and endorsed Barack Obama for president.  How does this show that moderates still exist in the GOP?

It shows very little, as an isolated example.

'
If one person want's to kill 2 puppies and the other wants to kill 0 it isn't "moderate" to suggest killing 1.  My point is that they are positioning themselves to a moving ideological center not actual moderates.

You think Lincoln Chaffee is an isolated example?  Well exactly how many moderates republican senators are left?  When the last tree on the island get's cut down you don't call it an isolated example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cameron on May 31, 2012, 02:17:26 pm

Quote

My point is that they are positioning themselves to a moving ideological center not actual moderates.

an actual moderate of course will occupy a defined immobile position which has presumably stayed the same for centuries

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on May 31, 2012, 02:19:20 pm

Quote from: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 02:02:37 pm

If one person want's to kill 2 puppies and the other wants to kill 0 it isn't "moderate" to suggest killing 1.  My point is that they are positioning themselves to a moving ideological center not actual moderates.

You think Lincoln Chaffee is an isolated example?  Well exactly how many moderates republican senators are left?  When the last tree on the island get's cut down you don't call it an isolated example.

Yes, it is moderate. That's what moderate means. It's a position between two other positions. I'm not saying it's a good idea, or anything of that kind. I'm saying that the moderate position in the context of "Kill all of the puppies" and "Kill none of the puppies" is "Kill some of the puppies."

I don't actually know how many moderate republican senators are left. That's a failing of mine, I admit. It's also totally unrelated to my point about your use of poor rhetoric. Which I apologize for not being clear about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 02:31:15 pm

My failed rhetoric?  I was just repeating the language that was already being used.  People said that we would see moderates get tired of the republican base and the party would split.  And I think here we see the disagreement.  I say moderates don't exist because I was talking about the mythical moderate republican who will stand up to the base once the base get's extreme enough.  You and RedKing were going by a definition of someone who is ideologically in the middle.

For the sake of what I was saying, that there would be no split in the GOP, I suggest you consider my statement using my definition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 02:58:46 pm

I kind of feel like that's moving the goalposts, but I'm not gonna argue it. For my part, I don't see GOP moderates standing up to the base, I just think they leave. Either become Democrats, Libertarians, or become detached and disillusioned with politics in general (talking here mostly about the voters, not the pols). My father-in-law is very close to this point, as are a couple of Republican friends of mine. I know several others who have ditched their (R) voter registration and selected Independent instead.

So does it count as a party "split" if instead of two smaller parties, you end up with one smaller party and a bunch of people who just drop out entirely or are absorbed by existing entities?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on May 31, 2012, 03:31:35 pm

Where can we find a ruthlessly liberal candidate?

I imagine him speaking at the congress and getting inturrupted by a Georgia senator:

Senator: "Your policies are nothing more or less than COMMUNISM!"
Candidate: "Yes?"
Senator: "...Uh... and, and THAT'S BAD!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2012, 03:33:25 pm

I think the whole "Ruthlessly Progressive" thing is actually very relevant. For example, in US politics, portraying all of your goals as patriotic is something that generally only conservatives do. Yet, when I've done the same to liberal beliefs it seems to add a lot of weight in the minds of others. You just have to be clever about it, since liberal ideas involve change instead of status quo.

For example, portraying allowing same-sex marriage as a result of America's radical dedication to freedom has allowed me to sway people on it in the past. It's like the patriotism is a key thing for some people, and they'll listen to you more if they see your argument as having it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 03:38:16 pm

Sadly, the "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden" message didn't do much to convince Americans to support fuel-efficiency or carpooling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on May 31, 2012, 03:40:11 pm

Tag "-because this is AMERICA, fuck yeah!" Onto every argument and win the campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 31, 2012, 04:58:57 pm

The two party system truly is the worst thing to ever happen to America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on May 31, 2012, 05:33:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 03:38:16 pm

Sadly, the "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden" message didn't do much to convince Americans to support fuel-efficiency or carpooling.

Sounds better as "Ride Together, Save Together!" although that is more communitarian than patriotic. Maybe "Save Gas, Save the Nation".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on May 31, 2012, 09:23:09 pm

Carpool; spend more money on other shit you don't need!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: inteuniso on May 31, 2012, 10:15:56 pm

The politicians  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbRcDZiJJc)themselves are starting to snap.

Not much longer until glorious revolution, comrades!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 31, 2012, 10:18:13 pm

To be fair, if I were an Illinois Republican I'd probably snap too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on May 31, 2012, 11:58:44 pm

Quote from: inteuniso on May 31, 2012, 10:15:56 pm

The politicians  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbRcDZiJJc)themselves are starting to snap.

Not much longer until glorious revolution, comrades!

We've been watching this movie for 20 years or more.  What makes you think it's moving to a climax?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Newbunkle on June 01, 2012, 05:39:12 am

Quote from: inteuniso on May 31, 2012, 10:15:56 pm

The politicians  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbRcDZiJJc)themselves are starting to snap.

Hilarious. "Total power in one person's hands" from a guy supporting the idea that the planet's resources can be acquired and controlled by a minority, and that the ability of equal human beings to freely share their planet's natural wealth can be removed (enforced with violence and fear of other forms of punishment). I guess some authoritarians don't think it counts when it's economic tyranny instead of political tyranny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 01, 2012, 05:59:14 am

Quote from: inteuniso on May 31, 2012, 10:15:56 pm

The politicians  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbRcDZiJJc)themselves are starting to snap.

Not much longer until glorious revolution, comrades!

My favorite part is how disinterested everyone around him appears to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on June 01, 2012, 06:13:52 am

Quote from: inteuniso on May 31, 2012, 10:15:56 pm

The politicians  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbRcDZiJJc)themselves are starting to snap.

Not much longer until glorious revolution, comrades!

Is that sort of normal?

I mean, the British parliament is a lot more chaotic than the Dutch one so I really have no idea 'weird' this is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 01, 2012, 07:28:02 am

Quote from: Mr. Palau on May 31, 2012, 05:33:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on May 31, 2012, 03:38:16 pm

Sadly, the "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden" message didn't do much to convince Americans to support fuel-efficiency or carpooling.

Sounds better as "Ride Together, Save Together!" although that is more communitarian than patriotic. Maybe "Save Gas, Save the Nation".

Bill Maher coined that after an old WWII propaganda poster that said the same thing, only replace Bin Laden with Hitler. The government did a LOT of Godwinning during WWII.

Don't buy war bonds? YOU'RE WITH HITLER!
Complain about rationing? HITLER!

Spoiler: Couple of great examples. (click to show/hide)

(http://www.propagandaposters.us/ridewith.jpg)
(http://www.propagandaposters.us/waste.jpg)

Is it just me, or is Office Supply Hitler pretty much the greatest thing you've ever seen?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 01, 2012, 07:46:22 am

Quote from: Dutchling on June 01, 2012, 06:13:52 am

Is that sort of normal?

I mean, the British parliament is a lot more chaotic than the Dutch one so I really have no idea 'weird' this is.

In British parliament there'd be jeering, laughing and taunting during that speech.  What strikes me as odd is how everyone around him just seems to be bored as if he goes off on a rant like that every day.  Even the woman laughing at him seems more like "Heh, he's doing it AGAIN" than surprised.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 01, 2012, 08:09:44 am

Question Time in the House of Lords is pretty much the best thing ever. I remember being in college, half-drunk one evening and flipping around channels, and we stumbled across a live feed of John Major being absolutely reamed by the opposition, and we were enthralled (and jealous...we so badly need that in our Congress).

Only slightly better was finding some kind of international news channel that just rebroadcast bits of other state television channels, and then the audio feed on the stereo receivers wound up on a home shopping channel. Hilarity ensued -- video of some imam giving a fiery sermon and gesticulating emphatically, while the voice said "How much would YOU PAY for this entire set? $200?! $150?! NO! If you act now, we're giving you this entire 23-piece knife set for just $19.99!!"  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on June 01, 2012, 08:45:44 am

Quote from: RedKing on June 01, 2012, 08:09:44 am

Question Time in the House of Lords is pretty much the best thing ever.

British politics nitpicking time.

Question time is a weekly BBC debate show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1q9) every Thursday night. It's a major fixture of the political week, with guaranteed representatives of the three major parties, usually one of the smaller ones, and various other celebs and individuals who are of various levels of relevant. Questions come from members of the public, usually directly from the audience, and the show tours the country visiting a different city each week.

Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) take place in the House of Commons, the elected chamber of Parliament. This takes place every Wednesday lunchtime and is the only point in the week when the Commons are likely to be full. It's heavily ritualised and usually analysed as a form of sporting debate rather than for political ramifications (although those do exist). There is a solid archive on the UK Parliament Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/UKParliament?feature=watch). Watch absolutely any and you will quickly notice the formal structure of the thing, even if the jeering and whoops make it seem chaotic. You always get a softball from the backbenches (usually written by a party whip), then the leader of the opposition hits with his first question (usually on a major current event or government policy). The PM states government policy. The leader of the opposition then says the PM hasn't answered the question and states his parties position (or rather, says something opposed to government policy). The PM then says the leader of the opposition wasn't listening and states government policy in a different way. Etc. A 'win' is breaking from the pattern in an effective manner (which doesn't ever happen) or having the other party leader run out of responses in that form first.

Still good fun with some politically minded mates, especially when anything weird is happening to one of the major parties. A bit like tennis in the form of political debate. And sometimes a backbencher goes a little off script and you get unintentional comedy. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14q_HpMDAA)

For reference, this is the busiest and most lively Lords debate I can find. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3vNHxCRIVU)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 01, 2012, 08:58:24 am

You should also know that the British actually went to extra miles toward making politics easy to follow by colour-coding their parliament. Lords is red, Commons in green.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 01, 2012, 02:54:17 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on June 01, 2012, 06:13:52 am

Quote from: inteuniso on May 31, 2012, 10:15:56 pm

The politicians  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbRcDZiJJc)themselves are starting to snap.

Not much longer until glorious revolution, comrades!

Is that sort of normal?

I mean, the British parliament is a lot more chaotic than the Dutch one so I really have no idea 'weird' this is.

This was in the state house of Illinois, not in Britian. (just making sure you knew that)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on June 04, 2012, 07:49:29 pm

Let's see if I can keep this zombie thread going.

So, tomorrow, there is actual voting: The recall elections in Wisconsin, and the primaries in California.  Texas had them last week, IIRC.

For the Wisconsin Governor's recall, most pollsters show a lead of about 2-5% for Scott Walker, the incumbent Republican over former Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, but it will be close.  There are a couple of state senate recall elections in Wisconsin, too, but those haven't been polled.

As for California, other than noting that it is top two primaries (the first and second place winners go to the November ballot, regardless of party) I don't have anything to say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 04, 2012, 07:50:44 pm

Quote from: Jervill on June 04, 2012, 07:49:29 pm

Let's see if I can keep this zombie thread going.

Speaking of that, the election no longer matters, as all candidates will most likely be zombies by November. Well, maybe not Obama, but that all depends on how well secret government fortresses can defend against zombies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on June 04, 2012, 08:06:51 pm

Doesn't look like anybody's mentioned it (recently?) so for anyone curious, tomorrow is the Wisconsin governor's recall election.  The race has attracted more money on both sides of the line than the any Presidential election in the state ever did, even though both sides of the operation although heavily aligned with the national parties were basically campaigns built from scratch.  And it's supposed to be razor close.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on June 04, 2012, 08:36:44 pm

The guy who bumped up the thread mentioned it, Aqqy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on June 04, 2012, 08:49:06 pm

Quote from: Descan on June 04, 2012, 08:36:44 pm

The guy who bumped up the thread mentioned it, Aqqy.

Do I look like a guy who reads this shit?  Yeah, that's right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on June 04, 2012, 08:52:37 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 05:43:00 pm

IMPORTANT: I know this is a politics thread, but let's try to have too many politic arguments, okay? 

Please tell me I am not the first person to realize what this says.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 04, 2012, 09:08:59 pm

Quote from: Mego on June 04, 2012, 08:52:37 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 05:43:00 pm

IMPORTANT: I know this is a politics thread, but let's try to have too many politic arguments, okay? 

Please tell me I am not the first person to realize what this says.

To be honest I started posting in this thread at like page 220 or so and so I never read the first page.

Also, those repulbican contenders could use an update.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on June 04, 2012, 09:10:56 pm

Quote from: Mego on June 04, 2012, 08:52:37 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 30, 2011, 05:43:00 pm

IMPORTANT: I know this is a politics thread, but let's try to have too many politic arguments, okay? 

Please tell me I am not the first person to realize what this says.

I swear that sentence made sense the first time I read it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on June 04, 2012, 09:31:41 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 04, 2012, 09:08:59 pm

Also, those repulbican contenders could use an update.

That would imply I give enough of a shit to go back and edit that OP.

In all honesty, I really should at least spruce it up so it at least doesn't look like I abandoned it halfway through the primaries.  I'll have more time to soon enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on June 04, 2012, 09:44:29 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on June 04, 2012, 09:31:41 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 04, 2012, 09:08:59 pm

Also, those repulbican contenders could use an update.

That would imply I give enough of a shit to go back and edit that OP.

In all honesty, I really should at least spruce it up so it at least doesn't look like I abandoned it halfway through the primaries.  I'll have more time to soon enough.

But you mean you don't want to look like Ron Paul?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on June 04, 2012, 11:23:44 pm

Quote from: Mego on June 04, 2012, 09:44:29 pm

But you mean you don't want to look like Ron Paul?

The megathread, come for the flamewars, stay for the burns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 05, 2012, 12:43:55 pm

AP is reporting that a drone strike may have killed al-Qaeda's #2. Be curious to see if Obama gets any kind of boost in the polls out of it. Probably not, because that sort of thing is so last decade. Drones strikes aren't sexy, fracking and deficit hawking is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2012, 12:51:20 pm

Besides, we've blown up al-Qaeda's #2 so many times that it's rather boring now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 05, 2012, 01:11:56 pm

Being the al-Qaeda #2 is kind of like being the admiral Darth Vader entrusts to hunt down the Rebels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 05, 2012, 01:30:23 pm

Obama probably didn't have any input on this one, did he?  Drone strikes are pretty routine by now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 05, 2012, 01:38:10 pm

Obama personally okays and oversees every targeted strike, from what I understand, especially on high profile targets.
(I don't think he has anything to do with standard military support drone, but definitely strikes)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 05, 2012, 01:42:26 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 05, 2012, 01:38:10 pm

Obama personally okays and oversees every targeted strike, from what I understand, especially on high profile targets.
(I don't think he has anything to do with standard military support drone, but definitely strikes)

The CIA and military do drone strikes. One of them requires presidential approval, the other does not. I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the military strikes can be done independent of presidential approval.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 05, 2012, 02:01:58 pm

Reports indicate this was a CIA strike. So yeah, this would have fallen on the now-infamous "kill list" that NY Times was talking about last week.

Updated reports indicate they did indeed kill Abu Yahya al-Libi.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2012, 02:06:49 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on June 05, 2012, 01:42:26 pm

I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the military strikes can be done independent of presidential approval.

Although, if that is true, Obama would still have the authority to halt any military strikes. Commander In Chief and all that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on June 05, 2012, 02:48:50 pm

I love the blatantly illegal robocalls telling people to stay home if they signed a petition since they "already voted". It's on the same level as calling people and telling them you'll shoot them if they vote for your opponent.

I hope somebody loses their job for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on June 05, 2012, 03:50:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on June 05, 2012, 01:42:26 pm

The CIA and military do drone strikes. One of them requires presidential approval, the other does not. I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the military strikes can be done independent of presidential approval.

Military strikes within an approved theatre would not need independent approval, so long as they were including in the original approval. A military force in Afghanistan assigned a drone task force would be able to deploy it as they like. However, if the military were making a strike in Pakistan, outside any current operational arena, they would need specific permission. There isn't much difference between a drone strike and a special operations strike like the one that took out Osama from that perspective. The violation of Pakistani sovereignty is always going to need high level go-ahead.

I would note that the official stance, despite the leaks and recent press stories, is that, "whether or not the CIA was involved in drone strike operations ... is a classified fact." [Context - An ACLU FOIA request (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/drone-stories-the-secrecy-system-and-public-accountability/).] Unofficial releases aren't seen as admissions of CIA involvement, even if they are extensive discussions of the legal and logistical structures of such strikes. That slightly complicates matters here, as it's almost certain this was a CIA lead strike but the administration are probably going to be vague on that front and treat it as a military operation. It would be (legally, politically) interesting if they came out and officially announced this was a CIA strike, but it seems unlikely to me at this time.



Unrelated; Obama seems to be fighting clean. (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-03/actually-obama-is-running-a-positive-campaign)

Quote

• Democratic presidential advertisers aired 35,936 ads. Of these, 70 percent (25,092) were positive and 30 percent (10,844) were negative.
• Republican presidential advertisers aired 27,857 ads. Of these, 27 percent (7,584) were positive and 73 percent (20,273) were negative.

So there's that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on June 05, 2012, 06:59:42 pm

Because the Republican party has zero to run on if they only talk about what they have to add to the political situation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on June 05, 2012, 09:44:35 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on June 05, 2012, 06:59:42 pm

Because the Republican party has zero to run on if they only talk about what they have to add to the political situation.

I have at least three things they add:

1. Guns
2. God
3. Gays

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 05, 2012, 09:50:50 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on June 05, 2012, 09:44:35 pm

I have at least three things they add:

1. Guns
2. God
3. Gays

I must admit, I've always found that trite little summary of their goals hilarious; considering how they love god, and guns, its only sensible to think they're all for gays as well. That's without going into the phallic imagery of rifles, or the patriocentric view of god that's the standard christian view.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: slaytanic on June 05, 2012, 09:56:06 pm

Rachel Maddow is sofa king hot !! If only she could get it on with Hillary and that Flo chick from the insurance commercials ! I really hope someone gets elected this november because presidents are really important to have around. (supposedly)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on June 05, 2012, 09:58:09 pm

...What?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on June 05, 2012, 10:01:35 pm

I...

What?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2012, 10:02:37 pm

I hereby choose not to recognize this sensory data.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on June 05, 2012, 11:11:19 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on June 05, 2012, 02:48:50 pm

I love the blatantly illegal robocalls telling people to stay home if they signed a petition since they "already voted". It's on the same level as calling people and telling them you'll shoot them if they vote for your opponent.

I hope somebody loses their job for that.

...  Just their jobs?  Heads should be rolling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on June 05, 2012, 11:35:45 pm

Well no but it should be punishable by life in prison.  Suppressing democracy is no joke and should be treated as the very serious crime that it is.  Maybe if republican scum operatives like that were put in jails we'd finally get some prison reform in this country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2012, 11:41:03 pm

I would disagree with life in prison. A nonviolent felony, certainly, but life imprisonment is something that should be reserved for the likes of murderers and rapists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 05, 2012, 11:57:39 pm

I guess it depends on your values. I mean, you just made it clear that crimes of different severity are both worth life in prison, why not one more?

And unlike those, this would probably be EFFECTIVE as a deterrent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 12:02:04 am

As I am against the imposition of the death penalty, I see life imprisonment as the sentence that is to be imposed upon the worst offenders of society, who are actively dangerous to other people, have committed these dangerous acts in their normal mental state of their own free will, and cannot be rehabilitated.

Messing with an election doesn't fit those criteria.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on June 06, 2012, 12:02:18 am

No.

NO. No nononononononononono.

We are NOT getting into ANOTHER argument over prisons, law, politics, OR WHATEVER.

Nopenopenopenopenope.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on June 06, 2012, 12:06:13 am

Correct, we are not.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin, Scott Walker will be remaining in office, by a margin of... about ten percent?  Only took seven times as much money as his opposition, more than two-thirds of it from outside Wisconsin.  This will be a very interesting precedent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 12:14:41 am

It makes me wonder if Citizens United won't end up eventually backfiring on politicians. Money isn't unlimited, and if they ratchet the stakes up enough they may well crash their own fortunes trying to win elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on June 06, 2012, 01:17:41 am

Drop in the bucket man, drop in the bucket.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 01:28:37 am

These campaign funds are getting into the multimillions. Politicians have money, but they don't have obscene amounts of money.

Hell, Ron Paul quit the election because he ran out of money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 06, 2012, 01:33:34 am

Yes; which means money becomes a limiting factor. As a result, barring Gingrich-esque backers, the last man left standing will be the richest. The richest are those like Romney; big business types, with both their own billions, and a large number of business buddies. Meanwhile, the moralists, those like Perry, will quickly drop out, as their particular brand crazy isn't as profitable.


...


So, business as usual, pretty much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 06, 2012, 02:53:36 am

Where is the money going though? I feel like enough of it just gets passed around between politicians and companies that it'll just go around in a circle funding elections for quite a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 03:01:08 am

Well, it's going to advertisers, TV companies, robocall seller...

By the way, is that thing about the robocall real? They had something similar in Canada (Robocall pretending to be the other party's and saying inanae shit if I'm right) and it was a pretty big deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 06, 2012, 08:01:51 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 01:28:37 am

These campaign funds are getting into the multimillions. Politicians have money, but they don't have obscene amounts of money.

Hell, Ron Paul quit the election because he ran out of money.

To be fair, that's been a standard Ron Paul result since *before* Citizens United.

But yeah, I'm increasingly convinced that democracy as we know it is well and truly fucked in this country. Maybe it's just the way that the North Carolina legislature seems to be steering directly for the sun that's fueling my despair, but I just feel more and more that there's no good options out there in American politics. It's choosing between the bad option (and watching everything implode quickly) or the less bad option (and having everything fall apart gradually instead). *shrug* Luckily, I'm liable to be dead before you guys will. Just hope my kids find somewhere decent to land.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on June 06, 2012, 10:23:20 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on June 06, 2012, 12:06:13 am

Correct, we are not.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin, Scott Walker will be remaining in office, by a margin of... about ten percent?  Only took seven times as much money as his opposition, more than two-thirds of it from outside Wisconsin.  This will be a very interesting precedent.

I'm really disgusted with Wisconsin. In California, we kicked out our Governor and he hadn't even done anything wrong!

PS: If you think the primaries were bad, just wait until the actual elections. Also, I'd like to remind everyone that despite what you may have heard, Obama is going to win this election handily. His only opposition is the weakest republican candidate. Obama personally punched Osama's heart out while screaming the national anthem.

Remember, now is a good time to send a message to the Democrats by voting for independents and third parties. Tell the Dems and the Repubs that their policies are bad and they should feel bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on June 06, 2012, 10:27:32 am

Quote from: RedKing on June 06, 2012, 08:01:51 am

To be fair, that's been a standard Ron Paul result since *before* Citizens United.

But yeah, I'm increasingly convinced that democracy as we know it is well and truly fucked in this country. Maybe it's just the way that the North Carolina legislature seems to be steering directly for the sun that's fueling my despair, but I just feel more and more that there's no good options out there in American politics. It's choosing between the bad option (and watching everything implode quickly) or the less bad option (and having everything fall apart gradually instead). *shrug* Luckily, I'm liable to be dead before you guys will. Just hope my kids find somewhere decent to land.

You speak the truth, though. I really wish Citizen's United never happened. That's about #14 on my list of fixes to implement during time-travel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on June 06, 2012, 10:40:07 am

History books will show this as possibly the worst supreme court of all time. Perhaps I'm forgetting the supreme court that ordered that they all get sold gold robes or the one that went on a murder-suicide spree in LA, but besides those two, this one has caused the most chaos and been the most obviously corrupt of all time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 10:40:33 am

I must say, I'm really glad I'm not an American. Well, we still got to live with a world-spanning bully that decided he could fuck the environment or kill anyone in a 15-m radius around someone that may or may not be an islamist terrorist, anywhere in the world. But at least we only suffer from your foreign policies, while you have to deal with the rest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on June 06, 2012, 10:45:00 am

You also have to suffer all our commercial products too. Enjoy your Type-II Diabetes imports, trashy pop music icons and the eternal summer blockbuster! :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 10:53:51 am

Well, it's easier to boycott crappy music than an Hellfire missile :p.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on June 06, 2012, 11:05:33 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 01:28:37 am

These campaign funds are getting into the multimillions. Politicians have money, but they don't have obscene amounts of money.

Hell, Ron Paul quit the election because he ran out of money.

Gingrich spent 40 million on the campaign.  His main backer was a man with $21.5 billion.  So all of Gingrich's spending represents less then %.2 of his patron's wealth.  A 10 liter bucket would have about 15,000 drops worth of water in it so a drop represents about %.006.  So it's ~40 drops in a bucket.

Given an not unreasonably expectation of a %3 growth in the value of said patron's portfolio he could afford to drop a billion dollars into elections every couple of years and still have growing wealth.  And given the sort of favorable treatment that a billion dollars in election spending buys he could do quite well for himself.  It's not like the democrats are going to go after government contracts that favor him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 06, 2012, 12:12:22 pm

Rich folk who stay rich are going to be savvy with money, so yeah, not likely any of those wells are going to run dry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on June 06, 2012, 12:56:39 pm

The upcoming Dutch election campaigns are expected to cost less than €1 per potential voter.

I do not complain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on June 06, 2012, 01:12:16 pm

Quote from: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 10:40:33 am

I must say, I'm really glad I'm not an American. Well, we still got to live with a world-spanning bully that decided he could fuck the environment or kill anyone in a 15-m radius around someone that may or may not be an islamist terrorist, anywhere in the world. But at least we only suffer from your foreign policies, while you have to deal with the rest.

To be fair, though, we aren't as bad as China when it comes to environmental policies. Well, ok, that's because we exported all those businesses to china, but point is we aren't running them here. Also we don't have intermediary censors, just intermediary monitors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 01:14:16 pm

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who still likes this country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 06, 2012, 01:16:11 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 01:14:16 pm

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who still likes this country.

Give it a few more years and you might be. At least the only one who makes less than $1 million a year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on June 06, 2012, 01:16:25 pm

I like this country a lot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 06, 2012, 01:22:43 pm

I love America. What I don't like is what it is rotting from the inside out. I fear the concepts of liberty and justice (not just America) were a fleeting dream that the world will soon forgot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 01:45:37 pm

Yeah, but from an outsider point of view, I actually prefer China's point of view on climate change. Theirs is "We shouldn't be the one that do much about it, because we don't pollute that much per capita, and we've got an income gap to bridge." For a lot if not most of America's politicians it's "It snowed last year, so climate change is false!".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 01:55:46 pm

As a fellow outsider, I suspect that China will transition far more easily to renewable energy and fossil fuels alternatives far easier than the US, if for no other reason than thier style of leadership - "You will take your hydrogen powered car and like it!" as opposed to "I am entitled to drive my inneficient petrol car if I want to!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 06, 2012, 02:02:41 pm

America is no worse than Europe because we are all in the same block, and for good and ill our goverments enable each other to a big degree. This is not as much a defense of USA foreign policy as it is an attempt to raise awareness of how much of that foreign policy has EU's tacit approval. We can't expect the USA to change if we don't, as well. Again, we are on the same ship, for good and ill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 06, 2012, 02:04:23 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 01:55:46 pm

As a fellow outsider, I suspect that China will transition far more easily to renewable energy and fossil fuels alternatives far easier than the US, if for no other reason than thier style of leadership - "You will take your hydrogen powered car and like it!" as opposed to "I am entitled to drive my inneficient petrol car if I want to!"

There's also the fact that they don't have an entrenched oil infrastructure and massive lobby (although coal mining is a substantial part of the Chinese economy and does in fact have clout within the Party...that will be one hurdle). Most people are still making the transition from bicycles though, so yeah...if they can introduce a cheap, efficient microcar they're liable to get a lot more adopters than you would in the West.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 02:15:21 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 01:55:46 pm

As a fellow outsider, I suspect that China will transition far more easily to renewable energy and fossil fuels alternatives far easier than the US, if for no other reason than thier style of leadership - "You will take your hydrogen powered car and like it!" as opposed to "I am entitled to drive my inneficient petrol car if I want to!"

You'll get adopters in the US once the oil starts to run low. After all, everyone knows Americans like having money, and it won't be too long until electric cars are less expensive than gasoline cars. The free market doesn't solve everything, but it does solve some things.

Also, the PRC administration won't be able to make their people transition if their people are trying to destroy them, which may well happen in the next few decades.

Quote from: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 01:45:37 pm

Yeah, but from an outsider point of view, I actually prefer China's point of view on climate change. Theirs is "We shouldn't be the one that do much about it, because we don't pollute that much per capita, and we've got an income gap to bridge." For a lot if not most of America's politicians it's "It snowed last year, so climate change is false!".

Per capita doesn't really give much comfort to the Chinese when there are entire cities where you have to wear a mask outside or choke on coal dust. I've said it before, I'll say it again: China is going to face a massive environmental collapse if they don't reverse direction soon.

Climate change denial is a passing fad, like evolution denial was. Even if there are people who still believe in either, they're fighting a losing battle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:24:15 pm

ChairmanPoo: While it is true that we rely on the US for defense, that does not mean that we benefit from stuff like drone killings. If anything, it makes muslims pissed at us and since we have a significant muslim minority, it's not a good thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 06, 2012, 02:30:39 pm

Then maybe the European goverments should pressure the US not to go into Middle East quagmires. Or avoid collaborating in "extraordinary renditions". Or any other of the unsavory stuff in which they jump onboard with the US gleefully. That some of this stuff ends up blowing in our face is no excuse. To put another example: European banks are as much to blame for the crisis as US ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:32:36 pm

Yeah, because the US totally listen when European allies tell them they're going overboard. Like back in 2003 with all the anti-French feelings and the Liberty Fries.

Not to say we're blameless. We do a lot of shit (although as I'm from Belgium, we do a thankfully small amount of it). But nowhere near the level of America's.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 02:45:33 pm

Quote from: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:32:36 pm

Yeah, because the US totally listen when European allies tell them they're going overboard. Like back in 2003 with all the anti-French feelings and the Liberty Fries.

Alright, let me completely and totally clear this up once and for all in an absolute sense. If an American mocks the French and calls them cowards, they're most likely being fallacious. Americans who genuinely have something against the French are a small group. The same goes for Canadians.

Freedom Fries was a stupid move made by one Representative who wasn't thinking clearly, as happens to Representatives quite often.

Quote

Not to say we're blameless. We do a lot of shit (although as I'm from Belgium, we do a thankfully small amount of it). But nowhere near the level of America's.

You know full well that there is no way to quantify that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 06, 2012, 02:53:06 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 02:15:21 pm

Per capita doesn't really give much comfort to the Chinese when there are entire cities where you have to wear a mask outside or choke on coal dust. I've said it before, I'll say it again: China is going to face a massive environmental collapse if they don't reverse direction soon.

People would have said the same about London, circa 1890. Y'know...if they hadn't been so busy hailing speckled moths evolving to be black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution) as Progress!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:54:25 pm

Yeah, but you can't hide the fact that this didn't stop the US going to war. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a deep-sitted believe in stuff like "American exeptionalism" that make the US really arrogant (Look at Romney refusal to apologize for America, whatever the circumstance).

As for the amount of shit, it can clearly be quantified, even if not precisely. The fact that we're a small, insignificant country does help a lot, but we don't go around making drone strike or invading country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 06, 2012, 02:55:06 pm

Quote

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who still likes this country.

I don't like the USA, but then again I don't like most countries. If I were to rank all the countries in the world from "best" to "worst," the USA would be (relatively) near the top. Top 50 percentile, for certain.


Ultimately, a country is just an organization. There's noting inherently good or bad about it, and it deserves no inherent respect. If it's doing something wrong, it needs to be called out on it. If it's doing something right, that just means it's doing its job. So don't get too caught up on large scale negativity; that'll continue until we have a "perfect" governmental system, which if course is impossible. Having a constantly jaded view is superior to ignoring problems, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 02:57:54 pm

Quote from: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:54:25 pm

As for the amount of shit, it can clearly be quantified, even if not precisely. The fact that we're a small, insignificant country does help a lot, but we don't go around making drone strike or invading country.

Does Belgium have any reason to make drone strikes or invade nations? That's the principle question here. The US has a larger reach and context simply because of how history has played out thus far.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 06, 2012, 02:58:43 pm

Quote from: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:54:25 pm

As for the amount of shit, it can clearly be quantified, even if not precisely. The fact that we're a small, insignificant country does help a lot, but we don't go around making drone strike or invading country.

Well, not anymore, anyway. Lets be honest, y'all were never particularly good at it is part of the reason, but you definitely tried a few times.

;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 06, 2012, 03:23:30 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 06, 2012, 02:58:43 pm

Quote from: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:54:25 pm

As for the amount of shit, it can clearly be quantified, even if not precisely. The fact that we're a small, insignificant country does help a lot, but we don't go around making drone strike or invading country.

Well, not anymore, anyway. Lets be honest, y'all were never particularly good at it is part of the reason, but you definitely tried a few times.

Point. The Belgians weren't the most popular folks back around...oh, say 1959 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 03:33:25 pm

1959 was fine, the real shit was back in the 19th century. But hey, I don't feel really guilty for not lobbying my government before my parent were even born.

Do the US have any reasons to make drone strikes and invade nations? Sure, you can, and we can't. But other nations are happy without intervening left and right, even large one like China.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: slaytanic on June 06, 2012, 04:07:34 pm

Belgium must protect their waffles !

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 04:20:34 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2012, 02:57:54 pm

Quote from: Sheb on June 06, 2012, 02:54:25 pm

As for the amount of shit, it can clearly be quantified, even if not precisely. The fact that we're a small, insignificant country does help a lot, but we don't go around making drone strike or invading country.

Does Belgium have any reason to make drone strikes or invade nations? That's the principle question here. The US has a larger reach and context simply because of how history has played out thus far.

Many (myself included) would argue that the reasons used by the US for some of its actions over the last 25 years or so are disproportionate to the scale and nature of its responses. Might doesn't make right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on June 06, 2012, 04:45:57 pm

With regards to climate change and China, this is a paper worth reading. (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/23/0906974107.abstract) It follows CO2 by consumption rather than location of release. So China's exports are followed to the US and Europe. So while China is the biggest emitter (and it's coal plants are probably the major issue in any serious global climate policy) those emissions are still primarily fuelled by western consumption of goods.

It would be really interesting to see a debate on environmental issues in this election. I don't believe Romney has a public energy/climate policy yet, but he has taken various denialist positions in recent months. Be fun to see him pinned down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 06, 2012, 05:00:24 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on June 06, 2012, 04:20:34 pm

Many (myself included) would argue that the reasons used by the US for some of its actions over the last 25 years or so are disproportionate to the scale and nature of its responses. Might doesn't make right.

No one is saying they are right, simply that most other "peaceful" countries would be doing the same in the same position (and, in fact, have). Ufortunately. Might doesn't make right, but power leads to arrogance, and arrogance, often enough, to aggression.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 06:51:22 pm

I don't like the U.S..  I haven't since shortly after I began paying attention to the world around me.  As soon as I began making a conscious effort to think for myself, I quite clearly saw all the crap about liberty, justice, and the american dream as shallow lip service.  I've never seen the overall effect of the behavior of our institutions (governmental or just originating) or our general culture as being anything but contrary to those ideals, and most of the time that seems to be intentional.  We're a country built upon a genocidal displacement, and I dont think anything's really changed.  For the longest time, I hated this place but still accepted the notion that most of the rest of the world is worse, because this idea was beaten relentlessly into my head on a daily basis through my entire childhood.  It took a while, but that delusion has been completely erased after talking to people from around the world every single day for the last 16 years.  For a few years now, I've been at the point where I would take any opportunity to move to almost any other developed nation in the world in a heartbeat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 07, 2012, 08:09:19 pm

Truth be told, the rest of the world isn't worse, but it's not really all that much better either.

(Still not changing my own plans to get New Zealand citizenship, but that's because the country stole my heart moreso than wanting to escape the US)

Salmon, where have you lived in the US, anyway?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 07, 2012, 08:09:19 pm

Truth be told, the rest of the world isn't worse, but it's not really all that much better either.

There are plenty of places where at least I wouldn't have to feel like stable employment is a matter of life and death, or worry that single temporary medical condition could financially ruin my entire life.  There are still more places where people don't have to fight tooth and nail with their employers for permission to raise their children.  I've had to get into a near shouting match with my upper manager before about my kid's diabetic issues.  This is potentially life-threatening stuff, but she couldn't understand why that was more important than work  ::)

Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 07, 2012, 08:09:19 pm

Salmon, where have you lived in the US, anyway?

Born in Wisconsin.  I lived there until I was 4, and all my relatives are still there.  Then a year in Indianapolis.  Then a couple years in Illinios.  Then from age 7+, I've lived in Indiana.

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 07, 2012, 09:58:49 pm

I have a feeling that at the very least you'd be happier in New England.

Anyways, sure, some other countries will have those things. But they'll have other things that are worse. Overall, they may be somewhat better. They may be a LOT better in the ways that are most important to you. Just cautioning that no country is perfect, and the problem you complain about (politicians screwing over the people and cozying up with corporations) happens pretty much everywhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 07, 2012, 09:59:20 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

In a sort of convuluted way that measn America is the best, or at least the most civilized. You said civilization=exploitation/exploiting things, and that America=unprecedentingly high levels of exploitation, therefore America=unprecedentingly high levels of civilization. Transitive property did come in handy, for once.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 10:01:31 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

The British Empire would like to have a word with you, methinks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 07, 2012, 10:03:42 pm

Quote from: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 10:01:31 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

The British Empire would like to have a word with you, methinks.

Pft, they were small fry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 10:05:03 pm

Quote from: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 10:01:31 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

The British Empire would like to have a word with you, methinks.

And the Mongol Empire. It takes some serious dedication to exploitation to kill 40 million people with nothing but swords and bows.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 07, 2012, 10:07:21 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 10:05:03 pm

Quote from: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 10:01:31 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

The British Empire would like to have a word with you, methinks.

And the Mongol Empire. It takes some serious dedication to exploitation to kill 40 million people with nothing but swords and bows.

Yeah but they toke centuries to do it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 10:07:44 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 10:05:03 pm

Quote from: Sirus on June 07, 2012, 10:01:31 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

The British Empire would like to have a word with you, methinks.

And the Mongol Empire. It takes some serious dedication to exploitation to kill 40 million people with nothing but swords and bows.

I was focusing on the one closest to American history and culture, but yes. The Mongols, Romans, any of those "X the Great" empires...it's hardly unprecedented.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on June 07, 2012, 10:20:30 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 07, 2012, 09:59:20 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 09:46:48 pm

Edit:  And I'm also aware that exploiting anything and everything is basically the story of civilization as a whole, but damn does America take it to dizzying, unprecedented extremes.

In a sort of convuluted way that measn America is the best, or at least the most civilized. You said civilization=exploitation/exploiting things, and that America=unprecedentingly high levels of exploitation, therefore America=unprecedentingly high levels of civilization. Transitive property did come in handy, for once.

A rectangle is a quadrilateral, and a square is a quadrilateral. Does that mean a rectangle is a square? Not necessarily. The transitive property does not apply to everything.

I guess I should say something related to American politics in this post to make it on topic. So, how about that Oracle lawsuit?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on June 07, 2012, 10:32:34 pm

Anyways, Nate Silver just came out with his Election Forecast.  He was pretty accurate in 2008; so I trust his results:

Election Forecast (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/election-forecast-obama-begins-with-tenuous-advantage/#more-31097)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 10:52:12 pm

Except the word exploitation has more meanings than who has shoved their flag down the most people's throats.  Look at modern consumerism in general, who it benefits most (american businessmen), how destructive it's become, and the extent to which America is responsible for it becoming the dominant way of life for the entire world (Cold War/economic sabotage).  I think the extent to which the modern world conforms to ideas that are traceable to direct American influence is quite unprecedented.

And while I recognize exploitation as a consistent feature of civilization, I never said the two things equate each other.

As for whether I'd be happy somewhere else, I really think Indiana is just a nasty place.  There are waaaay too many people here who fit the "ugly american" stereotype exactly.  Everybody who doesn't leaves eventually.  There are plenty of states where I'd probably be happier.  America in general is just getting more and more crazy, though, and it seems like neofeudalism is outright winning here.  After being on the internet for 16 years and hearing tons of personal account from meatspace friends who have lived in other places, I'm quite solid on the belief that I just don't belong in this country.

Anyway, that concludes my de-rail.  There was a couple pages on the topic of whether or not people like the U.S., and I thought I'd go ahead and be the person to say "Fuck no I don't."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on June 07, 2012, 11:12:40 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 10:52:12 pm

Anyway, that concludes my de-rail.  There was a couple pages on the topic of whether or not people like the U.S., and I thought I'd go ahead and be the person to say "Fuck no I don't."

Well, I'm glad we got that worked out of our system.

Like I should even talk.  This is supposed to be my thread after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:15:58 pm

The election forecast says there is a 2.3% chance that Obama will win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. Man, can you even imagine the rage if that were to happen?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darkwind3 on June 07, 2012, 11:42:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:15:58 pm

The election forecast says there is a 2.3% chance that Obama will win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. Man, can you even imagine the rage if that were to happen?

The best scenario (in terms of ridiculousness) is definitely an electoral tie. Due to the way the American system works, the House would vote for President--with each state's delegation getting one vote, meaning Romney would likely win the Presidency thanks to the many, many Republican states in the Midwest and South. However, the Senate votes for vice-president; this means that if by some twist of fate from a frightfully bored god Obama and Romney tie, the result would be Romney-Biden (provided the Republicans don't gain the senate, but we're already in fantasy land so another assumption can't hurt). The fallout would be beautiful to watch, provided you don't live in the US, or anywhere nearby the US, or anywhere with economic ties to the US. Really, this would be a scenario best viewed from space.

(apologies if this has been brought up before)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2012, 12:14:32 am

Romney-Biden....

I'd impeach them both on principle.

Although, Obama may well end up dropping Biden. It's what I'd do. Biden takes the term "colossal screw-up" to a new level.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on June 08, 2012, 12:16:36 am

Quote from: Darkwind3 on June 07, 2012, 11:42:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:15:58 pm

The election forecast says there is a 2.3% chance that Obama will win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. Man, can you even imagine the rage if that were to happen?

The best scenario (in terms of ridiculousness) is definitely an electoral tie. Due to the way the American system works, the House would vote for President--with each state's delegation getting one vote, meaning Romney would likely win the Presidency thanks to the many, many Republican states in the Midwest and South. However, the Senate votes for vice-president; this means that if by some twist of fate from a frightfully bored god Obama and Romney tie, the result would be Romney-Biden (provided the Republicans don't gain the senate, but we're already in fantasy land so another assumption can't hurt). The fallout would be beautiful to watch, provided you don't live in the US, or anywhere nearby the US, or anywhere with economic ties to the US. Really, this would be a scenario best viewed from space.

(apologies if this has been brought up before)

While we're on that crazy corner case, it throws an interesting wrench into the mix by crunching the House into 1 vote per state, if I read Amendment 12 correctly. I think we'd see fist fights between some of the representatives before they worked out an agreement on how to cast their state's vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 08, 2012, 12:17:22 am

I dont hear much news about biden. I have no idea what he has been up to. Why is he such a screw up beyond being invisible?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2012, 12:19:18 am

Quote from: Nadaka on June 08, 2012, 12:17:22 am

I dont hear much news about biden. I have no idea what he has been up to. Why is he such a screw up beyond being invisible?

There is a reason you don't hear anything about Biden. The reason is that he fucks up everything he does, and so Obama has locked him in the White House basement, only letting him out so that he may perform his one remaining duty, which is cutting the opening ribbons on new gas stations. In Wyoming.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on June 08, 2012, 12:22:23 am

Quote from: Darkwind3 on June 07, 2012, 11:42:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 07, 2012, 11:15:58 pm

The election forecast says there is a 2.3% chance that Obama will win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. Man, can you even imagine the rage if that were to happen?

The best scenario (in terms of ridiculousness) is definitely an electoral tie. Due to the way the American system works, the House would vote for President--with each state's delegation getting one vote, meaning Romney would likely win the Presidency thanks to the many, many Republican states in the Midwest and South. However, the Senate votes for vice-president; this means that if by some twist of fate from a frightfully bored god Obama and Romney tie, the result would be Romney-Biden (provided the Republicans don't gain the senate, but we're already in fantasy land so another assumption can't hurt). The fallout would be beautiful to watch, provided you don't live in the US, or anywhere nearby the US, or anywhere with economic ties to the US. Really, this would be a scenario best viewed from space.

???  Are you sure you have your information right?  The House and Senate have no bearing on who ends up as vice president, or rather, who the presidential candidates choose to be their running mate.  The candidates choose a running mate not long after announcing their bid for election.  And I'm pretty sure the House and Senate are not the electoral college, so the House and Senate do not elect the president or vice president.  To do so would be against the Constitutional idea of "checks and balances" an give waaaaaaaaaay too much power to the Legislative branch of government.  I thought it was also mathematically impossible for there to be a tie in a presidential election?

Please don't flame me if I'm wrong/crazy/on fire.  It's late and I'm tired.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2012, 12:28:13 am

You have to have 270 electoral votes to win the election. It is possible for no candidate to have this many votes, and if that happens, the House elects the President and the Senate elects the Vice President. They can only pick from the two most popular candidates.

This is another reason why multi-party elections wouldn't go very well in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on June 08, 2012, 12:34:25 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 08, 2012, 12:28:13 am

You have to have 270 electoral votes to win the election. It is possible for no candidate to have this many votes, and if that happens, the House elects the President and the Senate elects the Vice President. They can only pick from the two most popular candidates.

This is another reason why multi-party elections wouldn't go very well in the US.

House elects from top 3 for President.

There are 538 total electoral votes. Notice how it's an even number. That's what causes the issue. If both candidates (assuming a purely-two-party system) get 269 votes, it goes to Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 08, 2012, 02:52:58 am

But can't the President dismiss his vice-President later on?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on June 08, 2012, 07:10:56 am

Quote from: Sheb on June 08, 2012, 02:52:58 am

But can't the President dismiss his vice-President later on?

Nope. Though President and Vice run together, the Vice is still an elected official, so they'd have to resign or be impeached to get removed from office. The President can dismiss cabinet members like that, but not other elected officials.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 08, 2012, 07:19:46 am

In fact, classically, you didn't even have presidents and vice presidents running together on the same ticket. That was just to make cross-party pres/vice situations less likely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 08, 2012, 08:16:35 am

Heh...way back, the Vice-President was whoever was the runner-up in the general election. You can imagine how well THAT worked out.
"Damn, I lost the election to my political arch-rival, and now I can only be President if he dies.....MUHAHAHAHA".

The office of Vice President is kind of fascinating. In essence, you're the understudy for the Leader of the Free World. But constitutionally, it's a very ill-defined office. It's not explicitly part of the executive branch, although it is typically treated as such. And there was no clear indication as to whether the Vice President was supposed to become President on the death/incapacitation of the sitting President, or merely be an acting President until an election could be organized. Wasn't until John Tyler in 1841 that anyone had actually had to do it, and Tyler just jumped in with both feet and said, "Nope! I'm the President now. No need for a new election!". And that just became the pattern followed.

Wasn't even really until Roosevelt in 1940 that candidates chose their running mate. Prior to that, the party bosses did the choosing, typically to heal factional rifts in the party (For example, if this were still the method used, it'd probably have been Obama/Clinton in 2008 and something like Romney/Santorum in 2012). And Reagan was the first one to announce his choice of running mate BEFORE the convention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 08, 2012, 06:21:05 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 07, 2012, 10:52:12 pm

Except the word exploitation has more meanings than who has shoved their flag down the most people's throats.  Look at modern consumerism in general, who it benefits most (american businessmen), how destructive it's become, and the extent to which America is responsible for it becoming the dominant way of life for the entire world (Cold War/economic sabotage).  I think the extent to which the modern world conforms to ideas that are traceable to direct American influence is quite unprecedented.

And while I recognize exploitation as a consistent feature of civilization, I never said the two things equate each other.

As for whether I'd be happy somewhere else, I really think Indiana is just a nasty place.  There are waaaay too many people here who fit the "ugly american" stereotype exactly.  Everybody who doesn't leaves eventually.  There are plenty of states where I'd probably be happier.  America in general is just getting more and more crazy, though, and it seems like neofeudalism is outright winning here.  After being on the internet for 16 years and hearing tons of personal account from meatspace friends who have lived in other places, I'm quite solid on the belief that I just don't belong in this country.

Anyway, that concludes my de-rail.  There was a couple pages on the topic of whether or not people like the U.S., and I thought I'd go ahead and be the person to say "Fuck no I don't."

Should read empire.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on June 08, 2012, 06:30:10 pm

Quote from: RedKing on June 08, 2012, 08:16:35 am

Heh...way back, the Vice-President was whoever was the runner-up in the general election. You can imagine how well THAT worked out.
"Damn, I lost the election to my political arch-rival, and now I can only be President if he dies.....MUHAHAHAHA".

The office of Vice President is kind of fascinating. In essence, you're the understudy for the Leader of the Free World. But constitutionally, it's a very ill-defined office. It's not explicitly part of the executive branch, although it is typically treated as such. And there was no clear indication as to whether the Vice President was supposed to become President on the death/incapacitation of the sitting President, or merely be an acting President until an election could be organized. Wasn't until John Tyler in 1841 that anyone had actually had to do it, and Tyler just jumped in with both feet and said, "Nope! I'm the President now. No need for a new election!". And that just became the pattern followed.

Wasn't even really until Roosevelt in 1940 that candidates chose their running mate. Prior to that, the party bosses did the choosing, typically to heal factional rifts in the party (For example, if this were still the method used, it'd probably have been Obama/Clinton in 2008 and something like Romney/Santorum in 2012). And Reagan was the first one to announce his choice of running mate BEFORE the convention.

And yet the office of Vice President in my lifetime has been constantly cast as a joke. Consider that Cheney and Bush Sr. are the only Vice Presidents in the last 20 years whose reputations didn't become farcical either in office or after. Biden, Gore, Quayle...and even that scrap metal-chewing monster Cheney got lampooned as soon as it was possible to do so without mysteriously disappearing.

It seems like one of those roles that is powerless...but might actually be quite powerful in the right hands, within the "right" administration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 08, 2012, 08:10:03 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 08, 2012, 06:21:05 pm

Should read empire.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)

Looks interesting, and the full text is online.  Thanks!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 08, 2012, 08:28:29 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 08, 2012, 08:10:03 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 08, 2012, 06:21:05 pm

Should read empire.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)

Looks interesting, and the full text is online.  Thanks!

Was writen during the cold war, but the Empire runs pretty much the same way now, and it is just larger. Making the book all the more relevent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 08, 2012, 08:46:45 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 08, 2012, 08:28:29 pm

Was writen during the cold war, but the Empire runs pretty much the same way now, and it is just larger. Making the book all the more relevent.

Since when was the mid 90's part of the cold war?  :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 08, 2012, 09:08:21 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on June 08, 2012, 08:46:45 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 08, 2012, 08:28:29 pm

Was writen during the cold war, but the Empire runs pretty much the same way now, and it is just larger. Making the book all the more relevent.

Since when was the mid 90's part of the cold war?  :o

My bad, mistakenly thought I remembered something about it being from the late 80's from the book.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 09, 2012, 02:08:33 am

Don't think I've seen this mentioned, so I'm actually going to contribute something on-topic, I think!

Ron Paul Delegates Arrested As They Win a Majority at Louisiana GOP Convention (http://www.policymic.com/article/show/id/9163/new_comment_id/143919#comment-share-link)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on June 09, 2012, 04:40:07 am

Wat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on June 09, 2012, 05:50:22 am

There are still other people than Romney in the race?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on June 09, 2012, 08:41:31 am

The fuck is going on down there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 09, 2012, 09:02:38 am

Didn't we spend pages and pages talking about how it was almost inevitable Ron Paul was going to win a couple states? That was the whole point of his delegate strategy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on June 09, 2012, 09:12:36 am

Good God. I didn't actually expect part of Paul's narrative to be correct. I suppose they actually do have legitimate evidence that his campaign is being suppressed by the rest of the party ("the Establishment", I figure). If I were to find his election acceptable I'd be tempted to throw him a vote out of spite, since I don't credit him with the clout required to get the rest of the party to help out with such a brilliant double bluff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on June 09, 2012, 10:32:32 am

What the fuck? I thought Louisiana people were too chill to do something that batshit insane. What happened to the Big Easy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on June 09, 2012, 10:36:52 am

So how many states is that now?  Minnesota, Louisiana, Nevada...am I missing any states for where Paul delegates got selected?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on June 09, 2012, 08:58:53 pm

I think my insides died. I may not agree with Ron Paul, but I don't agree/understand what the hell they could even be charged with. Winning the election?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 09, 2012, 09:03:47 pm

It does not matter what they are charged with. Arresting them removes them. Its a classic example of conservatives valuing their authority over the law. It is not a coincidence that liberal leaders are much more likely to be assassinated than conservative leaders in America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 09, 2012, 09:18:15 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on June 09, 2012, 09:03:47 pm

It does not matter what they are charged with. Arresting them removes them. Its a classic example of conservatives valuing their authority over the law. It is not a coincidence that liberal leaders are much more likely to be assassinated than conservative leaders in America.

I would chalk that up to Nuero-logical diffrences that affect political leanings. Conservatives are more fearful, and dislike change, Liberals are more hopeful. Who would you think would assasinate people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 09, 2012, 09:20:25 pm

I think that's probably complete bullshit. People change political orientation. I used to be a die-hard conservative, now I'm a solid liberal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 09, 2012, 09:22:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 09, 2012, 09:20:25 pm

I think that's probably complete bullshit. People change political orientation. I used to be a die-hard conservative, now I'm a solid liberal.

I have no idea,  but people do change their neuro-chemistry all the time as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mrhappyface on June 09, 2012, 11:07:07 pm

You know, I get very sad when people think all progress is good. I feel remorse when I am accused of being an ignorant redneck republican nascar fan for not wanting universal healthcare and keeping the death penalty? Why must America have to be Europe?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 09, 2012, 11:12:03 pm

Those are subjects for other threads.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 09, 2012, 11:20:40 pm

Most of us would just prefer a country where the reaction to someone else winning an election isn't to have them beaten and arrested so your own power base isn't arrested.

It is just as well to ask why the conservatives want us to be Russia.

But seriously, make a thread about it if you want to talk, I'd be up for that.

The Ron Paul thing is just... frustrating. But its certainly nothing new - we've had it happen in local councils as well here in Mass for much less important issues. When a certain sort of person controls the police, they simply aren't going to accept an outcome they don't approve of - after all, they have the power, so that makes them right, democracy be damned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 10, 2012, 06:26:29 am

Also Paulites are really annoying.  I'm sure they'd be unbearable after winning an election :P.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on June 11, 2012, 08:07:16 am

So... this article here makes Ron Paul sound... decent. (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/jun/10/ron-paul-delegates-make-romney-flip-flop/)  Whats the catch?  I have not been following this guy before now.

EDIT: Oh hey... I found this nifty thing (http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm) listing how he is on issues...  I'll find the time to read it later...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 11, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Quote from: Zangi on June 11, 2012, 08:07:16 am

So... this article here makes Ron Paul sound... decent. (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/jun/10/ron-paul-delegates-make-romney-flip-flop/)  Whats the catch?  I have not been following this guy before now.

EDIT: Oh hey... I found this nifty thing (http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm) listing how he is on issues...  I'll find the time to read it later...

Ron Paul is only a "libertarian" at the federal level.
He fully endorses a states right to infringe on your liberties.
And even at the federal level, he has endorsed the infringement of liberties in order enact his religion as law.
Ron Paul has ties to the white supremacist movement.
Ron Paul is a free market zealot.
Ron Paul is a decent choice if you want to end America in favor for state level tyranny, complete corporate control, and christian theocracy.

Libertarianism is an idea with merit, but it is not without some serious flaws. But Ron Paul, in practice, is not a libertarian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 11, 2012, 09:29:57 am

Yeah, it'd be more accurate to say he's a confederalist, if not a Confederate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 11, 2012, 10:21:21 am

Nadaka's opposition to Ron Paul is a bit... hyperbolic.

Ron Paul does not by any means endorse state-level tyranny and is, in fact, outright opposed to it. So that's bullshit.

He does not believe in enacting his religion as law - yes, he's against abortion, but if you can't understand why someone would be against abortion, that's your problem, not his. If a person sees abortion as murder (which is a justified stance, even if I disagree), then its perfectly acceptable to pass laws against it - it's certainly not something limited to the religious.

Yes, he has unabashedly worked with some bad people in order to gain and keep his office - the only difference between this and other politicians is the sort of bad people he worked with, really.

Don't get me wrong, he's got a lot of crazy political ideas, I don't think many of them would work and I think he's a bad choice to vote for, but he's not evil - especially compared to many of his co-politicians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 10:24:00 am

Glyph, Ron Paul has directly stated that he feels that the states should be allowed to enact religious and behavioral law because they aren't the federal government and so the Constitution doesn't apply to them, or at least not as much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 11, 2012, 10:30:00 am

That is a true statement, but I was just stating that he doesn't think states SHOULD, which is the impression Nadaka's statement gave.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 11, 2012, 10:38:31 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on June 11, 2012, 10:30:00 am

That is a true statement, but I was just stating that he doesn't think states SHOULD, which is the impression Nadaka's statement gave.

Except that he has actively supported such laws in the past.

Have you read the "we the people act"? It was Ron Pauls attempt to directly and unequivocally allow states to bypass the US constitution and institute religious tyranny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 11, 2012, 10:42:12 am

Ultimately the dude's advocating self governance on the state level. He doesn't think someone in California should have a say on what goes in on Massachusetts, and stuff like that. What these states happen to actually do with their autonomy is up to them; he doesn't endorse any particular course of action, so long as the state decides it itself.


So yes it's hyperbolic to say he supports the worst possible scenario. He just supports it being possible if the people there want it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on June 11, 2012, 11:18:20 am

Except if you actually look at the law he tried to pass all the things you're allowed to bypass just happen to be on specific conservative hot button issues.  Essentially "people can bypass the constitution and make conservative legislation".  It's admittedly clever in a sneaky kind of way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on June 11, 2012, 02:34:43 pm

People will always find loopholes to attempt to make Grand Wizard Paul sound better, no matter what it is. He's an absolute master of spin. Good thing a majority of his supporters are hurr durr citizens with no real competence in voting, else we'd be seeing a lot more fucked up local governments than we do now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 11, 2012, 03:47:26 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jeb-bush-says-gop-primary-boxed-romney-immigration-135228559.html

Oh... The cognitive dissonance.

"Bush told reporters at the breakfast that even Ronald Reagan would have a tough time winning the Republican presidential nomination in today's partisan climate, in which working with members of the other party is seen as a weakness. He called the current partisanship "disturbing" and blamed President Barack Obama for increasing the divide between Democrats and Republicans."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 11, 2012, 03:56:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on June 11, 2012, 03:47:26 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jeb-bush-says-gop-primary-boxed-romney-immigration-135228559.html

Oh... The cognitive dissonance.

"Bush told reporters at the breakfast that even Ronald Reagan would have a tough time winning the Republican presidential nomination in today's partisan climate, in which working with members of the other party is seen as a weakness. He called the current partisanship "disturbing" and blamed President Barack Obama for increasing the divide between Democrats and Republicans."

Does not compute... DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE... *explosion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 11, 2012, 03:58:12 pm

Darn. Dubya almost had a coherent thought there. Luckily, his handlers interceded before he could complete it.

"Wow, things really are partisan, and everyone's just blamin' the other side automatically. But that would mean..."
*ZZZAP*
"...that the Democrats must to be blame."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on June 11, 2012, 04:00:13 pm

Another bush, I think?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 11, 2012, 04:02:39 pm

Obama: ruining the Republican party since 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 11, 2012, 04:04:01 pm

Quote from: scriver on June 11, 2012, 04:00:13 pm

Another bush, I think?

Yeah, this was the better one. I can't imagine what G.W. Bush would have said.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 11, 2012, 04:05:08 pm

Quote from: scriver on June 11, 2012, 04:00:13 pm

Another bush, I think?

Ahh, did not notice that. Even worse -- Jeb is supposed to be the smart one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 11, 2012, 04:05:53 pm

Jeb is the /better/ one? The one who regularly botches elections (allegedly accidentally) in favour of his own party while enacting increasingly stupid laws? In what way is he better (other than not having ever been president)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 04:16:14 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on June 11, 2012, 04:02:39 pm

Obama: ruining the Republican party since 2008.

Obama practically bows down to the GOP.  He has no backbone, and so neither side ends up respecting him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on June 11, 2012, 04:32:05 pm

It's all fun and games until Michigan enacts sharia law.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on June 11, 2012, 06:51:15 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on June 11, 2012, 04:32:05 pm

It's all fun and games until Michigan enacts sharia law.

Ahahahahahahaha what? Do you even live in Michigan?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 11, 2012, 07:14:51 pm

Quote from: Duuvian on June 11, 2012, 06:51:15 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on June 11, 2012, 04:32:05 pm

It's all fun and games until Michigan enacts sharia law.

Ahahahahahahaha what? Do you even live in Michigan?

And then Kaenneth was the Michigans

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on June 11, 2012, 07:33:34 pm

Technical term is "Michiganders," according to the last one I talked to.

But yeah, sharia law, no, old testament... maybe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 07:35:29 pm

What do you expect from a people who's ancestors faced the brutality of the Upper Peninsula War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 11, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 07:35:29 pm

What do you expect from a people who's ancestors faced the brutality of the Upper Peninsula War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War)?

That was short lived. And man, was that guy crazy paranoid!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on June 11, 2012, 08:30:15 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 07:35:29 pm

What do you expect from a people who's ancestors faced the brutality of the Upper Peninsula War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War)?

This is completely fucking insane. Just read this shit. WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED IN ANTEBELLUM AMERICA? WHY DOES NONE OF IT MAKE SENSE?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on June 11, 2012, 09:13:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 07:35:29 pm

What do you expect from a people who's ancestors faced the brutality of the Upper Peninsula War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War)?

I think that wikipedia article is a fake.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 09:20:20 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on June 11, 2012, 09:13:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 07:35:29 pm

What do you expect from a people who's ancestors faced the brutality of the Upper Peninsula War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War)?

I think that wikipedia article is a fake.

It took you all three (3) posts to figure that out, with a massive "humorus hoax" banner at the top of the article. Come on now, you think something like this would have been looked over in US History (non-Americans excluded from this latter criticism).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 11, 2012, 09:25:31 pm

I'd believe it. The Toledo War itself was an idiotic venture.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 11, 2012, 09:32:47 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 09:20:20 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on June 11, 2012, 09:13:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on June 11, 2012, 07:35:29 pm

What do you expect from a people who's ancestors faced the brutality of the Upper Peninsula War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War)?

I think that wikipedia article is a fake.

It took you all three (3) posts to figure that out, with a massive "humorus hoax" banner at the top of the article. Come on now, you think something like this would have been looked over in US History (non-Americans excluded from this latter criticism).

I dismissed them as the normal "this needs moar citiations!" banners. It actually looks like a real wikipedia article, I am impressed at this hoaxer's finnese.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on June 11, 2012, 09:34:13 pm

You guys need to learn to recognize a user page when you see one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on June 12, 2012, 01:19:12 am

I have something to say about sharia law being enacted in Michigan. If all else fails, I will punch the law into oblivion. They can deal with it in Sheogorath's realm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 12, 2012, 01:58:16 am

I've always wondered how people can get worked up about something like that; (I'm assuming the original comment was in jest, but I have seen similar, serious, claims that this sort of thing is happening in both American and my local Australian news sources).

Wouldn't that sort of change require at the very least a straight majority (>50%) of the population to think it's a good idea? Which, since not even all muslims would support it, would require a ridiculous majority? Considering muslims represent approximately 0.8% of the Michigan state population according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan#Religion), that seems a mite unlikely.

Of course, I may be making the rookie mistake that numbers actually mean anything in scaremongering.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 12, 2012, 02:07:52 am

I think he's referring to a law that would be a Christian equivalent, not literally Sharia law.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on June 12, 2012, 02:12:15 am

As I said above; I'm aware the original comment wasn't literal. What I am referring to is people who are seriously worried about the idea that muslims (not any other religious group) might try to introduce sharia law in western countries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 12, 2012, 02:14:46 am

Oh. Uh. Maybe I shouldn't ignore parentheses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Tilla on June 14, 2012, 07:11:18 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Obama selling out American sovereignity to foreign megacorps. Romney urging him to get it done faster. This election is FUCKED.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on June 14, 2012, 07:28:33 pm

Quote from: Tilla on June 14, 2012, 07:11:18 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Obama selling out American sovereignity to foreign megacorps. Romney urging him to get it done faster. This election is FUCKED.

Welcome to America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on June 14, 2012, 07:37:50 pm

Quote from: Tilla on June 14, 2012, 07:11:18 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Obama selling out American sovereignity to foreign megacorps. Romney urging him to get it done faster. This election is FUCKED.

Welcome to Shadowrun, is more like it.

Although the key point here is that the tribunal can impose trade sanctions, not just carte blanche nullify U.S. law. But no country wants trade sanctions imposed on it, and that's the sort of backroom decision that it seems like would be made more often than not. I imagine the sales pitch is something about global financial stability and economic stimulation....but when the IMF is saying it's a bad idea, it doesn't really track. Obama's ready approval of this Corporate One-World-Government thing is getting downright creepy, and infuriating. Even if he believes this is all necessary to re-stimulate the global economy, it's incredibly short-sighted. (Or has a diabolically long view, if you take the conspiracy position.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 14, 2012, 10:48:54 pm

Quote from: nenjin on June 14, 2012, 07:37:50 pm

Quote from: Tilla on June 14, 2012, 07:11:18 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Obama selling out American sovereignity to foreign megacorps. Romney urging him to get it done faster. This election is FUCKED.

Welcome to Shadowrun, is more like it.

Although the key point here is that the tribunal can impose trade sanctions, not just carte blanche nullify U.S. law. But no country wants trade sanctions imposed on it, and that's the sort of backroom decision that it seems like would be made more often than not. I imagine the sales pitch is something about global financial stability and economic stimulation....but when the IMF is saying it's a bad idea, that idea doesn't really track. Obama's ready approval of this Corporate One-World-Government thing is getting downright creepy, and infuriating. Even if he believes this is all necessary to re-stimulate the global economy, it's incredibly short-sighted. (Or has a diabolically long view, if you take the conspiracy position.)

Some times I like to take the view point that it is just a giant conspiracy theory. At least then I could be save in the knowledge that my government wasn't stupid or incompetent, it was just working on a giant plan for world domination. Then I could rest safe in the knowledge that while everyone was mocking America for doing stupid things like allowing money to flood the political system or invading Iraq, it was all part of the shadow governments plan. The botched attempt to solve the global recession is just what the shadow governments needs to cement it's power, and the partisan ship is merely a distraction.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on June 14, 2012, 10:50:13 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 14, 2012, 10:48:54 pm

Quote from: nenjin on June 14, 2012, 07:37:50 pm

Quote from: Tilla on June 14, 2012, 07:11:18 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Obama selling out American sovereignity to foreign megacorps. Romney urging him to get it done faster. This election is FUCKED.

Welcome to Shadowrun, is more like it.

Although the key point here is that the tribunal can impose trade sanctions, not just carte blanche nullify U.S. law. But no country wants trade sanctions imposed on it, and that's the sort of backroom decision that it seems like would be made more often than not. I imagine the sales pitch is something about global financial stability and economic stimulation....but when the IMF is saying it's a bad idea, that idea doesn't really track. Obama's ready approval of this Corporate One-World-Government thing is getting downright creepy, and infuriating. Even if he believes this is all necessary to re-stimulate the global economy, it's incredibly short-sighted. (Or has a diabolically long view, if you take the conspiracy position.)

Some times I like to take the view point that it is just a giant conspiracy theory. At least then I could be save in the knowledge that my government wasn't stupid or incompetent, it was just working on a giant plan for world domination. Then I could rest safe in the knowledge that while everyone was mocking America for doing stupid things like allowing money to flood the political system or invading Iraq, it was all part of the shadow governments plan. The botched attempt to solve the global recession is just what the shadow governments needs to cement it's power, and the partisan ship is merely a distraction.

The sad thing is, this is the most reasonable thing I've heard in a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 14, 2012, 10:51:11 pm

The CIA is pretty damn evil, manipulative, secretive, and all that, but luckily they're usually incompetent too.

Frankly I don't think the US government could pull of a big conspiracy. Small ones maybe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 14, 2012, 10:51:15 pm

(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526087_471051719575881_1704795914_n.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 14, 2012, 10:53:36 pm

Keep in mind that the CIA is restricted from engaging in any operations on US soil for the very reason that intelligence agencies have a tendency to spawn coup d'etats if left unchecked. This has been the case ever since they were founded, so good forethought on our ancestors part.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 14, 2012, 10:58:07 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on June 14, 2012, 10:51:11 pm

The CIA is pretty damn evil, manipulative, secretive, and all that, but luckily they're usually incompetent too.

Frankly I don't think the US government could pull of a big conspiracy. Small ones maybe.

But it's not the government that's behind any conspiracy.  Government officials are just employees of their corporate sponsors.  It's not a conspiracy in the sense that everything is intentionally planned, either.  It's just a powerful, loosely affiliated social class each leveraging their best interests.  This means competition between them probably just as much as united causes, but in either case the lower classes are always losing something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on June 15, 2012, 06:45:00 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on June 14, 2012, 10:58:07 pm

But it's not the government that's behind any conspiracy.  Government officials are just employees of their corporate sponsors.  It's not a conspiracy in the sense that everything is intentionally planned, either.  It's just a powerful, loosely affiliated social class each leveraging their best interests.  This means competition between them probably just as much as united causes, but in either case the lower classes are always losing something.

This. You don't need an Evil Council, clandestine meetings, or cryptic words and special handshakes to believe that a number of only tangentially-related efforts to obtain personal power happen to dovetail terribly from the perspective of anybody who's not fantastically wealthy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on June 15, 2012, 11:09:39 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 14, 2012, 10:48:54 pm

Quote from: nenjin on June 14, 2012, 07:37:50 pm

Quote from: Tilla on June 14, 2012, 07:11:18 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Obama selling out American sovereignity to foreign megacorps. Romney urging him to get it done faster. This election is FUCKED.

Welcome to Shadowrun, is more like it.

Although the key point here is that the tribunal can impose trade sanctions, not just carte blanche nullify U.S. law. But no country wants trade sanctions imposed on it, and that's the sort of backroom decision that it seems like would be made more often than not. I imagine the sales pitch is something about global financial stability and economic stimulation....but when the IMF is saying it's a bad idea, that idea doesn't really track. Obama's ready approval of this Corporate One-World-Government thing is getting downright creepy, and infuriating. Even if he believes this is all necessary to re-stimulate the global economy, it's incredibly short-sighted. (Or has a diabolically long view, if you take the conspiracy position.)

Some times I like to take the view point that it is just a giant conspiracy theory. At least then I could be save in the knowledge that my government wasn't stupid or incompetent, it was just working on a giant plan for world domination. Then I could rest safe in the knowledge that while everyone was mocking America for doing stupid things like allowing money to flood the political system or invading Iraq, it was all part of the shadow governments plan. The botched attempt to solve the global recession is just what the shadow governments needs to cement it's power, and the partisan ship is merely a distraction.

That's actually the main psychological reason conspiracy theories are so attractive. Our minds don't like it when things just happen spontaneously and without some overarching plan or reason. Sort of like when you stare at the output of a random number generator and your brain tries to decipher the pattern within the output, over and over again, until you end up getting frustrated, despite there being no pattern in the data and consciously knowing such.

As a side note, Bay12 needs cryptic words and special handshakes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 05:58:41 am

Quote

As a side note, Bay12 needs cryptic words and special handshakes.

We already have cryptic words. Most of the world doesn't use "catsplosion", "Urist", or "HFS" in normal conversation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 16, 2012, 09:15:13 am

Quote from: alway on June 15, 2012, 11:09:39 pm

Sort of like when you stare at the output of a random number generator and your brain tries to decipher the pattern within the output, over and over again, until you end up getting frustrated, despite there being no pattern in the data and consciously knowing such.

Actually there is a logic behind a random number generator, since there is a program dictating the output. There is a pattern, it's just that it is really complicated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 16, 2012, 09:57:53 am

Quote from: Mr. Palau on June 16, 2012, 09:15:13 am

Quote from: alway on June 15, 2012, 11:09:39 pm

Sort of like when you stare at the output of a random number generator and your brain tries to decipher the pattern within the output, over and over again, until you end up getting frustrated, despite there being no pattern in the data and consciously knowing such.

Actually there is a logic behind a random number generator, since there is a program dictating the output. There is a pattern, it's just that it is really complicated.

Yes and no. An RNG pulls a number from a string of pre-generated numbers. You have to know more than just the algorithm and seed to figure out what the number will be, you have to know the entire table as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on June 16, 2012, 10:03:38 am

How does it pull a number from the table at random? It would need to generate a random number for that. (RNGception?)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 16, 2012, 10:05:59 am

You can, however, get true random numbers through measuring radioactive decay (http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on June 16, 2012, 10:09:42 am

Quote from: Sheb on June 16, 2012, 10:03:38 am

How does it pull a number from the table at random? It would need to generate a random number for that. (RNGception?)

That's what a seed is. You take a number from an arbitrary place (be it random data from previous operations, the time, user input, etc), stick it in the RNG algorithm, and out pops a "random" number. Give it the same seed and you'll get the same output.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on June 16, 2012, 10:27:19 am

It's not, however, a table. table implies that they're all stored in a list. they aren't. there's just some complex mathematical trickery to change a seed into the output.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 10:54:15 am

From: http://keepthewebopen.com/tpp

I read the whole thing and I pulled out things I thought were noteworthy or that I would like to see changed.
According to The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter at the above link, as far as I can determine:

Spoiler: If I understand the language correctly, corporations can trademark products made in a specific area, such as all the shoes (cheese  from Wisconsin might be a better example as it is agricultural) made in New York or as a fictitious example bananas from Tropico, theoretically meaning there is only one banana company there meaning no competition for employees to be able to find a better job (click to show/hide)

4. Each Party shall provide that the owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs, including geographical indications, for goods or services that are related to those goods or services in respect of which the owner's trademark is registered, where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In the case of the use of an identical sign, including a geographical indication, for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed.

Spoiler: Definition of Geographical indication (click to show/hide)

http://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/about.html
A geographical indication is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin. Most commonly, a geographical indication includes the name of the place of origin of the goods. Agricultural products typically have qualities that derive from their place of production and are influenced by specific local factors, such as climate and soil. Whether a sign is recognized as a geographical indication is a matter of national law. Geographical indications may be used for a wide variety of products, whether natural, agricultural or manufactured.

While I don't expect it to a problem in America, it would be exceptionally easy for a single corporation to utilize it to corner the export sector(s) of a given country or area and have their export monopoly be legally protected by international law. This is extremely worrying to me and unfair to the citizens of those countries. This should be changed.

Not as important:

Spoiler: Loophole for any conceivable drinkable liquid (just add alcohol) (click to show/hide)

17. No Party shall, whether pursuant to an agreement with a government or a governmental entity or otherwise:

    (a) in the case of geographical indications for goods other than wines or spirits, prohibit third parties from using translated versions of the geographical indication;*6* 

Spoiler: Contradictory (bold is (click to show/hide)

 22. Each Party shall permit the use, and as appropriate, shall provide for the registration, of signs or indications that identify services or products other than wines or spirits, and that reference a geographical area that is not the true place of origin of the services or of the product, provided that:

    (a) the sign or indication is used in a manner that does not mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the goods or services;
    (b) use of the sign or indication does not constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967);
    (c) use of the sign or indication would not cause a likelihood of confusion with respect to an earlier-in-time similar or identical trademark or geographical indication that is used for identical or similar goods or services; and
    (d) where a request for registration is concerned, the sign or indication is not a generic term for the associated goods or services.

IP Law:

Spoiler: This says in order to copy, share or otherwise utilize for example an .mp3 you need to ask the artist/producer which seems reasonable to me of course (click to show/hide)

4. In order to ensure that no hierarchy is established between rights of authors, on the one hand, and rights of performers and producers of phonograms, on the other hand, each Party shall provide that in cases where authorization is needed from both the author of a work embodied in a phonogram and a performer or producer owning rights in the phonogram, the need for the authorization of the author does not cease to exist because the authorization of the performer or producer is also required. Likewise, each Party shall provide that in cases where authorization is needed from both the author of a work embodied in a phonogram and a performer or producer owning rights in the phonogram, the need for the authorization of the performer or producer does not cease to exist because the authorization of the author is also required.

Spoiler: Bolded key confusing part (I think they are referring to corporations holding copyrights handed over by contract) (click to show/hide)

5. Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated:

    3
    (a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death; and
    (b) on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall be:
        1
        (i) not less than 95 years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance, or phonogram, or
        1
        (ii) failing such authorized publication within 25 years from the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram, not less than 120 years from end of the calendar year of the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram.

Spoiler: As much as I like free stuff this is well written, though I'm still a proponent of sharing/giving if someone can't raise the capital to trade for their own production capital (click to show/hide)

Rights Management Information
10. In order to provide adequate and effective legal remedies to protect rights management information:

    (a) each Party shall provide that any person who without authority, and knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any copyright or related right,
        (i) knowingly removes or alters any rights management information;
        (ii) distributes or imports for distribution rights management information knowing that the rights management information has been removed or altered without authority; or
        (iii) distributes, imports for distribution, broadcasts, communicates or makes available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that rights management information has been removed or altered without authority,
        shall be liable and subject to the remedies set out in Article [12.12 Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied when any person, other than a nonprofit library, archive, educational institution, or public noncommercial broadcasting entity, is found to have engaged willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain in any of the foregoing activities. Such criminal procedures and penalties shall include the application to such activities of the remedies and authorities listed in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (f) of Article [15.5] as applicable to infringements, mutatis mutandis.
    (b) each Party shall confine exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) to lawfully authorized activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes.
    (c) Rights management information means:
        (i) information that identifies a work, performance, or phonogram; the author of the work, the performer of the performance, or the producer of the phonogram; or the owner of any right in the work, performance, or phonogram;
        (ii) information about the terms and conditions of the use of the work, performance, or phonogram; or
        (iii) any numbers or codes that represent such information,
        when any of these items is attached to a copy of the work, performance, or phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a work, performance or phonogram, to the public.
    (d) For greater certainty, nothing in this paragraph shall obligate a Party to require the owner of any right in the work, performance, or phonogram to attach rights management information to copies of the work, performance, or phonogram, or to cause rights management information to appear in connection with a communication of the work, performance, or phonogram to the public.

Spoiler: As a musician, me likey (click to show/hide)

ARTICLE 5: COPYRIGHT

    1
    Without prejudice to Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii), and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, each Party shall provide to authors the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

ARTICLE 6: RELATED RIGHTS

    1. Each Party shall accord the rights provided for in this Chapter with respect to performers and producers of phonograms to the performers and producers of phonograms who are nationals of another Party and to performances or phonograms first published or first fixed in the territory of another Party. A performance or phonogram shall be considered first published in the territory of a Party in which it is published within 30 days of its original publication.*13*
    2. Each Party shall provide to performers the right to authorize or prohibit:
        (a) broadcasting and communication to the public of their unfixed performances, except where the performance is already a broadcast performance; and
        (b) fixation of their unfixed performances.
    3.
        1
        (a) Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the broadcasting and any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those performances and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
        (b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article [4.8][exceptions and limitations], the application of this right to analog transmissions and non-interactive, free over-the-air broadcasts, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such activity, shall be a matter of each Party's law.
        (c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions in accordance with Article [4.8] [exceptions and limitations], provided that the limitations do not prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

Spoiler: More good law (click to show/hide)

5. For purposes of this Article and Article 4, the following definitions apply with respect to performers and producers of phonograms:

    (a) broadcasting means the transmission to the public by wireless means or satellite of sounds or sounds and images, or representations thereof, including wireless transmission of encrypted signals where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent; "broadcasting" does not include transmissions over computer networks or any transmissions where the time and place of reception may be individually chosen by members of the public;
    (b) communication to the public of a performance or a phonogram means the transmission to the public by any medium, other than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram. For purposes of paragraph [3], "communication to the public" includes making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public;
    (c) fixation means the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated through a device;
    (d) performers means actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore;
    (e) phonogram means the fixation of the sounds of a performance or of other sounds, or of a representation of sounds, other than in the form of a fixation incorporated in a cinematographic or other audiovisual work;
    (f) producer of a phonogram means the person who, or the legal entity which, takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the first fixation of the sounds of a performance or other sounds, or the representations of sounds; and
    (g) publication of a performance or a phonogram means the offering of copies of the performance or the phonogram to the public, with the consent of the rightholder, and provided that copies are offered to the public in reasonable quantity.

Spoiler: Potentially awesome at the international level (click to show/hide)

2. Each Party shall make patents available for inventions for the following:

    1
    (a) plants and animals, and
    1
    (b) diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals.

3. Each Party may only exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within its territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal, or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by law. 

Spoiler: It should be 1-1 or 1-1.1 profit loss (with proof that the person receiving would or could have bought the good with little sacrifice) at retail price to lawsuit dollar amount, plus any additional profit made in the case that they actually charge more than the original good or else you give incentive to inventive people (corps = people remember) to manipulate others into copyright violations to their benefit for otherwise nonexistent lawsuits (don't feed the lawyers) (click to show/hide)

4. In civil judicial proceedings, each Party shall, at least with respect to works, phonograms, and performances protected by copyright or related rights, and in cases of trademark counterfeiting, establish or maintain a system that provides for pre-established damages, which shall be available upon the election of the right holder. Pre-established damages shall be in an amount sufficiently high to constitute a deterrent to future infringements and to compensate fully the right holder for the harm caused by the infringement. In civil judicial proceedings concerning patent infringement, each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to increase damages to an amount that is up to three times the amount of the injury found or assessed.*19*

Spoiler: Interestingly countries can pass laws that say your laptop won't be confiscated to check for pirated goods every time you cross the border and the border cops aren't busy for example. Sounds ok to me for convenience as that would seem to me to be low priority at a border. (click to show/hide)

8. A Party may exclude from the application of this Article (border measures), small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in traveler's personal luggage.

Spoiler: Bolded: Harshest language meaning that generosity by giving to the impoverished who couldn't obtain it anyways is not a defense. This is what should be changed to be fair as outlawing sharing is not right by almost anyone's standard and it shouldn't be hard to prove that someone can afford to pay for example a 40$ video game. I'm thinking more along the lines of obtaining more expensive software licenses as a broke art student/graduate in debt specializing in digital art. (click to show/hide)

ARTICLE 15: CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

    1. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale. Willful copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale includes:
        (a) significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain; and
        (b) willful infringements for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.*24*

Finally, I don't think destruction of hardware is necessary. According to this law any type of equipment used in piracy is to be confiscated and destroyed by the authorities. If it must be taken temporarily for an investigation I grudgingly accept that, but after the investigation is through it should be returned in working condition wiped of infringing content and with all other content intact.

EDIT: Also I can't seem to make an account on that site so I can't direct viewers of that page to my post here on B12. Can someone do me a small favor and link to my post here in their comments section in the off chance the respectable Congressman Issa would be interested in the content of my post or if you yourself would be interested in his reading it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 01:40:24 pm

Quote

Finally, I don't think destruction of hardware is necessary. According to this law any type of equipment used in piracy is to be confiscated and destroyed by the authorities. If it must be taken temporarily for an investigation I grudgingly accept that, but after the investigation is through it should be returned in working condition wiped of infringing content and with all other content intact.

I think it's extremely generous of you.

For me most of these snips are one colossal WTF.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 01:42:38 pm

Quote from: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 01:40:24 pm

Quote

Finally, I don't think destruction of hardware is necessary. According to this law any type of equipment used in piracy is to be confiscated and destroyed by the authorities. If it must be taken temporarily for an investigation I grudgingly accept that, but after the investigation is through it should be returned in working condition wiped of infringing content and with all other content intact.

I think it's extremely generous of you.

For me most of these snips are one colossal WTF.

W2G. You do know that site allows you to suggest modifications to the law so if you disagree, you could, you know, put forth an effort and try to do something about changing the law.

Also, were you serious or sarcastic? I don't know if you're attacking my post or agreeing with it. I'm thinking attacking it. Did you not agree with the spoilers contents, because those are straight from the chapter Issa posted on that site? I only wrote the spoiler headers and things outside of spoilers.

I apologize if you are agreeing with me, my misunderstanding.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on June 16, 2012, 02:06:04 pm

Re: Geographical Indication;

If this is the same principle as I'm familiar with from European law it isn't anywhere near as expansive as all that.

The classical example is Champaign. Champaign is, under European law, sparkling wine produced in the Champaign region. I can produce and sell sparkling wine elsewhere, even using the exact same processes and grapes. I can't call it Champaign.

Similarly there can be (and obviously are) multiple companies producing Champaign within the region, each with their own brands and trademarks. The geographical indication is an extra layer of protection for the region as a whole, not for any individual company. In a sense it's somewhere between a generic term ('cheese') and a trademarked term ('Grayson cheese' - a US brand where a regional term is actually the trademark of a single company). Multiple companies can use the term while it's still protected against general use.

In the US this sort of exists, although at a slight remove. In most of these cases a US state has trademarked a particular term (Florida oranges for example) and then these terms are licensed freely within the state while blocking people outside the state using it.

I can't really tell whether this simplifies, complicates, corrects or completely fucks up the current state of such trademark laws. That's because the whole area is incredibly complex and spread across several treaties and national/regional laws. I'm not even sure the US has addressed the issues in federal law, while I'm pretty sure they are party to treaties that at least cover wine and spirits. However, compared to the European laws I'm glancingly familiar with, all that language looks fairly standard and basic.


On the copyright front (GIs are a subset of trademarks, so it's all IP law so far) that simply repeats current American copyright law. Life+70 or 95 for corporate held copyrights. This seems to be pretty similar to ACTA in that it takes current American copyright law and globalises it via trade treaty. The idea of standardising that globally is pretty disgusting but really not surprising (and desirable from a US government POV). All the original pushes for copyright reform seem to have lost steam and are now busy fighting anti-piracy laws, so seeing actual fixes to copyright is a pipe dream. This kind of treaty makes that fight harder simply because it strengthens the status-quo rather than actually expanding copyright law in any substantial way.


The patent law bit is fairly restrictive. Right now there is serious debate over the ability to patent plants, animals, genetic structures and various medically significant inventions (drugs, surgical procedures, etc). This requires member nations to allow patents on at least a subset of these (and I'm not sure that the language won't be read as more expansive). The standards for exemptions here seem fairly high, or at least could be read that way. Taking the worst possible reading this could really restrict access to certain medical and other resources in poorer nations. Being able to patent certain crops or livestock can be devastating to agriculture. Similarly the idea of having patented surgical procedures in nations where there is already minimal medical infrastructure is terrifying.


On the border crossing part, that exemption is nice. I've heard this proposal (copyright checks on the border) many times and current law and technology makes it fairly toothless anyway. For one thing, current law doesn't require you give over your password for such checks, so unless you have an unlocked computer in the immigration line you should be OK. Then there is the problem of establishing that material is infringing from simply seeing it on a hard drive. The only real way would be if you had obviously broken DRM to, say, rip DVDs that couldn't otherwise be on your disk unprotected, or if you had obvious history of illegal downloads (the torrents still open, browser history, etc). Finally, even if you did have to hand over your password and had obviously illegal (or private) materials, it's easy enough to create a plausibly deniable encrypted partition (http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability) on any computer. There is pretty much no way that could be detected without a detailed forensic check of your computer, and even then they need to get your second password out of you before establishing you have any illegal material there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 02:17:26 pm

Quote from: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 01:42:38 pm

Quote from: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 01:40:24 pm

Quote

Finally, I don't think destruction of hardware is necessary. According to this law any type of equipment used in piracy is to be confiscated and destroyed by the authorities. If it must be taken temporarily for an investigation I grudgingly accept that, but after the investigation is through it should be returned in working condition wiped of infringing content and with all other content intact.

I think it's extremely generous of you.

For me most of these snips are one colossal WTF.

W2G. You do know that site allows you to suggest modifications to the law so if you disagree, you could, you know, put forth an effort and try to do something about changing the law.

Also, were you serious or sarcastic? I don't know if you're attacking my post or agreeing with it. I'm thinking attacking it. Did you not agree with the spoilers contents, because those are straight from the chapter Issa posted on that site? I only wrote the spoiler headers and things outside of spoilers.

I apologize if you are agreeing with me, my misunderstanding.

I was sarcastic, because you seem to agree with most of these stuff. I view it a bit differently and the only modification a could suggest to them is "delete this crap and never mention it again".

Seriously - what's this document is supposed to do is to force the most stupid and restrictive aspects of American IP laws on other countries. I can't see any justification for anyone to have an inclusive right to profit from a creative work for 120 years. I don't think it's reasonable to force infringers to pay neither 3x nor 1.1x the infringed content's value. Patenting medical procedures, animals or plants is a terrible idea and potentially damaging to the countries' healthcare and farming. This treaty is not reasonable, it's ridiculous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 02:24:24 pm

Quote from: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 02:17:26 pm

Quote from: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 01:42:38 pm

Quote from: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 01:40:24 pm

Quote

Finally, I don't think destruction of hardware is necessary. According to this law any type of equipment used in piracy is to be confiscated and destroyed by the authorities. If it must be taken temporarily for an investigation I grudgingly accept that, but after the investigation is through it should be returned in working condition wiped of infringing content and with all other content intact.

I think it's extremely generous of you.

For me most of these snips are one colossal WTF.

W2G. You do know that site allows you to suggest modifications to the law so if you disagree, you could, you know, put forth an effort and try to do something about changing the law.

Also, were you serious or sarcastic? I don't know if you're attacking my post or agreeing with it. I'm thinking attacking it. Did you not agree with the spoilers contents, because those are straight from the chapter Issa posted on that site? I only wrote the spoiler headers and things outside of spoilers.

I apologize if you are agreeing with me, my misunderstanding.

I was sarcastic, because you seem to agree with most of these stuff. I view it a bit differently and the only modification a could suggest to them is "delete this crap and never mention it again".

Seriously - what's this document is supposed to do is to force the most stupid and restrictive aspects of American IP laws on other countries. I can't see any justification for anyone to have an inclusive right to profit from a creative work for 120 years. I don't think it's reasonable to force infringers to pay neither 3x nor 1.1x the infringed content's value. Patenting medical procedures, animals or plants is a terrible idea and potentially damaging to the countries' healthcare and farming. This treaty is not reasonable, it's ridiculous.

The animals and medical procedures were exempt. Also, yeah, I'd rather have it your way too. Much, much rather. However,  I also think sooner or later they are going to pass something along those lines though and every time they try I'm going to tell them how it can be better when I look it over.

Oh yeah, I also meant to complain about that 120 years thing, thanks for reminding me. I think only an individual should be able to have a copyright, and for a long period of time only on the arts. For tech I think 5 or 10 years would be enough. Medicine, and possibly research and related fields should have no copyrights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on June 16, 2012, 02:37:36 pm

Quote from: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 02:24:24 pm

The animals and medical procedures were exempt.

Not according to your quote;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2. Each Party shall make patents available for inventions for the following:

    1
    (a) plants and animals, and
    1
    (b) diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals.

Here making patents available means letting people patent them, not making patented entities freely available (public domain). This is an amendment to the current treaty, which explicitly allows exemptions for these categories. (https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm)

Section 3 that follows that defined the exemptions available. This could easily be read in various ways (depending on your view of ordre public (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy_doctrine)), but I'm banking that a narrow view (minimal exemptions) will be argued in most cases.
EDIT:

Quote from: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 02:24:24 pm

Oh yeah, I also meant to complain about that 120 years thing, thanks for reminding me. I think only an individual should be able to have a copyright, and for a long period of time only on the arts. For tech I think 5 or 10 years would be enough. Medicine, and possibly research and related fields should have no copyrights.

On not allowing corporate copyrights, what about work for hire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire)? If every work were copyright to the original creator and no other body then copyright law would become infinitely more complex in many cases. How about an animated film with dozens of artists, voice actors, writers, etc? In a work for hire the studio may hold copyright over the whole film and all elements that make it up. Destroy that doctrine and who holds copyright? Does each artist own their own frames? Each actor their own voice tracks?

As for the extended periods in the arts, what good do they do? The whole point of copyright is to offer incentive to artists. How much incentive is the slim potential for minor profits thirty years from now? As always. I recommend Breyer's dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft/Dissent_Breyer) discussing the copyright extension act at that time. He looked at the actual numbers involved in the extension and the 'incentive' that they were offering;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What copyright-related benefits might justify the statute’s extension of copyright protection? First, no one could reasonably conclude that copyright’s traditional economic rationale applies here. The extension will not act as an economic spur encouraging authors to create new works. See Mazer, 347 U.S., at 219 (The “economic philosophy” of the Copyright Clause is to “advance public welfare” by “encourag[ing] individual effort” through “personal gain”); see also ante, at 212, n.18 (“[C]opyright law serves public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private ones”). No potential author can reasonably believe that he has more than a tiny chance of writing a classic that will survive commercially long enough for the copyright extension to matter. After all, if, after 55 to 75 years, only 2% of all copyrights retain commercial value, the percentage surviving after 75 years or more (a typical pre-extension copyright term)—must be far smaller. See supra, at 248; CRS Report 7 (estimating that, even after copyright renewal, about 3.8% of copyrighted books go out of print each year). And any remaining monetary incentive is diminished dramatically by the fact that the relevant royalties will not arrive until 75 years or more into the future, when, not the author, but distant heirs, or shareholders in a successor corporation, will receive them. Using assumptions about the time value of money provided us by a group of economists (including five (p255) Nobel prize winners), Brief for George A. Akerlof et al. as Amici Curiae 5–7, it seems fair to say that, for example, a 1% likelihood of earning $100 annually for 20 years, starting 75 years into the future, is worth less than seven cents today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on June 16, 2012, 02:41:52 pm

Quote

The animals and medical procedures were exempt

I don't see it that way. The text in legalese seems to suggest that each party should make patenting animals and medical procedures possible.

Quote

Also, yeah, I'd rather have it your way too. Much, much rather. However,  I also think sooner or later they are going to pass something along those lines though and every time they try I'm going to tell them how it can be better when I look it over.

They can't pass something like this and enforce it successfully if most people don't find it acceptable, or at least think they can't do anything about it. By agreeing to this and suggesting minor adjustments you are only taking your part in making it happen. And your propositions will probably be ignored anyway. Why to placate someone who already decided to accept this treaty?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on June 16, 2012, 03:23:27 pm

Ahh, you're both right. Also I see I must have misread that about the animals and medical procedures. Palsch, you are why I like B12; I can do a little bit of work making a fool of myself publically and someone who knows better will come along and let me know about it while being nice about it and excusing my ignorance (I hope) Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge with me so I can make better decisions.

Ganto, you are also great for pointing that out. Count me in for solidarity against this kind of crap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on June 16, 2012, 03:28:00 pm

And this is why Bay12 is special...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on June 19, 2012, 08:11:25 am

Marco Rubio apparently writes that he would be an illegal immigrant too (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/marco-rubio-says-come-u-illegally-had-111859436.html), if he was in the same position as most illegal immigrants.

While the sentiment is humane, humanity has no place in the modern GOP. Any chances that Rubio had at being a VP pick just went out the window. He still has a pretty good shot at future elections just because Florida. But nationally, he just became persona non grata with the far-right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on June 19, 2012, 08:25:29 am

Quote from: palsch on June 16, 2012, 02:37:36 pm

On not allowing corporate copyrights, what about work for hire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire)? If every work were copyright to the original creator and no other body then copyright law would become infinitely more complex in many cases. How about an animated film with dozens of artists, voice actors, writers, etc? In a work for hire the studio may hold copyright over the whole film and all elements that make it up. Destroy that doctrine and who holds copyright? Does each artist own their own frames? Each actor their own voice tracks?

Or the law could state it's a shared copyright, and I think it's bullshit that it doesn't work that way now, where each person has full copyright to the object in question. At the very least I'd like to see it become popular in cases like portrait photography where making a copy of your family photo or posting it online is breaking the law. Yeah, I agree it gets muddled when it's a team effort, but I'm sure there are workable implementations that at least get close, even if its just limited to works that are primarily or clearly the result of one person.

At the VERY least, I think copyright should be non-transferable (only duplicatable). You should be able to sell a copyright you hold, but you should not be able to lose it in the process - you can expand the pool of those with the copyright but not shrink it. For cases like work-for-hire, this wouldn't be the case since the individual never owned the copyright (unless their contract says otherwise of course).

I agree with the terms being way too long either way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on June 20, 2012, 08:18:13 am

Redking: Is this the same Rubio who I avoided voting for because he seemed so extreme far right? And now he's advocating moderation on immigration issues? WTF?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on June 27, 2012, 05:20:19 pm

What will really decide this election?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/sixty-five-percent-americans-obama-better-suited-handle-171143465.html

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://cdn.overclock.net/9/9c/9cef162d_history-channel-alien-guy-meme-generator-aliens-98f63b.jpeg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on June 27, 2012, 06:28:54 pm

Linked at the bottom. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-leads-romney-three-key-states-poll-shows-110422042.html) Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, eh? Looks like a fairly strong lead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on June 27, 2012, 07:23:54 pm

Let's all hope and pray that gas stays cheap. If it really does dip below $3 a gallon and stay there, Obama will have a much, much better shot at beating Romney than if it takes another hike.

It's quite sad that the most powerful man in the world might be chosen according to the price of petrol.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on June 27, 2012, 07:27:57 pm

I can't speak for the rest of the state of Michigan, but practically everyone I talk to as a customer that brings up politics (which is practically all of them,) absolutely hates Romney with a passion. They don't particularly like Snyder, either, but don't see an alternative that isn't just as/more corrupt and power hungry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on June 27, 2012, 07:55:11 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on June 27, 2012, 07:27:57 pm

I can't speak for the rest of the state of Michigan, but practically everyone I talk to as a customer that brings up politics (which is practically all of them,) absolutely hates Romney with a passion. They don't particularly like Snyder, either, but don't see an alternative that isn't just as/more corrupt and power hungry.

I take it Snyder is some third party guy/governer of Michigan?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on June 27, 2012, 07:58:20 pm

Govenor of Michigan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 03, 2012, 08:02:33 am

It's becoming increasingly clear that the governor's race in North Carolina is a sad joke.

One of the candidates has an "A" rating from the NRA, is against gay marriage, and is in favor of allowing hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The other one is a Republican.  :'(

Guess I'm voting Libertarian for the 2nd straight race.


Oh, and late last night our legislature overrode three straight gubernatorial vetos, further underscoring how useless the position has become since the GOP hijacked the reins of state government. One of the overrides (nullifying a veto on fracking) appears to have passed by 1 vote...a Democrat who accidentally pressed the wrong button and immediately recognized her mistake. The Speaker of the House then immediately used a procedural trick to make it impossible to ask for a do-over or a re-vote. And so continues our relentless death march towards becoming Northern South Carolina. At this rate, I should be getting my "Truck Up On Cinderblocks In My Front Yard" subsidy soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 03, 2012, 08:04:08 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 03, 2012, 08:02:33 am

It's becoming increasingly clear that the governor's race in North Carolina is a sad joke.

One of the candidates has an "A" rating from the NRA, is against gay marriage, and is in favor of allowing hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The other one is a Republican.  :'(

Guess I'm voting Libertarian for the 2nd straight race.

You poor, sad bastards. May god or science have mercy on your souls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on July 03, 2012, 08:46:43 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on July 03, 2012, 08:04:08 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 03, 2012, 08:02:33 am

It's becoming increasingly clear that the governor's race in North Carolina is a sad joke.

One of the candidates has an "A" rating from the NRA, is against gay marriage, and is in favor of allowing hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The other one is a Republican.  :'(

Guess I'm voting Libertarian for the 2nd straight race.

You poor, sad bastards. May god or science have mercy on your souls.

There is no mercy in Science... its either confusion or fact.... and if you go by the Old Testament Christian God or Armok, they are not known for their mercy.  Well, there are many benevolent God(s) out there, if you look.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 03, 2012, 08:49:10 am

Quote

Well, there are many benevolent God(s) out there, if you look.

Praise, uh... Shiva?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 03, 2012, 08:56:01 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 03, 2012, 08:49:10 am

Quote

Well, there are many benevolent God(s) out there, if you look.

Praise, uh... Shiva?

Shiva the Destroyer?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 03, 2012, 08:58:39 am

That title sounds very benevolent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on July 03, 2012, 09:00:06 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 03, 2012, 08:56:01 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 03, 2012, 08:49:10 am

Quote

Well, there are many benevolent God(s) out there, if you look.

Praise, uh... Shiva?

Shiva the Destroyer?

He's more the guy who wraps things up at the end, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 03, 2012, 09:31:10 am

Well, destruction brings a very rough road, but it also breeds creation...

Plus Shiva has a few titles! Creator, preserver, destroyer, concealer, revealer... Some of those are much nicer sounding. :P
Ultimately, "The Transformer" is Shiva's best title though. (It is because Shiva is more than meets the eye)

Overall a pretty chill god though, definitely benevolent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 03, 2012, 10:27:10 am

Quote from: Japa on July 03, 2012, 09:00:06 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 03, 2012, 08:56:01 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 03, 2012, 08:49:10 am

Quote

Well, there are many benevolent God(s) out there, if you look.

Praise, uh... Shiva?

Shiva the Destroyer?

He's more the guy who wraps things up at the end, really.

Sounds like a nice guy, then.

Moar election: I saw my first wave of political ads on YouTube a couple days ago. And when I say wave, I mean it. I watched 20+ videos and they all had the same ad called 'unpatriotic' which was about misquoting Obama and saying that we need to lower the national debt. (By voting for Romney, though it doesn't say that.) It linked to an organization 'not affiliated with any candidate', which of course means it was a branch of the GOP SuperPAC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 03, 2012, 10:56:58 am

Quote from: Japa on July 03, 2012, 09:00:06 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 03, 2012, 08:56:01 am

Shiva the Destroyer?

He's more the guy who wraps things up at the end, really.

The same way complete nuclear war "wraps things up", and just so he can start a clean slate too.

...Shiva is basically the Enclave from Fallout.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 03, 2012, 11:30:55 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 03, 2012, 08:02:33 am

It's becoming increasingly clear that the governor's race in North Carolina is a sad joke.

One of the candidates has an "A" rating from the NRA, is against gay marriage, and is in favor of allowing hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The other one is a Republican.  :'(

Guess I'm voting Libertarian for the 2nd straight race.


Oh, and late last night our legislature overrode three straight gubernatorial vetos, further underscoring how useless the position has become since the GOP hijacked the reins of state government. One of the overrides (nullifying a veto on fracking) appears to have passed by 1 vote...a Democrat who accidentally pressed the wrong button and immediately recognized her mistake. The Speaker of the House then immediately used a procedural trick to make it impossible to ask for a do-over or a re-vote. And so continues our relentless death march towards becoming Northern South Carolina. At this rate, I should be getting my "Truck Up On Cinderblocks In My Front Yard" subsidy soon.

Will there be a court case about the misvote?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 03, 2012, 01:44:33 pm

Quote from: mainiac on July 03, 2012, 11:30:55 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 03, 2012, 08:02:33 am

It's becoming increasingly clear that the governor's race in North Carolina is a sad joke.

One of the candidates has an "A" rating from the NRA, is against gay marriage, and is in favor of allowing hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The other one is a Republican.  :'(

Guess I'm voting Libertarian for the 2nd straight race.


Oh, and late last night our legislature overrode three straight gubernatorial vetos, further underscoring how useless the position has become since the GOP hijacked the reins of state government. One of the overrides (nullifying a veto on fracking) appears to have passed by 1 vote...a Democrat who accidentally pressed the wrong button and immediately recognized her mistake. The Speaker of the House then immediately used a procedural trick to make it impossible to ask for a do-over or a re-vote. And so continues our relentless death march towards becoming Northern South Carolina. At this rate, I should be getting my "Truck Up On Cinderblocks In My Front Yard" subsidy soon.

Will there be a court case about the misvote?

No idea, it just happened last night. My guess would be no.

Quote from: From a relevant news article.

Under House rules, members can change their vote if they've made a mistake - unless the change would affect the bill's passage.

As soon as the vote was cast, House Minority Leader Paul Stam used a procedural move called a "clincher" to ensure the veto override could not be reconsidered.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the guilty party ousted in the next primary. Mistake or not, people are going to be pissed that their elected official can't push the right fucking color-coded button.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 03, 2012, 01:49:41 pm

That is literally the worst procedural rule I have ever heard of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Alexhans on July 04, 2012, 12:24:33 pm

I risked giving a quick peek at this thread (after a long absence in b12) expecting lame battles full of partisanship only to find interesting information and calm arguments.

(+) Will read again. 

It also makes me reflect on the pros and cons of comment systems where people (silent majorities/moderators?) influence the order and practical visibility.

I guess small numbers (controllable), accountability and reputation concern might be an important factor for the success of a debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 04, 2012, 12:37:55 pm

Attitude is number 1, I think. Any online debate will devolve into nonsense if the people participate are in it to "win" and not for discussion for discussion's sake. We're pretty good about attitudes here, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on July 04, 2012, 07:55:42 pm

Michigan Republican governor vetoes broader voter ID law (http://news.yahoo.com/michigan-republican-governor-vetoes-broader-voter-id-law-223426452.html;_ylt=AqGr_QsrfuaYZP_R1H7UVfes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTVqNnZrdXN0BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sY2Z3aWtpdXAEbWl0A05ld3MgRm9yIFlvdSA1IFN0b3JpZXMEcGtnAzAyMTFmMTQyLTViNTctM2ViOS04MTBjLWU4ODMzNWEzNGU2ZgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDTWVkaWFCTGlzdE1peGVkTmV3c0ZvcllvdUNBVGVtcAR2ZXIDN2FhYWUyOTEtYzU1Zi0xMWUxLWE3YWYtYmQ5YTg5NWQ5YTNl;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3)

(Reuters) - Michigan Governor Rick Snyder on Tuesday vetoed a measure to broaden Michigan's photo identification law for voting, the first Republican governor to veto such a plan during a national wave of ID laws enacted by states in the last two years.

Michigan has an existing voter ID law that is somewhat flexible, permitting a voter to sign an affidavit and vote a regular ballot if they do not have photographic identification with them.

Snyder vetoed a proposal from the Republican-led legislature requiring a photo ID for absentee voting.

Snyder also vetoed proposals that would require voters to affirm their U.S. citizenship before receiving ballots and to require voter registration groups to undergo training by the secretary of state or local clerks.

Duuvian's thoughts: Snyder has really surprised me. He has not only been competent (see Canada and the Feds paying for most of a new Detroit bridge) but he is willing to veto things from his own party at some if not great political risk to himself. In addition his city manager program is at worst quietly bad as I haven't heard much that worried me enough that I felt I would have to get involved and more informed, which I admittedly am not on that issue. If more interested parties have done research on that I wouldn't mind hearing about it. Finally Gov. Snyder did some things to streamline the process of gaining a Michigan Medical Marihuana card. Basically the organization in charge of issueing cards had too few employees to handle all the applications and there was a backlog of 6months to a year to receive your (yearly renewed) card. Gov. Snyder stepped in and changed who handled applications which sped up the process greatly.

Spoiler: My opinion on the Michigan Medical Marihuana as an economist hobbyist (click to show/hide)

I'm a firm believer that the Michigan Med. Marihuana (they misspelled it not me) law is one of the best in the country. I would remove the Medical requirement myself, as right now all it amounts to is a small bribe to a Doctor. (some doctors only prescribe to lawful patients, others take their cash and write one for whatever; both require payment for their 'permission' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking ) By allowing limited quantities (in Michigan 12 producing plants per patient) of local production, you allow locals to supply themselves and act as caregivers for other patients (and pay for electricity or even profit in a bad economy in the second instance) instead of international drug cartels who are currently engaging in civil war in Mexico. In addition the State (and some Doctors) must be making a pretty penny from their respective bribes. I don't mind if the State gets a piece as they have to administer the program, but doctors are simply profiting in return for something that seems to me of extremely limited utility. The supply amount seems to be about right, possibly due to the production limits, while from what I've heard California has an oversupply to the point they have an abundance of street hawkers. In addition the majority of local supply seems to no longer be brown, Mexican marijuana. Instead the quality of product and service have both skyrocketed, both in not having to worry about spoilage, urination on the product plus other things the chain of importers might have done, and ease and safety of transaction. Add to this the greater value to a consumer (who would likely consume even without legalization) offered by a local supply, the effect on the local money supply (money stays local instead of finding it's way to cartels/out of state importers), and the effect on crime rates due to the reduction of overzealous prosecution for this petty crime. By allowing all citizens to have a Michigan Marihuana card you would expand these effects.

I think I may vote for (Republican) Governor Snyder barring learning negative things about his governorship; as well as voting for Obama and other Democrats nationally. Not sure what party I'd vote for the state legislatures, but if they send the Governor such stinker bills I don't think I'll vote Republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 04, 2012, 08:00:24 pm

I think marihuana is a correct alternate spelling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on July 04, 2012, 08:05:18 pm

Quote from: Duuvian on July 04, 2012, 07:55:42 pm

Duuvian's thoughts: Snyder has really surprised me. He has not only been competent (see Canada and the Feds paying for most of a new Detroit bridge) but he is willing to veto things from his own party at some if not great political risk to himself. In addition his city manager program is at worst quietly bad as I haven't heard much that worried me enough that I felt I would have to get involved and more informed, which I admittedly am not on that issue. If more interested parties have done research on that I wouldn't mind hearing about it. Finally Gov. Snyder did some things to streamline the process of gaining a Michigan Medical Marihuana card. Basically the organization in charge of issueing cards had too few employees to handle all the applications and there was a backlog of 6months to a year to receive your (yearly renewed) card. Gov. Snyder stepped in and changed who handled applications which sped up the process greatly.

I will admit that I haven't really kept up on what else he's done as governor, but for me, the new Emergency Manager powers are a deal breaker regardless.  Towns are getting ready to disappear from the map, Detroit may not have a public school system next year, and the Pontiac Silver Dome was sold for less than half a million dollars to a Canadian investor who then hired the Manager who brokered the deal and that's perfectly legal in Snyder's world.

That said, I am genuinely surprised that he would be the first Republican governor to veto a new voting restriction, especially considering what a vociferous opposition he's spawned.  That seems to be the plan everywhere else in the state, pass a bunch of crazy laws then make it harder for people to vote, but maybe he turned magnanimous all of sudden.  Or smug, who knows.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on July 04, 2012, 08:07:40 pm

I don't understand who the hell Snyder is trying to appeal to at this point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on July 04, 2012, 08:34:22 pm

I'd like to think he has some conscience. Perhaps his strategy is to appeal to moderates; whether it's a sound strategy or not I suppose it's worth a try and it's better morally in my opinion than to appeal only/mostly to what some politicians call their 'base'. I suppose I should learn who his opposition is before I make a final decision, and also consider potential lame-duck issues.

Also yes, the city manager scheme is the biggest stumbling block for me about Snyder. Hearing things like the stadium sale really doesn't change my mind. If he were to promise some reform regarding oversight and regulation (especially concerning policy all decisions that benefit the manager's or his affiliate's personal financials); then I and likely others would be willing to consider modifying our position on that matter.

EDIT: Another thing that needs to be remedied to sway my opinion, no matter how much or little Snyder had to do with it originally or at any other time:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bobb

Spoiler: Explanation of my minor editing (click to show/hide)

conflict of interest (between Bobb and the public) bolded

result of this conflict of interest italicized

Emergency financial manager

In March 2009, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm appointed Bobb as emergency financial manager for the Detroit Public Schools, which at the time had 172 schools, 85,000 students,[14] and a deficit of $219 million.[15] At the end of Bobb's first year as financial manager, the deficit had increased to $363 million, according to budget documents released by the school district in June 2010.[15]

Bobb said he took on the job because Detroit had the "roughest and the toughest" urban schools and because he understood "the dynamics, the grit, the opportunities that are prevalent in urban America."[2] In addition to his management of the schools' finances, he created master plans for education reforms including standards required to pass to the next grade level, and offered plans for facilities improvement and community involvement.[2][14] He used $500 million in federal stimulus money to improve facilities and led a successful enrollment drive resulting in 900 more students than projected.[14] He called for 2,600 volunteers to donate 180 hours each to help students learn to read.[2]

His tenure as emergency manager was beset with controversies related to school closings, job cuts, and the elimination and outsourcing of school services.[5] During his first ten months on the job he closed 29 schools and hired outside consultants to improve 17 schools.[2] When it appeared that consolidation of high schools and large class sizes could cause tension and violence, he rehired 137 guidance counselors he had laid off, and rehired 20 piano teachers so that music education could continue.[2]

Bobb is paid an annual salary of $280,000 by the government and $145,000 by the Kellogg Foundation and the Broad Foundation, a national promoter of school choice and privatization.[4] Bobb is also the owner, president and CEO of the LAPA Group, LLC, a private/public sector consulting firm.[5]

His appointment was to expire on March 1, 2011.[5] At that time, he was given expanded powers by the state legislature, including the powers to modify contracts, terminate collective bargaining agreements with teachers and fire elected officials.[4][16] He has said he intends to use these powers,[16] and has issued layoff notices to all of the teachers in the school system,[17] which will give him or other managers the power to call back or reassign teachers without having to consider seniority rights.[18] Bobb is also proposing that as many as 41 Detroit Public Schools that he has scheduled for closure be turned instead into privatized charter schools.[4]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on July 04, 2012, 09:21:59 pm

Quote from: Alexhans on July 04, 2012, 12:24:33 pm

I risked giving a quick peek at this thread (after a long absence in b12) expecting lame battles full of partisanship only to find interesting information and calm arguments.

(+) Will read again. 

It also makes me reflect on the pros and cons of comment systems where people (silent majorities/moderators?) influence the order and practical visibility.

I guess small numbers (controllable), accountability and reputation concern might be an important factor for the success of a debate.

Oh hey you.

Yeah, this thread has had a few flare-ups, but nothing too severe. It's really kind of amazing. I think we're all fearful of the wrath of the Toad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on July 04, 2012, 10:49:03 pm

Quote from: Mego on July 04, 2012, 09:21:59 pm

Quote from: Alexhans on July 04, 2012, 12:24:33 pm

I risked giving a quick peek at this thread (after a long absence in b12) expecting lame battles full of partisanship only to find interesting information and calm arguments.

(+) Will read again. 

It also makes me reflect on the pros and cons of comment systems where people (silent majorities/moderators?) influence the order and practical visibility.

I guess small numbers (controllable), accountability and reputation concern might be an important factor for the success of a debate.

Oh hey you.

Yeah, this thread has had a few flare-ups, but nothing too severe. It's really kind of amazing. I think we're all fearful of the wrath of the Toad.

Fear?  For some maybe... I for one respect the Toad and rather he not be forced to take time out to moderate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on July 05, 2012, 12:05:47 am

Quote from: Duuvian on July 04, 2012, 08:34:22 pm

Spoiler: Explanation of my minor editing (click to show/hide)

conflict of interest (between Bobb and the public) bolded

result of this conflict of interest italicized

Emergency financial manager

In March 2009, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm appointed Bobb as emergency financial manager for the Detroit Public Schools, which at the time had 172 schools, 85,000 students,[14] and a deficit of $219 million.[15] At the end of Bobb's first year as financial manager, the deficit had increased to $363 million, according to budget documents released by the school district in June 2010.[15]

Bobb said he took on the job because Detroit had the "roughest and the toughest" urban schools and because he understood "the dynamics, the grit, the opportunities that are prevalent in urban America."[2] In addition to his management of the schools' finances, he created master plans for education reforms including standards required to pass to the next grade level, and offered plans for facilities improvement and community involvement.[2][14] He used $500 million in federal stimulus money to improve facilities and led a successful enrollment drive resulting in 900 more students than projected.[14] He called for 2,600 volunteers to donate 180 hours each to help students learn to read.[2]

His tenure as emergency manager was beset with controversies related to school closings, job cuts, and the elimination and outsourcing of school services.[5] During his first ten months on the job he closed 29 schools and hired outside consultants to improve 17 schools.[2] When it appeared that consolidation of high schools and large class sizes could cause tension and violence, he rehired 137 guidance counselors he had laid off, and rehired 20 piano teachers so that music education could continue.[2]

Bobb is paid an annual salary of $280,000 by the government and $145,000 by the Kellogg Foundation and the Broad Foundation, a national promoter of school choice and privatization.[4] Bobb is also the owner, president and CEO of the LAPA Group, LLC, a private/public sector consulting firm.[5]

His appointment was to expire on March 1, 2011.[5] At that time, he was given expanded powers by the state legislature, including the powers to modify contracts, terminate collective bargaining agreements with teachers and fire elected officials.[4][16] He has said he intends to use these powers,[16] and has issued layoff notices to all of the teachers in the school system,[17] which will give him or other managers the power to call back or reassign teachers without having to consider seniority rights.[18] Bobb is also proposing that as many as 41 Detroit Public Schools that he has scheduled for closure be turned instead into privatized charter schools.[4]

And all this time I thought America wasn't a total hell and it was just propaganda. Nope, we've abolished the rule of democracy in favour of cronyism and the sickest form of imperialism I've ever seen. It's one thing to be a total shit and fuck over other countries to better your own, but it's quite another to fuck over your whole country for some corporations.

Holy shit I might have just become a Democrat.

PS. If I sound incoherent it's because I'm up too late dicking around on the internet again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on July 05, 2012, 12:14:33 am

It's only in one state. It just so happens to be the state I live in, but...yeah. I'm waiting for the riots to come to my hometown.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 08:53:12 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on July 04, 2012, 08:07:40 pm

I don't understand who the hell Snyder is trying to appeal to at this point.

The lizard people who live in Detroit's sewers (i.e. "the nice part of town"). After all, lizard people are people too. Who are lizards.


In national election news, Ann Romney is stoking interest in the VP selection by saying that Team Romney is looking at the possibility of a female candidate. Which immediately brings up a handful of candidates, most of whom the Democrats would LOVE to see on the ticket:

Sarah Palin (do we really need to explain why Caribou Barbie II would be Obama's dream ticket to run against?)
Michelle Bachmann (Sarah Palin minus the glasses)
Jan Brewer (not telegenic, and if Romney thought he had a problem with the Latino vote *before*...)
Nikki Haley (this would actually be an incredibly shrewd pick, but Haley's already on the record stating she wouldn't accept)
Ann Coulter (she *was* one of his loudest supporters during the GOP knife fight during the primary...but she's also incredibly shrill and toxic)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on July 05, 2012, 09:08:41 am

Oh jah... google search of Ann Coulter and you see the books under her profile at the right... just read the titles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 05, 2012, 09:11:34 am

Also telling is the covers. 3 of the ones google showed me sexualize her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on July 05, 2012, 09:19:22 am

He won't pick Bachmann, she's completely toxic.  She is absolutely despised here in Minnesota, the only reason she wins in her district is that it's the most Republican in the state (Obama received 45% of the vote under the old lines, 43% under the new.)

All those picks, except Haley, are absolutely terrible, strategically.  Who's next, Virginia Foxx?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 10:14:29 am

ABC lists a few more less-well-known options:

-Kelly Ayotte, senator from New Hampshire. Problem there is you have a ticket which hails exclusively from the Northeast. That's a tough sell to a party whose base is primarily in the Mountain West, Midwest and South.

-Mary Fallin, governor of Oklahoma. Not a lot of national presence, but popular in OK, and it would give the ticket some "down home" cred. Still don't think it would be as good a pick as Haley, but it's less complicated.

-Susanna Martinez, governor of New Mexico. Problem is, like Haley she's denied any interest in the position. And probably wants no association with Romney, given that NM is far more Hispanic-friendly than neighboring Arizona and her re-election is absolutely dependent on not alienating those Hispanic voters.

Some interesting male prospects:

--Tim Pawlenty. Now that he's survived the recall election, he looks tough and defiant. He gives the ticket some heartland cred, and a record of actual conservative legislation.

--Gen. David Petraeus. This would be a seriously ballsy move. Instant national security cred, and I have to admit it'd even give me pause. Petraeus is a badass motherfucker, and incredibly sharp. Problem is, he's currently busy with this little thing called Afghanistan, he hasn't shown an interest in running for office, and it's not even clear if he's a Republican. Although the old adage stands, you never want your VP to be more popular than you are.


I think perhaps the bigger story is how many people are already kind of saying "Thanks, but no thanks" before even being tapped by Romney. I think a lot of people in the GOP think this is just not going to happen this year, so they're saving their powder for 2016. There's not a lot of upside to being the VP pick in a losing campaign. Think Dan Quayle, think Admiral Stockdale, think Sarah Palin, think Geraldine Ferraro.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 05, 2012, 10:18:08 am

So you're saying there's no a lot of upside... unless you plan to make a ton of cash doing talk shows and book deals?

;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 10:22:51 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on July 05, 2012, 10:18:08 am

So you're saying there's no a lot of upside... unless you plan to make a ton of cash doing talk shows and book deals?

;)

Palin's the exception to the rule, mostly because she's an utterly shameless self-promoter. With a rack. And no day job to keep her off the talk-show circuit. Had she remained governor of Alaska and actually attended to gubernatorial duties, she'd have faded back into semi-obscurity within a couple of years. Instead, she bailed on the job and picked up her own reality TV show (and one for her daughter).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on July 05, 2012, 10:29:28 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 10:14:29 am

Some interesting male prospects:

--Tim Pawlenty. Now that he's survived the recall election, he looks tough and defiant. He gives the ticket some heartland cred, and a record of actual conservative legislation.

I think you mean Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin.  Tim Pawlenty is no longer governor of anything; the current governor here is Mark Dayton, a Democrat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 10:31:59 am

DOH. All those upper Midwest states blur together for me. Wow....that was an epic brainfart.

Not only that, but Petraeus isn't in Afghanistan anymore, he's Director of the CIA. I think I'm gonna stop prognosticating for the day till my brain sorts itself out.  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 05, 2012, 11:02:19 am

Why would it be a problem for Romney to have a non-southerner as his VP?  I think that would be an assset.  The only place I see it counting against him that matters would be North Carolina.  But it could work to his credit in New Hampshire and the West to have no association with the southern wing of the GOP.

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 10:14:29 am

There's not a lot of upside to being the VP pick in a losing campaign. Think Dan Quayle, think Admiral Stockdale, think Sarah Palin, think Geraldine Ferraro.

Three nobodies and Sarah Palin could hardly be expected to have bright political futures were it not for the VP nominations.  And Sarah Palin could have remained governor of Alaska if she'd actually wanted that and invested a minimal effort into it.  Compare them to Bob Dole who went on to become Senate majority leader after being on a losing ticket and FDR who became freaking FDR.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 05, 2012, 11:09:14 am

A while ago people were thinking Cathy McMorris Rodgers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers) (The congresswoman from my district), but then they realized that she was terrible at congressing.

Quote from: mainiac on July 05, 2012, 11:02:19 am

Why would it be a problem for Romney to have a non-southerner as his VP?  I think that would be an assset.

I'm sorry, but after this I read this in a 'lizard people' voice. "Yesss... A northerner will do ssswimmingly..."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Solifuge on July 05, 2012, 11:18:51 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on July 05, 2012, 12:14:33 am

It's only in one state. It just so happens to be the state I live in, but...yeah. I'm waiting for the riots to come to my hometown.

I don't know about you, but I'm feeling uncommonly riotous right now. The more I see the direction local and national law is going, the more I feel like rioting. Would that I were an inspired leader rather than just some malcontent... I need a direction to ply all these revolutionary urges.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 11:27:00 am

Quote from: mainiac on July 05, 2012, 11:02:19 am

Why would it be a problem for Romney to have a non-southerner as his VP?  I think that would be an assset.  The only place I see it counting against him that matters would be North Carolina.  But it could work to his credit in New Hampshire and the West to have no association with the southern wing of the GOP.

Can't agree. Ideologically, the Mountain West portion of the party is closer to the South than the North. The old-school "Yankee Republicanism" was one of fiscal conservatism and pragmatism. The Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. They're the odd ones out in the new GOP, not the anti-immigrant, anti-gay, theocrats that you see in both the Deep South/Southeast *and* in places like Arizona and Colorado. A NH veep (and a woman, no less) places the whole ticket squarely in that throwback school. Which might actually help them in the general election, but it'll cost them some base support.

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 10:14:29 am

There's not a lot of upside to being the VP pick in a losing campaign. Think Dan Quayle, think Admiral Stockdale, think Sarah Palin, think Geraldine Ferraro.

Three nobodies and Sarah Palin could hardly be expected to have bright political futures were it not for the VP nominations.  And Sarah Palin could have remained governor of Alaska if she'd actually wanted that and invested a minimal effort into it.  Compare them to Bob Dole who went on to become Senate majority leader after being on a losing ticket and FDR who became freaking FDR.
[/quote]
Lot of difference between then and now. Back then, being a veep pick was a great way to get your name recognized at the national level. But with the 24-hour news cycle you have people like Michelle Bachmann, who by all rights should be mostly unknown outside of her district, becoming a national figure. And once you're known, people expect you to do things. If all you're known for is being "that other guy/gal who lost", it doesn't translate into strong support in the next electoral cycle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on July 05, 2012, 11:29:51 am

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-joe-walsh-doubles-down-accusation-tammy-duckworth-144349000.html

Joe Walsh (R) criticizes his opponent Tammy Duckworth (a veteran who lost both her legs piloting a blackhawk in Iraq) for talking too much about her service to the country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 11:34:30 am

I don't know the specifics of that race, but Walsh might actually have a point there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on July 05, 2012, 11:41:53 am

Quote from: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 11:34:30 am

I don't know the specifics of that race, but Walsh might actually have a point there.

He is not a veteran. He is making a judgment on what kind of veteran is a hero or not. Explicitly stating that veterans who talk about their service are not as heroic as those who shut the fuck up and fade into obscurity.

He is also factually wrong. Military service IS relevant in politics. And it isn't the only thing she talks about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on July 05, 2012, 11:43:17 am

Quote from: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 11:34:30 am

I don't know the specifics of that race, but Walsh might actually have a point there.

............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
WHAT

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 05, 2012, 11:44:19 am

Swiftboating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating) much?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 11:54:27 am

Yeah, I'm going to have to say Walsh is full of shit there. Especially given he's from the party that wraps itself in the goddamned flag every chance it gets.

Sounds about on par with Saxby Chambliss, the Republican (with no military service) who unseated triple-amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland from his Senate seat in 2002. All while Republican pundits and Chambliss's own ads questioned Cleland's patriotism and mocked his injuries (with many folks on Internet forums questioning the account of Cleland's injuries and claiming it was because he was clumsy and dropped a grenade, and therefore not worthy of respect).

When Chambliss won, it made me physically ill.  >:(
If Walsh wins, I may have to barf into a bag and mail it to him as a congratulatory gift.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 12:05:56 pm

I wasn't agreeing with Walsh's position necessarily and he's not someone that I like seeing in office, but as someone who doesn't see anything particularly nationalistic or heroic about war or even serving in war, I thought there might have been a valid point buried in there about too much being made of veteran's service in politics.

Or maybe not, I haven't looked too closely into it. Maybe when I get back from class later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 12:09:20 pm

I don't know why Petraeus would ever accept an invitation to be Romney's VP. His current position is far superior, even if Romney were to somehow win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 05, 2012, 12:10:48 pm

The only public office where military service might be relevant would be President, because they're the leader of the armed forces and all.


Politics is all about arbitrary battles of "character" and irrelevant forms of experience, though, so whatever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on July 05, 2012, 12:20:18 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 11:54:27 am

Yeah, I'm going to have to say Walsh is full of shit there. Especially given he's from the party that wraps itself in the goddamned flag every chance it gets.

Sounds about on par with Saxby Chambliss, the Republican (with no military service) who unseated triple-amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland from his Senate seat in 2002. All while Republican pundits and Chambliss's own ads questioned Cleland's patriotism and mocked his injuries (with many folks on Internet forums questioning the account of Cleland's injuries and claiming it was because he was clumsy and dropped a grenade, and therefore not worthy of respect).

When Chambliss won, it made me physically ill.  >:(
If Walsh wins, I may have to barf into a bag and mail it to him as a congratulatory gift.

It's highly unlikely Walsh will win, Illinois Democrats controlled  the trifecta there, and drew a very efficient gerrymander which targeted Walsh and a few other Republicans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 05, 2012, 02:21:07 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 11:27:00 am

Lot of difference between then and now. Back then, being a veep pick was a great way to get your name recognized at the national level. But with the 24-hour news cycle you have people like Michelle Bachmann, who by all rights should be mostly unknown outside of her district, becoming a national figure. And once you're known, people expect you to do things. If all you're known for is being "that other guy/gal who lost", it doesn't translate into strong support in the next electoral cycle.

I disagree with that pretty strongly.  John McCain made Sarah Palin into a national figure overnight.  The reason she disappeared from the scene is that she had no desire to put in the workload that being a national politician requires.  To be a national politician you also need competent people and she was never even tried to get them.  There was still endless speculation about whether she would jump into the race, long past the point that any other personality would have been forgotten about.  Never before has such a sweet hand been dealt to someone who doesn't know how to play the game or care to learn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on July 05, 2012, 03:14:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on July 05, 2012, 02:21:07 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 11:27:00 am

Lot of difference between then and now. Back then, being a veep pick was a great way to get your name recognized at the national level. But with the 24-hour news cycle you have people like Michelle Bachmann, who by all rights should be mostly unknown outside of her district, becoming a national figure. And once you're known, people expect you to do things. If all you're known for is being "that other guy/gal who lost", it doesn't translate into strong support in the next electoral cycle.

I disagree with that pretty strongly.  John McCain made Sarah Palin into a national figure overnight.  The reason she disappeared from the scene is that she had no desire to put in the workload that being a national politician requires.  To be a national politician you also need competent people and she was never even tried to get them.  There was still endless speculation about whether she would jump into the race, long past the point that any other personality would have been forgotten about.  Never before has such a sweet hand been dealt to someone who doesn't know how to play the game or care to learn.

She had a great position among the republican party. But she would have lost (just as surely as Santorum would have lost in the general election), while she appeals extremely well to republicans (and could have probably won a senate seat if she had the inclination) she would have had a very good chance in the primary, but would have gotten curb-stomped in the main election against Obama. But you are right, her real problem is that she simply prefers making millions of dollars a year in a easy job to running for president and probably losing.


I can see why military service could be seen as a good quality to have for any leader: Because it shows that they are willing to do whatever is necessary for their country, even if it means they might die.
However, I look at it as being stupid enough (since joining the military is almost never a wise decision for your future (eg. increased suicide, chance of death, large chance of sexual assault if female, ect, ect)) to put your self in danger for the sake of preserving the status quo and helping defacto American Imperialism (assuming your American of course, it is different depending on which country you live in, and the reason you fought).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on July 05, 2012, 03:26:06 pm

Depends on what she's talking about. If she's talking about her commitment to the nation, talking about military service is perfectly valid - and talking about her wounds is an excellent subject, if she's approaching it from a perspective of "I don't regret having suffered this in defense of our nation". I mean, I don't really agree with all the ideals of the military or the patriotism that's often called upon to support it, but I have to admit that "I'm willing to lose a few limbs for you guys" is a pretty good emotional position for a race. It'd easily be a tie-breaker between her and another politician, if all else was equal - there are a lot more important things than emotional attachment to the nation, but it's not a bad thing, in my opinion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 03:50:16 pm

There's also a strong undertone that a politician who has won the uniform (and a hundred times moreso one who has been heavily wounded in the course of war) is going to be far more circumspect about voting to authorize military action. Because they know the cost of war far more intimately than a civilian ever will.

Peace has no greater friend than the soldier who has tasted of war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on July 05, 2012, 05:34:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 03:50:16 pm

Peace has no greater friend than the soldier who has tasted of war.

Where have I heard that quote before?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on July 05, 2012, 07:43:47 pm

Quote from: Mego on July 05, 2012, 05:34:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 05, 2012, 03:50:16 pm

Peace has no greater friend than the soldier who has tasted of war.

Where have I heard that quote before?

Dunno, but id have to say there are some fairly glaring exceptions to the rule (McCain:  BOMBOMB BOMBBOMB IRAN!)

I always thought any soldier who was serious about peace would have just put their arms down and said no more.  Id also agree that having taken serious wounds in the service to your country definately doesnt automatically make you a hero or more intouch with service or the common good.  Not to suggest thats what has happened in this case, but the wounded vet may have joined and been injured and injured others through nothing more than plain old stupidity. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on July 05, 2012, 07:51:56 pm

McCain, to me at least, is more like the Joker than a real soldier.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on July 05, 2012, 08:36:37 pm

Quote

I always thought any soldier who was serious about peace would have just put their arms down and said no more.

Is it even possible to quit the military when serving? I've never heard of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 08:38:53 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on July 05, 2012, 08:36:37 pm

Quote

I always thought any soldier who was serious about peace would have just put their arms down and said no more.

Is it even possible to quit the military when serving? I've never heard of it.

You'd probably get dishonorably discharged, but I'm not sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 08:43:58 pm

Court-martialed for some kind of insubordination is probably more likely. I wonder when the army stopped shooting people for cowardice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on July 05, 2012, 08:46:34 pm

Quote from: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 08:43:58 pm

Court-martialed for some kind of insubordination is probably more likely. I wonder when the army stopped shooting people for cowardice.

Hmm, no idea. Did the geneva convention cover that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 09:05:08 pm

Quote from: Karlito on July 05, 2012, 08:43:58 pm

Court-martialed for some kind of insubordination is probably more likely. I wonder when the army stopped shooting people for cowardice.

According to this (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl99.htm), death can indeed be the maximum punishment for cowardice. However, I'm not sure how many cowards are actually executed nowadays; something tells me there'd be a s**t-storm if it happened.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 09:47:31 pm

The military hasn't executed anyone in a few decades, if memory serves. I think one was authorized a few months ago for a murderer-rapist, but I don't think it has been carried out yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 09:49:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 09:47:31 pm

The military hasn't executed anyone in a few decades, if memory serves. I think one was authorized a few months ago, but I don't think it has been carried out yet.

Wasn't that for the dude who murdered/executed a bunch of citizens? I have a hard time thinking that he doesn't deserve it...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 09:52:26 pm

Quote from: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 09:49:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 09:47:31 pm

The military hasn't executed anyone in a few decades, if memory serves. I think one was authorized a few months ago, but I don't think it has been carried out yet.

Wasn't that for the dude who murdered/executed a bunch of citizens? I have a hard time thinking that he doesn't deserve it...

If you are speaking of the one who killed 25 Afghan civilians when his traumatic brain injury suddenly triggered a fit of psychotic rage, no. I don't know where he is now. The one I'm speaking of raped and murdered some of his fellow soldiers some years ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 09:56:33 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 09:52:26 pm

Quote from: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 09:49:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 05, 2012, 09:47:31 pm

The military hasn't executed anyone in a few decades, if memory serves. I think one was authorized a few months ago, but I don't think it has been carried out yet.

Wasn't that for the dude who murdered/executed a bunch of citizens? I have a hard time thinking that he doesn't deserve it...

If you are speaking of the one who killed 25 Afghan civilians when his traumatic brain injury suddenly triggered a fit of psychotic rage, no. I don't know where he is now. The one I'm speaking of raped and murdered some of his fellow soldiers some years ago.

Huh. I thought they gave that dude the death penalty as well. Or maybe I got confused by the calls for his death. Not sure anymore :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on July 06, 2012, 12:30:55 am

I know it happened (people putting the gun down and saying 'fuckit') a fair bit in vietnam, you would be sent to military prison for a while then dishon discharged.  Some of the guys were charged with 'providing comfort to the enemy' which can carry a few years, and they would pretty much all get beaten badly by MPs in the lockup, def. not executed though.  It one of those things you dont hear much about like larger scale military mutinies, they dont get reported on.

edit:  So wikipedia says 49 given the death sentence during ww2, 48 commuted to lesser penalty, military stopped doing executions in 62, did 149 before that (ww2 onward), mostly for rape or murder.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on July 06, 2012, 07:52:23 am

Quote from: Sirus on July 05, 2012, 09:05:08 pm

According to this (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl99.htm), death can indeed be the maximum punishment for cowardice. However, I'm not sure how many cowards are actually executed nowadays; something tells me there'd be a s**t-storm if it happened.

My understanding of this is that the punishment is designed to fit the results of the crime.

So someone who runs away the night before a support deployment might cause a few staffing issues and get a dishonourable discharge and no other action.
Someone who leaves their squad a man short before a combat mission will probably get harsher treatment.
Someone who abandons a post with the direct result of squad mates being killed...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Alexhans on July 06, 2012, 08:11:04 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on July 05, 2012, 07:51:56 pm

McCain, to me at least, is more like the Joker than a real soldier.

This definitely feels like a No true Scotsman fallacy.

It's an interesting proposition, saying that a former soldier will value peace but I think it all depends on the experiences of that particular soldier so, all in all, I'd say we can't really predict how someone will vote for/against war just by differentiating between soldier and civilian.  The particular mindset of a person and how he acts (and if its consistent with what he says) should be more important.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on July 06, 2012, 02:21:11 pm

I'm interested in seeing what the general consensus on warfare is from countries who have lost wars on their own soil. I get the impression that my country (America) is doing more harm abroad then it realizes. Although the past few years have been slightly better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on July 07, 2012, 03:47:21 pm

There has been far too little comic relief in this thread recently. Why not learn about the Pilgrims and NASA with a group of animated dinosaurs brought to you by Herman Cain? (http://caintv.com/index)

Don't miss the homeless guy ranting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on July 08, 2012, 02:35:38 pm

Well, it seems to me that the US would have been a far more peaceful place if Japan had managed to occupy part of the country in World War II or something. You may rant all you want about Pearl Harbor, but that was a strike on a military base far from the mainland. You guys don't remember what war is like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 08, 2012, 02:38:45 pm

Sure we do. It's like Rambo. First we realize war is hell, then we forget and glorify it to hell and back for the sequels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on July 08, 2012, 02:59:43 pm

No, you get the "War is hell" part from veteran coming back, but that's a totally different memory from actually living in a war zone. I'm half-german, and my grandma's memory are of hiding in a cave for years fighting rats for food. Even when they got back home and managed to organize enough food for them, the neighbour's kids would come in and ask for their potato peels.


You just have nothing like that in your collective memory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on July 08, 2012, 03:06:53 pm

Okay, this has gone on long enough.  New conversation...

Goddamn this election is turning out a lot more boring than I had any idea it would.  So... The Obama campaign's new thing is riding Romney's ass over his foreign bank accounts that professional tax gurus told Vanity Fair they can't make heads or tails of.  Thoughts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Truean on July 08, 2012, 03:40:12 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on July 08, 2012, 03:06:53 pm

Okay, this has gone on long enough.  New conversation...

Goddamn this election is turning out a lot more boring than I had any idea it would.  So... The Obama campaign's new thing is riding Romney's ass over his foreign bank accounts that professional tax gurus told Vanity Fair they can't make heads or tails of.  Thoughts?

[Shrugs] Romney is a rich guy and shelters his money in various ways. This is what rich people do, because they hate taxes more than I hate Aardvarks.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Porc_formiguer.JPG)
Just look at him all being an aardvark. Tell me he's not up to no good.... Can't do it can ya?

Honestly, I'm seriously surprised Obama isn't openly congratulating Romney on having ObamaRomneycare being upheld as constitutional. That'd totally mess with the heads of all of his supporters  seeing as the law has been demonized with full on Godwin. (http://ttp://nation.foxnews.com/gov-lepage/2012/07/08/maine-governor-calls-irs-new-gestapo?intcmp=fly)

 In the meantime, Democratic interests are calling for Romney's tax records. (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-team-targets-romney-over-taxes-republicans-cry-191702427--business.html) This is an easy one. Obama wants to tax the rich to pay for the country's massive debts and Romney is totally rich. This is where the offshore accounts Aquizzar mentioned come right into the picture:

"Americans need to ask themselves why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?" Schultz said.

If you're going to go on a "tax the rich" strat, then pointing out or otherwise implicating that the rich aren't boyscouts helps with that tactically. It also goes right to the point to question the offshore accounts, because the line of logic goes, "see, the rich really aren't paying their fair share of taxes and look that Romney guy isn't either cause he's dodging taxes with offshore accounts." Tactically not a bad play. Pretty much Romney is making use of complicated tax loopholes and sheltering techniques like basically all the other rich people do. Obama is pointing at this and crying foul.

Draw your own conclusion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on July 08, 2012, 07:22:38 pm

Man wants to become president of nation who he refuses to support with his taxes, yet will be demanding exorbitant payment from those in a strata lower than ultra-rich in order to try and alleviate the debt of the nation [that is, IF he goes the route of even giving a damn about the fiscal issues instead of deciding to focus on a Jihad against social equality, which is much more likely (See: Romney is a mouthpiece of his party)]. Let's not forget to ask the poor to pay their fair share and take less in medical benefits and food stamps, because those negatively affect the quality of life for rich people.

I.e. Romney is a douchebag.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on July 09, 2012, 06:57:21 am

I mean really, do we even need polls for this one? Republicans had a chance and aimed directly downward; not only that but shot through their foot, not only that but splintered the bone in a bonesplosion, then the shot richochetted back and hit the foot again tearing away more flesh. Then the other bullets go because it's apparently full auto with a rubber band around the trigger with them. Now we reach current times with the 25th bullet as previous shots ricochet and nick those guys who are bystanders and all hell breaks loose after the 30th for the Republican party which will probably be after the election and maybe, just maybe, reasonable people take charge.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 07:48:37 am

Although honestly, the tax shelter thing is a potentially dangerous route of attack, and here's why: people aren't upset about it because they perceive it as morally wrong. They're upset because they wish they they could do that too. And that they had enough money worth hiding.

Somewhere along the way, the basic purpose and concept of taxes (to fund the public good) got lost. Most people just see taxes as "the damn gubmint takin' my money!" So tax evasion is almost seen as a Robin Hood-esque crime....you're somehow "stickin' it to the Man".

That can resonate with people who already feel like they pay too much in taxes, regardless of whether they objectively have something to complain about or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2012, 08:08:04 am

I would solve this by giving every rich person who keeps all of his money in the country the title of nobility and instituting Prima Nocte.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on July 09, 2012, 09:09:22 am

(Un)Fortunately, the Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2012, 09:47:02 am

Damn you, Constitution! You have foiled the European Conservatism again! Daaaamn yoouuu!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 09:52:35 am

Quote from: Karlito on July 09, 2012, 09:09:22 am

(Un)Fortunately, the Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility.

Wait, you mean the Knights of Columbus aren't actually knights?
I WAS LIED TO

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 02:41:37 pm

Quote from: Karlito on July 09, 2012, 09:09:22 am

(Un)Fortunately, the Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility.

If I am recalling correctly, it just prohibits the US government creating titles of nobility. American citizens can still be nobles if they get their hands on a title.

There was actually an amendment in the 1800's that would have stripped the citizenship of any American who accepted a title of nobility, but it didn't pass.

Personally, if I ever get rich I plan to track down whomever is currently the rightful holder of the title "the Duke of Orange" and buy it from them. I very much would like to be the Duke of Orange.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on July 09, 2012, 02:43:02 pm

I didn't know Orange had a Duke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 09, 2012, 02:45:19 pm

I'd prefer the Duke of Sandwich. That's a real title.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 02:47:15 pm

Quote from: Darvi on July 09, 2012, 02:43:02 pm

I didn't know Orange had a Duke.

Wikipedia tells me it was actually a principality, and this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem-Alexander,_Prince_of_Orange) currently holds the title of Prince of Orange.

You have made a great foe this day, Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand, Prince of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Jonkheer of Amsberg.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2012, 02:47:44 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 02:41:37 pm

If I am recalling correctly, it just prohibits the US government creating titles of nobility. American citizens can still be nobles if they get their hands on a title.

That doesn't matter, though, they would have to be American nobles for it to work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2012, 02:48:55 pm

I want the County of Gotland.

So that I can say that I...

... gotland.

 8)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You may all throw tomatoes at me now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 09, 2012, 02:49:40 pm

/throw flowers

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on July 09, 2012, 02:56:00 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 09, 2012, 02:45:19 pm

I'd prefer the Duke of Sandwich. That's a real title.

Apparently he owns a successful sandwich restaurant chain. I am not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_11th_Earl_of_Sandwich) making this up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Sandwich_%28restaurant%29).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 09, 2012, 03:10:58 pm

o.O

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 09, 2012, 03:18:47 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 09, 2012, 02:41:37 pm

Quote from: Karlito on July 09, 2012, 09:09:22 am

(Un)Fortunately, the Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility.

If I am recalling correctly, it just prohibits the US government creating titles of nobility. American citizens can still be nobles if they get their hands on a title.

Which, IIRC, was only really allowed after WWII, because you had guys like Eisenhower receiving foreign knighthoods. I've always kinda been jealous of the British (among others) in that regard---I think it would be nifty to receive a knighthood for service to the country, either patriotic or artistic/cultural/scientific.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2012, 03:20:49 pm

I'm Canadian.

;D

Now I just gotta do something worthy. :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 09, 2012, 03:21:51 pm

Save a damsel from a tower?

There are plenty of corporate towers with wage slaves within. That might count.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 09, 2012, 03:23:59 pm

Hrm, that is an idea...

Nah. I'll just contribute profound insights to science in the field of neurology and longevity. It seems easier.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on July 10, 2012, 05:32:27 am

Being Canadian gives little advantage in gaining us a british knighthood, and actively prevents us from gaining a british lordship -- see Lord Conrad Black, Baron of Crossharbour.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on July 10, 2012, 12:23:22 pm

The Wisconsin senate race is getting interesting.  The Republicans have a four way primary, and the moderate Tommy Thompson was leading for a good amount of time, but a recent PPP poll has shown more conservative candidate Eric Hovde taking the lead: Link (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/wisconsin-senate-race-getting-interesting.html).

Current WI-2 representative Tammy Baldwin is running for the Democrats.  If Thompson wins the primary, this is most likely a Republican win because of his moderate credentials and good will from him being Governor of the state some years back; but if a more conservative candidate wins, this race moves purely into tossup territory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on July 10, 2012, 12:29:22 pm

Sounds like a character from a comic book. Seriously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on July 11, 2012, 12:21:29 pm

Apparently the "Principality" of Sealand will sell you a "Title of Nobility" for like $50, but I guess that's enough of that derail.

So, it turns out my representative Shelly Berkley is being investigated by the House Ethics committee. This is unfortunate, because it means she'll probably lose the Senate race and I actually like the way she's voted on things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on July 11, 2012, 08:05:19 pm

Romney is doing a good job of appealing to black voters. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/us/politics/romney-says-he-offers-better-chance-for-blacks.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 11, 2012, 08:13:41 pm

What could he say that would actually get him votes there?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 11, 2012, 08:18:08 pm

I think the point is to go there and say things that get him votes elsewhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on July 11, 2012, 08:18:14 pm

Probably something a bit less trollish would've worked out better for him.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

“If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him.”

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2012, 08:19:40 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 11, 2012, 08:13:41 pm

What could he say that would actually get him votes there?

"President Obama constantly speaks of Obamacare as if the good it is doing is his invention, but in reality it is nothing more than a legislative copy of Romneycare, which was my work of genius alone! Can you trust a man who would steal a successful program from his opponents and put his own name on it, like so many dishonest students do to their fellow's homework? No, you cannot. Vote Romney."

Damn I'm good. I should get Romney to make me his speech writer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 11, 2012, 08:24:29 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 11, 2012, 08:13:41 pm

What could he say that would actually get him votes there?

1. Obama takes your vote for granted, because it's expected that "Hey, you're black! We know who you're voting for..."
2. And he likes teh gays. (Seriously, this is an effective wedge issue in many African-American communities.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 11, 2012, 08:33:35 pm

His fathers name is George W. Romney?

Why have I not heard jokes about this? That's ripe pickings!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2012, 08:43:15 pm

Someone should tell Alex Jones. His head will probably explode.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 11, 2012, 08:44:32 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2012, 08:43:15 pm

Someone should tell Alex Jones. His head will probably explode.

No, the tinfoil prevents the Head Asploding Rays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 11, 2012, 09:17:38 pm

But it does not prevent manual overrides to the brain's anti-headsplodening software.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Alexhans on July 12, 2012, 12:31:27 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 11, 2012, 08:24:29 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 11, 2012, 08:13:41 pm

What could he say that would actually get him votes there?

1. Obama takes your vote for granted, because it's expected that "Hey, you're black! We know who you're voting for..."

Such a statement could prove to be too controversial and I fear the response would look likely be a knock out against Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on July 12, 2012, 07:52:00 am

Someone posted this picture from the crowd as the sole response to his speech;
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m70ho5aADq1qzw4xvo1_500.jpg)
Then there is this (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/12/romney-race-baits-after-naacp-speech/).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on July 12, 2012, 09:11:00 am

It's this sort of thing above all that makes me think that Romney's not going to win, for a very simple reason: he doesn't make anyone go "Hey, this guy says what I want to be said in politics!"

The youth sees him as having stolen their future. The wingnuts think he's too soft on social issues. He's too obscenely rich to be a middle-class  focal point. He really only appeals to one kind of voter: the baby-boomer rich guy who's conservative but not a fundie. And there are simply not enough of those for him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on July 12, 2012, 09:17:24 am

I'm pretty sure he appeals to the '1 term for the black guy' demographic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 12, 2012, 09:32:53 am

Yeah, there is a huge, huge "the other guy" demographic in america.  Obama only took 52.4% of the vote last time despite having pretty much everything going for him you could want, the anger at the financial crises, the anger at the war, the anger at the deficit, a good message and a huge army of campaign volunteers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 12, 2012, 04:12:28 pm

Yeah. Just like the backup quarterback in football, the challenger candidate is the most popular guy in the room when shit hits the fan.
Just because there's an implicit logic of "There is no possible way this guy could be any worse," even though history and rationality would illustrate otherwise. Most backup quarterbacks play dreadfully because of inexperience/age/injury/attitude/whatever-factor-made-them-a-backup-and-not-a-starter-in-the-first-place. Many challenger candidates would make (and often do make) terrible officials for similar reasons.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on July 12, 2012, 04:55:51 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2012, 08:43:15 pm

Someone should tell Alex Jones. His head will probably explode.

I had a bit of a close look at Alex Jones after I realized that Glen Beck's list of "bad guys" was identical to Jones', i used the Koch Brothers as a litmus test, sure enough, Alex Jones turns into "Mr Skeptic" when the Koch Brothers names pop up, and he won't hear a bad word about them, unlike that "evil" George Soros he's always claiming is planning a world-takeover. Here's Alex Jones on how the Koch Brothers are the best Americans ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv9PiSsSnBE

BTW: Jones' radio show also popped up during the Clinton years and focused on stuff the 'feds' were doing.

Beware, he's not a garden-variety kook, he's a right-wing troll posing as a kook to deflect the kooks at liberals and Democrat party targets, Alex Jones IS one of those "false flag" operations he's always touting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on July 12, 2012, 05:02:51 pm

Wait, what did the brothers Koch do this time?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 12, 2012, 05:10:27 pm

No, Alex Jones is definitely a wingnut. We're talking about the guy who said that Prometheus was a coded message about how the Illuminati operates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 12, 2012, 05:13:05 pm

It's not even a code - the Illuminati, much like Prometheus, should never be considered canon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on July 12, 2012, 05:29:10 pm

Trust me that Alex Jones is some sort of paid troll, look it up, he's backed by Koch Brothers and a bunch of Jewish millionaires (the companies which advertise on his show and websites are almost all jewish), and was forced to retract a statement "The Arabs control Hollywood"

http://alexjonesexposed.wordpress.com/alex-jones-and-jewish-money/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZtw3P6RtTs

I definitely think he's allow to exist to deflect kooks in Texas from the real string-pullers.

What makes me more certain is like what you say about Prometheus being a 'code' and bullshit like that, but show him real evidence of REAL corruption and he's suddenly a skeptic. His "blind spots" for dealings which are obviously crooked staggers the imagination, he has his fans chasing phantoms, while there's real problems he ignores completely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 12, 2012, 05:35:56 pm

Jewish conspiracy? Now you sound crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on July 12, 2012, 05:37:24 pm

That's from his ex-fans following the money trail for his shows, not my idea, that link before identified 23 sponsors for his "conspiracy" show which are owned by wealthy Jewish businessmen

Their theory is that he's in with big oil (his climate skeptic stuff and loving the Koch Brothers and Oil Barons) and the Israel lobby (his anti-Arab consipiracy theories and stance that Israel cannot be criticized)

Here's Alex Jones, making the case that oil companies are the victims of that evil 'EPA'

http://www.infowars.com/epa-officials-philosophy-on-oil-companies-crucify-them/

By saying oil companies are "crucified" by the EPA, he's casting oil companies as Jesus, and EPA as the Romans.

Here's Alex Jones calling anyone who criticises Israel "weak minded idiots"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDTKBKGdbJ4

Here's Jones saying Israel-bashers are "scum"

http://www.rense.com/general92/bash.htm

Here's an article about how they caught a Jewish mathematician editing wikipedia to remove all negative statements from Alex Jone's wiki entry

http://fitzinformer.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/jewish-mathematician-caught-editing.html

Note, i didn't spend any great effort "cherry picking" these links, I just googled "Alex Jones Israel" and they're all from page 1

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 12, 2012, 05:53:31 pm

Quote from: Reelya on July 12, 2012, 05:29:10 pm

"The Arabs control Hollywood"

Or Antisemitic Conspiracies are Different?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on July 12, 2012, 05:55:44 pm

Saying Arabs and climate scientists are evil but Israel and oil companies can't be criticized while having your show funded by wealthy jewish business leaders and big oil would seem to speak for itself.

The guy even speaks adverts himself for his sponsors, he's a fraud.

Note: he's on video attacking the "Media Matters" watchdog site which criticizes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc, but no similar critique of any right-wing "watchdog" site like aim.org which label you "biased media" for not agreeing with them that Obama is a Marxist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 12, 2012, 07:02:27 pm

To be clear, I was calling them "antisemitic", since Arabs are Semites. Just wanted to make sure you didn't misunderstand me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on July 13, 2012, 11:53:48 am

I don't have anything against the Jewish people. That said it sounds like wealthy individuals of Jewish descent are using this guy to manipulate people to their own goals. That said they are welcome to try I suppose until the government as a whole pulls it's head out it's ass and passes a law that supports journalistic integrity that it can enforce without undermining free speech. Though that makes me think of Yahoo news stories and the way it always seems to give a counter argument against whatever point the article might have made so they don't get sued or damage the companies reputation with a segment of the population.

Maybe journalists shouldn't be paid to spew forth a political ideology but instead to be journalists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2012, 02:15:07 pm

Saying wealthy Jewish businessmen are "donating" to a journalist through money to get him to support them and Israel is, to me, no more weird/racist than saying wealthy French businessmen are "donating" to a journalist through money to get him to support them and France. Just that Jews and Israel are kind of sensitive subjects in that regard.

It's when you get into "Jews are in every level of business and Zionists control Washington! The NWO is coming!" that you get into... weirdness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 13, 2012, 04:02:39 pm

And if what the French businessmen were supporting heavily pushed a French agenda?


Honestly it doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. It's not some "Jewish conspiracy," but a bunch of rich dudes with reason to have a political agenda supporting someone who supports that agenda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 13, 2012, 04:11:27 pm

That was my point, Kaijyuu. ;P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Alexhans on July 13, 2012, 04:15:19 pm

Quote from: Duuvian on July 13, 2012, 11:53:48 am

until the government as a whole pulls it's head out it's ass and passes a law that supports journalistic integrity that it can enforce without undermining free speech.

Why on earth would the government destroy its most effective venue of propaganda?

Mass Media is there to create a false sense of legitimacy on whatever it is anonymous government officials in the know want to spread.

Ad it's a perfect system because if you challenge the government, then there's no more exclusives for you, buddy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 13, 2012, 06:31:11 pm

Quote from: Alexhans on July 13, 2012, 04:15:19 pm

Why on earth would the government destroy its most effective venue of propaganda?

Because "the government" is made up of a bunch of people elected in something resembling a popular election?  There isn't a man behind the curtain, they do it all in plain sight.  Elected officials seldom lie because they can so often tell the truth without anyone giving a shit.  And "the government" will go on just fine whether the elected officials are doing bad shit or not.  You could make every journalist have the morals of a saint and the character of a buddha and that wouldn't upset "the government" effort at all.  "The government" did just fine when Nixon was impeached and did just fine when Obama escalated the drone strikes.  "The government" doesn't need propaganda, only something with an agenda needs an ideology.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 13, 2012, 08:42:50 pm

Quote from: mainiac on July 13, 2012, 06:31:11 pm

Quote from: Alexhans on July 13, 2012, 04:15:19 pm

Why on earth would the government destroy its most effective venue of propaganda?

Because "the government" is made up of a bunch of people elected in something resembling a popular election?  There isn't a man behind the curtain, they do it all in plain sight.  Elected officials seldom lie because they can so often tell the truth without anyone giving a shit.  And "the government" will go on just fine whether the elected officials are doing bad shit or not.  You could make every journalist have the morals of a saint and the character of a buddha and that wouldn't upset "the government" effort at all.  "The government" did just fine when Nixon was impeached and did just fine when Obama escalated the drone strikes.  "The government" doesn't need propaganda, only something with an agenda needs an ideology.

Are you really trying to say that there isn't a PR machine in action?  I would contest you on that one.

Otherwise, you're right.  They don't lie.  They obfuscate.  For example:  defining any military-age male in a strike zone as a "combatant" (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/), even if nothing is known about them.  The media is complicit when they wholeheartedly adopt such language in their reporting without disclaimer as to the nature of their words, and that language has vast effect on public opinion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 13, 2012, 09:42:17 pm

No that would be an example of a lie.  Hence "seldom" not never.  You need to keep in mind that for everything you read about in the papers that the government does there like 100 things you don't read about.  When they get caught on the lies the media think that's somehow more newsworthy then all the important stuff they've been telling the truth about that's bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Alexhans on July 14, 2012, 01:12:02 pm

I can't really write (one hand right now :( ) but I really don't know how either of your posts responds or questions what SG or me said with consistency.

My point still stands.  The government, a body of humans with quite a deal of power, has no incentive to change the way the media works these days.  They already share some sort of symbiosis.

meh, too much effort to write few words.  I'll move back to reading again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 14, 2012, 02:11:12 pm

In the meantime, Obama has been attacking Romney's tenure at Bain over, and over, and over.

Romney wants Obama to apologize.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romney-calls-obama-apologize-bain-attacks/story?id=16775732

Obama's response:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 (http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/311598_447894035231808_1239843824_n.jpg)

edit: more: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/obama-wont-apologize-for-staff-on-bain-128788.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 14, 2012, 02:14:11 pm

Wait, seriously?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on July 14, 2012, 02:20:49 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on July 14, 2012, 02:11:12 pm

Obama's response:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 (http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/311598_447894035231808_1239843824_n.jpg)

So Barack remained silent?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on July 14, 2012, 02:37:49 pm

Quote from: Darvi on July 14, 2012, 02:20:49 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on July 14, 2012, 02:11:12 pm

Obama's response:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 (http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/311598_447894035231808_1239843824_n.jpg)

So Barack remained silent?

I can see it  ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on July 14, 2012, 02:44:53 pm

Yes, let's apologize in what's the biggest one on one no holds barred slug fest that comes around every four years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on July 14, 2012, 04:02:34 pm

Here's a good one: Romney attacking Obama for not vetoing a bill the Republicans pushed through Congress:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/237797-romney-attacks-obama-on-defense-cuts

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:10:45 am

"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." - Obama

And this is why I don't support Obama.

His early comments made some sense- "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges". I can agree with that.

But suddenly because of this, business owners have absolutely no credit in the success of their business? It suddenly has nothing to do with hard work and ambition? So much for the American dream...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 07:45:44 am

Or you could post the quote in context and see that his meaning has no relationship at all to saying that business owners deserve no credit:

Quote from: Obama

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Took all of five seconds to find this information.  Kinda sad if you are basing your vote on a mistaken impression that would take you five seconds of research to correct.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:52:32 am

But within that, again you see- "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."


He's advocating that a business' success be shared, when in reality it shouldn't. He believes that the government is responsible for business success besides just the individuals running it, when in reality it isn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 07:57:37 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:52:32 am

He's advocating that a business' success be shared, when in reality it shouldn't. He believes that the government is responsible for business success besides just the individuals running it, when in reality it isn't.

Well gee, that's funny because just one post ago you said:

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:10:45 am

His early comments made some sense- "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges". I can agree with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:04:18 am

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 07:57:37 am

Well gee, that's funny because just one post ago you said:

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:10:45 am

His early comments made some sense- "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges". I can agree with that.

That's a complete difference, though. If I were a private business owner, yes, the government would be responsible for the highways that I might ship my goods on. But Obama makes it out as if that means the government was responsible for my profits, my hiring of employees, etc. It's quite a big difference in terms of influence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2012, 08:06:07 am

I have no idea how you gleaned that from a quote in which Obama states a fact (that the internet was created by government research).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 08:07:24 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:04:18 am

But Obama makes it out as if that means the government was responsible for my profits, my hiring of employees, etc. It's quite a big difference in terms of influence.

Golly gee, sure sounds like you agree with this guy!

Quote from: Obama

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Now mind showing me where Obama says that business owners don't deserve credit for the decisions they make, something that clearly you and Obama know isn't true?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:18:46 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on July 18, 2012, 08:06:07 am

I have no idea how you gleaned that from a quote in which Obama states a fact (that the internet was created by government research).

The idea that was prevalent in that section of his speech (not just the one sentence I quoted) would support the claim that because the government invented the internet, it is now responsible for the profits made off of the internet. Which I suppose it partly is, yes. But of course the internet has far exceeded anything that the government (or anyone, really) thought it would be. The internet now is quite a different beast than the internet that was first invented. But those changes did not come "from above". Private enterprise has been responsible for what the internet is today, and they are responsible for the profits made on the internet today.

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 08:07:24 am

Quote from: Obama

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Now mind showing me where Obama says that business owners don't deserve credit for the decisions they make, something that clearly you and Obama know isn't true?

Well, I would go back to that quote again- "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Perhaps I've gone off on a tangent with my argument. Perhaps Obama meant something different than what he said. But take a look at what he said. There's a big difference between him saying "you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" and him saying "you didn't build that by yourself. You had help along the way". Those two statements have fundamentally different meanings. I don't care what he said in the rest of his speech, why would he say this? Why not say the latter? Maybe he meant the latter. But it was a terribly poor choice of words for him to choose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on July 18, 2012, 08:27:05 am

Reading comprehension. The "that" in that sentence referred to the roads. Not the business. In context, it's fine. It's only when you strip the sentence of context and attempt to cherry-pick the sentence into meaning something else entirely that it's a "terribly poor choice of words." The context is kinda' important. He's specifically saying "you had help along the way" in that speech. It only looks different when you tear out a specific sentence and misconstrue its meaning due to th'whole lacking of context thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:36:08 am

Quote from: Frumple on July 18, 2012, 08:27:05 am

Reading comprehension. The "that" in that sentence referred to the roads. Not the business. In context, it's fine. It's only when you strip the sentence of context and attempt to cherry-pick the sentence into meaning something else entirely that it's a "terribly poor choice of words." The context is kinda' important. He's specifically saying "you had help along the way" in that speech. It only looks different when you tear out a specific sentence and misconstrue its meaning due to th'whole lacking of context thing.

Oh believe me, it has nothing to do with the context. I read the whole section (6+ paragraphs) of his speech and I still thought that he meant something different than what you say he did. And for reading comprehension, well, what else would the "that" refer to but business? You can't have 1 subject (highways), then bring up a 2nd subject (a business), then use "that" and expect people to know it refers to the first subject. Perhaps I am in the minority in interpreting it in the way that I did. I'm not trying to deceive anyone, that's just how I interpreted it by myself. I still think it's a poor choice of words.


But I redact my previous statements. Assuming that he meant what you say he did, his statement makes sense.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on July 18, 2012, 08:55:44 am

Yeah, an edit replacing "that" with "those roads" would have been more clear. As you noticed, though, if he'd been referring to the businesses instead of the roads with that that, the message would have been quite ridiculous and, as maniac noted, at odds with the rest of what th'fellow said. Chalk it up to the vagrancies of the spoken word, I guess.

Some days I thnk it'd be nice if we got more essays than transcripts, but I've picked up enough info on the rate of low-capability readers and the illiterate in the states (many million... it's actually a fairly hefty voting block, if the volunteer tutor information they're throwing around is accurate) to know that's probably not going to happen :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 09:08:38 am

I think observing any high school english class will show that it is quite easy indeed to ignore the obvious intent of an essay's author.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on July 18, 2012, 09:16:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 09:08:38 am

I think observing any high school english class will show that it is quite easy indeed to ignore the obvious intent of an essay's author.

Can you imagine a major politician's position with an actual bullet point reference list, and then the response papers similarly equipped? Naturally, the sources would be publicly and easily accessible! Sometimes I think I dream about that. It would be amazing~

Maybe once TV finishes dying off it'll become more of a possibility. A person can dream.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 09:23:02 am

Are you unaware that there are like 20 organizations that publish exactly what you are talking about?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on July 18, 2012, 09:26:11 am

Arguing over word choice (of a very well made arguement otherwise) while the other candidate still tiptoes around his fraudulent finances and near-zero taxes?

I guess there's a bit of a gap in priority for some voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on July 18, 2012, 09:28:38 am

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 09:23:02 am

Are you unaware that there are like 20 organizations that publish exactly what you are talking about?

For/from the major candidates?

Tangentally aware about stuff like that from other sources, though I haven't actually gotten around to looking for them. There's not enough give room for discourse in the area I'm in for me to be particularly vigorous regarding politics, bleh.

Still... suggestions? Resource like that sounds like something that might fit in the OP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 09:53:19 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on July 18, 2012, 09:26:11 am

Arguing over word choice (of a very well made arguement otherwise) while the other candidate still tiptoes around his fraudulent finances and near-zero taxes?

I guess there's a bit of a gap in priority for some voters.

I believe that to be a personal issue rather than a political one. Obama smoked pot when he was younger, but you don't seem to care about that. *shrugs*

I have a plethora of issues with both Obama and Romney, but I think both of them have some good ideas as well. Unfortunately, mixing ideas and making compromises seems to be impossible.

I guess the best way to put my current election view is this: I dislike both candidates, but I dislike Romney less. That's just how I feel about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2012, 10:16:18 am

There's a bit of a difference between smoking pot in the past, and currently having fraudulent finances, almost-no taxes, and refusing to publish your tax record, while you're trying to become the president of a nation that is in financial straits!

:I

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 10:18:03 am

And frankly I say smoking the pot is a mark in Obama's favor.  More then half of 20-25 year olds will admit to having tried pot (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2K8NSDUH/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.6B).  I'd much rather want someone like Obama in control of the justice department then someone who's been rich their whole life and has never feared the law.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:35:23 am

Quote from: Descan on July 18, 2012, 10:16:18 am

There's a bit of a difference between smoking pot in the past, and currently having fraudulent finances, almost-no taxes, and refusing to publish your tax record, while you're trying to become the president of a nation that is in financial straits!

This is true. But if he hasn't released his tax records, how do you know he pays almost no taxes? I would certainly like him to release his records but what he pays in taxes is not going to make or break the vote for me. The other issues will.

Oh and as far as tax rates goes, while I don't think it's fair that some of the wealthy do not pay as much in taxes, it isn't fair for them to pay more, either. I honestly never understand why a flat tax rate across all classes is considered a bad idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on July 18, 2012, 10:40:39 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:35:23 am

This is true. But if he hasn't released his tax records, how do you know he pays almost no taxes? I would certainly like him to release his records but what he pays in taxes is not going to make or break the vote for me. The other issues will.

Are you talking about Romney? Because I think he has published some of his tax returns. Little to no tax? Not exactly, but I think Descan's meaning there is that he pay very little tax compared with the rest of the population which to some people his tax rate seems to support that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 10:47:33 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:35:23 am

Oh and as far as tax rates goes, while I don't think it's fair that some of the wealthy do not pay as much in taxes, it isn't fair for them to pay more, either. I honestly never understand why a flat tax rate across all classes is considered a bad idea.

Because it would be a humanitarian nightmare.  This isn't some philosophy class where we debate in abstract whether those with more have a greater responsibility on them.  This is the real world where the huge gains the rich have had over the past three decades have come at the cost of stagnating income for the middle and increasing poverty for the poor.

But the rich apparently aren't mere mortals like you and me.  That's why Romney needs to disclose less about his income history to run for president of the US then my girlfriend disclosed when she started renting an apartment.  Rules are for the little people.

Quote from: Flare on July 18, 2012, 10:40:39 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:35:23 am

This is true. But if he hasn't released his tax records, how do you know he pays almost no taxes? I would certainly like him to release his records but what he pays in taxes is not going to make or break the vote for me. The other issues will.

Are you talking about Romney? Because I think he has published some of his tax returns. Little to no tax? Not exactly, but I think Descan's meaning there is that he pay very little tax compared with the rest of the population which to some people his tax rate seems to support that.

He published two years.  As his father put it "One year could be a fluke, perhaps for show."  Two years is hardly better considering that the carryover from previous years (the ones he refuses to release) show things like large tax credit carryovers and a 401k storing amounts of tax free income that have experts scratching their head about the legality of.  He should release 12 years like his father did at least to show what his taxes looked like before he wanted to be president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2012, 10:52:15 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:35:23 am

Quote from: Descan on July 18, 2012, 10:16:18 am

There's a bit of a difference between smoking pot in the past, and currently having fraudulent finances, almost-no taxes, and refusing to publish your tax record, while you're trying to become the president of a nation that is in financial straits!

This is true. But if he hasn't released his tax records, how do you know he pays almost no taxes? I would certainly like him to release his records but what he pays in taxes is not going to make or break the vote for me. The other issues will.

Oh and as far as tax rates goes, while I don't think it's fair that some of the wealthy do not pay as much in taxes, it isn't fair for them to pay more, either. I honestly never understand why a flat tax rate across all classes is considered a bad idea.

Because 10 percent to a poor person is having to choose between electricity and food, and 10 percent to a rich person is having to choose between a yacht or caviar.

A bit of an exaggeration, yes, but the principle is sound.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 18, 2012, 10:54:32 am

Imagine two people:

One spends 95% of their income on necessities. Food, etc.
One spends 10% of their income on necessities.

A 5% tax on both inconveniences one, and completely removes any fungible income for the other. No entertainment, no investing to improve their situation, nothing. Just day-to-day necessities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:58:01 am

Quote from: Flare on July 18, 2012, 10:40:39 am

Are you talking about Romney? Because I think he has published some of his tax returns. Little to no tax? Not exactly, but I think Descan's meaning there is that he pay very little tax compared with the rest of the population which to some people his tax rate seems to support that.

He has but not for the most recent year, I believe, which many people are still demanding as well as many years before.

And it was a low rate. And that is unfair. But this issue is not a priority for me. If he's breaking the law, then by all means get him out of the election. But otherwise it isn't important to me.

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 10:47:33 am

Because it would be a humanitarian nightmare.  This isn't some philosophy class where we debate in abstract whether those with more have a greater responsibility on them.  This is the real world where the huge gains the rich have had over the past three decades have come at the cost of stagnating income for the middle and increasing poverty for the poor.

But taxing the rich is not the best way to solve the problem. We should be fixing current problems and loopholes in the system rather than just raising taxes. And no matter what you do, there will always be a "1%". It's the result of a capitalistic system- there are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. Unfortunately it happens to be the best system we have right now. The focus should be on making the game fair to play and getting rid of the cheating.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 18, 2012, 11:01:57 am

That's impossible simply because it IS a capitalistic system. There's no "fair" in capitalism. At all. A basic tenet of it is needing capital to make capital; in order to invest, you need money. So those with money already are going to make more money, and those without... aren't.

You wanna level the playing field? Support redistribution of wealth. Support things that burden the wealthy for the benefit of all. With great power comes great responsibility... so don't let those in power shirk it because they think they can ignore the little poor people below them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 11:22:17 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 18, 2012, 11:01:57 am

That's impossible simply because it IS a capitalistic system. There's no "fair" in capitalism. At all. A basic tenet of it is needing capital to make capital; in order to invest, you need money. So those with money already are going to make more money, and those without... aren't.

You wanna level the playing field? Support redistribution of wealth. Support things that burden the wealthy for the benefit of all. With great power comes great responsibility... so don't let those in power shirk it because they think they can ignore the little poor people below them.

If I don't have enough money to make money, I take out a loan. Then when I start making a profit, I can pay off the loan. Or I get a loan and invest in another business, and if that business does well then I have enough money to pay off my loan plus plenty extra. Fundamentally and philosophically this is the answer, but of course in real life it is another thing entirely. But this is because the current lending system is broken.

We have many broken systems. If they were fixed, redistribution of the wealth wouldn't be necessary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on July 18, 2012, 11:27:45 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 11:22:17 am

We have many broken systems. If they were fixed, redistribution of the wealth wouldn't be necessary.

Because the systems, when working, redistribute the wealth by their very own selves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 11:29:44 am

Quote from: Blargityblarg on July 18, 2012, 11:27:45 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 11:22:17 am

We have many broken systems. If they were fixed, redistribution of the wealth wouldn't be necessary.

Because the systems, when working, redistribute the wealth by their very own selves.

It would give people the ability to redistribute the wealth themselves. They (obviously) do not have the ability to do so right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on July 18, 2012, 11:31:49 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 11:29:44 am

Quote from: Blargityblarg on July 18, 2012, 11:27:45 am

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 11:22:17 am

We have many broken systems. If they were fixed, redistribution of the wealth wouldn't be necessary.

Because the systems, when working, redistribute the wealth by their very own selves.

It would give people the ability to redistribute the wealth themselves. They (obviously) do not have the ability to do so right now.

Isn't that exactly what we're trying to facilitate? Taxes on the rich subsidising social mobility via welfare and safety nets?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2012, 01:37:16 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:35:23 am

Oh and as far as tax rates goes, while I don't think it's fair that some of the wealthy do not pay as much in taxes, it isn't fair for them to pay more, either. I honestly never understand why a flat tax rate across all classes is considered a bad idea.

It would cause one of a ridiculous deficit increase or the pushing over the line into starvation of many lower income workers, depending on the rate set.  How can you not see why moving the tax burden from people who can afford to pay it towards people who have no means to do so is a bad idea?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 02:28:09 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on July 18, 2012, 01:37:16 pm

It would cause one of a ridiculous deficit increase or the pushing over the line into starvation of many lower income workers, depending on the rate set.  How can you not see why moving the tax burden from people who can afford to pay it towards people who have no means to do so is a bad idea?

I believe I need to clarify; I understand it is impossible right now, but I support a flat rate as a principle. It's not fair for one person to pay more (as a percentage) than another, and that just makes sense. So perhaps I need to rephrase- I consider it a good idea from a philosophical and fundamental point of view rather than a realistic one. I don't understand why people disagree with it from a philosophical standpoint- why they would instead want taxation inequality ideally.


EDIT: Oh, and couldn't deficit increases be curbed by a reduced budget? A low tax rate would eliminate the need to spend a lot of money in certain areas (that the government spends a lot of money on right now). But of course, nobody likes to reduce the budget.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 02:41:43 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:58:01 am

But taxing the rich is not the best way to solve the problem. We should be fixing current problems and loopholes in the system rather than just raising taxes. And no matter what you do, there will always be a "1%". It's the result of a capitalistic system- there are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. Unfortunately it happens to be the best system we have right now. The focus should be on making the game fair to play and getting rid of the cheating.

You see you say this but there are other countries where they try this and they get along just fine.  Sweden for instance.  Or how about Canada which just passed us in average wealth but passed us in median wealth decades ago.  So don't say that it isn't the way to solve the problem because it does actually solve the problem.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 02:49:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 02:41:43 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 10:58:01 am

But taxing the rich is not the best way to solve the problem. We should be fixing current problems and loopholes in the system rather than just raising taxes. And no matter what you do, there will always be a "1%". It's the result of a capitalistic system- there are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. Unfortunately it happens to be the best system we have right now. The focus should be on making the game fair to play and getting rid of the cheating.

You see you say this but there are other countries where they try this and they get along just fine.  Sweden for instance.  Or how about Canada which just passed us in average wealth but passed us in median wealth decades ago.  So don't say that it isn't the way to solve the problem because it does actually solve the problem.

They have very different systems of government and law than we do- it isn't just about taxing the rich. So I don't think it's fair to say that Canada's wealth is 100% from taxing the rich. There are a million different factors that affect these things besides taxes.


EDIT: And I said it wasn't the "best way". I didn't say it wasn't a way, I just don't think it's the best one.

EDIT EDIT: According to Wikipedia (it's always right!) in 2007 the US was #2 in median household income. Canada was #7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income)

Unless you're talking about a different statistic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2012, 02:52:17 pm

Yeah, bitches up here be wealthy as shit.

Awww yeeeeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 03:02:09 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 02:28:09 pm

EDIT: Oh, and couldn't deficit increases be curbed by a reduced budget? A low tax rate would eliminate the need to spend a lot of money in certain areas (that the government spends a lot of money on right now). But of course, nobody likes to reduce the budget.

Wow, reduce the deficit by making the government less efficient without hurting anybody, nobody ever had that idea before...  ::)

We've had people committed to this idea setting policy in this country for 30 years now.  All the low hanging fruit was plucked long, long ago.  If you want to actually make the government more efficient you need to do some sort of major reform like nationalizing the healthcare system to control costs.

Here is a handy graph that gives you a look at what you are talking about trimming.  Note that non-defense discretionary spending is only 530 billion... compared to a 1000 billion dollar deficit.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/discretionary_spending_interactive.html

So when people tell you they want to make government more efficient to close the deficit one of these three things are true:
1) They will completely cancel a huge part of the federal government like disbanding the military or ending social security
2) They don't know what they are talking about
3) They are lying

edit: forgot the link

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2012, 03:13:28 pm

It's very simple.

Y'all need to cut spending ENTIRELY for two years.

Use EVERY SINGLE PENNY to pay back your deficit.

Then start up again, better this time.

IT'S FOOL PROOF.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 18, 2012, 03:16:39 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 02:28:09 pm

I believe I need to clarify; I understand it is impossible right now, but I support a flat rate as a principle. It's not fair for one person to pay more (as a percentage) than another, and that just makes sense. So perhaps I need to rephrase- I consider it a good idea from a philosophical and fundamental point of view rather than a realistic one. I don't understand why people disagree with it from a philosophical standpoint- why they would instead want taxation inequality ideally.

Because in practice, a flat tax rate will always translate to taxing the poor harder than the rich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 03:17:47 pm

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 03:02:09 pm

Here is a handy graph that gives you a look at what you are talking about trimming.  Note that non-defense discretionary spending is only 530 billion... compared to a 1000 billion dollar deficit.

So when people tell you they want to make government more efficient to close the deficit one of these three things are true:
1) They will completely cancel a huge part of the federal government like disbanding the military or ending social security
2) They don't know what they are talking about
3) They are lying

There are many areas in which the government can simply step out and let private enterprise run things. It's been more cost effective in many cases in which this has already occured.

What then do you advocate to fix the deficit or budget?

You're either going to raise taxes (which will of course end up hurting growth in almost every scenario, and actually wouldn't bring in a ton of new revenue anyways), cut government spending, or a mix of both. There literally is no other option.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 03:20:46 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 03:17:47 pm

There are many areas in which the government can simply step out and let private enterprise run things. It's been more cost effective in many cases in which this has already occured.

No, there really aren't.  The government got out of those areas long ago.  Actually look at the federal budget sometime man.  Tell me the specific things you think are so easy to cut and then look at what a tiny part of the budget they are.

And you are talking about a part of the budget that amounts to 520 billion dollars.  You can not cut 1 trillion from 520 billion.  It simply does not work.  Even if you cut every last cent and forced congress to hitchhike to washington where they would legislate in the dark that would leave 480 billion dollar gap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on July 18, 2012, 03:29:34 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 03:17:47 pm

What then do you advocate to fix the deficit or budget?

For starters, regulate the financial industry much more strictly. The blame for our current economic mess, as well as that of Europe, can be placed almost entirely on a lack of effective regulators. And that's only if we're feeling generous; the financial industry at this point appears to be fundamentally broken and rotten to the core. We may even be better off regulating much of it out of existence. They siphon trillions from the economy while doing nothing but shuffling numbers. Then when it breaks, governments are forced to siphon even more money to them.
Second, tax corporations much more for holding large cash reserves. Currently, corporations are sitting on record levels of cash reserves. If they aren't spending it on hiring new workers and/or increasing wages of their current workers, it does the economy no good. Increasing taxes for those unspent reserves will either convince them to start or make funds available for programs which do benefit both society and the economy.

What we are currently seeing is an increasing concentration of wealth; workers get less, corporations stockpile more. This leads to weak consumer spending, as the workers make up the bulk of said consumer spending. Weak consumer spending means the economy goes in the crapper, as our economy's foundation is consumer spending. At which point, everyone suffers.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2012/03/14/apples-stash-leads-as-us-companies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 03:31:51 pm

If we restored the economy to full employment through treasury run quantitative easing, i.e. the platinum coin option (which would cost nothing but would piss off republicans), repealed the Bush tax cuts entirely and repealed the Bush effort to privitize medicare through medicare part D (which is more expensive) and finished the pull out from afganistan and Iraq, we wouldn't have a budget deficit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2012, 03:46:33 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 02:28:09 pm

EDIT: Oh, and couldn't deficit increases be curbed by a reduced budget? A low tax rate would eliminate the need to spend a lot of money in certain areas (that the government spends a lot of money on right now). But of course, nobody likes to reduce the budget.

Short of maybe completely scrapping the military I don't think that is possible.  In any case the sudden mass unemployment caused by doing that is not likely to be helpful to the economy or the deficit, especially if you also canned social security.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 04:24:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 03:20:46 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 03:17:47 pm

There are many areas in which the government can simply step out and let private enterprise run things. It's been more cost effective in many cases in which this has already occured.

No, there really aren't.  The government got out of those areas long ago.  Actually look at the federal budget sometime man.  Tell me the specific things you think are so easy to cut and then look at what a tiny part of the budget they are.

And you are talking about a part of the budget that amounts to 520 billion dollars.  You can not cut 1 trillion from 520 billion.  It simply does not work.  Even if you cut every last cent and forced congress to hitchhike to washington where they would legislate in the dark that would leave 480 billion dollar gap.

Certainly. So far as things to cut, here are the "easy" ones:

(1) Military spending. The US military is a necessary thing, yes, but it doesn't need to be stationed across the world. A quick withdrawal from current active warzones (Afghanistan, etc) alone would allow for some very major yet simple cuts. Follow that up by selling off the bases across the world to local nations and ending the effective subsidies to western Europe and Japan, and you're well on the track to having a sustainable budget. I can kind of understand the need for such bases with the Soviet Union out causing mischief, but these days I don't see Russian tanks barreling across Checkpoint Charlie. A bit more trimming from aggressive expenditures (sending carrier fleets on worldwide tours and playing at gunboat diplomacy with China/Iran, etc) and military spending would be significantly lower. Keep in mind, military spending is something like 40% of the US budget, so this isn't a Romneyesque "efficiency cut" of a couple hundred million.

(2) Social Security. Now, this would be a long term thing, as an immediate removal would necessitate basically robbing the elderly of their investments. However, SS is frankly unsustainable in any meaningful sense in the long term, so it has to be seriously cut back regardless of whether or not you want to cut deficit spending. An opt out clause, and putting priority on "refunds" would allow for a somewhat safe end to it. It would, of course, be messy, especially considering how many irresponsible US presidents (from Reagan to Clinton) have robbed the fund to give off the illusion of a balanced budget, but there isn't (nor was there ever) any easy way out of it.

(3) Medicare and Medicaid. For basically the exact same reason as Social Security, except ending it will be even trickier due to there being more people effected. Unlike Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid never, ever had a period where they were a net benefit. They're solutions in search of problems, and have generally only served as a gigantic pits for money to get lost in. They're like black holes; the more money put into them, the less quality comes out.

There you go. With those cuts, even over a long period of time, you would be running a surplus within about a decade. It would hurt, but all of those cuts are absolutely necessary at some point in the future.

Mind, the vast majority of the American political class is completely and utterly spineless, so the odds of any of those cuts occurring are exceptionally low.

Also, for the record, I'd say that Romney is in no way better than Obama. He talks "free markets" and "deregulation", but were he elected, even with a friendly Senate, at best he'd cut a few taxes, make a big deal out of cutting from some insignificant program (see: the controversy regarding Planned Parenthood and NPR), and bomb some people like a good war hawk. He'd "repeal" Obamacare and probably replace it with something similar and call it "FREEDOMCARE". Likewise, a reelected Obama would continue to help out his banking buddies, continue to play world policeman while making token "withdrawals" (likely covered by replacing the withdrawn troops with mercenaries, as was done in Iraq), and maybe increase some taxes. To say there is any significant difference between the two is laughable.

Quote

If we restored the economy to full employment through treasury run quantitative easing, i.e. the platinum coin option (which would cost nothing but would piss off republicans), repealed the Bush tax cuts entirely and repealed the Bush effort to privitize medicare through medicare part D (which is more expensive) and finished the pull out from afganistan and Iraq, we wouldn't have a budget deficit.

If you took all of the assets of the richest Americans and put them towards reducing the deficit, it would barely make a dent. Tax policy, be it from tax cuts or tax increases, won't make a significant difference in the long run (especially when you consider that sufficient increases just result in billionaires headed for Singapore).

Quantitative easing would be a good way to get the economy running again, but then it would also have the unfortunate side effects of creating vast amounts of malinvestment, the end result of which would either be a deeper recession or heavy inflation (dependent on how "successful" it was and whether the banks decided to start lending out their reserves). In the long run, a recession is inevitable. However, whether the Federal Reserve intervenes significantly in the meantime will decide whether it is a short, deep, one with a quick and solid recovery or a giant mess that keeps getting worse.

Pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq would, indeed, be a great way to reduce the deficit. However, while doing so, it doesn't make any sense to continue to pay for Japan and Germany's defense so that those countries can redirect more money to their welfare systems. The US doesn't presently have any military threats, and thus doesn't need to pay for a gigantic empire across the world.

Quote

For starters, regulate the financial industry much more strictly. The blame for our current economic mess, as well as that of Europe, can be placed almost entirely on a lack of effective regulators. And that's only if we're feeling generous; the financial industry at this point appears to be fundamentally broken and rotten to the core. We may even be better off regulating much of it out of existence. They siphon trillions from the economy while doing nothing but shuffling numbers. Then when it breaks, governments are forced to siphon even more money to them.

Regulation makes absolutely no difference to the largest of banks, not in the least because the difference between central banks, massive commercial banks, and governmental treasuries is incredibly blurred these days. People in the banks transfer to high level governmental positions for safe, cushy jobs, while people in the government transfer to banks to make obscene amounts of cash. Thus, both have an interest to keep things pleasant for each other; the bankers don't go against what the central banks want (eg. subsidized loans to the poor), and in turn the regulators and central bankers offer generally favourable terms to the banks. In the end, regulations only really hurt the smaller competitors in the given industry, the ones who aren't on the same scale and can't make friends with or buy off the regulators.

The proper way to deal with this problem is to

(A) Cut regulations, which rarely apply to aforementioned commercial banks anyway and
(B) Make it abundantly clear that if anyone screws up, they won't be tossed a lifeline, given a bailout, or given absurdly generous loans. They'll be left to collapse and more efficient companies will take their assets and carry on.

ZeroHedge put it better than I could :

Quote

Here's the deal Jamie: Zero Hedge, knowing full well we are quite mortal, and as like everyone else - very susceptible to temptation - realize we too 'have our price', would have no interest in finding out just what said "price" may be, by succumbing to bribery or any other form of corruption by you and/or your HFT peers and competitors. Nor do we have an interest in pretending to "regulate" you for several years, then submitting our resumes to you, tired of five figure government jobs, and expecting some quid pro quo in exchange for all those years when we saw the HFT 'lobby' engage in gross market manipulation, and demanding some form of equitable recompense, preferably in a far better paying job (for example moving from the NASD to Goldman Sachs... in a purely hypothetical scenario of course) but really anything with a lot of the zeros (that we enabled) at the end of it, would do.

We have no interest in that.

We realize that makes us different than the SEC. Because frankly, just like you, we also realize that the first entity to be purchased in any regulated venue, is none other than the regulator. Which in the absence of the SEC, we assume would be us.

We have no interest in that either.

But more importantly, we would not even dream of regulating you, or anyone else for that matter, because frankly, unlike the collapsing and insolvent status quo, we believe in the myth of a fair market, one where a room full of academics does not believe it is smarter than the collective rational whole of countless unitary market actors.

We believe in a market that regulates itself.

That means that the banks can go hog wild in loading up on CDOs, selling CDS, leveraging themselves 1000x times, and whatever else they feel like doing in pursuit of that ever more elusive ROE, but when they blow up, as they always inevitably do in a world in which they know that the politicians and regulators they have purchased have no alternative but to rescue them, they blow up. Period. Game over: not a penny in taxpayer money would ever be used to rescue them.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-itg-zero-hedge-would-prefer-not-regulate-you-either)

Quote

Short of maybe completely scrapping the military I don't think that is possible.  In any case the sudden mass unemployment caused by doing that is not likely to be helpful to the economy or the deficit, especially if you also canned social security.

Looking at short term unemployment on its own is a bit of a waste of time. When the economy is going through a recession, resources are reallocated from inefficient uses to more efficient uses. A lot of people are unemployed, but most of them have the skills, experience, etc to immediately get a job after in the recovery period, and will be a net benefit to the economy.

If you want to deal with short term unemployment, you could just create jobs paying $25 per hour for anyone to dig and fill ditches on Federal land. Nothing worthwhile is being created, but money is flowing in the economy and unemployment could very well reach nearly 0%. Or you could do things the way they do in Sweden and Japan and offer massive subsidies to companies that don't fire workers but pay them to sit around all day doing nothing (becoming "window sitters"). But such things don't even remotely improve the state of the economy, they just make the statistics look pretty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 04:37:44 pm

Repealing the Bush tax cuts would bring in about 330 billion dollars a year over the next decade.  Seeing as that's what I actually said, not appropriating all the wealth of the rich, I would like to know why you consider 330 billion dollars a year to barely put a dent in the deficit.  that's 1/3rd of the problem right there.  Get another 500 billion dollars from an economic recovery due to platinum coin type QU leading to another 400 billion in tax revenues and 100 billion less in emergency spending and get another 160 billion from withdrawing from Iraq and Afganistan.  That gives you... a balanced budget roughly speaking.

And sorry but social security is not unsustainable.  It would only take a tiny improvement in it's financing to make it on secure footing indefinitely.  If annual gdp growth over the next three decades is 2.75% instead of 2.5% then there is no social security shortfall.

Medicare is only unsustainable if costs continue to rise faster then economic growth.  But the more logical thing then repealing it and dumping those costs onto tax payers would be to slow the cost growth.  Savvy followers of Medicare finances know that this is exactly what has happened in the past two years as cost growth has come sharply down.  Dumping onto taxpayers would be giving up the cost controls that have been successful in the past two years and bankrupting our economy through exorbinant private insurance costs.  Theres a reason that no other country on earth thinks that making people buy health insurance on the private market is the way to go.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on July 18, 2012, 05:23:43 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 04:24:57 pm

(B) Make it abundantly clear that if anyone screws up, they won't be tossed a lifeline, given a bailout, or given absurdly generous loans. They'll be left to collapse and more efficient companies will take their assets and carry on.

Ahahahaha. That's a good one!
But seriously, the whole reason deregulation doesn't work is because that doesn't work. Aside from the MASSIVE collateral damage (avoiding which was the point of the bank bailouts if you recall), it doesn't even accomplish your goal of punishing those responsible. As we have seen time and time again of late, the only ones hurt by big collapses are the little people. The executives whose short term thinking doomed the company in the long term have been thrice replaced by the time their bets go south. The only people working at the same place for 20 years are their employees. The execs get their golden parachutes and head elsewhere, which is one of the reasons it MUST be nipped in the bud, rather than festering for decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on July 18, 2012, 05:40:27 pm

Quote from: alway on July 18, 2012, 05:23:43 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 04:24:57 pm

(B) Make it abundantly clear that if anyone screws up, they won't be tossed a lifeline, given a bailout, or given absurdly generous loans. They'll be left to collapse and more efficient companies will take their assets and carry on.

Ahahahaha. That's a good one!
But seriously, the whole reason deregulation doesn't work is because that doesn't work. Aside from the MASSIVE collateral damage (avoiding which was the point of the bank bailouts if you recall), it doesn't even accomplish your goal of punishing those responsible. As we have seen time and time again of late, the only ones hurt by big collapses are the little people. The executives whose short term thinking doomed the company in the long term have been thrice replaced by the time their bets go south. The only people working at the same place for 20 years are their employees. The execs get their golden parachutes and head elsewhere, which is one of the reasons it MUST be nipped in the bud, rather than festering for decades.

If all those golden parachutes were taxed at 90% after the first million...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 18, 2012, 05:48:27 pm

If the solution was easy and obvious we would've done it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on July 18, 2012, 05:49:45 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 03:17:47 pm

There are many areas in which the government can simply step out and let private enterprise run things. It's been more cost effective in many cases in which this has already occured.

I admit that there are instances where private industry will do a better job, but this is entirely dependent on who is picking up the job not the fact that whomever is doing is a private enterprise. There are some things that government can do well and some that it can't, but many of these isn't due to whether or not they are part of the government. It largely depends on who is in charge and the policies in place. Claiming that private enterprise is the silver bullet to the government's inefficiency without elaborating exactly how it's going to be done and simply relying on the label that those taking over are profit driven isn't a good argument. A corporation in charge of the same things as the government can just as easily suffer from the same inefficiencies that you think the government commits.

For the most part, if the efficiency you're talking about is due to the waste of manpower or the mandatory keeping of bad employees in the system, all that needs to be done is to give the government more power in how it handles its human resources. I think everyone who has worked in a governmental agency agrees that these institutions would all be better off if the heads can fire people who can't or won't work more easily and lay off people when they're no longer needed for the foreseeable future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 05:51:57 pm

Quote from: greatorder on July 18, 2012, 05:46:10 pm

from what I've read from the B12 collective conciousness, America's economy is bad, no matter which way you look at it, and all the solutions are bad/have bad consequences.

Au contraire, we actually have a really good economy, it's just that our political system is doing the best it can to sabotage that.  Imagine how awesome our economy would be if we weren't wasting 8% of our national output on inefficiencies in the healthcare system compared to the rest of the world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 06:58:17 pm

Quote from: alway on July 18, 2012, 05:23:43 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 04:24:57 pm

(B) Make it abundantly clear that if anyone screws up, they won't be tossed a lifeline, given a bailout, or given absurdly generous loans. They'll be left to collapse and more efficient companies will take their assets and carry on.

Ahahahaha. That's a good one!
But seriously, the whole reason deregulation doesn't work is because that doesn't work. Aside from the MASSIVE collateral damage (avoiding which was the point of the bank bailouts if you recall), it doesn't even accomplish your goal of punishing those responsible. As we have seen time and time again of late, the only ones hurt by big collapses are the little people. The executives whose short term thinking doomed the company in the long term have been thrice replaced by the time their bets go south. The only people working at the same place for 20 years are their employees. The execs get their golden parachutes and head elsewhere, which is one of the reasons it MUST be nipped in the bud, rather than festering for decades.

Execs who run banks that go under would not have golden parachutes were it not for their buddies in the government handing them out.

Collateral damage will occur, but again that's a side effect of economic restructuring. If the economy has been pushed in the wrong direction, going back hurts but its ultimately necessary and will result in real growth later. The alternative is to let malinvestment sit around, let the crooks go free, and to keep delaying the inevitable until either you give up and the economy crashes far worse than had you done nothing, or you keep intervening and you're left saddled with worthless money (assuming you used the regular methods of monetary intervention at least).

Quote

Repealing the Bush tax cuts would bring in about 330 billion dollars a year over the next decade.  Seeing as that's what I actually said, not appropriating all the wealth of the rich, I would like to know why you consider 330 billion dollars a year to barely put a dent in the deficit.  that's 1/3rd of the problem right there

I'd like to see your sources on this one, but lets assume that 330 billion dollars are, in fact, added. Hoozah! Except total expenditures are around 3.5 trillion whereas total income for the US government INCLUDING that 330 billion is around 2.8. This is, of course, ignoring any economic problems that could arise in the process, which I might cover later if I get enough time.

Quote

Get another 500 billion dollars from an economic recovery due to platinum coin type QU leading to another 400 billion in tax revenues and 100 billion less in emergency spending

That a giant leap in logic, to assume that such an economic recovery would last at all, would produce such a massive increase in revenue, and would not simply result in Japan 2.0 or Post War Hungary 2.0. I could just as easily say "They should cut all taxes by 10% where possible, whereupon the incentive to spend would increase and create a trillion dollars in tax revenues!", but we both know that would be nonsense.

Quote

get another 160 billion from withdrawing from Iraq and Afganistan.  That gives you... a balanced budget roughly speaking.

This is the one thing I agree on, but frankly your proposal lacks the radicalism necessary in terms of military cuts, which I note you have carefully avoided. Proper military cuts would cut the deficit by more than all of your taxes AND minor military cuts combined.

Quote

And sorry but social security is not unsustainable.  It would only take a tiny improvement in it's financing to make it on secure footing indefinitely.  If annual gdp growth over the next three decades is 2.75% instead of 2.5% then there is no social security shortfall.

Oh yes it is. The number of people paying into it, in addition to the increase of people receiving it, is getting to be disproportionate. Like Medicare and Medicaid, it is a program that was once a fraction of the US GDP that is rapidly becoming a larger and larger share. There is no way to keep it going for the next twenty years unless you expect the younger generations to work like robots day in and day out to pay off the previous generation's SS.

Quote

Medicare is only unsustainable if costs continue to rise faster then economic growth.  But the more logical thing then repealing it and dumping those costs onto tax payers would be to slow the cost growth.  Savvy followers of Medicare finances know that this is exactly what has happened in the past two years as cost growth has come sharply down.  Dumping onto taxpayers would be giving up the cost controls that have been successful in the past two years and bankrupting our economy through exorbinant private insurance costs.  Theres a reason that no other country on earth thinks that making people buy health insurance on the private market is the way to go.

Look, if you want socialized healthcare for the US, go right ahead and advocate for it. I think it doesn't work, but I can see some logic to it. Medicare and Medicaid are gigantic tumours riding on the back of private health insurance systems and absolutely need to be removed at some point for the same reasons as SS.

Keep in mind, though, that the US has exactly three examples of "universalized healthcare" to show for: the Indian health service, military, and veterans service. I've heard nothing but bad things from all three, so the US government doesn't exactly have a stellar record in that regard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:23:19 pm

Quote from: Flare on July 18, 2012, 05:49:45 pm

I admit that there are instances where private industry will do a better job, but this is entirely dependent on who is picking up the job not the fact that whomever is doing is a private enterprise. There are some things that government can do well and some that it can't, but many of these isn't due to whether or not they are part of the government. It largely depends on who is in charge and the policies in place. Claiming that private enterprise is the silver bullet to the government's inefficiency without elaborating exactly how it's going to be done and simply relying on the label that those taking over are profit driven isn't a good argument. A corporation in charge of the same things as the government can just as easily suffer from the same inefficiencies that you think the government commits.

For the most part, if the efficiency you're talking about is due to the waste of manpower or the mandatory keeping of bad employees in the system, all that needs to be done is to give the government more power in how it handles its human resources. I think everyone who has worked in a governmental agency agrees that these institutions would all be better off if the heads can fire people who can't or won't work more easily and lay off people when they're no longer needed for the foreseeable future.

The argument relies on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest, only applied to economics. There is a constant competition between businesses. Ultimately, the idea is that the business with the most costumers will get the most profits. In order to attract costumers and be the best business, that business may have to have higher quality products, lower prices, etc. This is to convince people to go to that business rather than another one, the so-called "invisible hand" that guides people to the better business. But the result is that things are improved for the consumer through this competition.

This then goes to the idea that when the government runs things, there is no competition and no drive for profit, and therefore no incentive to increase quality.

Of course, there are many more arguments for and against this idea which have been around for hundreds of years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on July 18, 2012, 08:05:29 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 06:58:17 pm

Execs who run banks that go under would not have golden parachutes were it not for their buddies in the government handing them out.

Er, respectfully, wtf are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 06:58:17 pm

If the economy has been pushed in the wrong direction, going back hurts but its ultimately necessary and will result in real growth later.

And now you are making a false dichotomy; it isn't "we let everything go to shit, then we either fix it or we don't." The whole point of regulation is to not let everything go to shit to begin with.

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 18, 2012, 06:58:17 pm

That a giant leap in logic, to assume that such an economic recovery would last at all, would produce such a massive increase in revenue, and would not simply result in Japan 2.0 or Post War Hungary 2.0. I could just as easily say "They should cut all taxes by 10% where possible, whereupon the incentive to spend would increase and create a trillion dollars in tax revenues!", but we both know that would be nonsense.

Two things here. First of all, 500 billion in QE is nothing. To demonstrate that point, let me point out to you that in the past 4 years, the fed has done a total of 2 TRILLION dollars of QE to buy up the morgage-backed securities. Inflation throughout this period of time was not only lower than than decade average, but was actually deflationary for a relatively extended period of time (most of '09).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#Amounts
Secondly, while it has helped avert disaster, 500 billion is also probably not enough for a full economic recovery at this point so long as the systemic problems in the financial sector aren't remedied.

As for social security, it is sustainable if and only if it is reformed to its original intent. That intent being to provide for those who live long enough above expected life expectancy as to make saving dry up (as living to 110 will eat through your savings if you expected and saved to live until 76). Essentially reduce it to something to prevent elderly destitution. The reason it is unsustainable is because it is given out at an age which most people are expected to live to, and as such everyone is able to get it for, on average, a full decade. Trying to provide enough funds during a 40-55 year working time to live comfortably for 10+ years is what is killing the system.

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:23:19 pm

The argument relies on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest, only applied to economics. There is a constant competition between businesses. Ultimately, the idea is that the business with the most costumers will get the most profits. In order to attract costumers and be the best business, that business may have to have higher quality products, lower prices, etc. This is to convince people to go to that business rather than another one, the so-called "invisible hand" that guides people to the better business. But the result is that things are improved for the consumer through this competition.

Well, if we're going to misapply principles from completely unrelated fields: When a big enough entity dies, it collapses into a black hole from which nothing can escape. :)

I mean, seriously, even social darwinism is closer to being a correct use of darwinian principles. If you are dealing with economics, you should use, you know.... Theories of economics!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on July 18, 2012, 08:34:57 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:23:19 pm

The argument relies on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest, only applied to economics. There is a constant competition between businesses. Ultimately, the idea is that the business with the most costumers will get the most profits. In order to attract costumers and be the best business, that business may have to have higher quality products, lower prices, etc. This is to convince people to go to that business rather than another one, the so-called "invisible hand" that guides people to the better business. But the result is that things are improved for the consumer through this competition.

Constant competition does not necessarily make these enterprises efficient. It's perfectly possible that while there may be an competition, that a great deal of inefficiency exist in the system. Rarely does competition from rival companies get to the point where a multitude of inefficiencies put a company down. There's a great deal of leeway in terms of how much large businesses can get away with being lazy.
But again we go back to the question of how much the many other domineering factors such as talent, policy, organization, and external circumstances affect the system you're looking at. Sometimes it might be the case that private industry should be allowed to take the reigns because the government doesn't have the right people or resources to do something, but in others if circumstances mean that government will do a better, more efficient job it should clearly be left to the government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:43:54 pm

Quote from: alway on July 18, 2012, 08:05:29 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:23:19 pm

The argument relies on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest, only applied to economics. There is a constant competition between businesses. Ultimately, the idea is that the business with the most costumers will get the most profits. In order to attract costumers and be the best business, that business may have to have higher quality products, lower prices, etc. This is to convince people to go to that business rather than another one, the so-called "invisible hand" that guides people to the better business. But the result is that things are improved for the consumer through this competition.

Well, if we're going to misapply principles from completely unrelated fields: When a big enough entity dies, it collapses into a black hole from which nothing can escape. :)

I mean, seriously, even social darwinism is closer to being a correct use of darwinian principles. If you are dealing with economics, you should use, you know.... Theories of economics!

Not only did I correctly apply the principle, this is part of an economic theory just under a different name. I'll explain it to you some more.

Survival of the fittest means that the species with the best adaptations for its environment will survive (surprising, isn't it!). Survival involves a competition for resources such as food. The so called Darwin Finches provide an example of this. Over time, several variations of a bird had developed on an island. They had different adaptations (different beak shapes/sizes, different kinds of feet, etc.) in order to obtain the greatest amount of food and eliminate competition for that food. In this case, the birds eliminated the competition by going after a different food source (some ate insects, some ate nuts and berries, etc.). This ensured their survival, as with this food they can live and reproduce. If a certain variety of finch was not able to compete with another, they would go extinct due to lack of food. The end result is that the most adaptable, most efficient species survives while the species that adapted too slowly or too poorly did not.

This applies to businesses. A business, like a species, is in constant competition for costumers (which bring profits) just as the birds are in a competition for food. The business that is able to attract the most costumers (or as in the bird example, the bird that is able to get the most food) is able to live on and make a profit. The unprofitable businesses, having made no money due to lack of customers, go out of business. Just as the bird that could not collect enough food would go extinct. The end result is the business that attracts the most customers survives, and in order to have attracted the most customers they must have had the lowest prices or highest quality goods. Or awesome advertizing.

I fail to see how this is a misapplication of the so-called "survival of the fittest" principle. Enlighten me as to why you think it is not. As for these theories of economics, what I am talking about here is one of the basic arguments of laissez-faire economic policies and classical liberalism. This stuff goes back to Adam Smith. Competition is good, is the totally basic idea.

Quote from: Flare on July 18, 2012, 08:34:57 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 07:23:19 pm

The argument relies on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest, only applied to economics. There is a constant competition between businesses. Ultimately, the idea is that the business with the most costumers will get the most profits. In order to attract costumers and be the best business, that business may have to have higher quality products, lower prices, etc. This is to convince people to go to that business rather than another one, the so-called "invisible hand" that guides people to the better business. But the result is that things are improved for the consumer through this competition.

Constant competition does not necessarily make these enterprises efficient. It's perfectly possible that while there may be an competition, that a great deal of inefficiency exist in the system. Rarely does competition from rival companies get to the point where a multitude of inefficiencies put a company down. There's a great deal of leeway in terms of how much large businesses can get away with being lazy.

Large businesses and massive corporations, maybe, but not so much at a smaller scale. Competition doesn't automatically make enterprises efficient, but it encourages them to be efficient. After all, efficiency means more money, and what business owner wouldn't want more money?

One of the fundamental principles of this idea is that individuals are motivated by greed. Business owners want money. In order to get that money, they have to have a good business. They have to have something that I would want to buy. Otherwise I'd shop someplace else. The problems today (mostly with big business) is that enterprises are finding loopholes to exploit in order to gain quick and easy money. This undermines the whole idea, so naturally stopping this from happening would be very good for the system as a whole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on July 18, 2012, 08:48:28 pm

Of course, "efficiency" leads to this kind of thing, too. At least profit-manic efficiency. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on July 18, 2012, 09:04:19 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:43:54 pm

Large businesses and massive corporations, maybe, but not so much at a smaller scale. Competition doesn't automatically make enterprises efficient, but it encourages them to be efficient. After all, efficiency means more money, and what business owner wouldn't want more money?

One of the fundamental principles of this idea is that individuals are motivated by greed. Business owners want money. In order to get that money, they have to have a good business. They have to have something that I would want to buy. Otherwise I'd shop someplace else. The problems today (mostly with big business) is that enterprises are finding loopholes to exploit in order to gain quick and easy money. This undermines the whole idea, so naturally stopping this from happening would be very good for the system as a whole.

I know what the concept of a free market is, and you're not addressing what I'm saying. As such I don't even know if you understand what I'm saying.

I'm trying to argue, that while capitalist principles might be at work, they may not always be enough to ensure that whatever the best enterprise a country can provide will in no uncertain terms perform more efficiently than the same service provided by the government. Some of these private enterprises will, but not all of them, and those that can and those that don't will always be in flux due to changing circumstances.

I'm not disagreeing on economic explanations, I am contending that their magnitude is not absolute. Simply giving an explanation about how private enterprises will be motivated isn't enough to support your claim that they will be efficient. There are simply a lot more factors that affect how well a group can provide a service. It's entirely possible for example, for a totally unmotivated group of slackers who, due to extremely fortunate circumstances, can provide a service far better than a group of skilled and motivated people. Circumstances like these won't happen very often, but there's a huge middle ground where motivation can vary and other elements play it up. Private industry will not always top up every single time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 09:22:36 pm

I have trouble finding an example of the government running something more effectively than private enterprise. When private enterprise does poorly, it's usually because there are regulations put in place that prevent them from increasing efficiency. An example of this is the private health care system (I just opened a big can of worms, didn't I? This is just a small example, I don't want this to become the focus of the discussion). People claim the government can operate it better than business. But getting rid of a few simple government regulations could drastically reduce costs by increasing competition. One such thing is the inability to purchase out-of-state health insurance. If I, as someone living in New York State, were allowed to purchase health insurance from a company in Pennsylvania, imagine how costs could be driven down; the health insurance companies in New York that had cornered the market would have tons of new businesses to compete against, and the best way to attract costumers is to lower prices or improve the quality of service. So this is an example of government rules preventing the best effects of free trade from occurring (because in this case the free trade is being inhibited).

It's very hard for me to make a solid argument when our current system does not usually support 100% free trade policies. What I'm getting from this debate is that I'm trying to argue for free trade - "let private enterprise do their thing" -, and you are arguing against it - "the government can do some things better than business". But I can come up with no perfect examples to support my claim, because 100% free trade hasn't existed in the US. As such, I have no practical examples, only "what if"s.

I agree that if the government can do something better than business, they should. The problem is I'm having trouble finding a good example of this (outside of things like the military- but who knows, maybe private enterprise could do that better too? I haven't examined the issue at any depth to tell). I support free trade only because it seems to have the best results. If you can prove to me that government run programs would have better results than private programs for the same thing, I would support the government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 18, 2012, 09:31:59 pm

Quote

I agree that if the government can do something better than business, they should. The problem is I'm having trouble finding a good example of this (outside of things like the military- but who knows, maybe private enterprise could do that better too? I haven't examined the issue at any depth to tell). I support free trade only because it seems to have the best results. If you can prove to me that government run programs would have better results than private programs for the same thing, I would support the government.

I feel this is a trick question. What "result" are you talking about?

Healthcare in other western countries is cheaper and more people get the treatment they need. That sounds like a superior "result" to me. But the systems aren't profitable, and if that's the result you want then of course their systems are worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on July 18, 2012, 09:37:50 pm

It's passing a bit, but I do have to ask... folks here do know that Darwinism has been dead in the biology field for several decades now, right? And that it was never actually accurate, at all?

I kinda' understand the appeal of drawing on it (it's got a good rhetoric, in certain ways), but there's reasons it's not actually used by anyone even remotely reputable anymore. It was flat out wrong. Using it as a conceptual basis is... risky, in the sense that you're probably introducing major problems, because the concept system you're using as a base is itself inherently flawed.

It did spark off a lot of stuff, and the things we use nowadays owe a lot to work done related to it, but...

Can throw out a bit more detail if folks want, I guess? It's not actually that hard to pick up more up to date info, I think. S'more of a thing for a different thread, too...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2012, 09:50:12 pm

The more fundamental problem is that the idea of natural selection is descriptive.  It tells us about what happens in nature.  It does not imply that we should attempt to emulate it in our financial markets or societies any more than the idea of gravity suggests we should strive to put everything as low down as possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 18, 2012, 10:29:48 pm

The reason why I'm saying that full employment would restore revenues rather then leading to ongoing stagnation is because I used the words "full employment".  You can take issue with the assertion that full employment is possible (by throwing out all of mainstream economic theory as it existed between 1946 and 2007).  However it's simple arithmetic that if you remove the decline in tax revenues associated with the recession and the increases in spending on things like unemployment insurance and SNAP benefits that it would help government revenues enormously.  The only optimism is in believing that US monetary and fiscal policy could be as successful as it has been in places like Sweden and China if we were as aggressive as in places like Sweden and China.

The recession didn't destroy our economic capacity.  It's not like a nuclear war.  People are unemployed not dead.  If the economy go back to it's normal capacity then... it would be back to it's normal capacity.

That's not to say that you couldn't maybe save more money by reforming military spending or agricultural subsidies or by taking food out of the mouths of starving children.  Those are all quite possible.  I'm just saying that your basic "things that are already legislated and would happen if congress never passed another law" package includes:

1) Afghanistan and Iraq withdraw.
2) Expiration of the Bush tax cuts

and if the Fed and Treasury did their job properly then in a few years we'd have:

3) Return to full employment

So you don't need any more then this to return to balanced budget.  It's a really simple plan but it would do the trick.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on July 18, 2012, 10:49:34 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 09:22:36 pm

I have trouble finding an example of the government running something more effectively than private enterprise.

People in certain governmental institutions are very motivated at fulfilling their roles, for example the armed forces in some countries take a lot of pride in keeping themselves in the best shape and making the best of their resources, however much it is, not out of any monetary desire. Emergency services also often share this sort of work ethic. There are many ways to instill this sort of ethic in people, be it through material goal, personal standards, or conceptual motivations.

This is a question of how well can both adapt to changing situations. Of which when we're talking about how a private and governmental institution can change, it largely depends on the people in charge. For example, very bad banking practices led to the near fall of several large banks. This evidently did not change as Barclays who was bailed out was found to be fixing their loan rates. And not only this, seemed to be doing so in response to other banks doing the same thing. There are instances where private industry can't adapt due to its leadership or extenuating circumstances. Governments too can suffer from this, though of course both have shown that they change when circumstances require.

Quote

When private enterprise does poorly, it's usually because there are regulations put in place that prevent them from increasing efficiency.

Well no. When private enterprises do poorly it is commonly due to incompetence or laziness. Do you know how many people with no business experience opens up a business? Just take a look at random kickstarters page and be amazed at just how poorly some of these ideas are thought out.

Quote

An example of this is the private health care system (I just opened a big can of worms, didn't I? This is just a small example, I don't want this to become the focus of the discussion). People claim the government can operate it better than business. But getting rid of a few simple government regulations could drastically reduce costs by increasing competition. One such thing is the inability to purchase out-of-state health insurance. If I, as someone living in New York State, were allowed to purchase health insurance from a company in Pennsylvania, imagine how costs could be driven down; the health insurance companies in New York that had cornered the market would have tons of new businesses to compete against, and the best way to attract costumers is to lower prices or improve the quality of service. So this is an example of government rules preventing the best effects of free trade from occurring (because in this case the free trade is being inhibited).

I really don't know that much about health care systems to speak very much about it. Other members of this forum seem to know much more. I will address the regulations though. I admit that there can be, and are, very poorly thought out regulations. That being said, these regulations are there for the sole reason that people demanded that they exist, and most of them seem to exist for plausible reasons.

The main question is whether inhibiting the market in a certain way will provide benefits that justify it. And in terms of insurance, this seems to be the case.

As far as I know, people care a lot about insurance, so much so that they often go to court over it. The regulation of what an insurance company can and can't do seems to be justified in that the states have the power and not the federal government (unless of course you think justice counts as inhibitors of the free market). If it was the federal government making the laws, there would probably be a national market for it. This however does overlook that each state has very different demands that is asked of the insurers, and different regulations that arise from this. These demands for better or worse have been asked to be mandatory. Many of these are restrictive, for example making everyone buy health or any other insurance of some kind. For laws to exist like these there must be support for it, I don't think any insurance body would offer this select state insurance if its people wanted insurance agencies to provide such a demanding and risky service. And if they don't, then the free market would have clearly over-looked them as their ideal desire of what insurance they want won't be available. They'd have to settle for sloppy seconds.

Quote

It's very hard for me to make a solid argument when our current system does not usually support 100% free trade policies. What I'm getting from this debate is that I'm trying to argue for free trade - "let private enterprise do their thing" -, and you are arguing against it - "the government can do some things better than business". But I can come up with no perfect examples to support my claim, because 100% free trade hasn't existed in the US. As such, I have no practical examples, only "what if"s.

We could look at places where regulation exists minimally, or indeed are not enforced at all. There are certain places in this world where regulations can be waived when you give money to a certain individual. Third world countries are often like this. The black market is one other such entity, though I'm sure you're aware of the danger the products or services themselves can present even without any of the legal ramifications.

Quote

I agree that if the government can do something better than business, they should. The problem is I'm having trouble finding a good example of this (outside of things like the military- but who knows, maybe private enterprise could do that better too? I haven't examined the issue at any depth to tell). I support free trade only because it seems to have the best results. If you can prove to me that government run programs would have better results than private programs for the same thing, I would support the government.

We both agree that the main aim is the general good of the entire population. We only differ on how this can be achieved. And I guess this overlooks an issue with government. It's slow because many people have asked it to be such. We've rather it be accurate and careful with its workings than the other way around and absorbing the mistakes for the efficiencies that will arise. Political and economic stability is its real job.
So if voters opt that the government take the role of a certain industry, it should be sending a signal about how people wish said industry to be, yes?

As for the armed forces, you really don't want it to be owned by certain members of society and excluding others. And of course, you really don't want any foreign investment money going into it if you want to keep sovereignty. Motivation to do a better job comes in many paths, some militaries make the best with what they can and almost all members are invested in the institution as a whole. While people's material self interest in important, appealing to only this one facet of people's motivational set isn't reliable nor efficient. For most people, a whole plethora of priorities take precedent over making more money than you need to live comfortable for the foreseeable future. Soldiers, emergency response personnel, and doctors in some countries have institutions that tap into these other motivational facets as well as their material self interest to achieve similar results.
We see private industry doing this today as well. Not only are they giving people money to do their job, they want to make their employees to be invest in their place of employment in the same way as these other professions that the government employs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on July 18, 2012, 11:55:09 pm

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:43:54 pm

This applies to businesses. A business, like a species, is in constant competition for costumers (which bring profits) just as the birds are in a competition for food. The business that is able to attract the most costumers (or as in the bird example, the bird that is able to get the most food) is able to live on and make a profit. The unprofitable businesses, having made no money due to lack of customers, go out of business. Just as the bird that could not collect enough food would go extinct. The end result is the business that attracts the most customers survives, and in order to have attracted the most customers they must have had the lowest prices or highest quality goods. Or awesome advertizing.

I fail to see how this is a misapplication of the so-called "survival of the fittest" principle. Enlighten me as to why you think it is not. As for these theories of economics, what I am talking about here is one of the basic arguments of laissez-faire economic policies and classical liberalism. This stuff goes back to Adam Smith. Competition is good, is the totally basic idea.

No, it does not apply to businesses. Here's how evolution actually works: 1. reproduction with offspring having heritable traits and a small amount of mutation 2. individuals unable to successfully reproduce do not reproduce, leading to their genes not carrying on to generate new offspring 3. the old parent generation dies off, with the new generation becoming the parent generation for the next round 4. repeat
Speciation then occurs when populations within the species become isolated from one another, and their gene pools diverge.
Now, you may notice something businesses lack: reproductive organs. A successful business does not, in fact, have sex with other businesses to create baby businesses with the traits of mommy and daddy business which then take the place of the mommy and daddy businesses who died of old age. Evolution works through the slow process of generations of near-identical progeny, not the near-random settings of business. In fact, setting a mutation rate too high will actually cause evolution to stop working, as the changes are too major for the genetics to be stable.

Similarly, you misrepresent 'fitness.' Fitness does not mean 'stronger' 'faster' 'better,' it just means more successful at reproducing. Take for example the human body. Do you know why the male reproductive system is a ticking time-bomb of cancer? It's because from the evolutionary standpoint, the death from cancer is perfectly acceptable because it occurs after the prime reproductive age, and the same things set up that time-bomb happened to slightly increase reproductive ability. Short term profits, if you will.

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:43:54 pm

Large businesses and massive corporations, maybe, but not so much at a smaller scale. Competition doesn't automatically make enterprises efficient, but it encourages them to be efficient. After all, efficiency means more money, and what business owner wouldn't want more money?

Again, you are lax with your definitions. Efficiency is not good. Efficiency is not bad. Efficiency is efficiency. The question is: what are they efficient at? Old paper mills were efficient at creating cheap paper; they dumped toxic waste in the rivers that had massively negative effects, but at least they were efficient about it.
This is what unregulated efficiency looks like: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7732438.html

Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 18, 2012, 08:43:54 pm

One of the fundamental principles of this idea is that individuals are motivated by greed. Business owners want money. In order to get that money, they have to have a good business. They have to have something that I would want to buy. Otherwise I'd shop someplace else. The problems today (mostly with big business) is that enterprises are finding loopholes to exploit in order to gain quick and easy money. This undermines the whole idea, so naturally stopping this from happening would be very good for the system as a whole.

One does not need a good business to make the most money; one needs a monopolistic business in a sector with high barrier-to-entry costs. In an unregulated business environment, there is also nothing to stop the big players from colluding to increase prices, keep out competition, or, fixing Libor prices. When there is one store in town, there is no where else to shop. And, again, stopping those loopholes you mention is the whole point of regulation. It doesn't just happen, it must be regulated away precisely because it doesn't just happen; if it just happened, there would be no reason for regulations to have been passed in the first place!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on July 19, 2012, 12:01:13 am

Quote from: alway on July 18, 2012, 11:55:09 pm

Again, you are lax with your definitions. Efficiency is not good. Efficiency is not bad. Efficiency is efficiency. The question is: what are they efficient at? Old paper mills were efficient at creating cheap paper; they dumped toxic waste in the rivers that had massively negative effects, but at least they were efficient about it.
This is what unregulated efficiency looks like: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7732438.html

I have to disagree. Being more efficient is always better as long as it doesn't make anything else worse.

Now, you are right, a quest for greater efficiency can do some pretty bad things (eg. sweatshops, not caring that you are dumping chemicals), but if there is a choice of making 100 cars for a million dollars, or a 100 cars for 10 thousand dollars without any impact on quality, no massive pollution increase and still paying the workers living wages, the cheaper and more efficient way is simply better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 12:05:04 am

Efficiency always comes at some alternate cost, though. You can't get something out of nothing. Some costs you probably won't be sympathetic to (workers can't be quite as lazy), others you might (no dumping into the river), but a cost will always be there. So yeah, I'm on the side of efficiency being neutral, not good or bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on July 19, 2012, 01:10:06 am

Quote from: Frumple on July 18, 2012, 09:37:50 pm

It's passing a bit, but I do have to ask... folks here do know that Darwinism has been dead in the biology field for several decades now, right? And that it was never actually accurate, at all?

I kinda' understand the appeal of drawing on it (it's got a good rhetoric, in certain ways), but there's reasons it's not actually used by anyone even remotely reputable anymore. It was flat out wrong. Using it as a conceptual basis is... risky, in the sense that you're probably introducing major problems, because the concept system you're using as a base is itself inherently flawed.

It did spark off a lot of stuff, and the things we use nowadays owe a lot to work done related to it, but...

Can throw out a bit more detail if folks want, I guess? It's not actually that hard to pick up more up to date info, I think. S'more of a thing for a different thread, too...

I'd actually be interested in that. Depends on what you mean by Darwinism - I'm assuming here the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, as hypothesized by Darwin (as opposed to, say, the concept of natural selection if understood in the proper terms).

At any rate, there is a similarity between biological evolution and the idea of free market capitalism. It's just that businesses are eliminated only through competition (this is a huge difference, since it means that a business without significant opposition can persist theoretically forever), and in that you have no sexual reproduction (you can still have an evolution analogue without this, but it means that the passing of information is a lot more subtle; you wind up with people studying successful businesses and attempting to isolate the useful principles, stuff like that). The important thing is that, in theory, the "optimal" examples will crowd out the others, whether in the market or mating season. The problem is that, in practice, there's only one way to be "optimal" (get lots of money very fast), which prevents diversification (crucial to a healthy population), and startup barriers prevent new ideas from entering the market at all.

On top of that, you've got the catastrophic moral issues. Any sort of natural selection process accepts huge amounts of waste as the cost of progress - in this case, the livelihoods of the owners of failed businesses. And that's assuming the process even worked properly, which the aforementioned problems prevent. As a consequence of those problems, we have the current distribution of wealth in the US (and believe me, that distribution is poisonous to economic growth and is not due primarily to the wealthy earning that kind of discrepancy). Free market capitalism worked great, when it didn't cost millions of dollars in startup funds to price your shoes competitively. As anybody who's studied evolution can tell you, evolution as an algorithm is a last-resort method that's really only useful when you can't directly tackle a problem analytically. It's okay to say, "Yeah, I don't think we're able to come up with an acceptable substitute with our current level of technology", but to say we shouldn't even try is absurd.

This got kinda rambly, sorry about that. Hope it's coherent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on July 19, 2012, 10:25:38 am

Where is the evidence that "when businesses fail, it is usually because of government regulation". I have seen strong evidence to the contrary and very little supporting evidence. That is a baseless assertion bordering on irrational and unfounded dogma. Regulation is fundamentally about making business more honest (not ripping off customers and employees) and minimizes the unpaid externalization of costs (socialization of cost). It isn't perfect, but it generally makes the market more free by reducing the inequity of opportunity. If you want to argue against specific regulation, go right ahead. But arguing against regulation as a concept is idiotic.


Most businesses fail because the right idea, at the right time, at the right place, with enough resources behind it is an incredibly rare set of circumstances.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 19, 2012, 09:28:44 pm

I'm glad the whole "Survival of the fittest" saying is being taken to task here.  It's repeated too often by too many people as their core life philosophy, and it's an extremely damaging misunderstanding that needs to go away.

Survival of the fittest is bad language.  The phrase should actually be "Survival of the best fit".  The most successful species are those that exist in harmony with their environment, not those that dominate it by being the most badass motherfuckers around.  When most people recite "Survival of the fittest" like some divine truth, I think they're usually referring to superpredators.  Do so many people really believe that an ecological system is made up entirely of predators, or that predators are always the most successful type of species? 

Adaptive pressures in natural selection nudge species into specific ecological niches, where there is energy available that isn't being used.  If there is something in an environment that nothing eats, something will evolve the capability to eat it.  That doesn't just serve the purpose of feeding that specific species, it also serves the purpose of bringing that energy into the ecological cycle and strengthening it as a whole, because individuals of that species are still food for other species, even if only after they die.

Competition does not very well describe this process.  When a species dies out, it's because it didn't serve a purpose in the ecosystem, not because other species kicked its ass.  It may look that way on the surface, and competition is definitely a component.  However, species that thrive on the basis of competition alone are not successful.  They damage the ecosystem and eventually undermine their own means of survival.

What it all amounts to, and this is very fucking important is balance and harmony.

Being based on competition, pure capitalism does not achieve any sort of balance or harmony.  People like to relate economics to natural ecosystems, but an ecosystem takes in and cycles energy through multiple sources (sunlight/minerals to plants to herbivores to carnivores and all the way back around).  In capitalism, all resources are translated into one -- money.  Thus there are no ecological niches.  Every business is a species of predators competing for the same resource, and every business must therefore out-grow their competitors or die.  You might argue that ecological niches take the form of various industries, but there's nothing stopping one company from growing into multiple industries.  If industries are analogous to ecological niches, then corporate conglomerates are super-species that grow to fill every single niche.  There is a sort of cycle in the relationship between production and consumption, but this cycle shrinks as profit-driven competition consolidates wealth into fewer hands.  It's funny how that process is still referred to as growth, right?

And the worst part is that human beings are still incapable of existing apart from nature, as much as we would like to believe otherwise.  Capitalist competition is based on "growth", but the system is not designed with any inherent limit to that growth.  However, it relies on consumption of natural resources, which does have limits.  Our way of life does not make us a "best fit" species, and we're on our way to naturally de-selecting ourselves.  There's this assumption that if we pursue competition for its own sake that somehow something desirable will be produced as an unintended side-effect, and this is absurd.  Our society needs to be based on principles squarely aimed at an ultimate goal of balance and harmony, with ourselves and with nature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:22:05 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 19, 2012, 09:28:44 pm

I'm glad the whole "Survival of the fittest" saying is being taken to task here.  It's repeated too often by too many people as their core life philosophy, and it's an extremely damaging misunderstanding that needs to go away.

Survival of the fittest is bad language.  The phrase should actually be "Survival of the best fit".  The most successful species are those that exist in harmony with their environment, not those that dominate it by being the most badass motherfuckers around.  When most people recite "Survival of the fittest" like some divine truth, I think they're usually referring to superpredators.  Do so many people really believe that an ecological system is made up entirely of predators, or that predators are always the most successful type of species? 

Adaptive pressures in natural selection nudge species into specific ecological niches, where there is energy available that isn't being used.  If there is something in an environment that nothing eats, something will evolve the capability to eat it.  That doesn't just serve the purpose of feeding that specific species, it also serves the purpose of bringing that energy into the ecological cycle and strengthening it as a whole, because individuals of that species are still food for other species, even if only after they die.

Competition does not very well describe this process.  When a species dies out, it's because it didn't serve a purpose in the ecosystem, not because other species kicked its ass.  It may look that way on the surface, and competition is definitely a component.  However, species that thrive on the basis of competition alone are not successful.  They damage the ecosystem and eventually undermine their own means of survival.

What it all amounts to, and this is very fucking important is balance and harmony.

Being based on competition, pure capitalism does not achieve any sort of balance or harmony.  People like to relate economics to natural ecosystems, but an ecosystem takes in and cycles energy through multiple sources (sunlight/minerals to plants to herbivores to carnivores and all the way back around).  In capitalism, all resources are translated into one -- money.  Thus there are no ecological niches.  Every business is a species of predators competing for the same resource, and every business must therefore out-grow their competitors or die.  You might argue that ecological niches take the form of various industries, but there's nothing stopping one company from growing into multiple industries.  If industries are analogous to ecological niches, then corporate conglomerates are super-species that grow to fill every single niche.  There is a sort of cycle in the relationship between production and consumption, but this cycle shrinks as profit-driven competition consolidates wealth into fewer hands.  It's funny how that process is still referred to as growth, right?

And the worst part is that human beings are still incapable of existing apart from nature, as much as we would like to believe otherwise.  Capitalist competition is based on "growth", but the system is not designed with any inherent limit to that growth.  However, it relies on consumption of natural resources, which does have limits.  Our way of life does not make us a "best fit" species, and we're on our way to naturally de-selecting ourselves.  There's this assumption that if we pursue competition for its own sake that somehow something desirable will be produced as an unintended side-effect, and this is absurd.  Our society needs to be based on principles squarely aimed at an ultimate goal of balance and harmony, with ourselves and with nature.

While your argument is perfectly valid, you're forgetting that a business, like all analogous organisms, want's to keep itself alive. Logging is a good example. Putting ALL other arguments aside for now, first world logging companies replant trees after cutting them down, basically with the plan of cycling them out. This ensures future resources as long as the product is needed, whereas other companies that don't follow such procedure will eventually die out. This applies to all companies that are able to afford research of some sort or another.
And, yes, competition IS an aspect of capitalism (which I will now refer to as a free market economy, as that is what we are actually talking about, capitalism being a different but related concept), it does not make it's whole. The idea behind a free market economy is a balance between supply and demand. As demand goes down, the resources behind supply are used less, so the prices start high and naturally lower as supply builds up. In reverse, as demand goes up, supply is used as is the resource behind it, raising the prices and reducing demand. Any company worth its salt with a legitimately limited resource behind its supply (something the human race will not experience in our lifetimes, I assure you) they will do all they can to ensure that they can keep afloat. Generally, this results in finding the next suitable resource (such as nuclear power rather than fossil fuels), or remaking the resource (such as replanting trees with logging).

Now, you brought up the concept of balance and harmony, stating that any organism that can't live in such a manner with it's environment is doomed to die off. Nature has balance and harmony in the sense that it moves in cycles. This has been true for all things since whatever started this mess of a universe. Balance and harmony requires there to be no cycle, as it is a stagnation by equilibrium (a term I made up because I completely blanked on what I was going to say). Everything works in cycles, and it's just the question of whether or not we are on the upslope or the decline.

Honestly, I have yet to see a free market truly fail under its own weight. Usually, it gets bogged down by dictatorship, such as Greece or the Soviet Union. No one has argued that humans are apart from nature, but you have argued on an incomplete understanding (and I fear I've been inadequate with my explanation). You have to understand that a free market isn't inherently doomed or evil. It's how the people under it act, that is the issue! Now I fear I've become long winded, and I am tired and wish to sleep, so I bid you a good morrow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 19, 2012, 10:42:23 pm

You haven't seen a free market fail under it's own weight?  Are you too young to remember 2007?

The only reason why we aren't in a great depression right now is because when the markets went into freefall the government pulled out all stops to save the economy.  If we had kept to a strictly laissez-faire attitude we'd be in another great depression right now.  The initial shock to the system in 2007 was actually a bigger part of the economy then the shock in 1929.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:56:20 pm

Quote from: mainiac on July 19, 2012, 10:42:23 pm

You haven't seen a free market fail under it's own weight?  Are you too young to remember 2007?

The only reason why we aren't in a great depression right now is because when the markets went into freefall the government pulled out all stops to save the economy.  If we had kept to a strictly laissez-faire attitude we'd be in another great depression right now.  The initial shock to the system in 2007 was actually a bigger part of the economy then the shock in 1929.

Except by 2007, we had started falling into a planned economy. And it was gernment intervention that extended the depression into the 40's. It was when things were pulled back into a true free market that things recovered (though I'm less than adamant to give the credit entirely to World War II).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 11:14:19 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:56:20 pm

Except by 2007, we had started falling into a planned economy.

What. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy)

Quote

And it was gernment intervention that extended the depression into the 40's.

What.

Quote

It was when things were pulled back into a true free market that things recovered (though I'm less than adamant to give the credit entirely to World War II).

What.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 11:16:49 pm

Again, I fear I'm not able to adequately convey my argument, due to lack of sleep and many distractions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 11:18:20 pm

Explain to me how you believe that the United States was entering a planned economy in 2007 and how this resulted in financial crisis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 11:22:46 pm

You're right, I don't know why I said that.
But I will argue that it wasn't the free market that was causing economic collapse as much as it was outsourcing (which is not an aspect of a free market as much as it is an aspect of foreign human rights violations)

---

Wait, that's not the entire argument. I'm tired. I shall sleep on this...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on July 19, 2012, 11:33:20 pm

Wait, wait. I thought the crash was primarily (though not strictly, of course) caused by the financial buggers doing some incredibly sleazy shit re: housing and some related things? Outsourcing is causing problems, definitely (and will until we -- as in humans across the globe -- can get worker conditions outside the post-industrial countries equalized to a sane standard. And keep the ones in them from backsliding, of course.), but I don't remember that being the major causative effect.

Maybe moreso than free-market capitalism, though. I think the buzzword they're liking to use nowadays is "crony" capitalism (which, from what I understand, is basically what happens when a free-market system gets top heavy with the sociopaths that thrive in said laissez-faire system), which is probably a big enough discussion to warrant another thread.

E: Or was that something earlier? Major spans of years kinda' mesh together for me, so far as large events go. At least within my actual life span. There is "before now," "way before now," and "now." Sometimes causing me confusions :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 19, 2012, 11:45:00 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:22:05 pm

The idea behind a free market economy is a balance between supply and demand. As demand goes down, the resources behind supply are used less, so the prices start high and naturally lower as supply builds up. In reverse, as demand goes up, supply is used as is the resource behind it, raising the prices and reducing demand.

I'm aware of this, but it's kind of irrelevant to my point.  Supply and demand is a balance within the economic cycle, yes, but as I mentioned before, meaningful participation in that cycle is continually shrinking.  Profit-driven competition consolidates wealth into fewer and fewer hands.  A poor person has demands, but those who control supply have no reason to care about them.

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:22:05 pm

Any company worth its salt with a legitimately limited resource behind its supply (something the human race will not experience in our lifetimes, I assure you) they will do all they can to ensure that they can keep afloat. Generally, this results in finding the next suitable resource (such as nuclear power rather than fossil fuels), or remaking the resource (such as replanting trees with logging).

And you did a great job of illustrating the tunnel-vision short-sightedness of business perspective on sustainability.  Yeah, a logging business will plant new trees to ensure the long-term sustainability of their business.  They are ensuring the sustainability of the one single resource that relates to their business, while completely ignoring that a tree farm that gets regularly leveled is not a natural ecosystem.  That logging business does nothing to renew the resources that get destroyed besides their trees.  A tree farm hardly participates in the natural health of the planet.

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:22:05 pm

Now, you brought up the concept of balance and harmony, stating that any organism that can't live in such a manner with it's environment is doomed to die off. Nature has balance and harmony in the sense that it moves in cycles. This has been true for all things since whatever started this mess of a universe. Balance and harmony requires there to be no cycle, as it is a stagnation by equilibrium (a term I made up because I completely blanked on what I was going to say). Everything works in cycles, and it's just the question of whether or not we are on the upslope or the decline.

There's harmony and balance in the sense that all species are interdependent and limits on growth and consumption are moderated by this interdependence.  It is an equilibrium, but it isn't stagnant as you say.  Change happens within the cycle, but the nature of the cycle itself doesn't.  It's always a cycle of processing energy through a succession of organisms consuming each other.  The organisms themselves change over long periods of time.  As in the case of Darwin's finches, those birds changed over time to consume energy in different forms that were not being optimally consumed, to facilitate the cycling of that energy through that ecosystem.  They changed to fill available ecological niches.

In a free market economy, on the other hand, there are no limits based on interdependence.  For instance, I work for a customs brokerage wing of a shipping corporation.  This was once an independent company that did business with that shipping company.  There was interdependence.  Then the shipping company bought them, like a big fish eating a little one... except there's no reason to expect that this fish is ever going to grow old and die so that its corpse can be picked apart by carrion.  The larger it gets, the more distant the likelihood becomes that it will ever die.  It can theoretically grow until it is itself the entire economy.  It may not be something every businessman consciously aims for, but the ultimate ramification is that every company as an abstract entity wants all money to cycle directly through it.  Any company that doesn't strive for this gets eaten by companies that do.

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:22:05 pm

You have to understand that a free market isn't inherently doomed or evil. It's how the people under it act, that is the issue!

And people aren't inherently doomed or evil, either, but our behaviors are influenced by the procedural algorithms on which we organize our society.  In keeping with the evolution analogy, species in nature adapt to their environments.  Our political/economic systems are our environments, and human beings are naturally selected according to their behaviors.  Our current environment selects for sociopathic greed.  It's only the people's fault to the extent that we developed and continue to reinforce this way of life.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 20, 2012, 12:18:29 am

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:56:20 pm

Except by 2007, we had started falling into a planned economy. And it was gernment intervention that extended the depression into the 40's. It was when things were pulled back into a true free market that things recovered (though I'm less than adamant to give the credit entirely to World War II).

Let's do a little economic history 101.

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=GDPA&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1929-01-01&coed=1945-01-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Annual&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=pc1&vintage_date=2012-07-20&revision_date=2012-07-20)

In '29 the economy melts down at a stunning rate.  Hoover sticks to laissez faire and for his troubles he watches the economy to continue to collapse for another three years.  This is the fastest economic collapse in US history and it all took place before FDR was even in office to start the new deal.
The new deal started in summer of '33 when FDR was elected along with a massive new deal majority (80% of congress supported him) and pushes through massive new regulations, spending and taxes in the first 100 days.  Far from extending the depression, it lead to double digit economic recovery.  The unemployment rate drops from 35% to 15% in just six years.  This is the fastest economic recovery in US history and it took place as regulations and taxes increased enormously.
In '37 congress is getting nervous about the size of the government so they cut down on new deal spending greatly and pursue deflationary monetary policies.  This leads to a double dip recession in '38.
In '39 congress realizes the error of their ways, and restarts the new deal jobs programs.  From this point onward armament programs start to ramp up as well until by '43 we are in full war production mode.  These years break the record for fastest growth ever in our history that had previously been set in '32-'36.  By '43 unemployment is at levels that would be unsustainably low if the government weren't actively rationing everything and conscripting labor.

So in a nutshell in the depression we see that Laissez-faire lead to economic collapse both times it was tried and government intervention was accompanied by record setting economic expansion both times it was returned to.  Basically you couldn't come up with a worse period of history to argue against laissez faire in.  This is literally the worst laissez faire has ever done.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 20, 2012, 06:19:07 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 19, 2012, 11:45:00 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:22:05 pm

Any company worth its salt with a legitimately limited resource behind its supply (something the human race will not experience in our lifetimes, I assure you) they will do all they can to ensure that they can keep afloat. Generally, this results in finding the next suitable resource (such as nuclear power rather than fossil fuels), or remaking the resource (such as replanting trees with logging).

And you did a great job of illustrating the tunnel-vision short-sightedness of business perspective on sustainability.  Yeah, a logging business will plant new trees to ensure the long-term sustainability of their business.  They are ensuring the sustainability of the one single resource that relates to their business, while completely ignoring that a tree farm that gets regularly leveled is not a natural ecosystem.  That logging business does nothing to renew the resources that get destroyed besides their trees.  A tree farm hardly participates in the natural health of the planet.

To further explain, what SalmonGod is saying is that even though the company replants trees, just replanting does not renew the nutrients in the ground which the trees need to absorb to be able to grow, leading to a slow defertilisation of the land, leading to less and less trees being able to grow there, leading to worse and worse business for the logging company. In short, it's a chop-and-burn philosophy, if not as extreme as actual chop-and-burning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 20, 2012, 06:39:21 am

Global fishing would similarly risk obliterating fish stocks without regulation to limit their catches.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on July 20, 2012, 07:34:04 am

Quote from: scriver on July 20, 2012, 06:19:07 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 19, 2012, 11:45:00 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:22:05 pm

Any company worth its salt with a legitimately limited resource behind its supply (something the human race will not experience in our lifetimes, I assure you) they will do all they can to ensure that they can keep afloat. Generally, this results in finding the next suitable resource (such as nuclear power rather than fossil fuels), or remaking the resource (such as replanting trees with logging).

And you did a great job of illustrating the tunnel-vision short-sightedness of business perspective on sustainability.  Yeah, a logging business will plant new trees to ensure the long-term sustainability of their business.  They are ensuring the sustainability of the one single resource that relates to their business, while completely ignoring that a tree farm that gets regularly leveled is not a natural ecosystem.  That logging business does nothing to renew the resources that get destroyed besides their trees.  A tree farm hardly participates in the natural health of the planet.

To further explain, what SalmonGod is saying is that even though the company replants trees, just replanting does not renew the nutrients in the ground which the trees need to absorb to be able to grow, leading to a slow defertilisation of the land, leading to less and less trees being able to grow there, leading to worse and worse business for the logging company. In short, it's a chop-and-burn philosophy, if not as extreme as actual chop-and-burning.

True, though I was more referring to the fact that land is no longer habitable by wildlife as it once was.  A tree farm is not a forest.  It's an artificial space.  We're in the midst of a mass extinction, the most rapid the planet has ever seen, and habitat destruction is the #1 cause.  Cutting down a forest and replacing it with a tree farm is a prime example of habitat destruction.

You've also got to think what happens if someone new wants to get into the logging business.  They can't go and cut down some other company's tree farm.  They have to get access to their own natural forest, cut it down, and plant their own tree farm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 20, 2012, 07:58:56 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 20, 2012, 07:34:04 am

You've also got to think what happens if someone new wants to get into the logging business.  They can't go and cut down some other company's tree farm.  They have to get access to their own natural forest, cut it down, and plant their own tree farm.

Note to self: Buy failing tree farms, rent out space to fledgling logging companies for exorbitant rates. Include contractual loyalty standards and GM patent enforcement to keep market cornered until total ecological collapse. Build spaceship and go live on Mars.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 20, 2012, 04:22:48 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 20, 2012, 07:58:56 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on July 20, 2012, 07:34:04 am

You've also got to think what happens if someone new wants to get into the logging business.  They can't go and cut down some other company's tree farm.  They have to get access to their own natural forest, cut it down, and plant their own tree farm.

Note to self: Buy failing tree farms, rent out space to fledgling logging companies for exorbitant rates. Include contractual loyalty standards and GM patent enforcement to keep market cornered until total ecological collapse. Build spaceship and go live on Mars.

*ring ring* Yes? Sure, hold please.

Hey, it's Mitt Romney's campaign team, they want to hire you as their economics advisor. :p

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 20, 2012, 04:49:33 pm

Quote

Er, respectfully, wtf are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute

Ah, I thought that was intended in a metaphorical sense. My mistake. Nonetheless, my point still stands. In the long run, crooked execs who run their companies into the ground are not going to be rehired if they have a bad record of doing so, and over time the crooks with connections will be weeded out. Unfortunately there isn't much to be done in the short run besides jailing people who took stolen bailout money (something I wouldn't object to), but that's life.

Quote

And now you are making a false dichotomy; it isn't "we let everything go to shit, then we either fix it or we don't." The whole point of regulation is to not let everything go to shit to begin with.

Except regulation doesn't do a damn thing to prevent problems, it just creates larger problems in its own right. Again, once you have a single large regulator in charge of things, the first thing companies buy and sell is privilege from the regulator.

Quote

Two things here. First of all, 500 billion in QE is nothing. To demonstrate that point, let me point out to you that in the past 4 years, the fed has done a total of 2 TRILLION dollars of QE to buy up the morgage-backed securities. Inflation throughout this period of time was not only lower than than decade average, but was actually deflationary for a relatively extended period of time (most of '09).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#Amounts

Flawed argument. 2 Trillion in QE has had no effect because it failed so hard that the banks aren't even willing to lend out their money. In turn, because the banks are playing it safe, the money isn't making rounds in the economy and inflation isn't taking hold. Of the countries that have tried variations of Quantitative Easing before, the US is currently taking the route that Japan took (failure to even allow for inflation), whereas it could potentially take the route Germany took instead (Hyperinflation). It has, however, had a variety of unintended side effects that are going to cause problems later.

It is notable, though, that other countries are beginning to slowly dump US treasuries while prices of select goods (food, gold, etc) have been going up rather alarmingly. Were China, the Eurozone countries, etc not stuck in their own holes right now they'd very likely consider dropping their treasuries outright, which would precipitate a panic that might motivate those banks to let their money loose.

Quote

Secondly, while it has helped avert disaster, 500 billion is also probably not enough for a full economic recovery at this point so long as the systemic problems in the financial sector aren't remedied.

Well now there's an unfounded assumption.

Ignoring that, you do realize that you appear to be replying to my reply to this:

Quote

Get another 500 billion dollars from an economic recovery due to platinum coin type QU

right? I wasn't arguing that 500 billion in QE would be an unfounded disaster at this point, it was arguing that QE is not going to produce 500 billion in "recovery revenue" (unless it buys debt directly of course, which it won't).

Quote

As for social security, it is sustainable if and only if it is reformed to its original intent. That intent being to provide for those who live long enough above expected life expectancy as to make saving dry up (as living to 110 will eat through your savings if you expected and saved to live until 76). Essentially reduce it to something to prevent elderly destitution. The reason it is unsustainable is because it is given out at an age which most people are expected to live to, and as such everyone is able to get it for, on average, a full decade. Trying to provide enough funds during a 40-55 year working time to live comfortably for 10+ years is what is killing the system.

Increasing the age at which payouts occur, or decreasing the payouts, would indeed make the system solvent, but that simply moves the goalposts and turns it into a moral issue. I'd say the moral arguments specifically against raising the age or decreasing the payouts are obvious, so I'll focus on something else

Quote

That intent being to provide for those who live long enough above expected life expectancy as to make saving dry up (as living to 110 will eat through your savings if you expected and saved to live until 76).

That's all well and good if you assume Social Security is a net benefit to someone as it stands right now. However, lets look at a basic scenario:

Quote

A person born in 1988 making $30,000/year can expect to receive $1,539/month in the year 2058. The Social Security Administration says that he is expected to live until the ripe old age of 87. So that's another 17 years after retiring at the age of 70. The annuity present value of $1,539/month for 17 years at an annual rate of 5% is $212,938.88. In order to hit that target, he would have to set aside $1,132.50/year in a 5% security. This amount is only 3.775% of his $30,000 annual income.

Social Security and Medicare taxes are 15.3% of his income. If he invested that 15.3% of his income instead, he would be investing $4,590. Supposing that this annual contribution was invested each year for the next 48 years and the principal was collecting 5% interest, instead of the Social Security value of $212,938.88, he would have $863,036.55! That's a little more than four times the return that Social Security is "promising."

Or, to drive the nail home, he is paying $4,590 a year and is getting a future value of only $212,938.88. If he simply took that money and buried it in the dirt, he would have, after 48 years, $220,320! The bottom line is that, for today's 21-year-old, Social Security is a negative return.

(source: http://mises.org/daily/4595)

Social Security is, for the younger generations at least, daylight robbery. You get marginally more for your dollar's worth at the end of it, but looking at the way the dollar's value is going your purchasing power will be significantly less for the same amount of money. Being able to opt out of the system is the only reasonable solution, and frankly it doesn't deserve to exist if it can't justify its own existence as a profitable entity.

Quote

The reason why I'm saying that full employment would restore revenues rather then leading to ongoing stagnation is because I used the words "full employment".  You can take issue with the assertion that full employment is possible (by throwing out all of mainstream economic theory as it existed between 1946 and 2007).

In the context you're using "full employment" as (specifically, in the voodoo Keynesian sense), then yes I would say that it isn't possible. To call that "all mainstream economic theory from 1946 to 2007" is rather overstating things. More like "all mainstream economic theory from 1946-1974", whereupon the paradox of stagflation arose, Keynesian economists ran around like headless chickens, the US economy very nearly flew straight off a cliff, and a variety of other schools (Monetarists, Supply siders, etc) became the "mainstream economic theory". Keynesianism (in the US, at least) then made a comeback right around the time of the recession.

What I was really arguing with, though, was that assumption that revenue increases would suddenly equal 500 billion without any evidence or proof. That isn't an argument, that's a disguised variation of
Step 2. ?? ?? ?? ??
in the Underpants Gnome business model. "The economy will recover greatly and then tax revenues will go way up!" is not a valid argument, nor does it constitute a "deficit reduction plan".

Quote

However it's simple arithmetic that if you remove the decline in tax revenues associated with the recession and the increases in spending on things like unemployment insurance and SNAP benefits that it would help government revenues enormously.  The only optimism is in believing that US monetary and fiscal policy could be as successful as it has been in places like Sweden and China if we were as aggressive as in places like Sweden and China.

Not 500 billion worth. Again, Japan was "aggressive" and it has nothing to show for it except a debt of over 200% of its GDP. I'll get to Sweden and China later if you want, but believe me, they have problems of their own.

You also assume that the end of the Bush tax cuts, specifically the payroll tax cuts (which incentivize hiring on the part of employers), won't have any negative effects.

Quote

The recession didn't destroy our economic capacity.  It's not like a nuclear war.  People are unemployed not dead.  If the economy go back to it's normal capacity then... it would be back to it's normal capacity.

Yes indeed, but for the economy to get back to its normal capacity, it has to restructure along more efficient paths of production. If money is simply handed out to zombie companies, it creates a Potemkin Village of an economy that only offers the illusion of recovery.

Quote

That's not to say that you couldn't maybe save more money by reforming military spending or agricultural subsidies or by taking food out of the mouths of starving children.  Those are all quite possible.  I'm just saying that your basic "things that are already legislated and would happen if congress never passed another law" package includes:

Well now that's not a false dichotomy or anything. But if you want, I can make a bigger list of things that could be cut. In fact, let's take things farther. Departments that could be slashed:

Agriculture      Grows no crops.    

$19 billion

Commerce  Makes and sells nothing

$6 billion

Education Educates no one
   
$34  billion

Energy Jimmy Carter’s idea—need I say more?
   
$17 billion

HHS  Dump the FDA, our most lethal agency. Whatever
else HHS does, it’s bad.     

$54 billion

HUD Nukes. You already have DoD for this sort of thing.

$37 billion

Interior    An independent nation larger than France.    

$9 billion

Labor Engages in no actual labor.    

$12 billion

Transportation  A mess of pork barrel spending. (Keep the Coast Guard)    

$48 billion

Corps of Engineers Causes floods.
   
$4 billion

FEMA Extremely poor handling of floods/disasters (caused by the Corps of Engineers)

$3 billion

EPA    Terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection, could be put into an amalgamated department relating to land use.   

$7 billion

Foreign Aid Retirement fund for corrupt dictators.
   
$11 billion

NASA  Challenger.

$14 billion

SBA    They only waste a billion dollars each year, but they waste it magnificently.    

$1 billion

There you go, a bit over $275 billion cut, and all from smaller sources of spending. Already I've generated a gigantic surplus, and keep in mind my budget plan (if you could call it that) generates a surplus long before you even slash these departments.

Quote

1) Afghanistan and Iraq withdraw.
2) Expiration of the Bush tax cuts

and if the Fed and Treasury did their job properly then in a few years we'd have:

3) Return to full employment

This point needs repeating.

Step 1: Let the tax cuts expire
Step 2: Withdraw from specific foreign wars
Step 3: More Quantitative Easing
Step 4: ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
Step 5: BUDGET SURPLUS

Quote

In '29 the economy melts down at a stunning rate.  Hoover sticks to laissez faire and for his troubles he watches the economy to continue to collapse for another three years.  This is the fastest economic collapse in US history and it all took place before FDR was even in office to start the new deal.

I know this isn't aimed at me, but this is an incredible myth. Hoover did not believe in Laissez-Faire in the slightest, he engaged in massive government intervention to get the US out of depression. Many of FDR's "New Deal" programs were simply refurbished Hooverite programs, and he actually campaigned AGAINST Hoover's government programs while trying to get elected.

Furthermore, in 1920, Hoover advocated government spending to get the US out of recession and was completely ignored. Instead, Warren Harding drastically cut taxes (far more than what Bush cut, by the way), drastically cut spending, and sat back. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve did nothing and waited as well. The recession lasted from 1920-21, featured a very deep economic collapse, and then led into the growth and recovery of the 1920s. Of course, Keynesians like to ignore the 1920 recession because it distinctly goes against their view of how economic collapses should occur.

Quote

The new deal started in summer of '33 when FDR was elected along with a massive new deal majority (80% of congress supported him) and pushes through massive new regulations, spending and taxes in the first 100 days.  Far from extending the depression, it lead to double digit economic recovery.  The unemployment rate drops from 35% to 15% in just six years.  This is the fastest economic recovery in US history and it took place as regulations and taxes increased enormously.

Quote

Far from extending the depression, it lead to double digit economic recovery.

In GDP. You would find that government spending as a proportion of the economy rose rather drastically at the same time, so it's somewhat misleading.

Quote

The unemployment rate drops from 35% to 15% in just six years.

First of all, that isn't quite true. It was extremely sporadic, to say it dropped just like that is incredibly misleading. Second, despite this, a LOT of those jobs were make-work jobs that contributed nothing to the economy and EVEN THEN unemployment didn't return to levels of the 1920s for quite some time.

Meanwhile, the Forgotten Depression of 1920-21 featured a massive bounce back that more than made up for lost time, AND it was accomplished through deregulation, tax cuts, and an inactive central bank. Even previous panics (such as the so-called "Long Depression" of 1871) featured far more growth and less unemployment than the Great Depression. Comparing the Great Depression to such economic problems pretty clearly shows which method works better   ;)

Quote

In '37 congress is getting nervous about the size of the government so they cut down on new deal spending greatly and pursue deflationary monetary policies.  This leads to a double dip recession in '38.

In '37 various labor disputes came to the fore. It's worth noting that one of the few things FDR did right was not trying as hard as Hoover did to keep wages high, which is a huge reason as to why unemployment was so high. If you look at wages throughout the Great Depression, you'll find that wages were unrealistically high for a lot of it because Hoover was against wage cuts to allow for reallocation of resources and rehiring. I can get into more detail with this one if you want.

Quote

In '39 congress realizes the error of their ways, and restarts the new deal jobs programs.  From this point onward armament programs start to ramp up as well until by '43 we are in full war production mode.  These years break the record for fastest growth ever in our history that had previously been set in '32-'36.  By '43 unemployment is at levels that would be unsustainably low if the government weren't actively rationing everything and conscripting labor.

'39 is something I can deal with later, but it seems you think WW2 was a great creator of prosperity, which is a rather odd thing to think.

WW2 created jobs, yes. Most of those jobs either involved joining the military or working in a factory producing war materials. There was rationing of basic consumer goods and labour was very heavily controlled (I recall the army being sent into Detroit to stop striking workers on different occasions). The fare of the common man during WW2 was, if anything, worse than during the Depression, since at least during the depression his wages weren't controlled and his choice of consumer goods wasn't restricted. The one good thing about WW2 was that it also resulted in the end of many of FDR's programs once it was over due to general public dissatisfaction with government control of the economy during the war. 1945 then featured a brief recession and then growth as a result of savings accumulated during the war alongside the end of the New Deal.

Quote

So in a nutshell in the depression we see that Laissez-faire lead to economic collapse both times it was tried and government intervention was accompanied by record setting economic expansion both times it was returned to.  Basically you couldn't come up with a worse period of history to argue against laissez faire in.  This is literally the worst laissez faire has ever done.

Again, 1920-21 (Laissez Faire solutions) vs 1929-41 (Interventionist solutions) demonstrates pretty clearly that Laissez Faire is the far more successful option. Unfortunately, the side effect of successful ends to recessions is that they aren't considered noteworthy if they don't hit hard/end quickly.

Quote

To further explain, what SalmonGod is saying is that even though the company replants trees, just replanting does not renew the nutrients in the ground which the trees need to absorb to be able to grow, leading to a slow defertilisation of the land, leading to less and less trees being able to grow there, leading to worse and worse business for the logging company. In short, it's a chop-and-burn philosophy, if not as extreme as actual chop-and-burning.

Depends on the regulations and controls in a given country.

In the US, what happens (correct me if I'm wrong) at a lot of the time is that the Federal Government leases/lends out land for companies to "farm". These companies don't own the land and cut as much as they can while they have the chance, leading to clear cutting. In some places there are outright tree farms, but various environmental standards make the feasibility of operating the same parcel of land for a long period of time low.

In "socialist" Sweden, however, tree farms are far more common, operate under far less regulations, and are far more successful in terms of ecological sustainability. Since the Swedish companies operating tree farms know that they'll probably be running them for a long time, they're quite careful to not cut too many and ruin the nutrients of the soil. Furthermore, (I think, anyway; I'm not a professional logger) they grow different trees so that they have a constant supply yet only cut as many as they need, leaving a relatively steady amount of different kinds of trees to keep the soil in good condition.

I may be wrong of course, but I'd say that the Swedish method works far more, and in this case it also happens to be the market method of solving such problems (hence why categorizing countries by the broad measures of "Socialist" or "Capitalist" isn't always a good idea).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 20, 2012, 06:31:37 pm

Your department cuts seem a little... strange.

The Department of Education doesn't educate anyone directly, no. But it does facilitate the learning of students via organizing teachers and teaching standards, as well as overseeing the State boards of education, which build and maintain schools.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Department of the Interior being a larger independent country than France.

The Army Corps of Engineers built the Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, and many other projects, and they continue to do such things. Flooding is a natural part of making a dam, I guess, but well worth producing enough power to light entire cities. (And run the Panama Canal, even!) If anything, we need more of this kind of thing: improving infrastructure creates both short-term and long-term jobs.

The Department of Transportation also improves infrastructure and maintains existing highways. It's messy, but someone has to do it. (It could use some streamlining.)

FEMA makes a smaller mess out of larger messes. If I were living in New Orleans, I would much rather have food and a tent provided by messy FEMA than starve in the flooded streets without them.

And... NASA. Challenger blew up, yes. Why we should slash their already meager budget is beyond me. If we're to make a Lunar (or Martian, Cerian, Asteroidian, etc) colony large enough to apply for statehoood (Aaaaand back to the thread topic via Gingrich), we'll need to know more about space and have a program with the wherewithal to start.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on July 20, 2012, 08:10:33 pm

Not sure if this was pointed out before, but the Great Depression had this nasty situation that went on of soil erosion and drought damaging the food production base of the United States, which sent  food prices soaring, making families that barely made it starve. It was this starvation and not the fact that families had no money that encouraged the establishment of the safety net. Now why does this matter? Because we are coming to a situation where we will not make much progress on economic recovery no matter what happens (this so called fiscal cliff's best projected course is staying on our curren5t path of slow growth, with most projections much worse). That doesn't matter a hill of beans. Soybeans that is. A hill of soybeans represents a foundation crop for the food industry. Another big one is corn. Another big one is potatos.
Corn's been hit hard thiis year. The jury's out on soybeans. Potatoes don't seem troubled yet.

Corn based prices are about to go up. This is a lot of the meat markets. The American dream of 99 cent hamburgers is about to go away. Probably permanantly, unless the dollar experiences deflation, which the Fed won't allow.

Now our markets are pretty diverse and we shouldn't starve,  but we are starting to get the elements of a real great depression. This will probably be felt first in late November. After the election.

Why put that here? Because it's going to be realized before the election. Expect a major change in the campaign messages to focus on this soon. I have no clue who will change first. Farmers are generally conservative, but Republicans sometimes seem to forget money represents real labor by someone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 20, 2012, 10:44:32 pm

If you are going to just blithely assume that the every department in the government does nothing productive when you actually have no expertise at all in their affairs then it's pretty obvious that no argument will convince you.

And if you say '29-'41 was interventionist policies then you are ignorant about history.  '29 was when your precious free markets were given the chance to fail and they did miserably.  Read the damn campaign platform of Herbert Hoover.  Look at the size of government under him.  Read his speech against giving the bonus marchers their money.  Saying his interventionist policies were sabotaging the economy just shows that when your ideas failed in history you change history to suit your ideas.

Here's what Hoover had to say about the national recovery act in '36, after it had already cut unemployment in half and then some:

Quote

IN REPLY to your question, the one right answer by the House of Representatives to the Senate's action extending the life of the NRA is to abolish it entirely.

Yeah, so don't blame hoover's mess on the new deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 28, 2012, 11:01:47 pm

A conservative, a moderate, and a liberal walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, Mitt!", followed by "What's a Mormon doing in a bar, anyway?"

Jokes aside, my emails from the Democrats reveal that Mittens is outspending Lightning Handsome Slightly Bent in several swing states, and now it's a dead even race in most swing states. All sorts of screaming about fundraising, plus more petitions for the original Healthcare Harbinger to release his tax forms.

_{(I guessed at the translation of Obama's name from a Kiswahili name lookup site, and I thought Healthcare Harbinger sounded like a lame wrestling name and it made me giggle. >_>)}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on July 29, 2012, 07:43:07 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 20, 2012, 04:49:33 pm

Quote

And now you are making a false dichotomy; it isn't "we let everything go to shit, then we either fix it or we don't." The whole point of regulation is to not let everything go to shit to begin with.

Except regulation doesn't do a damn thing to prevent problems, it just creates larger problems in its own right. Again, once you have a single large regulator in charge of things, the first thing companies buy and sell is privilege from the regulator.

Doesn't this happen whether you have regulations or not? It just seems to be businesses wanting to change laws to their own advantage which, unless you remove all law and enforcement, will persist so long as people with great wealth live in a state comprised of people that don't. Making a statement that laws that are enforced not stopping anyone does seem a little extreme. The regulation of traffic for example, it's a little hard to argue that every single dangerous driver doesn't care about the possibility of being caught.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on July 29, 2012, 02:46:09 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 20, 2012, 04:49:33 pm

Quote

And now you are making a false dichotomy; it isn't "we let everything go to shit, then we either fix it or we don't." The whole point of regulation is to not let everything go to shit to begin with.

Except regulation doesn't do a damn thing to prevent problems, it just creates larger problems in its own right. Again, once you have a single large regulator in charge of things, the first thing companies buy and sell is privilege from the regulator.

Good regulation does indeed prevent or reduce a whole host of problems. When you say that regulation doesn't do a damn thing to prevent problems, you are regurgitating a fabrication.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 29, 2012, 04:35:40 pm

Quote from: Flare on July 29, 2012, 07:43:07 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 20, 2012, 04:49:33 pm

Quote

And now you are making a false dichotomy; it isn't "we let everything go to shit, then we either fix it or we don't." The whole point of regulation is to not let everything go to shit to begin with.

Except regulation doesn't do a damn thing to prevent problems, it just creates larger problems in its own right. Again, once you have a single large regulator in charge of things, the first thing companies buy and sell is privilege from the regulator.

Doesn't this happen whether you have regulations or not? It just seems to be businesses wanting to change laws to their own advantage which, unless you remove all law and enforcement, will persist so long as people with great wealth live in a state comprised of people that don't. Making a statement that laws that are enforced not stopping anyone does seem a little extreme. The regulation of traffic for example, it's a little hard to argue that every single dangerous driver doesn't care about the possibility of being caught.

In the context of my argument, there is such a thing as successful regulation, specifically, market regulation. Might I mention that those banks making stupid loans were on the verge of going under, only saved by the intervention of the US government? The vast majority of these problems of which the prescribed solution is "more regulation" would be solved, in fact, with less.

Anyway, traffic regulation is an entirely different matter and if you get me onto the subject of roads then the discussion would be derailed. Suffice to say financial and infrastructural regulations are quite a bit different, not in the least because driving stupidly results in death whereas gambling with vast amounts of other people's money results in a bailout and favourable loans from the Fed.

Quote

The Department of Education doesn't educate anyone directly, no. But it does facilitate the learning of students via organizing teachers and teaching standards, as well as overseeing the State boards of education, which build and maintain schools.

Sure doesn't do a very good job of it. I'm not seeing how the states running their own education systems (as is the case in such backward places as Canada) would make things much worse than they are.

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by the Department of the Interior being a larger independent country than France.

It possesses more land than France, and covers an absurd range of duties, most of which could be sent off to other departments.

Quote

The Army Corps of Engineers built the Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, and many other projects, and they continue to do such things. Flooding is a natural part of making a dam, I guess, but well worth producing enough power to light entire cities. (And run the Panama Canal, even!) If anything, we need more of this kind of thing: improving infrastructure creates both short-term and long-term jobs.

Extremely expensive projects that have unintended consequences.

Hoover Dam is probably the best example. Lots of energy, created Lake Mead! However, this led to unsustainable development and the growth of crops requiring lots of water. End result? Lake Mead is drying up and all those people who thought there was lots of water in the area are being royally shafted. That isn't even a direct problem caused by the Corps of Engineers!

Quote

The Department of Transportation also improves infrastructure and maintains existing highways. It's messy, but someone has to do it. (It could use some streamlining.)

It also is responsible for such worthwhile projects as the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska and is primarily used for pork barrel spending. As with Education, the states themselves could handle most infrastructure, and so long as the government runs the Interstate highways they could be put under control of the Department of Defense (seeing as how they were originally justified as being for defense purposes).

Quote

FEMA makes a smaller mess out of larger messes. If I were living in New Orleans, I would much rather have food and a tent provided by messy FEMA than starve in the flooded streets without them.

FEMA did the following things during Hurricane Katrina:

Quote

FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/84aa35cc-1da8-11da-b40b-00000e..
 
FEMA turns away experienced firefighters
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/5/105538/7048
 
FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspec..
 
FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspec..
 
FEMA won't let Red Cross deliver food
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05246/565143.stm
 
FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15147862&BRD=...
 
FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/3/171718/0826
 
FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509..
 
FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050902dale..
 
FEMA turns away generators
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWLBLOG.ac3fcea.html
 
FEMA: "First Responders Urged Not To Respond"
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18470

If ever there was an example of the government failing hard, you would be hard pressed to find a better example than FEMA. Unlike a lot of the other examples on the list (most of which aren't terribly bad at their jobs or dangerous), FEMA is something that actively makes things worse and has few to no redeeming qualities.

Quote

And... NASA. Challenger blew up, yes. Why we should slash their already meager budget is beyond me. If we're to make a Lunar (or Martian, Cerian, Asteroidian, etc) colony large enough to apply for statehoood (Aaaaand back to the thread topic via Gingrich), we'll need to know more about space and have a program with the wherewithal to start.

Why should the federal government be funding space colonies when it can't keep itself solvent?

----

Quote

'29 was when your precious free markets were given the chance to fail and they did miserably.

 Read the damn campaign platform of Herbert Hoover.[/quote]

Certainly. I read some of what Hoover had to say, and here it is:

Quote

    We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times…. For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered…. They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.

    Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for … "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.

Quote

Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action….

HERBERT HOOVER: CHAMPION OF LAISSEZ FAIRE

Besides what he said, what did Herbert Hoover do? Well, here's him slashing federal spending, the laissez faire solution to economic problems:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CzRAYlRsO40/TjtlWVKMxeI/AAAAAAAAB4M/_q1cEb3w7t8/s1600/FederalSpending.png)

Note the "1920" point, where Harding drastically cut spending in reaction to the Depression of 1920. Now note 1929-32, when Herbert Hoover was running the show. Whoops! Looks like Herbert actually increased spending!

I'm not even going to get into all the programs that Hoover started or the details of his own New Deal, but believe me, I can if you want.

Quote

Look at the size of government under him.  Read his speech against giving the bonus marchers their money.  Saying his interventionist policies were sabotaging the economy just shows that when your ideas failed in history you change history to suit your ideas.

Yeah. Uh-huh. He sure cut the size of government when he increased federal spending by nearly 25%.

Again, every piece of actual evidence here says Hoover was an interventionist. I provided a counter example, the Depression of 1920, in which the government actually DID undertake a Laissez Faire policy to ending the depression which actually worked completely and you ignored it. Just looking at charts of government spending and unemployment from those twenty years makes it woefully clear which way worked better.

Quote

Good regulation does indeed prevent or reduce a whole host of problems. When you say that regulation doesn't do a damn thing to prevent problems, you are regurgitating a fabrication.

Good regulation does not stem from the government, it stems from market corrections that the government won't allow to happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on July 29, 2012, 04:56:00 pm

As thread proprietor, I'm going to ask that you stop making posts like that.  Not that I'm arguing with you, I didn't read half of it, but because massive uncredited line-by-line quotewalls are ugly to look at, usually pretty inflammatory and prone to starting or continuing arguments, and impossible to coherently respond to.  If you can't surmise an argument in a more contiguous form, you may not have as much of a point to make as you think you do.

And holy crap that's a big image.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 29, 2012, 05:06:04 pm

The forum software doesn't lend itself to image downsizing unfortunately. I'll try to find a smaller one

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 29, 2012, 05:07:29 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 29, 2012, 05:06:04 pm

The forum software doesn't lend itself to image downsizing unfortunately. I'll try to find a smaller one

Code: [Select]

[img width=bluh][/img] or [img height=bluh][/img] scales the image to fit the selected dimension.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 29, 2012, 05:13:30 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on July 29, 2012, 05:07:29 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 29, 2012, 05:06:04 pm

The forum software doesn't lend itself to image downsizing unfortunately. I'll try to find a smaller one

Code: [Select]

[img width=bluh][/img] or [img height=bluh][/img] scales the image to fit the selected dimension.

You, good sir, are hero.

Now, I'll go back and trim the post a bit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on July 29, 2012, 05:31:39 pm

You can also just put big images in spoiler tags, that works fine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on July 29, 2012, 07:19:13 pm

I don't want to do your job Aqizzar, but if the communist-baby-eater and the libertarian-fachist-puppies-rapers want to have an argument on economic policy, should'nt they start their own thread?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on July 29, 2012, 07:22:36 pm

Quote from: Sheb on July 29, 2012, 07:19:13 pm

I don't want to do your job Aqizzar, but if the communist-baby-eater and the libertarian-fachist-puppies-rapers want to have an argument on economic policy, should'nt they start their own thread?

I would appreciate it, but it's not like there's not already a billion of them sunk down in the depths of the boards, all stuffed with the exact same arguments.  I'd say at least there's a hint of context to the argument if its here, but there never is, just people arguing back and forth about the merits of government spending with increasingly thin sources of information.

Besides, it's not like there's much in the way of politics to talk about, aside from posting bootleg videos of Daily Show clips.  Like that one of Romney criticizing Obama's speech the other day, intercut with Romney giving an almost verbatim speech a few weeks prior.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on July 29, 2012, 07:25:31 pm

Well, I saw my first Obama advert the other day, featuring the man himself. Kinda interesting when most political ads just have that "I'm X and I approve this message" tacked on the end.

That's relevant, right? :I

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on July 29, 2012, 10:24:07 pm

This Doonesbury comic made me laugh. Discuss.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/doonesbury-romney-kids-money.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on July 29, 2012, 10:35:58 pm

I feel that the President's children, being minors, should probably be kept out of politics as much as possible, so good on Obama if he actually does hate using his family for ads and stuff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on July 30, 2012, 03:28:26 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 29, 2012, 04:35:40 pm

In the context of my argument

That's what I get for jumping into discussions in the middle :'(.

Quote

Anyway, traffic regulation is an entirely different matter and if you get me onto the subject of roads then the discussion would be derailed. Suffice to say financial and infrastructural regulations are quite a bit different, not in the least because driving stupidly results in death whereas gambling with vast amounts of other people's money results in a bailout and favourable loans from the Fed.

Driving stupidly doesn't necessarily result in death though, it might mean the death of someone else, and, assuming you survive, landing yourself in a jail cell which does seem to be the case for only a few people that brought about the banking crisis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 10:53:26 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 20, 2012, 04:49:33 pm

Good regulation does not stem from the government, it stems from market corrections that the government won't allow to happen.

Provably FALSE. There was no market correction to deal with blue milk. Or borax laced rotten meat sausages. The only thing that ended the intentional poisoning of people for profit was the establishment of the FDA, and as a result of that the cases of food born illness and poisoning have dropped from a universal occurrence to one rare enough to be news worthy in the US.

The free market is an idealized model that can not exist in reality because it assumes that there is absolute information transparency and responsibility on the part of all actors and that all costs are paid.

If a producer is allowed to misrepresent what his product is, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. If the buyer does not know what he is buying, he can not make an informed choice on the market.

If a producer is allowed to avoid paying some of the production costs, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. For instance by dumping waste in an unsafe manner, to be paid for by the cost in public health or harm to other industries. Or by simply choosing to not not honor a contract with a supplier.

Regulation prevents, reduces and mitigates these factors, and makes the market MORE free by reducing the influence of bad actors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 11:27:25 am

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 10:53:26 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 20, 2012, 04:49:33 pm

Good regulation does not stem from the government, it stems from market corrections that the government won't allow to happen.

Provably FALSE. There was no market correction to deal with blue milk. Or borax laced rotten meat sausages. The only thing that ended the intentional poisoning of people for profit was the establishment of the FDA, and as a result of that the cases of food born illness and poisoning have dropped from a universal occurrence to one rare enough to be news worthy in the US.

The free market is an idealized model that can not exist in reality because it assumes that there is absolute information transparency and responsibility on the part of all actors and that all costs are paid.

If a producer is allowed to misrepresent what his product is, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. If the buyer does not know what he is buying, he can not make an informed choice on the market.

If a producer is allowed to avoid paying some of the production costs, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. For instance by dumping waste in an unsafe manner, to be paid for by the cost in public health or harm to other industries. Or by simply choosing to not not honor a contract with a supplier.

Regulation prevents, reduces and mitigates these factors, and makes the market MORE free by reducing the influence of bad actors.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS.

if you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

The one big difference is that, being a non-democratic system means that when somebody fucks up bad enough to embarrass the whole country and damage their credibility (like the melamine-tainted milk scandal), shit gets done and heads roll (or wind up filled with lead). If this was China, guys like Bernie Madoff would have gotten a one-day kangaroo trial, then taken out back and unceremoniously shot in the head. Along with the governnment officials at the SEC that weren't doing their jobs. And the hedge fund managers at Magnetar. And the execs at Countrywide. And the top staff at Lehman Brothers.

And honestly....I think a LOT of people would have applauded a draconian response like that. Because we're so used to seeing guilty rich people get off with barely a slap on the wrist.

That said, China is increasingly suffering the same "revolving door" problem that the U.S. has. Banking minister becomes head of a major bank, head of another major bank becomes the new banking minister.  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 11:30:55 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 11:27:25 am

If you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

Pros: You can buy anything.

Cons: You can buy anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 12:27:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 11:30:55 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 11:27:25 am

If you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

Pros: You can buy anything.

Cons: You can buy anything.

I think I'd phrase it more as

Pro: You can buy anything.
Con: People can sell you anything.

If you can figure out a way to market lead paint chips as "Mighty Dragon Tears" and claim that it will give you sexual potency and make your children smarter....there's a market for that.

If you can douse rat meat in enough cumin and sell it as lamb chuan...there's a market for that. (I'm not saying I ate rat, I'm saying that the delicious 10-cent skewers of chuan that I purchased off a dude grilling them on a chunk of steel I-beam on the street corner at 3 in the morning probably didn't go through rigorous FDA inspection, y'know?)

If you can convince people to work for subsistence wages with virtually no safety gear at all (such as arc welding on the 80th story of a new skyscraper with no safety harness and no welding mask)...there is a SERIOUS market for that.


Shanghai is one of the most utterly Randian dystopias I can think of. Dudes in gleaming Maseratis and three-piece tailored Italian suits literally stepping over dudes who lost all their limbs and half their face due to industrial accidents. The juxtaposition of uberwealth and utter poverty is so stark and so omnipresent. It really makes me wish more evangelists of Capitalism would go visit and see what their "invisible hand" hath wrought.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on July 30, 2012, 12:47:25 pm

Such tours will of course be meticulously vetted and moderated...  Yes?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 30, 2012, 12:49:44 pm

(Note: I'm trying advanced new methods of linking quotes so as to avoid the whole "missing context" problem)

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 10:53:26 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 20, 2012, 04:49:33 pm

Good regulation does not stem from the government, it stems from market corrections that the government won't allow to happen.

Provably FALSE. There was no market correction to deal with blue milk. Or borax laced rotten meat sausages. The only thing that ended the intentional poisoning of people for profit was the establishment of the FDA, and as a result of that the cases of food born illness and poisoning have dropped from a universal occurrence to one rare enough to be news worthy in the US.

Oh dear. I'm already debating the Great Depression, regulation during the present recession, the merits of ending a bunch of agencies, and now you want me to point out the problems with the FDA?! Oh well, I guess I have to now.

So you think it was just the FDA that dropped food poisoning instances in the US? Not the invention and spread of modern refrigeration technology, not advances in antibiotics, just the FDA. Well, okay then.

Seeing as how you say "Provably FALSE" though, I'd like to see some actual evidence or sources here, rather than declarations that it is PROVEN.

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 10:53:26 am

The free market is an idealized model that can not exist in reality because it assumes that there is absolute information transparency and responsibility on the part of all actors and that all costs are paid.

Uh, no it doesn't. Uncertainty and a lack of information are inherently factored into the market. If there was no uncertainty, then there would be constant equilibrium in the market. On that note, the government has all the problems of the free market with the bonus of having no competition and being subject to no other controls except its own.

There are such things as fraud and so on, but those are crimes and rightfully so. Even in the perfect system there would be problems like that. It sounds like you're trying for a Nirvana Fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy)

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 10:53:26 am

If a producer is allowed to misrepresent what his product is, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. If the buyer does not know what he is buying, he can not make an informed choice on the market.

Well, if he's lying outright, that's fraud. Enforcing fraud is no more regulation than enforcing laws against murder or other forms of coercion.

Besides that, you might notice that we have something called the internet these days. Companies that make even minor misrepresentations of their products are quickly called out, boycotted, embarrassed, etc even before or without government regulation. Misrepresentation isn't good business practice.

Even in the 19th century, companies that lied or produced shoddy products didn't do so well. You might notice that "Dr.Murphy's Miracle Elixir" was not dominating the market of medical products at any point.

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 10:53:26 am

If a producer is allowed to avoid paying some of the production costs, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. For instance by dumping waste in an unsafe manner, to be paid for by the cost in public health or harm to other industries. Or by simply choosing to not not honor a contract with a supplier.

Normally I would split this up, by the new quoting method takes an irritatingly long time so I'll do it in one go:

-Dumping waste in an unsafe manner constitutes property violation. Originally, companies that polluted the land of others (especially trains passing through farmland) were sued into becoming unviable economically. It was only when the government stepped in to set legal limits on pollution in the name of "progress" that such things became a major problem.

-Not honouring a contract with a supplier would, again, be known as "fraud". Even assuming there was no government, there WOULD be contract agencies that would cover such things. As is, enforcing laws against fraud is something that the government is actually supposed to do.

Now, onto the next,

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 11:27:25 am

if you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

China? Where the government builds empty cities to boost its GDP and apparent growth? Where all property is "leased" from the government and can be revoked at any time? Where the entire financial system is run directly by the government? Where licensing and regulations are, in fact, prohibitively high for any non-Communist party members, and sufficiently large that the government can basically seize everything whenever it wants because you violated some insignificant regulation? The country ranked 125th in economic freedom? (http://www.heritage.org/index/country/china) THAT China?

Ha ha ha ha!

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 12:27:36 pm

Shanghai is one of the most utterly Randian dystopias I can think of. Dudes in gleaming Maseratis and three-piece tailored Italian suits literally stepping over dudes who lost all their limbs and half their face due to industrial accidents. The juxtaposition of uberwealth and utter poverty is so stark and so omnipresent. It really makes me wish more evangelists of Capitalism would go visit and see what their "invisible hand" hath wrought.

Again, China is a shining example of capitalism the same way Yeltsin's Russia was. But let me ask, do you think it was better under full Maoism in the 1970s? What do you think things were like then?

Well, there weren't three piece Italian suits, but there were comparatively wealthy Communist party members, technology was stuck in the 1940s, and everyone was starving. I'd say that for all of China's problems, they're better off now compared to previously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on July 30, 2012, 01:06:17 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 12:27:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 11:30:55 am

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 11:27:25 am

But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East.

My question to GreatJustice would be what he knows about the above quote. I haven't much knowledge about that admitably but I wasn't the one brushing it aside as nothing.

He is correct at least though by referencing the time that he did in that by restoring tradition regional marketplaces taken away in the Great Leap Forward the Chinese improved the rural peasant's quality of life in that millions were not starving so that the urban manufacturing centers could have low wages for cheap exports via food sold at under global prices. Though that was not necessarily the cause as it was the desired end instead of the means; the means which caused the trouble was forcing for example regions that aren't good for wheat harvesting to grow wheat because the Chinese leadership were afraid the Soviets or others would invade and split the country in two, and parts of the country would not be self sufficient as far as feeding themselves. Once that policy was remedied the country surpassed pre-Leap production rates for grain after a few years if I remember correctly. It also allowed areas that are better suited to grow say cooking oil crops to trade those for grain whereas those areas previously had been forced to grow grain which ironically caused starvation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 01:23:37 pm

Refrigeration has existed for over 260 years. It literally predates the American Revolution. Its widespread adoption took place only after the safeguards and regulations that were imposed by the FDA (and its local and state predecessors). Antibiotics do not prevent food poisoning, rigorous adherence to safety and sanitary protocols does. Particularly when the poison was an intentional additive, as was the case of blue milk (milk watered down and treated with poison that was frequently sold to the urban poor in the 19th century) and borax laced rotten meat sausages that I previously mentioned. 

How can I prove it false? The simple fact that there exists regulation that does good proves that your statement is absolutely false and absurd.

Re: the nature of the free market. Uh. Yes it does. Go on, read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Read almost anything not pushed directly by manipulators like the heritage foundation.

You actually think for a moment that a barely survivingdead farmer or coal miner was able to file suit against a transnational corporation and actually win a redress of his grievances is the old days before consumer protection? History does not bear that out, at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Quote from: Zangi on July 30, 2012, 12:47:25 pm

Such tours will of course be meticulously vetted and moderated...  Yes?

Nah, I was kinda thinking of blindfolding them and dumping them off on a side street near Tongren Lu (seedy bar / massage parlor section). Kudos to them if they emerge with most of their shit still intact.

Quote

Quote

if you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

China? Where the government builds empty cities to boost its GDP and apparent growth? Where all property is "leased" from the government and can be revoked at any time? Where the entire financial system is run directly by the government? Where licensing and regulations are, in fact, prohibitively high for any non-Communist party members, and sufficiently large that the government can basically seize everything whenever it wants because you violated some insignificant regulation? The country ranked 125th in economic freedom? (http://www.heritage.org/index/country/china) THAT China?

Ha ha ha ha!

Yes, THAT China, laughing boy.
Yes, licensing and regulations are a big snarl of red tape. Which is promptly sidestepped by using guanxi (system of favors and connections), or just flat-out ignored.
That dude selling the "lamb" skewers? I don't think he bothered with getting a vendor permit. Neither do any of the peddlers who come to the night markets and proffer every kind of ripoff and pirated merchandise you can dream of. The police don't bother them as long as they don't cause trouble. And if the police do come, they just scatter and set up shop a few blocks away.
At the micro level, China is one of the most unregulated, entrepeneurial societes on Earth. There's a common misunderstanding that says the Chinese can't understand capitalism because they had 50 years of Maoism. Which sort of ignores that the Chinese were practicing trade and commerce for about 3000 years prior to that. It's in their blood, in the culture. Haggling and trading (and trying to come out on top of any deal) are inherent in the society.

Note that I was talking about the SEZs. Free enterprise and private ownership (and even foreign investment, to a certain extent) is flourishing there. In some ways it's analogous to the US at the turn of the 20th century: booming urban centers in the Northeast and a few other places like Chicago and St. Louis and Milwaukee, and economically depressed agrarian land over much of the rest of the country. That drove an exodus of rural people to the cities in search of prosperity. China is seeing the same thing now.

Your Heritage ranking thing doesn't impress me. Mostly because Heritage Foundation has all the credibility of a rain-soaked copy of the Weekly World News (the guys who cover Batboy sightings and such). If you're going to invoke a right-wing thinktank, at least use the Cato Institute.

Quote

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 12:27:36 pm

Shanghai is one of the most utterly Randian dystopias I can think of. Dudes in gleaming Maseratis and three-piece tailored Italian suits literally stepping over dudes who lost all their limbs and half their face due to industrial accidents. The juxtaposition of uberwealth and utter poverty is so stark and so omnipresent. It really makes me wish more evangelists of Capitalism would go visit and see what their "invisible hand" hath wrought.

Again, China is a shining example of capitalism the same way Yeltsin's Russia was. But let me ask, do you think it was better under full Maoism in the 1970s? What do you think things were like then?

Well, there weren't three piece Italian suits, but there were comparatively wealthy Communist party members, technology was stuck in the 1940s, and everyone was starving. I'd say that for all of China's problems, they're better off now compared to previously.

Way to light that straw man. I never said it was better under Mao. But the income disparity wasn't even in the same galaxy as what it is now. Hell, even US income disparity is paltry compared to modern China. If we're talking about "the 1%", China would be talking about "the 0.01%". On the whole, the reforms started by Deng Xiaoping and expanded by his successors have brought tremendous progress to China. But to view it as "a rising tide lifts all boats" type of phenomenon is to grossly misunderstand what has occurred in China in the last 33 years. The irony of a bigger disparity and a *more* plutocratic power structure than ours evolving in one of the last self-professed "Communist" countries is never lost on me. I almost wonder at times if they're just trying to get Mao's corpse to spin fast enough that they can use it as a power source.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 02:07:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Your Heritage ranking thing doesn't impress me. Mostly because Heritage Foundation has all the credibility of a rain-soaked copy of the Weekly World News (the guys who cover Batboy sightings and such). If you're going to invoke a right-wing thinktank, at least use the Cato Institute.

Not to mention, the Most Economically Free Place On Earth according to the Heritage Foundation themselves? Hong Kong (http://www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong), an autonomous zone of China.

Quote

Way to light that straw man. I never said it was better under Mao. But the income disparity wasn't even in the same galaxy as what it is now. Hell, even US income disparity is paltry compared to modern China. If we're talking about "the 1%", China would be talking about "the 0.01%".

China may well be the only place left on Earth where a peasant uprising is a legitimate threat. That is the level of income disparity we're talking about here.

Quote

I almost wonder at times if they're just trying to get Mao's corpse to spin fast enough that they can use it as a power source.

When China breaks free of autocracy and censorship, I think the first film they should produce is one of Mao's zombie rising from the grave and causing a global cataclysm in his insane, nothing-is-like-it-is-supposed-to-be rage. I'd watch it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 30, 2012, 04:53:12 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Yes, licensing and regulations are a big snarl of red tape. Which is promptly sidestepped by using guanxi (system of favors and connections), or just flat-out ignored.

Which is the exact same situation in Russia. But you aren't claiming Russia is the Wild East. There are many, many places in which people can get past excessive regulations indirectly, but that doesn't make them examples of "Wild capitalism" anymore than, again, Yeltsin's Russia was (or pre-Yeltsin Russia, where there were plenty of thriving and largely ignored black markets).

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

At the micro level, China is one of the most unregulated, entrepeneurial societes on Earth. There's a common misunderstanding that says the Chinese can't understand capitalism because they had 50 years of Maoism. Which sort of ignores that the Chinese were practicing trade and commerce for about 3000 years prior to that. It's in their blood, in the culture. Haggling and trading (and trying to come out on top of any deal) are inherent in the society.

Now did I say that Chinese can't understand Capitalism? No, I didn't. I said that China, presently, isn't an example of Rand's ideas in action (who, by the way, is an entirely different animal from myself), isn't an example of unregulated capitalism, and doesn't exemplify the virtues of regulation through the market.

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Note that I was talking about the SEZs. Free enterprise and private ownership (and even foreign investment, to a certain extent) is flourishing there. In some ways it's analogous to the US at the turn of the 20th century: booming urban centers in the Northeast and a few other places like Chicago and St. Louis and Milwaukee, and economically depressed agrarian land over much of the rest of the country. That drove an exodus of rural people to the cities in search of prosperity. China is seeing the same thing now.

Well yeah, pseudo-Capitalism works better than outright communism. Are you saying that free enterprise is improving China?

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Your Heritage ranking thing doesn't impress me. Mostly because Heritage Foundation has all the credibility of a rain-soaked copy of the Weekly World News (the guys who cover Batboy sightings and such). If you're going to invoke a right-wing thinktank, at least use the Cato Institute.

They are pretty widely accepted for economic freedom ratings, but if you prefer,

Cato sez: China is92 out of 141 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/map/index.php)
The Fraser Institute sez: China is 92nd (not sure out of how many, mind) (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2011.pdf)

Google only shows those as the top three, and ALL of them put China pretty low in terms of economic freedom. Even Botswana is leaps and bounds past China!

Quote from: RedKing on July 30, 2012, 01:47:34 pm

Way to light that straw man. I never said it was better under Mao. But the income disparity wasn't even in the same galaxy as what it is now. Hell, even US income disparity is paltry compared to modern China. If we're talking about "the 1%", China would be talking about "the 0.01%". On the whole, the reforms started by Deng Xiaoping and expanded by his successors have brought tremendous progress to China. But to view it as "a rising tide lifts all boats" type of phenomenon is to grossly misunderstand what has occurred in China in the last 33 years. The irony of a bigger disparity and a *more* plutocratic power structure than ours evolving in one of the last self-professed "Communist" countries is never lost on me. I almost wonder at times if they're just trying to get Mao's corpse to spin fast enough that they can use it as a power source.

Income disparity, in of itself, is not a bad thing. Frankly, I'd rather be the poorest man in a country full of rich people if it meant I wasn't too bad off rather than be just as rich as everyone else and starving.

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 01:23:37 pm

Refrigeration has existed for over 260 years. It literally predates the American Revolution. Its widespread adoption took place only after the safeguards and regulations that were imposed by the FDA (and its local and state predecessors). Antibiotics do not prevent food poisoning, rigorous adherence to safety and sanitary protocols does. Particularly when the poison was an intentional additive, as was the case of blue milk (milk watered down and treated with poison that was frequently sold to the urban poor in the 19th century) and borax laced rotten meat sausages that I previously mentioned. 

Refrigeration has existed for 260 years. It didn't start becoming PRACTICAL or used until the 1870s. Nanotechnology and genetic engineering have both existed for a while now, but they haven't actually been practical in any meaningful sense until very, very recently.

Second of all, you aren't providing sources or proof, which is what I requested on this issue. You talk of the horrible quality of food at the time, but I can just as easily talk about how the rich in Victorian England regularly ate poor people and spat out the bones. I'll get to that in the next bit.

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 01:23:37 pm

How can I prove it false? The simple fact that there exists regulation that does good proves that your statement is absolutely false and absurd.

I'm not asking you to prove it false, that would be requesting you prove a negative and thus absurd.

I'm asking you to prove that food poisoning was widespread before the introduction of the FDA and that it dropped by a noticeable amount afterwards. That is not so absurd, as I am asking you to prove something which you should be able to prove with simple evidence. This discussion will go nowhere without that base to work from.

Quote from: Nadaka on July 30, 2012, 01:23:37 pm

You actually think for a moment that a barely survivingdead farmer or coal miner was able to file suit against a transnational corporation and actually win a redress of his grievances is the old days before consumer protection? History does not bear that out, at all.

Uh, yeah actually, they were. That's part of why rail companies were so heavily subsidized by the government, and why the government assisted in seizing land on their behalf (especially in the South during the reconstruction). The concept of a "transnational corporation" didn't exist until quite late in the 19th century, at least not in the form they're found today.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 02:07:13 pm

Not to mention, the Most Economically Free Place On Earth according to the Heritage Foundation themselves? Hong Kong, an autonomous zone of China.

Hong Kong was owned and run by the British up until very recently. The governor there had an extremely laissez faire policy in not interfering with the local economy (unlike China, where such a policy is very tenuous and limited, and Britain where the government was beginning to grow under the Labour party) in almost all matters except land ownership. Funnily enough, the only major problem Hong Kong had (and still has) is its extortionate land prices, partly stemming from that being the one sector in which the government intervened.

To take Hong Kong and claim it to be the same as the rest of China is a huge misrepresentation.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 02:07:13 pm

China may well be the only place left on Earth where a peasant uprising is a legitimate threat. That is the level of income disparity we're talking about here.

There aren't any peasants living in Shanghai (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100926025517/bulletstorm/images/e/e2/AwesomeFace.png)

Now might I suggest everyone go listen to some calming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL8t3RPcHVw) music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03dJHrLdVl0&feature=fvwrel) before replying lest passions run too high

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on July 30, 2012, 05:08:14 pm

Quote

Income disparity, in of itself, is not a bad thing.

I... I... what.



Side note: If I take something out of context, but the context happens to be a horrible false dichotomy or other logical fallacy, am I still doing something wrong? I'm improving their argument, which is usually the opposite of what happens taking things out of context.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on July 30, 2012, 05:44:02 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 30, 2012, 05:08:14 pm

Quote

Income disparity, in of itself, is not a bad thing.

I... I... what.



Side note: If I take something out of context, but the context happens to be a horrible false dichotomy or other logical fallacy, am I still doing something wrong? I'm improving their argument, which is usually the opposite of what happens taking things out of context.

Well, if the poorest 50% of the country lives with 100,000 dollars per year and the richest 1% lives with 100,000,000,000 per year (yes I know it's excessive, bear with me), there is a massive income disparity.

Meanwhile, if the poorest 50% of the country lives with 1,000 dollars per year and the richest 1% live with 5,000 dollars per year, the income disparity is tiny.

Which country would you rather live in?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 30, 2012, 06:04:07 pm

The second. The smaller overall pool of money would cause massive deflation and prices would fall locally. (Assuming that's not in an existing preset currency.) Then you have 50% of people living on 1/5th of what the richest live on, not a bad deal. In the first one, you would have ridiculous hyperinflation (A la Zimbabwe a few years back or the papiermark, which had to be converted to reichsmark at 1,000,000,000,000:1 odds after the first world war.) and the bottom 50% would be absolutely screwed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on July 30, 2012, 06:05:05 pm

The second country since, unless I'm messing up my economic theory, the purchasing power of one dollar is more in the second country than the first. Something to do with the amount of currency floating around the economy, I think.

FAKEEDIT: Goddamn ninja.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 06:48:23 pm

Seriously, the actual number that the money occupies is not what is important in an economy, it is the value of the money itself. Zimbabwe's money was so inflated that you needed several dozen trillion Zimbabwean dollars to buy a burger at McDonalds. They had to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Money is a means to an end, and that end is the effective establishment of standardized trade based upon a more objective system of value than that which exists with barter alone. Money is nothing but an abstraction of worth that we all mutually agree to use so that our trade will run more smoothly. Coming to believe that money itself is objectively important and serves as an end is a failing, because it forgets the actual purpose of money in our society and replaces it with obsession, which we have historically termed "greed".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on July 30, 2012, 08:56:42 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 30, 2012, 04:53:12 pm

Now did I say that Chinese can't understand Capitalism? No, I didn't. I said that China, presently, isn't an example of Rand's ideas in action (who, by the way, is an entirely different animal from myself), isn't an example of unregulated capitalism, and doesn't exemplify the virtues of regulation through the market.

You keep saying these things like you think there's some kind of distinction between "lawless capitalism" and "free market with no government intervention".  It strikes me as demanding to know the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, and it's really making the rest of your argument hard to take seriously.

And it's still giant ugly quote-ladders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 30, 2012, 09:56:07 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on July 30, 2012, 05:44:02 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 30, 2012, 05:08:14 pm

Quote

Income disparity, in of itself, is not a bad thing.

I... I... what.



Side note: If I take something out of context, but the context happens to be a horrible false dichotomy or other logical fallacy, am I still doing something wrong? I'm improving their argument, which is usually the opposite of what happens taking things out of context.

Well, if the poorest 50% of the country lives with 100,000 dollars per year and the richest 1% lives with 100,000,000,000 per year (yes I know it's excessive, bear with me), there is a massive income disparity.

Meanwhile, if the poorest 50% of the country lives with 1,000 dollars per year and the richest 1% live with 5,000 dollars per year, the income disparity is tiny.

Which country would you rather live in?

That's a red herring argument, you are comparing a richer country to a poorer one.  I could easily turn it around:

Would you rather live in a country where 1% make a 2.5 million a year and everyone else makes tuppence a year or where the top make a 2.5 million still but everyone else makes $50k?

Obviously you'd rather live in the second country because the first one is a country of extreme poverty.  But the second country doesn't just distribute the wealth better there is much more wealth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 30, 2012, 10:23:40 pm

I fail to see how that's turned around, and not just the same thing in reverse order.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 30, 2012, 10:29:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on July 30, 2012, 10:23:40 pm

I fail to see how that's turned around, and not just the same thing in reverse order.

Oops, mistyped due to not really paying attention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on July 31, 2012, 08:43:35 am

Lawless/Unregulated Capitalism: You are just begging companies to not give a shit about what actions they take in the name of profits.
Lack of Enforcement/Monitoring: Signaling to the companies that they can do whatever the heck they want in the name of profits as long as they don't get caught.

People will still buy the products of offending companies.  Because it is cheaper/affordable... especially if the product is just as good and just as available as its competition.
Sure, you have other sorts of people with more money that will pay more of a premium for stuff made by 'good' companies... but yea... there is only so much of a market here...

That is my view of how it'll happen anyways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cameron on July 31, 2012, 10:08:55 am

hey look some  (http://www.google.ca/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economics.harvard.edu%2Ffaculty%2Falesina%2Ffiles%2FInequality%2520and%2520Happiness.pdf&ei=EPAXUNX2IorX0QHD_4HgCA&usg=AFQjCNEpBNGza5XYuZoF4HP7UiTuJl7AXg&cad=rja)sources (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=happyniess%20inequality&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economics.harvard.edu%2Ffaculty%2Falesina%2Ffiles%2FInequality%2520and%2520Happiness.pdf&ei=EPAXUNX2IorX0QHD_4HgCA&usg=AFQjCNEpBNGza5XYuZoF4HP7UiTuJl7AXg&cad=rja), they generally conclude that happiness negitivly associates with income inequality, from that I can only assume we would all prefer to live in a more equal society given otherwise identical characteristics (these two aren't behind paywalls, if you have access to an academic database there are quite a few with similar conclusions and results)

So I'm going to say income disparity itself seems to be indicative of bad things at the very least

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 31, 2012, 12:13:03 pm

So, how about that Mitt Romney fellow and his hilariously terrible trip to Europe?  Apparently his press secretary recently got angry because the media tried to ask him some questions vaguely near to a war memorial.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/romney-aide-loses-cool-curses-at-press-in-poland/

Quote

Gorka: "Kiss my ass. This is a Holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect."

Something about this quote is just so perfect.

Not that his supporters will care but the fact he's managed to offend Britain, say something stupid about Palestine and have his press secretary make an ass of himself before he's even anywhere near the presidency doesn't speak  wonders of his foreign policy skills.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 31, 2012, 12:16:50 pm

Problem being that "pissing off other countries" is seen as a positive trait among Republicans. As long as the other countries aren't Israel.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: pisskop on July 31, 2012, 12:33:45 pm

What do you think of this?

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Accurate, or not?

Also, take the test

http://politicalcompass.org/test

Also Palestine is not a sovereign power... so...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on July 31, 2012, 12:37:45 pm

We've had a few threads about that political compass website before. In general, I believe the consensus was that it was skewed somewhat towards liberalism and wasn't a very useful tool. (Questions being biased, leading, vague, etc.)

Palestine's sovereignty is sort of the issue in question, I would think. Moreover, the Palestine National Authority directly oversees several regions of Israel at the moment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on July 31, 2012, 12:39:02 pm

At the voting booth, I'm fairly sure the election method for them is: see 'R', punch ballot.
With how crazy the Rs have been, its quickly becoming the other way around for me with straight Ds.

I'm sure straight ticket mentality is entrenched everywhere now, really.  I would test it by Repubbing up in an even area, running a flawless campaign, then proving I am absolutely batshit insane during the last month... but I'm afraid I would win and get stuck there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 31, 2012, 12:40:53 pm

The thing is, going on about cultural superiority didn't go down well with left wing Israelis, even if he was saying that they are the culturally superior ones.  I guess it doesn't matter though since those aren't the true Israelis.

Quote from: pisskop on July 31, 2012, 12:33:45 pm

What do you think of this?

Nobody's Libertarian enough for me :'( I'll just put them all in the upper right corner of my diagram with the Nazis or maybe the upper left with Stalin occasionally

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on July 31, 2012, 12:52:35 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on July 31, 2012, 12:13:03 pm

Not that his supporters will care but the fact he's managed to offend Britain, say something stupid about Palestine and have his press secretary make an ass of himself before he's even anywhere near the presidency doesn't speak  wonders of his foreign policy skills.

What did he do to offend Britain? I haven't heard of that one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on July 31, 2012, 12:54:43 pm

Quote from: scriver on July 31, 2012, 12:52:35 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on July 31, 2012, 12:13:03 pm

Not that his supporters will care but the fact he's managed to offend Britain, say something stupid about Palestine and have his press secretary make an ass of himself before he's even anywhere near the presidency doesn't speak  wonders of his foreign policy skills.

What did he do to offend Britain? I haven't heard of that one.

Something about the Olympic security being insufficient if I remember correctly...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on July 31, 2012, 01:02:33 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9431064/Mitt-Romneys-Olympics-gaffe-overshadows-visit-to-London.html
^that

I think the best description of Romney's international tour is this:  IT KEEPS HAPPENING!!! (http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=002771)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 31, 2012, 01:44:06 pm

Quote from: scriver on July 31, 2012, 12:52:35 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on July 31, 2012, 12:13:03 pm

Not that his supporters will care but the fact he's managed to offend Britain, say something stupid about Palestine and have his press secretary make an ass of himself before he's even anywhere near the presidency doesn't speak  wonders of his foreign policy skills.

What did he do to offend Britain? I haven't heard of that one.

Made comments that the state of their Olympic preparations were "disconcerting". Then when the local tabloids got a hold of it and started reaming him, he tried walking it back and saying how it was going to be fantastic. And then they reamed him for flip-flopping. It was a glorious hot mess.

Quote

His remark prompted a sharp rejoinder from David Cameron. “We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world,” said the Prime Minister. “Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.”

BURN

Might also have something to do with this bit out of Romney's memoirs:

Quote

England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people want to buy.

The context being that Romney was holding up Britain as an example of a former superpower and saying "This is why we have to stay preeminent in the world! Otherwise we'll be reduced to exporting oddball humor and funny accents!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on July 31, 2012, 01:52:56 pm

Quote from: RedKing on July 31, 2012, 01:44:06 pm

Might also have something to do with this bit out of Romney's memoirs:

Quote

England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people want to buy.

The context being that Romney was holding up Britain as an example of a former superpower and saying "This is why we have to stay preeminent in the world! Otherwise we'll be reduced to exporting oddball humor and funny accents!"

And interestingly, he seems to have no idea of what England actually is, considering it isn't an island at all. What an idiot. Of course, I smelled the sickly sweet stench of ignorance when he talked about a shared "Anglo-Saxon" heritage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on July 31, 2012, 02:14:45 pm

And now he's defending his comments about Israel/Palestine by saying that he "did not speak about Palestinian culture".

So...let's work this out. In his speech the other day, he:
1. Pointed out the disparity in per capita earnings ($21,000 in Israel vs. $10,000 in the Palestinian Authority).
2. Then states "Culture makes all the difference".

"I'm not saying Palestinians are lazy, I'm saying Israelis are hard-working and that's what makes them different from Palestinians!"  ::)

Quote from: Owlbread on July 31, 2012, 01:52:56 pm

And interestingly, he seems to have no idea of what England actually is, considering it isn't an island at all. What an idiot. Of course, I smelled the sickly sweet stench of ignorance when he talked about a shared "Anglo-Saxon" heritage.

Oh, that got him in a stew over here when one of his advisers trotted out the "Anglo-Saxon" thing and implying that Obama didn't "fully appreciate that shared heritage". Because, you know....he's only HALF Anglo-Saxon. He doesn't have that special "rich, privileged white guy" telepathic mindmeld. Or embrace the secret Rites of Woden. He probably hasn't even read the Doom Book of Alfred of Wessex!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on July 31, 2012, 02:16:51 pm

He's also dramatically wrong with both of those numbers.  Israel's is significantly higher at $31,000 per capita while the Palestianian authority's areas are more like $1,500.  But hey, that just proves that Israeli culture is over 20 times better than Palestinian culture!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on July 31, 2012, 02:31:37 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on July 31, 2012, 12:40:53 pm

The thing is, going on about cultural superiority didn't go down well with left wing Israelis, even if he was saying that they are the culturally superior ones.  I guess it doesn't matter though since those aren't the true Israelis.

Quote from: pisskop on July 31, 2012, 12:33:45 pm

What do you think of this?

Nobody's Libertarian enough for me :'( I'll just put them all in the upper right corner of my diagram with the Nazis or maybe the upper left with Stalin occasionally

(http://knowledgeproblem.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/gary-johnson-muffled.png) (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on July 31, 2012, 04:29:12 pm

I still support the ZFB party (Zombies for Brains)

Anyway... Reguarding the value of NASA and the intellegance of deep space colonization from a bankrupt nation...

People today insist mankind is immune from extinction, but we sit looking at massive climate change, huge pandemics, and a interconnectivity that makes the distance between any two people in the movie industry connected by less than 7 direct connections. I don't know how it works for people outside the movie industry, but I doubt it's very big given how the furthest I saw of people who knows someone who died in Afghanistan is Friend of a Friend. In this world, we have the ability to follow the evolutionary drive of spreading the species as far as possible, and god's command to spread fourth into his land and be fruitful and multiply. Without spreading into space, we will reach an absolute limit of our ability to do this, assuming we don't all die from super Ebola.

So, NASA isn't just something nessessary for the bankrupt America but the entire human race.

Pointless expenditure? Only if you don't believe in Science or the god of the Jews.

So, that said, I'd like to address the most important campaign issue out there.
Mitt Romney is really a LOLCAT spy!
Just look at his first name parody. Mittens? As in silly kittens you forgot your...
Why can't you dogeple wake up! It's a coup de naze!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 31, 2012, 04:39:46 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on July 31, 2012, 04:29:12 pm

Without spreading into space, we will reach an absolute limit of our ability to do this, assuming we don't all die from super Ebola.

Just noting that there can't really be a Super-Ebola. Even regular Ebola is so deadly that whenever outbreaks happen they halt fairly quickly because the disease burns out all of its carriers before they can spread the infection farther. There is a hard limit on the axises of deadliness and infectiveness, hence why Ebola is strictly regional, Influenza effects large areas of the word, and Rhinovirus is global.

Quote

So, NASA isn't just something nessessary for the bankrupt America but the entire human race.

Personally, I'm hoping for greater cooperation between NASA and the ESA in the future, since they've been the most successful space organizations. Maybe an alliance akin to NATO, but for space instead of the military. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on July 31, 2012, 05:50:59 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on July 31, 2012, 04:29:12 pm

So, NASA isn't just something nessessary for the bankrupt America but the entire human race.

There's a story going around that says a lot about how the American government apportions its money and where the "wasteful" spending might be.

Back around 1990, the CIA acquired a couple then top-of-the-line camera satellites for doing CIA stuff, one was launched and the other held as a backup.  The first one worked fine, so the backup was mothballed in the basement of Langley, and promptly forgotten about for twenty years.

Somebody tripped over it a few weeks ago looking for JFK's brain, and they realized they had no use for an out of date spy sat.  Somebody called up NASA about it, and they said the thing would great for taking space pictures if it pointed the other way.  So out of its boundless generosity, the CIA donated the spare satellite to NASA for proprietary use.

Problem is, NASA has to launch it with their own research budget, since it's not anybody else's property now.  They can fit it into the budget schedule until sometime around 2038.

The defense complex has so much fancy expensive crap they lose track of it and nobody bats an eye, while wasteful inefficient needless let-the-market-handle-it NASA can't scrounge up the cash to launch a free satellite within a generation of time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on July 31, 2012, 07:20:12 pm

And beyond that, NASA has had an economic ROI measured in hundreds of percents. They solve the hard problems, and in doing so create huge quantities of spin-off technologies and improvements to technologies. It's a massive R&D program whose payoffs have traditionally been huge compared to their funding.

And that's even without getting into things like its unequaled ability to push children into STEM fields; which, btw, America has a growing shortage of, to the point where it will seriously undermine the ability of the economy to grow. And without getting into the planetary defense issues; did you know you are more likely to die from a civilization-killing asteroid than you are from dying due to an act of terrorism? And without getting into the benefits and risk mitigation which come with becoming a space-faring species.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on July 31, 2012, 07:24:25 pm

I just like the thought that NASA could walk into any electronics wholesaler today and pick up a $250 laptop that has far more processing power than anything they had on the Apollo missions. Thank you, NASA!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on July 31, 2012, 07:58:16 pm

And once again the bay12 community denies proper time to the important things, like the growing LOLCAT threat!

It's a Crescent Horde conspiricy I tell you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on July 31, 2012, 09:49:44 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on July 31, 2012, 05:50:59 pm

There's a story going around that says a lot about how the American government apportions its money and where the "wasteful" spending might be.

Thank you for this entertaining story.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 01, 2012, 03:51:35 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on July 31, 2012, 05:50:59 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on July 31, 2012, 04:29:12 pm

So, NASA isn't just something nessessary for the bankrupt America but the entire human race.

The defense complex has so much fancy expensive crap they lose track of it and nobody bats an eye, while wasteful inefficient needless let-the-market-handle-it NASA can't scrounge up the cash to launch a free satellite within a generation of time.

Knowledge is vastly undervalued in this country. I know, I just got out of high school.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 01, 2012, 06:28:24 am

A link with some primary sources and perspective. (http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6287)

Quote

Let’s assume that the cost to build those telescopes was approximately the same as the Hubble. This means that the cost of the two NRO telescopes combined is about the same as the entire $7 billion budget of the NSF for FY2012.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 08:47:12 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 31, 2012, 04:39:46 pm

Just noting that there can't really be a Super-Ebola. Even regular Ebola is so deadly that whenever outbreaks happen they halt fairly quickly because the disease burns out all of its carriers before they can spread the infection farther. There is a hard limit on the axises of deadliness and infectiveness, hence why Ebola is strictly regional, Influenza effects large areas of the word, and Rhinovirus is global.

Viruses are difficult to quantify, ebola may not be the best example but it has the hysteria factor in people's minds to get the point across. There is a potential for a virus with a very long incubation time to decimate the human population. Bioengineered viruses are also a real concern. While it is true that it is virtually impossible for a virus to wipe out every person in the world, they can still cause epic amounts of damage, and could potentially roll back civilisation and technology hundreds of years.

Sorry to add to the derailment, this is not an issue in the current election, the nasa budget is an issue, as are health care, gay rights, gun control, taxes, financial regulation, electoral reform...

My two cents: increase it, single payer, let them marry, at least control fully automatic weapons, increase them, reinstate glass steagall and then go much further than that, direct democracy and sweeping campaign finance reform...

Yes I am a lefty.

Carry on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 01, 2012, 10:22:04 am

For those who don't think a virus could kill us all, let me explain something...

You don't have to kill every living human to wipe out humanity. If you kill enough that humanity is down to 1% but scattered across the globe, we will probably have no viable population growth. Something to think about next time you are planning to go on a clensing spree to reduce genetic diversity.

I'm looking at you, makers of migrant magma machines!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on August 01, 2012, 10:30:52 am

Heeheehee, no. We were at (way) less than 1% of our current population (remember, that's around 70 million.) for most of our history as a species, most of that scattered to the seven winds. We got by just fine, if a little inbred here and there.

Now, maybe .001% (and some change) and we'd be talking lack of sufficient breeding stock. More worrisome and likely to off us would be the societal shocks and logistics issues (like dealing with the corpses) involved with suddenly losing massive percentile points worth of total population.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 01, 2012, 10:32:56 am

But hey, there would be plenty of job openings in the hunter/gatherer/scavenger sectors of the economy!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 01, 2012, 11:30:28 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on July 30, 2012, 06:05:05 pm

The second. The smaller overall pool of money would cause massive deflation and prices would fall locally. (Assuming that's not in an existing preset currency.) Then you have 50% of people living on 1/5th of what the richest live on, not a bad deal. In the first one, you would have ridiculous hyperinflation (A la Zimbabwe a few years back or the papiermark, which had to be converted to reichsmark at 1,000,000,000,000:1 odds after the first world war.) and the bottom 50% would be absolutely screwed.

Inflation is obviously a problem in the first country, but that's beside the point of my post, though it is also a problem I'll admit :P

Alright. Assume me and you are doing our jobs and stuff. I have 2,000 bucks and you have 2,100. After a year of working/selling/buying I have 2,500 and you have 4,000. Am I any worse off because you're richer? No. If you made that money by robbing me then there is a problem, but it's that you're a thief, not that you have more money.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 06:48:23 pm

Seriously, the actual number that the money occupies is not what is important in an economy, it is the value of the money itself. Zimbabwe's money was so inflated that you needed several dozen trillion Zimbabwean dollars to buy a burger at McDonalds. They had to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Money is a means to an end, and that end is the effective establishment of standardized trade based upon a more objective system of value than that which exists with barter alone. Money is nothing but an abstraction of worth that we all mutually agree to use so that our trade will run more smoothly. Coming to believe that money itself is objectively important and serves as an end is a failing, because it forgets the actual purpose of money in our society and replaces it with obsession, which we have historically termed "greed".

It was a hypothetical scenario designed to point out a specific situation, not an explanation as to why hyperinflation is good. But while we're on that topic...
(http://www.theglobalfczone.com/images/Dollar_value_chart1776-2006.gif)

Quote from: Aqizzar on July 30, 2012, 08:56:42 pm

You keep saying these things like you think there's some kind of distinction between "lawless capitalism" and "free market with no government intervention".  It strikes me as demanding to know the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, and it's really making the rest of your argument hard to take seriously.

Because there IS government intervention, it's just sporadic, heavily centered in specific sectors (there is absolutely nothing capitalistic about the Chinese banking sector, for example), and unpredictable.

Again, Russia could be construed as a "free market with no intervention" if you assume the bureaucrats, local thugs, etc are already paid off and then ignore half the nationalized industries.

Quote from: Aqizzar on July 30, 2012, 08:56:42 pm

And it's still giant ugly quote-ladders.

That's how discussions in which I'm arguing with about 5 people at once on a pile of different topics go. The alternative is ignoring all but one thing or making a pile of double posts. You can tell who I'm talking to at any given point and what I'm specifically talking about, which is about as good as it gets.

Quote from: mainiac on July 30, 2012, 09:56:07 pm

That's a red herring argument, you are comparing a richer country to a poorer one.  I could easily turn it around:

Would you rather live in a country where 1% make a 2.5 million a year and everyone else makes tuppence a year or where the top make a 2.5 million still but everyone else makes $50k?

Obviously you'd rather live in the second country because the first one is a country of extreme poverty.  But the second country doesn't just distribute the wealth better there is much more wealth.

So what? Poverty is bad, but their poverty is utterly irrelevant to income disparity.

Whether the richest 1% have a million dollars or ten million or a hundred million, the poorest 1% aren't any better or worse off. Would you rather make 50k or 10k? Claiming the problem is "income disparity" and not "poverty" is seriously messing up priorities.

Quote from: cameron on July 31, 2012, 10:08:55 am

hey look some sources, they generally conclude that happiness negitivly associates with income inequality, from that I can only assume we would all prefer to live in a more equal society given otherwise identical characteristics (these two aren't behind paywalls, if you have access to an academic database there are quite a few with similar conclusions and results)

So I'm going to say income disparity itself seems to be indicative of bad things at the very least

Yeah, some people are possessed by jealousy and envy when they see other people doing well. Have you ever heard the saying "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence"?

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on July 31, 2012, 04:29:12 pm

People today insist mankind is immune from extinction, but we sit looking at massive climate change, huge pandemics, and a interconnectivity that makes the distance between any two people in the movie industry connected by less than 7 direct connections. I don't know how it works for people outside the movie industry, but I doubt it's very big given how the furthest I saw of people who knows someone who died in Afghanistan is Friend of a Friend. In this world, we have the ability to follow the evolutionary drive of spreading the species as far as possible, and god's command to spread fourth into his land and be fruitful and multiply. Without spreading into space, we will reach an absolute limit of our ability to do this, assuming we don't all die from super Ebola.

There are people going into space without taking other people's money to do so, and with safety standards far better than those of NASA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 11:56:18 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 01, 2012, 11:30:28 am

There are people going into space without taking other people's money to do so, and with safety standards far better than those of NASA.

What is this "other people's money" you refer to. I agree with many of your points but if you have evidence that nasa are guilty of theft you should probably pass it on to the fbi.

Yes I am being facetious, but I find the debate in the US about taxes has really gone off the deep end. I saw a guy on slashdot who had the sig 'taxation is legalised theft, no more no less', and I just found myself needing to throw up. Needless to say I did not read anything he posted. Here are a list of just some of the things that taxes (should) pay for: Education, police, healthcare, justice system, administration, fire brigade, public transport, roads, bridges, dams, communications infrastructure, defence, social welfare, prisons, grants for new businesses... the list goes on. Lets envision a country with none of these things. Then envision a country with all of these things privatised.

If you advocate minimising taxes you are advocating minimising public services and infrastructure. Please defend that position, the position 'I don't want to give my money to the government' is not relevant.

How do you propose to have the above services and infrastructure without taxes, alternatively, how do you propose to have a functioning society without them.

Sorry if I am jumping in a conversation with too little context and saying something stupid, but it is almost 300 pages and I don't even get to vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 01, 2012, 12:09:42 pm

Income disparity isn't a problem, poor people are!

GJ makes me laugh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cameron on August 01, 2012, 12:20:42 pm

hey, way to dismiss published academic papers which in-fact mention that the lessened happiness includes the rich and is a general trend across the population, not just some people get jealous cause they can't succeed.

Also, you should probably explain your graph, it seems to be giving the dollar value of the American dollar over time and the website it comes from is just telling me how to turn the global financial crisis into personal profit.

Anyways, I would say the main point to government intervention is that the redistribution of wealth is absolutely needed at some point regardless of what you want your "capitalistic" system to do, as the whole point behind it is the use of capital as a basis for production is that those with capital will fund and thus benefit from that production. Assuming competent managing of capital, this will exacerbate any inequity already present in a system. I do understand that there is appeal to a system which rewards those who succeed and punishes those who fail with no regard to equality, but unless wealth and advantage can be reset at some point those rewards and punishments will only grow as time goes on which leads to an institutionalization of advantage which benefits those who have only had the good fortune to be born a descendent of someone who succeeded and punish those who are descended from those who fail, regardless of their present capabilities or diligence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 01, 2012, 12:27:12 pm

@Cameron, that is nearly precisely my POV. The modern perversion of free market rhetoric is merely a means of gaining popular support for reinstating the the institutional inequity of the hereditary class based system. This time it is the invisible hand of the free market rather than the divine right of kings used to justify the concentration of wealth, power and authority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2012, 01:11:03 pm

I seem to remembering this has come up in the thread before.

Oh yeah:

Quote from: RedKing on January 10, 2012, 03:59:37 pm

Quote from: scriver on January 10, 2012, 03:40:54 pm

#2 would be awesome. The US would turn into some weird medieval-capitalist hybrid. Cue a game of thrones!

Yay for Feudal Capitalism. It'd kind of be like the Sengoku, where daimyo needed the support of the growing merchant classes to feed and equip their armies. Only instead of samurai fighting it out in awesome katana duels, we'd have spin doctors and pundits yelling at each other on cable TV news programs. Way less cool.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cameron on August 01, 2012, 01:15:19 pm

I wouldn't call it a perversion of the free market but more of an unfortunate side effect from the general goal of freedom and personal responsibility

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 01, 2012, 01:16:30 pm

And the Republican panacea of "tax credits" might as well be the modern-day "Let them eat cake."

People often forget the context of that saying. It was said (apocryphically) by one of the princesses of France (NOT Marie Antoinette, as is often credited) upon being told that the poor had no bread to eat. It's meant to indicate just how incredibly out of touch with the hoi polloi the ruling class had become.

And it's the same level of disconnect you see when Republicans offer poor people financial solutions which work great when you make $5 million a year, not so much when you make $12,000 a year. Or when Mitt Romney tries to relate to...well, anybody.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/357/812/bbb.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 01, 2012, 02:12:56 pm

An interesting analysis of Romney's tax proposals. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf) (.pdf) I strongly recommend you read this one, even if it can be tough going.

I'll start with the bottom line; a tax burden shift of ~$86 billion a year from those earning over $200k onto those earning less than $200k.

Spoiler: Extended details (click to show/hide)

They started from the broad principles of the Romney campaign. These result in a massive tax cut for the rich combined with an actual tax increase for the lowest income levels, along with a massive revenue decrease to be made back up.

Quote

    Absent any base broadening, the proposed reductions in individual and estate taxes specified in Governor Romney’s plan would decrease federal tax revenues by $360 billion in 2015. These tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers: Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000), taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see somewhat smaller increases of about 2.4 percent (an average tax cut of $1,800), while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130) due to the expiration of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2009 and extended at the end of 2010.

At this point they look at the proposed expenditure cuts used to pay for these. That mostly means eliminating tax breaks and similar. Under the basic assumptions they found you had to eliminate 65% of such expenditures. Certain expenditures are 'off the table' for political reasons and/or explicitly stated to be so by Romney's campaign. These are mostly those involved in investments and savings (explicitly mentioned), then those that would be political suicide; breaks for military or emergency service members, disabled or injured people - although I'm less convinced workers comp is actually off the table than they are - and foster children.

They attempted the most progressive possible set of such eliminations, removing those that help the rich most first and leaving as many that help the poor as they could. They still found that even this progressive, generous model (not a likely one for a Republican policy) results in a massively regressive shift in tax burden. In full;

Quote

    To estimate how average household tax burdens among different income groups would change as a result of this shift, we assume that the available tax expenditures are curtailed “from the top down” in order to make the tax plan as progressive as possible. For instance, Table 3 Column 2 shows that the rate reductions would reduce average tax payments by $175,961 among households earning more than $1,000,000. Column 4 shows that the complete elimination of tax expenditures for this group would increase taxes in this group by an average of $83,594. This means it is impossible offset the tax cuts with revenue raisers within this income group. The same is true for all income groups earning more than $200,000. Even after eliminating all available tax expenditures for households earning more than $200,000, this group still faces a net tax break. Americans making over $1 million would see an increase in after-tax income of 4.1 percent (an $87,000 tax cut), those making between $500,000 and $1 million would see an increase of 3.2 percent (a $17,000 tax cut), and those making between $200,000 and $500,000 would see an increase of 0.8 percent (a $1,800 tax cut).

    Because taxpayers above $200,000 as a group have received a net tax cut, revenue neutrality requires that taxpayers below $200,000—about 95 percent of the population—experience a tax increase. If this increased burden is shared equally among all households earning less than $200,000, after-tax income among individuals in this group would decrease by (on average) 1.2 percent (an average tax increase of $500 per household). Without additional details about how specific tax expenditures below this threshold would be curtailed, it is impossible to say which households and which income groups would experience the tax increase. The results shown in Figure 3 are illustrative based on the assumptions that the tax increase would be distributed in proportion to different income groups’ shares of after-tax income.

So overall it would be a regressive set of tax cuts that are paid for by regressive expenditure cuts.

Now they do offer a not-quite-as-bad model, that reduces that burden shift by a considerable amount (~$53bn) if you allow for massively increased growth due to the tax cuts, but they do also demonstrate that the basic principles behind the Romney plan force this broad regressive structure even under the most generous assumptions. No matter the exact quantitative model, the broad qualitative effect is a burden shift from the >$200k crowd to the <$200k crowd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 05:44:02 pm

Quote from: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 08:47:12 am

at least control fully automatic weapons

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What doesn’t work?

- Ban certain types of guns (e.g., "assault weapons")

    Doesn't work, because:

bullet   "Assault weapons" are about 1 percent of the guns used in crime
bullet   Criminals want the same guns as law-abiding people—handguns that are small, concealable, reliable, and affordable
bullet   Criminals use whatever guns are available; if one type is banned, criminals will switch to whatever they can get
http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

Besides, everyone knows that criminals are law abiding citizens and would never think of purchasing a banned firearm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 05:51:29 pm

It increases their risk. If they get caught, they have an additional crime on top of whatever their other one was, and there's the chance of getting caught on the illegal gun ownership one prior to actually committing the other crime.


Sure they can get illegal guns, but it's very hard to argue it won't inhibit them somewhat from doing so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 01, 2012, 05:53:11 pm

It would stop gun shops along the Mexican border from selling forty AR-15s a week to the same customer, which I'd like to think is something we can all get behind even if it requires a bit more finesse than a blanket ban.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 05:57:04 pm

Yeah there is no valid argument for allowing civilians to purchase automatic assault weapons. Yes you could also focus on the guns used in the majority of crimes, ie. handguns. I would support this and it would make a much more significant difference. I said at least because even to people who go on about constitutional gun rights have trouble arguing that private citizens should have machine guns. Getting handguns banned would be really really hard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cameron on August 01, 2012, 06:03:07 pm

see I would figure if one of the main arguments for guns was protection from tyranny that automatic weapons would be far more acceptable than handguns

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 06:06:48 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 05:44:02 pm

bullet   Criminals use whatever guns are available; if one type is banned, criminals will switch to whatever they can get

Excellent!  Maybe they'll switch to a gun that can't shoot 70 people in 2 minutes and thus not shoot 70 people in 2 minutes.

Quote from: cameron on August 01, 2012, 06:03:07 pm

see I would figure if one of the main arguments for guns was protection from tyranny that automatic weapons would be far more acceptable than handguns

It's not one of the main arguments because it's a stupid argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 01, 2012, 06:25:48 pm

Quote from: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 05:57:04 pm

Yeah there is no valid argument for allowing civilians to purchase automatic assault weapons. Yes you could also focus on the guns used in the majority of crimes, ie. handguns. I would support this and it would make a much more significant difference. I said at least because even to people who go on about constitutional gun rights have trouble arguing that private citizens should have machine guns. Getting handguns banned would be really really hard.

It the states where automatic weapons can be purchased legally, doing so is a very expensive and slow process that involves registration. These guns are almost never used for crime as it is. I don't see any reason to outright ban them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 06:28:26 pm

The problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on August 01, 2012, 06:33:04 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 06:28:26 pm

The problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people.

Clearly we should ban the use of hands. It would be for your own safety *pulls out meat cleaver*  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Realmfighter on August 01, 2012, 06:33:11 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 06:28:26 pm

The problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people.

This argument could be used against the illegalization of selling nuclear weapons to people without changing it at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:34:59 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 06:06:48 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 05:44:02 pm

bullet   Criminals use whatever guns are available; if one type is banned, criminals will switch to whatever they can get

Excellent!  Maybe they'll switch to a gun that can't shoot 70 people in 2 minutes and thus not shoot 70 people in 2 minutes.

Quote from: cameron on August 01, 2012, 06:03:07 pm

see I would figure if one of the main arguments for guns was protection from tyranny that automatic weapons would be far more acceptable than handguns

It's not one of the main arguments because it's a stupid argument.

To be perfectly fair, it would be far easier to kill people with explosives, A man holding a box is slightly less auspicious than a man carrying a Scary, Black, Cop Killing Rifle. Any idiot can look up how to make a bomb from ammonia nitrate, hell you can make a fully automatic smg out of plumbing parts.

Also, never trust the government, it isn't your friend. It isn't there to help you, just to screw you over.

Quote from: Realmfighter on August 01, 2012, 06:33:11 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 06:28:26 pm

The problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people.

This argument could be used against the illegalization of selling nuclear weapons to people without changing it at all.

I believe there is a small distinction from a "firearm" to a "nuclear bomb" Don't you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 06:36:49 pm

His point is that distinction is not made in the argument of "the problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people." The logic presented justifies nuclear weapons just as much as small arms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:43:00 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 06:36:49 pm

His point is that distinction is not made in the argument of "the problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people." The logic presented justifies nuclear weapons just as much as small arms.

except the average thug isn't going to be able to buy a several million dollar ICBM, In fact I don't believe there has ever been a WMD sold legally on the open market at least to individuals. Nuclear weapons aren't available for purchase so it's a complete red herring.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 06:44:55 pm

It also justifies getting rid of the justice system altogether.  I mean, no matter how many murderers you send to jail criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people.

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:34:59 pm

To be perfectly fair, it would be far easier to kill people with explosives, A man holding a box is slightly less auspicious than a man carrying a Scary, Black, Cop Killing Rifle. Any idiot can look up how to make a bomb from ammonia nitrate, hell you can make a fully automatic smg out of plumbing parts.

Yeah, so you take anti-bomb measures too (such as requiring people to have a legitimate reason to have ammonia nitrate - I think this is already covered in the US).  In any case homemade bomb attacks are almost never anywhere near as deadly as automatic assault weapon rampages.  This fully automatic smg out of plumbing parts is not going to shoot 70 people in 2 minutes because it's an inferior homemade weapon.

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:34:59 pm

Also, never trust the government, it isn't your friend. It isn't there to help you, just to screw you over.

Wheras random people with automatic weapons are always my friends, I guess?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:59:10 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 06:44:55 pm

It also justifies getting rid of the justice system altogether.  I mean, no matter how many murderers you send to jail criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people.

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:34:59 pm

To be perfectly fair, it would be far easier to kill people with explosives, A man holding a box is slightly less auspicious than a man carrying a Scary, Black, Cop Killing Rifle. Any idiot can look up how to make a bomb from ammonia nitrate, hell you can make a fully automatic smg out of plumbing parts.

Yeah, so you take anti-bomb measures too (such as requiring people to have a legitimate reason to have ammonia nitrate - I think this is already covered in the US).  In any case homemade bomb attacks are almost never anywhere near as deadly as automatic assault weapon rampages.  This fully automatic smg out of plumbing parts is not going to shoot 70 people in 2 minutes because it's an inferior homemade weapon.

So you are okay with law abiding citizens having access to bomb making materials, but not allowing them to have automatic weapons? Also "homemade bomb attacks are almost never anywhere near as deadly as automatic assault weapon rampages." But they have the potential to be far lethal, it's also far harder to catch the perpatrator, it took them over 20 years to catch the unibomber. And that "inferior homemade weapon" has a rof of over a 100rds, sure it's a smooth bore smg, but it a crowded mall you don't really need accuracy

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:34:59 pm

Also, never trust the government, it isn't your friend. It isn't there to help you, just to screw you over.

Wheras random people with automatic weapons are always my friends, I guess?
[/quote]
Well statistically I'm probably more likely to be killed by a cop kicking down the wrong door, than to be shot by a gun enthusiast.

But hey, what do I know? Maybe I'm just crazy for refusing to give up personal liberties for momentary safety.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 01, 2012, 07:11:28 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:59:10 pm

But hey, what do I know? Maybe I'm just crazy for refusing to give up personal liberties for momentary safety.

If only because it was Jason Alexander saying it, I feel this is worth a read (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht), just as something to read.


I'd also appreciate turning down the hyperbole before it gets out of hand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 01, 2012, 07:12:16 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:34:59 pm

Also, never trust the government, it isn't your friend. It isn't there to help you, just to screw you over.

Nonesense. The govornment is a dear friend. He will totally stab a dude who picks a fight with us, or looks at us funny, or is kinda brownish. Though he is one that will totally forget about the money he keeps borrowing from you, pukes on your couch and occasionally gets a little gropey with the wife.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 07:14:13 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on August 01, 2012, 07:11:28 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:59:10 pm

But hey, what do I know? Maybe I'm just crazy for refusing to give up personal liberties for momentary safety.

If only because it was Jason Alexander saying it, I feel this is worth a read (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht), just as something to read.


I'd also appreciate turning down the hyperbole before it gets out of hand.

I'll have you know my father was 87% hyperbole, thank you very much!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 07:31:34 pm

I just specifically said that we can, should and do control bomb making materials, so "You'll allow people to make bombs hmm??" is a bizarre strawman.  The Unabomber was certainly a shocking case but it should be noted his casualty count over a period of 20 years was nowhere near that of the Aurora shooting.  Maybe this strange homemade weapon you're talking about exists, but from the fact that noone ever uses it it's pretty clear that it's either not really up to standard or harder to obtain than you're making it out to be.

I... don't think there have been any "kicked down the wrong door, shot someone" incidents in the UK.  But even if you include all the unjustified police shootings the number will be a heck of a lot lower than other shootings.  I'm not sure why you've added the bizarre extra condition of "gun enthusiast", it's not like I'll be comforted by knowing the man who gunned me down didn't really like guns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 07:48:32 pm

I'm just saying that if you ban guns, people will acquire guns illegally or use knives and other bladed weapons. If you ban knives and other bladed weapons (which is basically impossible without constant frisking on the streets) people will use blunt objects and so on and so forth.

You will be gradually making it harder and harder for criminals to hurt, rob or kill people, which reduces crime considerably, but it won't get rid of the criminals completely, and will make life much harder for people who use guns and bladed objects responsibly. In the case of the UK our olympic handgun shooting team has to go and train in Switzerland because all handguns are completely illegal in this country (save for black powder pistols), yet you still get handgun shootings from people who have recomissioned decomissioned guns or bought their guns illegally. They are rarer, but still common enough to be a problem. In this country, if you carry a small pocket knife for use as a farmer, you will be arrested and charged for carrying such a weapon - even letting the police know you are carrying it or that you accidentally left it in your pocket and you just want them to know, then handing it over - can get you arrested.

And furthermore, despite our ban on all automatic weapons, all military grade semi automatic weapons, all handguns, we still have shooters like Derek Bird who manage to go on killing sprees - killing 13 and injuring 11 - using purely legal weaponry. As soon as people like Mr. Hamilton shot up that school in Dunblane with his pistols, people were asking to ban handguns, but they weren't asking the question "How the flying fuck did a guy that obviously mentally unstable with a history of sexual offense against children get those guns?" The answer is regulating "who gets the guns" more effectively, not banning the guns themselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 01, 2012, 07:56:10 pm

What do you mean? The obvious thing to do is respond by calling to ban everything related to the most visible cause of the offense, while ignoring every other possible reason and cause.

Nothing illogical about that...  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 07:56:55 pm

See, I'll accept a "sure it'd help, but not enough to justify the expense" argument much more than a "it doesn't matter what we ban, criminals will always have guns" one.


I will now be That Guy and say that going into specifics about what regulations are justified and which ones are too ineffectual to use is outside the scope of the American Election thread, and should be relegated to a new thread if people want to continue discussing it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 08:00:22 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 07:48:32 pm

They are rarer, but still common enough to be a problem.

Banning murder made it rarer, sure, but it's still a problem, therefore banning murder was pointless and we should legalize it

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 08:04:44 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 08:00:22 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on August 01, 2012, 07:48:32 pm

They are rarer, but still common enough to be a problem.

Banning murder made it rarer, sure, but it's still a problem, therefore banning murder was pointless and we should legalize it

Now now I'm not saying we should legalize handgun crime (which is the thing that is now "rarer" that you are referring to), I am saying we should legalize the guns themselves and be infinitely more careful about who gets the guns, because the present approach does not work very efficiently and, as my post went on to state, makes life a lot harder for people who use guns legitimately - like sportsmen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 01, 2012, 08:05:22 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 01, 2012, 11:30:28 am

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam link=topic=98262.msg3491331#msg3491331

There are people going into space without taking other people's money to do so, and with safety standards far better than those of NASA.

Like who? Richard? I pay him lots of my money and still have yet to recieve any virgins. Seems false advertising to me. I guess I'll just to be content that he burns my money on long plumes of fire instead. And all I got out of it was a strong technological base that made my military #1 in the world. Wait, wrong people and organizations. I think I got a crappy electronic device out of it? Though that may be from NASA too. Hard to tell who deserves credit for what. Either way they both are getting money from me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 01, 2012, 08:13:49 pm

...safety standards better than NASA? Do you have any source for that, or is it just "oh, they haven't had any private spaceflight accidents"? Because NASA has a pretty good record considering that it shoots people thousands of miles with controlled explosives. The problem with private spaceflight is that if a company can't be cheaper than its competitors, it goes out of business. Private companies can and will cut down on safety expenses before going bankrupt, and the public won't really know until it's too late, and an accident happens. Government has no incentive to place money ahead of human lives, since it's not their livelihood at stake. If NASA launches fewer missions for a higher price than a private agency, the people involved still get to keep their jobs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 01, 2012, 08:38:22 pm

Here is the thing... corporate speakerphones can crow about how their internal 'standards' are so rigorous... but... yea, they usually don't release such information... and who knows if they are actually enforcing those standards if they do?

Also, there are only... 2 private space programs right now?  And are the fundies to this program not sending themselves up to space sooner or later?  Yea.... considering it, right now, there is barely a market... this is the time of first impressions... the time to create that market. 
Shooting themselves in the foothead by cutting corners right now... yea... short or long term profit-wise, its suicide.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 09:01:16 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:43:00 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 06:36:49 pm

His point is that distinction is not made in the argument of "the problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people." The logic presented justifies nuclear weapons just as much as small arms.

except the average thug isn't going to be able to buy a several million dollar ICBM, In fact I don't believe there has ever been a WMD sold legally on the open market at least to individuals. Nuclear weapons aren't available for purchase so it's a complete red herring.

Oh man you are trolling right? Having a giggle, see if anyone notices? Just in case you are serious, nuclear weapons are illegal. This is why they are not sold legally on the open market to private individuals. We are trying to find ways to reduce gun deaths and this is your argument against controlling access to firearms?

Edit: Maybe I should also use this post for something constructive.

In the space funding debate the private vs public funding argument is a red herring. In both models the money comes from the public. In the private model the funding comes from people who buy goods or services from the corporations that own the programme, or subsidiaries thereof. There are of course differences in who pays and how much they pay but the argument seems to be being made that if it is funded by a private corporation it is basically free. This is just not true. If this has been your argument in the past you should now change to explaining why exactly it is better that those customers pay than the general public at large. I personally think that private space programmes are great, but I also think that every government should have one too. It is like any other area of the universe, sure private yachts are nice for a cruise and privately owned container ships are a great way for companies to transport merchandise, but it is also nice to have a navy, coast guard and marine search and rescue. If the US government doesn't want to have any presence in space that is fine with me though, I notice you are moving a lot of your military activity into the private sector too, it doesn't seem to be a great idea to me but I am not an expert. Whatever floats your boat/shuttle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 09:24:49 pm

Quote from: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 09:01:16 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 06:43:00 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 06:36:49 pm

His point is that distinction is not made in the argument of "the problem is that no matter what you ban, criminals will always find ways of hurting or killing people." The logic presented justifies nuclear weapons just as much as small arms.

except the average thug isn't going to be able to buy a several million dollar ICBM, In fact I don't believe there has ever been a WMD sold legally on the open market at least to individuals. Nuclear weapons aren't available for purchase so it's a complete red herring.

Oh man you are trolling right? Having a giggle, see if anyone notices? Just in case you are serious, nuclear weapons are illegal. This is why they are not sold legally on the open market to private individuals. We are trying to find ways to reduce gun deaths and this is your argument against controlling access to firearms?

Edit: Maybe I should also use this post for something constructive.

Maybe a teeny tiny bit of trolling. Regardless, a few people have already make far better points than me on this subject. So It's constructive trolling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 09:38:49 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 09:24:49 pm

constructive trolling.

*brain implodes*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 10:35:00 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 09:38:49 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 01, 2012, 09:24:49 pm

constructive trolling.

*brain implodes*

You have fine tastes in animated wonderment for children.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 02, 2012, 01:05:24 am

Perhaps I haven't been reading the exceptionally long (and growing!) posts here lately, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder what gun control and nuclear missiles have to do with the upcoming election. So far as I know, neither candidate has even commented on current gun laws.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 02, 2012, 03:00:36 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 02, 2012, 01:05:24 am

Perhaps I haven't been reading the exceptionally long (and growing!) posts here lately, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder what gun control and nuclear missiles have to do with the upcoming election. So far as I know, neither candidate has even commented on current gun laws.

Don't worry about it. Thread topics on the Bay12 forums swerve off the rails regularly, but we eventually find them again. Although it can be REALLY entertaining when we don't.

I'm looking at you Kind DZA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 02, 2012, 07:52:52 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 02, 2012, 01:05:24 am

Perhaps I haven't been reading the exceptionally long (and growing!) posts here lately, but I'm increasingly beginning to wonder what gun control and nuclear missiles have to do with the upcoming election. So far as I know, neither candidate has even commented on current gun laws.

Oh, they have. After what went down in Aurora, it was kind of impossible not to.
Romney's stance is "No new gun laws...the ones we have work fine, except when they don't, which just proves that new laws wouldn't help anyways."

Honestly, I'm not even sure what Obama's stance is, because he seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He's been remarkably mum on gun control up until now, but some of his comments seem to suggest he'd be okay with reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing Congress at this point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 02, 2012, 08:00:24 am

Someone joked about shooting a plane down with a rocket launcher. Not something you wanna laugh at. Drones are airplanes, and them boys with arsonals are getting targeted by drones now. Just cameras on US soil, but bet that this situation  of a rocketlauncher will happen someday.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:32:52 am

Can we please get back to the actual election? Is anything interesting at all happening?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 08:39:48 am

There were primaries for senate and house races in Georgia and Texas, but other than that, nothing at all interesting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:43:51 am

Quote from: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 08:39:48 am

There were primaries for senate and house races in Georgia and Texas, but other than that, nothing at all interesting.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, THIS ELECTION IS SO BORING! SKIP TO 2016, WE'll DO IT LIVE!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on August 02, 2012, 08:55:06 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:43:51 am

Quote from: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 08:39:48 am

There were primaries for senate and house races in Georgia and Texas, but other than that, nothing at all interesting.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, THIS ELECTION IS SO BORING! SKIP TO 2016, WE'll DO IT LIVE!

Obama's going to win anyway, why should we get all excited about it? Who the hell would elect Mitt Romney?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 02, 2012, 09:00:19 am

For me this election is about taxes. Romney is opposed to them unless poor people are paying them, obama seems indifferent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 02, 2012, 09:01:47 am

It's also about Romney opposing things he implemented in the past.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 09:02:21 am

Quote from: Owlbread on August 02, 2012, 08:55:06 am

Who the hell would elect Mitt Romney?

Everyone who doesn't want to elect Obama. It is to the point where Romney's slogan really should be "Not-Obama 2012". No one likes Romney for Romney, only for Romney not being Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on August 02, 2012, 09:06:31 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 09:02:21 am

Quote from: Owlbread on August 02, 2012, 08:55:06 am

Who the hell would elect Mitt Romney?

Everyone who doesn't want to elect Obama. It is to the point where Romney's slogan really should be "Not-Obama 2012". No one likes Romney for Romney, only for Romney not being Obama.

Isn't the other way around as well? Maybe not as much as with Romney, but with only two 'real' candidates I doubt the majority of the 'merkins are going to vote for someone they wholeheartedly like/support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 02, 2012, 09:25:19 am

For me it's a choice between ruinous corporate policies and a rogue nation.

Romney would get my support if I didn't think him too weak to stop our disreguard of the laws of war.

So with both choices I see further damage to the country in the thing I care most about. Romney just has the unfortunate habit of calling people who make over 250000 a year "job creators" when the truth is that this group employs less americans per dollar spent. The real job creators are around 125000 a year.

So yea, Romney has four strikes to Obama's three. To me, they are both out.

Stumps and Scamps 2012!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 09:54:40 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:43:51 am

Quote from: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 08:39:48 am

There were primaries for senate and house races in Georgia and Texas, but other than that, nothing at all interesting.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, THIS ELECTION IS SO BORING! SKIP TO 2016, WE'll DO IT LIVE!

You could look at your own state's elections and see how those are doing.  Of course, with your state being gerrymandered to hell and back the races may not be that exciting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 02, 2012, 12:25:12 pm

Quote from: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 09:54:40 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:43:51 am

Quote from: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 08:39:48 am

There were primaries for senate and house races in Georgia and Texas, but other than that, nothing at all interesting.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, THIS ELECTION IS SO BORING! SKIP TO 2016, WE'll DO IT LIVE!

You could look at your own state's elections and see how those are doing.  Of course, with your state being gerrymandered to hell and back the races may not be that exciting.

I see you're familiar with North Christolina.  :-\

Especially thrilling is the race to see whether we elect for Governor a pro-business, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-fracking Republican, or a pro-business, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-fracking conservative Democrat.

It really is like the "John Jackson / Jack Johnson" race in Futurama. Except I don't have the option of voting for a malevolent, robotic Richard Nixon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aptus on August 02, 2012, 12:31:04 pm

Mr. Schaden Freud esquire inside of me would find it interesting if Romney would win. The news are always more interesting with a dumbass republican in office. The sane part of me would like a third partier to get in, someone like Jill Stein.

EDIT: Now I don't agree with everything she says but from an outsiders perspective she seems a far sight better than both Obama and Generic-Republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on August 02, 2012, 01:12:49 pm

So, in other news, I was reading Newsweek and saw a sidebar on the GOP convention about security thereof; specifically about all the random shit(that could possibly be used as a weapon) that's ban banned to carry anywhere near the convention, from bb guns to chains to friggin lightbulbs. However, take a wild guess at the one item whose ban was blocked by our esteemed governor of Florida(hey, I didn't vote for the guy!); firearms. That's right, ACTUAL guns are ok to have at the convention according to Christ. *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 02, 2012, 01:24:41 pm

Don't you worry... if someone starts shooting... others can shoot back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 02, 2012, 01:25:04 pm

Quote from: Aptus on August 02, 2012, 12:31:04 pm

Mr. Schaden Freud esquire inside of me would find it interesting if Romney would win. The news are always more interesting with a dumbass republican in office.

I fear Obama more than I fear Romney. 

Obama is good at making people complacent.  He hides his dirty business well, and continues looking clean and hip.  He's made great strides in expanding the scope of the security/surveillance state, which will be ripe for abuse by his successors, and most progressive types don't even have a clue.

Romney is obviously corrupt.  Even his own base doesn't like him, and only support him as much as it takes to get Obama out of office.  Afterwards, I think even many republicans would turn right around and start fighting him.  Maybe that's wishful thinking, but at least progressives would be more mobilized again.  He would be treated by everyone like the enemy that he is.

Corruption in politics will continue marching on regardless of whether we elect the openly corrupt or the secretly slightly-less-corrupt.  What matters is the public's ability to unite in opposition outside of voting.


And now for something completely different. (http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 02, 2012, 01:39:32 pm

eh, I feel like Obama is fundamentally trying to do good, just misguided. Most people, even very intelligent people, have extreme difficulty in ignoring the culture they exist in. Obama is a wealthy lawyer. You would hardly expect someone in that environment not to place too much confidence in government and law.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 02, 2012, 01:48:30 pm

There are too many examples of him saying one thing to the public and doing the exact opposite behind closed doors for me to believe that.  Most strikingly, he's proclaimed himself the most unprecedented champion of government transparency and whistleblower protection in the history of the U.S., when every word and action of his not from behind a podium has been to the exact opposite effect.  He even labeled ACTA negotiations a matter of national security in order to keep them a secret from the public for as long as possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 02, 2012, 01:50:36 pm

Obama isn't that bad; and saying he's "expanding the scope of a security/surveillance state" is ignoring the fact that he's just following the precedent the previous 40 or so years of administration set for him in this facet of governance.

You shouldn't fear your own president; that's conspiracy theory levels of paranoia. I fear Romney only because I know he doesn't give a damn about political office and his only goal throughout his life has been to make personal profit off of the suffering/loss of others. Not because I think he'll spy on me and kill my father. I just don't want my tax rates across the board to double to make up for his fiscal plan [much like Rand Paul's, which would obliterate our country in the mere scope of 10 years].

I've yet to see anything about Obama that shows me he's been exploiting out country for his own political/monetary gain, on the contrary, I think he's been doing a damn good job considering his circumstances. Fear him? I do not. Annoyed? Eh, it doesn't bother me that much as I know the president is only about as powerful as their congress; and our current Democrats in congress are some of the most spineless hacks I've seen.

I don't blame Obama for simply coming into office and taking on the role. It's not like the fucker set-up the entire anti-terrorism department [which works under the military but is allowed it's own free reign, now with it's own state department branch], I mean come on, I know you know more about that. The military-industrial complex which provides the firms that conduct "security operations" has existed independently of Obama for a long, long time before he was born and will continue to influence and even change security policy in our future. Not the president's fault; all he can really do is roll with it and hope noone tells the press.

The same people who blame him for things like this are the ones who blame him for gas prices; I'd bet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 02, 2012, 02:04:04 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 02, 2012, 01:24:41 pm

Don't you worry... if someone starts shooting... others can shoot back.

I....I kinda find myself hoping for that scenario.
I'm a bad person.  :-[
But the Schadenfreude would be so moist and delicious, it could sell for $500/ounce.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 02, 2012, 02:09:21 pm

I'm basing my opinion of him exclusively on his personal words and actions.  I've made a couple posts on this thread way back with more details about that.  If it's a matter of being forced or "rolling with" pre-existing trends that he doesn't have the power to oppose, I would expect him to communicate openly about those things.  For instance, I understand the NDAA situation and don't hold him accountable for anything there.  On the other hand, publicly denouncing those things you point out as long-standing government trends, labeling himself the champion of opposition to those trends, and then willingly contributing to those trends in secret destroys his credibility from my point of view.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 02, 2012, 02:11:16 pm

Quote from: tryrar on August 02, 2012, 01:12:49 pm

So, in other news, I was reading Newsweek and saw a sidebar on the GOP convention about security thereof; specifically about all the random shit(that could possibly be used as a weapon) that's ban banned to carry anywhere near the convention, from bb guns to chains to friggin lightbulbs. However, take a wild guess at the one item whose ban was blocked by our esteemed governor of Florida(hey, I didn't vote for the guy!); firearms. That's right, ACTUAL guns are ok to have at the convention according to Christ. *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

His name is Mr Medicaid Fraud. He stole hundreds of millions of dollars from senior citizens and the government, and then got voted in by the elderly voting block because he had an R after his name.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on August 02, 2012, 02:21:28 pm

Hey, if there's one thing the majority of the American voting population is united in, it's voting against their own interests.

Incidentally, I'm looking at the sample ballot (which is, so far as I remember, physically identical to the actual ballot) for my county (senate, congress, some local stuff) and I'm noticing... no space for write-ins. At all. Also precisely zero third party candidates. Particularly amusing is that both state attorney candidates are republican (for what it's worth, anyway). Bleh. Early voting's next week (Well, technically starts on Saturday, so it is going on through the weekend), then main voting day th'week after.

Probably spend the weekend figuring out who the hell these people are and which of them are least scum. Not looking forward to that, heh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 02, 2012, 03:50:34 pm

Oh hey! Remember that asinine bill that the North Carolina legislature made that would forbid state planners from using !!SCIENCE!! to project rising sea levels??

Well, the bill is no more. IT'S A LAW NOW, BABY! (http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782)

F*** my state. >_<


The only saving grace is that they amended it to allow local planners to commission their own studies and follow those. But the state is not only forbidden from using the study that was already completed, but bars it from even commissioning any more studies for the next four years. The stupid is so thick, we may actually be able to use it to fill the sandbags we're going to need to hold back the ocean.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 03:52:36 pm

*Adds North Carolina to states I refuse to work.  The list now includes all 2008 McCain states, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.

I am an urban planning student myself and just have to facepalm at that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 02, 2012, 04:28:32 pm

Quote from: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 11:56:18 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 01, 2012, 11:30:28 am

There are people going into space without taking other people's money to do so, and with safety standards far better than those of NASA.

What is this "other people's money" you refer to. I agree with many of your points but if you have evidence that nasa are guilty of theft you should probably pass it on to the fbi.

Yes I am being facetious, but I find the debate in the US about taxes has really gone off the deep end. I saw a guy on slashdot who had the sig 'taxation is legalised theft, no more no less', and I just found myself needing to throw up. Needless to say I did not read anything he posted. Here are a list of just some of the things that taxes (should) pay for: Education, police, healthcare, justice system, administration, fire brigade, public transport, roads, bridges, dams, communications infrastructure, defence, social welfare, prisons, grants for new businesses... the list goes on. Lets envision a country with none of these things. Then envision a country with all of these things privatised.

If you advocate minimising taxes you are advocating minimising public services and infrastructure. Please defend that position, the position 'I don't want to give my money to the government' is not relevant.

How do you propose to have the above services and infrastructure without taxes, alternatively, how do you propose to have a functioning society without them.

Sorry if I am jumping in a conversation with too little context and saying something stupid, but it is almost 300 pages and I don't even get to vote.

I'm actually an anarchist, but I prefer not to go off the deep end and start on that tangent because its so far off topic that we'd probably loop around and start talking about pie or something.

Anyway, seeing as how that little discussion is over, back to the US election!

Quote

Obama isn't that bad; and saying he's "expanding the scope of a security/surveillance state" is ignoring the fact that he's just following the precedent the previous 40 or so years of administration set for him in this facet of governance.

You shouldn't fear your own president; that's conspiracy theory levels of paranoia. I fear Romney only because I know he doesn't give a damn about political office and his only goal throughout his life has been to make personal profit off of the suffering/loss of others. Not because I think he'll spy on me and kill my father. I just don't want my tax rates across the board to double to make up for his fiscal plan [much like Rand Paul's, which would obliterate our country in the mere scope of 10 years].

I've yet to see anything about Obama that shows me he's been exploiting out country for his own political/monetary gain, on the contrary, I think he's been doing a damn good job considering his circumstances. Fear him? I do not. Annoyed? Eh, it doesn't bother me that much as I know the president is only about as powerful as their congress; and our current Democrats in congress are some of the most spineless hacks I've seen.

I don't blame Obama for simply coming into office and taking on the role. It's not like the fucker set-up the entire anti-terrorism department [which works under the military but is allowed it's own free reign, now with it's own state department branch], I mean come on, I know you know more about that. The military-industrial complex which provides the firms that conduct "security operations" has existed independently of Obama for a long, long time before he was born and will continue to influence and even change security policy in our future. Not the president's fault; all he can really do is roll with it and hope noone tells the press.

The same people who blame him for things like this are the ones who blame him for gas prices; I'd bet.

He's been pretty enthusiastic about extending the influence of Bush's little surveillance state, extending the PATRIOT act, continuing wars, etc. The NDAA is an entirely unacceptable law for anyone with even the pretense of believing in civil liberties, and I'm rather surprised that I'm not hearing outrage like I would have heard if it was Bush passing it. So yeah, I don't like Obama very much and its hard to believe that I thought he might change things once upon a time. If he didn't want people to be angry when he supported pro-war/pro-surveillance legislation then he damn well shouldn't have campaigned on being against all of that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 02, 2012, 05:07:42 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 02, 2012, 01:25:04 pm

And now for something completely different. (http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/)

The most disturbing part about that is that they were even able to hack into the IRS database. Unless this news site is like the onion and just there for subtle subtle laughs.

Personally I think America needs more political parties, two is just, well it really is the absolute minimum number while still giving people a "choice".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 02, 2012, 05:08:45 pm

Y'all are aware that site is a hoax, yes?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 02, 2012, 05:52:32 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 02, 2012, 04:28:32 pm

He's been pretty enthusiastic about extending the influence of Bush's little surveillance state, extending the PATRIOT act, continuing wars, etc. The NDAA is an entirely unacceptable law for anyone with even the pretense of believing in civil liberties, and I'm rather surprised that I'm not hearing outrage like I would have heard if it was Bush passing it. So yeah, I don't like Obama very much and its hard to believe that I thought he might change things once upon a time. If he didn't want people to be angry when he supported pro-war/pro-surveillance legislation then he damn well shouldn't have campaigned on being against all of that.

Give me your point by point plan for Obama to remove and fix the 'surveillance state' in his term. There's alot of campaign rhetoric that gets ignored after campaign season is over, so you'll get over that. I'd just like to know exactly how you seem to think he's supposed to roll back 20+ years of 'counter-terror' infrastructure and huge influence in American politica.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 02, 2012, 05:58:31 pm

You can't really equate the entirety of the government to the president. The president just doesn't have that much power, in fact, he/she has ALOT less power than is commonly assumed.

Control of the Senate/House is way more important. And I rarely ever see those elections make it off of the local AM stations and newspapers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 02, 2012, 06:00:02 pm

Weird, because that's literally what I just said.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fear him? I do not. Annoyed? Eh, it doesn't bother me that much as I know the president is only about as powerful as their congress; and our current Democrats in congress are some of the most spineless hacks I've seen.

And my entire point, if you didn't catch the heavy sarcasm in me asking for what GJ thinks Obama should have done to 'fix it' in one term.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 02, 2012, 07:20:04 pm

I just have to say I love all you guys. This entire forum, but this thread especially. When I need to explain to someone that the whole internet isn't just a cesspit of porn trolling and stupidity I bring them to this exact thread. Even among intelligent reasonable people conversations about current US politics can quickly devolve into a meaningless screaming match. The fact that this thread is so civil is a shining beacon to me of what an internet forum can be with a good community and reasonable moderation. Thank you all.

Back on topic: While I agree with everything salmon god is saying about Obama, I don't see that as anything even close to a reason to vote for Romney. Yes Salmongod never said it was a reason to vote for Romney and I am not trying to put words in his mouth. I am merely saying that although I agree with most people that criticise Obama, he would have to go much further before Romney would even be worth considering. Basically Romney will do all the same stupid/bad shit and probably worse, and the fact that he is more likely to get caught doing it is not sufficient reason to prefer him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 02, 2012, 08:08:23 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 02, 2012, 03:50:34 pm

Oh hey! Remember that asinine bill that the North Carolina legislature made that would forbid state planners from using !!SCIENCE!! to project rising sea levels??

Well, the bill is no more. IT'S A LAW NOW, BABY! (http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782)

Does this mean they can use baseless conjecture instead?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:36:04 pm

Romney wants to let Wind power subsidies expire, but retain Oil and Gas subsides. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/02/mitt-romney-end-us-wind-subsidies?INTCMP=SRCH)

These...these people really, honestly believe they can drain the planet dry and get bailed out by Jesus, don't they?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 02, 2012, 08:52:33 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 02, 2012, 05:52:32 pm

There's alot of campaign rhetoric that gets ignored after campaign season is over, so you'll get over that. I'd just like to know exactly how you seem to think he's supposed to roll back 20+ years of 'counter-terror' infrastructure and huge influence in American politica.

Not sure if you're responding exclusively to GreatJustice here, but it's not a failure to roll back security/surveillance creep that I am criticising.  I am criticising his active contribution to it.  GreatJustice mentioned the Patroit Act, and that is the perfect example.  When it came up for review in 2011, republicans only wanted a simple one-year extension.  It was Obama himself who suggested that they go ahead and give it a four year extension.  His campaign rhetoric wasn't just ignored.  He did a full switch on it.

Quote from: Drunken on August 02, 2012, 07:20:04 pm

Basically Romney will do all the same stupid/bad shit and probably worse, and the fact that he is more likely to get caught doing it is not sufficient reason to prefer him.

It's not that he's more likely to get caught.  It's that people will expect the worst from him from the start, and have already adopted a combative stance when his term begins.  When it comes to Obama, on the other hand, people don't seem to expect any unethical behavior of him.  I have a hell of a time convincing intelligent people that the guy has ever done anything wrong.  That scares me.

No, it doesn't scare me in the sense that I think he's going to personally order my door battered down.  I'm not being unrealistically paranoid here.  What scares me is the expectation that he will continue to willingly contribute to the accelerating erosion of our rights, and that people who would normally be energetically opposed to those behaviors will be almost completely unaware.  No, he is not and will never be solely responsible for the erosion of our rights.  I know he's not the grand monarch of the United States.  Regardless, the president is still a powerful individual, and the figurehead who most broadly symbolizes the dominant will of the country (not that I say dominant as in most powerful, not collective as in majority).

And no, I'm not saying we should vote for Romney, either.  I'm not voting in this election, myself.  The whole thing just bothers me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 02, 2012, 08:59:07 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:36:04 pm

Romney wants to let Wind power subsidies expire, but retain Oil and Gas subsides. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/02/mitt-romney-end-us-wind-subsidies?INTCMP=SRCH)

These...these people really, honestly believe they can drain the planet dry and get bailed out by Jesus, don't they?

pretty much? yes. The sooner the world gets destroyed, the sooner the rapture happens. So you see, its really all for the best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 02, 2012, 09:12:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 02, 2012, 08:59:07 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:36:04 pm

Romney wants to let Wind power subsidies expire, but retain Oil and Gas subsides. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/02/mitt-romney-end-us-wind-subsidies?INTCMP=SRCH)

These...these people really, honestly believe they can drain the planet dry and get bailed out by Jesus, don't they?

pretty much? yes. The sooner the world gets destroyed, the sooner the rapture happens. So you see, its really all for the best.

Republicans killed the dinosaurs millions of years ago in order to harvest their remains for massive profits today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 02, 2012, 09:58:08 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 02, 2012, 08:59:07 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 08:36:04 pm

Romney wants to let Wind power subsidies expire, but retain Oil and Gas subsides. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/02/mitt-romney-end-us-wind-subsidies?INTCMP=SRCH)

These...these people really, honestly believe they can drain the planet dry and get bailed out by Jesus, don't they?

pretty much? yes. The sooner the world gets destroyed, the sooner the rapture happens. So you see, its really all for the best.

That's going to hurt him in Iowa, where wind energy is popular.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 02, 2012, 10:57:23 pm

What could have Obama done? Here it is.

He could have vetoed any bill that came across his desk that infringed on american liberties, which would have then required a supermajority to get passed, which for most of the worst things wasn't going to happen.

He could have ordered his Marines to brush up on the laws of war. The Marine corps has a institutionalized worship of the Prez, so that would have resulted in some serious effort.

On those lines he could have closed guantanimo bay like he promised and moved them to US soil and treated them like prisoners of war instead of whatever legal fiction is currently in use. Trust me, the Marine Corps would have listened.

He could have chosen not to authorize targeted assassination with drones. Rogue CIA might have still done them, but every death wouldn't be on Obama then.

He could have refused anny list of assassinations that had American names on it, even if they were traitors.

He could have pardoned bradley manning.

All of these are things Obama could have done with the powers he has and would have made a difference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 03, 2012, 06:21:23 am

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on August 02, 2012, 10:57:23 pm

He could have vetoed any bill that came across his desk that infringed on american liberties, which would have then required a supermajority to get passed, which for most of the worst things wasn't going to happen.

Examples? Not to mention many bills have multiple purposes. The NDAA, for example, authorises the budget for the military that had a couple of elements discussing detention added. Obama did threaten to veto over some provisions and they were removed, simply because no-one could have afforded the bill not passing.

Quote

He could have ordered his Marines to brush up on the laws of war. The Marine corps has a institutionalized worship of the Prez, so that would have resulted in some serious effort.

Why the emphasis on the Marine Corps here? I've only been aware of a few cases where marines were involved in abuse, and fewer still under Obama.

I'm also guessing you haven't seen the army's new manual on avoiding civilian harm which was published last week. There is a copy here (http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/attp3_37x31.pdf-approved.pdf) and was some discussion around it last week on national security and law blogs.

Quote

On those lines he could have closed guantanimo bay like he promised and moved them to US soil and treated them like prisoners of war instead of whatever legal fiction is currently in use. Trust me, the Marine Corps would have listened.

Actually, no.

For one thing, bringing the prisoners to trial is pretty close to impossible, given the circumstances of their detention. Imagine a man who was caught by police standing over the bodies of five children cackling about how he just killed them. But then the police snatched him, held him for a month without charge, tortured him, etc. A good lawyer might not get him off on the initial charges but could damned well make that case hard for the prosecutor to fight. An open and shut case turns into a long slog, likely one that is destructive to the police force who captured him (deservedly so).

That's a pretty straight analogy for some of the prisoners, like KSM. If you had followed any of the news from his trial you would notice the lawyers are making a huge spectacle of it, emphasising the detention practices and abuses at every turn, even while they are supposed to be entering a plea. Simply moving prisoners into other custody and bringing them to trial is a massive farce that is going to take years.

Then there is the congressional opposition to GTMO closing. Keeping the prison open (although it can never receive any more prisoners) has become an article of faith for the Republican party. They have explicitly banned, several times, the use of government funds to transfer prisoners out of GTMO. Obama has even been ignoring or reinterpreting some of these laws (as excessive restrictions on executive powers) to carry on with prisoner transfers. There have also been attempts to block international prisoner transfers, both from the GOP and from overseas powers who back out of promises to take prisoners back. This has massively slowed the exodus of GTMO prisoners, although it has been carrying on at a reduced speed.

The whole NDAA detention kerfuffle was started when the Republicans wanted to block GTMO transfers and civilian trials or detention for 'terrorists'. That whole debate? All about attempts to keep GTMO open. The issues of civilian detention and the like were only sideshows as far as Congress were concerned, and given the action around the 2013 NDAA (currently passed in the House with massive GOP re-writing after all progressive amendments were defeated, up for debate in the Senate soonish) it seems they were right that no-one would pay much attention into the future.

Quote

He could have pardoned bradley manning.

On what grounds?

Frankly, while I have massive sympathy for Manning, he did commit a massive crime. He released a huge amount of classified material on, essentially, a personal whim. Give the volume and nature of the material it's very unlikely that he had determined if any of it was seriously damaging to the USA. It was an irresponsible act, no matter how much some people might like it or take pleasure in it.

I'm all for lenience during his trial, given the mitigating circumstances that actually existed. But not holding him accountable for such a leak is to treat classification of information as optional. In some cases, sure, no harm. In others that's asking to get people killed.


I'm leaving the drone strikes for now because that's a huge topic that I haven't been able to come to firm conclusions over yet. I will say I'm strongly in favour of him being the final authority in making these strikes. If the US is shedding blood, I want that blood on the hands of someone selected, in no small part, for his moral character and seriousness. If the US is making these strikes I trust them to be justified more if it's Obama giving the go-ahead than if it's some unknown CIA agent or military general. It's the sort of decision that we elect presidents to make. While most people tend to ignore it, alongside all the policy and political roles the president fills, he also if confronted with an endless series of trolley problems that have real death tolls attached to their decisions.


But overall I think Obama has fucked up in some places and made strides (or at least strong attempts) in others when it comes to national security and civil liberties. It's certainly worth noting his fights against strong institutional inertia (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/the_cias_secret_push_to_keep_bush_era_torture_rules/) from the CIA and military, defending their past actions and pushing to use their powers. And yeah, he probably deserves some jail time by the end of his term. I'm not sure that a president has existed who hasn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Myrkky100 on August 03, 2012, 06:47:12 am

Quote from: palsch on August 03, 2012, 06:21:23 am

I'm leaving the drone strikes for now because that's a huge topic that I haven't been able to come to firm conclusions over yet. I will say I'm strongly in favour of him being the final authority in making these strikes. If the US is shedding blood, I want that blood on the hands of someone selected, in no small part, for his moral character and seriousness. If the US is making these strikes I trust them to be justified more if it's Obama giving the go-ahead than if it's some unknown CIA agent or military general. It's the sort of decision that we elect presidents to make. While most people tend to ignore it, alongside all the policy and political roles the president fills, he also if confronted with an endless series of trolley problems that have real death tolls attached to their decisions.

You can look at the whole drone thing in two ways. On a more theoretical level it is very suspect ethically and may well violate both domestic and international law. On a more down to earth level, since Bush had authorised the program to start, pretty much anyone could have been elected at it would have continued. There are individuals in Afghanistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa etc. that are seen to pose a threat. Boots on the ground are politically very difficult and switching to some other method would be time and resource consuming and risk failure. At the same time the capability to use drones is there and a lot of people in the military and relevant industries are backing the use and expansion of the strike capability; a lot of administrative inertia is pushing the program forward. So in a realpolitik-sense the argument that personally making the decisions at least shows some attempt to take moral responsibility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 03, 2012, 07:24:54 am

Because I still don't quite have the energy for the drone discussion yet, have the best Guardian headline of the year. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/02/ann-romney-horse-dressage-medal?newsfeed=true)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 10:00:34 am

The president does not need grounds to pardon Bradley Manning.

As for what grounds? The unlawful imprisonment and  torture of a US citizen.

Bradley Manning committed the crime of acting as a wistleblower to expose and have rectified fraud and illegal coverups in the US government. The crime of releasing classified information is mitigated by the nature of some of the information released. Should he have been arrested? Yes. Dishonorably discharged? Almost certainly. Tortured for years and denied a trial? HELL NO!

Obama claimed to embrace transparency and justice, but this specific case is a travesty and clear demonstration that all his moral appeals where nothing more than a facade. He is little or no better than his predecessor in that regard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 03, 2012, 10:17:27 am

I know this has come up before, but I'm of mixed feelings about the Bradley thing. His heart might have been in the right place, but that was an incredibly dumb thing to do. And you cannot just let a breach of that magnitude go unpunished *or* set a precedent for others to follow.

C'mon Nadaka, you've got a clearance, you know how big of a deal that is. You can't just let someone with TS clearance pull a huge, indiscriminate data dump and get away with it. If it had been a handful of documents specifically relating to some abuse, that's one thing. Just grabbing everything you can find and uploading it to Wikileaks? That borders on treason, regardless of his intent.

Obama would have been crucified for pardoning Manning.

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 02, 2012, 08:08:23 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 02, 2012, 03:50:34 pm

Oh hey! Remember that asinine bill that the North Carolina legislature made that would forbid state planners from using !!SCIENCE!! to project rising sea levels??

Well, the bill is no more. IT'S A LAW NOW, BABY! (http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782)

Does this mean they can use baseless conjecture instead?

Actually, it means they're using historical record. Which is brilliant. As Stephen Colbert put it, "Those beancounter actuaries at the insurance company project that I'm going to die sometime in the next 50 years. However, if we only consider historical data, I've been alive my entire life. Therefore, I always will be."

One of my friends came up with a great label for this: North Canutelina.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/5/28/1338222639548/king-canute-on-the-beach-008.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 03, 2012, 10:30:30 am

In this, I am on Nadaka's side. What use is freedom of speech and of press if you can't use them for the one thing they were supposed to let you do; criticising the government?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 03, 2012, 10:35:16 am

In the same way that utilizing freedom of speech to shout FIRE in a crowded theater is illegal and irresponsible, breaking a security trust and divulging classified information indiscriminately is NOT the right way to use those rights.

I'm not against whistleblowers. I'm against whistleblowers burning down the house to show that there need to be some safety improvements.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 10:56:37 am

I do know how big a deal it is.

Arrest him? Yes.
Dishonorably discharge? yes
Fines? ok
Prison time? maybe some.
Indefinite unlawful imprisonment and torture? HELL NO!

There is still no legal and moral justification for holding and torturing him for years without trial.
He should never have been treated the way he has been. Had he received justice already, a pardon would not be called for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 03, 2012, 11:44:01 am

No disagreement there. That said, malfeasance on the part of the military in its detention and treatment of him does not constitute grounds for a pardon, IMHO.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 03, 2012, 11:49:29 am

Quote from: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 10:00:34 am

As for what grounds? The unlawful imprisonment and  torture of a US citizen.

This is reason to prosecute those responsible for his detention and cause for lenience in sentencing, not for pardoning him before his trial has even fully started. If he were to receive an excessive sentence and either fail or be denied appeal, then a pardon may be justified.
EDIT: Thinking about this, I'm not sure a full pardon is right. Some form of clemency or commutation of the sentence may be more suited, such as reducing a custodial sentence in light of his previous treatment.

I'd also make certain that any evidence gained through that treatment be suppressed, although that's largely irrelevant here.

Going back to my example above of a murder suspect abused by police, such mistreatment can't always override guilt. I do think taking it into consideration when prescribing punishment makes sense, although I still feel a little uncomfortable treating it as an actual part of the punishment rather than mitigating circumstances.

For an extreme version, take the KSM case. He was waterboarded and held in far more degrading and abusive conditions than Manning. The things done to him during his early detention should never be part of the US's legal apparatus. We should never treat it as part of his punishment and should, frankly, find a way to prosecute those that put him through it. We should also not let it stop us prosecuting him to the fullest and fairest extent of the law, preferably ending with assigning him three thousand life sentences.


And just for the record, if I were the judge in his case? I'd go for a discoverable discharge, time served, maybe a two-five year sentence based on what he was actually found guilty of, full medical expense coverage for life on the taxpayer dime and relocation to anywhere in the US or UK (he has the option of UK citizenship) he chooses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 12:16:10 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/retired-porn-star-jenna-jameson-says-she-supports-143703925.html

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 03, 2012, 12:19:19 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 12:16:10 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/retired-porn-star-jenna-jameson-says-she-supports-143703925.html

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

Exactly the kind of people you want supporting your average family values republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 03, 2012, 01:07:59 pm

Oh, the bumper stickers this could make...

BOOBS FOR BOOBS

TITS FOR MITT

"Jenna Jameson: Putting the "magic" in Romney's magic underwear."


EDIT: I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense outside the whole personal wealth angle as well....when Republicans repress sexuality in society, more and more people will turn to porn as an outlet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 03, 2012, 01:33:33 pm

I love those responces, apologizing for Obama's failures.

There may be many things Obama cannot do, but those things on the list I provided are things he can easily do, if he cared to.
Fear is never justification for not doing the right thing, even if it is fear of political fallout.

As for Manning, we have laws specifically designed to protect whistleblowers. The wikileak leaks were leaks stemming from violations of the constitution or laws of the USA. If he broke the law in revealing this, the law is at fault for concealing the wrongdoing.
Pardoning doesn't need a reason, but in this case it would have one.

I love the crowded theater anology too. You yell fire in a theater that's on fire and off to jail!
It may not be what you meant, but it was an accurate portrayal of what Manning did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 01:37:13 pm

As I recall, the info included plans/troop movements in afghanistan and iraq. Releasing that publicly is incredibly dangerous, and probably resulted in plenty of people dying who didn't have to. I'm all for revealing illegal government practices, but what he did goes far beyond that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 01:44:47 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 01:37:13 pm

As I recall, the info included plans/troop movements in afghanistan and iraq. Releasing that publicly is incredibly dangerous, and probably resulted in plenty of people dying who didn't have to. I'm all for revealing illegal government practices, but what he did goes far beyond that.

There were no deaths as a result of the release. Not even when the new media published the crypto key to the whole archive.

Unless of course you count Gaddafi and the other deaths that resulted from the Arab spring that was sparked by revelations of corruption and decadence by the leadership of Tunisia.

What he did goes beyond exposing illegal government practices, that is why I am not saying he should have a medal pinned on his chest and celebrated as a hero. It still does not in any way justify the unjust way he has been unlawfully imprisoned without trial and tortured.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 03, 2012, 01:48:30 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on August 03, 2012, 01:33:33 pm

As for Manning, we have laws specifically designed to protect whistleblowers. The wikileak leaks were leaks stemming from violations of the constitution or laws of the USA. If he broke the law in revealing this, the law is at fault for concealing the wrongdoing.

He released at least 251,287 State Department cables. Cables that didn't reveal any illegal activity that I'm aware of. Cables that there was no way for him to screen and select from to make such a case even if there was one to be made. I believe the total charges against him involve close to 750,000 files.

That isn't whistle blowing. Even if a few of the files showed illegal activity or were otherwise defensible as whistle blowing (the Collateral Murder video being the only case I can think of, and that one isn't watertight) that isn't a defence for the scale or method of the leak.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 03, 2012, 02:12:50 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 03, 2012, 10:17:27 am

Obama would have been crucified for pardoning Manning.

While I'm sure this is true, there are plenty of people who feel the opposite.  I don't think what he did was so irresponsible.  He could have been more selective about what he leaked, but according to Lamo's chat logs his goal was to spark deep and widespread discussion, not to shed light on specific cases of abuse.  Plus, I'm sure he knew his actions were placing him in danger, and he didn't have all the time in the world to agonize over the details and ensure that he gathered only information that was both juicy and safe at the same time.  This is why he turned the information over to journalists, after all, instead of just dumping it somewhere on the internet himself.  Plenty of time has passed, and there's been tons of independent and government analysis concluding that nobody has been harmed as a result of his actions, nor is anyone likely to be.  On the other hand, it's almost undeniable that he's played a large part in sparking a wave of uprisings against tyrannical establishments in a region where fighting tyranny and spreading democracy has been the supposed goal of the U.S. for decades.  It wouldn't be a stretch to presume that military authorities are either ashamed of being overshadowed by his accomplishments or upset because they never actually wanted freedom for people in the Middle East.

Regardless of the justifications and motivations behind his treatment, it is completely repugnant to me, and instills me with just as much hatred and distrust of authority as the "Collateral Murder" video.  No action has been taken against anyone responsible for the abuses he exposed, yet he gets the full wrath of the establishment.

Finally, bringing this back to the original subject of Obama's character, I've pointed out before how he handled the subject when confronted face-to-face to ask why Daniel Ellsberg is regarded as a national hero, while Manning gets tortured.  Obama's only response was essentially "The information Manning leaked was more classified than the information leaked by Ellsberg", which was a flagrant lie.  The information Ellsberg went through extreme measures to obtain and leak was very highly classified, while IIRC correctly Manning obtained most of his information from SIPRNet, which is accessible by about half a million people...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 03, 2012, 02:43:25 pm

The correct response is that Ellsberg leaked a relatively narrow set of information directly related to extrajudicial actvities being conducted by the Pentagon. Manning just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and hoped something stuck out.

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 03, 2012, 02:12:50 pm

The information Ellsberg went through extreme measures to obtain and leak was very highly classified, while IIRC correctly Manning obtained most of his information from SIPRNet, which is accessible by about half a million people...

Half a million people with security clearances.

We're not going to get anywhere arguing about this. You're free to see him as a hero if you like. Just as I'm free to see him as a dumb kid who's going to be made an example of, to deter any more dumb kids in the future who even think of pulling a stunt like that. He's honestly lucky he wasn't ramrodded through a courts-martial and put in front of a firing squad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 04:43:51 pm

The fact that he could've been treated worse justifies treating him badly?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 04:56:03 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 04:43:51 pm

The fact that he could've been treated worse justifies treating him badly?

You are aware you give up most of your civilian rights when you do join the military, correct? Not saying it justifies it, but you have no legal basis for arguing against his detention, at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 04:57:42 pm

Even in the military, you have a right to a trial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 04:59:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 04:57:42 pm

Even in the military, you have a right to a military trial.

Fixed for correctness.

You seem to be unaware of the large discrepancy between the U.S. legal system for civilians and the hidden, arcane world of tribunals.

They could be cutting his skin off in a dungeon, for all you know. And they have legal precedent to do so, as he's a traitor by any means of military law. They could have simply just shot him in public to make a real example, but they haven't, so stop whining about Bradley Manning. He released classified documents and he's getting a relatively light punishment for doing so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 05:00:49 pm

Yes, generally when you argue against a government it turns out you have no legal basis for doing so because the government made the laws.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 05:02:26 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 05:00:49 pm

Yes, generally when you argue against a government it turns out you have no legal basis for doing so because the government made the laws.

Quote

I know this has come up before, but I'm of mixed feelings about the Bradley thing. His heart might have been in the right place, but that was an incredibly dumb thing to do. And you cannot just let a breach of that magnitude go unpunished *or* set a precedent for others to follow.

Sorry that they have a need to defend their code of laws in the military. Go ahead and advocate the dismantling of the military tribunal system and you'll get somewhere, I guess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 05:05:19 pm

I have literally no idea what you're talking about.  If joining the military means you agree that you'll be tortured and kept in solitary confinement constantly for over a year without trial or any opportunity for bail then yes, that needs to be addressed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 05:08:10 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 05:05:19 pm

I have literally no idea what you're talking about.  If joining the military means you agree that you'll be tortured and kept in solitary confinement constantly for over a year without trial or any opportunity for bail then yes, that needs to be addressed.

If you join the military and act as a traitor, you'll be treated as one by the tribunal system, if you don't understand that, you don't understand why he's even arrested in the first place. I'm not calling him a traitor by any means, but he is legally.

It's like you've put on your horse blinds specifically for this issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2012, 05:10:09 pm

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no punishment other than arrest and confinement (and confinement no more rigorous than is minimally necessary) is permitted before trial.

Some of the actions taken against Bradley Manning were quite illegal, in light of that.

So no, they aren't permitted to just torture and execute him to make a point, even if he is being charged with treason. Charged, mind you, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 05:11:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2012, 05:10:09 pm

So no, they aren't permitted to just torture and execute him to make a point.

They've proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [to a military trial] I'm sure. Especially since he wasn't really that good at not admitting to it the moment he did it or covering up any sorts of tracks. So yes, they could have easily just shot him in the Middle East and called him a traitor for 'supporting the terrorists.' But they didn't, which is a good thing. So I really don't see why you're all whining while we've got plenty of actually innocent people involved in our jails [and not to mention Gitmo, still stuffed full of actual innocents].

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 03, 2012, 05:14:20 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 05:11:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2012, 05:10:09 pm

So no, they aren't permitted to just torture and execute him to make a point.

They've proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [to a military trial] I'm sure.

For the record, no, they haven't, as he hasn't been tried yet.  There have been charges filed, an arraignment, and a couple hearings, but there has been no judgement or sentence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 03, 2012, 05:14:31 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 05:11:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2012, 05:10:09 pm

So no, they aren't permitted to just torture and execute him to make a point.

They've proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [to a military trial] I'm sure.

There has not been a military trial. You may be sure, but you are incorrect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 05:18:09 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 03, 2012, 05:11:05 pm

So yes, they could have easily just shot him in the Middle East and called him a traitor for 'supporting the terrorists.' But they didn't, which is a good thing.

"Yes your honour, I know I beat that man to within an inch of his life and set his house on fire.  But I could have killed him and blown up the entire block.  But I didn't, which is a good thing."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 03, 2012, 05:26:04 pm

I move we build this guy a statue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 03, 2012, 05:55:50 pm

On the treason issue, the actual charge is Aiding the enemy (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm). I think it's a bit of a stretch. I can see the case for it and would understand him being found guilty, but at the same time think that the lesser charges are a more fitting description of his actions. Especially the computer espionage act;

Spoiler: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) (click to show/hide)

 (1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

Also note conspiracy theorists; that particular law falls under RICO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations) (and for that extra tinfoil crunch it was added to the RICO list by the Patriot Act).

As to his illegal detention and torture, his treatment was disgusting and he is owed compensation. I expect him to bring a suit against the government for that. I would note though that he will have a hard fight. A goodly portion of his detention was entirely valid given the stated legal circumstances. He is going to be reliant on medical reports to show that the POI status (and later suicide watch) he was put under was invalid, simply because a lot of what he was subjected to was justified under those rules. The legal powers gained over a subject ruled to be suicidal or otherwise a risk to themselves are pretty scary. It does sound like these statuses were abused to me, although I am largely basing that on statements from his legal team.

And just for the record I strongly disagree with the idea that any potential worse treatment justifies poor treatment of detainees and prisoners. I also disagree with the idea that Manning could have been treated worse legally or even punished more summarily. The American military justice system is more robust than that and rapidly moving towards the civilian system (amusingly, partially being dragged by military tribunals having to deal with terrorism cases more suited to civilian courts).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 03, 2012, 06:36:48 pm

Just wanted to post this (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/nasa-splits-11b-three-commercial-spacecraft) to contradict the people who are saying that private space exploration companies save the taxpayer money. They just remove representative oversight.

Having said that, Bradley Manning is a far more important issue in my opinion, and as that is where the current discussion is at, please don't let this post derail. Bradley Manning, and others who are held in US black sites including Gitmo are one of the greatest humanitarian issues facing the modern world. Not because the US situation is unique, such imprisonments are practised by many other governments, and have been throughout recorded history. I am not accusing the US of being a worse evil empire than any other. But the US is a comparatively healthy democracy. It would be far easier for the US population to stand up and put a stop to this kind of thing than it would be for the population of Russia, China, Syria, etc. If you are reading this in the US: This is not acceptable behaviour. I will accept my share of the responsibility for this as a citizen of the first world, but you must also accept yours. Make this an election issue, talk about it, protest, make sure people know what is happening. You were once proud of your nation, now it is becoming known for its torturers and its secret prisons. We can fix this, but we have to work at it.

I think the charges of "Aiding the enemy" are exactly right. The enemy are the civilian population of the world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 03, 2012, 08:12:57 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 03, 2012, 01:48:30 pm

He released at least 251,287 State Department cables. Cables that didn't reveal any illegal activity that I'm aware of. Cables that there was no way for him to screen and select from to make such a case even if there was one to be made. I believe the total charges against him involve close to 750,000 files.

That isn't whistle blowing. Even if a few of the files showed illegal activity or were otherwise defensible as whistle blowing (the Collateral Murder video being the only case I can think of, and that one isn't watertight) that isn't a defence for the scale or method of the leak.

You haven't paid much attention, I think.  The cables have revealed plenty of illegal activity.  Much of it was illegal foreign affairs that the U.S. was simply aware of.  It's had global impact.

And it's wrong to focus on the cables.  The Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs have been incredibly important.  I'm on my lunch break right now and won't be able to visit this thread again for another 5 or 6 hours, or I would put together more information.  Right now, I'll just point out one piece of information that I consider to be vital.

The U.S. military denied keeping any records of casualties from the beginning of the Iraq War all the way up to the Wikileak's release of the War Logs.  Under these circumstances, anyone among the public who didn't care to do their own research was free to believe that their boys were out shooting bad guys in the good name of peace, freedom, and democracy.  Anybody who paid attention knew better, but no solid evidence could be produced with finality in normal public discourse.  The War Logs revealed that the military did, in fact, keep casualty records.  This means the public was lied to about very important information that they had no logical reason to lie about but for the sake of saving face.  Not only that, but they revealed that, by the military's own record-keeping, over 60% of the war's casualties were innocent civilians (over 66,000).  Everybody understood that collateral damage happens in war, and an innocent civilian dies here and there.  After the release of the War Logs, everybody understood that killing civilians was actually the majority of what we'd been doing over there for 10 fucking years, and there was no possible way it could be denied any longer.

Public opinion is incredibly important in maintaining a war effort.  The pentagon papers are widely credited as being a major, if not the #1, factor in the end of the Vietnam War.  The nature of information in the War Logs is incredibly similar to those in the Pentagon Papers.

Quote from: RedKing on August 03, 2012, 02:43:25 pm

The correct response is that Ellsberg leaked a relatively narrow set of information directly related to extrajudicial actvities being conducted by the Pentagon. Manning just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and hoped something stuck out.

Really?  A narrow set of information?  In a sense, I suppose you could say that.  I don't think the distinction is as stark as you make it out to be, though.  Ellsberg grabbed (socially infiltrated and stole, really) basically every piece of classified political and military information he could regarding 22 years of history of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.  It was over 7,000 pages of documents.  He focused more narrowly on one issue, but I don't think he was all that much more cautious about cherry picking only the safe or important bits.

Plus, Ellsberg has 100% supported Manning's actions, to the extent that he was arrested, at the frail age of 80, protesting outside of the brig where Manning was being held.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 03, 2012, 08:20:16 pm

Quote from: Drunken on August 03, 2012, 06:36:48 pm

Just wanted to post this (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/nasa-splits-11b-three-commercial-spacecraft) to contradict the people who are saying that private space exploration companies save the taxpayer money. They just remove representative oversight.

Bullshit.
http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html

Quote

Recent NASA estimates peg the shuttle program's cost through the end of last year at $209 billion (in 2010 dollars), yielding a per-flight cost of nearly $1.6 billion.

1.1 billion dollars is less than the cost of a single shuttle mission. SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch price is a mere $54 million. The Falcon 9 Heavy will be about twice that, but will have about twice the to-orbit payload as the shuttles. So, would you rather we have ~55k lbs to LEO for $1.6 billion or ~110k lbs to LEO for $100 million?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 03, 2012, 08:28:49 pm

That 1.1 billion is just a single payment. That 209 you refer to was over decades. I can't tally up the total cost to the tax payer of the currently planned private programmes because I can't predict the future, but if you think in the next 50 years it won't add up to over 200 billion I politely disagree. Your argument is a strawman, you can't compare the two numbers and pretend that it means anything. Also as I pointed out  earlier the people pay for private corporations as well, it is just a question of whether your money goes to the taxman and then the space people, or to a retailer and then the space people. It is also a question of how much right the people have to the products and results, and how much control they have over the programme.

Edit: I am going to go back on what I said in the post before this, oh wait no I am not, I said one of greatest humanitarian issues facing the modern world. Well I think the top of that list is probably third world poverty, this is another thing we could have and should have dealt with decades ago.

Edit2 vvv: alway, I apologise for not reading your post more carefully before responding. I got lazy and that is unforgivable. I am still not convinced that your argument favours private vs public though. Do those costs you posted include R&D, manufacturing divided by craft life, launch facility construction, wages for all ground personnel etc. because the nasa shuttle numbers certainly do. Of course the answer to that is no, as many of those numbers are not yet known. All this is irrelevant anyway, the technology has advanced and if nasa was building those shuttles the launch costs would not be any different. Unless you are suggesting there is some incompetence of nasa scientists and engineers that does not exist in private companies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 03, 2012, 08:39:17 pm

Read again: I was not comparing 209 to 1.1. I was comparing the $1.6 billion per launch cost of the space shuttle. That's the average 1-time cost which was incurred for each and every launch the shuttle performed. As opposed to $54 million for a Falcon 9 (half the capacity of the shuttle), or ~$100 million for a Falcon 9 Heavy (twice the capacity of the shuttle). Don't accuse people of straw-manning if you can't be bothered to read their argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 01:56:23 am

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 04, 2012, 05:38:15 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 01:56:23 am

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

Neil Degrasse Tyson thinks the same. His justified rage over this point thus inspired Penny for NASA (http://penny4nasa.org/).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on August 04, 2012, 06:19:49 am

Arguing against NASA is like arguing against kittens. You  might be right, but you're always wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 06:21:24 am

Hopefully NASA will get additional funding so they can continue their scramjet program. Once we have an economic scramjet getting material into LEO will be very easy, or at least so compared to using rockets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 04, 2012, 08:25:08 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 03, 2012, 08:12:57 pm

You haven't paid much attention, I think.  The cables have revealed plenty of illegal activity.  Much of it was illegal foreign affairs that the U.S. was simply aware of.  It's had global impact.

Sorry, that was poor word choice on my part where the context wasn't clear.

None of the information in the Wikileaks cables contained illegal activity that would be legal justification for a whistleblower defence.

A part of this is due to the only illegal activity being revealed being overseas, and the cables in those cases amount to no more than two people swapping a text or email over rumours of a third person's drug taking. As a rule, if a leak can't result in a direct legal remedy then a whistleblower defence is near impossible. For some cables you can almost make a public interest defence, but even there it would be hard to press in US courts given the nature of the information exposed and method of it's exposure.


I just want to lay out very clearly my full view on this part of the case.

Given Manning's own statements, the evidence of the leaks themselves and everything else about this case, it does appear he has broken at least some of the laws he has been charged with.

Given his method of leaking he almost certainly doesn't qualify for whistleblower protections. For one thing he did not take the channels approved for such whistleblowers (contrast with Daniel Davis (http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/02/12/honorable-military-whistleblower-why-daniel-davis-is-and-bradley-manning-is-not/)).

Some of the leaks certainly were in the public interest, broadly defined, and did a net good. However, due to the method and broad nature of the leaks it's hard to say that Manning served the public interest effectively. If I fire a hundred bullets indiscriminately downrange and two hit the target I can't point at those two and say I'm an effective marksman.

Similarly, given the scale of the leaks and the fact Manning didn't tailor them to a specific public interest, Manning is vulnerable to charges of releasing information that may assist the enemy. His willingness to release information indiscriminately means such a charge can be brought even if no such damaging information existed. I personally think he should be found not guilty of that charge, but this is more for mitigating circumstances than for a plain law reading of his actions.

Going back to the public interest defence, I'm afraid that even if such a defence could be made for specific leaks (as for, say, the Collateral Murder video or elements of the Afghan/Iraq war logs) it is unlikely it would be sufficient for legal defence. Ellsberg understood this back in the 70's. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Pentagon Papers were illegally released Ellsberg turned himself in and stated he was willing to face, "all the consequences of this decision." He was later released due to illegal and other improper behaviour by the prosecution, not due to any legal defence of the leak.

This is pretty important to recognise. Even when leaks are in the public interest they may not be legal. Acts of justified public disobedience do still come with legal penalties and even jail time. Committing a crime lots of people like doesn't mean the crime itself is (or should be) ignored by the state.

Further to all this, exactly what remedies and treatment Manning deserves really depends on his trial. If he comes out of it with an excessive punishment then Presidential clemency may be appropriate (which is what this whole debate was about).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 09:53:53 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 01:56:23 am

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

Just another reason to cut defense spending. Honestly, the US would be pretty safe even if the defense budget was shrunk to 50 billion (accounting for ends to the present US foreign military bases and wars).

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 09:56:22 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 09:53:53 am

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

Oh of course, it isn't like NASA ever does any R&D or tries to make economic scramjets or produces thousands of spinoff technologies or has a rover less than 48 hours away from landing on Mars at this very second or anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 11:32:12 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 09:56:22 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 09:53:53 am

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

Oh of course, it isn't like NASA ever does any R&D or tries to make economic scramjets or produces thousands of spinoff technologies or has a rover less than 48 hours away from landing on Mars at this very second or anything.

@MSH <3

I don't see where the NASA hate is coming from. A lot of modern technology came from these guys. They help out one company getting a ship into space and suddenly they are just expecting everyone else to do their job for them?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 04, 2012, 12:01:30 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 04, 2012, 08:25:08 am

This is pretty important to recognise. Even when leaks are in the public interest they may not be legal. Acts of justified public disobedience do still come with legal penalties and even jail time. Committing a crime lots of people like doesn't mean the crime itself is (or should be) ignored by the state.

Further to all this, exactly what remedies and treatment Manning deserves really depends on his trial. If he comes out of it with an excessive punishment then Presidential clemency may be appropriate (which is what this whole debate was about).

Yeah, I've never been arguing that what he did wasn't illegal, just that I don't personally believe he is deserving of punishment.  Certainly not the mind and life-destroying sort of punishment that is long-term solitary confinement followed by prison time, let alone a life sentence.  But I'm an anarchist.  I recognize my perspective here is far different from most.  Laws are absolutes.  If they cannot be overruled by personal judgment and circumstances, then their universal application is guaranteed to result in negative consequences.

As for a presidential pardon, I personally believe his treatment has already justified it.  Studies have shown it takes only two months of solitary confinement to cause permanent psychological damage 100% of the time.  While I believe I've seen that he's no longer being held in those conditions, he was still subject to over a year of it before even being charged with a crime.  But Manning's well-being is secondary to me.  The #1 reason for me to call for a pardon is it would be the first act Obama has taken in the spirit of his original campaign, and that truly recognizes America's overwhelming frustration with corruption and secrecy.  It would be a strong enough act of good faith towards my values, my frustration with the status quo, and the kind of president I thought Obama was making himself out to be during his campaign, that I would actually re-evaluate my opinion of the guy.  I realize this reasoning is not shared by a majority and has about zero likelihood of happening, but most of my political opinions are that way and I'm kind of used to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 04, 2012, 12:01:44 pm

NASA's economic ROI is at the very least 200% of the money put into it, and that's using the most conservative estimates out there. So again, even ignoring everything else NASA does; putting aside planetary defense, inspirational value, national pride, and all the other 'soft' contributions made by NASA; even if we treat it the same as if it were some sort of government financial operation, it is STILL one of the most successful government programs in existence. That we give it as little as we do is, quite frankly, pants-on-head-retarded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 01:04:31 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 06:21:24 am

Hopefully NASA will get additional funding so they can continue their scramjet program. Once we have an economic scramjet getting material into LEO will be very easy, or at least so compared to using rockets.

Doubt it. NASA's budget has been cut constantly since the Sixties.* Nearly all recent major NASA projects (Orion, Several ESA co-op budget issues,...) have been cancelled mainly due to budget issues. In some parts (For example, the planetary exploration budget which is among others responsible for Curiosity) cuts are as high as 20%.

The only hope seems to be the CHinese/ North Korea/ India sparking a Second space race or commercial spaceflight, which currently mostly thrives on mainly governement researched technologies. 

EDIT: *On average. There was a temporary increase in 1991 to 1 %. Current is 0.46%.  It was 4.5% in the sixties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 02:00:59 pm

Once we can weaponize space ships, the defense department will basically absorb NASA and we'll see space travel.

~ Darkrider2, oracle services 2012.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 04, 2012, 02:05:31 pm

One thing about NASA; I don't really like ROI arguments as evidence for increasing NASA's budget.

ROI isn't the point of NASA and never should become the point. NASA is about discovery and exploration. Making about financial gain is to set the wrong priorities.

Using a financial argument for NASA leaves them vulnerable to arguments about what they are doing. If ROI becomes the purpose then you start trying to measure and optimise it, distracting from the scientific merits on which such programs should be assessed.

NASA being a good financial investment should be entirely incidental to the decision to invest in it.


I think this next decade is going to need a examination of how US science is divided between departments and maybe even an overhaul of NASA's own internal divisions. The danger always is that any restructuring causes further cuts and semi-parasitic departments that provide vital services from within other organisations get entirely lost.

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 04, 2012, 12:01:30 pm

As for a presidential pardon, I personally believe his treatment has already justified it.  Studies have shown it takes only two months of solitary confinement to cause permanent psychological damage 100% of the time.  While I believe I've seen that he's no longer being held in those conditions, he was still subject to over a year of it before even being charged with a crime.  But Manning's well-being is secondary to me.  The #1 reason for me to call for a pardon is it would be the first act Obama has taken in the spirit of his original campaign, and that truly recognizes America's overwhelming frustration with corruption and secrecy.  It would be a strong enough act of good faith towards my values, my frustration with the status quo, and the kind of president I thought Obama was making himself out to be during his campaign, that I would actually re-evaluate my opinion of the guy.  I realize this reasoning is not shared by a majority and has about zero likelihood of happening, but most of my political opinions are that way and I'm kind of used to it.

I think the political divide here is interesting.

I view presidential pardons as a last resort for repairing injustices that the legal system can no longer address. So long as someone has legal remedies open to them the president stepping in is a political bypassing of the system. Such measures are extraordinary and should not be taken outside of the most extreme circumstances.

Obama using a pardon to entirely bypass a trial here would be at complete odds with his persona as a thoughtful law professor with great respect for the rule of law. That is the man who campaigned in '08, at least as far as I remember.

As for it showing awareness of, "overwhelming frustration with corruption and secrecy," sort of. In the most empty, politically cynical and pointless manner possible. It is an action that would change nothing as far as the secrecy system or government corruption (two grossly different problems in my view) goes. Undertaking a full review of secrecy standard, the classification system and clearance would be my main priority for demonstrating action in that area. I'm also not a fan of using people's lives to make political points, but that's just me.

Now, if Manning is given an extensive custodial sentence and appeal isn't an option, then Obama stepping in would make sense, considering Manning's treatment and time served.

Similarly I feel that his mistreatment should be taken independently of his actual legal case. It should only be part of his trial so far as it effects evidence submitted or causes obstacles to his defence, and as mitigation taken during sentencing. The potential legal problems with his detention should be addressed separately, preferably by him bringing his own case and through an internal review by the military.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 02:08:54 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 02:00:59 pm

Once we can weaponize space ships, the defense department will basically absorb NASA and we'll see space travel.

~ Darkrider2, oracle services 2012.

Sadly, space ships were weaponized before they even existed. They are, after all, missiles with the explosives left out.

Current gen spaceships can be used as fairly effective precision bombing equipment(Especially the Soyouz ones and other single use pods). Weaponizing sattelites wouldn't be that hard. Russians have done it before(Though that one failed because they forgot to account for recoil and shot themselves out of orbit).

The only reason no active space militarization is being done is because there's an official agreement not to do it(Though the US didn't sign it) and that it wouldn't be very cost effective and rather provocative.(Launching a mass drop sattelite into orbit would be the same as arming ballistic rockets. Both only need a short time to destroy a rather large area)

Quote from: palsch on August 04, 2012, 02:05:31 pm

One thing about NASA; I don't really like ROI arguments as evidence for increasing NASA's budget.

ROI isn't the point of NASA and never should become the point. NASA is about discovery and exploration. Making about financial gain is to set the wrong priorities.

Using a financial argument for NASA leaves them vulnerable to arguments about what they are doing. If ROI becomes the purpose then you start trying to measure and optimise it, distracting from the scientific merits on which such programs should be assessed.

NASA being a good financial investment should be entirely incidental to the decision to invest in it.


I think this next decade is going to need a examination of how US science is divided between departments and maybe even an overhaul of NASA's own internal divisions. The danger always is that any restructuring causes further cuts and semi-parasitic departments that provide vital services from within other organisations get entirely lost.

Sadly the interest in pure science in the USA seems to be near nihil, while the interest in something that stimulates the economy is rather high.

At the very least it debunks the statements of people who say that NASA is a useless waste of money

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 02:15:58 pm

Quote from: alway on August 04, 2012, 12:01:44 pm

NASA's economic ROI is at the very least 200% of the money put into it, and that's using the most conservative estimates out there. So again, even ignoring everything else NASA does; putting aside planetary defense, inspirational value, national pride, and all the other 'soft' contributions made by NASA; even if we treat it the same as if it were some sort of government financial operation, it is STILL one of the most successful government programs in existence. That we give it as little as we do is, quite frankly, pants-on-head-retarded.

underlined for importance.

Actually now that I think about it, space colonization scares the hell out of me, I mean we don't use nukes now since it would harm the whole planet, but what if we're on a different planet? Interplanetary nuclear missiles are just about my nightmare of the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 02:23:23 pm

With a travel time of 1.5 years at best, we can safely say we can intercept them in time.

Also, we don't use nukes because the others have nukes too. (Also we're not crazy enough). Even more so with interplanetary colonies, since there's much more time for a (nuclear) counteroffensive

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 02:24:03 pm

I think number of casualties is more of a deterrent than effect to environment when you consider they have been used in anger twice and multiple times in tests.

Would NASA be better off acting as the hub of a more unified approach to space technology - ESA and ROSCOS have shown a willingness to work together well on a number of times over the last decade, and together would achieve more than apart. Cant see India or China willing to contribute much, but JAXA might.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 02:27:50 pm

Who's/What ROSCOS ? Google directed me to some kind of sugared donut like thing, so I doubt it's correct

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 02:30:03 pm

Roscosmos, the Russian space agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agency

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 02:38:22 pm

Ow, them.

As for China not wanting to cooperate. They have some joint projects with both the ESA and Russia currently. Nowadays almost all space agencies cooperate constantly. Curiosity was partly build by the Russians, after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 02:41:59 pm

I certainly hope China refuses to cooperate. We need a second space race, and only China will be able to scare politicians enough to re-fund NASA.

Saying Curiosity was partially built by the Russian Space Agency is slightly misleading. They provided the neutron emitter/detector, but that is only one part of very many.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 02:47:10 pm

China wont co-operate on a large scale. They want to get to the Moon and then to a NEO by themselves. US politicians will scoff at the Moon "as its been done" which totally misses the point, but when China land on an NEO you can be sure NASA will be given blank cheques to get to Mars/the belt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 02:53:29 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 02:47:10 pm

China wont co-operate on a large scale. They want to get to the Moon and then to a NEO by themselves. US politicians will scoff at the Moon "as its been done" which totally misses the point, but when China land on an NEO you can be sure NASA will be given blank cheques to get to Mars/the belt.

Hope so, doubt it._{Besides, Cameron will beat them to it}

EDIT: Besides, I'm pretty sure NEO's have been done before too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 02:57:21 pm

Nope, no human has ever gone to an NEO. NASA has mulled the idea over as part of a return to the Moon as a build up to a Mars push though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 03:02:10 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on August 04, 2012, 02:57:21 pm

Nope, no human has ever gone to an NEO. NASA has mulled the idea over as part of a return to the Moon as a build up to a Mars push though.

Ow, talking about humans. I know we landed robots to take samples.
There's not much to do there, except for the possibility to get into a stable orbit using a bike and a plank. Then again, doing scientifically and economically pointless things that look awesome might just be what needs to be done.

Also, Random fact: Canada apparently contributes to the ESA(0.5%). Doesn't actually suprise that much, as they also participated in a variety of other European projects.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on August 04, 2012, 03:12:41 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 02:08:54 pm

(Launching a mass drop sattelite into orbit would be the same as arming ballistic rockets. Both only need a short time to destroy a rather large area)

Didn't the USAF or someone commission the Thor project, where that was essentially the objective? Except, instead of satellites, it was telephone-pole sized tungsten rods with retrorockets? Rods From God, I believe it was also called.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 03:15:07 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on August 04, 2012, 03:12:41 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 04, 2012, 02:08:54 pm

(Launching a mass drop sattelite into orbit would be the same as arming ballistic rockets. Both only need a short time to destroy a rather large area)

Didn't the USAF or someone commission the Thor project, where that was essentially the objective? Except, instead of satellites, it was telephone-pole sized tungsten rods with retrorockets? Rods From God, I believe it was also called.

That was what I intended to refer too. I believe, it never made it past the Theorethical phase.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 04, 2012, 04:44:13 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 09:53:53 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 01:56:23 am

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

Just another reason to cut defense spending. Honestly, the US would be pretty safe even if the defense budget was shrunk to 50 billion (accounting for ends to the present US foreign military bases and wars).

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

How did you manage to post this message without electricity?  You seem to say that you don't benefit from NASA's activities.  It would follow that you can't be drawing electricity from the US power grid, which primarily is powered by fuel sources that NASA's geological surveys made much more affordable to survey.  Do you operate a hand crank or something?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 04, 2012, 04:59:04 pm

Not to mention that NASA's push for more compact computing is one of the big things that led to your phone having more computational power than Apollo 11.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 05:18:37 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 09:56:22 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 09:53:53 am

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

Oh of course, it isn't like NASA ever does any R&D or tries to make economic scramjets or produces thousands of spinoff technologies or has a rover less than 48 hours away from landing on Mars at this very second or anything.

Mind providing examples, then? There are a whole bunch of things that NASA is credited for creating that it had basically nothing to do with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 04, 2012, 05:37:28 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 05:18:37 pm

Mind providing examples, then? There are a whole bunch of things that NASA is credited for creating that it had basically nothing to do with.

The same way the first supercomputer had 'nothing to do with' modern day PC's, I guess.

There's literally hundreds of thousands of inventions/parts/discoveries that can be directly based upon Nasa's research. To point them out would be ridiculous; but for your pleasure here's an article on NASA's website about their general impact on the world of technology (http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html) or if you're not up to the read, he's a quick ten-item list of just some of the things they've directly made (http://www.whatpoll.com/nasa-inventions-we-use-everyday).

To find your examples all you need to do is google. Something you seem to be adverse to.

Here's some fun ones for the environment, too. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/nasa-inventions/5-green-nasa-inventions.htm)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 05:56:51 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 04, 2012, 05:37:28 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 05:18:37 pm

Mind providing examples, then? There are a whole bunch of things that NASA is credited for creating that it had basically nothing to do with.

The same way the first supercomputer had 'nothing to do with' modern day PC's, I guess.

There's literally hundreds of thousands of inventions/parts/discoveries that can be directly based upon Nasa's research. To point them out would be ridiculous; but for your pleasure here's an article on NASA's website about their general impact on the world of technology (http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html) or if you're not up to the read, he's a quick ten-item list of just some of the things they've directly made (http://www.whatpoll.com/nasa-inventions-we-use-everyday).

To find your examples all you need to do is google. Something you seem to be adverse to.

Here's some fun ones for the environment, too. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/nasa-inventions/5-green-nasa-inventions.htm)

Uh, well, scanning the "ten item list" shows a mixture of inventions that NASA didn't actually invent and merely improved upon, things that weren't terribly useful until someone other than NASA got their hands on them, and things that aren't really worth bragging about.

So lets see the bigger one...

Quote

As famed heart surgeon Dr. Michael DeBakey, who has collaborated with NASA on one of its most beneficial inventions, an artificial heart pump,

Heart pumps were not invented by NASA. This is not an invention, this is an improvement.

Quote

advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient’s heart….We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea.

I see a variety of things that fall under "improvements on already present technologies" and lots of "SATELLITES", which is a rather tenuous connection to the modern world and is non applicable since the Russians beat them to it (using technology and methods taken from Germany, so its not like satellites would never exist if not for NASA).

Quote

1978: Teflon-coated fiberglass developed in the 1970s as a new fabric for astronaut spacesuits has been used as a permanent roofing material for buildings and stadiums worldwide. (By the way, contrary to urban myth, NASA did not invent Teflon.)

Improvement.

Quote

1982: Astronauts working on the lunar surface wore liquid-cooled garments under their space suits to protect them from temperatures approaching 250 degrees Fahrenheit. These garments, further developed and refined by NASA’s Johnson Space Center, are among the agency’s most widely used spinoffs, with adaptations for portable cooling systems for treatment of medical ailments such as burning limb syndrome, multiple sclerosis, spinal injuries and sports injuries.

Improvement.

Quote

1986: A joint National Bureau of Standards/NASA project directed at the Johnson Space Center resulted in a lightweight breathing system for firefighters. Now widely used in breathing apparatuses, the NASA technology is credited with significant reductions in inhalation injuries to the people who protect us.

Improvement.

Look, do I need to go the whole way with this? NASA has invented and improved things, yes, but they ALSO crowd out people who would have otherwise invented other things. You see NASA's inventions (which, again, are mostly improvements that would have eventually occurred regardless), but you don't see what the people who ended up working for NASA would have done elsewhere.

Just compare the list of (practical) things invented by NASA to the list of things invented by, say, the private sector. Even compare it to the DoD and you'd find it outdone rather quickly!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 04, 2012, 05:57:57 pm

Wow, the market worship is strong with this one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 06:01:09 pm

Quote from: Jervill on August 04, 2012, 05:57:57 pm

Wow, the market worship is strong with this one.

Wow, the NASA worship is strong with this one.

Might I add that NASA also wastes money just like every other department. Remember Taurus? Not many companies would last long if they wasted a billion dollars on a failed project like that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 04, 2012, 06:03:04 pm

NASA is both great for the public interest and private companies, and if you don't understand that at all, you're a lost cause.

Can't tell if you're trolling or simply ignoring realities of life and technological advances.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 04, 2012, 06:03:29 pm

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/back_issues_archives.html
They create enough that there is a magazine for it. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 06:05:57 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 04, 2012, 06:03:04 pm

NASA is both great for the public interest and private companies, and if you don't understand that at all, you're a lost cause.

Can't tell if you're trolling or simply ignoring realities of life and technological advances.

Again, want to make a list of things invented by NASA and compare it to a list of things invented by the DoD or private sector? It wouldn't look very balanced.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 04, 2012, 06:11:54 pm

Read through several editions of that magazine I linked. It's quite a lot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 04, 2012, 06:12:38 pm

Go for it, but make sure you don't include the advances based on already existing knowledge or technology, so good luck. Once again, you seriously don't know what you're talking about in this field. If you continue to claim the private sector is better at, well, everything, then I guess you're just going to continue doing so and I'll just assume you're trolling for the sake of fun. I can't see why you seriously seem to think that NASA contributes nothing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2012, 06:13:23 pm

Quote from: alway on August 04, 2012, 06:03:29 pm

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/back_issues_archives.html
They create enough that there is a magazine for it. :P

Enough that Wikipedia recognizes the need for an independent article about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 06:05:57 pm

Again, want to make a list of things invented by NASA and compare it to a list of things invented by the DoD or private sector? It wouldn't look very balanced.

The DoD gets more money than any other government department. They are afforded billions upon billions and can create black technology that is 20-30 years from being white technology. The DoD can throw 20 billion dollars at a project and scrap the whole thing in a day if they want to investigate something else, a similar fund would be more than NASA's yearly budget. Furthermore, the DoD's innovations are in war. NASA's innovations tend to be more of the "improve the lot of all humankind" type. The latter has more value than the former.

The "private sector" can refer to a large number of things which have nothing to do with NASA's activities at all. Obviously there are going to be more innovations in the private sector as a whole than in a single agency with a specific purpose and directive. It's like saying Microsoft's additions to computing aren't worthwhile because the private sector has more innovations as a whole. Or perhaps your precious DoD put up against the private sector as a whole. It's a meaningless comparison.

Furthermore, what kind of criticism is "just an improvement on older technology"? All new technology is an improvement on older technology in some way, even if it is a disruptive improvement that totally obsoletes the old method. That's what technological development is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 04, 2012, 06:27:50 pm

Then there's also, y'know, the entire multi-billion dollar satellite industry providing your weather forecast and the satellite television you may be watching it on. And which also makes GPS possible. Among other things.

And where would I be without GPS? I dunno. :P

More than that, I would assert that there has been no greater push for young children to go into STEM fields than that inspiration provided by the Moon landings. STEM fields for which we currently have an increasing need to import talent from other countries due to lack of interest in the US. That undermines the entire basis of our post-industrial economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 06:35:59 pm

Quote

Furthermore, what kind of criticism is "just an improvement on older technology"? All new technology is an improvement on older technology in some way, even if it is a disruptive improvement that totally obsoletes the old method. That's what technological development is.

"Invented the heart pump" is a new technology. "Improved the heart pump" is an improvement, obviously.

Quote

Go for it, but make sure you don't include the advances based on already existing knowledge or technology, so good luck. Once again, you seriously don't know what you're talking about in this field. If you continue to claim the private sector is better at, well, everything, then I guess you're just going to continue doing so and I'll just assume you're trolling for the sake of fun. I can't see why you seriously seem to think that NASA contributes nothing.

Allow me to make this more fair, then; can you name me a NASA invention that very likely would not exist (in its present form) without NASA? Something that the various people working at NASA hypothetically working on their own wouldn't have created?

For the DoD there's the Internet, for example (without ARPANET it might exist, but it would have been quite a bit different from what exists today).

Also, might I ask, have you ever worked for NASA? Because the last person I asked who previously worked for NASA basically summed it up as being lots of red tape, bureaucracy, and waste with the occasional worthwhile invention coming once in a while.

Quote

The DoD gets more money than any other government department. They are afforded billions upon billions and can create black technology that is 20-30 years from being white technology. The DoD can throw 20 billion dollars at a project and scrap the whole thing in a day if they want to investigate something else, a similar fund would be more than NASA's yearly budget. Furthermore, the DoD's innovations are in war. NASA's innovations tend to be more of the "improve the lot of all humankind" type. The latter has more value than the former.

Again, do you have example of something that truly revolutionized the way people live invented by NASA?

Also, keep in mind that NASA is hardly living on pennies here. Since 1960 it has had a budget generally between ten and thirty billion dollars adjusted for inflation per year.

Quote

Then there's also, y'know, the entire multi-billion dollar satellite industry providing your weather forecast and the satellite television you may be watching it on. And which also makes GPS possible. Among other things.

And where would I be without GPS? I dunno. :P

Invented by the DoD. Whoops! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS)

Didn't I just cover satellites by the way? They weren't invented by NASA, weren't first used by NASA, and would exist in the modern day either way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 04, 2012, 10:22:37 pm

Wasn't the internet first invented to share research data between labs? And weren't republicans dead against making it bigger too?

Also, the "it would exist if NASA didn't do it anyway" is in no possible way a valid argument anywhere.

Sure the theory of relativity would still exist if Einstein didn't do it first, but it would have come some time later.

I mean, the DoD hasn't done much except for improve upon the gun for the last 100 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on August 04, 2012, 10:26:32 pm

Credit where credit is due, I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Some civilian stuff has come out of the military budget in the last century, definitely. What has enriched society from DoD spending certainly hadn't been enough to justify the sheer amount that gets sunk into it, though, even remotely. It's... what, equal to the combined spending of the next 20-something countries below us (in expenditure, mind)? Large enough to be farcical if it weren't fact.

As fact it's merely ridiculous and somewhat disgusting :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 04, 2012, 11:05:49 pm

The problem with defense research is it's narrowly focused. Sure, some things can be used elsewhere; walkie talkies are pretty awesome kid's toys. But the majority of the research goes into weapons. Not exactly a worthwhile expenditure.


If we were to reappropriate the funds into something far wider in scope (including space stuff like nasa), then we'd be getting a lot more actually useful stuff. I shouldn't have to explain the positive consequences of that (including economical, since that's the #1 thing on so many people's minds).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on August 04, 2012, 11:48:03 pm

Im fairly seriously against the us DoD, but in their favor: Internet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 05, 2012, 02:48:34 am

Spoiler: Holy crap, I think this is relevant. (click to show/hide)

(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090520.gif)

There is a silver lining to a massive weapons R&D department: The stuff they make on the side can turn out to be very useful for civilian use.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on August 05, 2012, 02:54:45 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 05, 2012, 02:48:34 am

Spoiler: Holy crap, I think this is relevant. (click to show/hide)

(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090520.gif)

There is a silver lining to a massive weapons R&D department: The stuff they make on the side can turn out to be very useful for civilian use.

Yes, some of the stuff then develop on the side could be usefull, but its a pretty terrible ratio (compared to what would happen if we invested tens of billions(?) of dollars more annually in NASA/Pure research).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2012, 03:43:27 am

FYI, the modern version of the internet was developed by a scientist CERN, in order to distribute data from one of their previous particle arcelerators. They only thing DoD did was connect some university computers, while the CERN's version actively transmitted and relayed data. So you can't say they invented it, as others woud have done it anyway, and in fact, did it better than them. Besides, the DoD defense has wasted tons of money too.

As for things being improved upon. In a way you can say anything is an improved version of something else. Most things NASA, or any other space organization did, are imrpovements on other technologies, but that are things that wouldn't have been done on Earth. Examples include various medical technologies (Research into Caisson disease, osteoperosis, human reaction to different pressure, heart related diseases), sattelite technology, firefighting equipment, material science, ...

But really, at the moment NASA is wasting tons of money because they constantly have to cancel projects to fulfill congressional mandates (Space Launch System, for example) and to keep some other projects alive. Doubling their budget would allow them to actually do something again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2012, 03:52:54 am

Most importantly I feel is that doubling or even tripling NASA's budget isnt that tricky for the USA to do - just throw a few billion less at your defence industries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2012, 04:04:00 am

NASA's current budget is 0.47% of the total. Which is about  one third of the budget of homeland security.

The DoD is 19%. And over the past ten years has been increased by 150%

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 05, 2012, 08:40:35 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 06:35:59 pm

Didn't I just cover satellites by the way? They weren't invented by NASA, weren't first used by NASA, and would exist in the modern day either way.

So the DoD would just get the satellites into space by strapping them onto Peter Pans back?

Or would they maybe need to develop rocket propulsion along the way... i.e. NASA.

This argument feels like watching a monday morning quarterback argue that he would be a better coach then the head coach of an NFL team.  Sure the other guy might have worked his entire life in the sport, know all the players and the competition, is entirely versed in the minutae of what he does and have the sort of skill and intelligence that could get him a well paying job in an entirely different industry if he was so inclined.  But any time he makes a bad call you are going to think you are better then him because you happened to make the right guess before the fact... or after.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 05, 2012, 03:37:27 pm

May as well get this out of the way: I don't hate NASA, and when it comes to bad departments, NASA is pretty low on the list. However, it IS quite wasteful and most of its benefits would be present were it simply a part of the DoD.

Now, back to the topic at hand,

Quote from: mainiac on August 05, 2012, 08:40:35 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 04, 2012, 06:35:59 pm

Didn't I just cover satellites by the way? They weren't invented by NASA, weren't first used by NASA, and would exist in the modern day either way.

So the DoD would just get the satellites into space by strapping them onto Peter Pans back?

Or would they maybe need to develop rocket propulsion along the way... i.e. NASA.

This argument feels like watching a monday morning quarterback argue that he would be a better coach then the head coach of an NFL team.  Sure the other guy might have worked his entire life in the sport, know all the players and the competition, is entirely versed in the minutae of what he does and have the sort of skill and intelligence that could get him a well paying job in an entirely different industry if he was so inclined.  But any time he makes a bad call you are going to think you are better then him because you happened to make the right guess before the fact... or after.

You do realize that Bell Laboratories was producing satellites as early as 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstar) right?

Yes, they reached space via a NASA rocket, but then were NASA not making rockets then Bell and other companies would have had a pretty good reason to start trying to make their own rockets; it wouldn't be terribly unrealistic either, its not like the aerospace engineers, astrophysicists, etc would vanish if not hired by NASA (and indirectly crowding out any alternatives).

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2012, 04:04:00 am

NASA's current budget is 0.47% of the total. Which is about  one third of the budget of homeland security.

The DoD is 19%. And over the past ten years has been increased by 150%

Get rid of Homeland Security, then. That's a positively terrible department. While you're at it, the DoD definitely needs to be cut down significantly (Which I said earlier): the US doesn't need a gigantic standing army and a military presence across the world. As with above, I wouldn't say NASA is a terrible department, just a wasteful one.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 05, 2012, 03:43:27 am

FYI, the modern version of the internet was developed by a scientist CERN, in order to distribute data from one of their previous particle arcelerators. They only thing DoD did was connect some university computers, while the CERN's version actively transmitted and relayed data. So you can't say they invented it, as others woud have done it anyway, and in fact, did it better than them. Besides, the DoD defense has wasted tons of money too.

As for things being improved upon. In a way you can say anything is an improved version of something else. Most things NASA, or any other space organization did, are imrpovements on other technologies, but that are things that wouldn't have been done on Earth. Examples include various medical technologies (Research into Caisson disease, osteoperosis, human reaction to different pressure, heart related diseases), sattelite technology, firefighting equipment, material science, ...

But really, at the moment NASA is wasting tons of money because they constantly have to cancel projects to fulfill congressional mandates (Space Launch System, for example) and to keep some other projects alive. Doubling their budget would allow them to actually do something again.

Oh, I'm not debating that NASA has made lots of scientific discoveries. It definitely has. But has it produced enough to really be worth it?

The vast majority of its discoveries very well could have been done on Earth, and it produces just as many useless products, failures, and so on as it does worthwhile things. After all, NASA has, from 1962 to today, cost around $750,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation and rounded, of course). Would you say NASA has produced enough to be worth three quarters of a trillion dollars?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 05, 2012, 04:29:53 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 05, 2012, 03:37:27 pm

The vast majority of its discoveries very well could have been done on Earth, and it produces just as many useless products, failures, and so on as it does worthwhile things. After all, NASA has, from 1962 to today, cost around $750,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation and rounded, of course). Would you say NASA has produced enough to be worth three quarters of a trillion dollars?

1. You can't discover the properties of moon rocks on earth. (Well, sort of. Spectroscopy is very limited and can be inaccurate.)
2. You can't expect an R&D program to completely avoid failures.
3. I don't know where you're getting that figure, but 50 years of science and technology for $750,000,000,000 is alright with me.  Social Security and Medicare take that much every year. I'd be overjoyed if it had gotten twice the funding all this time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 05, 2012, 06:07:18 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 05, 2012, 04:29:53 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 05, 2012, 03:37:27 pm

The vast majority of its discoveries very well could have been done on Earth, and it produces just as many useless products, failures, and so on as it does worthwhile things. After all, NASA has, from 1962 to today, cost around $750,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation and rounded, of course). Would you say NASA has produced enough to be worth three quarters of a trillion dollars?

1. You can't discover the properties of moon rocks on earth. (Well, sort of. Spectroscopy is very limited and can be inaccurate.)
2. You can't expect an R&D program to completely avoid failures.
3. I don't know where you're getting that figure, but 50 years of science and technology for $750,000,000,000 is alright with me.  Social Security and Medicare take that much every year. I'd be overjoyed if it had gotten twice the funding all this time.

1. Have the properties of moon rocks significantly increased the quality of life of anyone?
2. I can expect it to not make multi billion dollar failures repeatedly without consequence.
3. "50 years of science and technology" is rather vague. Do you think there would be no science and technology without NASA? For reference, I combined the budgets of NASA from 1962 to 2012 adjusted for inflation, the source of which can be provided on request. True, it isn't entirely fair to do it that way, but then it isn't entirely fair to point out every success NASA has made in the past 50 years and compare it to a single year's budget either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 05, 2012, 07:08:10 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 05, 2012, 06:07:18 pm

1. Have the properties of moon rocks significantly increased the quality of life of anyone?

Science isn't about significantly increasing the quality of life for people, it is about learning objective things concerning our reality. Improving our quality of life is a side effect of knowing what we're doing instead of flailing about blindly.

You want a practical application? Fine. Knowing the properties of moon rocks allows us to increase our knowledge of Earth's geological history (being that the moon consists of matter ejected from Earth long in the past) and allows us to better plan future moon missions. This will make it easier for us to build an outpost or colony on the moon. Before you ask why we should ever do that, it is so we may make our species more able to avoid extinction and to harvest resources, such as the HE3 on the Lunar poles. Before you ask what that is for, nuclear fusion.

Quote

2. I can expect it to not make multi billion dollar failures repeatedly without consequence.

Perhaps you missed the memo, but space is the most deadly environment out there. Our method of reaching it is very dangerous. Shit will happen. The shit that happens will be expensive because this is a relatively new and high-tech field. The failures of the present, however, are nothing compared to the explosive madness of the early space programs of both the US and USSR, where almost as many rockets exploded on the launch pad as managed to get into space.

Quote

3. "50 years of science and technology" is rather vague. Do you think there would be no science and technology without NASA?

As we told you before, there is an entire magazine for NASA's innovations alone. Go read it if you want more specifics.

Quote

For reference, I combined the budgets of NASA from 1962 to 2012 adjusted for inflation, the source of which can be provided on request. True, it isn't entirely fair to do it that way, but then it isn't entirely fair to point out every success NASA has made in the past 50 years and compare it to a single year's budget either.

And if we took the DoD's budget from 1962 to 2012 adjusted for inflation and added it together?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 05, 2012, 07:21:18 pm

Great Justice:

1. That's irrelevant. Not everything has practical applications, and we certainly don't know all of the applications of what we've discovered about the solar system yet. The benefit of NASA is that it provides a need for higher quality materials than are used on Earth. NASA creates them at tremendous expense, and once the groundwork is laid, the rest of the world can reap the benefits. Space exploration is in its infancy. Nothing is going to have the same utility this early on as it will later, and the fact that we have so much practical benefit would seem to suggest that future developments will continue or improve on the trend. For example, gunpowder. Early gunpowder weapons were absolutely awful. They would frequently kill the user, were less reliable than bows and crossbows, and expensive. Nonetheless, they remained in use, and today they obviously far outstrip any other conventional weaponry. Another example: colonization. None of the early colonies in the Americas were profitable. Roanoke was assimilated by the natives, Jamestown spent years starving to death, Hispaniola provided returns for a few years before Spain transformed it into an empty hellhole. The payout to those countries a few hundred years later, however, was absolutely immense. By taking the longer view, they sacrificed some short term power for a tremendous return. You can't simply look at whether something is viable at the moment, but at it's potential.

2. Again, in establishing any new technology, or in this case, an entire branch of technology, is going to be plagued with failure and be costly in the short run. If companies go out of business whenever they mess up, long term development is going to take a lot longer, because they are not going to share their research with competitors when they go under. The only ways for technology to advance would be through a spectacular string of good luck for one company, or corporate espionage. Being able to fail without losing everything is an asset, not a disadvantage. A few billion dollars is nothing compared to the potential that space holds. Earth is going to run out of resources eventually, and it will likely be before we've managed to sober up and start being sustainable.

3. Here's a list of prominent technologies that were either developed or advanced by NASA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies . Seems like it's worth 750 billion to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 05, 2012, 07:26:35 pm

750 billion for the entire 50 year space program? So, 2-3k per US citizen then for the entire 50 year space program? That's a hell of a good deal. The value of inspiring kids to go into tech and science fields alone outweighs that cost.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 05, 2012, 11:04:45 pm

I don't actually feel that great about cutting the DOD's funds. So many countless advancements have been made in the quest to kill other people more efficiently. Pesticides, computers, plastics, metallurgy, not to mention nuclear power, Without the need to kill a few million japanese and germans we wouldn't even have NASA. Although we really should thank the nazi's for doing research into rocketry though, those "recruited" former nazi's helped the Mercury 7 get to space.

I think a far better think to cut would be foreign aid and to slash welfare, making sure that those that actually needed it, received it. But hey, maybe I'm crazy for thinking people shouldn't get paid $8> an hour for doing nothing, and in some states make more money than the average teacher does. Some people need a helping hand, I'll admit that, I even think WIC is a great program (food stamps are laughable). But according to my personal experience, most people on welfare need to get a fucking job, stop selling their state subsidized kerosene, and stob buying brand new ATVs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 05, 2012, 11:13:12 pm

Can't tell if satire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 05, 2012, 11:55:13 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 05, 2012, 11:13:12 pm

Can't tell if satire.

The first part? Yeah kinda. The second part? No. My family was on government aid for a few months, My father hated every minute of it. I feel nothing but contempt for people who think it's okay to live of the government's teat indefinitely. I don't believe that entire generations should be able to do literally nothing and get paid for it. Welfare is just a crutch, those that are able to work and choose not to, should be allowed to starve to death.

Although you might not have had as much contact with white trash as I have. I think it would be a learning experience for a lot of people, my heroin junkie cousins included.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 05, 2012, 11:58:27 pm

No one deserves to starve to death, even if they are lazy white trash heroin junkies.

Anyway, under current US welfare law you can only have two years of welfare concurrently and five years over your entire life, so you can't live off of it indefinitely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 06, 2012, 12:04:13 am

Life isn't something you should have to "earn." Note the "should" in that line though, as I realize that isn't always practical. But when it is... and you'll have a hard time arguing it isn't so in the richest countries in the world...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 12:56:17 am

Just because someone isn't born with the talents, or even fails to develop the work ethic necessary to sustain themselves doesn't mean that they deserve to die. I feel like death is trivialized in our culture. It shouldn't be. Everything that person was, their personality, their memories, everything, is destroyed. We don't even always put people to death for murder. Laziness is not a crime, and while it is harmful to society, it is nowhere near on the same level of immorality as murder or torture. Suggesting that people should die for that is absolutely insane. If you've gone that far, you've completely dehumanized them. You need to remember that these are people, and while they may not be as virtuous or lucky as you, they have just as much of a right to exist. We need to expand the welfare state, not shrink it. Is it fair that an infinitesimally small subset of the population should have 20000 square foot mansions, multiple houses, seafaring yachts and private jets, while thousands of people die every year from exposure in one of the richest countries on Earth? We absolutely have the power to avoid any unnecessary deaths like that, and it really wouldn't be that expensive. Build free housing tenements, and you'll be pumping plenty of new jobs into the economy. Provide job training, and some of those people you claim are unwilling to work might find themselves working after all, if they now get paid a reasonable amount. Give them enough free food to be healthy, and perhaps they'll have more energy, and won't be that lazy. Provide the drug addicts with free rehabilitation, and they'll be able to be productive in society again. I think you underestimate just how much untapped wealth there is in this country. If we actually taxed assets of super rich parasites, instead of letting them squirrel it away in the caymans or wherever they have a tax haven, we'd have enough money to sustain a welfare state. If we forced employers to pay people a reasonable wage, there wouldn't be nearly the same need for welfare. Minimum wage is far from enough to actually sustain a person, unless they live a less than healthy lifestyle. Blaming unemployment on laziness, while true in some cases, is in general just a tool of the rich to encourage division amongst their subordinates. The real problem are the exploitative conditions that permeate American society. The median  income is around 30k a year. Half of people therefore make less than that. That is hardly enough money to raise a family on, or to go to college on, or to pursue anything beyond mere survival.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 06, 2012, 05:02:23 am

Last I checked, median income is actually 26k.

I won't deny the existence of white trash, but I also don't believe they deserve to die.  It makes absolutely zero sense to let anybody, no matter who they are, go homeless and hungry while food and shelter also go to waste.  Zero fucking sense.

We need to get past this deeply ingrained idea in our culture that a person doesn't deserve to live unless they work, more specifically unless they work at a "job".  Lack of work is not the problem and neither is the lack of work ethic.  Broken economics and corruption are entirely to blame.

I have intelligent and respectable college graduate friends who struggle to find any job, even for minimum wage.  One of my friends was only able to get a job at Wal-Mart by earning a social favor with family of a manager there, where he had been previously turned down for being "over-qualified".  And in a time when jobs are so hard to find, most families need two to get by.

There are two problems here.  First, the concept of "jobs" in our society is total bullshit.  Having a job does not necessarily mean you contribute anything to society, which I understand to be the basis of the assumption that if you don't have a job that you aren't earning your keep.  A job means only one thing:  making profit for somebody wealthier than you.  Second, our society is so productive that not everybody needs to work, or everybody needs to work very little.  There are a large and ever-increasing number of jobs out there right now that are complete wastes of time that benefit nobody, and only exist because need to have even a worthless "job" to justify their own existence.

I'll use my job as an example.  I work for the customs brokerage wing of a major shipping corporation.  My job provides absolutely zero tangible benefit to society.  I contribute to the shifting around of numbers in a giant imaginary number game.  My contribution is that I take specific bits of information from one document and copy them into another document.  That is how I spend 40 hours every week.  If my job didn't exist, there would be no less production of stuff in the world, and stuff would actually have an easier time getting around to wherever it needs to go.  Even assuming my job is worth anything, it could be eliminated almost effortlessly by part restructuring and part automation.  Finally, people do everything they can to prevent this worthless job from being eliminated.

My job exists for only a couple stupid reasons.  First, tariffs exist for the manipulation of markets, the merits of which are an entirely different debate.  More importantly, massive overbearing amounts of fluff paperwork continually build up around this process, to the point that special education and a license is required to process it.  An individual can extend that license to people working under them, as is done where I work.  I process this paperwork, and the company charges customers a fee for that process.  I have absolutely zero personal power to negotiate the terms of my employment, so I get paid an incredibly small portion of the revenue my work generates.  My manager and I have crunched the numbers together before, and determined that I make my entire year's salary worth of profit for the company in about a week on average.  My job is an absolutely miserable experience and a horrible waste of human life and potential, and I would seriously choose to live in a box instead if I didn't have a family to care for.  I've complained openly about how the conditions of the workplace or pay should be adjusted, or about how the work itself is worthless and should at least be automated.  Everybody agrees but then hushes me down aggressively, because they are too afraid of endangering their job and thus their ability to justify their own survival in this society.

And there is the core of the issue.  We are a population trapped in a cycle of exploitation.  We are forced to impoverish ourselves by funneling wealth upward into the hands of those already wealthier than ourselves, under the threat that if we don't we will be absolutely impoverished into nothing on the spot.  This is what a "job" is.  Jobs should not be so worshipped in our culture and politics, nor pursued as an end unto themselves.  Work should be done because it accomplishes something beneficial.  When work is finished or otherwised becomes obsolete, that should be a good thing for everyone.  Against all logic, that is exactly the opposite of how things are in our world today. 

As long as we continue living this way, we could bury the world in food and it wouldn't matter.  The nature of our system is such that there would still be a class of people legally barred from partaking of the food going to waste literally all around them, because it all belongs to people who only share when it fetches a profit.  This an extreme example, but it's directly analogues to what is going on in the world today.  IIRC, there are 6 empty homes for every homeless person, and the majority of the food we produce goes to waste.  In these circumstances, who fucking cares if white trash don't go out of their way to make rich people richer?  Let them fucking have whatever's going to waste anyway.  To think that they should die instead is just plain bloodthirsty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 06, 2012, 08:23:22 am

It's very strange that as we get better at producing stuff as a society we don't do what we've become good at.  Because we are better at producing stuff, a lot better.  People grumble that "everything is made in china" but that's only half the story.  Modern manufacturing is actually really really good at making stuff.  Look at an auto plant where they make 1 car per every three workers a day.  Look at lowly plastic injection molding which can fabricate in seconds something that could take an hour of labor a century ago.  Food is even more extreme.  A handful of farmers could easily feed an entire nation using only part of our arable land.  Logically it should be possible to feed every person in the country and drown them in manufactured goods quite easily if we just devoted a decent fraction of our national labor to it.

But we don't do that.  Instead we devote more and more effort to tracking stuff that logically we should care less about tracking.  And we insist that people work even if there is little socially beneficial work for them.  An auto worker's labor is clearly worth more then society then her or his compensation.  Someone at the restaurant doesn't produce much more then their measly compensation.

There isn't any easy answer to this question but it seems obvious that we could be doing better.  Pretty much every other modern country has a bigger percentage of the workforce in manufacturing then we do.  The workday isn't growing any shorter even as we grow more efficient.  The room for growth is pretty clear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 06, 2012, 09:21:38 am

Welfare may be a crutch, but if you have a sprained ankle or a missing leg, sometimes that crutch is an absolute necessity if you expect to keep walking. A crutch isn't a bad thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on August 06, 2012, 09:42:40 am

As soon as someone declares that "we should slash foreign aid" I know they have never so much as glanced at the budget. "Foreign Aid" as it is generally reported, is an absurdly small quantity of the federal budget. Attacking it as if it were any of the big three expenses (Medicare, Medicaid, DoD) is like using a thimble to bail out a ship with no bottom.
Military aid, however, is not always listed with civil aid, and includes everything from the vast number of bases like the one protecting Germany from Russian occupation, and the endless supply of arms for Israel.
These still don't compare to the DoD budget as a whole, or the entitlements of the previous few generations, but it's still vaster than the civilian aid budget by far.
I generally support research, but often I see a strange policy where the government pays men to design even bigger, better, air superiorirty, depleted-uranium-firing aircraft carriers. Meanwhile, our enemies' most technologically advanced vehicle is a camel with a flashlight taped to it. Surely, this does not demand such a large military R&D budget.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 06, 2012, 10:08:21 am

Slashing Foreign Aid is a feel good proposal... >.>
Yes, I would not mind it at all...

Our DoD definitely could use some trimming... and for the logical military mind... they want to stay ahead of the other big power... China.  The current cockfight over the seas south of China ain't going to be helping much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 10:16:58 am

It actually takes a fair bit of money and research to "scale down" for asymmetric warfare. That transition has been in the works for at least 15 years now. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, we knew that the majority of our future combats would involve enemies who absolutely could not stand before us. But they could disperse and wage guerilla warfare and our Cold War-era force was ill-equipped for that. It's like trying to fend off a swarm of gnats with a bazooka. So we've spent decades and billions of dollars figuring out how to reconfigure our forces for less bazookas and more flyswatters.


Of course, one fear now is that if there's ever a serious engagement with China, we're going to wish we still had that "big war" Army instead.

The other problem is that technology is a force multiplier. A HUGE one. But we've become so dependant on that force multiplier to tilt the odds our way that we're neglecting a lot of basics. Take away that multiplier and our army might not be able to stand up so well against competitors. Most of Chinese defense policy vis-a-vis the United States hinges on denying us our fancy toys if shit ever goes hot. Take away GPS, take away remote drones, take away EWACS....the US would paralyzed in combat. There's a growing countercurrent within the Armed Forces that wants us to become less reliant on our technology because it's becoming an Achilles' heel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Truean on August 06, 2012, 11:24:42 am

Quote from: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 10:16:58 am

It actually takes a fair bit of money and research to "scale down" for asymmetric warfare. That transition has been in the works for at least 15 years now. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, we knew that the majority of our future combats would involve enemies who absolutely could not stand before us. But they could disperse and wage guerilla warfare and our Cold War-era force was ill-equipped for that. It's like trying to fend off a swarm of gnats with a bazooka. So we've spent decades and billions of dollars figuring out how to reconfigure our forces for less bazookas and more flyswatters.


Of course, one fear now is that if there's ever a serious engagement with China, we're going to wish we still had that "big war" Army instead.

The other problem is that technology is a force multiplier. A HUGE one. But we've become so dependant on that force multiplier to tilt the odds our way that we're neglecting a lot of basics. Take away that multiplier and our army might not be able to stand up so well against competitors. Most of Chinese defense policy vis-a-vis the United States hinges on denying us our fancy toys if shit ever goes hot. Take away GPS, take away remote drones, take away EWACS....the US would paralyzed in combat. There's a growing countercurrent within the Armed Forces that wants us to become less reliant on our technology because it's becoming an Achilles' heel.

The basics count for a lot and they're increasingly less taught. The problem with tech aim is that you become reliant upon it and you can't manually aim, which when shit goes wrong, you have to. Same thing with detonators. It's pull pin and throw for a reason.... [shrugs]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 11:34:03 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 05, 2012, 07:08:10 pm

Science isn't about significantly increasing the quality of life for people, it is about learning objective things concerning our reality. Improving our quality of life is a side effect of knowing what we're doing instead of flailing about blindly.

You want a practical application? Fine. Knowing the properties of moon rocks allows us to increase our knowledge of Earth's geological history (being that the moon consists of matter ejected from Earth long in the past) and allows us to better plan future moon missions. This will make it easier for us to build an outpost or colony on the moon. Before you ask why we should ever do that, it is so we may make our species more able to avoid extinction and to harvest resources, such as the HE3 on the Lunar poles. Before you ask what that is for, nuclear fusion.

E is not an element, and hydrogen isn't exactly something required from the moon (Methinks you meant He3)  ;)

Besides that, you want the government to be prioritizing potentially worthless discoveries over, say, improving the quality of life of its citizens?

Why not just make it a non profit organization separate from the government? That not only reduces waste that comes with being a government program (for example, hiring a standing army of aerospace engineers and bureaucrats when less would do), it also means that people actually interested would be funding it through donations. I'd probably donate to a kickstarter for NASA. Makes more sense then having the government run it, at any rate.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 05, 2012, 07:08:10 pm

Perhaps you missed the memo, but space is the most deadly environment out there. Our method of reaching it is very dangerous. Shit will happen. The shit that happens will be expensive because this is a relatively new and high-tech field. The failures of the present, however, are nothing compared to the explosive madness of the early space programs of both the US and USSR, where almost as many rockets exploded on the launch pad as managed to get into space.

I'm not just talking about Columbia and so on, but times where excessive amounts of money were spent on forgotten projects, failed designs (even persisting long after being proven to not work), and unneeded overhead (again, that standing army of engineers and bureaucrats).

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 05, 2012, 07:08:10 pm

As we told you before, there is an entire magazine for NASA's innovations alone. Go read it if you want more specifics.

I read through some of the things invented by NASA (and it does, notably, include things that were invented by companies contracted by NASA as well) and thought there were some useful things, but not $750 billion worth of useful things. If NASA invented anything ground breaking like the DoD did, I guarantee you would be showing it off by this point.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 05, 2012, 07:08:10 pm

And if we took the DoD's budget from 1962 to 2012 adjusted for inflation and added it together?

The DoD was protecting the US against the Red Menace, at least that's what they say. I already said I'm entirely in favour of cutting the DoD significantly, and doing that long before cutting from NASA, so I'm not seeing what your argument is here. They STILL produced far more of value than NASA ever did after letting their discoveries trickle into the commercial sector, and their discoveries are neither "science for its own sake" nor is most of their budget dedicated to R&D.

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 06, 2012, 05:02:23 am

To think that they should die instead is just plain bloodthirsty.

I don't think that's quite what he meant. Obviously, the happiest world is one in which everyone is fed and alive. However, where do they get their food again?

Quote from: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 10:16:58 am

It actually takes a fair bit of money and research to "scale down" for asymmetric warfare. That transition has been in the works for at least 15 years now. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, we knew that the majority of our future combats would involve enemies who absolutely could not stand before us. But they could disperse and wage guerilla warfare and our Cold War-era force was ill-equipped for that. It's like trying to fend off a swarm of gnats with a bazooka. So we've spent decades and billions of dollars figuring out how to reconfigure our forces for less bazookas and more flyswatters.


Of course, one fear now is that if there's ever a serious engagement with China, we're going to wish we still had that "big war" Army instead.

The other problem is that technology is a force multiplier. A HUGE one. But we've become so dependant on that force multiplier to tilt the odds our way that we're neglecting a lot of basics. Take away that multiplier and our army might not be able to stand up so well against competitors. Most of Chinese defense policy vis-a-vis the United States hinges on denying us our fancy toys if shit ever goes hot. Take away GPS, take away remote drones, take away EWACS....the US would paralyzed in combat. There's a growing countercurrent within the Armed Forces that wants us to become less reliant on our technology because it's becoming an Achilles' heel.

The cheapest and most straightforward solution here would be for the US to avoid aggressive wars from the get go, of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 06, 2012, 11:41:44 am

Really the only place where we rely completely on  electronics is in modern air superiority. Artillery manually calculated firing solutions still work just fine, even if you can't get 1 meter precision. Soldiers are still trained to operate independently without radio contact.

I do think that military spending should be wound down, but not immediately slashed. Cut to 50% of current spending slowly over the next 10 or 20 years should give enough time for institutional transition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 06, 2012, 12:11:28 pm

Look, I shouldn't talk about stuff that gets me mad. A lot of things make me mad.

And I know foreign aid accounts for surprisingly little, I just don't like the idea of feeding north Korean soldiers and funding african warlords by proxy.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I am actually a nice guy, I swear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on August 06, 2012, 12:53:59 pm

How do you feel about Foreign Aid as an ideal? I.E. spending tax-payers money to feed impoverished people in third world countries, helping their infrastructure, getting them self-sustaining?

Not how it is currently, where a lot of it gets diverted and the stuff that does get where it's supposed to go does more harm than good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on August 06, 2012, 12:54:33 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 06, 2012, 12:11:28 pm

I am actually a nice guy, I swear.

Appropriate phrasing speaks louder than content.

... Words speak louder than words?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 01:16:33 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 11:34:03 am

I'm not just talking about Columbia and so on, but times where excessive amounts of money were spent on forgotten projects, failed designs (even persisting long after being proven to not work), and unneeded overhead (again, that standing army of engineers and bureaucrats).

Wait, wait, wait....and you were saying they should be rolled into DoD to PREVENT this?? Are you familiar at all with the DoD's R&D system? it's called "throw a metric shit-ton of money at an idea and see if we get anything usable. Even if it's 20 years from now, and we don't need it anymore."

Quote

The cheapest and most straightforward solution here would be for the US to avoid aggressive wars from the get go, of course.

Yeah well, there's this little problem called politicians and demagoguery. You know, the kind that swears oaths that we will never "abandon Taiwan".

Quote from: Nadaka on August 06, 2012, 11:41:44 am

Really the only place where we rely completely on  electronics is in modern air superiority. Artillery manually calculated firing solutions still work just fine, even if you can't get 1 meter precision. Soldiers are still trained to operate independently without radio contact.

I do think that military spending should be wound down, but not immediately slashed. Cut to 50% of current spending slowly over the next 10 or 20 years should give enough time for institutional transition.

Yeah, and what do we tend to rely on to win our fights? Air superiority. It's also pretty heavily reliant in the newer-generation warships. Though it's been mostly scuttled now, the DDG-1000 program will produce a destroyer with a crew complement of less than 150, compared to roughly 300 for an Arleigh Burke. The way you get small crews like that is with lots of assistive technology. Take away that computer assist, and you've got major problems.

I've seen China's scenarios for dealing with an American carrier group, and I've wargamed a few of my own. With the right timing and use of EMP/viruses/trojans/jammers, the results could be devastating. They don't have the naval strength to contest, but they certainly have the land-based airpower (and attack submarines) to do us a world of hurt in Chinese coastal waters if we're blind.

I think about the Battlestar Galactica reboot, and how the top Vipers and battlestars of the fleet were shredded when their computers were compromised. Makes me wonder if we should keep a couple of the old carriers and Iowa-class BBs in reserve, just in case.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 06, 2012, 01:39:36 pm

Quote from: Descan on August 06, 2012, 12:53:59 pm

How do you feel about Foreign Aid as an ideal? I.E. spending tax-payers money to feed impoverished people in third world countries, helping their infrastructure, getting them self-sustaining?

Not how it is currently, where a lot of it gets diverted and the stuff that does get where it's supposed to go does more harm than good.

I think the goodwill a few billion dollars would be well worth the investment. Although I'd prefer instead of feeding them we taught them how to feed themselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 06, 2012, 02:24:42 pm

The Chinese are not cylons. the only way to blind a modern fleet is with a high altitude nuke setting off an EMP, and that will screw up chinese long range combat options at least as much as the US. There is no way that they could cripple more than a minute fraction of the electronic warfare capabilities with magical viruses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on August 06, 2012, 02:29:17 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 06, 2012, 01:39:36 pm

Quote from: Descan on August 06, 2012, 12:53:59 pm

How do you feel about Foreign Aid as an ideal? I.E. spending tax-payers money to feed impoverished people in third world countries, helping their infrastructure, getting them self-sustaining?

Not how it is currently, where a lot of it gets diverted and the stuff that does get where it's supposed to go does more harm than good.

I think the goodwill a few billion dollars would be well worth the investment. Although I'd prefer instead of feeding them we taught them how to feed themselves.

Ohhhh!

So like... Improving their infrastructure? Getting them self-sustaining?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on August 06, 2012, 02:37:37 pm

Hrm...? Yeah, hauling everyone up to first world level infrastructure and methodology is (very much) arguably about the best thing we could actually do, if helping our fellow man was our core goal in foreign aid (also arguable, on the political level). Most of the problems they're having would be mostly solved if they could sustain the same sort of stuff us first world bastards are using to keep ourselves on top.

Chances of that actually happening are goddamn jack zero, because there's absolutely zero chance in hell the dominate political entities are going to help other ones come closer to matching them, especially when that selfsame action would be removing part of the massive exploitation that makes the current first world possible. *disgruntled shrug*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 03:17:33 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 06, 2012, 02:24:42 pm

The Chinese are not cylons. the only way to blind a modern fleet is with a high altitude nuke setting off an EMP, and that will screw up chinese long range combat options at least as much as the US. There is no way that they could cripple more than a minute fraction of the electronic warfare capabilities with magical viruses.

And the Japanese could never launch a major strike 3000 miles from their naval bases.

Bottom line: I don't care about the mechanism, only the effect. Scrambling GPS (or taking out part of the constellation) could be devastating by itself. And wouldn't impact the Chinese that much because they're putting up their own system (Beidou) for use over mainland Asia. Or even worse, cracking the encryption algorithm and introducing deliberate random error into the signals. Drones become incredibly difficult to use, fighters have to be flown on manual and radar navigation, cruise missiles are completely unreliable, all sorts of things become a problem.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 03:25:52 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 01:16:33 pm

Wait, wait, wait....and you were saying they should be rolled into DoD to PREVENT this?? Are you familiar at all with the DoD's R&D system? it's called "throw a metric shit-ton of money at an idea and see if we get anything usable. Even if it's 20 years from now, and we don't need it anymore."

No, some functions of NASA which fall under the category of national defense (select parts of rocketry and aerospace, for example) would make sense under the DoD. The rest would be better off as a non-profit organization (the regular R&D side of things, most of the space program).

Quote from: RedKing on August 06, 2012, 01:16:33 pm

Yeah well, there's this little problem called politicians and demagoguery. You know, the kind that swears oaths that we will never "abandon Taiwan".

Dumb politicians are a given, but if the US government kept to itself and let other countries handle their own problems then its unlikely conflict with China would ever occur. If it did, then the US would be justified in defending itself and would be capable of fighting back with a far leaner and more capable force (as opposed to what it is presently, a bloated mass of special interests, wasted money and aircraft carriers).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 06, 2012, 03:43:18 pm

US vs China war won't be caused by the US, since we get a buttton of cheap labor from there.

I don't know anything about China's current foreign policy is. The worst case scenario would be a government changing revolution in china which would be perfectly justified under their work conditions. Unions are outlawed anyway with insane punishments for being part of one.

Okay the DoD does do some research but, it doesn't and will never in any world do as much research as an administration which is specifically based around the advancement of science.

Do you know how penicillin was invented? By studying bread mold. Think the DoD would have invested in that? How about the private sector? No way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 04:06:04 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 06, 2012, 03:43:18 pm

Okay the DoD does do some research but, it doesn't and will never in any world do as much research as an administration which is specifically based around the advancement of science.

Do you know how penicillin was invented? By studying bread mold. Think the DoD would have invested in that? How about the private sector? No way.

Penicillin was invented long before the government had much of anything to do with it, so by definition it was invented by the private sector (https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1615722393/laughing_meme_guy_by_vixenwolfie-d485kw0_mini.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 04:45:50 pm

Actually, the mechanism used to produce penicillin was discovered at Oxford, a government funded university.

The cult like insistence that the government is always inefficient and the private sector is always wonderful is absurd. Could a private company have put a man on the moon in 1969? Could a private company possibly have raised the funds to build the interstate highway system? Of course not. The amount of cooperation between different production chains in the first, and the sheer amount of money necessary for the second would make that impossible. Private corporations could never have won world war two. Left to their own devices, they would have gouged prices for war materials to such a degree that the U.S. would never have been able to keep up with the centralized German and Japanese government production. Perhaps the Soviets would have eventually pulled through, perhaps not. It would have been a far bloodier conflict for sure.  During that period the United States was effectively a planned economy. The following decades had some of the highest growth in U.S. history. How does that confirm the inefficiency and economic damage caused by the government?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on August 06, 2012, 05:24:09 pm

That doesn't change the fact that it's inefficient, and was during every single thing you mentioned.

You should try to argue instead that it is a necessary inefficiency, which is a separate truth. One that is far harder to argue for in the midst of so many devout anarchists, but one that I love because I am so anti-anarchy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 05:30:45 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 04:45:50 pm

Actually, the mechanism used to produce penicillin was discovered at Oxford, a government funded university.

The discovery that it was of medical benefit was discovered at St. Mary's, a voluntarily funded hospital.

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 04:45:50 pm

The cult like insistence that the government is always inefficient and the private sector is always wonderful is absurd. Could a private company have put a man on the moon in 1969?

...Why would it want to? Private companies wouldn't dig a fifty square kilometre pit and fill it back up again either.

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 04:45:50 pm

Could a private company possibly have raised the funds to build the interstate highway system? Of course not.

I don't know. Could it? Private companies would have an extraordinarily hard time making roads as things are due to zoning regulations and so on, not to mention the fact that roads fall under the jurisdiction of the DoT.

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 04:45:50 pm

Private corporations could never have won world war two. Left to their own devices, they would have gouged prices for war materials to such a degree that the U.S. would never have been able to keep up with the centralized German and Japanese government production. Perhaps the Soviets would have eventually pulled through, perhaps not. It would have been a far bloodier conflict for sure.  During that period the United States was effectively a planned economy. The following decades had some of the highest growth in U.S. history. How does that confirm the inefficiency and economic damage caused by the government?

Its worth noting that "War Socialism" was tried in Germany in both wars, and in both cases it ended up with everyone starving and a shortage of vital war materials. In Japan there was also a shortage of vital war materials, but then Japan didn't have anything approaching a market economy up until the postwar era and had no industrial might to speak of. In America, it was only viewed by Americans as a "necessity" during the war, which featured massive crackdowns on union strikes and a huge decline in the standard of living. After the war, politicians supporting an end to war measures and restrictions were elected overwhelmingly despite massive opposition from entrenched federal departments claiming that the Depression would return if they stopped spending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 05:47:25 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 05:30:45 pm

The discovery that it was of medical benefit was discovered at St. Mary's, a voluntarily funded hospital.

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 04:45:50 pm

The cult like insistence that the government is always inefficient and the private sector is always wonderful is absurd. Could a private company have put a man on the moon in 1969?

...Why would it want to? Private companies wouldn't dig a fifty square kilometre pit and fill it back up again either.

Of course you'd need two companies to do that. One to dig the hole, and the other to fill it back up again. Probably with toxic waste or something, like they did with Love Canal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal)

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 05:30:45 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 04:45:50 pm

Private corporations could never have won world war two. Left to their own devices, they would have gouged prices for war materials to such a degree that the U.S. would never have been able to keep up with the centralized German and Japanese government production. Perhaps the Soviets would have eventually pulled through, perhaps not. It would have been a far bloodier conflict for sure.  During that period the United States was effectively a planned economy. The following decades had some of the highest growth in U.S. history. How does that confirm the inefficiency and economic damage caused by the government?

Its worth noting that "War Socialism" was tried in Germany in both wars, and in both cases it ended up with everyone starving and a shortage of vital war materials. In Japan there was also a shortage of vital war materials, but then Japan didn't have anything approaching a market economy up until the postwar era and had no industrial might to speak of.

Please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall repeatedly. The lack of resources in Germany and Japan had absolutely nothing to do with their government. Japan and Germany were resource poor and relied on import for important materials like coal, nickel and rubber. Part of the reason that Japan became so expansionist was so that they could get their hands on the parts of Asia that were rich in these resources and thus fuel their industries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 06:02:09 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 05:47:25 pm

Of course you'd need two companies to do that. One to dig the hole, and the other to fill it back up again. Probably with toxic waste or something, like they did with Love Canal.

I doubt they'd be able to manage to create quite as big of a mess as the TVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill) though.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 05:47:25 pm

Please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall repeatedly. The lack of resources in Germany and Japan had absolutely nothing to do with their government. Japan and Germany were resource poor and relied on import for important materials like coal, nickel and rubber. Part of the reason that Japan became so expansionist was so that they could get their hands on the parts of Asia that were rich in these resources and thus fuel their industries.

Japan yes, though they DID have a notable recession followed by starvation following a massive increase in interventionism in the 1920s (to be contrasted to the laissez-faire prevailing attitude in the US at the time) and only began their imperialistic actions in earnest after that (and any economy can be fueled off of the loot of conquered nations, but few would advocate that as a sustainable policy).

Germany, not so much. Germany was ALWAYS one of the most resource rich nations of Europe, and it had an exceptionally robust economy/concentration of industry up until the introduction of War Socialism and WW1, whereupon starvation and scarcity set in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 07:13:13 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 06:02:09 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 05:47:25 pm

Of course you'd need two companies to do that. One to dig the hole, and the other to fill it back up again. Probably with toxic waste or something, like they did with Love Canal.

I doubt they'd be able to manage to create quite as big of a mess as the TVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill) though.

Probably because they would have allowed the fly ash to escape into the atmosphere instead of trying to clean it up.

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 06:02:09 pm

Japan yes, though they DID have a notable recession followed by starvation following a massive increase in interventionism in the 1920s (to be contrasted to the laissez-faire prevailing attitude in the US at the time) and only began their imperialistic actions in earnest after that (and any economy can be fueled off of the loot of conquered nations, but few would advocate that as a sustainable policy).

Of course Japan was going to have a recession in the 1920s. Japan's major exports were luxury goods like silk. After WWI nobody had the money to buy luxuries, and at the end of 1929 the Great Depression hit, which only worsened the situation. And I'd like to point out that Japan was imperialistic well before WWI. The Russo-Japanese War was fought in 1905 over Machuria as part of their imperialistic agendas. Japan joined the allies in WWI so that they could get Germany's Asian processions and the resources they had.

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 06, 2012, 06:02:09 pm

Germany, not so much. Germany was ALWAYS one of the most resource rich nations of Europe, and it had an exceptionally robust economy/concentration of industry up until the introduction of War Socialism and WW1, whereupon starvation and scarcity set in.

I'm not talking about industry here. I'm talking about natural resources. Germany may be resource rich in some areas, but not all of them and it definitively did not have enough farmland to feed its entire population. Germany has always been vulnerable to blockades, which is why the German–Soviet Credit Agreements were signed despite the hatred that the two countries and their ideologies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 08:01:07 pm

The most resource rich areas of Germany were all lost at Versailles. Germany as it was at the beginning of WWII had pretty minimal resource wealth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 06, 2012, 09:44:05 pm

I've noticed that people who say the government is completely inefficient and wastes tons of money are always the same people who will defend the ridiculous oodles of money that get spent on the Department of Defense.

Hold on I'm getting a call from our news correspondent at the pentagon.

Yes, what is it James.

Breaking News: Hello Tom I'm standing outside the pentagon where we've just received news that yes, the Department of Defense is still part of the government. If any claims of independence or privatization are made, we'll be sure to inform you. Back to you Tom.

Well, you heard it here first folks. Now our next story, cute cat videos.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 06, 2012, 10:29:31 pm

How about the legendary efficiency of those private contractors (mercenaries) the DoD is increasingly fond of?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 06, 2012, 10:30:47 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 06, 2012, 10:29:31 pm

How about the legendary efficiency of those private contractors (mercenaries) the DoD is increasingly fond of?

Oh those private 'security' forces that are notorious for gunning down unarmed civilians in broad daylight? Yeah I love those guys.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on August 07, 2012, 04:55:47 am

For GreatJustice's benefit:

There was a hole in the bottom of the Sea (and the government for once didn't have the means to do anything about it, and left it to the private sector to fix it until the government had to bring out a $20 billion dollar stick to make them do something effective other than PR campaigns] (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=57121.msg1244268#msg1244268)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 07, 2012, 06:45:25 am

Don't forget the time oil diggers actually dug a hole in a lake and hit a salt mine.

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 06, 2012, 08:01:07 pm

The most resource rich areas of Germany were all lost at Versailles. Germany as it was at the beginning of WWII had pretty minimal resource wealth.

They didn't use them at Versailles. (Not all of them anyway). France (backed up by Belgium) did "invade" a rather large part of their terretory during the interbellum though, when Germany failed to pay the war payments. (Which were rather ridiculous)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 07, 2012, 07:05:13 am

Because it's only fun when we have really controversial meat to chew over.

Obama looks likely to issue an executive order on cybersecurity after the bills fail in the Senate. (http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/06/an-executive-order-on-cybersecurity/)

That whole post is interesting, not least because it highlights the three areas the cybersecurity legislation was supposed to address, in order of controversy;

1) Authorisation of new research, reforms of existing programs and similar miscellaneous filler.
Likely easily done with an executive order and minimal fuss, albeit more limited given funding limitations.

2) Setting private security standards.
This was the part the Republicans and Chamber of Commerce hated. The strongest form proposed was a set of full regulations with security requirements for organisations running critical infrastructure. The weakest (but still rejected) was voluntary regulations with positive incentives to meet them.

It seems that at least some watered down version could be established under an executive order, granting the DHS the power to set standards and then offer immunity - through a law designed for anti-terror purposes - for those who meet such standards. That would be a strong incentive for companies to meet at least some minimum standard of electronic security discipline by removing liability for security failures when they do occur.

3) Information sharing.
This was the part that cause privacy and civil liberty problems. No version of the information sharing section was particularly good in the original bill.

This is also the part that really needs watching. The post I linked gives a strong anti-privacy case (disturbing for a conservative/libertarian site like Volokh...) while I take a near opposite view (although I think some extremely limited data sharing with strong protections and penalties as far as use of data goes could fly, although probably not under an executive order).


All in all, a few things that would be improvements over the congressional CISPA/Senate bills;
- Guarantee cybersecurity remains a civilian issue. Republicans wanted it handed off to the DHS.
- Removes (or greatly reduces) the possibility of the most extreme measures, which tended to be the worst.
- Obama is more likely to want a fight with the CoC than with privacy interests, which suits me just fine.

Worth watching, because this could play a huge role in the security debates during the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2012, 07:12:34 am

Obama stated opposition to the cybersecurity bill and an intent to veto if it passed the Senate, so I don't know why anyone would think he'd substitute it with an executive order.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 07, 2012, 07:25:40 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2012, 07:12:34 am

Obama stated opposition to the cybersecurity bill and an intent to veto if it passed the Senate, so I don't know why anyone would think he'd substitute it with an executive order.

Because he pushed hard for a cybersecurity bill. He threatened the House version of CISPA with a veto for various reasons. Primarily because it was disgusting with regards to privacy concerns and lacked any form of regulatory system. This statement from the administration during the Senate debate was in reference to the Lieberman-Collins compromise bill, but lays out the types of provisions he wanted. (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/07/administration-to-senate-this-far-and-no-farther/) There is also Obama's own WSJ editorial (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577535492693044650.html?KEYWORDS=Obama+cybersecurity) which makes cybersecurity a priority.

Quote

This approach stays true to our values as a society that cherishes free enterprise and the rights of the individual. Cybersecurity standards would be developed in partnership between government and industry. For the majority of critical infrastructure companies already meeting these standards, nothing more would be expected. Companies needing to upgrade their security would have the flexibility to decide how best to do so using the wide range of innovative products and services available in the marketplace. Moreover, our approach protects the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. Indeed, I will veto any bill that lacks strong privacy and civil-liberties protections.
...
Today we can see the cyber threat to the networks upon which so much of our modern American lives depend. We have the opportunity—and the responsibility—to take action now and stay a step ahead of our adversaries. For the sake of our national and economic security, I urge the Senate to pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 and Congress to send me comprehensive legislation so I can sign it into law.

If you believe what's been passed around the more conservative and libertarian sites I tend to read, he said this while allowing the Senate bill to fail. Essentially he wants this fight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on August 07, 2012, 01:12:37 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 06, 2012, 05:02:23 am

There are two problems here.  First, the concept of "jobs" in our society is total bullshit.  Having a job does not necessarily mean you contribute anything to society, which I understand to be the basis of the assumption that if you don't have a job that you aren't earning your keep.  A job means only one thing:  making profit for somebody wealthier than you.  Second, our society is so productive that not everybody needs to work, or everybody needs to work very little.  There are a large and ever-increasing number of jobs out there right now that are complete wastes of time that benefit nobody, and only exist because need to have even a worthless "job" to justify their own existence.

I find it most ironic. It was supposed to be a major advantage of the free-market capitalism, frequently underlined by its proponents - that, unlike all forms of socialism, it does not waste people's energy and money by creating bullshit jobs to keep them occupied. But hey, at least statistics look good!

In fact, former Eastern Block state communism and capitalism share more similarities than it appears.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 07, 2012, 02:22:25 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 07:13:13 pm

Probably because they would have allowed the fly ash to escape into the atmosphere instead of trying to clean it up.

Key word there is "trying" (only 3% has been cleaned up so far), not to mention that it was preceded by an attempt to cover it all up and claims that the air wasn't toxic.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 07:13:13 pm

Of course Japan was going to have a recession in the 1920s. Japan's major exports were luxury goods like silk. After WWI nobody had the money to buy luxuries, and at the end of 1929 the Great Depression hit, which only worsened the situation. And I'd like to point out that Japan was imperialistic well before WWI. The Russo-Japanese War was fought in 1905 over Machuria as part of their imperialistic agendas. Japan joined the allies in WWI so that they could get Germany's Asian processions and the resources they had.

Nonsense. Japan was undergoing its recession while countries such as the US were in full boom and very much in demand of luxury goods. It was undergoing the worst of its own depression long before the Great Depression even began in the US.

Japan was imperialistic before the 1920s, but not on the same scale that it was afterwards. Before, it had been a method of proving itself to the western powers. After, it was a necessity to keep Japan's fragile economy going.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on August 06, 2012, 07:13:13 pm

I'm not talking about industry here. I'm talking about natural resources. Germany may be resource rich in some areas, but not all of them and it definitively did not have enough farmland to feed its entire population. Germany has always been vulnerable to blockades, which is why the German–Soviet Credit Agreements were signed despite the hatred that the two countries and their ideologies.

Germany was resource rich in terms of coal, and it had sufficient industry to trade for what it didn't have.

When War Socialism was introduced in Germany, what it served to do was actually increase consumption of resources early in the war by imposing maximum prices on essential goods (in this case, food). This meant the German people had no food shortages at the beginning of the war, but as the war dragged on longer than intended food was rapidly depleted. Furthermore, restrictions on trade and production made it less worthwhile for a man to work making food when he could only sell it at certain places, for low prices, to certain people. The fact that it was introduced before Germany's capabilities of importing were completely restricted via the entry of Italy and Romania into the war didn't help, either. Germany itself certainly didn't have the food production necessary to last the entire war, but even trade with the continental members of the Central Powers would have been sufficient, and without War Socialism the people of Germany would have had at least enough food to get by on a daily basis.

Another problem is that several of the agrarian communities of Germany and Austria Hungary basically cut themselves off from the starving cities when food was in high demand, as they saw that hoarding their food was more worthwhile then selling it all at a loss and having less for themselves.

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 06, 2012, 09:44:05 pm

I've noticed that people who say the government is completely inefficient and wastes tons of money are always the same people who will defend the ridiculous oodles of money that get spent on the Department of Defense.

Don't bother reading my posts or anything, just skim over them, stamp me with a "REACTIONARY CAPITALIST PIG" logo, and attack me for views I don't hold.

Quote from: Duuvian on August 07, 2012, 04:55:47 am

For GreatJustice's benefit:

There was a hole in the bottom of the Sea (and the government for once didn't have the means to do anything about it, and left it to the private sector to fix it until the government had to bring out a $20 billion dollar stick to make them do something effective other than PR campaigns] (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=57121.msg1244268#msg1244268)

Its not like the building of that rig had anything at all to do with the DWRRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Water_Royalty_Relief_Act) or anything

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 07, 2012, 02:31:22 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Interesting article on Romney's reluctance to release past tax returns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 07, 2012, 03:38:59 pm

Quote from: alway on August 07, 2012, 02:31:22 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Interesting article on Romney's reluctance to release past tax returns.

Right, I forgot to post this earlier (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/08/campaigns/campaign-2012/o-yell-take-the-high-road/).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.samefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Taxes-compared4.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2012, 03:48:03 pm

Holy fuck how are they earning 5 million dollars a year in the white house? Admittedly I have no clue how presidential income works and it dropped a ton after 2009 so it was probably election stuff but damn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 07, 2012, 03:50:21 pm

The President's salary is $400,000 a year, so most of that money is from elsewhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 07, 2012, 03:54:06 pm

Speaking engagements, investments, book royalties, etc. And it is their *joint* income. Michelle's probably making fat stacks to show up at events.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 07, 2012, 03:56:23 pm

Does she still do stuff like that often? I feel like I haven't heard anything about her in the last year or so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 07, 2012, 03:56:42 pm

its a bit fuzzy, but I seem to recall that the 09 windfall was mostly from various book projects Michele Obama was involved in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 07, 2012, 04:31:31 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 07, 2012, 03:38:59 pm

Right, I forgot to post this earlier (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/08/campaigns/campaign-2012/o-yell-take-the-high-road/).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.samefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Taxes-compared4.jpg)

Be sure to read the comments and try to count how many of Mitt's campaign employees are posting ridiculous shit [i.e., every comment that starts with "Hey libs"] to try and distract from the fact that he's a tax dodging fuck that wants to raise them on the middle class and the poor.

But hey, those poor people are ruining our economy and they should pay their fair share. (http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/204431426061415097fdd0e1addcab71)

Quote

The Romney campaign sees Obama's move as an opportunity to argue that the president is a liberal who wants to give the poor a free pass at the expense of the middle class.

Wait, what?

Another choice quote:

Quote

"His policies will take America backward — back to the discredited liberalism of a bygone era where bigger government programs and bigger government checks were the answer to every problem, and accountability was not on the agenda," said Lanhee Chen, Romney's policy director.

Wait, the man who won't take accountability [except to gloat about the "jobs" (money for himself) he's created] for anything he's ever done in his past, and is also running one of the most secretive explain-nothing campaigns since fucking Nixon?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 07, 2012, 04:54:36 pm

The Obama's income was mostly from book sales, including the 2007 and 2009 spikes. Hence the huge spike around the election. I don't believe that either of them can take paid speaking engagements during his time in office. That might also include capital gains; I know the president has his assets placed in a blind trust but I believe they still report the profits of that trust as income. That would help explain the fairly low rate when combined with deductions (he paid less than his secretary on $95k (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns.html?_r=1)).

It's also notable that prior to Obama's entry into national politics, both he and Michell were fairly senior professionals; she was a hospital administrator, he was a lawyer (council), senior lecturer and on two different (non-profit) boards of directors as well as his being a state senator. Yet their combined income was still in the $200k range until he ran for Senate and his book sales took off. Just interesting to note.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 08, 2012, 11:09:00 am

Quote from: palsch on August 07, 2012, 04:54:36 pm

The Obama's income was mostly from book sales, including the 2007 and 2009 spikes. Hence the huge spike around the election. I don't believe that either of them can take paid speaking engagements during his time in office. That might also include capital gains; I know the president has his assets placed in a blind trust but I believe they still report the profits of that trust as income. That would help explain the fairly low rate when combined with deductions (he paid less than his secretary on $95k (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns.html?_r=1)).

It's also notable that prior to Obama's entry into national politics, both he and Michell were fairly senior professionals; she was a hospital administrator, he was a lawyer (council), senior lecturer and on two different (non-profit) boards of directors as well as his being a state senator. Yet their combined income was still in the $200k range until he ran for Senate and his book sales took off. Just interesting to note.

And Mitts is in the millions for his job alone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 08, 2012, 11:15:57 am

With the latest poll projections it looks like Obama is going to win. Even if he loses in all 4 marginally blue states, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado that would still give him 271 electoral votes.

Edit: I seem to have missed New Hampshire;s 4 votes. If he lost all 5 marginally blue states, he could lose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 08, 2012, 11:17:10 am

It has looked like Obama was going to win since 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 08, 2012, 12:13:46 pm

I suspect it would be even more certain if we would just get rid of the electoral college already. Obama got 43% of the vote in Texas last election, and yet McCain got all the electoral points.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 08, 2012, 12:18:28 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 08, 2012, 12:13:46 pm

I suspect it would be even more certain if we would just get rid of the electoral college already. Obama got 43% of the vote in Texas last election, and yet McCain got all the electoral points.

Yup, first past the post is a terrible system. It's worse in the UK though, were you have small communities that have depopulated, but their worth in the election hasn't been adjusted. Leads to such strange situations were a man and his dog have more influence on the elections than a small community.

((Really, Al Gore would have won the elections were it not for this system.))

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 08, 2012, 01:18:43 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 08, 2012, 12:13:46 pm

I suspect it would be even more certain if we would just get rid of the electoral college already. Obama got 43% of the vote in Texas last election, and yet McCain got all the electoral points.

California and New York. 'Nuff said.
McCain had more votes in California (4,554,643) than he had in Texas (4,467,748).
Obama also got all the electoral college votes in a number of tight states, including Florida, Virginia and North Carolina (where he won by less than 15,000 votes). Not saying I'm a defender of the electoral college, just that it goes both ways. Obama still would have won handily by popular vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 08, 2012, 05:17:41 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on August 08, 2012, 12:18:28 pm

Yup, first past the post is a terrible system. It's worse in the UK though, were you have small communities that have depopulated, but their worth in the election hasn't been adjusted. Leads to such strange situations were a man and his dog have more influence on the elections than a small community.

Not supporting to the FPTP system (AV campaigner here remember), but the rotten boroughs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs) haven't been a reality since the 19th century. Today the smallest constituency has some 21,000+ votes and 60% turnout. And is marginal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29) (think swing, last changing from Labour to SNP in 2005).

They did make for one of the best episodes of Blackadder (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zfDhRmmR4g) that was actually used in one of my civics-style lessons, but thankfully that's their only contribution to modern politics.

I'd also separate the electoral college and FPTP as issues. I have less of a problem with FPTP given the electoral and federal systems in the US (and my doubt that another system would genuinely change much within those bounds). And the electoral college is a thick knot to try to cut through.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 08, 2012, 05:59:45 pm

Romeny's supporters may have just shot his campaign in the foot. Based on what my Rupublican uncle has been reposting on FB (from the Tea Party page), the Tea Party is starting to bring gun control to the front of their push. Romney's record is significantly more pro-gun control than Obama's is. This is a swing-issue, meaning that a non-trivial amount of the voter base (especially in the more critical battleground states, such as Ohio) has it as a top priority. If the Tea Party pushes that in advertisements, and Obama has the insight to jump on it, that could cost Romney a great deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 08, 2012, 06:20:02 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 08, 2012, 05:59:45 pm

Romeny's supporters may have just shot his campaign in the foot.

I love when that happens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 08, 2012, 07:50:56 pm

Hey remember when the Tea Partiers were kind of a new thing and were sort of an independent group? Then the Republicans started taking over and running candidates under the guise of being Tea Party candidates?

Yeah its exactly this kind of stuff that makes me giggle inside.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 08, 2012, 09:29:00 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 08, 2012, 11:15:57 am

With the latest poll projections it looks like Obama is going to win. Even if he loses in all 4 marginally blue states, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado that would still give him 271 electoral votes.

Edit: I seem to have missed New Hampshire;s 4 votes. If he lost all 5 marginally blue states, he could lose.

Florida, Virginia and Colorado are all states where Obama's lead is smaller then his national level lead.  In Florida and Virginia he won by a smaller percentage then he did nationally and in Colorado is was barely more then he did nationally.  This is despite having by all accounts a vastly better ground operation in all three states then McCain did.  It would certainly not be accurate to describe Florida as marginally blue, they are marginally red but Obama is leading there because he's leading overall.  It would be a stretch to describe Virginia and Colorado as marginally blue at this time.  They are headed in the direction of becoming blue states demographically but at the national level they are still bellweather states that don't lean towards either party.  Remember that before 2008 Colorado hadn't gone blue since 1992 and Virginia hadn't gone blue since 1964!

But it is true that if Obama can maintain his lead in the democratically leaning states of Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa and Wisconsin he will win.  Which shows that the electoral college setup right now actually favors the democrats.  A theoretical "tie" election where the nation splits exactly 50-50 and every state votes it's partisan leanings would go to the democrats by around 281-257.  This is assuming Colorado and Virginia are just barely republican leaning this election but probably going to switch to barely blue by 2014 or 2016.  I'm all for electoral college reform but if there's a repeat of 2000 it's more likely to be the democrats that stand to benefit this year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on August 08, 2012, 11:32:42 pm

The National Popular Vote Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) is slowly gaining ground so it's possible that we'll see the end of the current electoral college three or four presidential elections down the road.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 08, 2012, 11:45:17 pm

The reason I call them marginally blue is that he is currently polling slightly above romney and is more likely to win than lose at the moment. The odds that he loses ALL such states is slim.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 09, 2012, 02:30:43 am

Quote from: Nadaka on August 08, 2012, 11:45:17 pm

The reason I call them marginally blue is that he is currently polling slightly above romney and is more likely to win than lose at the moment. The odds that he loses ALL such states is slim.

It would be slim if the states all moved independently but that isn't how it works.  Plenty of factors affect all the states at once.  If the economy goes into a downturn/upswing or there is a major scandal it won't just affect Virginia or Colorado, it will affect every state in the union.  On August 9th 2004 John Kerry had a lead about as big as Obama has now.  He lead in the swing states just like Obama leads now.  He lost all those swing states and it wasn't a fluke, the national mood just moved in Bush's direction and took all the swing states with them.

The race so far has been remarkably steady compared to previous races.  Usually the numbers bounce around a lot more then they have this year.  But that doesn't mean that this steadiness is guaranteed to continue.  In fact it's sort of a fluke that this election has had so few major events.  This fluke might continue but it's very possible that it doesn't and all the swing states could move at once.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 09, 2012, 07:50:45 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html

Hmmm turns out that 40% of Romney's seed capital to create Bain came from El Salavador's death squad oligarchs during the dark times of the early 1980's.

Romney's key Salvadorean backers were supporters of the death squad which assassinated the Arch-Bishop of El Salvador in 1980, the links were already public knowledge for several years before Romney accepted their money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 09, 2012, 08:18:18 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 09, 2012, 07:50:45 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html

Hmmm turns out that 40% of Romney's seed capital to create Bain came from El Salavador's death squad oligarchs during the dark times of the early 1980's.

Romney's key Salvadorean backers were supporters of the death squad which assassinated the Arch-Bishop of El Salvador in 1980, the links were already public knowledge for several years before Romney accepted their money.

Won't have much of an effect, even if corroborated. Most Americans inclined to vote Romney don't give a flying fuck about some brown people's civil war 30 years ago. And he lost the Hispanic vote long, long ago. (Well, other than the Cubanos).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 09, 2012, 08:22:52 am

I have to wonder though, was Bain Capital founded on the principle of looking as much as possible like a liberal parody of a hedge fund?  I'm sure the vast majority of their business was completely legit, but the stuff that raises red flags is just so ridiculously red-flagy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on August 09, 2012, 10:36:30 am

It's obvious. Romney is so OBVIOUSLY evil that he's actually a plant, designed to make people flock to Obama!


Vote for Romney! Don't let the Man win!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 09, 2012, 11:12:13 am

Quote from: Descan on August 09, 2012, 10:36:30 am

It's obvious. Romney is so OBVIOUSLY evil that he's actually a plant, designed to make people flock to Obama!


Vote for Romney! Don't let the Man win!

Apparently at one point, WorldNetDaily (the right-wing equivalent of....okay, there really is no equivalent. Time Cube, maybe?) posited that Donald Trump was a White House agent with a mission to discredit the birther movement by gaining their trust and becoming the face of the movement and then going out and making himself look like an ass.

To which the correct response is: Looking like an ass is the Donald's natural state. No conspiracy required.
Likewise, looking like the kind of guy who would sell grandma's kidneys and then invest the money in a dialysis machine company seems to be Mitt's natural state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 09, 2012, 01:04:34 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on August 09, 2012, 08:22:52 am

I have to wonder though, was Bain Capital founded on the principle of looking as much as possible like a liberal parody of a hedge fund?  I'm sure the vast majority of their business was completely legit, but the stuff that raises red flags is just so ridiculously red-flagy.

This prompted me to look for sources around the web to explain what private equity firms actually do, most of which are surprisingly vague and simple. I had heard about this on the tele a while back and it just about blew my mind but here are the basics.

- A private equity firm purchases a business, the business has to pay for part of its own purchase (since technically the private equity guys are performing a service for the business, this can be about %70 of the cost of purchase)
- The private equity firm seeks to raise profits anyway they can, you do this by increasing revenue or minimizing costs, and the biggest cost in almost any business is wage payment.
- So they fire a large number of people and thus improve profits. Sometimes they also cheapen material costs as well, usually generating a lower quality product from that business.
- The now much more profitable business is sold away, the private equity firm bought it for cheap and can now sell it for vastly more since it is more profitable and technically now has more value.

Many of the businesses in question are indebted to the private equity firm afterwards and go bankrupt or perform vastly below what they would have without the private equity firm.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-private-equity-firms-like-bain-really-are-the-worst-of-capitalism-20120523 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-private-equity-firms-like-bain-really-are-the-worst-of-capitalism-20120523)

Quote

A firm like Bain obtains cheap credit and uses it to acquire a company in a "leveraged buyout." "Leverage" refers to the fact that the company being purchased is forced to pay for about 70 percent of its own acquisition, by taking out loans. If this sounds like an odd arrangement, that's because it is.

Quote

Once the buyout is completed, the private equity guys start swinging the meat axe, aggressively cutting costs wherever they can – so that the company can start paying off its new debt – by laying off workers and cutting capital costs. This process often boosts operating profit without a significant hit to the business, but only in the short term; in the long run, the austerity approach makes it difficult for companies to stay competitive, not least because money that would otherwise have been invested in expansion or product development – which might increase revenue down the line – is used to pay off the company's debt.

Quote

But leveraged buyouts don't only hurt businesses, workers, and the economy generally – they also short-change taxpayers, via a giant loophole in the tax code that enables companies to deduct loan interest from taxes.

Yeah sorry guys I couldn't google-fu up a source that was more independent but every other source I could find was written along the lines of "they buy the company (tactfully ignoring the leveraged buyout) and make it all hunky dory".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 09, 2012, 01:14:24 pm

Yes, the purpose of a private equity firm like Baen Capital is capital murder. The murder of capital. It is a corporate serial killing feasting on the corpses of persons of corporate ethnicity. When will this senseless corp on corp violence end?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 09, 2012, 01:42:44 pm

If you think about it aren't they interrupting the capitalist circle of life? Failing firms are supposed to die so that their resources can be reclaimed by the Invisible Hand and they leave room for new firms to grow into.

Hedge fund managers work by basically ripping out the failing organs and replacing them with brutally efficient gears, leaving mechanized, profitable but soulless zombies in their place. (okay, so the metaphor got a little mangled...work with me here)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 09, 2012, 01:50:13 pm

So hedge funds are transbusinessist?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on August 09, 2012, 02:02:23 pm

I don't see them replacing the metaphorical limbs they rip off businesses with robot ones, so, no.

More like a parasite, really. One of those ones that induce temporary benefits (increased metabolism, reduced resource requirements, whatever) in exchange for causing the host to die shortly thereafter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on August 09, 2012, 02:11:44 pm

Quote from: Frumple on August 09, 2012, 02:02:23 pm

More like a parasite, really. One of those ones that induce temporary benefits (increased metabolism, reduced resource requirements, whatever) in exchange for causing the host to die shortly thereafter.

Drug dealers for businesses?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 09, 2012, 02:12:35 pm

Yea, they effectively peddle "bath salts" for corporations, including the face eating.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 10, 2012, 12:06:43 am

Something that seems to be skipped over in many private equity discussions is the nature of business growth and development in general. A business grows like a plant from some sort of seed which can take decades. To take the analogy further, there are some cases where a tree is dying and in danger of falling on someone's house or the branches are threatening traffic. But the argument that private equity firms are doing a valuable service is misinformation. Their goal is to make profit, they don't generally make more money from companies that are failing and need to be dismantled, they may be more likely to get access, but if they are given access to a company that is getting by ok or that is simply having a bad year, they don't take the moral path and think about what is good for society in the long run. The best example is US industry in the rust belt. The factories and plants (hey analogy pun) that they dismantled and sold off there took decades to build up, they were supporting large parts of the local, state and national economy. They were built in part with public funds. Some of them may have been operating at a loss but that may have been temporary, economic slowdowns are common but not permanent. The idea of simply sacking hundreds of workers is bad for everyone. What those industries needed was to be modernised, which would have cost a lot of money in the short term, but resulted in long term benefits across the board after a decade or so. Even worse, they didn't just sack the workers, they sold off everything that wasn't nailed down, sometimes just for scrap. Destroying something that has that level of social investment over that length of time is unconscionable. Even in a working capitalistic system the companies that own them could go bankrupt, without the buildings and machinery needing to be melted down or left to rust. The doctor cutting off diseased limbs analogy is wrong, the correct version is doctors taking organs to sell on the black market. Some of them have a modicum of morality and only take them from dead people, some don't make that distinction. In terms of my plant analogy, it can be compared to bulldozing vast areas of rainforest so that they can sell the land to real estate speculators. This is short term greed and it is destructive. Given any failing company that still has valuable assets like skilled workers, machinery, land, infrastructure, there is always a way to make it successful again in the long term, and the gains from doing so are always worth it. There is no short term way to make money from this though. Private equity is nothing short of looting and pillaging, sanitised.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 10, 2012, 01:04:48 pm

Obama's lead widens to 7 points: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/10/13217458-first-thoughts-its-not-an-even-race-obamas-ahead?lite

The article also seems to be suggesting Paul Ryan as a likely VP pick; and considering the popularity of 'The Ryan Plan...' Well, seems Obama will be getting a second term. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 10, 2012, 01:27:49 pm

Picking Ryan would be something of a peace offering to the Tea Party as well. If Romney picked a "safe" establishment candidate for VP, he could be facing a Tea Party-fueled revolt, maybe even a third-party spoiler candidacy. Which would be awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 10, 2012, 08:02:45 pm

No mention of Obama's horribly deceitful Joe Soptic ad? For shame.

Liberals, tell me how you support a man, who can blame another for the DEATH of a man's wife by cancer, on a horrid falsehood. Obama has not denounced this ad yet. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDzzv8Jn6GQ

It was false, all of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOJkzUrnx0&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 10, 2012, 08:12:26 pm

That's a PAC ad, not one endorsed by Obama. This ad was produced by an organization nominally independent of Obama's campaign, which he is unlikely to exercise significant control over. On an election of this scale, it's not unknown for a candidate to never see some of the ads on his behalf, let alone control them.


Besides this, the ad (unlike Obama's abortion gaffe) wasn't completely false. There is room to suggest that the company folding was Romney's fault.
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/is-romney-to-blame-for-cancer-death/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 10, 2012, 08:13:08 pm

It wasn't Obama's ad. It was anti-Romney, but Priorities USA is officially an independent expenditure SuperPAC. Independent expenditure PACs do not act with the consent of the individual they support.

Furthermore, I'd really have to question the statements made in a video by "Liberal-Fascism.com".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 10, 2012, 08:15:19 pm

Furthermore, Presidential candidates/campaigns cannot work with SuperPACs... by law or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 10, 2012, 08:17:42 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 10, 2012, 08:12:26 pm

That's a PAC ad, not one endorsed by Obama. This ad was produced by an organization nominally independent of Obama's campaign, which he is unlikely to exercise significant control over. On an election of this scale, it's not unknown for a candidate to never see some of the ads on his behalf, let alone control them.


Besides this, the ad (unlike Obama's abortion gaffe) wasn't completely false. There is room to suggest that the company folding was Romney's fault.

The company was already folding. A healthy, profitable company isn't one you normally sell.

Bain (Romney was out of the picture at this point), OFFERED THE GUY A BUYOUT.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 10, 2012, 08:18:35 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 10, 2012, 08:15:19 pm

Furthermore, Presidential candidates/campaigns cannot work with SuperPACs... by law or something.

De jure, yes. My question is, why didn't Obama denounce this ad? The campaign declined to comment when asked about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 10, 2012, 08:20:44 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 10, 2012, 08:17:42 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 10, 2012, 08:12:26 pm

That's a PAC ad, not one endorsed by Obama. This ad was produced by an organization nominally independent of Obama's campaign, which he is unlikely to exercise significant control over. On an election of this scale, it's not unknown for a candidate to never see some of the ads on his behalf, let alone control them.


Besides this, the ad (unlike Obama's abortion gaffe) wasn't completely false. There is room to suggest that the company folding was Romney's fault.

The company was already folding. A healthy, profitable company isn't one you normally sell.

Bain (Romney was out of the picture at this point), OFFERED THE GUY A BUYOUT.

I forgot to post the analysis link. After Bain bought the company out, it was saddled with massive amounts of debt. A case can be made for that being the result of mismanagement by Bain, which was still under Romney's active control at the time.

As fr why he didn't denounce it? You don't stab an ally in the back just because they make you look bad. It makes you look very bad if you do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 10, 2012, 08:21:03 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 10, 2012, 08:18:35 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 10, 2012, 08:15:19 pm

Furthermore, Presidential candidates/campaigns cannot work with SuperPACs... by law or something.

De jure, yes. My question is, why didn't Obama denounce this ad? The campaign declined to comment when asked about it.

Obama is allowed to decline to comment. You don't have to denounce things that are stupid and inaccurate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 10, 2012, 08:37:23 pm

The other thing to point out: apparently the ad was created, but was never actually aired.

Quote from: the nbc article I linked

By the way, it’s worth noting that the Priorities ad still hasn’t actually aired anywhere (except in free cable chatter.)

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obama-cancer-ad-TV/2012/08/10/id/448218

Quote

There are no instances of the ad ever running as a paid commercial, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of Kantar Media, The Times reports. Kantar uses technology to track the appearance and frequency of political ads nationwide.

So far, the group's data show that the ad has never been shown on broadcast television or national cable, The Times reports.

So we want him denouncing ads which were never aired now? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 02:17:57 am

Paul Ryan is looking likely. (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/10/13226315-nbc-sources-indicate-romney-will-pick-ryan?lite)

Paul Ryan is crazy. (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on August 11, 2012, 05:05:44 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 02:17:57 am

Paul Ryan is crazy. (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm)

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 05:10:55 am

Quote from: Dutchling on August 11, 2012, 05:05:44 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 02:17:57 am

Paul Ryan is crazy. (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm)

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Laugh, elections in the US can generally only be won by appealing to the moderate. Obama-Biden (mostly Obama, because...well.....Who the hell is Joe Biden?) is much more moderate than Romney-Ryan (even though that rolls off the tongue better). Romney is in a Catch-22: Pick an off the wall fundie like Ryan and lose the moderate, pick a moderate and lose the far-right. He can't win without both.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 11, 2012, 05:13:09 am

btw for that Bain steel mill acquisition, for the approx. $9 million profit Bain walked with, the tax-payer ended up bailing out the pensions of workers left high-and-dry to the tune of $44 million. Not to mention all the fraudulent loan money Bain forced them to take out.

Basically this is a case of robbing the loan-givers and pension funds for minimal personal profit, and leave everyone else picking up the tab.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 11, 2012, 08:32:01 am

And it's officially Romney/Ryan.

This...this will be an interesting next three months.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 08:35:33 am

It hasn't been very interesting so far.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 09:41:05 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on August 11, 2012, 08:32:01 am

And it's officially Romney/Ryan.

This...this will be an interesting next three months.

"And we can predict as of 8:00 that Florida has gone to Obama..."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 11, 2012, 09:42:30 am

My initial reaction was: "Mittens, you want to WIN this race. You can do better than that." I stand by that. But apparently the Wall Street Journal really pushed for Ryan.

Still, I suspect this is going to be the second election in a row where the Republicans wasted their chance at winning by picking the wrong veep.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 09:52:53 am

Oh. My. Fucking. God. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMv28sYQzCY)

Jon Stewart could just repeat that verbatim in a sarcastic tone and it would be a joke on its own.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:08:52 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 11, 2012, 05:13:09 am

btw for that Bain steel mill acquisition, for the approx. $9 million profit Bain walked with, the tax-payer ended up bailing out the pensions of workers left high-and-dry to the tune of $44 million. Not to mention all the fraudulent loan money Bain forced them to take out.

Basically this is a case of robbing the loan-givers and pension funds for minimal personal profit, and leave everyone else picking up the tab.

Flip the table and break someone elses dishes so no one notices you took more then your share of the pizza.

Does everyone realize that the fate of the world now depends on the debating skills of Joe Biden?  :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 11, 2012, 10:16:49 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:08:52 am

Does everyone realize that the fate of the world now depends on the debating skills of Joe Biden?  :o

No it doesn't. The election is merely a formality. The incumbent has already won.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 11, 2012, 10:20:02 am

Since when did the VP debate matter?

Now things like Newt calling Ryan's budget proposal 'right wing social engineering' (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/gingrich-keeps-ryan-budget-at-arms-length.html), those can matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 10:25:29 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:08:52 am

Does everyone realize that the fate of the world now depends on the debating skills of Joe Biden?  :o

Who the hell is Joe Biden?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:37:19 am

Quote from: palsch on August 11, 2012, 10:20:02 am

Since when did the VP debate matter?

In 2008 69.9 million people watched the VP debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 11, 2012, 11:24:52 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 10:25:29 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:08:52 am

Does everyone realize that the fate of the world now depends on the debating skills of Joe Biden?  :o

Who the hell is Joe Biden?

The vice-president. The reason that, despite the 'dark jokes', Obama was never assassinated. Whichever opposition member did the killing would only unleash a storm of actual liberalism upon the presidency when Biden ascended to the oval office. (Biden doesn't do much as the VP, but as a member of congress he was quite an active and prominent liberal member.)

I, for one, like to watch the VP debates. VP picks tend to be more extreme than the candidates themselves. Biden vs. Ryan should be goddamn hilarious if Biden doesn't screw anything up. (Or, actually, if he does.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 11:26:08 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 11, 2012, 11:24:52 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 10:25:29 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:08:52 am

Does everyone realize that the fate of the world now depends on the debating skills of Joe Biden?  :o

Who the hell is Joe Biden?

The vice-president.

Yes. I know. The joke is that Biden is so inactive as VP that I act like I have no idea who he is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 11, 2012, 11:42:28 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:37:19 am

In 2008 69.9 million people watched the VP debate.

Because they wanted to watch Sarah Palin trying to speak in complete sentences. How many based their votes on the debate?

Most polling and assessments have shown that Palin as a whole had a fairly minimal impact on the presidential race, regardless of all the sound and fury that surrounded her. Despite her 'losing' the VP debate by pretty much any measure the presidential race polling actually closed by 4 points that week (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/06/opinion/polls/main4504633.shtml) in favour of McCain/Palin. Her favourables enjoyed a bump as well (bigger than Biden's) which ended up not helping her at all at attracting voters that McCain himself wasn't particularly popular with. Taking this analysis (http://www.tulane.edu/~bbrox/BroxCassels.pdf) she only actually mattered to Democrats;

Quote

The results of the analysis are quite distinct for the three groups. For Democrats, evaluations of the four candidates all had statistically significant effects in the expected directions: higher thermometer scores for Obama and Biden decreased the likelihood of a McCain vote, while higher thermometer scores for McCain and Palin increased that likelihood. For Republicans, the opposite was true, as evaluations for only Obama had a statistically significant (negative) impact on the likelihood of a McCain vote. For Independents, strangely enough, only the evaluation of Palin failed to exert a statistically significant impact.

They later note that she did have some impact with white independents, but that this is a marginal effect at best and those results quoted show that the other candidates had more significant impacts with independents as a whole.

The VP choice can help frame debate issues and flavour the campaign to a significant degree, but beyond that the VP themselves are of fairly little importance as far as votes go, and the debate itself is a sideshow and good entertainment at best.

The Ryan pick is important as far as it shows Romney doubling down on a conservative, regressive tax ideal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on August 11, 2012, 11:52:20 am

So, I was like: 'Who the hell is Biden'.

Wikipedia, 1st try:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Bombyliid_7294.jpg/220px-Bombyliid_7294.jpg)
That's probably not the guy I'm looking for

Wikipedia, 2nd try:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Joe_Biden_official_portrait_crop.jpg/220px-Joe_Biden_official_portrait_crop.jpg)
That guy is familiar....

Google:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.moviesonline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/leslie_nielsen.jpg)
Leslie Nielson has come back to us! (Ok, to be honest, I didn't even know the guy dead).

---

But in all seriousness: when are the actual elections / campaigns starting? And is Mittens now finally the actual Republican candidate?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 11:54:01 am

2008 might have been the highest watched debate but 43.5 million viewers tuned into the 2004 vice presidential debate.

Even if only a small percentage of people make up their minds from a debate a small percentage of tens of millions of people is a big fucking deal as Biden would put it.  Obama's biggest lead this campaign has only been around 3 million likely votes. (keep in mind that a registered voter poll does not translate into a likely vote).  Also the debates are an occasion when undecided voters pay a lot, lot more attention then they do at other points in the campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 11:55:40 am

Quote from: Dutchling on August 11, 2012, 11:52:20 am

But in all seriousness: when are the actual elections / campaigns starting?

They are started. I even posted one of Romney's crazy attack ads on the last page. It isn't as if there's an official start date for the election campaign or anything.

Quote

And is Mittens now finally the actual Republican candidate?

It isn't like anyone else in the GOP is running anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 11, 2012, 12:33:10 pm

And just how much of a liability is Paul Ryan?

Quote from: Conservapedia

While he has indicated support for reducing government, some of the specifics in his economic proposals have not been particularly conservative or helpful politically to the Republican Party.

When Conservapedia won't endorse your nuttiness, it's time to fold 'em.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 11, 2012, 01:36:04 pm

Just by the way... (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/08/11/us/politics/11fivethirtyeight-ryan-dwnominate/11fivethirtyeight-ryan-dwnominate-blog480.png)
Taken from congressional votes so no Palin or other governors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:04:18 pm

Paul Ryan's really not a winning VP candidate by any metric. He's not conservative enough to really get the base out and motivated (having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc) and he's not moderate enough to appeal to swing voters. His budget plan wouldn't have even balanced the budget since it barely touched military spending, yet did a great job of alienating the elderly.

Not that it makes much of a difference. Mitt Romney's chances at becoming president have practically nothing to do with him since he's an incredibly boring candidate who has managed to piss off almost everyone who isn't "Mister Generic Republican Voter". They really come down to whether that inevitable double dip recession/dollar crisis hits before or after election day and whether or not he drags the US into another pointless war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 03:06:17 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:04:18 pm

Paul Ryan's really not a winning VP candidate by any metric. He's not conservative enough to really get the base out and motivated (having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc) and he's not moderate enough to appeal to swing voters. His budget plan wouldn't have even balanced the budget since it barely touched military spending, yet did a great job of alienating the elderly.

....How is Ryan not conservative enough? He's conservative in pretty much every way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 11, 2012, 03:09:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 03:06:17 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:04:18 pm

Paul Ryan's really not a winning VP candidate by any metric. He's not conservative enough to really get the base out and motivated (having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc) and he's not moderate enough to appeal to swing voters. His budget plan wouldn't have even balanced the budget since it barely touched military spending, yet did a great job of alienating the elderly.

....How is Ryan not conservative enough? He's conservative in pretty much every way.

Hell, to make him any more conservative you 'd have to make him freeze-dried

Spoiler: Hints (click to show/hide)

It's a pun, or play on the words. Conservative><Conserved food

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 11, 2012, 03:10:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 03:06:17 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:04:18 pm

Paul Ryan's really not a winning VP candidate by any metric. He's not conservative enough to really get the base out and motivated (having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc) and he's not moderate enough to appeal to swing voters. His budget plan wouldn't have even balanced the budget since it barely touched military spending, yet did a great job of alienating the elderly.

....How is Ryan not conservative enough? He's conservative in pretty much every way.

To the conservative base, nobody's conservative enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 11, 2012, 03:15:42 pm

He's a fiscal conservative, although I use that term loosely. I imagine the attention his tax plan generated is why he was chosen. That and he's young, white and easy on the eyes. Romney is going to argue the economy until he's blue in the face and I think Ryan complements that focus. He'll be the one doing the talking about specific plans since Romney can't talk about money without having most of the left and some of the right dive all over him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 03:18:04 pm

Paul Ryan looks to the base like the second coming of Ronald Reagan.  Any "facts" you might have that contradict this don't matter.  The substance of the positions don't matter, it's all about standing in the tribe and Paul Ryan has impeccable standing in the tribe.  He's like the chosen one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:37:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 03:06:17 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:04:18 pm

Paul Ryan's really not a winning VP candidate by any metric. He's not conservative enough to really get the base out and motivated (having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc) and he's not moderate enough to appeal to swing voters. His budget plan wouldn't have even balanced the budget since it barely touched military spending, yet did a great job of alienating the elderly.

....How is Ryan not conservative enough? He's conservative in pretty much every way.

(having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc)

He's a far-right conservative the way Obama is a Communist radical.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 04:02:41 pm

Paul Ryan is an excellent choice and here's why.

Forget that he's white, or young, or tall, or he likes Wheat Thins, or his left to right orientation. He was picked because the man's an optimist. He believes that we're not screwed, which is the opposite Obama message. Obama gives "malaise" speech after malaise speech after malaise speech. Paul Ryan at least thinks it is possible and has a plan to fix things, (which, according to the nonpartisan CBO, would net us a surplus by 2030)

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43023

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 11, 2012, 04:10:42 pm

Uh, I'm pretty sure Obama's an optimist, judging by every speech I've heard, his entire campaign platform in 2008, most of what I've seen in 2012, and especially the most recent State of the Union address.

Quote

“The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.”

Quote

“No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each others' backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard.”

Quote

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

And especially...

Quote

Anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years.

But perhaps such speeches were never spoken?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on August 11, 2012, 04:18:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 04:02:41 pm

He believes that we're not screwed, which is the opposite Obama message.

HOPE.jpg

(On the other hand, I personally tend towards pessimism about politics.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 04:26:35 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:37:49 pm

(having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc)

He's a far-right conservative the way Obama is a Communist radical.

Quote from: Paul Ryan's Record

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 13% by the American Civil Liberties Union, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the Human Rights Council, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on expanding services for offenders' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees. (Jun 2009)
Rated 91% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Commitment to unbreakable U.S.-Israel bond. (Mar 2010)
FactCheck: all-time high government was 1943, not 2009. (Jan 2011)
Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval. (Jun 2011)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)

Source. (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm)

What exactly do you define as far-right if that isn't?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 04:47:17 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 04:26:35 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 03:37:49 pm

(having voted for bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, TARP, etc)

He's a far-right conservative the way Obama is a Communist radical.

Quote from: Paul Ryan

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 13% by the American Civil Liberties Union, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the Human Rights Council, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on expanding services for offenders' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees. (Jun 2009)
Rated 91% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Commitment to unbreakable U.S.-Israel bond. (Mar 2010)
FactCheck: all-time high government was 1943, not 2009. (Jan 2011)
Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval. (Jun 2011)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)

Source. (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm)

What exactly do you define as far-right if that isn't?

Quote from: Paul Ryan

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on August 11, 2012, 04:50:37 pm

So, do I vote for the guy who says he's going to do some of what I want him to do and then doesn't, or the guy who just says he's going to do the opposite of what I want to happen?

Also, how do I cast my vote for the representatives from other states? Seems, somehow silly that people so far away, from a part of the country I've never seen, nor do I want to see, with completely different agendas can have a say in what happens here... what happens to all of us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 05:01:14 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 04:47:17 pm

Quote from: Paul Ryan

-snip-

Your list is pretty short compared to mine. Ryan may have made some exceptions (he also voted against oversight for TARP, by the way), but his usual record is strongly conservative.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 05:17:20 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 11, 2012, 05:01:14 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 04:47:17 pm

Quote from: Paul Ryan

-snip-

Your list is pretty short compared to mine. Ryan may have made some exceptions (he also voted against oversight for TARP, by the way), but his usual record is strongly conservative.

Your list covers things that most Republicans would vote for, mine covers things that are actually divisive on the Republican side.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 06:58:15 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 04:47:17 pm

Quote from: Paul Ryan

-Voted YES on TARP (2008) <- A republican initiative
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008) <- A republican initiative (This was a short term tax cut proposed by Bush, not the Obama stimulus package)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003) <- A republican initiative
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008) <- Bipartisan at the time, Passed by a republican president
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001) <- A republican initiative

So the list with those things removed:
Voted for the auto bailout
70 whole million dollars for housing aid
Voted for a smaller stimulus bill
Voted for Head Start

Pretty thin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 09:31:11 pm

Quote from: EveryZig on August 11, 2012, 04:18:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 04:02:41 pm

He believes that we're not screwed, which is the opposite Obama message.

HOPE.jpg

(On the other hand, I personally tend towards pessimism about politics.)

First rule of Obama: What CANDIDATE Obama says, is often the polar opposite of what PRESIDENT Obama says.

You don't even know what Obama is going to do. As illustrated by his conversation with Dmitri Medvedev, he can be "more flexible" after the election.

Obama promised the peaceniks he'd never invade without congressional approval unless the threat was imminent.

Quote

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Cut to today, with Libya.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 09:42:19 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 09:31:11 pm

Cut to today, with Libya.

Invade might be a bit strong winded there; with the exception of CIA (who are probably everywhere), did even a single american soldier set foot in Libya?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 10:23:49 pm

And more importantly he had congressional authorization for the use of force.  And for good reason, the Libyan rebels invited us in and there was an international coalition.  We knew going into this war that the aftermath wouldn't be idyllic but things we would be a lot worse if we hadn't supported the rebels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 11, 2012, 10:58:30 pm

Google "Obama weak on Libya" and see all the conservative press hounding Obama to intervene.

http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/critics-call-obamas-libya-response-weak/

Quote

The New Republic called the president out Friday for empty words.

“This ‘must’ denotes an order, or a permission, or an obligation, or a wish, or a will. It does not denote a plan. It includes no implication, no expectation, of action. It is the rhetoric of futility: this infection must stop, this blizzard must stop, this madness must stop…. Must the murder of his own people by this madman stop, Mr. President? Then stop it.”

^ New Republic calls on Obama to stop Ghadaffi.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/non_leader_of_the_free_world_ge9qm3qBkKl3Q10Zi35DhL

Quote

The UN Security Council voted last night to authorize a no-fly zone above Libya and approve "all necessary measures" to aid rebels being crushed by Moammar Khadafy's forces. The question now: Will it come too late?
How typical of US leadership -- Obama-style.

^ New York Post attacks Obama's leadership because he didn't aide rebels quick enough.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367952/Libya-Newt-Gingrich-bashes-Obamas-lack-leadership-We-look-weak-uncertain.html

Quote

Newt Gingrich has slammed Barack Obama for his lack of leadership over Libya as Western jets - led by France - bombed Muammar Gaddafi's forces today.
The former House Speaker, who is considering a presidential run in 2012, mocked Mr Obama yesterday for publicising his Final Four pics as Libyan rebels battled for their country.
He attacked the President for making America look 'weak and uncertain', and said former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would have been far more decisive.

^ Gingrich: Obama should have attacked Libya like Reagan did.

http://blogs4victory.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/why-is-obama-so-weak-on-libya/

Quote

Why is Obama so Weak on Libya?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/rubio_america_looks_weak_on_libya_and_russia_and_china_are_enjoying_it

Quote

Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) lashed out at the Obama administration's Libya policy on Thursday, saying that the United States looked weak and naïve in hoping that the U.N. Security Council would act to protect the Libyan people.

"The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor, it looks unwilling to act,"

^ Rubio: Obama should have acted.

Here, you had the ENTIRE Republican party and conservative media blasting Obama before the Libyan intervention for not attacking. Then, as soon as he did what THEY wanted, they turned on him, and on American troops, and cut funds. The Republicans in congress and the media were BAYING for a Libyan attack, but as soon as Obama committed forces, they betrayed the mission by not authorize the action THEY demanded.

Th ball was in their court, they wanted to have their cake and eat it, and gave Obama a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice. Honestly, demanding someone do an action, yet refusing to authorize it.

Total lying hypocritical scum-baggery.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 10:59:49 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 09:42:19 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 09:31:11 pm

Cut to today, with Libya.

Invade might be a bit strong winded there; with the exception of CIA (who are probably everywhere), did even a single american soldier set foot in Libya?

Soldiers=/=spies. The CIA is a civilian agency.

Since when is invasion defined by people setting foot on the ground? To the contrary, let's use Merriam Webster.

"to enter for conquest or plunder"

We conquered, as in, defeated, Libya.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 11:06:13 pm

Quote from: Reelya on August 11, 2012, 10:58:30 pm

Google "Obama weak on Libya" and see all the conservative press hounding Obama to intervene.

http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/critics-call-obamas-libya-response-weak/

Quote

The New Republic called the president out Friday for empty words.

“This ‘must’ denotes an order, or a permission, or an obligation, or a wish, or a will. It does not denote a plan. It includes no implication, no expectation, of action. It is the rhetoric of futility: this infection must stop, this blizzard must stop, this madness must stop…. Must the murder of his own people by this madman stop, Mr. President? Then stop it.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/non_leader_of_the_free_world_ge9qm3qBkKl3Q10Zi35DhL

Quote

The UN Security Council voted last night to authorize a no-fly zone above Libya and approve "all necessary measures" to aid rebels being crushed by Moammar Khadafy's forces. The question now: Will it come too late?
How typical of US leadership -- Obama-style.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367952/Libya-Newt-Gingrich-bashes-Obamas-lack-leadership-We-look-weak-uncertain.html

Quote

Newt Gingrich has slammed Barack Obama for his lack of leadership over Libya as Western jets - led by France - bombed Muammar Gaddafi's forces today.
The former House Speaker, who is considering a presidential run in 2012, mocked Mr Obama yesterday for publicising his Final Four pics as Libyan rebels battled for their country.
He attacked the President for making America look 'weak and uncertain', and said former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would have been far more decisive.

http://blogs4victory.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/why-is-obama-so-weak-on-libya/

Quote

Why is Obama so Weak on Libya?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/rubio_america_looks_weak_on_libya_and_russia_and_china_are_enjoying_it

Quote

Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) lashed out at the Obama administration's Libya policy on Thursday, saying that the United States looked weak and naïve in hoping that the U.N. Security Council would act to protect the Libyan people.

"The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor, it looks unwilling to act,"

Here, you had the ENTIRE Republican party and conservative media blasting Obama before the Libyan intervention for not attacking. Then, as soon as he did what THEY wanted, they turned on him, and on American troops, and cut funds. The Republicans in congress and the media were BAYING for a Libyan attack, but as soon as Obama committed forces, they betrayed the mission.

They never asked him to unilaterally attack without seeking congressional approval. It's assumed that when there are rules, rules will be followed. Obama has to ask Congress to attack Libya pursuant to Article 1 of the US Constitution, and he wasn't at the time. It is rare, and in fact, has never happened in the history of the country for Congress to declare war without the President seeking it and endorsing it. If Obama encouraged war, he could have gotten Democrats in Congress on board as well. Saying "the United States should act" does not mean "The President should violate the constitution"

Assume for the briefest moment, arguendo, that your allegation was true, all that proves is that your buddy Barack is weak and spineless, to break the rules which he swore to preserve, protect and defend so help him God at the opposite party's behest, and is therefore unfit to be president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on August 11, 2012, 11:07:35 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 10:59:49 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 09:42:19 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 09:31:11 pm

Cut to today, with Libya.

Invade might be a bit strong winded there; with the exception of CIA (who are probably everywhere), did even a single american soldier set foot in Libya?

Soldiers=/=spies. The CIA is a civilian agency.

Since when is invasion defined by people setting foot on the ground? To the contrary, let's use Merriam Webster.

"to enter for conquest or plunder"

We conquered, as in, defeated, Libya.

Uhm, no. That is not what that word means. If y'all conquered Libya, Libya would be owned by America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 11, 2012, 11:08:42 pm

...that part of the constitution is broken all the time. Vietnam wasn't a declared war, at least not initially. I think Korea may have started as an undeclared war as well, though I'm not sure. The Quasi-War with France is the first example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 11, 2012, 11:09:39 pm

Dude, the Republicans were blasting Obama for not acting fast enough., yet THEY controlled Authorization. Obama naturally sought authorization, yet the same political forces criticizing his slowness in attacking chose to withhold that authorization.

And when he finally took the initiative THEY demanded, they slammed him for not getting their own stamp of approval.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 11, 2012, 11:11:57 pm

Not only is there zero support that military intervention violated the Constitution, the War Powers Act specifically acknowledges that the president has the right to do so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 11:18:48 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 10:59:49 pm

-snip-

But... by that exact definition, Libya wasn't invaded! There sure as hell wasn't any plundering going on by armed forces belonging to ANY international force, and aiding a pre-existing rebel force that is more idealogically aligned with you, while a bit suspicious, is not conquest by any sane definition of the word.

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 12:06:54 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 11:18:48 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 11, 2012, 10:59:49 pm

-snip-

But... by that exact definition, Libya wasn't invaded! There sure as hell wasn't any plundering going on by armed forces belonging to ANY international force, and aiding a pre-existing rebel force that is more idealogically aligned with you, while a bit suspicious, is not conquest by any sane definition of the word.

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Hence the operative word "or".


I feel like you're using words you don't understand. If something isn't military, it isn't military. In fact, there's an exact word for something with military function and organization (the CIA does not have military organization, FYI) and isn't formal military. Paramilitary. Note, that the CIA has a paramilitary wing it is not of itself paramilitary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 12:07:26 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 11:18:48 pm

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Don't let the movies fool you, the vast majority of what the CIA does is information gathering.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 12:12:05 am

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 11, 2012, 11:11:57 pm

Not only is there zero support that military intervention violated the Constitution, the War Powers Act specifically acknowledges that the president has the right to do so.

I hope you don't mean the War Powers Resolution Barack Obama violated?  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution)

The US intervention began in the Spring and ended in October. That's more than the 60 days allowed by the WPR.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 12:13:22 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 12:07:26 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 11:18:48 pm

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Don't let the movies fool you, the vast majority of what the CIA does is information gathering.

Namely, putting holes in paper, not people. Pushing paper in the office, not guns in people's faces in exotic secret prisons.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 12, 2012, 12:54:38 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 12:12:05 am

The US intervention began in the Spring and ended in October. That's more than the 60 days allowed by the WPR.

True, but according to Obama's report to congress at the end of the first 60 days, command had been transferred to NATO by that point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 12, 2012, 01:04:38 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 12:06:54 am

Hence the operative word "or".

Not conquest OR plunder.

:. Not invasion via the cited Merriam Webster definition.

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 12:13:22 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 12:07:26 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 11:18:48 pm

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Don't let the movies fool you, the vast majority of what the CIA does is information gathering.

Namely, putting holes in paper, not people. Pushing paper in the office, not guns in people's faces in exotic secret prisons.

Yep, vast majority is information gathering and analysis, but also includes activities such as espionage, providing liasons/military training to sympathetic elements and spotting for drones/artillery/military insertion. Oh, and paramilitary wetwork. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/2/bin-laden-creates-opportunity-for-fresh-start-on-c/)

Quote from: Washington Times

Press reports served up in the wake of the bin Laden mission to the effect that special forces teams and their CIA paramilitary counterparts perform such feats on a daily basis only underscores the high quality of these units and their value to the nation.

I think it likely that there was at least a single CIA operative trained in field work in the country; local news papers here in Aus mentioned CIA acting as trainers and advisors to the Libyan rebels, and I cannot imagine them being sent without suitable training.

Finally, even if we do take CIA as civilian... that doesn't change my original point, as I used CIA as an exception.

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 11, 2012, 09:42:19 pm

Invade might be a bit strong winded there; with the exception of CIA (who are probably everywhere), did even a single american soldier set foot in Libya?

Oh hey, CIA aren't soldiers? Well then, that makes my point all the more pertinent.

Unless you really want to claim that the U.S. invaded a country
a) Without conquering it.
b) Without looting it.
c) Without any soldiers touching it.


Edited quote to clarify who that was directed at.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 02:30:51 am

Quote

Not conquest OR plunder.

:. Not invasion via the cited Merriam Webster definition.

Erm, what? The aim was to conquer. Conquer, as it is mistakenly defined by laymen, does not actually mean "annex". It means "defeat". We employed our military force to defeat Qadaffi on his home turf in an offensive action. Invasion.

Conquer means "to overcome by force of arms."

Again, you're using words, and you don't know what they mean.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 12, 2012, 02:36:22 am

I'm using the dictionary definition YOU posted! ???

Sigh. You realise Gaddafi was defeated by the rebels right? Not by U.S. forces? You understand therefore that any conquest performed was acheived by rebels, and thus not the United States. U.S. action, which, I might remind you, was only a part of a multi-nation coalition, was primarily limited to enforcing a no-fly zone and limited drone attacks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 02:38:45 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 12, 2012, 02:36:22 am

I'm using the dictionary definition YOU posted!  ???

Are you really? Are you REALLY going to make me define the word "or" for you? We employed military force to overcome Qadaffi through force of arms (conquer), therefore, it was an invasion, and even if it wasn't, the WPR doesn't call for congressional authorization for invasion. It's for ALL presidential deployment of military forces abroad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 02:40:48 am

I don't think it's accurate to say NATO defeated Gaddafi. NATO's role denied Gaddafi air supremacy over the rebels, but it was the rebels themselves who went about with the city-capturing and the despot-executing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 02:41:35 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 11, 2012, 11:09:39 pm

Dude, the Republicans were blasting Obama for not acting fast enough., yet THEY controlled Authorization. Obama naturally sought authorization, yet the same political forces criticizing his slowness in attacking chose to withhold that authorization.

And when he finally took the initiative THEY demanded, they slammed him for not getting their own stamp of approval.

This is going to surprise you. This is going to shock and amaze you. There are actually TWO houses to congress! Shocking, amirite? Yeah, so apparently according to this st00ped piece of paper written like, 2 gazillion years ago, Congress, not just the House, must approve. And the Democrats hold a majority in the senate. I also want a source saying Obama sought authorization.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 02:44:44 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 02:40:48 am

I don't think it's accurate to say NATO defeated Gaddafi. NATO's role denied Gaddafi air supremacy over the rebels, but it was the rebels themselves who went about with the city-capturing and the despot-executing.

We also gave air support and launched cruise missiles. You're grasping at the thinnest of straws now. Again, it's irrelevant. ALL deployment by the President abroad HAS to be approved by Congress within 60 days. It was not, therefore, Barack Obama is in violation of the law and a criminal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 12, 2012, 02:49:52 am

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/war.powers_1_libya-resolution-president-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

Quote

On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday asked Congress to pass a bipartisan resolution in support of military operations in Libya.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which made Friday the 60-day deadline.

Obama sent another letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and three other congressional leaders in which he expressed support for the bipartisan resolution that he said is being drafted by senators John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman.

The resolution would confirm congressional support for the U.S. mission in Libya, Obama said.

You can't refuse to look for evidence, then assert there is no evidence.

So which is correct, all the republicans screaming for Obama to intervene faster in Libya? Or those same Republicans who did a 180 turn as soon as American troops were committed? Hell, they were calling for the military action, and as we can see, if Obama had waited for authorization, nothing would EVER have got done, then you'd be now blaming Obama for not invading.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137265761/who-has-war-powers-washington-debates

Quote

In the Senate, it gets more complicated. Perhaps Obama's staunchest defender there on Libya is the Republican he beat two and a half years ago, Arizona's John McCain. This week on the Senate floor, McCain took House Republicans to task for prompting a letter of thanks from Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi after they passed a resolution this month chiding Obama on Libya.

"Republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group who are earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant for trying to limit an American president's ability to force that tyrant to leave power," McCain said.

Petulant children those repub's. "no we don't want to" sign a piece of paper which would have been stamped on day one, had it been a Republican president in the exact same situation.

Heaven forbid a Democrat ever got a letter of praise from a tyrant for back-stabbing a Republican President's attempt to overthrow him. Can I call Republicans terrorists yet? This is much more concrete than any of the crap they throw at Democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 02:51:29 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 12, 2012, 02:49:52 am

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/war.powers_1_libya-resolution-president-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

Quote

On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday asked Congress to pass a bipartisan resolution in support of military operations in Libya.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which made Friday the 60-day deadline.

Obama sent another letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and three other congressional leaders in which he expressed support for the bipartisan resolution that he said is being drafted by senators John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman.

The resolution would confirm congressional support for the U.S. mission in Libya, Obama said.

You can't refuse to look for evidence, then assert there is no evidence.

He is supposed to notify congress within 48 hours, and get approval before 60 days. Read the actual text of the WPR.

He was also supposed to get approval before 60 days, not on the sixtieth day. The resolution was also being drafted, it wasn't through committee yet. Congress could not have given approval if it wanted to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 12, 2012, 03:43:07 am

Wait, so you're trying to bash Obama for a minor military intervention that had bipartisan support, had huge support from the international community and undoubtably saved many civilian lives because you think he might've slightly gone against a 1973 law (although he probably didn't - the law basically gives you 90 days because you have 30 days to withdraw after that 60 day deadline) that every president since has said is unconstitutional?

Maybe you should stop obsessing over the constitution so much and look at whether things actually have a positive impact.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 04:38:11 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 02:44:44 am

We also gave air support and launched cruise missiles.

I don't see you complaining about routine drone strike operations, the Korean DMZ deployment, or any of the other actions taken by the military on a regular basis. The way the military and the modern world functions clearly provides that the WPR cannot be employed until a certain level of action is taken. The WPR was initially put into law because of how long US forces fought in Vietnam without officially declaring a war. That's invasion-level intervention. We can grasp from this that the intended spirit of the WPR is to prevent the President from launching invasions and not letting Congress vote on it. An invasion isn't what happened here.

Quote

You're grasping at the thinnest of straws now.

I wasn't even involved with this until that post.

Quote

Again, it's irrelevant. ALL deployment by the President abroad HAS to be approved by Congress within 60 days.

There's a problem there which probably has more to do with the vagueness of the WPR than the legitimacy of Obama's actions: Control of this operation was turned over to NATO command before the 60-day mark even happened. The President's deployment ended and NATO's deployment began even though the actual physical deployment did not change. The WPR does not address or provide for this kind of situation. It is a question for the Supreme Court to answer if they deem it necessary to do so, and so far they have not.

Quote

It was not, therefore, Barack Obama is in violation of the law and a criminal.

It might mean that Obama acted unlawfully, but the WPR and the disputed violation thereof do not concern criminal law in the first place. The WPR concerns the balance of power between the President and Congress concerning warfare. (Reagan and Clinton both also took actions which are way stronger cases for a violation of the WPR, but I've never seen anyone call them criminals for it.)

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 12, 2012, 03:43:07 am

Maybe you should stop obsessing over the constitution so much and look at whether things actually have a positive impact.

The dispute here doesn't really concern constitutionality. The WPR is a power struggle between the President and Congress because of the latter's reluctance to vote on war declarations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 12, 2012, 04:40:37 am

And, most importantly, you/we were invited by the Libyan people. They begged NATO to intervene. It's the exact same situation as your American Revolution. If France had refused to help America then the way you wanted the US/NATO to not help the Libyans now, you would never had broken free from Great Britain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 12, 2012, 04:42:35 am

"Never" might be pushing it a little, but I agree. Without France's aid, things would have gone much worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 11, 2012, 06:58:15 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 11, 2012, 04:47:17 pm

Quote from: Paul Ryan

-Voted YES on TARP (2008) <- A republican initiative
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008) <- A republican initiative (This was a short term tax cut proposed by Bush, not the Obama stimulus package)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003) <- A republican initiative
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008) <- Bipartisan at the time, Passed by a republican president
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001) <- A republican initiative

So the list with those things removed:
Voted for the auto bailout
70 whole million dollars for housing aid
Voted for a smaller stimulus bill
Voted for Head Start

Pretty thin.

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

Check out how the votes went on TARP, etc and you would quickly find that such things were mostly opposed by conservative Republicans. Hell, just watch some of the older 2012 debates and you'd find candidates attacking each other for ever supporting TARP, Republican backed or no.

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 12, 2012, 03:43:07 am

Wait, so you're trying to bash Obama for a minor military intervention that had bipartisan support, had huge support from the international community and undoubtably saved many civilian lives because you think he might've slightly gone against a 1973 law (although he probably didn't - the law basically gives you 90 days because you have 30 days to withdraw after that 60 day deadline) that every president since has said is unconstitutional?

Maybe you should stop obsessing over the constitution so much and look at whether things actually have a positive impact.

Uh, the constitution exists for a reason, flawed though it may be. When the US goes around declaring wars on everyone and overthrowing regimes (regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is doing it, which seems to be the primary distinction between "good" and "evil" for some people), it creates unintended consequences, brand new enemies, and destabilization.

But so far as the positive impact? Well, Gaddafi is overthrown, but internationally speaking he was a harmless and cowardly dictator who didn't even remotely pose a threat to other countries. He was pretty brutal to his own people when they rebelled, but then so are the leaders of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, yet the US sure didn't care when those people asked for help. In fact, the pattern here is that the US is cherry picking the brutal dictatorships and only overthrowing the ones that aren't friendly client states (hence they threaten Syria and, again, ignore Bahrain where the only supporters of the rebels are the Iranians). In Libya itself, the best thing you can say has happened is the elections, in which the westerners were given disproportionate power compared to the people in Cyrenica, who basically boycotted the elections. War crimes were committed, blacks tossed in zoos, there are still Gaddafi supporters running around the desert causing mischief, the country looks ready to split into at least two if not a dozen new ones and the US spent a pile of money that could have gone towards actually helping people rather than blowing them up from afar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 10:34:12 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

Well, Gaddafi is overthrown, but internationally speaking he was a harmless and cowardly dictator who didn't even remotely pose a threat to other countries.

Dude, Gaddafi openly, not even covertly, but openly supported practically every terrorist group from the last 40 years. He once even stated he was building training camps for suicide attacks. He gave funding and resources to the RAF, the IRA, and the Red Brigade. He tried to prop up as many foreign radical political parties as he could. He funded Islamist and Communist rebels in the Philippines.

He tried to have foreign journalists criticizing him assassinated, he had a West Berlin nightclub bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing), and when his people finally started to rise up against him his solution was tanks and machine guns! He was going to burn his own country to the ground rather than ever consider surrendering! The guy was completely fucking nuts!

Quote

He was pretty brutal to his own people when they rebelled, but then so are the leaders of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, yet the US sure didn't care when those people asked for help. In fact, the pattern here is that the US is cherry picking the brutal dictatorships and only overthrowing the ones that aren't friendly client states (hence they threaten Syria and, again, ignore Bahrain where the only supporters of the rebels are the Iranians).

Saudi Arabia never had a serious rebellion going on during the Arab Spring, Syria is still in a civil war right now. The US is supporting things that actually have a chance of success.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 12, 2012, 11:01:45 am

Okay, this is getting a little heated, but I suppose that's to be expected.  Just stay on notice guys.


It has now become officially necessary for me to update the first post with news.  I feel like I should archive my primary crap first, but who really cares.  I'll get on that sooner or later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 12, 2012, 11:14:24 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 10:34:12 am

Quote

He was pretty brutal to his own people when they rebelled, but then so are the leaders of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, yet the US sure didn't care when those people asked for help. In fact, the pattern here is that the US is cherry picking the brutal dictatorships and only overthrowing the ones that aren't friendly client states (hence they threaten Syria and, again, ignore Bahrain where the only supporters of the rebels are the Iranians).

Saudi Arabia never had a serious rebellion going on during the Arab Spring, Syria is still in a civil war right now. The US is supporting things that actually have a chance of success.

And if that includes supporting opressive governments that do a good job of suppressing the populace then so be it.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 10:34:12 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

Well, Gaddafi is overthrown, but internationally speaking he was a harmless and cowardly dictator who didn't even remotely pose a threat to other countries.

Dude, Gaddafi openly, not even covertly, but openly supported practically every terrorist group from the last 40 years. He once even stated he was building training camps for suicide attacks. He gave funding and resources to the RAF, the IRA, and the Red Brigade. He tried to prop up as many foreign radical political parties as he could. He funded Islamist and Communist rebels in the Philippines.

He tried to have foreign journalists criticizing him assassinated, he had a West Berlin nightclub bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing), and when his people finally started to rise up against him his solution was tanks and machine guns! He was going to burn his own country to the ground rather than ever consider surrendering! The guy was completely fucking nuts!

Which was all over 20 years ago. Since then Gaddafi had become a good buddy of the West, providing anti-terrorism information and a convenient shipping destination for USA's prisoners that needed "proper interrogation".
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/09/eighty-nine-questions-what-did-libya-do-for-the-cia.html

I don't understand the need some people have to brand the leader of any country that is or was anti-West as insane. Gaddafi? Nuts. Saddam? Completely bonkers. Hitler? Certainly not sane. The Great Leader of Best Korea? Don't even get me started. Assad? A crazed monster. Ahmadinejad? Can't let a nutjob have them nukes.
There appears to exist a deeply-rooted belief that USA wages war based on psychiatric evaluation.

edit: missing article

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 12, 2012, 11:16:55 am

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 12, 2012, 11:14:24 am

I don't understand the need some people have to brand leader of any country that is or was anti-West as insane. Gaddafi? Nuts. Saddam? Completely bonkers. Hitler? Certainly not sane. The Great Leader of Best Korea? Don't even get me started. Assad? A crazed monster. Ahmadinejad? Can't let a nutjob have them nukes.
There appears to exist a deeply-rooted belief that USA wages war based on psychiatric evaluation.

It is a suspicious trend, but it's hard to look at any one of them and not find them to verifiably unhinged on their own merits.  It's just a lot easier to say so when they're The Enemy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 12, 2012, 11:20:34 am

Yeah... umm... I'm probably the person most critical of U.S. foreign policy on this forum, and for the most part, I approve of what was done in Libya.

The distinction is not that it was a democrat instead of a republican president initiative, either.  Let me lay down some of the actual distinctions for you, with Bush's war efforts as the closest point of reference. 

Saddam and the Taliban were/are both horrible, yes.  They had both done horrible things in the past.  The people in Iraq and Afghanistan were oppressed.  However, the U.S. was directly responsible for putting these people in power in the first place.  It's kind of insulting to meddle in a country's affairs to horrible effect, and then expect that those people will welcome you to take another shot at it again later.  Furthermore, the pretenses for the Iraq War, at least, were built on complete lies.  While both regimes were still horrible, neither was in the process of doing anything extreme that warranted immediate forceful response.  We acted like there was anyway, and in the process we have killed many times more civilians than either dictatorship ever did.  If you follow the money, it's also painfully obvious that much of the war effort was designed to line the pockets of Bush administration officials, who had deep ties with the defense industry.

Everything was pretty much the exact opposite with Ghaddafi.  To my knowledge, we were not at all responsible for his rise to power.  Most importantly, he was actively attacking his own people.  He had gone completely off the deep end of violent insanity, and was indiscriminately bombarding his own cities with artillery shells if he suspected them of housing any rebels.  This was a large-scale bloody massacre in progress with no end in sight.  We intervened with a minimal amount of force and collateral damage.  Finally, our help had actually been requested.  We didn't just charge in guns blazing like "Hey we heard a bad guy runs this place, so we're going to host a ten year violence party." 

And yes, it's unfortunate that the U.S. doesn't intervene in more situations that obviously deserve it, and for obviously unsavory reasons.  That's no reason to scold them when they actually do something decent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 12:06:44 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 12, 2012, 12:44:56 pm

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 12, 2012, 11:14:24 am

I don't understand the need some people have to brand the leader of any country that is or was anti-West as insane. Gaddafi? Nuts. Saddam? Completely bonkers. Hitler? Certainly not sane. The Great Leader of Best Korea? Don't even get me started. Assad? A crazed monster. Ahmadinejad? Can't let a nutjob have them nukes.

I would agree with you for some of those people.  Having horrible ideals and a complete disregard for human life doesn't necessarily mean you're insane.  But Gadaffi... if you look at interviews with him during the uprising he was clearly delusional.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 12, 2012, 12:53:21 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 12, 2012, 12:44:56 pm

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 12, 2012, 11:14:24 am

I don't understand the need some people have to brand the leader of any country that is or was anti-West as insane. Gaddafi? Nuts. Saddam? Completely bonkers. Hitler? Certainly not sane. The Great Leader of Best Korea? Don't even get me started. Assad? A crazed monster. Ahmadinejad? Can't let a nutjob have them nukes.

I would agree with you for some of those people.  Having horrible ideals and a complete disregard for human life doesn't necessarily mean you're insane.  But Gadaffi... if you look at interviews with him during the uprising he was clearly delusional.

Extradordinary ambition and being rather charismatic might be results megalomania. Quite a lot of directors of mayor corporations are suffering from it too.

So they might all have been slightly insane. (Also, if they hadn't beenm they wouldn't have gotten to the top)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on August 12, 2012, 01:47:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 12:06:44 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

There's a certain sub-sect of the conservative movement (more-so in libertarian circles) which has such a high purity requirement and dedication to unbudging principles that they truly don't see somebody like Paul Ryan or the Republican party as conservative. It's not a 'no true scotsman' fallacy so much as a radically different definition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 12, 2012, 01:50:13 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on August 12, 2012, 01:47:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 12:06:44 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

There's a certain sub-sect of the conservative movement (more-so in libertarian circles) which has such a high purity requirement and dedication to unbudging principles that they truly don't see somebody like Paul Ryan or the Republican party as conservative. It's not a 'no true scotsman' fallacy so much as a radically different definition.

Where it does turn into a No True Scotsman bit though is when people who say things like the Republican party was never really conservative or George Bush / Paul Ryan / Newt Ginrich / Whoever "betrayed" the "conservative movement", and then freely declare their intention to vote straight-ticket Republican in every election without a moment's hesitation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 05:09:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 12:06:44 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

Conservative is a broad term, and the GOP covers a lot more ideological ground than "Arch-Conservative". Was Paul Ryan a conservative? Yes, obviously. I wasn't saying he's a moderate, I was saying that he isn't conservative enough to strongly motivate the base since he voted against conservative interests when he backed the bailouts among other things.  Your making the same mistake as the "Obama is a communist" crowd. Oh, and I don't think you know what No True Scotsman is, either.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 10:34:12 am

Dude, Gaddafi openly, not even covertly, but openly supported practically every terrorist group from the last 40 years. He once even stated he was building training camps for suicide attacks. He gave funding and resources to the RAF, the IRA, and the Red Brigade. He tried to prop up as many foreign radical political parties as he could. He funded Islamist and Communist rebels in the Philippines.

He tried to have foreign journalists criticizing him assassinated, he had a West Berlin nightclub bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing), and when his people finally started to rise up against him his solution was tanks and machine guns! He was going to burn his own country to the ground rather than ever consider surrendering! The guy was completely fucking nuts!

Uh, these are legitimate reasons to invade if your arguing from the view of a Frozen Caveman Lawyer. Might I remind you that Reagan sent bombers after him after the Berlin bombing (whereupon he buckled in grand fashion), and he was basically a willing supporter of the "War on Terror" as of 2001. He sure hadn't been funding terrorists recently.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 10:34:12 am

Saudi Arabia never had a serious rebellion going on during the Arab Spring, Syria is still in a civil war right now. The US is supporting things that actually have a chance of success.

Last I checked, Saudi Arabia had a rather serious rebellion going on from the Shiite easterners that the US conveniently ignored, AND the Shiites in Bahrain were rebelling and put down by Saudi Arabian forces without so much as a peep from the US. Of course, the Saudis had an easier time preventing things from getting out of hand thanks to the equivalent of billions in foreign aid from the US and technology (eg. F16s).

Again, this isn't even remotely about "freeing the people" of these countries, this is about taking advantage of the situation to install pro-US regimes in previously unfriendly countries. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 05:40:52 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 05:09:15 pm

Uh, these are legitimate reasons to invade if your arguing from the view of a Frozen Caveman Lawyer.

It isn't about a legitimate reason to invade. You said:

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 10:17:55 am

Well, Gaddafi is overthrown, but internationally speaking he was a harmless and cowardly dictator who didn't even remotely pose a threat to other countries.

And as my examples demonstrate he was definitely not harmless or cowardly, he was a murderous lunatic who actually managed to simultaneously embody the worst traits of both communist and islamist dictatorship.

Quote

Last I checked, Saudi Arabia had a rather serious rebellion going on from the Shiite easterners that the US conveniently ignored, AND the Shiites in Bahrain were rebelling and put down by Saudi Arabian forces without so much as a peep from the US.

I'm not seeing anything on your Shiite easterner rebellion. Links? (And no official peep from the US. It came out not too long ago that we were funneling aid to the Syrian rebels under the table for months, so the same could easily be happening here.)

Quote

Of course, the Saudis had an easier time preventing things from getting out of hand thanks to the equivalent of billions in foreign aid from the US and technology (eg. F16s).

Are you aware that there is currently a ban on foreign aid to Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_foreign_aid#History)? (Right above the table in the history section.)

Quote

Again, this isn't even remotely about "freeing the people" of these countries, this is about taking advantage of the situation to install pro-US regimes in previously unfriendly countries.

Which is why the CIA blew up the old governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and Lybia and then replaced them with exiled monarchs.

Except that isn't what happened and the people of Tunisia and Lybia (Egypt is still under millitary dictatorship, so that probably is going to boil over again) are forming their own new governments. That the resulting regimes will probably end up pro-US isn't because we "installed" them, it's because we helped (for Lybia and probably soon Syria). Believe it or not, you can free a people and end up with a regime that likes your side of geopolitics at the same time, and this is an example of that.

The kind of thing you are implying, that we personally took out the old governments and are going to create the new ones, is what the CIA and MI6 did in Operation Ajax. And today we have the Iranian theocracy because of that. Not playing nice can have severe consequences.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 12, 2012, 05:50:23 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 05:09:15 pm

Conservative is a broad term, and the GOP covers a lot more ideological ground than "Arch-Conservative". Was Paul Ryan a conservative? Yes, obviously. I wasn't saying he's a moderate, I was saying that he isn't conservative enough to strongly motivate the base since he voted against conservative interests when he backed the bailouts among other things.  Your making the same mistake as the "Obama is a communist" crowd. Oh, and I don't think you know what No True Scotsman is, either.

Well I do know that that paragraph is pretty darn good example of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 06:08:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 05:40:52 pm

And as my examples demonstrate he was definitely not harmless or cowardly, he was a murderous lunatic who actually managed to simultaneously embody the worst traits of both communist and islamist dictatorship.

So what? He hasn't supported terrorists in, well, forever, and is no fan of the Salafist terrorists that the US is fighting, either. Might I remind you that many a Saudi prince supported terrorists (say, Bin Laden).

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 05:40:52 pm

I'm not seeing anything on your Shiite easterner rebellion. Links? (And no official peep from the US. It came out not too long ago that we were funneling aid to the Syrian rebels under the table for months, so the same could easily be happening here.)

Here you go. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15977980)

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 05:40:52 pm

Are you aware that there is currently a ban on foreign aid to Saudi Arabia? (Right above the table in the history section.)

On the contrary, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations)

Quote from: Government Purchases

After the Cold War the US-Saudi relations were improving. The US and US companies were actively engaged and paid handsomely for preparing and administrating the rebuilding of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia transferred $100 billion (US) to the United States for administration, construction, weapons, and in the 1970s and 1980s higher education scholarships to the US (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). During that era the US built and administrated numerous military academies, navy ports, and Air Force airfields. Many of these military facilities were influenced by the US, with the needs of cold war aircraft and deployment strategies in mind. Also the Saudis purchased a great deal of weapons that varied from F-16 war planes to main battle tanks that later proved useful during the Gulf War (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). The US pursued a policy of building up and training the Saudi military as a counterweight to Shiite extremism and revolution following the revolution in Iran. The US provided top of the line equipment and training, and consulted the Saudi government frequently, acknowledging them as the most important Islamic leader in that part of the world, and key player in the US security strategy.

Whoops!

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 05:40:52 pm

Which is why the CIA blew up the old governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and Lybia and then replaced them with exiled monarchs.

Except that isn't what happened and the people of Tunisia and Lybia (Egypt is still under millitary dictatorship, so that probably is going to boil over again) are forming their own new governments. That the resulting regimes will probably end up pro-US isn't because we "installed" them, it's because we helped (for Lybia and probably soon Syria). Believe it or not, you can free a people and end up with a regime that likes your side of geopolitics at the same time, and this is an example of that.

The kind of thing you are implying, that we personally took out the old governments and are going to create the new ones, is what the CIA and MI6 did in Operation Ajax. And today we have the Iranian theocracy because of that. Not playing nice can have severe consequences.

Uh, I didn't say the Arab Spring was a CIA op, I said "this is about installing pro-US regimes" in reference to Libya and active US intervention. Tunisia and Egypt were basically performed by the people there as opposed to the US, and the US was notably uncomfortable with the loss of previously pro-US Mubarak. Libya, on the other hand, featured active US intervention for the purposes of regime change and was against a dictator who very much wasn't under the thumb of Washington like the Saudis are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 06:26:05 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 12, 2012, 06:08:54 pm

So what? He hasn't supported terrorists in, well, forever, and is no fan of the Salafist terrorists that the US is fighting, either. Might I remind you that many a Saudi prince supported terrorists (say, Bin Laden).

Yes, "forever" being 1990 or so. The "so what" is that your statement was inaccurate. Saudi princes supporting terrorists is irrelevant to this.

Quote

Here you go. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15977980)

Detainment of peaceful protesters six months ago does not equal a serious rebellion.

Quote

On the contrary, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations)

Quote from: Government Purchases

After the Cold War the US-Saudi relations were improving. The US and US companies were actively engaged and paid handsomely for preparing and administrating the rebuilding of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia transferred $100 billion (US) to the United States for administration, construction, weapons, and in the 1970s and 1980s higher education scholarships to the US (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). During that era the US built and administrated numerous military academies, navy ports, and Air Force airfields. Many of these military facilities were influenced by the US, with the needs of cold war aircraft and deployment strategies in mind. Also the Saudis purchased a great deal of weapons that varied from F-16 war planes to main battle tanks that later proved useful during the Gulf War (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). The US pursued a policy of building up and training the Saudi military as a counterweight to Shiite extremism and revolution following the revolution in Iran. The US provided top of the line equipment and training, and consulted the Saudi government frequently, acknowledging them as the most important Islamic leader in that part of the world, and key player in the US security strategy.

Whoops!

All that happened before the ban, which was instituted in 2006 if I recall correctly.

Quote

Uh, I didn't say the Arab Spring was a CIA op, I said "this is about installing pro-US regimes" in reference to Libya and active US intervention. Tunisia and Egypt were basically performed by the people there as opposed to the US, and the US was notably uncomfortable with the loss of previously pro-US Mubarak. Libya, on the other hand, featured active US intervention for the purposes of regime change and was against a dictator who very much wasn't under the thumb of Washington like the Saudis are.

We were assisting a preexisting rebellion in Lybia, and not even all that much either. They did the heavy lifting, NATO just kept Gaddafi from employing air supremacy against the rebels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 12:40:49 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 12, 2012, 03:43:07 am

Wait, so you're trying to bash Obama for a minor military intervention that had bipartisan support, had huge support from the international community and undoubtably saved many civilian lives because you think he might've slightly gone against a 1973 law (although he probably didn't - the law basically gives you 90 days because you have 30 days to withdraw after that 60 day deadline) that every president since has said is unconstitutional?

Maybe you should stop obsessing over the constitution so much and look at whether things actually have a positive impact.

I believe politicians should make good on their word, particularly when swearing "so help me God"

When you start making any exceptions, you find more exceptions. Till amendment changes it, Obama is to protect and uphold the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_v._Chadha

Both SCOTUS and Congress go with WPR. The fact that NATO deployed our troops, with the president sending them along, clearly falls within the WPR.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 12:45:13 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 12, 2012, 02:49:52 am

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/war.powers_1_libya-resolution-president-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

Quote

On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday asked Congress to pass a bipartisan resolution in support of military operations in Libya.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which made Friday the 60-day deadline.

Obama sent another letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and three other congressional leaders in which he expressed support for the bipartisan resolution that he said is being drafted by senators John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman.

The resolution would confirm congressional support for the U.S. mission in Libya, Obama said.

You can't refuse to look for evidence, then assert there is no evidence.

So which is correct, all the republicans screaming for Obama to intervene faster in Libya? Or those same Republicans who did a 180 turn as soon as American troops were committed? Hell, they were calling for the military action, and as we can see, if Obama had waited for authorization, nothing would EVER have got done, then you'd be now blaming Obama for not invading.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137265761/who-has-war-powers-washington-debates

Quote

In the Senate, it gets more complicated. Perhaps Obama's staunchest defender there on Libya is the Republican he beat two and a half years ago, Arizona's John McCain. This week on the Senate floor, McCain took House Republicans to task for prompting a letter of thanks from Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi after they passed a resolution this month chiding Obama on Libya.

"Republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group who are earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant for trying to limit an American president's ability to force that tyrant to leave power," McCain said.

Petulant children those repub's. "no we don't want to" sign a piece of paper which would have been stamped on day one, had it been a Republican president in the exact same situation.

Heaven forbid a Democrat ever got a letter of praise from a tyrant for back-stabbing a Republican President's attempt to overthrow him. Can I call Republicans terrorists yet? This is much more concrete than any of the crap they throw at Democrats.

You keep trying to refute what I said with "those Republicans". They are irrelevant. You're strawmanning. "Well, these OTHER Republicans say this. Therefore you say this" And again, you're proving that Obama would break his sacred word, become a criminal, and violate the supreme law of the land. He's nothing but a criminal. Always has been.

Who are these republicans who said it? Can this source be backed up by someone other than NPR?

Ignore the Republicans, and answer the question. Did Obama break his sacred word as he laid his hand upon a Bible, did he lie to millions of people through his teeth, did he violate the law, and is he a criminal? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 13, 2012, 02:04:03 am

No.

The word of law for upper management is generally flexible and full of loopholes.  Obama's guilt or non-guilt can be argued both ways, but his administration covered itself in a way that prosecution would likely not even be considered...

Acceptable answer?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 13, 2012, 02:29:52 am

This is something that drives me fucking crazy about partisan politics.  Every time one side criticizes the other, they do it by turning some complex issue into pure black & white, painting the opposition as black.  The defending side always points out that reality is more complicated.  Then the attacking side responds by sweeping away every other factor that inconveniences their prosecution as irrelevant, and tunnel-focuses in on their specific gripe by framing it as a matter of answering one simple question, as if that answer (and only the answer they're looking for) has the power to reveal the ultimate truth of all political morality to the world irrefutably.  Both republicans and democrats do this, and it's stupid.

In this case, it doesn't fucking matter whether Obama rubbed against the limits of procedure and arguably may have broken them ever so slightly.  The letter of the law is not the ultimate authority on all ethics ever, and the side of politics that preaches minimal government should understand that.  Hell, it's mainly the conservative side of politics that defends the 2nd Amendment as a reservation of the ability to fight a government that is unethical.  You would think that would also mean not reducing judgment of a political action to "did he break the law or not?"  Most of us here believe that intervention in Libya saved a lot of innocent people.  There are other interesting ethical issues surrounding the issue, but that is the core of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2012, 05:36:05 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 12:40:49 am

I believe politicians should make good on their word, particularly when swearing "so help me God"

When you start making any exceptions, you find more exceptions. Till amendment changes it, Obama is to protect and uphold the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_v._Chadha

Both SCOTUS and Congress go with WPR. The fact that NATO deployed our troops, with the president sending them along, clearly falls within the WPR.

You see, the bit you didn't address is "The intervention clearly saved lives and was actually wanted by Libyans and the international community".  So I feel like my point about slavishly following the constitution at the expense of actually doing good stands.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 13, 2012, 07:56:55 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 12, 2012, 02:51:29 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 12, 2012, 02:49:52 am

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/war.powers_1_libya-resolution-president-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

Quote

On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday asked Congress to pass a bipartisan resolution in support of military operations in Libya.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which made Friday the 60-day deadline.

Obama sent another letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and three other congressional leaders in which he expressed support for the bipartisan resolution that he said is being drafted by senators John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman.

The resolution would confirm congressional support for the U.S. mission in Libya, Obama said.

You can't refuse to look for evidence, then assert there is no evidence.

He is supposed to notify congress within 48 hours, and get approval before 60 days. Read the actual text of the WPR.

He was also supposed to get approval before 60 days, not on the sixtieth day. The resolution was also being drafted, it wasn't through committee yet. Congress could not have given approval if it wanted to.

You can't "get approval" if the other side won't give it. And clearly they were already drafting the resolution before the 60 days by a bi-partisan team. Obama's letter was just saying "hurry the fuck up".

The ball was in their court and they chose to sit on it for the whole time, purely for political points. Can't blame Obama for the other guys not signing a piece of paper, acting like a bunch of big babies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 13, 2012, 08:02:29 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 13, 2012, 07:56:55 am

The ball was in their court and they chose to sit on it for the whole time, purely for political points. Can't blame Obama for the other guys not signing a piece of paper, acting like a bunch of big babies.

Which I might add has been a theme ever since Obama came into office... from my perception anyways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 10:59:29 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2012, 05:36:05 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 12:40:49 am

I believe politicians should make good on their word, particularly when swearing "so help me God"

When you start making any exceptions, you find more exceptions. Till amendment changes it, Obama is to protect and uphold the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_v._Chadha

Both SCOTUS and Congress go with WPR. The fact that NATO deployed our troops, with the president sending them along, clearly falls within the WPR.

You see, the bit you didn't address is "The intervention clearly saved lives and was actually wanted by Libyans and the international community".  So I feel like my point about slavishly following the constitution at the expense of actually doing good stands.

Doing good does not trump the law. "I only robbed 50 million dollars from Bill Gates, but I gave it all to orphans in Africa!" Even the most liberal of countries would still punish this as a crime.

It's like why we give trials even when 500 people see that the criminal did it, he confessed, and he's clearly sane, and then later he pleads not guilty. We don't just drag him behind the courthouse and shoot him. Because if you start making exceptions, you'll find more exceptions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 11:00:59 am

Quote

You can't "get approval" if the other side won't give it. And clearly they were already drafting the resolution before the 60 days by a bi-partisan team. Obama's letter was just saying "hurry the fuck up".

The ball was in their court and they chose to sit on it for the whole time, purely for political points. Can't blame Obama for the other guys not signing a piece of paper, acting like a bunch of big babies.

You have just exonerated the Republicans. Thank you. It was still being drafted, it wasn't on the floor. They could not have approved it if they wanted to. Rather, the Democrats dragged their feet and took too long making the approval.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 13, 2012, 11:03:37 am

You could try editing your posts instead of double posting every retort.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 13, 2012, 11:39:42 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 10:59:29 am

Doing good does not trump the law. "I only robbed 50 million dollars from Bill Gates, but I gave it all to orphans in Africa!" Even the most liberal of countries would still punish this as a crime.

It's like why we give trials even when 500 people see that the criminal did it, he confessed, and he's clearly sane, and then later he pleads not guilty. We don't just drag him behind the courthouse and shoot him. Because if you start making exceptions, you'll find more exceptions.

Being vague doesn't disguise the slippery slope fallacy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 13, 2012, 11:52:21 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2012, 11:39:42 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 13, 2012, 10:59:29 am

Doing good does not trump the law. "I only robbed 50 million dollars from Bill Gates, but I gave it all to orphans in Africa!" Even the most liberal of countries would still punish this as a crime.

It's like why we give trials even when 500 people see that the criminal did it, he confessed, and he's clearly sane, and then later he pleads not guilty. We don't just drag him behind the courthouse and shoot him. Because if you start making exceptions, you'll find more exceptions.

Being vague doesn't disguise the slippery slope fallacy.

He's actually making a valid point. If you allow people who do illegal, generally bad things with a genuinely good intent to get away with it, you will get vastly more people who do those things for selfish reasons making the same argument, and it's probably going to be a net loss to society.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 13, 2012, 11:56:43 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 06:26:05 pm

Yes, "forever" being 1990 or so. The "so what" is that your statement was inaccurate. Saudi princes supporting terrorists is irrelevant to this.

Twenty years is a pretty long time to wait to get him as a supporter of terrorists for, especially when you already damn well got him for that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(1986)). Not only that, Libya publicly paid back the victims of later terrorist attacks and accepted responsibility in 2001. By the time he was overthrown, Gaddafi was funding no terrorists and posing no threat to any other countries.

Meanwhile, Saudi princes in present day, who constitute the ruling class of Saudi Arabia, have openly supported terrorists quite recently, have gone by without ever bringing problems upon their country. This is hardly irrelevant.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 06:26:05 pm

Detainment of peaceful protesters six months ago does not equal a serious rebellion.

Again you ignore the actual uprising in Bahrain, in which the (arguably Iranian backed) rebels were brutally put down by the (definitely Saudi and American backed) Bahraini government and Saudi forces. Perhaps because it would be inconvenient to argue against the obvious case?

Besides that, I like how you trivialize it because they're "peaceful protesters" and not "rebels". Yeah, they haven't been able to get their hands on weaponry just yet; they're fighting a regime with modern, American supplied equipment and don't have the benefit of the CIA like the Libyans did. Public outrage and media coverage of Gaddafi's regime began LONG before the rebels started to fight back, as did talk of intervention. But on that note, it looks like armed rebellion (http://tinyurl.com/8avnu9q) is literally just around the corner, if delayed.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 06:26:05 pm

All that happened before the ban, which was instituted in 2006 if I recall correctly.

Incorrect. (http://www.susris.com/2010/09/17/us-saudi-security-cooperation-impact-of-arms-sales/)

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 12, 2012, 06:26:05 pm

We were assisting a preexisting rebellion in Lybia, and not even all that much either. They did the heavy lifting, NATO just kept Gaddafi from employing air supremacy against the rebels.

CIA training and support alongside near constant airstrikes on strategic targets don't constitute "heavy lifting"?

Might I mention that the war in Afghanistan was carried out almost entirely in this fashion, but no one would argue that that wasn't an invasion (hence the silly "Obama didn't need a declaration of war/permission from congress" arguments), nor that it was the Northern Alliance doing the heavy lifting.

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2012, 05:36:05 am

You see, the bit you didn't address is "The intervention clearly saved lives and was actually wanted by Libyans and the international community".  So I feel like my point about slavishly following the constitution at the expense of actually doing good stands.

Okay, well, first off, this assumes that the Libyan intervention was "good", which is incredibly tenuous to say the least considering all the nasty things that have happened in Libya since then as well as the flagrant violations of human rights/the Geneva Convention by the rebels. Second, this justifies an American military presence just about everywhere since there are many dictators out there to be overthrown. Third, you're ignoring the entire reason that clause of the Constitution exists, which relates to the separation of powers. Regardless of whether the Libyan intervention was good (and it wasn't by any stretch, as interventionist wars tend towards being), there is such a thing as Rule of Law in the US which you don't bend just because the end result is good. If you have a problem with the president not being able to unilaterally go around supporting "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" with bombs and violence then get your congressmen to sign a Constitutional amendment to give him that power. Otherwise, it isn't justified under the law regardless of the end results.

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 13, 2012, 05:36:05 am

Being vague doesn't disguise the slippery slope fallacy.

A legitimate slippery slope, however.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on August 13, 2012, 01:02:54 pm

I've been away for a while, would anyone care to summmarize Paul Ryan for me? So far I've caught that he is basically the typical Republican congressman, only better looking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 13, 2012, 01:10:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on August 13, 2012, 01:02:54 pm

I've been away for a while, would anyone care to summmarize Paul Ryan for me? So far I've caught that he is basically the typical Republican congressman, only better looking.

Who cracks jokes while having elderly people arrested for challenging his definition of social security as an "entitlement" after he had paid into it for 50 years.

He is a living parody of the uncaring asshat politician who stomps the rights of people with jack booted thugs while laughing about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 13, 2012, 04:51:16 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 13, 2012, 01:10:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on August 13, 2012, 01:02:54 pm

I've been away for a while, would anyone care to summmarize Paul Ryan for me? So far I've caught that he is basically the typical Republican congressman, only better looking.

Who cracks jokes while having elderly people arrested for challenging his definition of social security as an "entitlement" after he had paid into it for 50 years.

He is a living parody of the uncaring asshat politician who stomps the rights of people with jack booted thugs while laughing about it.

Too perfect?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 13, 2012, 11:30:20 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 13, 2012, 04:51:16 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 13, 2012, 01:10:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on August 13, 2012, 01:02:54 pm

I've been away for a while, would anyone care to summmarize Paul Ryan for me? So far I've caught that he is basically the typical Republican congressman, only better looking.

Who cracks jokes while having elderly people arrested for challenging his definition of social security as an "entitlement" after he had paid into it for 50 years.

He is a living parody of the uncaring asshat politician who stomps the rights of people with jack booted thugs while laughing about it.

Too perfect?

Yes, focus groups studies by democratic organizations shows that when the Ryan budget proposal is honestly and directly to swing voters they literally do not believe it.  The thought that a politician would actually propose ending medicaid, reducing medicare to a fraction of what it is, privitzing social security, lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class is just incomprehensible to the members of the focus groups.  So he is indeed too perfect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on August 13, 2012, 11:41:47 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 13, 2012, 11:30:20 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 13, 2012, 04:51:16 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 13, 2012, 01:10:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on August 13, 2012, 01:02:54 pm

I've been away for a while, would anyone care to summmarize Paul Ryan for me? So far I've caught that he is basically the typical Republican congressman, only better looking.

Who cracks jokes while having elderly people arrested for challenging his definition of social security as an "entitlement" after he had paid into it for 50 years.

He is a living parody of the uncaring asshat politician who stomps the rights of people with jack booted thugs while laughing about it.

Too perfect?

Yes, focus groups studies by democratic organizations shows that when the Ryan budget proposal is honestly and directly to swing voters they literally do not believe it.  The thought that a politician would actually propose ending medicaid, reducing medicare to a fraction of what it is, privitzing social security, lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class is just incomprehensible to the members of the focus groups.  So he is indeed too perfect.

So wait... Mitt Romney thinks he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning with a guy like that as his running mate?

(http://blog.shoplet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/confused1.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:04 am

Or maybe, they don't believe it because it isn't true.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43023

Medicaid and Children's Insurance is still 1 and 1/4th GDP in 2030

Don't you just hate it when those silly little facts get in the way of rhetoric?

Oh look! Medicare spending as a percentage of GDP actually goes up under the Ryan plan! Contrast that with Obama, who cut hundreds of billions from Medicare over the next ten years.

Your buddy Obama thinks it is annoying too. That's why, he sent Eric Holder and the ATF to go make rhetoric a fact with Fast and Furious, resulting in countless deaths. Who cares how many bodies they have to clamber over to get on the presidential pedestal?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 01:37:09 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:04 am

Or maybe, they don't believe it because it isn't true.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43023

Medicaid and Children's Insurance is still 1 and 1/4th GDP in 2030

Yes, "Medicaid and SCHIP" are 1.25% of GDP, compared to 5.7% in current projections.  How does he do this?  Reforming insurance?  Bringing down physician payments?  Negotiating better prices on drugs?  No he does none of these.  In fact he has absolutely no program in place to ensure that these programs function.

Medicaidand S-CHIP refer to a pair of program by which the states receive federal funds towards the healthcare of the young, poor and disabled so long as the state have programs in place that help these groups sufficiently.  Ryan eliminates both of these programs and replaces them with "block grants."  The block grants are just money transfers to the state without all that pesky needing to actually provide essential care to the citizens.  So he removes the funding for this law (the states can use the much smaller block grants as they please.)  He removes the targets of this law.  He removes the legal and administrative structures.  All he does is appropriate the name for another program that achieves nothing resembling the same results.

The other remarkable thing about Ryan is that he can do completely shameless maneuvers like this and people actually believe him just because he uses fig leafs like keeping the names while eliminating the policy.  People actually see that he proposes a 79% cut in funding for a program and think he is being realistic.  That is despite not advancing a single notion on how to actually bring down the total cost of healthcare.  In fact by moving towards less effective negotiating structures he would actually increase the total cost of this healthcare.  The only "good" thing about this change is that it would shift costs onto the poor paying out of pocket so as to free up money for more tax cuts for the rich.

Don't piss on my boot and tell me it's raining.  And don't repeal Medicare and S-CHIP and tell me that they're preserved despite having no funding or targets.

Let me try this by metaphor because those always work so well.

Suppose you work for a company which requires you to drive around a lot for work so they have a policy of giving you a rental car for your work.  Now one day they decide to cut costs so they take away your rental car and give you a buss pass.  In a sense that's keeping the policy of providing your transportation.  It's a really crappy downgrade but they are still providing a modicum of transportation.  Well that's not equivalent to what Ryan is doing.  What Ryan is doing is like taking away your rental, giving you a yearly bonus and then making that yearly bonus rapidly decline in size with every passing year.

Hey, maybe you prefer your bonus.  Maybe it's even a better policy in the long run.  But it means that your company is no longer involved in providing you with transportation.

Ryan is doing something like the rapidly diminishing bonus.  He keeps the names "Medicaid" and "S-CHIP" but they are no longer programs related to insurance healthcare is available for the poor, young and disabled.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:09:12 am

You make a lot more claims than you provide sources.

Actually, current projections have it as 0%, as the economy won't exist after 2027 according to the CBO. But hey, I won't make unfounded allegations or claims.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/5/cbo-federal-debt-double-15-years/?page=all

We have twice the debt of our GDP in 2027. How exactly DID that work for 170% Debt-GDP Greece?

(http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/GreekRiotsR_450x300.jpg)

(http://www.loansafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/greek-riots.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SztyNXoXoZE/TKMECRJgQCI/AAAAAAAAABs/CzvnOVdE39k/s1600/greek-riot-pic-reuters-389159773.jpg)

Oh. That bad, huh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 02:19:33 am

I'm sorry, is that an argument that block grants for state governments is the same thing as preserving medicaid and S-CHIP?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:22:05 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 02:19:33 am

I'm sorry, is that an argument that block grants for state governments is the same thing as preserving medicaid and S-CHIP?

That depends, is that you dodging having to provide sources and address the point, that allowing things to continue as they are will not work and that's exactly what Obama plans to do?

Oh look, here's me providing more sources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_f20ZDBj5k

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 14, 2012, 02:23:14 am

To be fair, Greece has a lot of Communists, Anarchists, and Fascists who all hate each other, the moderates, and the government, along with a history of civil instability. To say that it is a volatile situation is an understatement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:27:17 am

Do you know why all those projections of the economy crashing go to 2037?

http://ruk.ca/content/us-budget-and-2037

Quote

In this well-produced video about the U.S. budget, U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan says “I asked the Congressional Budget Office to model the economy going forward, so they have these computer programs that simulate the U.S. economy; the computer program crashes in 2037 because it can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue because of this massive burden of debt.”

This may very well be true. But I’m wondering whether the simulator might be crashing, instead, because of the well-known 2038 problem, described in Wikipedia like this:

The year 2038 problem (also known as the Unix Millennium Bug, Y2K38, Y2.038K, or S2G by analogy to the Y2K problem) may cause some computer software to fail at some point near the year 2038. The problem affects all software and systems that both store system time as a signed 32-bit integer, and interpret this number as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, 1 January 1970. The furthest time that can be represented this way is 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038. Times beyond this moment will “wrap around” and be stored internally as a negative number, which these systems will interpret as a date in 1901 rather than 2038. This is caused by Integer overflow. The counter “runs out” of usable digits, “increments” the sign bit instead, and reports a maximally negative number (continuing to count up, towards zero). This will likely cause problems for users of these systems due to erroneous calculations.

I’ve no idea whether this is the case, but hearing “2037” and “crash” invoked in the video has got me wondering.

There we go, they've even politicized the end of the 32-bit UNIX system clock.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 02:28:24 am

Oh wow, a out of context quote turned into a blanket statement, I'm really convinced now.

Look, I just gave you a rather extensive explanation about a complex issue.  I don't feel inclined to provide you with sources because I'm not writing you a term paper.  Trust me or not, it's your call.  However what I am not going to do is give you a bunch of ammo to raise a bunch of nitpicks.  Paul Ryan policies are a minefield of stuff where he gives a short lie like "medicaid is preserved" that is quick to repeat but takes a long, detailed response to explain why it doesn't work that way.

Now given that this is a subject that requires slow and careful discussion to get at the truth of it's not one I'm remotely interested in discussing with someone who does stuff like that post full of pictures.

I would say that I'll sleep just fine tonight knowing that you don't believe me... but what with this insomnia I'm gonna be sleepless whether you believe me or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:32:19 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:27:17 am

Do you know why all those projections of the economy crashing go to 2037?

http://ruk.ca/content/us-budget-and-2037

Quote

In this well-produced video about the U.S. budget, U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan says “I asked the Congressional Budget Office to model the economy going forward, so they have these computer programs that simulate the U.S. economy; the computer program crashes in 2037 because it can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue because of this massive burden of debt.”
This may very well be true. But I’m wondering whether the simulator might be crashing, instead, because of the well-known 2038 problem, described in Wikipedia like this:
The year 2038 problem (also known as the Unix Millennium Bug, Y2K38, Y2.038K, or S2G by analogy to the Y2K problem) may cause some computer software to fail at some point near the year 2038. The problem affects all software and systems that both store system time as a signed 32-bit integer, and interpret this number as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, 1 January 1970. The furthest time that can be represented this way is 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038. Times beyond this moment will “wrap around” and be stored internally as a negative number, which these systems will interpret as a date in 1901 rather than 2038. This is caused by Integer overflow. The counter “runs out” of usable digits, “increments” the sign bit instead, and reports a maximally negative number (continuing to count up, towards zero). This will likely cause problems for users of these systems due to erroneous calculations.
I’ve no idea whether this is the case, but hearing “2037” and “crash” invoked in the video has got me wondering.

There we go, they've even politicized the end of the 32-bit UNIX system clock.

Blogs aren't real sources. Get me a real one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:33:24 am

Lol idiot. Ryan said it on video. The economic forecast software literally crashed in 2037.

And do you deny the existence of the wrap-around for unix time stamps in 2038? That's well known to techies.

Seriuosly just google paul ryan saying it. Is that rocket science?

There's multiple times Ryan said it:

On Mark Levin's radio show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EFCvLI98U

On video / press conference (about 1:45 in)
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ryan-debt-track-hit-800-percent-gdp-cbo-cant-conceive-any-way-economy-can-continue-past

Idiot Ryan conflates a technical crash with the economy crashing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 02:35:18 am

Try not to call people in the thread idiot.  Remember that insults come across as a million bajillion times more hostile in this thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:37:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 02:28:24 am

Oh wow, a out of context quote turned into a blanket statement, I'm really convinced now.

Look, I just gave you a rather extensive explanation about a complex issue.  I don't feel inclined to provide you with sources because I'm not writing you a term paper.  Trust me or not, it's your call.  However what I am not going to do is give you a bunch of ammo to raise a bunch of nitpicks.  Paul Ryan policies are a minefield of stuff where he gives a short lie like "medicaid is preserved" that is quick to repeat but takes a long, detailed response to explain why it doesn't work that way.

Now given that this is a subject that requires slow and careful discussion to get at the truth of it's not one I'm remotely interested in discussing with someone who does stuff like that post full of pictures.

I would say that I'll sleep just fine tonight knowing that you don't believe me... but what with this insomnia I'm gonna be sleepless whether you believe me or not.

This is getting sigged.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 02:37:45 am

Um thanks?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:39:11 am

To sig, the impossible sig.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:41:50 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:33:24 am

Lol idiot. Ryan said it on video. The economic forecast software literally crashed in 2037.

And do you deny the existence of the wrap-around for unix time stamps in 2038? That's well known to techies.

Dembass, go watch the video.

I did watch the video. The CBO, quoted by Ryan, says 2027. 2:32 in, to be precise.

If you're going to try and take the intellectual high ground, word of advice. Using words like "lol", and "Dembass" isn't conducive to that, neither is calling anyone an idiot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:42:33 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:39:11 am

To sig, the impossible sig.

Selected segments, of course, like where he refuses to provide sources to prevent me taking apart those sources on a factual basis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:47:54 am

What are you talking about, both videos i provided say 2037 and neither of them have anything about dates at 2:32 in.

Lying about sources which can very easily be checked because they're linked on this very page doesn't do your side any good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:49:48 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:47:54 am

What are you talking about, both videos i provided say 2037 and neither of them have anything about dates at 2:32 in.

I was talking about the video I cited. Regardless of this Unix bug that actually happens a few weeks into January, and not in 2037, though I don't know how it works.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 14, 2012, 02:51:21 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 14, 2012, 02:23:14 am

To be fair, Greece has a lot of Communists, Anarchists, and Fascists who all hate each other, the moderates, and the government, along with a history of civil instability. To say that it is a volatile situation is an understatement.

And literally the most irresponsible government (and people, in extension) in recorded history. I don't think it's comparable to the US in any way, the US keeps cutting taxes to the point of them being almost non-existent.

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:42:33 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:39:11 am

To sig, the impossible sig.

Selected segments, of course, like where he refuses to provide sources to prevent me taking apart those sources on a factual basis.

I don't think you have done anything like that so far, so I'm not sure that is what would happen anyway. From what I have seen so far, your post history contains more of dodging points, leading the arguments away from what was being discussed, or just ignoring or otherwise not answering to people's posts/points completely. Not exactly straight forward discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:57:35 am

Quote

And literally the most irresponsible government (and people, in extension) in recorded history. I don't think it's comparable to the US in any way, the US keeps cutting taxes to the point of them being almost non-existent.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Darn facts again!


Anyway, I'm arguing against five people at once. Give me the benefit of the doubt, and repost points you think I've missed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 14, 2012, 03:00:15 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:49:48 am

Regardless of this Unix bug that actually happens a few weeks into January, and not in 2037, though I don't know how it works.

To the computer, time is kept by the number of seconds since January 1st, 1970. On 03:14:08, January 17th, 2038, the binary for the number of seconds that has passed will have to add a 33rd bit, but will fail to do so as the system can only recognize 32 bits of binary. This will cause an integer overflow and the system will begin reading the time as a negative value, placing the year in 1901 instead of 2038. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem)

Unfortunately, 2038 is only when the very last instances of this problem will arise. It will start for the computers with the shortest remaining time in about 2018.

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:57:35 am

Anyway, I'm arguing against five people at once. Give me the benefit of the doubt, and repost points you think I've missed.

Five? Reelya, maniac, and scriver makes three. I haven't been arguing anything since I think we're financially screwed no matter what path we take, but if you did count me that would still only make four.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 03:02:21 am

Quote

Five? Reelya, maniac, and scriver makes three. I haven't been arguing anything since I think we're financially screwed no matter what path we take, but if you did count me that would still only make four.

Twas an exaggeration. The point is, I'm playing a consultation team here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 14, 2012, 03:10:32 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:57:35 am

Quote

And literally the most irresponsible government (and people, in extension) in recorded history. I don't think it's comparable to the US in any way, the US keeps cutting taxes to the point of them being almost non-existent.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Darn facts again!

Are you saying corporate taxes are the only taxes in the US, and (or perhaps or?) that there has been no tax cuts during the new century? Because otherwise, I don't see how that link is relevant to what I said at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 03:12:47 am

Quote from: scriver on August 14, 2012, 03:10:32 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:57:35 am

Quote

And literally the most irresponsible government (and people, in extension) in recorded history. I don't think it's comparable to the US in any way, the US keeps cutting taxes to the point of them being almost non-existent.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Darn facts again!

Are you saying corporate taxes are the only taxes in the US, and (or perhaps or?) that there has been no tax cuts during the new century? Because otherwise, I don't see how that link is relevant to what I said at all.

A 40% tax rate is far from non-existant, wouldn't you agree? How about a 35% top income tax rate?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 14, 2012, 03:17:45 am

Corporate taxes don't do much in the big picture. Income tax is where the real money comes in, and US income tax history has been....interesting. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png) In 1952 and 1953 the top income tax rate was 92%. I can only imagine what words would be exchanged if such a rate was suggested today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 03:18:34 am

Quote

Loopholes and other special treatment for different kinds of businesses mean that businesses pay an effective rate of only 29.2% of their income, which puts the United States below the average of 31.9% among other major economies, according to analysis by the Treasury Department.

Source: your source. Which says that even with the nominally "highest" corporate taxes, American corporations pay below-average actual taxes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 14, 2012, 03:24:44 am

Wait a second, let me get this one straightened out.

January 1, 1970, presumably 0:00 - 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 (or 0 base 10)
January 17, 2038, 3:14:08 - 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 (or 4,294,967,296 base 10)

January 17, 2038, 3:14:09 - 1 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000, but the one instead carries to the carry register. Which means that technically speaking, nothing extraordinary will happen for another second after 2^32 is reached. Not really the point, though. So, let's walk through this.

0 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 - fine and dandy.
0 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 - fine and dandy.
1 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 - fine and dandy.
1 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000001 - fine and dandy.
1 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000010 - Can't happen. Instead, the counter will reset to....

0 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000001 - but with the Overflow flag raised. This signals a negative number. If they use a One's Compliment system, which would be absurd, the time would be effectively read as:

-1 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111110 - Or about October, 1698. With 2's compliment, the time changes very slightly, but you don't worry much about negative zeroes. Those are absurd. It would simply change to...

-0, which is the same as +0 with a one's compliment. What do you get 0 seconds after January 1st, 1970?

January 1st, 1970. Not 'OH MY SWEET JESUS THE COMPUTERS ARE ON FIRE!'.

January 1st, 1970. That can be accounted for, the error rectified. Hell, just use a 64 bit computer. If you're still running into the issue 2^64 years later, upgrade your system in that timeframe.

Spoiler: Disclaimer (click to show/hide)

It is past midnight and I am tired. I might be mixing up one's and two's compliments, and as such what I am saying could be switched around. This is also assuming that the embedded counters for computing systems contain standard carry and sign flag registers. This is also assuming that 1970 is the 'zero' date, and they didn't pick some arbitrary number like 1900 as zero and waste a bunch of seconds. This is also assuming that I am fully remembering my microprocessors notes while running on 4 hours of sleep.

Good night everyone, I'll sort this out in the morning, inconsequential as it is to the subject of this thread.   

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 03:25:34 am

It is sad times where I must reject the treasury department. ATF and the DOJ have proven Obama's not above cooking the books or using government agencies as political tools. Nevertheless, I accept the conclusion, that they pay less than the nominal rate.

The secret to how those high tax rates existed was the capital gains tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_capital_gains_tax_in_the_U.S.

Quote

Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent.

So in reality, it was more like 25%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 14, 2012, 03:31:53 am

Yay taxation being discussed. don't forget to mention estate tax.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 14, 2012, 04:14:59 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 03:12:47 am

Quote from: scriver on August 14, 2012, 03:10:32 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:57:35 am

Quote

And literally the most irresponsible government (and people, in extension) in recorded history. I don't think it's comparable to the US in any way, the US keeps cutting taxes to the point of them being almost non-existent.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Darn facts again!

Are you saying corporate taxes are the only taxes in the US, and (or perhaps or?) that there has been no tax cuts during the new century? Because otherwise, I don't see how that link is relevant to what I said at all.

A 40% tax rate is far from non-existant, wouldn't you agree? How about a 35% top income tax rate?

I didn't say they were non-existent now, I said "unless they keep cutting them to the point of them being almost non-existent". That is, until they are almost non-existent. In the future. I feel you're being overly antagonistic here, you're making yourself see arguments where none exist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on August 14, 2012, 06:26:01 am

Tax capital gains 102% because the damage done by rent-seeking, the sheer disruption caused by abusing markets to play arbitrage games and 'jack up prices', needs to be disincentivized to the point that you should have to pay money to do it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: portaldruid on August 14, 2012, 08:20:49 am

yep i think Mitt Romney is the man

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on August 14, 2012, 09:18:15 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:09:12 am

You make a lot more claims than you provide sources.

Shouldn't you have the sources, what with supporting Ryan's economic plan? The two main crutches of his argument is thus:

1. That the government will give block sums to the states as opposed to now where the government reimburses medicare costs however high they are.

2. The block sums will lower as time goes one.

The first one as, being a responsible voter you should already know, is widely touted on sites like these: http://budget.house.gov/settingtherecordstraight/medicaid.htm

"The Path to Prosperity modernizes the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal share of the Medicaid payment into a block grant"

This is probably what you're not asking him to source, it's probably the second point.

The second point hinges on the plan making this block sum adjust to inflation by the consumer price index average to adjust for inflation every year.

From the same site "The initial allotment would be exactly as much as the states are receiving to pay for Medicaid today, and it would grow every year to account for inflation and population."

The prickly details are in the published plan itself. The main issue though is that the consumer price index is the average rate of inflation of all goods and services in the year. Medical services have always been one of the goods that experience a great deal more inflation than the costs which shouldn't be a mystery to you. Due to this, the block grants to the states will then get smaller every single year as medical inflation outstrips the consumer price index inflation the plan would set the inflation amount to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 09:28:36 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:27:17 am

Do you know why all those projections of the economy crashing go to 2037?

http://ruk.ca/content/us-budget-and-2037

Quote

In this well-produced video about the U.S. budget, U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan says “I asked the Congressional Budget Office to model the economy going forward, so they have these computer programs that simulate the U.S. economy; the computer program crashes in 2037 because it can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue because of this massive burden of debt.”

This may very well be true. But I’m wondering whether the simulator might be crashing, instead, because of the well-known 2038 problem, described in Wikipedia like this:

The year 2038 problem (also known as the Unix Millennium Bug, Y2K38, Y2.038K, or S2G by analogy to the Y2K problem) may cause some computer software to fail at some point near the year 2038. The problem affects all software and systems that both store system time as a signed 32-bit integer, and interpret this number as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, 1 January 1970. The furthest time that can be represented this way is 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038. Times beyond this moment will “wrap around” and be stored internally as a negative number, which these systems will interpret as a date in 1901 rather than 2038. This is caused by Integer overflow. The counter “runs out” of usable digits, “increments” the sign bit instead, and reports a maximally negative number (continuing to count up, towards zero). This will likely cause problems for users of these systems due to erroneous calculations.

I’ve no idea whether this is the case, but hearing “2037” and “crash” invoked in the video has got me wondering.

There we go, they've even politicized the end of the 32-bit UNIX system clock.

You guys are making a big deal over this, considering the fact that computer predictions of the economy have a distinctly poor track record.

Back to the budget though, it's pretty obvious that Obama's present spending is unsustainable under any circumstances, and cuts have to be made somewhere. In the long term, something does have to be done about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as well. Eventually, the most reasonable thing to do is to get rid of the three altogether, though the government does still have to pay back those who paid into the system. Paul Ryan's plan cut from these programs, but doesn't balance the budget until 2040 and basically hangs the recipients out to dry to boot. He's also a coward who won't touch "Defense" spending, which is probably the easiest thing to cut in terms of practicality and doesn't have the problem of screwing over people conned by the government.

Frankly, balancing the budget in a short period of time is a matter of cutting defense spending, getting rid of certain departments (especially the DHS and so on), cutting from other programs, and making SS, Medicare and Medicaid optional programs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 09:40:49 am

Funny that it's "pretty obvious" that Obama's spending is to blame despite the fact that we would have a budget surplus without those tax cuts and the economic downturn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 10:25:11 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 09:28:36 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:27:17 am

Do you know why all those projections of the economy crashing go to 2037?

http://ruk.ca/content/us-budget-and-2037

Quote

In this well-produced video about the U.S. budget, U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan says “I asked the Congressional Budget Office to model the economy going forward, so they have these computer programs that simulate the U.S. economy; the computer program crashes in 2037 because it can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue because of this massive burden of debt.”

This may very well be true. But I’m wondering whether the simulator might be crashing, instead, because of the well-known 2038 problem, described in Wikipedia like this:

The year 2038 problem (also known as the Unix Millennium Bug, Y2K38, Y2.038K, or S2G by analogy to the Y2K problem) may cause some computer software to fail at some point near the year 2038. The problem affects all software and systems that both store system time as a signed 32-bit integer, and interpret this number as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, 1 January 1970. The furthest time that can be represented this way is 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038. Times beyond this moment will “wrap around” and be stored internally as a negative number, which these systems will interpret as a date in 1901 rather than 2038. This is caused by Integer overflow. The counter “runs out” of usable digits, “increments” the sign bit instead, and reports a maximally negative number (continuing to count up, towards zero). This will likely cause problems for users of these systems due to erroneous calculations.

I’ve no idea whether this is the case, but hearing “2037” and “crash” invoked in the video has got me wondering.

There we go, they've even politicized the end of the 32-bit UNIX system clock.

You guys are making a big deal over this, considering the fact that computer predictions of the economy have a distinctly poor track record.

I think it's more that it's an intellectually dishonest/ignorant (take your pick) attack based on a technical glitch. It's akin to saying "The Mayan calendar ends in Dec 2012. OMG WERE DOOMED".


Maybe it's just the wave of negative ads I've had to endure during the Olympics (at about a 10-1 ratio, btw....all the crap about Obama's "wave of negative ads" is bullshit. Every time I turn around there's a Crossroads GPS or Restore Our Future attack ad.), but I'm increasingly convinced that we're just fucked no matter what who wins. The system is so goddamn dysfunctional that it really doesn't matter which ineffectual figurehead is stuck at the top.

I mean, I think Obama's a pretty cool guy, eh kills Osama and doesn't afraid of anything but he has a hostile, obstructionist Congress and the Dems just do not have his back. Too many blue-dogs mean any perceived majority the Dems might have used from 2008-2010 pretty much didn't exist. And even if miracles happened and the Dems regained Congressional majority in 2012, they'll still be too busy being Democrats to give him a unified force to back him up.

While I don't think Romney/Ryan are a pair of baby-eating lizard people, they wouldn't be my first choice. Or second. Or even third. In part because of their membership in a political party that has become a shining, festering beacon of everything wrong in the US political system. I will never be a Democrat, but I have long considered myself an Anti-Republican.

And third parties at the Federal level are just a semi-dignified way to piss in the ocean.

I think our best days as a nation (in terms of standard of living, global preeminence, etc) are behind us. We're the British Empire, circa 1930. My concern now is how well we handle the demotion and how gracefully we accept the end of unipolarity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 14, 2012, 10:31:12 am

Quote from: Capntastic on August 14, 2012, 06:26:01 am

Tax capital gains 102% because the damage done by rent-seeking, the sheer disruption caused by abusing markets to play arbitrage games and 'jack up prices', needs to be disincentivized to the point that you should have to pay money to do it.

No the best way to do this is with a very small financial transaction tax. Capital gains are fine in a healthy system, and while I believe they should be taxed, this will not prevent abuse unless it prevents investment altogether as your >100% suggestion would. A small tax (0.5-5%) on all financial transactions would prevent dangerous and destructive speculation by making it no longer profitable, while simultaneously having little or no effect on legitimate investment in meaningful areas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

At its core, if you define a good president as one who is able to solve problems, then by definition Barack Obama is not a good president. You gave it a good shake, Mr. President, you did your best, no one can fault you that, but it just wasn't enough. You couldn't solve the problems. Now it's time to let someone else try.

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

BTW, on Paul Ryan's medicare, he's giving everyone the same system that Congressmen have. Debbie Wasserman-Schutlz was basically saying "The Public is just too stupid to pick out their health care" when she kept repeating "It won't work for Americans" on loop as Paul Ryan kept asking her if it was good enough for Congressmen, why not the general public?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:14:50 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

The elections are far from decided, sir. Beyond that, I would rather crawl forward than run backward.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:23:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:14:50 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

The elections are far from decided, sir. Beyond that, I would rather crawl forward than run backward.

You're right, let's keep taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, driving up our national debt. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:30:14 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:23:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:14:50 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

The elections are far from decided, sir. Beyond that, I would rather crawl forward than run backward.

You're right, let's keep taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, driving up our national debt. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

Of course, let us give up our ideals to allow those we disagree with to do whatever the heck they please, while at the same time saying its patriotic and progressive.  How patriotic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:31:01 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:30:14 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:23:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:14:50 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

The elections are far from decided, sir. Beyond that, I would rather crawl forward than run backward.

You're right, let's keep taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, driving up our national debt. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

Of course, let us give up our ideals to allow those we disagree with to do whatever the heck they please, while at the same time saying its patriotic and progressive.  How patriotic.

That seems to be how Barack Obama wants Republicans to compromise.


But thank you for admitting the whole point you want to reelect Barack Obama is to shut down change. Have fun being the party of "no"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 14, 2012, 12:32:13 pm

Didn't you know Zangi?  You can only be patriotic by voting straight ticket Republican. ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:33:09 pm

Quote from: Jervill on August 14, 2012, 12:32:13 pm

Didn't you know Zangi?  You can only be patriotic by voting straight ticket Republican. ::)

You're certainly unpatriotic if you vote to keep the debt going up this fast. It's irresponsible and unpatriotic to add 4 trillion to the debt, let alone more. We're taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, running up the national debt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:34:37 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:31:01 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:30:14 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:23:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:14:50 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

The elections are far from decided, sir. Beyond that, I would rather crawl forward than run backward.

You're right, let's keep taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, driving up our national debt. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

Of course, let us give up our ideals to allow those we disagree with to do whatever the heck they please, while at the same time saying its patriotic and progressive.  How patriotic.

That seems to be how Barack Obama wants Republicans to compromise.


But thank you for admitting the whole point you want to reelect Barack Obama is to shut down change. Have fun being the party of "no"

Oh Jah... that is freaking hilarious...  Grade A
+1 to ya man.

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:33:09 pm

Quote from: Jervill on August 14, 2012, 12:32:13 pm

Didn't you know Zangi?  You can only be patriotic by voting straight ticket Republican. ::)

You're certainly unpatriotic if you vote to keep the debt going up this fast. It's irresponsible and unpatriotic to add 4 trillion to the debt, let alone more. We're taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, running up the national debt.

Is this a tactic now?  Demonizing people because they don't agree with you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

Quote

Is this a tactic now?  Demonizing people because they don't agree with you?

Why not. It's true that it's irresponsible and unpatriotic. You make it sound like this a juvenile, weak, and utterly silly thing like "Romney killed my wife"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 12:39:48 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:23:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:14:50 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

The elections are far from decided, sir. Beyond that, I would rather crawl forward than run backward.

You're right, let's keep taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, driving up our national debt. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

It was certainly good enough for the GOP from 2000-2008.

And no, doing SOMETHING is not always better than doing nothing. There are lots of somethings that would be worse, in fact. Wasn't that the argument in 2010 as to why the "Democratic trifecta" had to be stopped? "OMG Obama can pass anything he wants, we're all gonna be forced to marry gay Muslim communists and pay 90% taxes to fund a national pornography fund!!!"

The Affordable Healthcare Act was doing *something* instead of nothing. And yet to hear the reaction to its passage, you'd think he'd just sacrificed a baker's dozen of newborns to the Dark Lord Ba'al on the White House front lawn.

In short, he had two years to do a lot of somethings. And he did. And the GOP gnashed its teeth and wailed and played the scare game like a boss and it got them the House. And then after the 2010 elections, "doing nothing" became the modus operandi. And now you want to twist the narrative of Republican-induced inaction (to "put the brakes on the Democratic dictatorship") into Obama-induced inaction and make a Republican trifecta on power seem like a good thing??!? Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 14, 2012, 12:40:49 pm

Four states are holding primary elections today.  Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

There is only one candidate in my primary (MN-01 [D]), so I'm not voting.  Anyone in the other states have anything to say about the races there?

Also, a national pornography fund sounds like an excellent idea. :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 12:41:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 10:25:11 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 09:28:36 am

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 02:27:17 am

Do you know why all those projections of the economy crashing go to 2037?

http://ruk.ca/content/us-budget-and-2037

Quote

In this well-produced video about the U.S. budget, U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan says “I asked the Congressional Budget Office to model the economy going forward, so they have these computer programs that simulate the U.S. economy; the computer program crashes in 2037 because it can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue because of this massive burden of debt.”

This may very well be true. But I’m wondering whether the simulator might be crashing, instead, because of the well-known 2038 problem, described in Wikipedia like this:

The year 2038 problem (also known as the Unix Millennium Bug, Y2K38, Y2.038K, or S2G by analogy to the Y2K problem) may cause some computer software to fail at some point near the year 2038. The problem affects all software and systems that both store system time as a signed 32-bit integer, and interpret this number as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, 1 January 1970. The furthest time that can be represented this way is 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038. Times beyond this moment will “wrap around” and be stored internally as a negative number, which these systems will interpret as a date in 1901 rather than 2038. This is caused by Integer overflow. The counter “runs out” of usable digits, “increments” the sign bit instead, and reports a maximally negative number (continuing to count up, towards zero). This will likely cause problems for users of these systems due to erroneous calculations.

I’ve no idea whether this is the case, but hearing “2037” and “crash” invoked in the video has got me wondering.

There we go, they've even politicized the end of the 32-bit UNIX system clock.

You guys are making a big deal over this, considering the fact that computer predictions of the economy have a distinctly poor track record.

I think it's more that it's an intellectually dishonest/ignorant (take your pick) attack based on a technical glitch. It's akin to saying "The Mayan calendar ends in Dec 2012. OMG WERE DOOMED".


Maybe it's just the wave of negative ads I've had to endure during the Olympics (at about a 10-1 ratio, btw....all the crap about Obama's "wave of negative ads" is bullshit. Every time I turn around there's a Crossroads GPS or Restore Our Future attack ad.), but I'm increasingly convinced that we're just fucked no matter what who wins. The system is so goddamn dysfunctional that it really doesn't matter which ineffectual figurehead is stuck at the top.

I mean, I think Obama's a pretty cool guy, eh kills Osama and doesn't afraid of anything but he has a hostile, obstructionist Congress and the Dems just do not have his back. Too many blue-dogs mean any perceived majority the Dems might have used from 2008-2010 pretty much didn't exist. And even if miracles happened and the Dems regained Congressional majority in 2012, they'll still be too busy being Democrats to give him a unified force to back him up.

While I don't think Romney/Ryan are a pair of baby-eating lizard people, they wouldn't be my first choice. Or second. Or even third. In part because of their membership in a political party that has become a shining, festering beacon of everything wrong in the US political system. I will never be a Democrat, but I have long considered myself an Anti-Republican.

And third parties at the Federal level are just a semi-dignified way to piss in the ocean.

I think our best days as a nation (in terms of standard of living, global preeminence, etc) are behind us. We're the British Empire, circa 1930. My concern now is how well we handle the demotion and how gracefully we accept the end of unipolarity.

Quite frankly, the choice between Obama and Romney is no choice since they both lead to the same thing.

Obama: Mild tax increases counterbalanced by no spending cuts means the deficits continue to rise, and the economy is ultimately doomed to crash because the underlying causes of the '07 recession weren't addressed. The drug war will continue in earnest against even states trying to legalize because Obama's a hypocrite, and the US will continue to expand its global presence and bomb places (though not quite so enthusiastically as Romney).

Romney: Mild tax cuts counterbalanced by very, very minor spending cuts means the deficits continue to rise and the economy is ultimately doomed to crash because the underlying causes of the '07 recession weren't addressed. The drug war continues in earnest because Romney's an idiot appealing to the base, and the US will troop around the world starting wars and pissing people off. The anti-war left comes out of hiding because they have a nice evil corporate boogeyman to protest, and the anti-tax/spending right goes into hiding because Republicans are apparently incapable of frivolous spending.

The only difference, at the end of the day, is whether economic troubles are blamed on "Obama's collectivist economic controls" or "Romney's laissez faire policy".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on August 14, 2012, 12:42:33 pm

Can I make a request to all of you?


Calm down and chill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 12:42:50 pm

"something is better than nothing" when that something is the pillage of my country and is false. I would rather have 4 more years of deadlock than allow republicans free reign to destroy my country. That is exactly what is at stake right now. The very fabric of the American dream of liberty and justice is in the balance. And the conservatives are trying to burn it all down. Obama may not be my hero, but Romney is most certainly the greater villian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:02 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 12:39:48 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:23:57 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 14, 2012, 12:14:50 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

Since the Democrats don't have a prayer of keeping the senate or gaining the house, everyone should vote for Romney because we can all agree, getting SOMETHING done is better than getting NOTHING done.

The elections are far from decided, sir. Beyond that, I would rather crawl forward than run backward.

You're right, let's keep taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our kids, driving up our national debt. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

It was certainly good enough for the GOP from 2000-2008.

And no, doing SOMETHING is not always better than doing nothing. There are lots of somethings that would be worse, in fact. Wasn't that the argument in 2010 as to why the "Democratic trifecta" had to be stopped? "OMG Obama can pass anything he wants, we're all gonna be forced to marry gay Muslim communists and pay 90% taxes to fund a national pornography fund!!!"

The Affordable Healthcare Act was doing *something* instead of nothing. And yet to hear the reaction to its passage, you'd think he'd just sacrificed a baker's dozen of newborns to the Dark Lord Ba'al on the White House front lawn.

In short, he had two years to do a lot of somethings. And he did. And the GOP gnashed its teeth and wailed and played the scare game like a boss and it got them the House. And then after the 2010 elections, "doing nothing" became the modus operandi. And now you want to twist the narrative of Republican-induced inaction (to "put the brakes on the Democratic dictatorship") into Obama-induced inaction and make a Republican trifecta on power seem like a good thing??!? Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

Sorry, what I meant to say was "Something that the CBO said would be effective.", so that rules out the vast majority of Democrat policies. Not the Path to Prosperity, however.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 12:46:37 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

Conservatism is unpatriotic and irresponsible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:50:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 12:46:37 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

Conservatism is unpatriotic and irresponsible.

You didn't answer the question.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:56:07 pm

Way to address a subject that nobody was talking about at the moment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 12:57:05 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

You mean, other than being an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device intended to place the opponent on the defensive and inherently devalue anything they say? You could at least try to couch it in more subtle language. Such as when I was going to ask what size of leaded hood you'd like to be measured for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 14, 2012, 01:31:59 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:50:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 12:46:37 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

Conservatism is unpatriotic and irresponsible.

You didn't answer the question.

Answering questions is unpatriotic and irresponsible.

I think you are starting to get the point now. :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:15:51 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 12:57:05 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

You mean, other than being an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device intended to place the opponent on the defensive and inherently devalue anything they say? You could at least try to couch it in more subtle language. Such as when I was going to ask what size of leaded hood you'd like to be measured for.

Funny you should say that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 02:25:45 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:15:51 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 12:57:05 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

You mean, other than being an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device intended to place the opponent on the defensive and inherently devalue anything they say? You could at least try to couch it in more subtle language. Such as when I was going to ask what size of leaded hood you'd like to be measured for.

Funny you should say that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q)

And it was a shitty rhetorical device when he used it too. I don't think it's fair to say Bush was "unpatriotic" by breaking the bank to give rich people a tax break. Short-sighted, irresponsible, and unfortunate (much like GWB himself). But not unpatriotic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:27:00 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 02:25:45 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:15:51 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 12:57:05 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:27 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 14, 2012, 12:43:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on August 14, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

What are you talking about, that has been a tactic since the dawn of mankind.

Its going to go down really well on these forums...

What do you have against my saying it's unpatriotic and irresponsible?

You mean, other than being an intellectually dishonest rhetorical device intended to place the opponent on the defensive and inherently devalue anything they say? You could at least try to couch it in more subtle language. Such as when I was going to ask what size of leaded hood you'd like to be measured for.

Funny you should say that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q)

And it was a shitty rhetorical device when he used it too. I don't think it's fair to say Bush was "unpatriotic" by breaking the bank to give rich people a tax break. Short-sighted, irresponsible, and unfortunate (much like GWB himself). But not unpatriotic.

I just think it's interesting that you're going to vote for a guy who calls himself irresponsible and unpatriotic. By his own metric, he's more irresponsible and unpatriotic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 02:28:30 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:45:02 pm

Sorry, what I meant to say was "Something that the CBO said would be effective.", so that rules out the vast majority of Democrat policies. Not the Path to Prosperity, however.

Did you miss the memo when the CBO said the ACA, the signature democratic proposal, reduced the deficit?  Did you miss the memo when the CBO said that this was without even counting most of the payment reforms as deficit reducing?

When democrats balance the budget they actually suggest raising revenues and cutting spending.  The ACA ended payments to banks for handling student loans, reduced physician payments in medicare, stopped paying some hospitals for some procedures and raised taxes on high income individuals.  None of this was speculative.  And they did not assume one dime of deficit reduction from their manage care reforms and the like even though everyone expects these sort of initiatives to save money.

The CBO never said the Path to Prosperity would improve the deficit.  The CBO said that decades later we'd have a balanced budget if you use Ryan's revenue assumptions.  The CBO didn't evaluate how much money his tax proposals would raise, he asked for a budget assuming revenue targets were hit.  You seem to link the CBO website so read the first paragraph of the first page here:
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf

Notice how this isn't talking about any budget proposals (except repealing the ACA subsidies).  It's just talking about targets.  Yes his targets are a balanced budget (eventually).  But he hasn't actually proposed a budget that would hit those targets.  The CBO goes on to repeat several times how this is not a cost estimate for legislation, it's an estimate of his targets.

But even given that Ryan is just painting optimistic assumptions without details you need to look at table 1 and realize that over the next decade he actually proposes increasing the deficit compared to current law.  He just assumes that a decade from now some congress will do the heavy lifting to cut spending for him.  A lot changes in a decade, that's why the CBO likes to focus on the 10 year time frame.

So democrats make their signature proposal a set of spending cuts and tax increases and get it into law and you say they are irresponsible.  Republicans run on a platform of tax cuts now funded by someone else doing the hard work more then a decade down the line.  And you say the CBO judges it as working.  But the CBO said no such thing.

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:27:00 pm

I just think it's interesting that you're going to vote for a guy who calls himself irresponsible and unpatriotic. By his own metric, he's more irresponsible and unpatriotic.

No he is not.  Obama didn't pass the tax cuts or crash the economy.  Those are the reasons we have the deficit.  Without them, no deficit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:35:33 pm

Obama said adding 4 trillion to the debt was unpatriotic and irresponsible. If you'd actually read the CBO, the Bush tax cuts expiring on the top would give the federal government 20 billion, and around 200 billion if they expired for everyone. But raising middle and lower income taxes has always been your party's objective, hasn't it?

http://cbo.gov/publication/43076

Anyway, the ACA, as the CBO notes when it isn't forced to use Obama's numbers and Obama's math, actually costs more, to the tune of 1.76 trillion, and it points out premiums rise. Watch the Paul Ryan-Geithner exchange. Obama's budget plan is a failure. The government's position deteriorates according to his own numbers rapidly after 10 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 02:50:44 pm

Did you actually read what you linked?

First off, they're saying that "Hey, it's not projected to cost as much as we thought previously", and second, there's an actual data table that shows the government expenditures on ACA pretty much steady from 1017-1022 (less than 10% increase over that span). Annual net outlays would be in the range of $150-160 billion. Which is nothing to sneeze at by a long shot, but is still roughly 1/5 the Pentagon's budget.


EDIT: And going back to your last post, you're arguing apples and walruses.
1. ACA would not add $4 trillion to the debt. The CBO report you linked to projects an 11-year net outlay of $1.252 trillion. That's an outlay. It only becomes debt if Congress refuses to find a way to help pay for it (which at this point, seems to be pretty much a given for most Federal programs).

2. By your own admission, Obama could have pushed to let the Bush tax cuts expire for *everyone* and raised $200 billion in revenue. But he didn't, and in fact allowed the cuts to stand *for everyone*, including the top earners, rather than see taxes go up for the lower and middle classes. Then you follow up with

Quote

But raising middle and lower income taxes has always been your party's objective, hasn't it?

  ??? If that's their objective, they're really, really bad at it.

3. You cite this larger figure of $1.76 trillion (again, over 11 years) on the ACA but provide no source or link. And seem to insinuate that math itself is partisan.

4. You close with a comment about Obama's budget plan being a failure. The ACA is one piece of the budget, and taxation is one piece of the revenues. You just kinda tossed four diffferent things into the blender and threw the result against the wall to see what'll stick.

Honestly, at this point I'm not sure if you're serious or just trolling.



As far as balancing the budget, I'm all for it. I'm curious how you feel about the Republicans agreeing to the supercommittee/'automatic penalty' scheme several months ago, and now trying like all hell to wriggle out of it? As you may remember, it was agreed that the budget would be handed over to a 12-member committee from both chambers and both parties, to hammer out a budget with sufficient cuts in all areas that would be acceptable to both parties. It failed utterly.

The agreed-upon "failsafe" position was a pretty draconian, but fair across-the-board reduction in everything. To the tune of $1.2 trillion. Of course, because DoD is such a large portion of the budgetary pie, it's getting a proportionately large bite of the reduction. And now the Republicans are screaming bloody murder and saying "Ok, we agreed to automatic cuts including defense, but we didn't actually MEAN IT!!"

It's sad. It's like an alcoholic who lets you lock up his hooch in a safe and throw away the key, then proceeds to gets the DTs and is trying to smash the lock. And now is claiming it's "un-American" not to let him renege on his deal and get stinkin' drunk.

Honestly, I think any real budgetary hawk should welcome the automatic cuts. It's about the only way to actually get Congress to enact serious budgetary reform, and it allows them political cover by saying their hands were tied.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 03:22:13 pm

Quote

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA
because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause
significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added
tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT
have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over
the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA
has not been updated.

That's from the cbo report you linked.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

I don't know why you'd look at net costs only and ignore saving and revenue which the cbo claims "will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period". All from the same report you linked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 03:40:55 pm

Quote from: Reelya on August 14, 2012, 03:22:13 pm

Quote

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA
because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause
significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added
tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT
have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over
the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA
has not been updated.

That's from the cbo report you linked.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

I don't know why you'd look at net costs only and ignore saving and revenue which the cbo claims "will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period". All from the same report you linked.

Okay, a couple of things here:

-Obamacare saves the federal government a fair bit of money in the short term, but almost all of the savings is simply transferred to state governments in the form of administrative costs, etc

-In practical terms, the ACA has a pile of unintended consequences. For example, because businesses over 50 employees have to pay medical coverage either directly or indirectly, its likely many businesses will lay off workers in a rush to avoid that, leading to a pile of 49 employee businesses. Also, because preexisting conditions have to be covered, and if you make under a certain income you don't have to pay for not having insurance, its a no brainer that you won't buy insurance until you need it, and then you squeeze it for every penny when you have the chance.

-The CBO has a terrible track record of predicting costs, ESPECIALLY in the healthcare sector. In 1965, the Ways and Means Committee estimated the total costs of Medicare Part A to cost $9 billion per year by 1990, when it actually cost $67 billion by that time. Estimations of many other healthcare related costs were also way off base, even recently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 03:41:43 pm

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BUY VIAGRA CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 03:40:55 pm

-In practical terms, the ACA has a pile of unintended consequences. For example, because businesses over 50 employees have to pay medical coverage either directly or indirectly, its likely many businesses will lay off workers in a rush to avoid that, leading to a pile of 49 employee businesses.

I'm skeptical that there's a slew of 50-60 employee businesses out there that are going to cause mass unemployment this way. Beyond ~55 employees, you're significantly impacting your ability to operate if you cut your staff that much (a 10%+ reduction for a staff of 55 to 49). If a company is able to reduce its force and continue operations, then more power to them -- the ACA is the Invisible Hand, making the company leaner and more efficient.

If it's not able to continue full operations, then either it rehires staff, or it falters and loses out to competition. Again, Invisible Hand at work.

Quote

-The CBO has a terrible track record of predicting costs, ESPECIALLY in the healthcare sector. In 1965, the Ways and Means Committee estimated the total costs of Medicare Part A to cost $9 billion per year by 1990, when it actually cost $67 billion by that time. Estimations of many other healthcare related costs were also way off base, even recently.

And I'm sure the skyrocketing cost of medical care in general had nothing to do with that.  ::)
CBO shouldn't be thumped for not predicting in 1965 that a 2-day hospital stay would cost a few thousand dollars in 1990, as opposed to a few hundred in 1965.


@Nadaka:
Joe the Plumber is the only person I know of that makes Sarah Palin look like Stephen Hawking.
As for the other one....well, there's your NRA poster girl. Responsible gun owner, that one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 03:43:43 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-plumber-unfiltered-build-damn-fence-start-shooting-160930403--abc-news-politics.html

"Joe the plumber" (Samuel Wurzelbacher) who isn't joe, or a plumber, and "is running for congress" and feels like we should build a fence across the border and shoot us some mexicans.

Also mentioned is Lori Klein (Az State Sen R) who pointed a gun at a reporters chest to show him the laser while mentioning the gun doesn't have a safety last year. She is getting reelected.

Seriously.

Fuck.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 14, 2012, 03:52:32 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 02:35:33 pm

But raising middle and lower income taxes has always been your party's objective, hasn't it?

Unless you count >$2,000,000/year as "middle class," of course not. That's the only group where tax raises are even proposed. My taxes, along with everyone else's I know, went UP when Bush's tax cuts went into effect, because the only group that Republican politicians support are the ultra-rich. They just brainwash gullible fools into thinking that they support "the working man".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 14, 2012, 04:56:41 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 03:43:43 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-plumber-unfiltered-build-damn-fence-start-shooting-160930403--abc-news-politics.html

"Joe the plumber" (Samuel Wurzelbacher) who isn't joe, or a plumber, and "is running for congress" and feels like we should build a fence across the border and shoot us some mexicans.

Also mentioned is Lori Klein (Az State Sen R) who pointed a gun at a reporters chest to show him the laser while mentioning the gun doesn't have a safety last year. She is getting reelected.

Seriously.

Fuck.

Don't worry about Wurzelbacher, he won't win.  He's running in a Democratic vote sink that runs along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland.  The new OH-09.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 05:03:13 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 03:40:55 pm

-Obamacare saves the federal government a fair bit of money in the short term, but almost all of the savings is simply transferred to state governments in the form of administrative costs, etc

No it doesn't, not even remotely.  The only "administrative cost" is the cost of setting up the exchanges and that's more then offset by the increased federal funding of medicaid.  Offset like 100 times over.

What utter silliness.  You see democrats doing something so you assume without evidence that it has huge off book administrative costs.  I mean how else to you fund the hordes of government bureaucrats sucking the blood out of the nation, eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 14, 2012, 05:04:30 pm

Quote from: Jervill on August 14, 2012, 04:56:41 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 03:43:43 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-plumber-unfiltered-build-damn-fence-start-shooting-160930403--abc-news-politics.html

"Joe the plumber" (Samuel Wurzelbacher) who isn't joe, or a plumber, and "is running for congress" and feels like we should build a fence across the border and shoot us some mexicans.

Also mentioned is Lori Klein (Az State Sen R) who pointed a gun at a reporters chest to show him the laser while mentioning the gun doesn't have a safety last year. She is getting reelected.

Seriously.

Fuck.

Don't worry about Wurzelbacher, he won't win.  He's running in a Democratic vote sink that runs along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland.  The new OH-09.

Besides which, much of Toledo dislikes him personally. He's an asshole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 05:32:50 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 03:41:43 pm

I'm skeptical that there's a slew of 50-60 employee businesses out there that are going to cause mass unemployment this way. Beyond ~55 employees, you're significantly impacting your ability to operate if you cut your staff that much (a 10%+ reduction for a staff of 55 to 49). If a company is able to reduce its force and continue operations, then more power to them -- the ACA is the Invisible Hand, making the company leaner and more efficient.

If it's not able to continue full operations, then either it rehires staff, or it falters and loses out to competition. Again, Invisible Hand at work.

The Invisible Hand incentivizing businesses that are good at working their 49 workers like dogs to compensate for layoffs or avoiding paying the benefits, maybe. Certainly not improving the conditions of the workers, the output of the business, or the state of the economy.

Quote from: RedKing on August 14, 2012, 03:41:43 pm

And I'm sure the skyrocketing cost of medical care in general had nothing to do with that.  ::)
CBO shouldn't be thumped for not predicting in 1965 that a 2-day hospital stay would cost a few thousand dollars in 1990, as opposed to a few hundred in 1965.

But that's exactly the point; it ignores that the PROGRAM ITSELF could result in increased costs overall. Using CBO estimates to "prove" that the ACA reduces costs is flawed for that very reason.

Healthcare costs in the US weren't even remotely significant before Medicare, were exceptionally low before WW2 (when insurance mandates began to come into play), and were effectively affordable to the poorest American in 1910 without leaving a burden, back when there was no AMA and voluntary associations for paying for healthcare were forcibly disbanded. Mind, quality was also quite a bit lower due to advances in technology, but if the CBO can't account for any of that whatsoever, then it clearly isn't a reliable source.

Quote from: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 05:03:13 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 03:40:55 pm

-Obamacare saves the federal government a fair bit of money in the short term, but almost all of the savings is simply transferred to state governments in the form of administrative costs, etc

No it doesn't, not even remotely.  The only "administrative cost" is the cost of setting up the exchanges and that's more then offset by the increased federal funding of medicaid.  Offset like 100 times over.

What utter silliness.  You see democrats doing something so you assume without evidence that it has huge off book administrative costs.  I mean how else to you fund the hordes of government bureaucrats sucking the blood out of the nation, eh?

So federal funding to stop a problem with the states is going to reduce the deficit... how, exactly?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 05:38:11 pm

My grandfather sold insurance before WW2, and NO, neither insurance nor decent healthcare was affordable for the poorest Americans. People simply died instead of burdening their family with debt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 05:47:18 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 14, 2012, 05:38:11 pm

My grandfather sold insurance before WW2, and NO, neither insurance nor decent healthcare was affordable for the poorest Americans. People simply died instead of burdening their family with debt.

Not sure what you're talking about there (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9507E2D71F39E333A25755C0A9679D946196D6CF)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 14, 2012, 05:56:09 pm

That was confirmed as being less than factual about ninety years ago. In practice, there were only a few hundred such societies nationwide.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 14, 2012, 06:42:28 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 14, 2012, 05:56:09 pm

That was confirmed as being less than factual about ninety years ago. In practice, there were only a few hundred such societies nationwide.

Methinks you didn't read the article  ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 07:25:03 pm

The article consists of nothing by heresay by a single medical professional.  If we look at actual, y'know, research we see that about half of seniors didn't have any sort of medical insurance until Medicare was passed, at which point the rate rapidly shot up to the high 90s.  Take a look at some CDC research: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf
Now that is to say that half of seniors were uninsured in the early 60s, two decades after social security was implemented.  If you are going back to before social security then you don't just have more then half of seniors uninsured, you have half of seniors living in poverty.  There is no way that most people had access to decent healthcare through professional societies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on August 14, 2012, 08:18:52 pm

Sorry to be pedantic bit its 'hearsay'. 'Heresy' is also a word. Heresay is not. Google chrome has a built in spellchecker for forums if you need it.

Edit vvv: That was on purpose right? Lien is actually a word, so there would have been no red line that time. Either way I laughed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 08:57:16 pm

Yeah I just didn't notice the red lien under the word.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 15, 2012, 09:07:50 am

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf

Read it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 15, 2012, 09:24:12 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 15, 2012, 09:07:50 am

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf

Read it.

Quote

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion.

Did *you* read it? It keeps getting cheaper everytime the CBO revisits it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 11:33:19 am

Today in Florida political insanity...

Remember senior citizens, robot cars are witchcraft, and they are going to run you down.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/political-ad-florida-scares-seniors-kill-hungry-driverless-170833875.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 15, 2012, 11:52:42 am

One commenter pointed out that we already have robots running our congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 11:56:12 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 14, 2012, 07:25:03 pm

The article consists of nothing by heresay by a single medical professional.  If we look at actual, y'know, research we see that about half of seniors didn't have any sort of medical insurance until Medicare was passed, at which point the rate rapidly shot up to the high 90s.  Take a look at some CDC research: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf
Now that is to say that half of seniors were uninsured in the early 60s, two decades after social security was implemented.  If you are going back to before social security then you don't just have more then half of seniors uninsured, you have half of seniors living in poverty.  There is no way that most people had access to decent healthcare through professional societies.

Okay, now where I'd say the previous poster probably didn't read the article, I'd say you definitely didn't read the article.

Okay, now let's get into some more detail here. Yes, half of seniors were uninsured in the early 60s. That is true. What's your point? The COST of healthcare out of pocket was in the realm of $3,000 adjusted for inflation per year, lower than what most countries today pay for healthcare. Unless you're going to argue that the cost of single payer systems cause poverty, I don't think you can seriously argue that in this case. Some people, the very poor, indeed were unable to pay even that; but such people were sufficiently rare that they were generally covered by either charity or the hospital itself engaging in charity work (since because the hospitals weren't forced to do so and were mostly privately run, they had enough excess money to justify it). Because insurance wasn't as widespread as today and didn't feature many of the mandated benefits that it now does, it didn't act as a barrier between the patient and doctor and instead was more of a safety net in the case of catastrophic injury.

But lets go back to 1910, when the article is actually focused. Most people weren't insured then, either, yet the working poor and immigrants had some of the cheapest healthcare around due to mutual aid associations. These associations (also known as lodges and fraternal organizations) were organizations in which working class men would get together and pool their money to pay for things such as medical care. Because they very much needed to keep costs down, the organizations would hire individual physicians with a yearly retainer, and then use them as much as required. If the doctors were substandard they probably wouldn't receive the contract the second year, and since the societies provided great job security they were in high demand. They actually pushed costs down to the point where the yearly cost of healthcare was around $2. If a member had a serious problem and required surgery, they could go to a fraternal hospital, where the cost was around $25 and quality was above average.

However, this mostly declined after the AMA was given monopoly over the licensing of doctors. Many physicians were outraged that their profession was becoming subservient to working class immigrants and blacks (who composed a disproportionate amount of lodges at the time) and wanted the practice stopped. Since the AMA now had monopoly, they first shut down a little over half of all existing medical schools to ensure that they massively increase their own wages, and then they threatened any doctors working in lodges with license removal. This quickly killed lodge healthcare coverage (among other laws restricting coverage of children and so on) in the US. In the UK, lodges were even more common, yet they stopped providing healthcare once the government started; after all, why pay for a lodge doctor when the government is already forcing you to pay in taxes for healthcare?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 12:30:48 pm

1: GreatJustice, YOU obviously didn't read the article. Both of them accurately describe the article, where you fail to do so.

2: Existing in a east coast city meant that those people where not Americas poorest and had access to vastly greater options both in terms of work, charity and social services. America's poorest had no access to such things.

My grandfathers job was selling segregated insurance to blacks in the Mississippi delta for several years, he failed to make a living at it because almost no one could afford it. These were people who had to save money for years to buy clothes so their kids could wear something other than a burlap sack.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 15, 2012, 12:47:35 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 11:33:19 am

Today in Florida political insanity...

Remember senior citizens, robot cars are witchcraft, and they are going to run you down.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/political-ad-florida-scares-seniors-kill-hungry-driverless-170833875.html

Ah, Republican-on-Republican attacks are the best.
"I say my opponent's proposal goes too far!"
"And I say my opponent's proposal doesn't go too far enough!"


As for my $0.02 on the "early insurance" thing. My family never had insurance of ANY kind until at least post-WWII, when the postwar boom gave them the opportunity and the finances to buy some. Even then, it was life insurance, not health insurance. That didn't really kick in until the 1970s or so. Prior to WWII, insurance was kinda pointless for most rural Americans because there was one doctor and you probably paid him in barter rather than cash. A visit out to the farm to look at one of the kids? A dozen eggs. Setting a broken arm or leg? Side of bacon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 01:58:00 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 12:30:48 pm

1: GreatJustice, YOU obviously didn't read the article. Both of them accurately describe the article, where you fail to do so.

2: Existing in a east coast city meant that those people where not Americas poorest and had access to vastly greater options both in terms of work, charity and social services. America's poorest had no access to such things.

1. Saying "this doesn't count, it's hearsay" is rich considering it comes from the New York Times, and "they didn't have health insurance" isn't even REMOTELY similar to the article, nor is it related.

2. Incorrect again. Organizations such as The Knights and Daughters of Tabor, which operated in Mississippi, were a mutual aid society that made the first black hospital in the area and funded healthcare for its members. If blacks in Mississippi weren't America's poorest, then I don't know who you would qualify for that then. Similar societies existed elsewhere in the US, such as the Ladies Friends of Faith Benevolent Society, so it was hardly restricted to big eastern cities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 15, 2012, 02:07:34 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 01:58:00 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 15, 2012, 12:30:48 pm

1: GreatJustice, YOU obviously didn't read the article. Both of them accurately describe the article, where you fail to do so.

2: Existing in a east coast city meant that those people where not Americas poorest and had access to vastly greater options both in terms of work, charity and social services. America's poorest had no access to such things.

1. Saying "this doesn't count, it's hearsay" is rich considering it comes from the New York Times

The New York Times in 1910. The era of William Randolph Hearst and yellow journalism. While the Times wasn't as bad about it as the New York Journal and the New York World, newspapers of that era in general were heavily tabloid-esque compared to modern publications.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 15, 2012, 02:39:06 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 11:56:12 am

These associations (also known as lodges and fraternal organizations) were organizations in which working class men would get together and pool their money to pay for things such as medical care. Because they very much needed to keep costs down, the organizations would hire individual physicians with a yearly retainer, and then use them as much as required. If the doctors were substandard they probably wouldn't receive the contract the second year, and since the societies provided great job security they were in high demand. They actually pushed costs down to the point where the yearly cost of healthcare was around $2. If a member had a serious problem and required surgery, they could go to a fraternal hospital, where the cost was around $25 and quality was above average.

Socialism? Helping the poor in my America? Why I never.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 02:58:35 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 15, 2012, 02:39:06 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 11:56:12 am

These associations (also known as lodges and fraternal organizations) were organizations in which working class men would get together and pool their money to pay for things such as medical care. Because they very much needed to keep costs down, the organizations would hire individual physicians with a yearly retainer, and then use them as much as required. If the doctors were substandard they probably wouldn't receive the contract the second year, and since the societies provided great job security they were in high demand. They actually pushed costs down to the point where the yearly cost of healthcare was around $2. If a member had a serious problem and required surgery, they could go to a fraternal hospital, where the cost was around $25 and quality was above average.

Socialism? Helping the poor in my America? Why I never.

In a sense, yes. A lot of them were Communist affiliated (especially the ones immigrants joined) and they're a favourite of Syndicalists and so on. However, they were entirely voluntary and were mostly at odds with Progressives of the time like Teddy Roosevelt for various reasons.

Quote

The New York Times in 1910. The era of William Randolph Hearst and yellow journalism. While the Times wasn't as bad about it as the New York Journal and the New York World, newspapers of that era in general were heavily tabloid-esque compared to modern publications.

So it was making up the low costs that workers were paying for their healthcare?

This is hardly an isolated, bombastic article. There is plenty of evidence showing that healthcare costs for mutual aid associations were extremely low, and I have yet to see anything to the contrary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 15, 2012, 03:17:39 pm

The article being discussed was proven in the twenties to be part of a broad campaign against Socialist proposals for a primitive form of Social Security, with as great a connection to the facts as similar articles, also published in the Times, that "proved" women didn't have the intellectual capaicity to be trusted with the vote, alcohol caused permanent muscle loss, Al Smith was required by the pope to forcibly convert the country to Catholicism if he became President, and a number of other political articles. Even major newspapers of that era were often at National Enquirer levels of veracity, as the Maine affair showed. Anything to sell papers, and the facts be damned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 04:31:03 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 15, 2012, 03:17:39 pm

The article being discussed was proven in the twenties to be part of a broad campaign against Socialist proposals for a primitive form of Social Security, with as great a connection to the facts as similar articles, also published in the Times, that "proved" women didn't have the intellectual capaicity to be trusted with the vote, alcohol caused permanent muscle loss, Al Smith was required by the pope to forcibly convert the country to Catholicism if he became President, and a number of other political articles. Even major newspapers of that era were often at National Enquirer levels of veracity, as the Maine affair showed. Anything to sell papers, and the facts be damned.

Are there any sources to the contrary, then?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on August 15, 2012, 10:11:26 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 14, 2012, 12:10:36 pm

BTW, on Paul Ryan's medicare, he's giving everyone the same system that Congressmen have. Debbie Wasserman-Schutlz was basically saying "The Public is just too stupid to pick out their health care" when she kept repeating "It won't work for Americans" on loop as Paul Ryan kept asking her if it was good enough for Congressmen, why not the general public?

All you have to bring up on this is someone in congress not doing their homework and not knowing what they're talking about when they disagreed with something? Haven't you done the same thing with agreeing with Ryan's medical policies without knowing what they were and how they worked?

Not only that, but are you appealing to the authority and claiming that since a congresswoman didn't know that the answer must be the opposite?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 15, 2012, 10:48:13 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 15, 2012, 11:56:12 am

Okay, now where I'd say the previous poster probably didn't read the article, I'd say you definitely didn't read the article.

You know that based on a post that consisted mostly of me talking about other research?  Interesting.

The reason why I said it consisted of hearsay by a single person is because... the entire article is nothing but repeating what one person said stated as opinion.  I'm not labeling it as such because I think it's wrong, I'm labeling it as such because that's what the damn thing said.

If you want a contrary source then how about the CDC report I linked to showing that insurance rates were far lower then the levels the doctor claimed decades later.  Insurance rates certainly didn't go down during that time frame seeing as it's the time period where working class incomes rose the fastest that century.

And yes the AMA did shut down a lot of medical schools.  That's because the medical schools were complete rubbish and the AMA was introducing science and peer reviewed practices into the field.  Before that you had a lot of "doctors" who were bullocks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 11:01:34 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 15, 2012, 10:48:13 pm

The reason why I said it consisted of hearsay by a single person is because... the entire article is nothing but repeating what one person said stated as opinion.  I'm not labeling it as such because I think it's wrong, I'm labeling it as such because that's what the damn thing said.

Yet it's a person quoted by the New York Times of 1910, whereas what evidence you have is indirect and thus rather pointless. There are many, many other sources of this out there besides, but are generally either from sources you'd ignore or from books that I hardly expect you to jump up and read (such as Beito's From Mutual Aid To Welfare State). But if you want a direct source on the costs of healthcare for mutual aid associations, then here's one: Jewish Immigrant Associations and American Identity in New York, 1880-1939 (http://tinyurl.com/8zlqnct). Unfortunately, you'd have to buy the book to get to the bibliography, but the pages in the area cited should be sufficient.

If you can find a source to the contrary, then feel free to do so.

Quote from: mainiac on August 15, 2012, 10:48:13 pm

If you want a contrary source then how about the CDC report I linked to showing that insurance rates were far lower then the levels the doctor claimed decades later.  Insurance rates certainly didn't go down during that time frame seeing as it's the time period where working class incomes rose the fastest that century.

Then the doctor claimed decades later? Who? Dr. Morris Joseph Clurman? When?

Quote from: mainiac on August 15, 2012, 10:48:13 pm

And yes the AMA did shut down a lot of medical schools.  That's because the medical schools were complete rubbish and the AMA was introducing science and peer reviewed practices into the field.  Before that you had a lot of "doctors" who were bullocks.

Actually, the AMA had medical schools shut down using the authority of the Flexner Report, which was written by a man who was neither a doctor nor an authority on medical education. From that point on, they artificially restricted the supply of doctors to drive their own wages up, which also had the effect of increasing the cost of healthcare. Keep in mind that in 1910, homeopathic medicine and so on were rapidly losing ground and quacks were finding very little business, AMA intervention or no.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 16, 2012, 11:19:25 am

Somewhat related... wouldn't it be something for people to look back 70-80 years from now... and cite the hate spewing media we have now as an accurate portrayal of what it is like in America now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 11:33:37 am

Quote from: Zangi on August 16, 2012, 11:19:25 am

Somewhat related... wouldn't it be something for people to look back 70-80 years from now... and cite the hate spewing media we have now as an accurate portrayal of what it is like in America now?

Sure would be preferable to them citing internet threads and claiming that people of 2012 had a tendency towards swearing, bad grammar and disrespect

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 16, 2012, 11:44:06 am

Do you care to actually cite a page or am I just supposed to quake in fear at the fact that you managed to find a book from the era.  Given the quality of your last citation I don't think that's likely.  Just because he's from the era doesn't mean his head isn't in his ass.  And considering that was absolutely nothing statistical, scientific or otherwise scholarly about his opinion I'd say the odds of this man's head being in his ass was quite like,ly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 11:52:00 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 16, 2012, 11:44:06 am

Do you care to actually cite a page or am I just supposed to quake in fear at the fact that you managed to find a book from the era.  Given the quality of your last citation I don't think that's likely.  Just because he's from the era doesn't mean his head isn't in his ass.  And considering that was absolutely nothing statistical, scientific or otherwise scholarly about his opinion I'd say the odds of this man's head being in his ass was quite like,ly.

It helps for you to actually click the link, seeing as how it leads directly to the area of importance ::) . Follow it along for about five pages, as it covers the necessary details.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 11:56:25 am

More to the point, it's an editorial. It's like citing Ann Coulter as proof that Obama is setting up FEMA death camps for his political opponents. Because she said so.

And I would remind you, Ann gets published in a number of otherwise respectable publications.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 16, 2012, 12:01:39 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 11:52:00 am

It helps for you to actually click the link, seeing as how it leads directly to the area of importance

Unsurprisingly that is exactly what I did.  I found absolutely nothing that would indicate any data at all on medical insurance rates in society as a whole.

Maybe before you say we can't understand your sources you should stop linking to such terrible sources.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 12:19:22 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 16, 2012, 12:01:39 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 11:52:00 am

It helps for you to actually click the link, seeing as how it leads directly to the area of importance

Unsurprisingly that is exactly what I did.  I found absolutely nothing that would indicate any data at all on medical insurance rates in society as a whole.

Maybe before you say we can't understand your sources you should stop linking to such terrible sources.

Does this have ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand whatsoever? No, it doesn't. Why don't you complain that it doesn't have any data relating to the percentage of adult males riding horses vs cars while you're at it?

Insurance rates are UTTERLY irrelevant when healthcare can be paid for out of pocket.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 16, 2012, 01:10:39 pm

Oh gee I'm sorry that I didn't live up to the rules as you just invented them right now.  But newsflash, even by these new rules you invented you haven't produced anything remotely resembling a source on the general population wide data.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 01:14:41 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 16, 2012, 01:10:39 pm

Oh gee I'm sorry that I didn't live up to the rules as you just invented them right now.  But newsflash, even by these new rules you invented you haven't produced anything remotely resembling a source on the general population wide data.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxa7Y1TLjas)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 01:19:25 pm

Y'know guys, this should probably be split out into a new thread. Especially seeing as how healthcare isn't even a top-3 issue in the race at this moment. And you're both starting to make this a personal thing.

Let's get back to the horserace. And what better way to do that than by bringing in my favorite things in the whole wide wacky world of politics:
POLLS! (and snark)

From RealClearPolitics:

Obama's approval rating is hovering right around 48-49%, with his disapproval rating between 48-50%. We can presume the remaining 1-2% answered "pie".

Congress's approval rating is roughly the same as Encino Man's rating on Rotten Tomatoes: 16%. Hell, Brendan Fraser and Pauly Shore might make better Representatives than most of the folks in there now. Well...Fraser might.

For the main event, here's the latest polling data:

RCP Average 8/3 - 8/15 -- Obama +3.5 Rasmussen Tracking 8/13 -  Romney +1 Gallup Tracking 8/9 - 8/15  Romney +2 CNN/Opinion Research 8/7 - 8/8  Obama +7 Politico/GWU/Battleground 8/5 - 8/9  Obama +1 IBD/CSM/TIPP 8/3 - 8/10  Obama +7 FOX News 8/5 - 8/7 Obama +9

Worth noting: FOX News actually has the highest margin for Obama, which is surprising. The aggregate should probably be closer to +4, since as I've noted many times -- if there was a race between Bill Clinton in the prime of his popularity, and Richard Nixon's decomposing corpse, Rasmussen would show it as a tie.

RCP also has an interesting little ongoing feature where they show the current margin in the polls vs. the margin at this same point in the race vs. 2008 and 2004.

Today's spread for Obama: 3.0 points
Obama's spread vs McCain (8/16/08): 3.2 points
Bush's spread vs Kerry (8/16/04): -1.4 points

That last one is a good reminder that being up at this point in the race is no guarantee. But when you look at the overall movement in the polls, it's essentially flat. Romney started out at about a 6-point disadvantage in March. He closed it to within just over 1 percentage point in late July, but now has slid back to 3 points. The gap opened up pretty evenly on that one, Romney lost a full point, Obama gained a full point.
 
But hold on, you say! National aggregates aren't as important as electoral vote tallies! What about state-level polls?
Well, currently Obama has a "safe" 231 electoral votes to Romney's 191. That leaves 110 toss-ups. Obama only needs 39 of those 110 to win (and conversely, Romney would need to take 79 of 110, a much tougher task at this point)

How those 110 break down:
Florida -- 29
Ohio -- 18
North Carolina -- 15
Virginia -- 13
Wisconsin -- 10
Colorado -- 9
Iowa -- 6
Nevada -- 6
New Hampshire -- 4

Care to take a guess what states both sets of candidates have been racking up their frequent-flyer miles on?
As long as no other states "come into play", Obama can win with just Florida and Wisconsin. Florida is obviously the big prize here, but they're not going to put all their eggs in one basket, especially in a state known for election-day WTF'ery as Florida is.

So how do the top battleground states look at this point? Here's the RCP aggregates for the top five as of today:

Florida: Obama +1
Ohio: Obama +3
North Carolina: Romney +1
Virginia: Obama +0.7
Wisconsin: Obama +4.3 (honestly, if his gains in WI keep steady, it'll moved into the "marginally safe" category soon)
Colorado: Obama +1


All in all, things look pretty good for Team Obama at this point. If they can keep Joe Biden from shooting himself in the face with his mouth, they can probably hold ground and pull this thing out. There's still almost three months left, though. A LOT can happen in that time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: toomanysecrets on August 16, 2012, 01:22:15 pm

I agree with Great Justice. He's not talking about insurance per se, he's talking about people joining together as a community and trying to get the best service possible.  I didn't see him make any points about the historical availability nor the price of "insurance" instead he is talking about the AMA and other groups shutting down anyone they don't approve of.

Sure, in rural areas in the early 20th century there probably weren't enough doctors for there to be any kind of competition or bargaining.  But these rural doctors weren't making very much money, either.

The AMA is not part of the government.  It is a very old, very powerful trade union, in effect. 

In my view, the AMA was founded by elitists who wanted to monopolize the power to provide health care while at the same time shutting down anyone using herbal or natural remedies. The emphasis was on drugs and surgery because those are massive sources of income.  Cheap, natural remedies are abundant yet they cannot be patented and they cannot line anyone's pockets so from the viewpoint of the elite they must be scrapped and demonized at all costs. OH NO herbal remedies are not FDA approved.  But a fucking twinkie is and aspartame is too.

Are/were there quacks out there? Sure. Was everyone that got shut down a quack? Absolutely not.

This article (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Medical_Association) has some good information about the AMA and how they decided who was a "quack."

Here are some good videos about some quacks real physicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTGye7kA6rM

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 16, 2012, 01:24:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 01:19:25 pm

Y'know guys, this should probably be split out into a new thread. Especially seeing as how healthcare isn't even a top-3 issue in the race at this moment.

Since you kind of brought it up I'm curious, but what are the top-3-ish issues this election?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 16, 2012, 01:32:24 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 16, 2012, 01:24:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 01:19:25 pm

Y'know guys, this should probably be split out into a new thread. Especially seeing as how healthcare isn't even a top-3 issue in the race at this moment.

Since you kind of brought it up I'm curious, but what are the top-3-ish issues this election?

#1: obama isn't white and was also born in kenya
#2: obama is marxist nazi who will take your social security/medicare away for socialism
#3: obama is a secret muslim waging secular jihad against jesus

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 16, 2012, 01:33:08 pm

And bringing Sharia law, don't forget that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 16, 2012, 01:37:07 pm

Damn you, Commie Nazi Obama!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 01:41:56 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 16, 2012, 01:24:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 01:19:25 pm

Y'know guys, this should probably be split out into a new thread. Especially seeing as how healthcare isn't even a top-3 issue in the race at this moment.

Since you kind of brought it up I'm curious, but what are the top-3-ish issues this election?

1. Unemployment rate/job creation
2. Tax/budget plans
3. Medicare

That last one is a bit of a surprise, but according to some new poll data, it's become an issue since Ryan was announced as VP pick (ruh-roh, Romney!)

From Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-usa-campaign-medicare-idUSBRE87E1C020120816):

Quote

The nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation said on Thursday that 73 percent of respondents polled in the days around the announcement described Medicare as "very important" or "extremely important" to their votes. That included large majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans.

The Kaiser foundation said a separate survey conducted a week earlier found that 58 percent of adults - including 55 percent of Republicans - favored keeping Medicare as it is today with all seniors receiving the same insurance benefits.

Quote

Only 36 percent of adults - and 39 percent of Republicans - said they favored a plan along the lines proposed by Ryan, according to the July 25-August 5 poll conducted by Kaiser and the Washington Post. That data had a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

It's a long-held adage that Social Security and Medicare are the "third rail" of American politics. Looks like Romney/Ryan could be in for a shock.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 16, 2012, 01:49:07 pm

Because the OWS thread is occupied with other issues and this may have electoral consequences on both sides;

FOI request shows that Obama was not behind Occupy crackdown. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/16/was-obama-behind-the-occupy-crackdown-look-like-no/) The request was put forwards by the right wing Judicial Watch to the DHS. The result;

Quote

Judicial Watch claims this demonstrates collusion between the Occupiers and the White House, when of course it does no such thing. What it does demonstrate, however, is that the White House was not only not coordinating some kind of crackdown, but seemed not particularly keen on shutting down protests at all.
...
The report does mention that the protests are disruptive to financial sectors, but since that’s the point of them, I hardly think that’s a risible statement. But they also go out of their way to detail the ways that Occupy worked very hard to minimize the potential for violence:
...
They then go on to say that while the original organizers (paraphrase) seem trustworthy and committed to peace, the growing movement is attracting less awesome folks, like Anonymous. This claim isn’t an issue; as time went on, a lot of Occupy’s resources were being directed to the question of what to do with the growing numbers of people in their ranks who weren’t willing to play nice.

This is going to allow the right wing to paint Obama as an Occupy supporter. It also highlights the fairly significant point (made in the link) that local power being exercised or abused does not reflect directly on administration policy. The idea that the Feds are a greater threat to civil liberties than local authority is a persistent right wing meme that doesn't reflect reality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 01:50:08 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 16, 2012, 01:49:07 pm

Because the OWS thread is occupied with other issues and this may have electoral consequences on both sides;

FOI request shows that Obama was not behind Occupy crackdown. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/16/was-obama-behind-the-occupy-crackdown-look-like-no/) The request was put forwards by the right wing Judicial Watch to the DHS. The result;

Quote

Judicial Watch claims this demonstrates collusion between the Occupiers and the White House, when of course it does no such thing. What it does demonstrate, however, is that the White House was not only not coordinating some kind of crackdown, but seemed not particularly keen on shutting down protests at all.
...
The report does mention that the protests are disruptive to financial sectors, but since that’s the point of them, I hardly think that’s a risible statement. But they also go out of their way to detail the ways that Occupy worked very hard to minimize the potential for violence:
...
They then go on to say that while the original organizers (paraphrase) seem trustworthy and committed to peace, the growing movement is attracting less awesome folks, like Anonymous. This claim isn’t an issue; as time went on, a lot of Occupy’s resources were being directed to the question of what to do with the growing numbers of people in their ranks who weren’t willing to play nice.

This is going to allow the right wing to paint Obama as an Occupy supporter. It also highlights the fairly significant point (made in the link) that local power being exercised or abused does not reflect directly on administration policy. The idea that the Feds are a greater threat to civil liberties than local authority is a persistent right wing meme that doesn't reflect reality.

The DHS is not "local authority".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 16, 2012, 01:52:56 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 01:50:08 pm

The DHS is not "local authority".

Which was my point. The DHS and administration were not behind the crackdowns. Local authorities were. However, eyes and blame went to the DHS and White House because they are seen as the default oppressors. That idea that Federal power is more dangerous than local power is what is wrong here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 01:55:09 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 01:50:08 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 16, 2012, 01:49:07 pm

Because the OWS thread is occupied with other issues and this may have electoral consequences on both sides;

FOI request shows that Obama was not behind Occupy crackdown. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/16/was-obama-behind-the-occupy-crackdown-look-like-no/) The request was put forwards by the right wing Judicial Watch to the DHS. The result;

Quote

Judicial Watch claims this demonstrates collusion between the Occupiers and the White House, when of course it does no such thing. What it does demonstrate, however, is that the White House was not only not coordinating some kind of crackdown, but seemed not particularly keen on shutting down protests at all.
...
The report does mention that the protests are disruptive to financial sectors, but since that’s the point of them, I hardly think that’s a risible statement. But they also go out of their way to detail the ways that Occupy worked very hard to minimize the potential for violence:
...
They then go on to say that while the original organizers (paraphrase) seem trustworthy and committed to peace, the growing movement is attracting less awesome folks, like Anonymous. This claim isn’t an issue; as time went on, a lot of Occupy’s resources were being directed to the question of what to do with the growing numbers of people in their ranks who weren’t willing to play nice.

This is going to allow the right wing to paint Obama as an Occupy supporter. It also highlights the fairly significant point (made in the link) that local power being exercised or abused does not reflect directly on administration policy. The idea that the Feds are a greater threat to civil liberties than local authority is a persistent right wing meme that doesn't reflect reality.

The DHS is not "local authority".

And? DHS didn't do the local crackdowns either. You seem to want to jump on the "gotcha" wagon so fast that you don't even look at what you're jumping on.  ???


Yeah, I think that's a net boost for the Obama camp. People who are generally negative about the Occupy movement probably aren't keen Obama supporters in the first place. But there's a lot of lefties who had decided that Obama was "another one of THEM" because he didn't unfurl the flag of revolt and/or nationalize Wall Street.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 16, 2012, 02:13:20 pm

Horray reading comprehension!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 16, 2012, 02:43:09 pm

I really hope I didn't miss this being posted;

Gallup poll on the Ryan pick. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156545/Reaction-Ryan-Pick-Among-Least-Positive-Historically.aspx) In brief;

- Worst overall immediate impression since Quayle.
- Fairly popular within the party though.
- Lowest recent name recognition other than Palin.
- Two thirds say the pick doesn't matter at all. This is actually the low side of average.

Overall? Probably a negligible impression on the election other than dragging medicare, budget fights and the House of Representatives into the election more forcibly than before. High party favourability could help turn out the base, unless the above turn them off again. Low name recognition could help improve his favourables into the future, although again that probably matters for very little and also leaves room to drop further.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 16, 2012, 03:44:57 pm

I really doubt that the VP race will matter this time around. In '08 it was a big deal because McCain was so old, him dying in office was a far statistical possibility, while a lot of conspirators expected Obama's election to be received violently. This time around, Romney's not that old, and Obama's settled in enough that fears of his removal are no longer a factor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 16, 2012, 04:07:16 pm

Romney Says ‘I’ve Paid at Least 13%’ in Taxes in Past Decade (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/romney-provides-further-details-on-tax-history/?hp)

Quote

... he called the continued focus on his personal tax returns “small-minded” in the face of the nation’s problems.

Quote

In an interview during his trip abroad last month, Mr. Romney was asked whether he had ever paid a tax rate lower than the 13.9 percent he paid in 2010.

“I haven’t calculated that,” Mr. Romney told David Muir of ABC News. “I’m happy to go back and look, but my view is I’ve paid all the taxes required by law.”

No need to comment, he's just digging himself a trench.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 16, 2012, 04:14:42 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 01:19:25 pm

Congress's approval rating is roughly the same as Encino Man's rating on Rotten Tomatoes: 16%. Hell, Brendan Fraser and Pauly Shore might make better Representatives than most of the folks in there now. Well...Fraser might.

At least they're more popular than Fidel Castro again. Marginally.

Quote

Worth noting: FOX News actually has the highest margin for Obama, which is surprising.

Not that surprising. FOX said Obama had a massive advantage last election too. They want people to think he's a serious threat and come out to vote in response. It's more sneaky than maintaining that you're winning regardless of reality, but not very different in intent.

Quote

North Carolina: Romney +1

Now there's an oddity. I wasn't expecting a dead heat from NC after the conservative swing these last few years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 16, 2012, 04:28:40 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 16, 2012, 04:14:42 pm

.

Quote

North Carolina: Romney +1

Now there's an oddity. I wasn't expecting a dead heat from NC after the conservative swing these last few years.

Yeah, me either. PPP actually has Obama with a tiny lead in their latest poll, but they tend to lean left so I'm not putting much weight on that.

The state has swung to the right, but there's also a lot of people fed up with the swing to the right and some of the pants-on-head-retarded things that have come of it, such as our "lalalalala can't hear you the sea level isn't rising" policy. My Republican father-in-law detests the NC Republican Party for all this stupid shit, and while he was an ardent McCain/Palin supporter in 2008, he pretty quickly came around and griped that people were piling on Obama before he even had a chance to do anything. Dunno how he'll vote this time around...hasn't come up in discussion.

You have to remember that a fair number of the GOP in the cities are Yankee transplants, not good ol' boys. They're a different kind of Republican, and whlie they might actually be more pro-Romney than the good ol' boys, they're less inherently anti-Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on August 16, 2012, 09:04:30 pm

Anybody even vaguely considering voting for Romney should watch this first. (http://youtu.be/W_pgfWK3sxw)  What he says now isn't what he used to say, or what he'll likely say later on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 16, 2012, 09:25:17 pm

Romney: gets elected, retroactively changes his campaign promises.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 17, 2012, 07:39:41 am

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 16, 2012, 09:25:17 pm

Romney: gets elected, retroactively changes his campaign promises.

Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 17, 2012, 09:30:16 am

Quote from: palsch on August 16, 2012, 01:52:56 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 01:50:08 pm

The DHS is not "local authority".

Which was my point. The DHS and administration were not behind the crackdowns. Local authorities were. However, eyes and blame went to the DHS and White House because they are seen as the default oppressors. That idea that Federal power is more dangerous than local power is what is wrong here.

Well, your article is at least partially incorrect. (http://washingtonexaminer.com/updated-obama-white-house-told-gsa-to-stand-down-on-occupy-protesters/article/2504238#.UC5TqaNdCnA) The decision (at least in Portland) was made by FPS/DHS agents "on the ground" alongside local police, not by the city or the state. Unless you literally mean "local power" as in "the federal agents in YOUR town" or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 17, 2012, 09:51:43 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 17, 2012, 09:30:16 am

Quote from: palsch on August 16, 2012, 01:52:56 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 16, 2012, 01:50:08 pm

The DHS is not "local authority".

Which was my point. The DHS and administration were not behind the crackdowns. Local authorities were. However, eyes and blame went to the DHS and White House because they are seen as the default oppressors. That idea that Federal power is more dangerous than local power is what is wrong here.

Well, your article is at least partially incorrect. (http://washingtonexaminer.com/updated-obama-white-house-told-gsa-to-stand-down-on-occupy-protesters/article/2504238#.UC5TqaNdCnA) The decision (at least in Portland) was made by FPS/DHS agents "on the ground" alongside local police, not by the city or the state. Unless you literally mean "local power" as in "the federal agents in YOUR town" or something.

In this case, yes. The local FPS is responsible for the protection of Federal employees and property. FPS is part of DHS, but it looks like the local branches were given discretion to handle the situation. The issue is that at the top levels, there was a directive to make no systematic policy of interfering with the Occupy protests. Obviously, you're not going to say "Let them do whatever the hell they want, even if threatens Federal employees" so FPS still had discretion to invite the local cops in if they deemed it necessary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:24:00 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on August 16, 2012, 09:04:30 pm

Anybody even vaguely considering voting for Romney should watch this first. (http://youtu.be/W_pgfWK3sxw)  What he says now isn't what he used to say, or what he'll likely say later on.

I prefer a flip-flopper who does what the people want, rather than someone who gets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakil_Afridi) killed, captured, or their identities exposed (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworldnews%2Fal-qaeda%2F9258475%2FBritish-secret-agent-was-al-Qaeda-mole-who-cracked-new-underpants-bomb-plot.html&ei=Q5kuUN33JKfbiwLAvoCIDw&usg=AFQjCNFH6a4__2FvTg-JUQt38XddC7rFbA),  like these brave men (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/13421/). The same man who invalidates intelligence that could save lives, by announcing the death of Osama and rendering all this information from the hideout invalid. The same man who kills people because he doesn't want the fallout of having to detain the terrorists. Because why should he care how many bodies he has to climb over, if he gets to sit in the oval office another 4 years. Don't believe me? Ask Brian Terry's family.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:29:25 pm

Don't forget Stuxnet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on August 17, 2012, 02:40:52 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:29:25 pm

Don't forget Stuxnet.

You are holding this out against Obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:41:43 pm

Quote from: Flare on August 17, 2012, 02:40:52 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:29:25 pm

Don't forget Stuxnet.

You are holding this out against Obama?

Well, it's not like virtually every piece of intelligence leaked has made Obama look like a champ, and the fact these leaks have some very high officials names attached.


Owait.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 02:47:41 pm

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23oXpFTYc

Oh, and I think the pile of bodies Obama will have to crawl over because he has gone to far will be smaller than the pile of bodies Romney will gleefully stroll over while cracking jokes because he has not gone to far enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:49:33 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 02:47:41 pm

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23oXpFTYc

Oh, and I think the pile of bodies Obama will have to crawl over because he has gone to far will be smaller than the pile of bodies Romney will gleefully stroll over while cracking jokes because he has not gone to far enough.

Prove it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 17, 2012, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

Where's my WMD's bro?

That's some nice conservative ra ra ra you got there though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 17, 2012, 02:55:51 pm

...Apparently randomly chosen facts.  Why does the fact a British double agent cracking a bomb plot mean Obama did something wrong?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:56:02 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 17, 2012, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

Where's my WMD's bro?

That's some nice conservative ra ra ra you got there though.

In Syria, according to people who actually know what they're talking about.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:56:22 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 17, 2012, 02:55:51 pm

...Apparently randomly chosen facts.  Why does the fact a British double agent cracking a bomb plot mean Obama did something wrong?

Because it was the US Government that leaked the info about him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 02:56:45 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

And the fact is that Romneys stated and implied policies and goals are far more harmful and destructive than Obama's stated or enacted policies and goals.

Obama's problem is that he a moderate right wing douchebag who faked being liberal. Romney is an unashamed far right wing douchbag openly waging class warfare against the american people.

I'll vote for the lesser of these evils every fucking time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:58:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 02:56:45 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

And the fact is that Romneys stated and implied policies and goals are far more harmful and destructive than Obama's stated or enacted policies and goals.

Obama's problem is that he a moderate right wing douchebag who faked being liberal. Romney is an unashamed far right wing douchbag openly waging class warfare against the american people.

I'll vote for the lesser of these evils every fucking time.

Prove the first paragraph.


And Romney's engaging in class warfare? Are you nuts? Obama is the one talking about "No more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires". "Those millionaires and billionaires". Can't hear a speech from him without "millionaires and billionaires" anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 02:59:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 02:56:45 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

And the fact is that Romneys stated and implied policies and goals are far more harmful and destructive than Obama's stated or enacted policies and goals.

Obama's problem is that he a moderate right wing douchebag who faked being liberal. Romney is an unashamed far right wing douchbag openly waging class warfare against the american people.

I'll vote for the lesser of these evils every fucking time.

Yeah, but when both are so far into evil that you can't even see the difference, then who do you vote for?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:00:38 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 02:59:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 02:56:45 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

And the fact is that Romneys stated and implied policies and goals are far more harmful and destructive than Obama's stated or enacted policies and goals.

Obama's problem is that he a moderate right wing douchebag who faked being liberal. Romney is an unashamed far right wing douchbag openly waging class warfare against the american people.

I'll vote for the lesser of these evils every fucking time.

Yeah, but when both are so far into evil that you can't even see the difference, then who do you vote for?

Flip a coin. Heads, vote for Romney, tails, don't vote for Obama. :p

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 17, 2012, 03:01:05 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:56:02 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 17, 2012, 02:55:11 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

Where's my WMD's bro?

That's some nice conservative ra ra ra you got there though.

In Syria, according to people who actually know what they're talking about.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada)

And yet our own fact finding found that "highly unlikely." That isn't proof.

And FFS man, read and observe the "someone just posted, review your posts" function.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 03:02:47 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:00:38 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 02:59:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 02:56:45 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 17, 2012, 02:50:55 pm

It's hard to prove an opinion.

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

And the fact is that Romneys stated and implied policies and goals are far more harmful and destructive than Obama's stated or enacted policies and goals.

Obama's problem is that he a moderate right wing douchebag who faked being liberal. Romney is an unashamed far right wing douchbag openly waging class warfare against the american people.

I'll vote for the lesser of these evils every fucking time.

Yeah, but when both are so far into evil that you can't even see the difference, then who do you vote for?

Flip a coin. Heads, vote for Romney, tails, don't vote for Obama. :p

Eh, Romney's just as bad as Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 03:05:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:58:38 pm

And Romney's engaging in class warfare? Are you nuts? Obama is the one talking about "No more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires". "Those millionaires and billionaires". Can't hear a speech from him without "millionaires and billionaires" anymore.

Do you even comprehend how obscenely ridiculous and 1984 double speak that sounds?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 03:06:37 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 03:05:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:58:38 pm

And Romney's engaging in class warfare? Are you nuts? Obama is the one talking about "No more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires". "Those millionaires and billionaires". Can't hear a speech from him without "millionaires and billionaires" anymore.

Do you even comprehend how obscenely ridiculous and 1984 double speak that sounds?

To be fair, Obama IS stirring up a bit of class warfare, trying to win over the largely conservative middle class.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 17, 2012, 03:08:09 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

I kinda adore that your 'facts' are leaks of unknown source and intention and a scandal that isn't what it's being made out to be. (http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?hpt=hp_t2) Fast and Furious was not a gunwalking exercise and certainly wasn't an administration policy. It was a federal task force that was blocked from doing it's job by state prosecutors and a single incident of a single agent letting guns walk on his own initiative.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 17, 2012, 03:11:47 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 03:06:37 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 03:05:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:58:38 pm

And Romney's engaging in class warfare? Are you nuts? Obama is the one talking about "No more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires". "Those millionaires and billionaires". Can't hear a speech from him without "millionaires and billionaires" anymore.

Do you even comprehend how obscenely ridiculous and 1984 double speak that sounds?

To be fair, Obama IS stirring up a bit of class warfare, trying to win over the largely conservative middle class.

He's trying to win over the conservative middle class by going with policies that are the opposite of conservative ideology? Either you overestimate the amount of conservatism in the middle class, or you don't understand the ideology. Or both.

Quote

It was a federal task force that was blocked from doing it's job by state prosecutors and a single incident of a single agent letting guns walk on his own initiative.

That and it was about factional conflict within the ATF task force, some exercising poor or non-existent judgment, disobeying orders, on top of being stymied by prosecutors unwilling to pursue cases. Yet most conservatives want to lay it at the Presidents feet as some kind of absurd conspiracy to arm Mexican drug lords. Eric Holder and the Obama Administration aren't doing themselves any favors by asserting executive and departmental privilege. Show me one administration that doesn't do that when there's a major scandal that has given them a black eye though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:19:45 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 17, 2012, 03:08:09 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

I kinda adore that your 'facts' are leaks of unknown source and intention and a scandal that isn't what it's being made out to be. (http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?hpt=hp_t2) Fast and Furious was not a gunwalking exercise and certainly wasn't an administration policy. It was a federal task force that was blocked from doing it's job by state prosecutors and a single incident of a single agent letting guns walk on his own initiative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story_1.html

Boy, truth sucks, eh?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/facts-sought-on-d-e-a-informants/?scp=10&sq=operation%20fast%20and%20furious&st=nyt

Then there's also the fact it wasn't a single agent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:21:23 pm

Quote

Yet most conservatives want to lay it at the Presidents feet as some kind of absurd conspiracy to arm Mexican drug lords.

Irrelevant. Actually, the conspiracy was that Obama was attempting to fabricate a case that US guns are making Mexican crime, which was not and still is not true.

Quote

Show me one administration that doesn't do that when there's a major scandal that has given them a black eye though.

And that excuses it, how? At least in watergate, nobody died.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 17, 2012, 03:24:37 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 03:06:37 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 03:05:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:58:38 pm

And Romney's engaging in class warfare? Are you nuts? Obama is the one talking about "No more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires". "Those millionaires and billionaires". Can't hear a speech from him without "millionaires and billionaires" anymore.

Do you even comprehend how obscenely ridiculous and 1984 double speak that sounds?

To be fair, Obama IS stirring up a bit of class warfare, trying to win over the largely conservative middle class.

Is the middle class largely conservative? I hadn't noticed. Got a source on that? I'd like to read up on such data.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 17, 2012, 03:25:34 pm

Quote

Irrelevant. Actually, the conspiracy was that Obama was attempting to fabricate a case that US guns are making Mexican crime, which was not and still is not true.

Wait, so now it's a conspiracy to promote gun control legislation? This is adorable. It's been a while since there's been a conservative of this brand openly posting for a while. For all your harping on facts, you're leaping to conjecture as fast as you can invent it.

Quote

And that excuses it, how? At least in watergate, nobody died.

Where did I say it did? And even if I did, you just followed it up with what reads like an excuse for Watergate.

And seriously, if you read only one thing out of this make it: Quit freaking double posting, your input isn't so important it need to be posted the instant it crosses your mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 17, 2012, 03:25:43 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 17, 2012, 03:24:37 pm

Quote from: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 03:06:37 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 03:05:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:58:38 pm

And Romney's engaging in class warfare? Are you nuts? Obama is the one talking about "No more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires". "Those millionaires and billionaires". Can't hear a speech from him without "millionaires and billionaires" anymore.

Do you even comprehend how obscenely ridiculous and 1984 double speak that sounds?

To be fair, Obama IS stirring up a bit of class warfare, trying to win over the largely conservative middle class.

Is the middle class largely conservative? I hadn't noticed. Got a source on that? I'd like to read up on such data.

Me too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 17, 2012, 03:26:06 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:19:45 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story_1.html

Boy, truth sucks, eh?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/facts-sought-on-d-e-a-informants/?scp=10&sq=operation%20fast%20and%20furious&st=nyt

Then there's also the fact it wasn't a single agent.

I linked you to the results of a six month investigation that followed the 2011 articles you just linked. Please, read the article. It corrects the details that were completely unknown at the time your links were written.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:30:37 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 17, 2012, 03:26:06 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:19:45 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story_1.html

Boy, truth sucks, eh?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/facts-sought-on-d-e-a-informants/?scp=10&sq=operation%20fast%20and%20furious&st=nyt

Then there's also the fact it wasn't a single agent.

I linked you to the results of a six month investigation that followed the 2011 articles you just linked. Please, read the article. It corrects the details that were completely unknown at the time your links were written.

Yeah, sorry, it's CNN, and doesn't cite or link any neutral sources. It cites exactly two documents directly and quotes only a handful of others. You may as well quote the Drudge Report for "the truth about Obama"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 17, 2012, 03:31:57 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 03:19:45 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 17, 2012, 03:08:09 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:52:23 pm

Which is why facts (The Administration has leaked this information, and did Fast and Furious), trump opinions any day of the week.

I kinda adore that your 'facts' are leaks of unknown source and intention and a scandal that isn't what it's being made out to be. (http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?hpt=hp_t2) Fast and Furious was not a gunwalking exercise and certainly wasn't an administration policy. It was a federal task force that was blocked from doing it's job by state prosecutors and a single incident of a single agent letting guns walk on his own initiative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story_1.html

Boy, truth sucks, eh?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/facts-sought-on-d-e-a-informants/?scp=10&sq=operation%20fast%20and%20furious&st=nyt

Then there's also the fact it wasn't a single agent.

Do you ever actually read the articles you link to? It has become a very apparent pattern that they never fully support the statements you are making and rarely even provide partial support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 17, 2012, 04:02:33 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 17, 2012, 03:25:34 pm

Quote

Irrelevant. Actually, the conspiracy was that Obama was attempting to fabricate a case that US guns are making Mexican crime, which was not and still is not true.

Wait, so now it's a conspiracy to promote gun control legislation? This is adorable. It's been a while since there's been a conservative of this brand openly posting for a while. For all your harping on facts, you're leaping to conjecture as fast as you can invent it.

He didn't come up with that, it's been a gun-nut talking point for months.

I think I can safely say that I know more about Fast and Furious than ANYONE on this forum.
Without going into anything confidential, I will say that it was NOT some kind of conspiracy to funnel arms to Mexico, for whatever harebrained motivation one cares to imagine.
Nor was it "somebody asleep at the wheel".

What it was was a sting operation that went on too long, because senior officials were afraid to close the trap shut too soon and miss getting the "big fish".

A little background: Starting in 2006, ATF was coming under a lot of pressure from DOJ for only focusing on apprehending and prosecuting the straw purchasers, not the people they were working for (middlemen who through various chains of further middlemen were believed to lead back to the Mexican drug cartels). Because most of the people further up the food chain weren't US nationals, it would be problematic for ATF to bust them.

So the idea was to monitor suspected straw purchases, record the serial numbers of the weapons, and then see where those weapons popped up later (such as Mexican Federal police running gun traces on captured weapons).

Couple of things went horribly wrong:
1. The drug war in Mexico escalated to the point where the Federal police weren't capturing a hell of a lot of anything, or were corrupt and turning the weapons right back over to the cartels.
2. After the initial planned period for the op was up, the guys running the thing didn't want to pull the plug because they felt like if they waited just one more month, they'd be able to tie it to a big-time player in Mexico and make a big bust. That "one more month" eventually ended up something like 18 months, iirc.
3. Because of the amount of time it went on (and the concomitant number of weapons sold during that period), it got to be problematic even keeping track of all the weapons.
4. The Mexican government and law enforcement community was kept in the dark on this. It was a diplomatic risk (they were understandably pissed when they found out), but I'd have done the same. Simply put, the Mexican security apparatus is so compromised that they simply can't be trusted with that kind of information. It's the same reason we didn't tell the Pakistanis we were coming after Osama.

The basic concept wasn't horrible. FBI and Treasury do the same thing with marked bills to try and figure out money-laundering networks. DEA sometimes does the same thing with quantities of illegal drugs. The difference being that cash and drugs don't DIRECTLY kill people.  :-\

Was there poor oversight? Absolutely. FWIW (and this is strictly my personal opinion), I think Ken Melson took way too much of the blame and not enough was given to the regional guys running the show. There was some internal hat-shuffling and some minor demotions as a result, but no real heads rolling, which is a shame. But I also think the baying for blood by the right-wing over this is disingenuous. If the FBI let a million dollars enter a mob's money laundering cycle and then lost track of it, they'd be griping about it but nowhere near to the level they are with F&F. I understand part of that in that a Federal agent died as a result of one of the weapons (although that's it's own story....there's some question as to whether he was being used as bait. But that's for another argument.), but on the whole this was just a tragically mismanaged operation with good intent, not the nefarious conspiracy that certain asshats like to make it out to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 17, 2012, 04:05:12 pm

Are you saying that the federal government sometimes takes risks and they don't pan out?

Outrageous!  I demand we have a constitutional amendment saying that the federal government only takes risks that pan out!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 17, 2012, 04:25:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 17, 2012, 04:05:12 pm

Are you saying that the federal government sometimes takes risks and they don't pan out?

Outrageous!  I demand we have a constitutional amendment saying that the federal government only takes risks that pan out!

I say sir...  that is not going far enough!  I demand that we only take risks that are 100% guaranteed to pan out before we even pay someone one red cent to analyze the risk!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 04:29:30 pm

Don't you fools get it? A chance of failure is inherent in the word "risk"! Clearly, the solution is that the government never ever takes a risk ever!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on August 17, 2012, 05:44:10 pm

Well i'd like to hear from the conservatives what we can do to avoid the gangs getting hold of guns. Do you propose federal tracking of gun purchases? Maybe a database of all buyers?

The gangs will get guns if they want guns. Blocking sales in Arizona would only have caused them to buy guns somewhere else, and not saved a SINGLE life.

If the feds were able to stop guns from getting into the hands of gangs at all, I'd like to hear how this magic works from some conservatives?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 17, 2012, 06:35:23 pm

In moderately relevant news, Joe Biden made a ridiculously fist-in-mouth comment about chains. I forget the link to the video and articles, but I'm sure it can be Googled.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 17, 2012, 06:38:25 pm

Who the hell is Joe Biden?

(Seriously though, his incompetence is staggering sometimes.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 17, 2012, 07:30:22 pm

..It's not as if the vice president has much responsibility..

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 07:33:33 pm

Unless the President dies or otherwise leaves office. Then he'd have a whole hell of a lot of responsibility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 17, 2012, 07:37:45 pm

Looks like a slightly clumsy metaphor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 17, 2012, 09:08:07 pm

In other news, CNN actually did its job as a responsible journalistic-type outfit, and fact-checked (http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/fact-check-cutting-through-the-medicare-rhetoric/) one of the jabbering heads it had on its program: John Sununu, one of Team Romney's advisers. He (and others in the Romney camp) have been floating this idea that Obama somehow "stole $700 billion" out of Medicare funding to fund the ACA.

The truth of it is that the CBO issued a report saying that if the ACA were repealed, Medicare funding would need to be increased by $716 billion over a ten-year period. Thus, by saving the government $716 billion in Medicare costs, Obama is "stealing Medicare funding."

(http://www.img.ie/65681.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 17, 2012, 09:33:50 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 07:33:33 pm

Unless the President dies or otherwise leaves office. Then he'd have a whole hell of a lot of responsibility.

Who knows... maybe he will rise up to the challenge? 
Are all of his bloopers just related to what comes out of his mouth in the media?  Those are the only ones I've heard painting Biden as incompetent.

For now though, he could kick back and fail at speaking to the American public.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 17, 2012, 10:15:51 pm

Yes, the rumors of incompetency come from his public speaking. From what I read in a few issues of Time Magazine over the past year, though, he's proven to be quite a diplomat. The voyage to Mongolia went particularly well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 17, 2012, 10:17:32 pm

I don't get how someone could both be an abysmally bad public speaker as Who The Hell Is Joe Biden while also being a skilled diplomat. They're at least somewhat related abilities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 10:20:46 pm

Perhaps Biden just gets stage fright. Diplomats deal more with small groups and one-on-one interaction than public speaking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 17, 2012, 10:23:04 pm

That could be. His diplomatic missions don't get as much of a spotlight, so that could have quite a bit to do with it. I'd say there's quite a difference between brokering deals between 2-6 groups and speaking to hundreds of people at a time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on August 17, 2012, 10:35:03 pm

From what speeches of Joe Biden's that I've seen, he tends to ramble aimlessly because he doesn't prepare anything, and the whole damn speech turns into a convoluted mess directed only by a vague premise in a vague direction.

Besides, you don't need to be good at addressing crowds if you're selling something. Unless you're selling snake oil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 17, 2012, 11:05:21 pm

I dunno; I kinda like Biden for all his gaffes. He seems like he's a vice president who is "the president's man" rather than as someone making his own grabs for power. Cheney's problem was he came across as having his own agenda, having way too much power over the president, and being competent enough to pull off mischief if he felt like it. With Biden, you more get the feeling that in between doing the president's bidding, he sits back in a rocking chair and tells boring, long winded stories to whoever was unfortunate enough to be in the room at the time. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on August 18, 2012, 12:00:14 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:41:43 pm

Quote from: Flare on August 17, 2012, 02:40:52 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 17, 2012, 02:29:25 pm

Don't forget Stuxnet.

You are holding this out against Obama?

Well, it's not like virtually every piece of intelligence leaked has made Obama look like a champ, and the fact these leaks have some very high officials names attached.

Owait.

Stuxnet is a virus designed to identify programs that run nuclear centrifuges that process weapons grade nuclear material and fuck them up. How is ridding the world of a few potential nukes a bad thing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on August 18, 2012, 12:07:48 am

The only problem with Stuxnet (in my opinion anyway) was the sheer hypocrisy of it.  The US government (was it Obama's administration?  I guess it was) said that a cyber attack on the US would be an instant declaration of war.  Then they proceed to launch a cyber attack on a foreign country.  Guess what the US government would have said if said country had declared war?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flare on August 18, 2012, 12:30:43 am

Yeah, that is quite bad, although I think the circumstances give some justification for it though. Iran's push for nuclear capability isn't an affair without contention from its neighbors. Israel has on many occasions threatened to go to war over it. When the alternative is your ally with close military ties dropping physical bombs into another country, even though it didn't work out I think releasing a computer virus to complete the task instead is obviously the far better choice of the two.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on August 18, 2012, 06:45:32 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on August 17, 2012, 10:35:03 pm

From what speeches of Joe Biden's that I've seen, he tends to ramble aimlessly because he doesn't prepare anything, and the whole damn speech turns into a convoluted mess directed only by a vague premise in a vague direction.

Besides, you don't need to be good at addressing crowds if you're selling something. Unless you're selling snake oil.

Don't forget his shameless copying of Neil Kinnock's speeches.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 18, 2012, 07:15:48 am

...Why would you seek to emulate Neil Kinnock?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 18, 2012, 07:46:23 am

I think Biden's "problem" is that he enjoys himself while speaking too much.  He's pretty earnest about what he's trying to do and he's been in politics so long that he doesn't feel nervousness talking to crowds anymore.  So he goes out there and talks pretty freely and that leads to him putting his foot in his mouth every few weeks.

I only think it's a "problem" though because I haven't noticed a whole lot of real offense generated by what he says.  The media just loves this stuff, or at least used to love it before it became old hat.  Biden wears his heart on his sleeve so it's not like there's any risk of him revealing a secret ulterior motive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 11:57:24 am

Quote from: Euld on August 18, 2012, 12:07:48 am

The only problem with Stuxnet (in my opinion anyway) was the sheer hypocrisy of it.  The US government (was it Obama's administration?  I guess it was) said that a cyber attack on the US would be an instant declaration of war.  Then they proceed to launch a cyber attack on a foreign country.  Guess what the US government would have said if said country had declared war?

Come at me, Bro?


I would love it if Iran declared war on us. Few things would make me happier. Then we send some B-2s and end the nuclear program and their genocidal oppressive regime.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 11:59:07 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 04:29:30 pm

Don't you fools get it? A chance of failure is inherent in the word "risk"! Clearly, the solution is that the government never ever takes a risk ever!

I don't detest government taking risks. I object to them taking stupid risks. This was a stupid risk.

And, as always, it's not the affair that gets you, but the "cover-up". The infinite stream of "I don't recall" selective amnesia and Eric Holder engaging in more CYA than a pair of pants is what the controversy is now about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 18, 2012, 12:29:24 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 11:57:24 am

Quote from: Euld on August 18, 2012, 12:07:48 am

The only problem with Stuxnet (in my opinion anyway) was the sheer hypocrisy of it.  The US government (was it Obama's administration?  I guess it was) said that a cyber attack on the US would be an instant declaration of war.  Then they proceed to launch a cyber attack on a foreign country.  Guess what the US government would have said if said country had declared war?

Come at me, Bro?

I would love it if Iran declared war on us. Few things would make me happier. Then we send some B-2s and end the nuclear program and their genocidal oppressive regime.

Not sure if internet sarcasm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on August 18, 2012, 12:31:33 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 18, 2012, 12:29:24 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 11:57:24 am

Quote from: Euld on August 18, 2012, 12:07:48 am

The only problem with Stuxnet (in my opinion anyway) was the sheer hypocrisy of it.  The US government (was it Obama's administration?  I guess it was) said that a cyber attack on the US would be an instant declaration of war.  Then they proceed to launch a cyber attack on a foreign country.  Guess what the US government would have said if said country had declared war?

Come at me, Bro?

I would love it if Iran declared war on us. Few things would make me happier. Then we send some B-2s and end the nuclear program and their genocidal oppressive regime.

Not sure if internet sarcasm or republican statement.

Fixed that for you :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 18, 2012, 12:36:52 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on August 18, 2012, 12:31:33 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 18, 2012, 12:29:24 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 11:57:24 am

Quote from: Euld on August 18, 2012, 12:07:48 am

The only problem with Stuxnet (in my opinion anyway) was the sheer hypocrisy of it.  The US government (was it Obama's administration?  I guess it was) said that a cyber attack on the US would be an instant declaration of war.  Then they proceed to launch a cyber attack on a foreign country.  Guess what the US government would have said if said country had declared war?

Come at me, Bro?

I would love it if Iran declared war on us. Few things would make me happier. Then we send some B-2s and end the nuclear program and their genocidal oppressive regime.

Not sure if internet sarcasm or republican statement.

Fixed that for you :P

Oh thanks I almost forgot. XD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 12:42:52 pm

I've just realised that the problem with America might be the fact that a significant part of its population thinks they're Batman.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 18, 2012, 12:44:10 pm

Suggestion: set Urist_McDrowner to ignore and only read his posts if they aren't doubled up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 18, 2012, 12:45:32 pm

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 12:42:52 pm

I've just realised that the problem with America might be the fact that a significant part of its population thinks they're Batman.

They said I could be whatever I wanted when I grew up!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on August 18, 2012, 12:58:45 pm

More along the lines of the punisher, really. Bats usually wasn't much for the mass murder of innocent civilians in order to get at someone he didn't like. Don't think the punisher was either, but that's a bit closer.

Really, though, the second someone starts proclaiming happiness at the thought of hundreds or thousands of innocents dead because of some political bullshit, you can pretty safely... I wouldn't say ignore, per se, but discount and revile? Yes. Bloodthirst is not a virtue. S'in fact kinda' disgusting, especially if you're intending to exercise it on actual human beings.

I guess a lot of people don't realize that "some B-2" would put dozens of innocents into the grave, but that doesn't really excuse the sentiment. It's either they don't realize it, or have dehumanized the population of whatever place they dislike to the point it's acceptable. Which is even worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 01:54:10 pm

I am certainly not eager and happy at the idea of going to war with Iran, but I can see it as a better option than not going to war with Iran under the right circumstances. And things seem to be heading towards those circumstances at some point in the next decade.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 18, 2012, 02:12:46 pm

Tehran has over ten million people. That's the number of people you're putting at risk of death, at a minimum. You better have a damn good excuse if you're considering killing that many people. It would be better to just assassinate the leaders of the government and stage another coup.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 18, 2012, 02:35:31 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 18, 2012, 02:12:46 pm

Tehran has over ten million people. That's the number of people you're putting at risk of death, at a minimum. You better have a damn good excuse if you're considering killing that many people. It would be better to just assassinate the leaders of the government and stage another coup.

And by proxy... kill a quarter... maybe half of that number.   Yay?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 02:45:56 pm

Quote from: Frumple on August 18, 2012, 12:58:45 pm

More along the lines of the punisher, really. Bats usually wasn't much for the mass murder of innocent civilians in order to get at someone he didn't like. Don't think the punisher was either, but that's a bit closer.

Really, though, the second someone starts proclaiming happiness at the thought of hundreds or thousands of innocents dead because of some political bullshit, you can pretty safely... I wouldn't say ignore, per se, but discount and revile? Yes. Bloodthirst is not a virtue. S'in fact kinda' disgusting, especially if you're intending to exercise it on actual human beings.

I guess a lot of people don't realize that "some B-2" would put dozens of innocents into the grave, but that doesn't really excuse the sentiment. It's either they don't realize it, or have dehumanized the population of whatever place they dislike to the point it's acceptable. Which is even worse.

The deaths of a few, to save the dozens of innocents Iran kills every day. We'd only need to blow up airbases and their nuclear plants. Iran is destabilized enough it would turn into the next Libya anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2012, 02:52:05 pm

We'd get a better result from covertly (or not so covertly) supporting pro-democracy Iranian factions. Iran's regime is already heavily criticized by its own people, there just needs to be a push. Direct military intervention is something that rarely goes well unless reserved until absolutely necessary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on August 18, 2012, 02:54:31 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 17, 2012, 07:39:41 am

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 16, 2012, 09:25:17 pm

Romney: gets elected, retroactively changes his campaign promises.

Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

I love you for this.

Also guys if you don't feed the troll, he'll starve to death.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 18, 2012, 03:02:11 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 01:54:10 pm

I am certainly not eager and happy at the idea of going to war with Iran, but I can see it as a better option than not going to war with Iran under the right circumstances. And things seem to be heading towards those circumstances at some point in the next decade.

They seem to be headed that way only because there is a consensus among chickenhawk editorial writers that they are headed that way.  I find it trivially easy to imagine a decade without war with Iran.  I imagine that after a decade the editorialists will have grown bored and moved on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 04:47:58 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2012, 02:52:05 pm

We'd get a better result from covertly (or not so covertly) supporting pro-democracy Iranian factions. Iran's regime is already heavily criticized by its own people, there just needs to be a push. Direct military intervention is something that rarely goes well unless reserved until absolutely necessary.

You mean like Libya, or Nazi Germany, or Imperialist Japan, right?


I fail to find one example, including Vietnam, where it wasn't effective. We lost vietnam politically. They made us not want to fight anymore, and that was how they won. After Tet, the NVA was broken, the VC nonexistent. Due to the invasion of Czechloslovakia, Sino-Soviet tensions rose and China backed out of Vietnam. Cambodia was now hostile to the North and allowed the US to come in and try to purge the Viet Cong. It was over. But we got to the last foot of the marathon and said "screw it" and walked away, rather than win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 05:01:41 pm

But war is bad, man. Like, really, really bad. Random people die, good and bad, old and young. And the worst part is, you cannot undie them.
It's true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 18, 2012, 05:02:09 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 04:47:58 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2012, 02:52:05 pm

We'd get a better result from covertly (or not so covertly) supporting pro-democracy Iranian factions. Iran's regime is already heavily criticized by its own people, there just needs to be a push. Direct military intervention is something that rarely goes well unless reserved until absolutely necessary.

You mean like Libya, or Nazi Germany, or Imperialist Japan, right?


I fail to find one example, including Vietnam, where it wasn't effective. We lost vietnam politically. They made us not want to fight anymore, and that was how they won. After Tet, the NVA was broken, the VC nonexistent. Due to the invasion of Czechloslovakia, Sino-Soviet tensions rose and China backed out of Vietnam. Cambodia was now hostile to the North and allowed the US to come in and try to purge the Viet Cong. It was over. But we got to the last foot of the marathon and said "screw it" and walked away, rather than win.

Ah, yea... keeping the civilian population in the dark and only releasing good news.  I believe that is one of the results of Vietnam in today's wars...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 18, 2012, 05:12:10 pm

And what would've been achieved by "winning" in Vietnam other than pride?  Getting even more civilians and US servicemen meaninglessly killed at huge expense?

Incidentally there was no "direct military intervention" in Libya - instead simple measures were taking to prevent Gadaffi from killing his own civilians.  Iran is not remotely comparable to either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan as it's not anexing its neighbours.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 18, 2012, 05:13:28 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 18, 2012, 05:02:09 pm

Ah, yea... keeping the civilian population in the dark and only releasing good news.  I believe that is one of the results of Vietnam in today's wars...

Agreed, I think they learned pretty quickly not to report about us losing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 18, 2012, 05:16:44 pm

Except for that one time shortly after the Tet offensive where they reported us losing, and the North winning. Then we backed out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 18, 2012, 05:36:11 pm

Look at it this way: Millions of people are going to die in an invasion. That's basically guaranteed. Even if the U.S. military doesn't kill any civilians(unlikely), the Iranian government is still going to conscript massive numbers of people, impose medicine and food rations, etc. Iran does not have deathcamps like Japan or the Nazis did. The worst thing they're doing is imprisoning a few thousand political dissidents indefinitely, giving several thousand more shorter sentences, and killing a few. That's awful, but it doesn't even compare to the damage an invasion would do. People aren't an extension of the government,except in a consensus democracy, which is totally impossible,  and the Iranian people shouldn't suffer because of what their government did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 05:46:33 pm

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 05:54:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 05:46:33 pm

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

Because they're insane Nazi Sith lords.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 05:58:31 pm

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 05:54:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 05:46:33 pm

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

Because they're insane Nazi Sith lords.

Because they are run by fundamentalists who have publicly stated that they want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

There are about as dangerous than the American Christian Fundamentalists who want to see Israel get nuked so we can finally kick off Armageddon, only they have more direct power over their country and any nuclear weapons they get.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 18, 2012, 06:19:24 pm

Except Iran isn't stupid enough to believe they'd have a chance if they did act as the aggressor, so that's nil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 06:24:28 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 05:58:31 pm

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 05:54:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 05:46:33 pm

Or Iran nukes Israel for shits and giggles.

Because they're insane Nazi Sith lords.

Because they are run by fundamentalists who have publicly stated that they want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

There are about as dangerous than the American Christian Fundamentalists who want to see Israel get nuked so we can finally kick off Armageddon, only they have more direct power over their country and any nuclear weapons they get.

Only I don't buy it any more than I buy politicians telling me they'll make unemployment dissapear.
There's a difference between posturing for popular support, especially in the face of Israel's aggressive stance toward Iran, and actually commiting nation-wide suicide.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 07:09:04 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 18, 2012, 06:19:24 pm

Except Iran isn't stupid enough to believe they'd have a chance if they did act as the aggressor, so that's nil.

That is rational thinking. The clerical council and their puppets are highly resistant to rational thinking. You don't have to have a chance if you act as the aggressor when you think you are going to heaven when you die.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2012, 07:23:16 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 04:47:58 pm

You mean like Libya, or Nazi Germany, or Imperialist Japan, right?

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were on a global warpath. That falls under "necessary". You really need to get over the Libya thing, and it definitely wasn't direct military intervention. We did not land 20,000 troops on the shores of Tripoli.

Quote

I fail to find one example, including Vietnam, where it wasn't effective.

You have to understand something about Iran: The CIA and MI6 overthrew their last legitimate democratic government in the name of increasing oil profits to the UK and getting an anti-USSR ally in the region. That was their last big interaction with the West. I hope you can see how that would alienate them to the idea of a western power invading whether they are pro-democracy or not. Invading will make an enemy of the Iranians as a whole due to their cultural attitude on the subject and will strengthen the existing theocracy. This will, in turn, lead to the unnecessary deaths of US soldiers, and I can't imagine you'd want to advocate anything that would cause that. Funding pro-democracy factions so that they can do a takeover themselves is far more likely to make an ally of the Iranian people. Iran's history has left them embittered towards western intervention but not towards western values. Showing them that we are willing to help without superseding their sovereignty as a people is what will win hearts and minds, not bombing Tehran into the ground.

That there is support for western values in Iran at all is a massive advantage to taking down its theocracy. Squandering that is extremely unwise. 

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 18, 2012, 06:24:28 pm

There's a difference between posturing for popular support, especially in the face of Israel's aggressive stance toward Iran, and actually commiting nation-wide suicide.

Trust me, there are definitely some who want Biblical Armageddon. In fact, most of the ones who say that are being honest. Most politicians just say they support Israel.

Quote from: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 07:09:04 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 18, 2012, 06:19:24 pm

Except Iran isn't stupid enough to believe they'd have a chance if they did act as the aggressor, so that's nil.

That is rational thinking. The clerical council and their puppets are highly resistant to rational thinking. You don't have to have a chance if you act as the aggressor when you think you are going to heaven when you die.

Seriously, Iran's real leaders are quite literally selected on the criteria that they are the most fundamental of the fundamentalists. They are not rational actors by any means, especially because they believe that dying in the pursuit of Jihad guarantees them a spot in paradise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 18, 2012, 07:34:27 pm

Isn't the President of Iran generally in charge of the military though? Wikipedia says he's the head of the "Supreme National Security Council", which seems like a rough equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 18, 2012, 07:36:08 pm

http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html

Meet #6.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 18, 2012, 07:48:58 pm

With Iran it's pretty clearly that waiting it out is not just a safe bet but also the most viable strategy for long term political change.  There is a reform movement in Iran with majority support of the population that wants to do this on it's own.  The government in Iran is not engaging in a bloody crackdown.  Right now it looks like the reformers will win in the long run so we'd be stupid to roll the dice.

Incidentally this is exactly what we did in Libya on a different time scale.  At the start of the Libyan civil war the Obama administration acted on the belief that the best thing to do was to stay out and keep from undermining the rebels legitimacy.  We only got involved after Qaddafi started his brutal crackdown and the rebels asked for outside help.  While there is political repression in Iran it's hardly a couldn't be worse situation like Libya was.  And the reformers want the US to stay out for now.

Realpolitik doesn't mean going in blazing and saying you were justified.  It means playing the game pragmatically.  And right now the pragmatic course with Iran is to give it time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 18, 2012, 08:23:03 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on August 18, 2012, 07:36:08 pm

http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html

Meet #6.

No. I AM talking about the clerical council. I am fully aware that they control more or less everything and that Ahmadinejad is mostly just a figure head. I also believe they are fully capable of sacrificing themselves, their nation or even the entire world on the bloody altar of their dark age religion. These guys believe in jihad, and there is nothing more dangerous than people with that kind of faith in the position to wield it against millions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 18, 2012, 10:16:26 pm

If they were as you describe them then they would already be at war with us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 18, 2012, 10:22:20 pm

They are kind of in a low-intensity war with the US, what with all the covert sabotage and total lack of diplomatic relations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 18, 2012, 10:45:10 pm

Maybe we can bring some nuance into the conversation about Iran?

I mean, they are regarded by most nations I'm aware of (including the USA and Israel) as a rational state actor. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs explicitly stated as much (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/03/01/435346/dempsey-iran-rational-actor/) earlier this year, and you can see the same indicators in how Israel engage with them. An irrational actor must either be removed or neutralised using direct methods. A rational actor can be manipulated using the methods Israel and the US engage in. The fear from Israel is that Iran will gain a position of power, not act irrationally, threatening Israel's regional superiority. The biggest fear for the USA (alongside sharing that of Israel) is that nuclear material and/or weapons produced in Iran may fall into the hands of non-state actors who won't be rational players.

As for the Guardian Council being mindless jihadis, I don't think that follows at all. Most are long term, experienced politicians even when they are clerics first. Take one example; Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Hashemi_Shahroudi). He is anti-reformist and prosecuted reformist politicians in 2001. He is also an Iraqi who used to be a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shi'a Islamist group originally founded to overthrow Saddam. Shahroudi's main efforts within Iran has been the Decriminalization Bill; a massive liberalisation of Iran's criminal justice system, removing jail sentences under six months in favour of rehabilitative work and community service, massive reform of juvenile punishment and the forbidding of the death penalty for those with low mental development. Outside Iran he is better known for setting up the 2002 moratorium on stoning.

This is one of six clerics on the council, alongside the six lawyers. He is one I picked at random because he had a decent length English wiki page and I don't feel like dealing with translations or heavy texts tonight. But it's just an example to show that dismissing these players as irrational jihadists is missing a lot of details and likely grossly inaccurate.

It's not saying that conflict with Iran isn't likely; rational states often come into conflict (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/08/zakaria-iran-is-a-rational-actor/). But treating them as a rabid dog that has to be put down for everyone's safety is just wrong and likely hugely counterproductive. And this is still ignoring the wider population, reform movement, the complex nuclear situation, their regional influence and dozens of other factors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 12:58:54 am

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blacksmith on August 19, 2012, 01:16:31 am

And the US funded the Iranian Theocracy. So clearly it is just a symptom, and we must fight the disease!

Also, Palsch. I like you, but how are we ever going to get anywhere if you keep inserting reasoned argument, littered with facts and sources, in a cool and non-confrontational manner. It's almost as if you want us to be reasonable. Its disconcerting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 01:22:31 am

Quote from: Blacksmith on August 19, 2012, 01:16:31 am

And the US funded the Iranian Theocracy. So clearly it is just a symptom, and we must fight the disease!

The second part of your post is appropriate with this.

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001639345/135329226_conspiracy_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 01:25:23 am

Quote from: Blacksmith on August 19, 2012, 01:16:31 am

Also, Palsch. I like you, but how are we ever going to get anywhere if you keep inserting reasoned argument, littered with facts and sources, in a cool and non-confrontational manner. It's almost as if you want us to be reasonable. Its disconcerting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 01:26:57 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 12:58:54 am

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

Well from your position, it must be ease to call them a "disease" and they "fight the cause of freedom". I'm sure where they are standing they are standing on a precipice, on one side you have one of the worlds largest militaries wringing it's hands and massing ships in a vital shipping lane. On their door step is a nuclear capable nation, who isn't to shy about appropriating land.

They might even trust us if we didn't have a penchant for overthrowing democracies to install a more western friendly one in it's stead, you know, like in 1953 when we overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blacksmith on August 19, 2012, 01:36:57 am

Shush now, McDrowner. I was clearly kidding. Everyone knows we installed and funded the dictator that later got overthrown in favour of the theocracy by the oppressed people of Iran, and we were very disappointed to see him go. We've been at odds with the Theocracy government pretty much form the get go.

Just because Palsch is setting a particular example for post quality doesn't mean I need to emulate him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 01:39:45 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 01:26:57 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 12:58:54 am

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

Well from your position, it must be ease to call them a "disease" and they "fight the cause of freedom". I'm sure where they are standing they are standing on a precipice, on one side you have one of the worlds largest militaries wringing it's hands and massing ships in a vital shipping lane. On their door step is a nuclear capable nation, who isn't to shy about appropriating land.

They might even trust us if we didn't have a penchant for overthrowing democracies to install a more western friendly one in it's stead, you know, like in 1953 when we overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh?

How about that Adolf Hitler guy? Leaving him alone worked out well. Your premise is flawed. Muslim countries we never messed with hate us. Saudi Arabia hates us, Kuwait hates us even though we saved their sorry butts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 01:43:51 am

Does that count as a Godwin? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 01:45:33 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 01:43:51 am

Does that count as a Godwin? :P

Introducing Hitler while talking about oppressive murderous regimes is allowed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 01:55:59 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 01:39:45 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 01:26:57 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 12:58:54 am

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

Well from your position, it must be ease to call them a "disease" and they "fight the cause of freedom". I'm sure where they are standing they are standing on a precipice, on one side you have one of the worlds largest militaries wringing it's hands and massing ships in a vital shipping lane. On their door step is a nuclear capable nation, who isn't to shy about appropriating land.

They might even trust us if we didn't have a penchant for overthrowing democracies to install a more western friendly one in it's stead, you know, like in 1953 when we overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh?

How about that Adolf Hitler guy? Leaving him alone worked out well. Your premise is flawed. Muslim countries we never messed with hate us. Saudi Arabia hates us, Kuwait hates us even though we saved their sorry butts.

Huh, a bunch of oil rich middle eastern countries you know, kinda like those that we overthrew, don't trust us whodathunk it? Destabalizing the entire region and being butt buddies with israel also isn't winning us any favors. We've messed with most middle eastern eastern countries, thinking that the west is some incorruptible bastion of truth and justice, incapable of wrong is a bit naive.

Hitler only garnered the support he did because of massive reparations that the german people had to pay, reparations which they thought were unjust. WW1 wasn't caused by germany, yet they were singled out for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 02:06:55 am

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 19, 2012, 02:12:03 am

Invading Iran would be a monumentally bad idea. You currently have the majority of the 25-50 year old population dissatisfied with the government (this from speaking to my many Iranian coworkers), who are waiting for the Ayatollah to die so that they can try a peaceful transition to democracy.

That demographic currently have a lot of good will for the U.S., but they're also proud and by no means stupid; they know what will happen if a foreign country (particularly the rather sloppy U.S. armed forces) tries to come in. People will die. Lots of people. Lot's of civilians. They DO NOT WANT military intervention. Sanctions, fine. Diplomatic pressure, sure. Those things affect the government more than the people, and will help when they do try to go for a peaceful resolution. What they don't want is some idiot foreigners coming through and killing their family because some fresh recruit got spooked.

So, if the U.S. does invade, all you'll do is piss off the populace. A populace that has almost universally undergone 6 months of military service. That's not enough to make them a threat on the world stage, but it will turn their cities into meatgrinders for all your troops. Meatgrinders you'll have no choice but to keep feeding troops into, unless you want yet another fundamentalist government to crawl out of.

Now, do you think ANY politician with two brain cells to knock together wants a repeat of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? You've lost four and half thousand troops in operation Iraqi Freedom (http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf) alone. Iran would be at least as bad, probably worse.

Why do you want to send your countrymen to die by the thousand?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 02:25:06 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 02:06:55 am

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

It should be considered theirs? What, anyone who is of the jewish faith, or is an ethnic jew? Since my family owned some land near the Neman river a 500 years ago that was later lost to the russians, am I some how obligated to it? I honestly don't understand why israel is given so much leway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 02:26:26 am

Quote

Why do you want to send your countrymen to die by the thousand?

They don't. People of an "Iran must be destroyed" mindset typically want to nuke them all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 02:32:44 am

Lots and lots of civilian casualties? Because Libya had oh-so-many, right? Any proof they're waiting for the Ayatollah to die?

How many US people died in Libya? Look at the initial phase of the Iraq War. We lost exactly...

172. No loss is a good loss, but that's with boots on the ground. We don't need to obliterate the government, just destablize it enough for that generation to realize now's the time and the Iranian government is rendered powerless, with military command structures wrecked and the military unable to respond in a meaningful way. Even if we lost 172 (unfathomable with a stealth bomber air campaign), we'd lose those 172 in the name of freedom and justice, which is what they signed up for. Humans are humans. They all have inalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. I see no reason that we should not save countless lives, instability with nuclear weapons involved, and help the people alter or abolish their government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 02:34:52 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 02:25:06 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 02:06:55 am

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

It should be considered theirs? What, anyone who is of the jewish faith, or is an ethnic jew? Since my family owned some land near the Neman river a 500 years ago that was later lost to the russians, am I some how obligated to it? I honestly don't understand why israel is given so much leway.

Israel was also given the land in a lawful fashion by the lawfully recognized rulers of that land.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 03:04:05 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 02:34:52 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 02:25:06 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 02:06:55 am

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

It should be considered theirs? What, anyone who is of the jewish faith, or is an ethnic jew? Since my family owned some land near the Neman river a 500 years ago that was later lost to the russians, am I some how obligated to it? I honestly don't understand why israel is given so much leway.

Israel was also given the land in a lawful fashion by the lawfully recognized rulers of that land.

Well yes I'm sure that the Palestinians were thrilled that instead of being given land for helping fight the ottomans, they were instead displaced because a bunch of Europeans thought it would be more politically expedient, never mind the fact that from the get go there were tensions between palestinians and jews just from immigration, let alone giving them all of israel.

Personally I'd side with the muslims that were actually living on the land, but that's just me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 19, 2012, 03:08:22 am

According to the head of a UN Human Rights Council, casualties in Libya were around 10-15 000 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-libya-un-deaths-idUSTRE7584UY20110609).

Of course, you're only interested in American deaths. None of those, because they didn't need to be there. You already had a pre-existing uprising with ground forces that could capture and hold cities that didn't count towards those casualty stats. I'm not really sure how that situation is anything at all like Iran. Given the strength of their secret police, you wouldn't be able to foment a revolution before hand. So, what, you drop bombs and hope that you inspire an uprising among people who you've just bombed. Come on.

Also, funny that you should bring up the initial phase of the Iraq war. Yeah, you lost 172; then, you lost over 4000 more. I'm not saying you won't be able to do quickly eliminate most military materiel; I'm saying that after you do that, THEN you're going to have a lot of people die. If you bomb the hell of Iran and don't establish order quickly, all you'll end up doing is producing a civil war zone as pro- and anti-establishment forces argue, fight, and eventually kill each other; neither of them will like the U.S. So, you'll just end up with a violent, war-torn area that is a seething hot bed of resentment against the US. Which is were all those terrorist organisations recruit from; the same organisations that you cite as reason to invade in the first place.

So, you send troops in. Troops that, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, will die in droves. Wouldn't be surprised if you were hit by UN sanctions as well, actually, but that's neither here nor there.

 
As I said before, my source for the waiting for the Ayatollah to die was conversation with my coworkers. So no, I can't provide references online. Fine if you don't believe me, it still doesn't change the fact that an invasion would be a horribly bad idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:09:01 am

Because the Europeans actually owned it. The Muslims can't say "We lived here first". Well, the Sassanids were there before the Muslims conquered them. A Caliph, too, one of the four recognized by Sunnis as real caliphs. Muslims can't say "you took it by force" because they took the Sassanids and the Meccan's land by force.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 03:13:19 am

Israel was given a small fraction of its  current territory. It was not given the West Bank or Gaza Strip. And the Hebrews weren't there first, there were Caanaanite and the like before them. And don't forget the Homo erectus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:16:53 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 19, 2012, 03:08:22 am

According to the head of a UN Human Rights Council, casualties in Libya were around 10-15 000 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-libya-un-deaths-idUSTRE7584UY20110609).

Of course, you're only interested in American deaths. None of those, because they didn't need to be there. You already had a pre-existing uprising with ground forces that could capture and hold cities that didn't count towards those casualty stats. I'm not really sure how that situation is anything at all like Iran. Given the strength of their secret police, you wouldn't be able to foment a revolution before hand. So, what, you drop bombs and hope that you inspire an uprising among people who you've just bombed. Come on.

Also, funny that you should bring up the initial phase of the Iraq war. Yeah, you lost 172; then, you lost over 4000 more. I'm not saying you won't be able to do quickly eliminate most military materiel; I'm saying that after you do that, THEN you're going to have a lot of people die. If you bomb the hell of Iran and don't establish order quickly, all you'll end up doing is producing a civil war zone as pro- and anti-establishment forces argue, fight, and eventually kill each other; neither of them will like the U.S. So, you'll just end up with a violent, war-torn area that is a seething hot bed of resentment against the US. Which is were all those terrorist organisations recruit from; the same organisations that you cite as reason to invade in the first place.

So, you send troops in. Troops that, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, will die in droves. Wouldn't be surprised if you were hit by UN sanctions as well, actually, but that's neither here nor there.

 
As I said before, my source for the waiting for the Ayatollah to die was conversation with my coworkers. So no, I can't provide references online. Fine if you don't believe me, it still doesn't change the fact that an invasion would be a horribly bad idea.

People who die, voluntarily, in the case of their own freedom and for the freedom of their children and their grandchildren, knowing they can die, is a heroic thing to do. How dare you degrade those who spill their blood for something greater than themselves. How dare you reject the sacrifices that let you run your mouth on the internet without the Gestapo kicking in your door. The same argument could be used for letting Hitler kill all the Jews and Poles and Russians and Frenchmen he wanted to because it would be less deaths than the amount that would occur from fighting back.

My point about bringing up Iraq is, we didn't lose very much when we fought. We wouldn't lose 4000 more because we just pack out and leave. The broken Iranian government would be powerless to stop the Green Movement.

BTW, learn how the UN works, we wouldn't get sanctions because the UK is our buddy and the world loses more by banning trade with us than they gain. And read your own stats. That counted insurgent and government forces. The only guy NATO lost was a British airman who died in a traffic accident in Italy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:19:16 am

Quote from: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 03:13:19 am

Israel was given a small fraction of its  current territory. It was not given the West Bank or Gaza Strip. And the Hebrews weren't there first, there were Caanaanite and the like before them. And don't forget the Homo erectus.

If Muslim history is any precedent, the Muslim governments gave the Jews Gaza and the West Bank by rolling over and getting beat by an outgunned and outnumbered force because the Muslim governments have, if their performance is any indication, the martial skill of a WoW player. Wait, not even that, because at least the WoW player can coordinate group action between several actors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 03:24:15 am

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:25:56 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 03:24:15 am

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

We don't leave after we win. That's the whole friggin problem. It's Colin Powell's "pottery barn" theory that says we should stay, that's why we stuck around in Iraq after just wrecking it and walking out like we could have

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 03:31:12 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:25:56 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 03:24:15 am

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

We don't leave after we win. That's the whole friggin problem. It's Colin Powell's "pottery barn" theory that says we should stay, that's why we stuck around in Iraq after just wrecking it and walking out like we could have

What

You really don't regard them as human beings do you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:37:26 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 03:31:12 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:25:56 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 03:24:15 am

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

We don't leave after we win. That's the whole friggin problem. It's Colin Powell's "pottery barn" theory that says we should stay, that's why we stuck around in Iraq after just wrecking it and walking out like we could have

What

You really don't regard them as human beings do you?

To the contrary, our present circumstance proved that all sticking around does is burn money and American lives. We're no better off in Iraq than when we started. The fact is, according to UN resolution 1441, Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire, and as such, the United States was at war with Iraq since the second that resolution was ratified. If we had just gotten rid of the WMDs, which old but still lethal chemical weapons were and Georges Sada (Iraqi Air General) testified the rest went to Syria, we could have just left.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 19, 2012, 03:45:15 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:16:53 am

People who die, voluntarily, in the case of their own freedom and for the freedom of their children and their grandchildren, knowing they can die, is a heroic thing to do. How dare you degrade those who spill their blood for something greater than themselves. How dare you reject the sacrifices that let you run your mouth on the internet without the Gestapo kicking in your door. The same argument could be used for letting Hitler kill all the Jews and Poles and Russians and Frenchmen he wanted to because it would be less deaths than the amount that would occur from fighting back.

How dare I? You accuse me of irrespect to the dead when I try and advocate avoiding death? Do you know what war does to families? Do you really think it some glorious, noble thing? Look to your own words before you accuse me. I'm not the one talking about killing people in a country that is no military threat to your own, with a population that do not want you there. Just because people are serving their country does not make their deaths any more senseless. I will respect the soldiers that serve for their willingness to do so, but that doesn't mean I have to blindly support the people who send them to die.

Now, on to your next point; you want to just bug out leave a disorganised protest movement, which has no weapons, central leadership or even a unifying ideology beyond dissatisfaction with the current regime, to fight the remnants of Iran's standing army? Who will have access to military grade equipment? Who will have a depleted but still extant command structure? Who have the unifying goal of maintaining the status quo? How do you not see that turning into a bloodbath?!

What the hell does NATO casualties have to do with the link I posted? Read what I said;

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 19, 2012, 03:08:22 am

Of course, you're only interested in American deaths. None of those, because they didn't need to be there. You already had a pre-existing uprising with ground forces that could capture and hold cities that didn't count towards those casualty stats.

My argument is, you'll either end up with a slaughter of Iranians and a failed state; which means lots of irrational actors with a hatred of the U.S. Or you get an occupied state with a still significant number of U.S. hating irrational actors, and a U.S. death toll. How is either by any means an improvement over the status quo?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 03:48:37 am

You fallaciously assume that none of the military will defect, that the rebels can't buy arms from the black market, or that I said I'm fine with the US giving them weapons. YOU YOURSELF, have said that they are waiting for the death of the Ayatollah to make changes. Changes we both know can only happen violently. The difference between my plan and yours is that in my plan, there won't be a nuclear weapon on the loose when the manure makes contact with the fan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 19, 2012, 04:17:36 am

Defectors and black market. Solid strategy that. Rely on things that are by definition fickle and unreliable. Not to mention those things go both ways; remember, just because there is a large population that resents the regime, doesn't mean there aren't also those that support it.

Giving weapons to them... let's run through the options there:

You dump the weapons and leave without overseeing distribution. Some people will be lucky and get armed, sure. With their national service, they probably even know enough to look after their weapons and avoid shooting themselves, though they will still lack against a standing military. Of course, a few of the weapon caches will probably be captured by the remnants of the Iranian guard. Others, well, humans are bastards. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those weapons ended up on the black market, or hoarded by certain factions. You still don't have the command structure or leadership, but hey, you avoid U.S. casualties, right? Iranians still have a civil war though.

You distribute the weapons, THEN bug out. Now everyone's armed. They may even fight alongside each other for a while... but again, no command  structure, differing factions. That *will* break down, and then? Iranians have a civil war with multiple sides.

You distribute weapons, and then leave advisors to act as liason and training. How popular do you think they'll be? These people are in a war because of you, do you think they'll listen to what you say? Even if they do, Iranians still have a civil war.

You distribute weapons, and stay to provide enough security to establish a transitory government? You know, that sounds a lot like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan!

Sigh...

Look, what I am trying to say here is that there is no good ending to this if you actually invade. Lots of people will die, no matter what subsequent choices you make. The reason you gave for why the Iranian government was to stop the "patient going through more pain"; well, every outcome post invasion is going to be far more painful then leaving them be.


Finally, you say we both know peaceful can't happen?

Now, THAT is fallacious.

Only you think it can't happen peacefully. I believe it can, as do the people who are waiting. Shouldn't you at least give them a chance to try it their way before you roll in guns blazing?



With that, I'm done. I wipe my hands of this mess. Aqizzar, I apologise for shitting up your thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 19, 2012, 04:22:50 am

Allow me to hippie up the thread.

Give peace a chance! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 19, 2012, 05:10:48 am

You know how people sometimes say they wished the US would have to face a war on the home front just so they would learn what war is really like? People like McDrowner is the reason for that. People who seem to have absolutely no clue what real war is like and are unable to think of AMERICA as something else than Hollywood protagonist hero knight in shining armours in whatever new epic war flick they are showing right now. Everybody else is just worthless, faceless mooks to be shot down by the main characters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 19, 2012, 05:51:39 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 11:59:07 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 04:29:30 pm

Don't you fools get it? A chance of failure is inherent in the word "risk"! Clearly, the solution is that the government never ever takes a risk ever!

I don't detest government taking risks. I object to them taking stupid risks. This was a stupid risk.

And, as always, it's not the affair that gets you, but the "cover-up". The infinite stream of "I don't recall" selective amnesia and Eric Holder engaging in more CYA than a pair of pants is what the controversy is now about.

(http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/The_Missourian/Flags/goalposts.gif)
Way to move that goalpost, bro.

Sorry, you don't get to come in and here and shit all over the place with some cockamamie conspiracy story that you heard on FreeRepublic or Glenn Beck and then redefine "what the controversy is now about" when you get bitchslapped with real information.


Y'know, I was like you once...[/lorre]
young, nationalistic, gung-ho, pro-war. After all, why shouldn't I be? My family is intricately entwined with the military. Both grandfathers served in WWII, my father was a 32-year career Navy man who was in Vietnam and Desert Storm, my half-brother is still in uniform and currently awaiting orders for his 5th deployment since 2001. I'd have been in myself, but for a bum ticker.

Back in '91, I was wearing desert camo to school and loudly proclaiming that all those stupid hippie peaceniks protesting "No Blood For Oil" should be rounded up and shot as traitors. And then several funny things happened.

I spent some time overseas.
I went to college. Got a history degree.
I had some high school friends who enlisted come home from deployments like Haiti and Bosnia, and they weren't the same people anymore.
I came to realize that this shit has consequences. That we don't always get it right. And that when we don't get it right, and people die as a result, that's a blood guilt that's difficult to erase.
I've seen my bro come home from successive deployments, each time leaving a little bit more of himself behind somewhere. He's survived enough IEDs and sniper near-misses to qualify as a goddamn miracle. Only time will tell if his brain is going to suffer from being repeatedly knocked around like a dried bean in a tin can. I've seen his marriage become a casualty to the war, and my niece become the collateral damage.
I came to fully understand that soldiers are the LAST people to rejoice in going to war and the first to welcome peace. Because they're the ones who pay the price of war, on the battlefield and at home.

And so, now I am not the stupid little fuck I was 20 years ago. Come talk to me in 20 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Toady One on August 19, 2012, 07:47:59 am

I haven't gone back and investigated exactly why there has been what looks like a deterioration in tone, but I'd appreciate it if people were more respectful of the other people in here, if not their opinions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 12:00:54 pm

Hey I have a super cool idea, how about we all change the subject and talk about the all around good person Gary Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_johnson#Political_positions) instead? Fiscially conservative, socially progressive, what's not to like?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2012, 12:03:46 pm

Fiscally conservative is not to like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 19, 2012, 12:15:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2012, 12:03:46 pm

Fiscally conservative is not to like.

+1

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 19, 2012, 12:16:43 pm

He's a corporatist masquerading as a libertarian. He wants to replace the majority of governmet duties with for-profit replacements, eliminate all wage and environmental restrictions on business (despite believing in global warming, for example, his answer to coal plants is BUILD BUILD BUILD), return to the gold standard (which is a major source of boom-and-bust economics), and going to the Fairtax system which is universally regarded as benefiting only the rich. He masks these poisons with the honeyed taste of drug legalization, banning gun control, and gutting PATRIOT and SOPA type legislation. In short, he wants to raise the corporate tyrant to his golden throne, and hides this by railing against the government tyrant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on August 19, 2012, 12:31:51 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 19, 2012, 12:16:43 pm

He's a corporatist masquerading as a libertarian.

...Is there a type of economic libertarian who's views don't massively benefit corporations?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 12:38:42 pm

Sure he might have a few ideas you don't agree with, but could he honestly do any worse than either romney or obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 12:40:24 pm

Actually, he'd probably stop killing people in drone strike, and since the president don't control spending anyway, his worse ideas wouldn't make it through Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 19, 2012, 12:46:31 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 12:38:42 pm

Sure he might have a few ideas you don't agree with, but could he honestly do any worse than either romney or obama?

That's not exactly a persuasive argument.

"Hey guys, I know you're not a fan of rotten meat, but could be it any worse than a shit sandwich or a 5-month old bran muffin?"
Well, yes. Yes, it could. And even if it's "no worse", that doesn't make it palatable.

I used to lean toward libertarianism, until I realized that its' ideal end-result is not one country of 300 million people, but 300 million countries of one person each.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 01:09:03 pm

Well Redking, find me a Green party candidate that has more of a chance to win, and I'll vote for them instead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 19, 2012, 01:47:05 pm

Making 3rd party candidates viable would require rewriting election law, and likely amending the constitutions of states and even the country.

Allow range voting or some kind of instant runoff system for executive positions.

Convincing individual states to move to a proportional system for their state representative bodies.

Convince those states to proportionally appoint their representatives to the US house of representatives.

These are things that i believe can be done without changing federal law (kinda iffy on the first one, may be something obscure that prevents it).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 19, 2012, 02:40:47 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 01:09:03 pm

Well Redking, find me a Green party candidate that has more of a chance to win, and I'll vote for them instead.

Give me a Libertarian party candidate who can win and I'll make sure to vote against them.

Incidentally, is it just me or is state bankruptcy a hideously appaling idea?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 06:32:22 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 19, 2012, 05:51:39 am

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 18, 2012, 11:59:07 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 17, 2012, 04:29:30 pm

Don't you fools get it? A chance of failure is inherent in the word "risk"! Clearly, the solution is that the government never ever takes a risk ever!

I don't detest government taking risks. I object to them taking stupid risks. This was a stupid risk.

And, as always, it's not the affair that gets you, but the "cover-up". The infinite stream of "I don't recall" selective amnesia and Eric Holder engaging in more CYA than a pair of pants is what the controversy is now about.

(http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/The_Missourian/Flags/goalposts.gif)
Way to move that goalpost, bro.

Sorry, you don't get to come in and here and shit all over the place with some cockamamie conspiracy story that you heard on FreeRepublic or Glenn Beck and then redefine "what the controversy is now about" when you get bitchslapped with real information.


Y'know, I was like you once...[/lorre]
young, nationalistic, gung-ho, pro-war. After all, why shouldn't I be? My family is intricately entwined with the military. Both grandfathers served in WWII, my father was a 32-year career Navy man who was in Vietnam and Desert Storm, my half-brother is still in uniform and currently awaiting orders for his 5th deployment since 2001. I'd have been in myself, but for a bum ticker.

Back in '91, I was wearing desert camo to school and loudly proclaiming that all those stupid hippie peaceniks protesting "No Blood For Oil" should be rounded up and shot as traitors. And then several funny things happened.

I spent some time overseas.
I went to college. Got a history degree.
I had some high school friends who enlisted come home from deployments like Haiti and Bosnia, and they weren't the same people anymore.
I came to realize that this shit has consequences. That we don't always get it right. And that when we don't get it right, and people die as a result, that's a blood guilt that's difficult to erase.
I've seen my bro come home from successive deployments, each time leaving a little bit more of himself behind somewhere. He's survived enough IEDs and sniper near-misses to qualify as a goddamn miracle. Only time will tell if his brain is going to suffer from being repeatedly knocked around like a dried bean in a tin can. I've seen his marriage become a casualty to the war, and my niece become the collateral damage.
I came to fully understand that soldiers are the LAST people to rejoice in going to war and the first to welcome peace. Because they're the ones who pay the price of war, on the battlefield and at home.

And so, now I am not the stupid little fuck I was 20 years ago. Come talk to me in 20 years.

Sorry bro, you don't just get to assume the easiest interpretation of what I said, and then make me argue it. I just won't. Sorry. Go play chess against yourself if you want to feel like an indomitable champ. For the record, it was a stupid risk, but it was made worse by the infinite stream of CYA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 06:35:02 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on August 19, 2012, 04:17:36 am

Defectors and black market. Solid strategy that. Rely on things that are by definition fickle and unreliable. Not to mention those things go both ways; remember, just because there is a large population that resents the regime, doesn't mean there aren't also those that support it.

Giving weapons to them... let's run through the options there:

You dump the weapons and leave without overseeing distribution. Some people will be lucky and get armed, sure. With their national service, they probably even know enough to look after their weapons and avoid shooting themselves, though they will still lack against a standing military. Of course, a few of the weapon caches will probably be captured by the remnants of the Iranian guard. Others, well, humans are bastards. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those weapons ended up on the black market, or hoarded by certain factions. You still don't have the command structure or leadership, but hey, you avoid U.S. casualties, right? Iranians still have a civil war though.

You distribute the weapons, THEN bug out. Now everyone's armed. They may even fight alongside each other for a while... but again, no command  structure, differing factions. That *will* break down, and then? Iranians have a civil war with multiple sides.

You distribute weapons, and then leave advisors to act as liason and training. How popular do you think they'll be? These people are in a war because of you, do you think they'll listen to what you say? Even if they do, Iranians still have a civil war.

You distribute weapons, and stay to provide enough security to establish a transitory government? You know, that sounds a lot like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan!

Sigh...

Look, what I am trying to say here is that there is no good ending to this if you actually invade. Lots of people will die, no matter what subsequent choices you make. The reason you gave for why the Iranian government was to stop the "patient going through more pain"; well, every outcome post invasion is going to be far more painful then leaving them be.


Finally, you say we both know peaceful can't happen?

Now, THAT is fallacious.

Only you think it can't happen peacefully. I believe it can, as do the people who are waiting. Shouldn't you at least give them a chance to try it their way before you roll in guns blazing?



With that, I'm done. I wipe my hands of this mess. Aqizzar, I apologise for shitting up your thread.

Because arming the rebels worked so terribly in Libya, right? Owait. We also gave select Libyans CIA training. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was that we tried to force too good of a government. The ideas that made very liberal constitutional republics possible in our cultures took thousands of years. We also did the law enforcing, and the fighting, which made the people feel like this was foreigners. Contrast that with Libya.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 06:36:25 pm

Quote from: Toady One on August 19, 2012, 07:47:59 am

I haven't gone back and investigated exactly why there has been what looks like a deterioration in tone, but I'd appreciate it if people were more respectful of the other people in here, if not their opinions.

^

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 06:36:27 pm

I must say, I feel like standing with RedKing, and it's not because I dislike your political views.

I have been assuming you're a troll since you're saying that since muslims invaded countries centuries ago, it's alright if the palestinian get occupied now. By the same logic, Mexico would have the right to invade the US and China could use military force to sell heroin in Great-Britain.

P.S. Concerning Libya: they had a relatively organized uprising already. We didn't start lobbing bomb at the problem hoping everything would go right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 19, 2012, 06:53:46 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 06:35:02 pm

Because arming the rebels worked so terribly in Libya, right? Owait. We also gave select Libyans CIA training. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was that we tried to force too good of a government. The ideas that made very liberal constitutional republics possible in our cultures took thousands of years. We also did the law enforcing, and the fighting, which made the people feel like this was foreigners. Contrast that with Libya.

...Those ideas took around or less than a hundred years from their conception/formulation to result in the USA. Then a couple of hundred years more to result in the European democracies. Enlightenment philosophy is by no means "thousands of years" old.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:01:04 pm

Quote from: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 06:36:27 pm

I must say, I feel like standing with RedKing, and it's not because I dislike your political views.

I have been assuming you're a troll since you're saying that since muslims invaded countries centuries ago, it's alright if the palestinian get occupied now. By the same logic, Mexico would have the right to invade the US and China could use military force to sell heroin in Great-Britain.

P.S. Concerning Libya: they had a relatively organized uprising already. We didn't start lobbing bomb at the problem hoping everything would go right.

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:05:29 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 19, 2012, 06:53:46 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 06:35:02 pm

Because arming the rebels worked so terribly in Libya, right? Owait. We also gave select Libyans CIA training. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was that we tried to force too good of a government. The ideas that made very liberal constitutional republics possible in our cultures took thousands of years. We also did the law enforcing, and the fighting, which made the people feel like this was foreigners. Contrast that with Libya.

...Those ideas took around or less than a hundred years from their conception/formulation to result in the USA. Then a couple of hundred years more to result in the European democracies. Enlightenment philosophy is by no means "thousands of years" old.

From Greece, the first experiment in man governing himself in civilization. From Rome, the rule of law. From the Renaissance, the idea that the government should be for the people. The idea of a social contract. From the enlightenment philosophers, the majority of details, such as separation of powers, government being the servant and not the master, and from the great experimenters, the US founding fathers, the first ever working model.

Contrast that with Iraq, who has known nothing but emperors, kings, sheiks, amirs and caliphs, up until only a few hundred years ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: John Galt Fanfiction on August 19, 2012, 07:06:44 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:01:04 pm

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

Man I just can't follow American politics at all.

e: still appreciating that jingoism and casual subtle racism, man

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 07:07:32 pm

McDowner, could you please quit with the multiposts? Edit your previous one or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 07:11:53 pm

And no European country (Except Iceland) had anything else than emperors, kings, sheiks duke, amirs counts and caliphs popes until a few hundred years ago.

Also, your logic doesn't hold at all. Not all muslims are fundies, in the same way that not all christion respect every word of the bible (I mean, come on, how many Christian do you know that refrain from non-kasher meat?)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 19, 2012, 07:20:10 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:01:04 pm

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

Shouldn't you be out there bombing Israel then? I mean, they've never had this Jesus guy either, so they must be still riding on the old "kill all unbelievers" doctrine, eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:21:13 pm

Quote from: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 07:11:53 pm

And no European country (Except Iceland) had anything else than emperors, kings, sheiks duke, amirs counts and caliphs popes until a few hundred years ago.

Also, your logic doesn't hold at all. Not all muslims are fundies, in the same way that not all christion respect every word of the bible (I mean, come on, how many Christian do you know that refrain from non-kasher meat?)

If you'd read the bible, you'd know the answer.

Quote

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

God cleansed those animals (which was a metaphor for preaching to gentiles, but all the same, it came in force). Furthermore, Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. See Galatians 3. The law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, and after we have faith in Him, we have no more need of a schoolmaster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:24:42 pm

Quote from: Il Palazzo on August 19, 2012, 07:20:10 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:01:04 pm

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

Shouldn't you be out there bombing Israel then? I mean, they've never had this Jesus guy either, so they must be still riding on the old "kill all unbelievers" doctrine, eh?

Jesus (in this case, I AM to the Jews) never said "kill everyone who converts from Islam" as Muhammad did. Jesus said "These are the people to kill". They were not open ended. They were more often than not bound by historical constraint. Maybe if you read the Bible as I have read the Quran, cover to cover, you'd know this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: freeformschooler on August 19, 2012, 07:26:15 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 07:07:32 pm

McDowner, could you please quit with the multiposts? Edit your previous one or something.

Echoing this. It's very difficult to read it all when it's scattered all around the place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:27:48 pm

In my experience, when I do, those parts I edit are ignored because "they didn't see them". It's much more hassle for everybody when I keep having to drag up "remember this point you didn't address?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 07:29:13 pm

Except that double-or-more-posting is frowned upon/against forum rules, unsure which exactly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: freeformschooler on August 19, 2012, 07:30:00 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:27:48 pm

In my experience, when I do, those parts I edit are ignored because "they didn't see them". It's much more hassle for everybody when I keep having to drag up "remember this point you didn't address?"

People are going to selectively ignore all or part of your posts no matter what you do in an INTERNET ARGUMENT like this. I recommend carefully reading the replies before yours and then quoting them before you hit post if it bothers you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 07:32:24 pm

Yup, and only a couple pages later, the same Peter as long with the church of Jerusalem decide that converted Gentiles can discard the law, but should still respect 4 points: No sexual immorality, no eating food offered to idols and abstaining from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. So yeah, pork is okay, as long as there is no blood left, that is it has been killed by kosher mean.

Also, the Quran protect the christian, jews and some other minor abrahamic religion.

Anyway, I should not have responded to this. The point is that muslims are not actually mindless automaton following every written word of the Quran. Especially not when it comes to foreign policy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 19, 2012, 07:33:05 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 07:01:04 pm

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

I don't know exactly what you're arguing about, but it scares the shit out of me.

I've been pondering temporarily locking this thread for the last two weeks, at least until I'm ready to police it more, and now it's really looking like a good idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 07:35:07 pm

C'mon people, this isn't the religious debate thread. Take it elsewhere, it isn't politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 19, 2012, 07:36:45 pm

Agreed. More of the horserace, less of the horseshit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 08:25:08 pm

Quote from: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 07:32:24 pm

Yup, and only a couple pages later, the same Peter as long with the church of Jerusalem decide that converted Gentiles can discard the law, but should still respect 4 points: No sexual immorality, no eating food offered to idols and abstaining from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. So yeah, pork is okay, as long as there is no blood left, that is it has been killed by kosher mean.

Also, the Quran protect the christian, jews and some other minor abrahamic religion.

Anyway, I should not have responded to this. The point is that muslims are not actually mindless automaton following every written word of the Quran. Especially not when it comes to foreign policy.

I challenge you to find a single muslim who does not think Muhammad was infallible while following the word of Allah. That's like "Oh, I'm a Christian, but I don't like this whole Christ concept."

Thus, Muslims are being hypocritical in not recognizing Israel's right to exist through the Israelis making the Muslim armies look like a joke.

Thus, Barack Obama supports this hypocrisy by not applying the Muslim standard to Israel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 19, 2012, 08:29:37 pm

Stop referring to Muslims as if you knew anything about the people in general, let alone the religion. As a Jew who is very against Israel on human rights terms [and the fact that we abandoned the land after stealing it for ourselves] I find your views to be alarming and rather annoying. You seriously can't not be a troll with how stalwart you are on your view that being a Muslim is akin to being a Zergling. It's not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on August 19, 2012, 08:30:14 pm

Start a different thread, man.  These religious discussions always crash and burn, so it's better to do it where there's fewer casualties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 19, 2012, 08:34:26 pm

Quote from: Euld on August 19, 2012, 08:30:14 pm

Start a different thread, man.  These religious discussions always crash and burn, so it's better to do it where there's fewer casualties.

That's like a metaphor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 08:56:24 pm

So back to politics, how about Joe Biden telling black people that Republicans will bring back slavery? 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 19, 2012, 09:01:57 pm

He did?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 19, 2012, 09:02:03 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 08:56:24 pm

So back to politics, how about Joe Biden telling black people that Republicans will bring back slavery?

He didn't. Its really really stretching it to call it anything other than a speech in which he used the word "chains" while there were black people in the audience.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 19, 2012, 09:04:27 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 08:56:24 pm

So back to politics, how about Joe Biden telling black people that Republicans will bring back slavery?

Yes, I believe those were his exact words.

What he meant was that unregulated banks would exert a large degree of control over people, i.e. "put you in chains."  It's called a metaphor and you might have run across them occasionally.

Fun historical fact.  Did you know that when William Jennings Bryan said "you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold", he was not talking about literally crucifying people but was instead talking about monetary policy and how a silver standard would favor small farmers in the US?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: freeformschooler on August 19, 2012, 09:05:21 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 19, 2012, 09:04:27 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 08:56:24 pm

So back to politics, how about Joe Biden telling black people that Republicans will bring back slavery?

Yes, I believe those were his exact words.

What he meant was that unregulated banks would exert a large degree of control over people, i.e. "put you in chains."  It's called a metaphor and you might have run across them occasionally.

Fun historical fact.  Did you know that when William Jennings Bryan said "you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold", he was not talking about literally crucifying people but was instead talking about monetary policy and how a silver standard would favor small farmers in the US?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/vp-biden-says-republicans-are-going-to-put-yall-back-in-chains/

Quote

“We got a real clear picture of what they all value,” Biden said. “Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first hundred days he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, ‘unchain Wall Street.’ They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

Admittedly, though, that last sentence is pretty inappropriate when completely taken out of context.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 09:08:34 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gywibs2j4KQ

Well, let's think about this. When was the last time, save for people in jail, any American was in chains? Biden said "BACK in chains". Furthermore, he said "y'all" which is dumb, because the man's from Pennsylvania. This line was spoken to a crowd with large numbers of African Americans. Put the pieces together.

At any rate, we should have civility in political discourse. We can do better than this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 19, 2012, 09:10:18 pm

Well Biden does have a pretty clear history of putting his fist in his mouth and I'm pretty sure it was a slip of speech.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on August 19, 2012, 09:12:01 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 09:08:34 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gywibs2j4KQ

Well, let's think about this. When was the last time, save for people in jail, any American was in chains? Biden said "BACK in chains". Furthermore, he said "y'all" which is dumb, because the man's from Pennsylvania. This line was spoken to a crowd with large numbers of African Americans. Put the pieces together.

At any rate, we should have civility in political discourse. We can do better than this.

Metaphorical chains? Folk still are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 09:13:20 pm

Yeah, we should really stop trying to put so much importance on small sentence. and I mean on both side, we liberals here have tended to spent too much time lambasting Romney (or other republicans) for stuff like that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2012, 09:13:32 pm

Who The Hell Is Joe Biden is horrible at public speaking, but the chains he was referring to were almost certainly a metaphor for social inequality that existed in the past. "Y'all" is a common word in the US as a whole. You don't have to be from the South to say it, that's just where its most prevalent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on August 19, 2012, 09:14:18 pm

Shit, I say Y'all, and I'm from the Australian south.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on August 19, 2012, 09:16:04 pm

I say y'all and I'm from the Canadian East. Not commonly, but yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 09:16:51 pm

Just like saying "They're going to stuff American prosperity back in the closet" to an LGBT crowd, talking about chains such a large group of African Americans is also inappropriate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 09:18:38 pm

I say y'all, and I'm born and raised on the West Coast. I also say "howdy" without attempting to use a Texan accent and un-ironically. I just like the words.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2012, 09:20:09 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 09:16:51 pm

Just like saying "They're going to stuff American prosperity back in the closet" to an LGBT crowd, talking about chains such a large group of African Americans is also inappropriate.

No one said it wasn't inappropriate, but Who The Hell Is Joe Biden's actual meaning is pretty clear. Metaphorical chains are a common thing, he was just stupid about using it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 09:20:16 pm

Well, Urist_McDrowner, you've proven that Joe Biden occasionally put his foot into his mouth. Congratulation. Here is an internet cooke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 19, 2012, 09:20:26 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 09:16:51 pm

Just like saying "They're going to stuff American prosperity back in the closet" to an LGBT crowd, talking about chains such a large group of African Americans is also inappropriate.

Those are "inappropriate" only in the sense that they are clunky metaphors.  They aren't offensive or anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 09:21:57 pm

Actually, they're inappropriate in the sense that the right could spin them against the Obama/Biden ticket. I mean, this guy's job is basically to do PR while Barack run the country, and this is a good exemple of him failing at it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2012, 09:22:45 pm

I'm telling you, Obama should just send him to open gas stations in Wyoming and lock him in the White House basement afterwards.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 19, 2012, 09:23:08 pm

I think the world would be a better place is people didn't constantly look for veiled insults, and stopped trying to be so PC all the time. I have a boyfriend and you don't see me tearing up when someone uses the word gay as an adjective.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 19, 2012, 09:25:20 pm

Quote from: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 09:16:51 pm

Just like saying "They're going to stuff American prosperity back in the closet" to an LGBT crowd, talking about chains such a large group of African Americans is also inappropriate.

Um, I'm LGBT and the only objection that I have to your hypothetical statement is that it makes no sense.  It's really touching how you are so concerned on behalf of black people.  But he was obviously using a metaphor and it's not an offensive metaphor unless you want it to be.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2012, 09:22:45 pm

I'm telling you, Obama should just send him to open gas stations in Wyoming and lock him in the White House basement afterwards.

Biden is a fine VP.  If it were actually possible to check these things I would bet you that all his "gaffes" haven't dissuaded a single voter ever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist_McDrowner on August 19, 2012, 09:25:50 pm

Oh, I just thought of another question. To everyone in this thread, I pose the following questions.

What are you going to say if:

Barack Obama wins, and succeeds in fixing the economy?
Barack Obama wins, and fails in fixing the economy?

Mitt Romney wins, and succeeds in fixing the economy?
Mitt Romney wins, and fails in fixing the economy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 09:27:12 pm

Depend what you mean by fixing the economy. If you mean more jobs, raising wages and diminishing income inequalities, Huzzay, no matter who did it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 19, 2012, 09:28:12 pm

You can't fix the economy. It's half-imaginary and unsustainable in its current form. If it gets better it won't be because of the President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blacksmith on August 19, 2012, 09:29:20 pm

If you're outside of Texas, the proper way to say "Howdy" is "How do" or "Howd'youdo". ;)

Also, it seems like the Biden quote is just like the Obama "You didn't build that" quote.  Much ado about nothing, words out of context and stripped of intent until all that is left is the spin people project onto it. I don't like it when the libs do it, but the conservatives do it a hell of a lot more. It's not only fundamentally dishonest, which is bad enough, but it's always about something so bloody stupid. Stupid stupid stupid stuff.

Although, considering Vermont is currently facing an 11 million dollar lawsuit for enslaving it's citizens without due process or conviction (which is currently the only legal way to force someone into slave labour), it is kind of appropriate as well. I mean, the whole forced labour of non-convicts is actually a growing trend in the US, and something to worry about, even if that has absolutely nothing to do with what Biden is talking about here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 19, 2012, 09:31:20 pm

MSH: He didn't ask us if the president could fix it, he ask us how we would react if he did. Frankly, if Romney reveal wizard power once he's in the white house and suddenly make everyone employed and middle-class-ish, with a free pony as a bonus, I'm going to cheer. Not likely to happen though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 19, 2012, 09:32:58 pm

Quote

If you're outside of Texas, the proper way to say "Howdy" is "How do" or "Howd'youdo". ;)

I'LL SAY HOWDY IF I DAMN WELL PLEASE :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on August 19, 2012, 09:34:59 pm

Don't really care about the economy. It's a short term issue. I guess I would be happy, but ether way I doubt it matters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Toady One on August 19, 2012, 09:36:22 pm

Urist McDrowner has been muted for a week for continuing a deteriorating fight right after I posted a thread warning.  I guess I'll have to go back and clean it up.  Presumably people will talk about elections and stuff in here, or I'll have to lock this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 19, 2012, 10:05:26 pm

It seems that we have a point of comparison for what a real offensive remark looks like  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/todd-akin-provokes-ire-with-legitimate-rape-comment.html

Speaking about pregnancy from rape: "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.  But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

The way to tell that it's a newsworthy remark is that it is so unbelievably stupid that it's hard to believe that a grown man could say such things.  But they've got it on tape... http://youtu.be/fdisTOKom5I

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 19, 2012, 10:27:38 pm

Actual election results to peruse: Minnesota Primary August 14th (yes, I'm late on the ball).  Turnout was somewhere around 10%, very low.

Minnesota Senate
GOP Results:
Kurt Bills          51.12% [Endorsed] [Winner]
David Carlson    35.37%
Bob Carney Jr.  13.52%

DFL Results:
Amy Klobuchar 90.80% [Endorsed] [Winner]
Others             9.20%

IND Results:
Stephen Williams 59.68% [Winner]
Glen Menze        40.32%

The endorsed GOP candidate Bills barely received a majority of voters against a perennial candidate and a nobody.  If he continues to struggle like this, it would not be surprising to see Klobuchar receive even more votes than she received in 2006.  The Independence Party did not endorse a candidate, and basically won't fund their candidate this year, choosing to focus on the state house and state senate.

There were two competitive house district primary races, the DFL race in MN-08 and the GOP race in MN-01.

Legend:
District Map
City [Population]
City 2 [Population]
City 3 [Population]
Incumbent
Primary

MN-01 Map (http://www.gis.leg.mn/redist2010/Congressional/C2012/maps/01.pdf):
Rochester [106,679]
Mankato    [39,309]
Winona      [27,592]
Tim Walz is the incumbent DFL rep who was first elected in 2006, and was re-elected in 2008 and 2010.  He is a pro-gun moderate Democrat.

GOP Primary
Allen Quist 54.14% [Winner]
Mike Parry  45.86%

Neither candidate was endorsed, and so a primary was forced.  Quist is a Michelle Bachmann style extreme conservative prone to stupid statements, and carries a ton of baggage from his failed gubernatorial runs in the 1990s.

MN-08 Map (http://www.gis.leg.mn/redist2010/Congressional/C2012/maps/08.pdf):
Duluth  [86,265]
Hibbing [16,361]
Brainerd [13,590]
Chip Cravaack, a Republican, won in 2010 upsetting long time incumbent Jim Oberstar; he's a pretty typical tea party Republican.

DFL Primary
Richard Nolan 38.29% [Winner]
Tarryl Clark    32.25%
Jeff Anderson 29.46%

Former rep Rick Nolan will take on Cravaack after returning to politics from a 30 (!) year hiatus; he performed best all over the district, while Clark and Anderson were limited to their voting bases in the south and Duluth respectively.

Okay, have I bored you all with Minnesota politics yet?  Because if not, I have plenty more to say. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on August 20, 2012, 01:49:49 am

Quote from: Blacksmith on August 19, 2012, 09:29:20 pm

If you're outside of Texas, the proper way to say "Howdy" is "How do" or "Howd'youdo". ;)

I shit you not, I unironically say "Howdy do". I am from eastern Washington State. I also use 'Yo' and 'Yo dawg' just about as often. (Yes, this comic is why.) (http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/kyo0001.jpg)

As for that Minnesota election: which position is it for? State house or Federal house?

@Mainiac I believe that rape topic has come up in the Progressive Rage Thread (Or whatever the name is now.) Might also be in Occupying Wallstreet. (There's a lot of crossover.) It's a pretty terrible and dumb thing for that guy to say, and he's bad and should feel bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 07:48:53 am

Ain't the first time a Republican has made comments to the effect of "if she got pregnant, she must have wanted it at some level"

Quote

"The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant," said Aldridge, a 71-year-old periodontist. "Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

That would be a NC state rep back in 1995 who was rightfully pilloried for his comment. Headline for this new comment should be "Republican Lawmakers Continue To Fail Biology Forever".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 20, 2012, 08:19:04 am

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on August 20, 2012, 01:49:49 am

Quote from: Blacksmith on August 19, 2012, 09:29:20 pm

If you're outside of Texas, the proper way to say "Howdy" is "How do" or "Howd'youdo". ;)

I shit you not, I unironically say "Howdy do". I am from eastern Washington State. I also use 'Yo' and 'Yo dawg' just about as often. (Yes, this comic is why.) (http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/kyo0001.jpg)

As for that Minnesota election: which position is it for? State house or Federal house?

@Mainiac I believe that rape topic has come up in the Progressive Rage Thread (Or whatever the name is now.) Might also be in Occupying Wallstreet. (There's a lot of crossover.) It's a pretty terrible and dumb thing for that guy to say, and he's bad and should feel bad.

Both are federal races.  I don't think anyone here cares about the 134 state house races in the state. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 20, 2012, 08:21:47 am

For me the worst part is that his apology doesn't remotely address the problem with what he said.  It's essentially "I'm sorry I called all black people parasitic criminal scum, I should have called them African Americans".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 20, 2012, 10:53:35 am

Hey guys... heard about... "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19319240)

Grade A intelligence right here folks.  Or does this belong in the stupid things people say thread?  Well, it has a political slant on it... so meh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 11:04:34 am

Quote from: Zangi on August 20, 2012, 10:53:35 am

Hey guys... heard about... "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19319240)

Grade A intelligence right here folks.  Or does this belong in the stupid things people say thread?  Well, it has a political slant on it... so meh.

If the guy is currently running for office, it may have a place here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 11:10:54 am

Quote from: Zangi on August 20, 2012, 10:53:35 am

Hey guys... heard about... "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19319240)

Grade A intelligence right here folks.  Or does this belong in the stupid things people say thread?  Well, it has a political slant on it... so meh.

We were talking about it one page back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 20, 2012, 11:12:43 am

Ah shoot, maybe it needed a better punchline.  I totally forgot maniac's post right after that one with the numbers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 01:21:58 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-calls-akin-rape-insulting-inexcusable-142622223.html

Romney does not agree with Akin, there is that at least.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 20, 2012, 01:40:22 pm

At least not this week.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 20, 2012, 02:11:28 pm

In other why-did-you-say-that-out-loud news (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/08/the-quiet-part-loud);

Quote

    Why do Ohio Republicans suddenly feel so strongly about limiting early voting hours in Democratic counties? Franklin County (Columbus) GOP Chair Doug Preisse gave a surprisingly blunt answer to the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine.” Preisse is not some rogue operative but the chairman of the Republican Party in Ohio’s second-largest county and a close adviser to Ohio Governor John Kasich.

The original article with the quote. (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html)

As to Akin's abortion bullshit, sadly this is a reasonably common meme that has been promoted by a range of anti-abortion groups for years now. Planned Parenthood have had to address it in a Q&A (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/ask-dr-cullins/cullins-preg-5291.htm#) while fucking doctors have been spreading it. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/rep-todd-akin-wrong-not-alone)

On the other hand it does look like making abortion an even more serious issue in this election, especially given that Paul Ryan can be tagged with similar views (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/romney-statement-on-abortion-appears-to-contradict-ryans-earlier-position/).

Quote

Mr. Ryan, a seven-term congressman from Wisconsin, has opposed abortion in the case of rape. During his first run for the seat in 1998, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that he opposed abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother.

More recently, Mr. Ryan was a co-sponsor of a House bill last year defining human life as beginning with fertilization and granting “personhood’’ rights to embryos, a movement that supporters say will outlaw abortions in all cases, and may also restrict some forms of birth control.

Making noise about this could split anti-abortion types. While Romney's position (exceptions for rape or incest) tends to be popular, the absolutist Ryan/Akin view tends to be held by lots of people who make abortion their sole reason for voting. Romney is already weak with that crowd and having to get some clear distance from Ryan's position could reduce the VP pick's effectiveness at shoring up base support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 03:41:44 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 20, 2012, 01:40:22 pm

At least not this week.

At least when someone in the public asks him about it directly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 03:45:16 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 07:48:53 am

Ain't the first time a Republican has made comments to the effect of "if she got pregnant, she must have wanted it at some level"

Kinda scary that this isn't a new sentiment.  I guess it's like climate change or evolution.  If those pesky facts make you feel bad you go invent new ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 03:47:00 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 03:45:16 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 07:48:53 am

Ain't the first time a Republican has made comments to the effect of "if she got pregnant, she must have wanted it at some level"

Kinda scary that this isn't a new sentiment.  I guess it's like climate change or evolution.  If those pesky facts make you feel bad you go invent new ones.

Facts are unreliable!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 03:51:54 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

Blaming victims is something that goes on all the damn time.
"Fucking lazy welfare bums"
"Fucking fatass disability leeches"
"Fucking ghetto crack-whore babymommas"

It's all about finding a convenient fiction to remedy the cognitive dissonance that comes of having your worldview run into those irksome gray areas where what you hold to be a universal truth might wind up making you out to be an asshole. It's the same reason that soldiers in ANY conflict will dehumanize the enemy.

So yeah...I don't have trouble seeing anti-abortion absolutists telling themselves that if that girl got pregnant from being raped, she must be at least partially at fault, cause then they're not monstrous assholes for insisting she carry the baby to term.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 03:53:13 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

Like it or not, this has been a credo of Conservative Republicans for the last 25 years. The specific rendering of the belief may change politician to politician, but the sentiment remains.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 03:55:34 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 03:53:13 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

Like it or not, this has been a credo of Conservative Republicans for the last 25 years.

Yeah I agree with RedKing. Its almost like they don't know any other way of doing it...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:58:17 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 03:51:54 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

Blaming victims is something that goes on all the damn time.
"Fucking lazy welfare bums"
"Fucking fatass disability leeches"
"Fucking ghetto crack-whore babymommas"

It's all about finding a convenient fiction to remedy the cognitive dissonance that comes of having your worldview run into those irksome gray areas where what you hold to be a universal truth might wind up making you out to be an asshole. It's the same reason that soldiers in ANY conflict will dehumanize the enemy.

So yeah...I don't have trouble seeing anti-abortion absolutists telling themselves that if that girl got pregnant from being raped, she must be at least partially at fault, cause then they're not monstrous assholes for insisting she carry the baby to term.

Might be a regional thing. Most Democrats I know are very nearly absolutist anti-abortion (and if you must have one, it's the deep secret everybody pretends not to notice), but there's zero tolerance for rapists around here. The relative handful of Republicans in this corner of the state can't afford to be too extreme, either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 04:04:05 pm

I think it's most entangled in other Republican beliefs about sex, contraception ect..... I'm sure many Republicans would like to come out in favor of rape victims having some sort of exceptions, but the platform won't tolerate anything that smacks of compromise on abortion, family values, yadda yadda. So even well-meaning Republicans end up taking the stance that "gettin' raped is yer fault. Better marry the guy."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 04:06:04 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 04:04:05 pm

I think it's most entangled in other Republican beliefs about sex, contraception ect..... I'm sure many Republicans would like to come out in favor of rape victims having some sort of exceptions, but the platform won't tolerate anything that smacks of compromise on abortion, family values, yadda yadda. So even well-meaning Republicans end up taking the stance that "gettin' raped is yer fault. Better marry the guy."

It also disturbs me greatly that so little variation on issues is permitted in their party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 04:21:06 pm

Don't kid yourself. At a national level. democrats are almost as lockstepped into abortion-on-a-whim, even those who would prefer restricting abortion to situations where "no" wasn't an answer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 04:27:08 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 04:21:06 pm

Don't kid yourself. At a national level. democrats are almost as lockstepped into abortion-on-a-whim, even those who would prefer restricting abortion to situations where "no" wasn't an answer.

It's true. Neither party is free of ideological purity. That said, I think it's possible for a democrat to support limited abortion (as opposed to unrestricted abortion) without getting tarred and feathered by the heaviest hitters in the party. I don't think the same is true for Republicans. Republicans have always been more unified than Dems when it comes to party ideology.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 04:32:36 pm

Most democrats prefer the idea  of "legal abortion on a whim" to "illegal crack house abortions on a whim". It is not only a women's rights concern but a very real public health concern. And most democrats also oppose late term abortions, so "on a whim" is putting it a bit too broadly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 04:36:52 pm

"With few qualifications" might be more appropriate. Dems generally don't believe in the state's right to force women to qualify their desire for an abortion. Whereas Republicans, if they're willing to even tolerate them, want mandatory waiting periods (the irony of that in comparison to gun laws....heh), informational brochures shaming mothers into not having abortions, doctors counseling them not to do it, parental/guardian approval.....before they'll deign to let a woman decide for herself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Newbunkle on August 20, 2012, 04:51:53 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 03:51:54 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

Blaming victims is something that goes on all the damn time.
"Fucking lazy welfare bums"
"Fucking fatass disability leeches"
"Fucking ghetto crack-whore babymommas"

It's all about finding a convenient fiction to remedy the cognitive dissonance that comes of having your worldview run into those irksome gray areas where what you hold to be a universal truth might wind up making you out to be an asshole. It's the same reason that soldiers in ANY conflict will dehumanize the enemy.

This is the truth. The cognitive bias concerned is called the just-world fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis), for anyone who might be interested.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 05:01:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 04:32:36 pm

It is not only a women's rights concern but a very real public health concern.

This, of course, is the logical disconnect. Anti-abortionists see abortion as exactly the same as braining a toddler with a rock, which makes it impossible to comprehend why someone would call it a women's rights issue (after all, men aren't legally entitled to murder babies either.) Likewise, those who don't see it as murder (on the grounds that it isn't a human until after birth) have difficulty comprehending it as anything but a rights issue.

As for "on a whim", I was meaning an abortion taking place with no counseling, no "take some time to think about it," and no "shouldn't you explore other options before doing something irreversible?" Opposition to late-term abortions (an extremely thorny issue itself, considering the degree to which preemie survivablity rates have jumped) isn't part of that.

It may be that the lockstep for Democrats is looser than that of the Democrats on social issues, but I'm not convinced of it. Pretty much every major issue has partisans on both sides, but that doesn't change the party line or what national candidates can get away with while keeping the faithful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 20, 2012, 05:14:50 pm

Two words. Robert Winston.

If you medically raped him and he got pregnant, he must have wanted it. Would he be a hyprocrate and abort to save his life, or would he carry the baby to term?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 05:35:54 pm

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

I have seen nothing to disprove that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 20, 2012, 05:57:33 pm

Let's not confuse the in-/direct consequences of their viewpoints with their agenda, now.

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on August 20, 2012, 05:14:50 pm

Two words. Robert Winston.

If you medically raped him and he got pregnant, he must have wanted it. Would he be a hyprocrate and abort to save his life, or would he carry the baby to term?

...What?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 05:58:13 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 05:35:54 pm

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 06:02:58 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 05:58:13 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 05:35:54 pm

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

But aren't Republicans big proponents of abstinence-only sex education? That's practically the opposite of being fine with sex.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 06:07:07 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 06:02:58 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 05:58:13 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 05:35:54 pm

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

But aren't Republicans big proponents of abstinence-only sex education? That's practically the opposite of being fine with sex.

That's because of the push from the left for sex education. Instead of telling kids "if you're going to have sex, do it safely and wear a condom so you don't ruin your life", Republicans would prefer "Just don't have sex until you're ready to have a kid."

What they refuse to acknowledge is that, for a large segment of the non-religious teen population (and even portions of the religious teen population) that doesn't work. Has it had an effect on their thinking? Absolutely not. They'd rather have kids remain ignorant and uninformed (and getting pregnant) than informed and not getting pregnant. They argue that teaching kids about safe sex results in more sex. Which just goes to show how far out of touch ideology is with reality on the ground. Fuckin' is gonna happen one way or another, it's just a matter of how much information you give them before they choose to do it anyways.

And it's at least partly due to the Catholic roots of Conservative Republican ideology, where wearing a condom is considered on the same level as abortion. That doesn't reflect the majority of Republican beliefs about sex, but it underpins them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 20, 2012, 06:09:41 pm

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree that part of the republican agenda is pushing "sex is evil!" Though TBH it's a bit bi-partisan; both sides go all "think of the children" when it comes to censorship of sexual content.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 20, 2012, 06:14:20 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 06:02:58 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 05:58:13 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 05:35:54 pm

I once read that a large part of the republican agenda is to punish women for having sex.

No they are perfectly fine with sex. Its birth control and abortion they hate. And at one point there were even protests against the use of condoms.

Its pretty simple, they despise people for trying not to have children.

But aren't Republicans big proponents of abstinence-only sex education? That's practically the opposite of being fine with sex.

I had the great displeasure of having a conversation with a man who pretty well elucidated the bald-faced standards at the heart of this ideology.  It is perfectly normal, if not actually virtuous, for all men to want to have sex with any women all the time, the virtue part being not acting on it.  It is utterly immoral for women to so much as think about sex at any time, and should only have sex with their husband so he doesn't go crazy.  Any deviation from this pattern is ultimately the woman's fault for wanting it in the first place on some level and therefor not doing enough to stop it from happening, up to and including rape.  And because all (human) life is sacred and God always finds a way if you deserve it, and there is no such thing as medical complications (because any doctor who says there is just hates life) carrying the pregnancy is always the only real option.

That's certainly an absolutist position that would frighten many conservative people when you fully elucidate it like that, but when you start poking people for what they actually hold true, you find out lots of people really do hold absolutist positions.  They just don't realize it because they've never had a reason to voice out loud everything they believe about one subject and follow through all the implications.

Quote from: nenjin on August 20, 2012, 06:07:07 pm

What they refuse to acknowledge is that, for a large segment of the non-religious teen population (and even portions of the religious teen population) that doesn't work. Has it had an effect on their thinking? Absolutely not. They'd rather have kids remain ignorant and uninformed (and getting pregnant) than informed and not getting pregnant. They argue that teaching kids about safe sex results in more sex.

Actually, ever statistical analysis taken of the results of different sex-education curriculum over the last fifteen years or so has shown that people who get abstinence-only education are considerably more likely have pre-marital sex and higher rates of teen pregnancy.  I'm willing to grant that it's probably not a 1:1 correlation, abstinence-only attitudes are most common in low-income areas where teen-pregnancy and such would be more common regardless.  But yeah, it's hideously short-sighted and almost effortless to disprove.  Try to do so with one of its proponents, and you'll get an answer with some variant of, "Well it doesn't matter how bad every other parent in the world is, my kid's going to grow up right like I did(n't)."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 20, 2012, 06:17:59 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 20, 2012, 05:57:33 pm

...What?

Citation Needed. (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-07/male-pregnancy-dangerous-proposition)
Phone copypasta sucks. This was all entered in manually. I hope you appreciate the efforts I went through. Or at least laughed, because I wasn't serious. Unless you got access to a fertilized egg and a dart gun.

That's-when-things-got-out-of-con-trol!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 06:18:06 pm

"Being fine with sex"

Only between a man and woman.
Who are married.
To each other.
For the sole purpose of procreation.
In the privacy of their own bedroom.
In the missionary position.
With the lights out.
After this one I usually veer into humor because shits already gotten absurd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 20, 2012, 06:19:18 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on August 20, 2012, 06:17:59 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 20, 2012, 05:57:33 pm

...What?

Citation Needed. (http://www.popsci.com/scitec/article/2005-7/male-pregnancy-dangerious-proposition)
Phone copypasta sucks. This was all entered in manually. I hope you appreciate the efforts I went through. Or at least laughed, because I wasn't serious. Unless you got access to a fertilized egg and a dart gun.

That's-when-things-got-out-of-con-trol!

Link doesn't work for me :\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 06:20:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 06:18:06 pm

"Being fine with sex"

Only between a man and woman.
Who are married.
To each other.
For the sole purpose of procreation.
In the privacy of their own bedroom.
In the missionary position.
With the lights out.
After this one I usually veer into humor because shits already gotten absurd.

Blindfolded, with as much clothing as possible, through a hole in the sheet.
Alright, I'll stop :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 20, 2012, 06:21:10 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

I really doubt most absolutists would fall into line with that sort of comment. It's one thing to be against abortion, but something else entirely to blame a victim.

I'd say there are two camps of anti-abortion absolutists who this could put off.

The first aren't victim blamers but believe that abortion is never allowable, even in cases of rape. Romney is having to distance himself from this position immediately after selecting a VP candidate who holds it. Call this the Ryan position.

The second are those who genuinely believe what Akin said. There are whole organisations - of physicians no less - who actively spread this idea. The fact that it's getting a very public airing and debunking should hopefully reduce this category, but from experience it's not going to eliminate it.

The latest polling on this (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm) shows ~17% of the nation being flat opposed to abortion with absolutely no exceptions. That's a not insignificant chunk of the population who the Republican party are dedicated to courting. The Democrats can never win them over but they don't have to turn out.

As I said, I feel this could flatten out any positive effects that Ryan might have brought the ticket. Obama was already ready to make abortion an active issue and letting the absolutist anti-abortion position take the spotlight - when the Republican candidate can't benefit from it because he is running the other way - is not a bad plan. Anyone who is vaguely pro-choice is going to be pushed towards the Democratic default, which is basically just 'don't overturn Roe v. Wade'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 20, 2012, 06:30:03 pm

Works fine now. (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-07/male-pregnancy-dangerous-proposition)
Phone copypasta sucks. It only took me two edits to get it right. You just clicked it too soon. Had to add a ho, and drop an eye.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 20, 2012, 06:59:10 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 05:01:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 04:32:36 pm

It is not only a women's rights concern but a very real public health concern.

This, of course, is the logical disconnect. Anti-abortionists see abortion as exactly the same as braining a toddler with a rock, which makes it impossible to comprehend why someone would call it a women's rights issue (after all, men aren't legally entitled to murder babies either.) Likewise, those who don't see it as murder (on the grounds that it isn't a human until after birth) have difficulty comprehending it as anything but a rights issue.

I don't think anyone believes babies aren't human until after birth. The point is, early in pregnancy, before the brain is developed past a simple support system, they're not conscious. It doesn't matter that they could become conscious, unless you consider masturbating or having a period equivalent to abortion.

Quote

It may be that the lockstep for Democrats is looser than that of the Democrats on social issues, but I'm not convinced of it. Pretty much every major issue has partisans on both sides, but that doesn't change the party line or what national candidates can get away with while keeping the faithful.

Well, there were democrats who supported government health insurance , there were those who opposed it. Republicans all opposed it. There are democrats in favor of financial regulation, there are a few against it. Basically all republican congresspeople oppose it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on August 20, 2012, 07:03:42 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 06:20:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 06:18:06 pm

"Being fine with sex"

Only between a man and woman.
Who are married.
To each other.
For the sole purpose of procreation.
In the privacy of their own bedroom.
In the missionary position.
With the lights out.
After this one I usually veer into humor because shits already gotten absurd.

Blindfolded, with as much clothing as possible, through a hole in the sheet.
Alright, I'll stop :P

I think you're confusing republicans with hasidic jews, I they those two groups are buttbuddies, but there is some difference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 07:29:34 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 20, 2012, 06:59:10 pm

...
I don't think anyone believes babies aren't human until after birth. The point is, early in pregnancy, before the brain is developed past a simple support system, they're not conscious. It doesn't matter that they could become conscious, unless you consider masturbating or having a period equivalent to abortion.
...

There are people who believe that masturbation is equivalent to abortion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 07:38:09 pm

I remember reading a anti-abortion mini-pamphlet from the 60s/70s. It claimed that as early as 3 months, a fetus already had a beating heart, all organs and limbs, and a fully functioning brain; it just needed to grow. Then went on to have the "baby" chopped up or stabbed, claiming that they dumped still-moving "babies" in the garbage dump.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on August 20, 2012, 08:09:57 pm

A few pages ago, this topic specifically was warned to stick to debating the election. Abortion may be a key issue in it after all, but everyone seems to have decided to debate the most contentious part of this debate you could have possibly chosen.

So I must ask everyone. Do you REALLY want to get this topic locked? Couldn't the "facts and opinions about abortion" part go off to a separate thread while leaving the "people might actually care about this this time" part stay in here? Honestly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 08:19:50 pm

We're actually being pretty civil. In fact I've never seen abortion come up and be as civil as it is right about now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:25:07 pm

There's another thing going on here with this kind of rhetoric, one which wasn't as immediately apparent to me.

Akin went on Mike Huckabee's show today, semi-sorta-apologized, and then "clarified" by saying he was only referring to "forcible rape" (as opposed to casual, "oops I just slipped and my penis fell in you" rape??)

Sound a little weird? There's a method to the derpness. See, the rape exemption/"loophole" (from their POV) creates problems. If you allow it for forcible rape (or what they sometimes refer to as "legitimate rape", a neologism that is just wrong on so many levels), then what about statutory rape? Which is, of course, defined as any sex (even consensual) with a person not of age of consent, as defined by their home state.

OMG 15-year old girls would get a free pass for abortions!!

Basically, they see it as a slippery slope problem -- make an exception for rape, you have to start considering exemptions for other valid reasons. BUT...if you can make some kind of case that "real rape" can't produce a child, then you don't need to bother with exemptions for it. Problem solved. Except for that "incest and/or life of the mother at risk" exemptions.

I can't WAIT to hear the talking points on those.
"Incest isn't a terrible thing! Why, it was a practice of royalty for centuries! It strengthens the gene pool! It prevents miscegenation!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on August 20, 2012, 08:32:08 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 08:19:50 pm

We're actually being pretty civil. In fact I've never seen abortion come up and be as civil as it is right about now.

I've seen it be even more civil than this on this very forum. I'm hoping that it can continue to be civil. I'm not, however, fully entrusting it to continue to be civil going into the future. If it can, cool. I have, however, seen it become a veritable shitstorm on this very forum in the past too. That's why I was worried. :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 20, 2012, 08:44:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:25:07 pm

Problem solved. Except for that "... life of the mother at risk" exemptions.

Like I mentioned, there's answers for that one too.  Namely that there is no such thing as health risk from pregnancies, only evil doctors who have a financial incentive (of some sort) to do bad medicine or just really want to kill infants.  Sure it doesn't come up much, but believe me it's out there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 20, 2012, 08:45:15 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on August 20, 2012, 08:44:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:25:07 pm

Problem solved. Except for that "... life of the mother at risk" exemptions.

Like I mentioned, there's answers for that one too.  Namely that there is no such thing as health risk from pregnancies, only evil doctors who have a financial incentive (of some sort) to do bad medicine or just really want to kill infants.  Sure it doesn't come up much, but believe me it's out there.

Even better: "Medicine is evil because when God intends for humans to die they must die."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:49:02 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 20, 2012, 08:45:15 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on August 20, 2012, 08:44:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:25:07 pm

Problem solved. Except for that "... life of the mother at risk" exemptions.

Like I mentioned, there's answers for that one too.  Namely that there is no such thing as health risk from pregnancies, only evil doctors who have a financial incentive (of some sort) to do bad medicine or just really want to kill infants.  Sure it doesn't come up much, but believe me it's out there.

Even better: "Medicine is evil because when God intends for humans to die they must die."

I see you're familiar with the Church of Christ, Scientist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: freeformschooler on August 20, 2012, 08:51:24 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:49:02 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 20, 2012, 08:45:15 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on August 20, 2012, 08:44:13 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:25:07 pm

Problem solved. Except for that "... life of the mother at risk" exemptions.

Like I mentioned, there's answers for that one too.  Namely that there is no such thing as health risk from pregnancies, only evil doctors who have a financial incentive (of some sort) to do bad medicine or just really want to kill infants.  Sure it doesn't come up much, but believe me it's out there.

Even better: "Medicine is evil because when God intends for humans to die they must die."

I see you're familiar with the Church of Christ, Scientist.

I was at a fundraiser for an older woman's lung transplant once. Everyone there paid to help her, but at the table I sat at, several other women were shaking their heads and saying how organ transplants are against God's plan and this woman was awful for asking for money for one.

So basically, confirmed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on August 20, 2012, 08:51:45 pm

The debate is civil because the troll wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross got muted for a week.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 20, 2012, 09:00:23 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 20, 2012, 08:25:07 pm

Akin went on Mike Huckabee's show today, semi-sorta-apologized, and then "clarified" by saying he was only referring to "forcible rape" (as opposed to casual, "oops I just slipped and my penis fell in you" rape??)

Atlantic article on the "apology", (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/todd-akin-apologizes-for-rape-comments-in-interview-with-huckabee/261340/) although from that it does look like he just replaced the word 'legitimate' with 'forcible'. He also said that you can get pregnant from rape without addressing whether it's rare or if his anti-rape-pregnancy system is a real thing or if he confused humans with ducks (http://theriotmag.tumblr.com/post/29780064603/well-we-can-only-assume-he-does-akin-recently) (NB: actual statistics suggest rapes have a higher incidence of pregnancy than consensual sex, although I'd guess that's more from under-reporting rapes that don't result in pregnancies than anything physiological - lost the link on this, will track it down if people are interested). It looks like Huck helped him stand his ground against abortions in the event of rape though, which keeps the issue alive.

The current situation means Obama can walk up to a podium, say Romney should release his tax returns and, "rape is rape," (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/20/obama-romney-tax-returns) and have the easiest gold news cycle of any election he's ran in. Well, maybe not the early days after Palin was announced, but close.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 20, 2012, 09:04:15 pm

Quote from: Willfor on August 20, 2012, 08:09:57 pm

A few pages ago, this topic specifically was warned to stick to debating the election. Abortion may be a key issue in it after all, but everyone seems to have decided to debate the most contentious part of this debate you could have possibly chosen.

Is there any point in discussing a non-contentious subject?  Surely it being contentious is what makes it an important issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 09:10:29 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 20, 2012, 09:04:15 pm

Quote from: Willfor on August 20, 2012, 08:09:57 pm

A few pages ago, this topic specifically was warned to stick to debating the election. Abortion may be a key issue in it after all, but everyone seems to have decided to debate the most contentious part of this debate you could have possibly chosen.

Is there any point in discussing a non-contentious subject?  Surely it being contentious is what makes it an important issue.

Well the good news there is that any subject debated in this thread is sure to become contentious in short order.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 20, 2012, 09:18:55 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on August 20, 2012, 07:03:42 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 06:20:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 20, 2012, 06:18:06 pm

"Being fine with sex"

Only between a man and woman.
Who are married.
To each other.
For the sole purpose of procreation.
In the privacy of their own bedroom.
In the missionary position.
With the lights out.
After this one I usually veer into humor because shits already gotten absurd.

Blindfolded, with as much clothing as possible, through a hole in the sheet.
Alright, I'll stop :P

I think you're confusing republicans with hasidic jews, I they those two groups are buttbuddies, but there is some difference.

You DO know that that "hole in the sheet" thing was purely anti-semetic propaganda and has never been actually practiced, don't you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 20, 2012, 09:37:44 pm

And until wannabe Senator Akin is forcibly Medically Raped, we will never know if he really believes what he says about the sanctity of a unborn child :(

I'd forgive him his statements if he were, and didn't abort. One thing to claim what he does when he never has to worry about facing it himself. Another thing entirely to put his life on line for his values.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 10:03:38 pm

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win (http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 10:17:49 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 10:03:38 pm

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win (http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win)

This attitude really pisses me off.

Think this through for a second.  What are the odds that the two sides are equally to blame?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 10:19:00 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 10:17:49 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on August 20, 2012, 10:03:38 pm

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win (http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win)

This attitude really pisses me off.

Think this through for a second.  What are the odds that the two sides are equally to blame?

Pretty sure that was the joke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 10:26:57 pm

What are the telltale signs that it's ironic?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 10:31:30 pm

Wait a second here. Were you trying to say that "yes, both sides are equally to blame" or "one side deserves more blame than the other"? Because I think our humor wires got crossed somewhere along the way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 10:34:00 pm

Dude, the odds that both sides are equally to blame and neither is at fault?  Try looking just through american history and see how rare that was.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 10:46:15 pm

Have some perspective, perhaps? Just about every conflict in history has been driven by one side thinking that the other was at fault.
As much as I hate to risk a Godwin, let's look at WWII. Hitler thinks that the Germans deserve Austria, Poland, etc, because the Germans are awesome and it's all payback for the unfair (in his mind) Treaty of Versailles anyway. The Brits and French think that Hitler is getting too power-hungry and try to shut him down. Bam. Conflict. Each side thinks the other is in the wrong.

Let's face it, American politics rarely play nice. If you honestly think that the Conservatives spend their days plotting evil things to do to the liberals, while the Liberals spend their days caring for old folks and reading to terminally ill children, then you've badly lost your sense of perspective. The point of the article was the show that both sides are busy attempting to demonize the other while making excuses for their own, something that very few of us (myself not included) are exempt from.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 20, 2012, 11:04:36 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 10:46:15 pm

Have some perspective, perhaps? Just about every conflict in history has been driven by one side thinking that the other was at fault.
As much as I hate to risk a Godwin, let's look at WWII. Hitler thinks that the Germans deserve Austria, Poland, etc, because the Germans are awesome and it's all payback for the unfair (in his mind) Treaty of Versailles anyway. The Brits and French think that Hitler is getting too power-hungry and try to shut him down. Bam. Conflict. Each side thinks the other is in the wrong.

Each side thinks the other is in the wrong but one side is far, far more in the wrong.  I'll just outsource this one to George Orwell: http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
Edit: This is not the George Orwell essay on pacifism I was thinking about.  There's another one out there.
Double Edit: This is the one I was thinking of: http://georgeorwellnovels.com/reviews/no-not-one/

Insisting both sides are wrong is even less justified in a democratic election because in a democratic election we don't kill each other.  Insisting both sides are wrong just favors the side that actually is.  Yes there are limits on power and respecting the minority and all that but that doesn't mean you should equally blame the relative villains and the relative good guys.

And I'll say that there's a chance that I'm wrong about everything.  I've been wrong about a lot of things in my life.  But I'm still going to try my best to support good causes.  If everyone does that it improves our odds of getting good government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on August 20, 2012, 11:11:10 pm

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 10:46:15 pm

Let's face it, American politics rarely play nice. If you honestly think that the Conservatives spend their days plotting evil things to do to the liberals, while the Liberals spend their days caring for old folks and reading to terminally ill children, then you've badly lost your sense of perspective. The point of the article was the show that both sides are busy attempting to demonize the other while making excuses for their own, something that very few of us (myself not included) are exempt from.

Funny, I seem to recall plenty of cases where liberals had no compunctions about shunning people who step out of line for what they've done. Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Conservatives don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs. They also, unlike what I've noticed from liberals, tend to enter anti-opposition mode anytime one of theirs is being called out on something they've done and try to deflect with poorly reasoned accusations of "liberals do bad things too! (we just don't have many non-manufactured examples, but they exist, so shut up forever)".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 11:36:39 pm

Quote

Each side thinks the other is in the wrong but one side is far, far more in the wrong.

Except from the perspective of the other side, you are the one in the wrong. You can scream at the folks on the other side until you're blue in the face, and they'll insist that they are right and you are wrong. Whether it's abortion or gun control or even which Star Trek series was the best, you'll each be convinced that My Side is flawless in all respects (except when they aren't, but hey everyone makes mistakes) and the Other Side is wrong in every possible way (and should be treated as such, no exceptions). Sorta like the two of you are doing right now.
By the way, the Orwell thing? I realize it was written at the height of WWII, but "if you are not with me, you are against me" is an idiotic way to see the world. The world is not black and white. I figured that was fairly common knowledge in this day and age.

Quote

Conservatives don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Really? I mean, really? You don't see how that's any different from something like, say, this?

Quote

Homosexuals don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Both statements strike me as total bullcrap from where I'm sitting.

Quote

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Afraid not, though the recent Biden "chains" comment might come close, and even that is a stretch. What exactly would I input in Google looking for examples, anyway? "liberals not decrying their own"?

Quote

try to deflect with poorly reasoned accusations of "liberals do bad things too! (we just don't have many non-manufactured examples, but they exist, so shut up forever)".

I'm gonna assume that that's not some sort of insinuation, because I realize that I can have a quick temper and want to avoid launching some sort of flame war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on August 21, 2012, 12:56:32 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 11:36:39 pm

Quote

Conservatives don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Really? I mean, really? You don't see how that's any different from something like, say, this?

Quote

Homosexuals don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Both statements strike me as total bullcrap from where I'm sitting.

Which is why specifics matter. Why does person A believe X, why does person B believe Y. There are certain beliefs that are either factually incorrect or provably harmful to wider humanity with very little granted in return besides the satiation of somebody's ego. I don't see what your point is other than people believe different things.

Quote

Quote

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Afraid not, though the recent Biden "chains" comment might come close, and even that is a stretch. What exactly would I input in Google looking for examples, anyway? "liberals not decrying their own"?

If you can't provide examples your ideas are less clear. It's easy to toss out "YOU'RE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG" but those words don't actually mean anything without concrete substance behind them.

Quote

Quote

try to deflect with poorly reasoned accusations of "liberals do bad things too! (we just don't have many non-manufactured examples, but they exist, so shut up forever)".

I'm gonna assume that that's not some sort of insinuation, because I realize that I can have a quick temper and want to avoid launching some sort of flame war.

I was specifically speaking of how conservatives respond to whatever the latest kerfuffle is, but I also find your claim was poorly reasoned. Is that flame war material to you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: dnabios on August 21, 2012, 02:24:58 am

Sirus is correct here.  What Sirus is trying to say (unless I am equally confused) is that too much of an "us vs. them" or "my side vs. your side" is not good.  There are no "sides", or "them".  Both people have a difference of opinion based on what seems to them to be logical and obvious reasoning. 

Exempli gratia:
Pro-life:  Murder is wrong, you should not be allowed to kill people simply because you choose to do so.
Pro-choice:  Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is wrong, you should not be able to make her have a child if she does not want to.

It is baffling to X why it is impossible for Y to see that.  They are not "stupid", or "evil".  They just disagree.

Ok; except maybe the rape comment was stupid.  He was probably referencing vaginal changes associated with female arousal (such as pH modification and movement of the cervix to be closer to the semen) increasing the odds of pregnancy.  But no, those tiny changes do not have appreciable impact.  Rape generates pregnancy about 6.4% of the time, consensual sex 3.2% (j.Human Nature, 2003).  The belief is that rape victims are less likely to be on birth control.

Also, Toady has been in here twice already.  I can't believe he gave two strikes.  Can I try and return us to the topic at hand?

The latest numbers I saw places Obama at 47.2% and Romney at 44.7%.  This blows my mind because I'm in MN and everyone is so blue it seems unbelievable to me that it's so close.  Someone above was also from MN.  So MN represent!  Woo!  In my mind, both Obama and Romney could use more courting of moderates.  I haven't seen any of that thus far and it's really the only voting block up for grabs.

Quote from: Glowcat on August 21, 2012, 12:56:32 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 11:36:39 pm

Quote

Conservatives don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Really? I mean, really? You don't see how that's any different from something like, say, this?

Quote

Homosexuals don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Both statements strike me as total bullcrap from where I'm sitting.

Which is why specifics matter. Why does person A believe X, why does person B believe Y. There are certain beliefs that are either factually incorrect or provably harmful to wider humanity with very little granted in return besides the satiation of somebody's ego. I don't see what your point is other than people believe different things.

Quote

Quote

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Afraid not, though the recent Biden "chains" comment might come close, and even that is a stretch. What exactly would I input in Google looking for examples, anyway? "liberals not decrying their own"?

If you can't provide examples your ideas are less clear. It's easy to toss out "YOU'RE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG" but those words don't actually mean anything without concrete substance behind them.

Quote

Quote

try to deflect with poorly reasoned accusations of "liberals do bad things too! (we just don't have many non-manufactured examples, but they exist, so shut up forever)".

I'm gonna assume that that's not some sort of insinuation, because I realize that I can have a quick temper and want to avoid launching some sort of flame war.

I was specifically speaking of how conservatives respond to whatever the latest kerfuffle is, but I also find your claim was poorly reasoned. Is that flame war material to you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 21, 2012, 03:37:38 am

MN is what, Minnesota? Maine? Mew Nersey?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Domenique on August 21, 2012, 03:51:57 am

Quote from: scriver on August 21, 2012, 03:37:38 am

MN is what, Minnesota? Maine? Mew Nersey?

I'm not american, but I'm guessing Michigan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on August 21, 2012, 03:54:44 am

Minssouri?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 21, 2012, 04:09:26 am

Mexico, New?

Nah, seriously it's Minnesota.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 21, 2012, 06:16:08 am

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 11:36:39 pm

Quote

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Afraid not, though the recent Biden "chains" comment might come close, and even that is a stretch. What exactly would I input in Google looking for examples, anyway? "liberals not decrying their own"?

Well for the Biden thing it was allegedly offensive to blacks so we could google "Black leaders denounce Biden."  The results: Not Much (https://www.google.com/search?q=black+leaders+denounce+biden&sugexp=chrome,mod=1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Quote from: Sirus on August 20, 2012, 11:36:39 pm

Except from the perspective of the other side, you are the one in the wrong.

Yes, I am well aware of that but it doesn't actually substantiate an argument.  Think about intelligent design vs. evolution.  Both sides think the other side is wrong.  Both sides think the others doesn't have any evidence.  Does that mean they are both equally right?

That was not a purely rhetorical question, btw, I want to know if you'd give a yes or no to that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 21, 2012, 06:23:25 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on August 20, 2012, 08:19:50 pm

We're actually being pretty civil. In fact I've never seen abortion come up and be as civil as it is right about now.

It's being civil because everybody is busy doing the circle jerk about how ridiculously silly those conservatives are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 21, 2012, 06:28:54 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 21, 2012, 06:16:08 am

Well for the Biden thing it was allegedly offensive to blacks so we could google "Black leaders denounce Biden."  The results: Not Much (https://www.google.com/search?q=black+leaders+denounce+biden&sugexp=chrome,mod=1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

I dunno, there was one comment surrounding that that was fairly offensive.

Sarah Palin saying that the black people in the audience needed to be more offended. (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/08/what-is-wrong-with-you-black-people)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 21, 2012, 06:39:47 am

Quote from: scriver on August 21, 2012, 06:23:25 am

It's being civil because everybody is busy doing the circle jerk about how ridiculously silly those conservatives are.

Yeah.  I don't think I've ever said this before but we're actually strawmanning Republican positions here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on August 21, 2012, 06:40:50 am

I thought politics was all about strawmen trying to set each other on fire via flame wars?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 21, 2012, 06:53:36 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 21, 2012, 06:39:47 am

Quote from: scriver on August 21, 2012, 06:23:25 am

It's being civil because everybody is busy doing the circle jerk about how ridiculously silly those conservatives are.

Yeah.  I don't think I've ever said this before but we're actually strawmanning Republican positions here.

I don't think people were saying that the no such thing as rape idea is a view held by all republicans.  We were just discussing a rather scary subculture that has recently been brought to prominence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 07:47:35 am

Quote from: scriver on August 21, 2012, 03:37:38 am

MN is what, Minnesota? Maine? Mew Nersey?

Mew Nersey = A state populated completely by nasally-meowing cats with attitudes and spray tans.

Quote from: mainiac on August 21, 2012, 06:53:36 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 21, 2012, 06:39:47 am

Quote from: scriver on August 21, 2012, 06:23:25 am

It's being civil because everybody is busy doing the circle jerk about how ridiculously silly those conservatives are.

Yeah.  I don't think I've ever said this before but we're actually strawmanning Republican positions here.

I don't think people were saying that the no such thing as rape idea is a view held by all republicans.  We were just discussing a rather scary subculture that has recently been brought to prominence.

A subculture which seems to be in the driver's seat of the party the last several years. It's almost the inverse of the No True Scotsman problem. Sure, not ALL Republicans hold to such extreme views. But what percentage? I've seen some recent polls that show as much as 18% of the total population is against abortion under any circumstances. Assuming a rough 50/50 split of the population between the parties, that's potentially 36% of the GOP. When you subtract out the considerable chunk of the population which is oblivious to politics, and the fact that the GOP actually averages less overall party membership in the US than the Democratic Party, that 36% creeps up into the 40's, maybe higher. It's no longer some fringe splinter notion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 21, 2012, 07:50:58 am

"No abortions under any circumstance" =! "Rape isn't real, and women that get pregnant liked it anyway."

"Rape is terrible, but we should punish the rapist and not the child." is much less disgusting an interpretation of that 20% demographic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 09:31:20 am

Quote from: Sheb on August 21, 2012, 07:50:58 am

"No abortions under any circumstance" =! "Rape isn't real, and women that get pregnant liked it anyway."

"Rape is terrible, but we should punish the rapist and not the child." is much less disgusting an interpretation of that 20% demographic.

Well, I was going to make an argument that the "no exceptions, not even for rape and incest" was formerly a fringe position, but when I look at the numbers, they don't support that. Looks like that position has enjoyed 15-20% support for pretty much ever since Roe v. Wade. Lowest was around 12% in 1990 and 1995. Highest (at least by Gallup's numbers) was around 23% in May 2009. Gallup currently has that position at about 20%.

That was eye-opening to see, because that was not a position that was often espoused by even conservative politicians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 21, 2012, 10:46:28 am

This CNN article seems apropos. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/20/leading-social-conservatives-rally-to-akins-defense/?hpt=hp_bn3)

Quote from: Family Research Council

"We feel this is a case of gotcha politics," Mackey told reporters in Tampa, where the Republican National Committee was gathering ahead of the party's convention next week. "He has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We've worked with him up on the hill. He's a defender of life."

"Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here," she added. "I don't know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it."

Then they plant this cherry firmly on top of the whip cream.

Quote

"He should be careful because based on some of his statements there may be some call for him to get out of his race," Perkins said of Brown. "He has been off the reservation on a number of Republican issues, conservative issues I should say. His support among conservatives is very shallow."

See, 'Gotcha' politics is only bad when it's from the outside coming in. When it's on the inside going to the inside, why, it's just maintaining good party discipline.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 21, 2012, 11:32:58 am

It may also be a polling artefact: persons that are against abortion will say they're against it in all case, forgetting about those moral dilemna like rape and incest. I should go and look up the exact questions they asked.

EDIT: The question was "Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstance, legal in some circumstance, or illegal in all circumstance." A lot of people probably answered illegal without thinking about those special, harder cases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 21, 2012, 11:54:54 am

Well... a lot of people do not think...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 21, 2012, 12:25:15 pm

I linked this list of polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm) because it lets you compare wordings and options. I particularly the like the most recent Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll options;

 "Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

Results: 19/36/25/17, 3% unsure.

So that's 17% saying illegal in all even when given the 'illegal in most' option. There is a similarly worded Pew poll down the page that shows similar results; 16% taking the illegal in all option. Finally there is the Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey from 2010 that explicitly asked about rape. The wording;

 "Which of these comes closest to your views about abortion? A woman should be able to get an abortion if she decides she wants one no matter what the reason. Abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances, such as when a woman's health is endangered or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."

This pushed the percentage of those saying illegal in all circumstances down... to 15%.

The Gallup numbers (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx) are actually worse. The latest (2011) poll asking solely about cases of rape or incest showed 22% saying abortion should be illegal in those cases. It also showed 15% opposed when the woman's health is at risk and 13% opposed when her life is endangered.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 12:30:30 pm

Recent story on NPR indicated that the Republican party is planning to unveil in Tampa, as one of their official platform planks, a call for a constitutional ban against abortion with no exemptions.

Seconded by CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/politics/gop-anti-abortion-platform/index.html) and WaPo.

That puts them at odds with at least 80% of the American population. So yeah, I don't think it's a strawman at this point.  :-\
The fringe is officially running the show in the GOP.

It's actually kind of relieving. If they had stuck to running just on the economy, they might have had a chance against Obama. But they couldn't resist the urge to delve into the culture war, which is not a winning proposition for them in many parts of the country. I'm betting Team Romney is probably banging their heads into the wall and throwing darts at pictures of Todd Akin today.


EDIT: Rep. Steve King (R-IA) chimed in to back Akin and says "I've never heard of a girl getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest" (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php). Presumedly because his head is so far up his ass that his hearing is severely impacted.

DOUBLE-EDIT: Okay, so after reading the article fully, King's comment wasn't nearly so pants-on-head retarded, though it still implies that such a thing is incredibly rare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 12:31:51 pm

@palsch
I'm not really that surprised by any of those numbers. For that last one, with the mother's life being endangered, I'm willing to bet the people checking "always illegal" are assuming the child would live if the mother died (don't most such complications involve late term pregnancy anyway? so it's not a huge leap). A lot of people would choose an older person to die over a younger one.


The only opinion that would shock me would be those wanting both dead over having an abortion, but then again I want to strangle most deontologists who do everything on their arbitrary moral principle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 21, 2012, 12:33:10 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 12:30:30 pm

Recent story on NPR indicated that the Republican party is planning to unveil in Tampa, as one of their official platform planks, a call for a constitutional ban against abortion with no exemptions.

Oh my god, the GOP's party leaders are reactionary morons.

I've heard it said that all Obama has to do to win this election is to, whenever the GOP announces something, go out on a podium in front of the Associated Press and state "I do not agree with that." I'm starting to believe that might really be the case.

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 12:31:51 pm

The only opinion that would shock me would be those wanting both dead over having an abortion, but then again I want to strangle most deontologists who do everything on their arbitrary moral principle.

Trust me, there are people like that. It's what God wants, after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 12:36:49 pm

Yeah, I know there are. These are the same people who don't consider "steal a loaf of bread to feed starving family" to be an acceptable choice, since stealing = bad.


Having no regard for circumstance is one of the things I'd personally classify as "evil."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 21, 2012, 12:37:30 pm

Steve King joining the party. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php)

Mix this with some of the comments around the Assange case and it really is say something stupid about rape week in the political world.

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 12:31:51 pm

The only opinion that would shock me would be those wanting both dead over having an abortion, but then again I want to strangle most deontologists who do everything on their arbitrary moral principle.

First case to come to mind. (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/18/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) But other than personal experience from online abortion debates I can't really say how many people would support such action in the USA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 21, 2012, 02:48:09 pm

Here's a PPP poll of the Missouri senate race: Here (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/08/akin-44-mccaskill-43.html#more).

Akin-R: 44
McCaskill-D: 43 (Incumbent)

Basically, what PPP finds is that it is unchanged from their May poll (a 45-44 lead for Akin); of course, as with all single polls take it with a grain of salt and never read to much into one poll.  But still, a Republican could eat a kitten on live television and still get 35% of the vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on August 21, 2012, 02:53:57 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 21, 2012, 12:37:30 pm

Steve King joining the party. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php)

For a second there I thought Steven King (the famous horror writer), and was all sad. But I guess its just some random politician, so I am happier again (although the fact that he represents so many people in the house makes me a bit sad again).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 03:00:28 pm

Quote from: Jervill on August 21, 2012, 02:48:09 pm

Here's a PPP poll of the Missouri senate race: Here (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/08/akin-44-mccaskill-43.html#more).

Akin-R: 44
McCaskill-D: 43 (Incumbent)

Basically, what PPP finds is that it is unchanged from their May poll (a 45-44 lead for Akin); of course, as with all single polls take it with a grain of salt and never read to much into one poll.  But still, a Republican could eat a kitten on live television and still get 35% of the vote.

Oh, I wouldn't even look at the polls this close to the event. Takes at least 3 days for stuff like this to really filter through the electorate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 21, 2012, 04:09:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 12:30:30 pm

Recent story on NPR indicated that the Republican party is planning to unveil in Tampa, as one of their official platform planks, a call for a constitutional ban against abortion with no exemptions.

This has been part of their party platform since 1976 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/21/republicans-set-to-endorse-abortion-ban-just-as-they-did-in-2008-and-2004-and-1976/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 04:11:44 pm

Could be that they're intentionally overshooting, so they can claim "compromise" if they get what they want in the first place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 21, 2012, 04:13:19 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 04:11:44 pm

Could be that they're intentionally overshooting, so they can claim "compromise" if they get what they want in the first place.

"President Obama agrees to Absolute-Abortion Ban Compromise after failure of Eternal-Abortion Ban Amendment."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 21, 2012, 04:15:58 pm

Quote from: Jervill on August 21, 2012, 02:48:09 pm

Basically, what PPP finds is that it is unchanged from their May poll (a 45-44 lead for Akin); of course, as with all single polls take it with a grain of salt and never read to much into one poll.  But still, a Republican could eat a kitten on live television and still get 35% of the vote.

May was a long time ago, before the primary wrapped up.  Since the primary, Akin was leading by a lot more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mo/missouri_senate_akin_vs_mccaskill-2079.html#polls

So he's actually lost a pretty big chunk of ground, about 5 points.  I would expect that he will continue to lose grounds for a few more days and actually be running behind, albeit slightly, by the time this is done sinking in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 21, 2012, 04:17:58 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on August 21, 2012, 02:53:57 pm

For a second there I thought Steven King (the famous horror writer), and was all sad. But I guess its just some random politician, so I am happier again (although the fact that he represents so many people in the house makes me a bit sad again).

See, I've been following this stuff long enough now Rep. Steve King is my default Steven King. Mostly because he is such a good source of dumbass quotes. I did a double take a while ago when he called Ron Paul 'dangerous'. Basically;

Quote

Steve King. Steve fucking King. The man who spoke up for racial profiling, who lead (and funded) the charge to recall three judges who struck down a same-sex marriage ban, who voted against the Katrina aid package, who defended the role of lobbyists in health care legislation, who was disavowed by the McCain campaign for saying flat out bigoted bullshit about Obama, who was the sole vote against recognising that slaves played a role in building the Capitol, who supported Barton's apology to BP over the Gulf oil spill, and who Bachmann "would encourage .. to consider any position for higher office."

Just keeping this straight. Because, as King knows, not keeping straight breeds socialism.

Good Slacktivist piece on the abortion issue (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/21/rep-todd-akins-views-typical-in-anti-abortion-religious-right/) and the prominence of Akin's views within the religious right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 21, 2012, 04:24:28 pm

Wow, I had no idea King was a conservative wonk. Conservative, sure, but the wonkiness surprises me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 21, 2012, 04:25:14 pm

The best part about that is how Bachmann praising or disavowing him would be equally damning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on August 21, 2012, 07:09:34 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 21, 2012, 12:33:10 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 12:31:51 pm

The only opinion that would shock me would be those wanting both dead over having an abortion, but then again I want to strangle most deontologists who do everything on their arbitrary moral principle.

Trust me, there are people like that. It's what God wants, after all.

Quote

"They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official [Catholic] church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make." [emphasis added]

From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072, in which a nun is excommunicated for allowing an abortion in exactly the situation kaijyuu describes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 21, 2012, 07:21:48 pm

Friends don't let friends go to religious hospitals in potentially life-threatening situations... or for delivering babies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 21, 2012, 07:24:25 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 21, 2012, 07:21:48 pm

religious hospitals

The literal definition of an oxymoron.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 07:27:22 pm

Don't a lot of hospitals have chapels?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 21, 2012, 07:28:53 pm

A lot different then the entire base of the hospital being founded on something inherently unscientific.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 21, 2012, 07:32:19 pm

Pfft. Who needs that? Leeches suck out one's ills well enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on August 21, 2012, 07:39:00 pm

I really and truly wish I had more to contribute than my own bemusement with this line of discussion, but when I say more I generally get batted down because I'm not supposed to read hostility into words like this. I know I have no right to reading a thread I don't read hostility into, but honestly. I'm probably imagining it all, aren't I?

I'm also really tired of people being ignorant of history who disapprove of other people being ignorant, but that's a separate issue altogether.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 21, 2012, 07:39:26 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 21, 2012, 07:24:25 pm

Quote from: Zangi on August 21, 2012, 07:21:48 pm

religious hospitals

The literal definition of an oxymoron.

Quote

The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.

  From the NPR article.

Founded and run by the Sisters of Mercy. (http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/index.htm)  They are a Catholic group (http://www.sistersofmercy.org/)...  It seems to mean that the head Nuns of that group call the shots, as indicated by the NPR article.  The next one to fall under a similar situation?  The head nun is probably going to say no if it is against their religious belief.

And yes, religious people can, do and have been providing medical service and the likes for...  .... a long time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 21, 2012, 07:46:53 pm

Quote from: Willfor on August 21, 2012, 07:39:00 pm

I'm also really tired of people being ignorant of history who disapprove of other people being ignorant, but that's a separate issue altogether.

You're doing your usual "vague criticism of noone in particular" thing, but I do agree with you here.  Plenty of religious groups have historically provided healthcare and to suggest they are at odds is incorrect.  The problem is more that the Catholic Church has some pretty harmful views on healthcare provision at present.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 21, 2012, 07:48:48 pm

Any historical provision of healthcare by religious organizations is irrelevant in the modern world, where religious dogma is purely a hindrance to providing care instead of an incentive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 21, 2012, 08:55:38 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 21, 2012, 07:48:48 pm

Any historical provision of healthcare by religious organizations is irrelevant in the modern world, where religious dogma is purely a hindrance to providing care instead of an incentive.

Exactly. You folks seem to be ignoring the fact that this is how a majority of these religious 'hospitals' work. Dogma first, medical science last. I don't give a shit if it's Christian or Hindu, valuing a set of archaic beliefs over actual science is a hindrance to modern medicine, as shown by the previous example specifically [albeit in an extreme situation, the point is that things along those lines aren't uncommon] as, guess what, reading the bible doesn't give you any actual knowledge of any type of physiology/biology.

Unless there's a herefore-unknown physiology and science based bible out there, in which case I'd convert to that.

Also; pointing out to the Jew that religion has provided healthcare to people in the past is like explaining to me how grass is green. That's not my point at all. It's the whole issue of a damn medical science being based out of something inherently non scientific which bothers me in the modern era of actual medical science and technology, but I guess that's just the futurist in me coming out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on August 21, 2012, 08:59:00 pm

Uh.

I have a copy of A. C. Grayling's Humanist Bible in my bedroom. I haven't read it entirely yet... But I think it counts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 21, 2012, 09:03:02 pm

Quote from: Descan on August 21, 2012, 08:59:00 pm

Uh.

I have a copy of A. C. Grayling's Humanist Bible in my bedroom. I haven't read it entirely yet... But I think it counts.

I mean actual religious texts, not modern day Humanist writings. I've never read it, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on August 21, 2012, 09:16:53 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 21, 2012, 09:03:02 pm

Quote from: Descan on August 21, 2012, 08:59:00 pm

Uh.

I have a copy of A. C. Grayling's Humanist Bible in my bedroom. I haven't read it entirely yet... But I think it counts.

I mean actual religious texts, not modern day Humanist writings. I've never read it, though.

Well it's based on writings from philosophers, and yes, religious writers through the ages. At least, that's what it says on the blurb. xD

But yeah, it's a recent publication... but then, so is science. You take what you can get, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 09:29:34 pm

I think it's bullshit to say that because a hospital is funded by the Catholic church, it's inherently unscientific. Ditto for the hundreds of Catholic (and other denomination-affiliated) universities. Even publications. Christian Science is as wacky and unscientific a sect as you get IMHO, but they are responsible for the Christian Science Monitor, a pre-eminent, rigorous journal which is one of the best political science rags out there.

Heck, even the Mormons have made some tremendous contributions in the areas of genealogy and DNA sequencing, thanks to their odd dogmatic obsession with tracing family trees and retroactively converting one's dead ancestors. You don't have to believe in the religion motivating these things to appreciate the end results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 21, 2012, 09:33:51 pm

I really didn't think it was necessary for me to explain that that isn't how every single one of those institutions worked, because that's pretty damn obvious and I don't go defending unneeded points. What I'm saying is, in the cases of hospitals such as the previous linked, there are a good chunk of those institutions that value dogma more than actual medicine, and if you don't see that, I'm a bit baffled.

Being religious doesn't mean you can't be scientific and or medically knowledgeable, it's when the religiousness impedes on their actual contribution to their field that it should be taken into very large consideration that maybe in modern day medicine religions should have zero to do with any of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 21, 2012, 09:36:54 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 21, 2012, 09:29:34 pm

I think it's bullshit to say that because a hospital is funded by the Catholic church, it's inherently unscientific. Ditto for the hundreds of Catholic (and other denomination-affiliated) universities. Even publications. Christian Science is as wacky and unscientific a sect as you get IMHO, but they are responsible for the Christian Science Monitor, a pre-eminent, rigorous journal which is one of the best political science rags out there.

Heck, even the Mormons have made some tremendous contributions in the areas of genealogy and DNA sequencing, thanks to their odd dogmatic obsession with tracing family trees and retroactively converting one's dead ancestors. You don't have to believe in the religion motivating these things to appreciate the end results.

And yet, even when they do get results, religions still do bad things with them, such as listing other people's dead relatives and holocaust victims as Mormons without consent.

Plus, Christian Science, if I recall, is all about the faith healing. I have to say that I won't ever stop doubting the Christian Science Monitor because of that, even if they haven't done anything bad so far.

There's always an ulterior motive. Religious institutions have long since proven that they are untrustworthy to a fault when it comes to matters of science.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 21, 2012, 09:41:23 pm

Do other religions have a problem with Mormons baptizing the dead in absentia?  My take on the fact that the Mormons will someday baptize a little piece of paper with my name on it is that it has zero bearing on my faith.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on August 21, 2012, 09:41:59 pm

Well, this sure didn't take long.

I have no one but myself to blame for "policing" this thread, but it's hard to think why I should bother, when it's going to come back around to this every two days.

And now you know why they call them political junkies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on August 21, 2012, 11:25:12 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on August 21, 2012, 09:41:59 pm

Well, this sure didn't take long.

I have no one but myself to blame for "policing" this thread, but it's hard to think why I should bother, when it's going to come back around to this every two days.

And now you know why they call them political junkies.

QFT. This is a thread for discussing the upcoming American elections. Not for bitching about every little thing you don't like in the world that can be tangentially tied to the elections. There's a place for that. It's called /b/.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Look at this thread. Now back at yourself. Now back at this thread. Now back at yourself. You are not on 4chan. You are on Bay12, a much-superior forum site in intelligence to 4chan.

(http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/paul-ryan-tmz-500x590.jpg)

Paul Ryan is shirtless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 23, 2012, 12:18:37 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-holds-lead-ohio-slips-florida-wisconsin-poll-104836458.html

Obama is starting to fall in Florida and Wisconsin, but not Ohio.

I for one have done my part to counter that trend by bringing 4 voters (myself included) into the state of Florida, not much more that I can do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 23, 2012, 02:08:40 pm

Fear of a Black President. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/?single_page=true)

There is no shorter version. Worth the time to read it all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 23, 2012, 03:01:24 pm

Some new aggregate poll data:

Claire McCaskell is now up by +10 in her Senate race against Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. Now that the national GOP and the biggest superPACs have cut off the funding spigot, this will likely widen over the remaining months.

Battleground state polls (with margin of change since my last poll roundup on 8/16)

Ohio: Obama +2 (-1.0)
Florida: TIE (-1.0)
Wisconsin: Obama +1.4 (-3.1)
Virginia: Obama +2 (+1.3)
North Carolina/Colorado: No new poll data -- NO CHANGE

Obama national margin today: +1.5
Obama national margin this date in 2008: +1.6
Kerry national margin this date in 2004: +0.7

RCP's electoral map shows a drop in the "safe" Obama electoral votes from 231 to 221, because Michigan is now considered "in play", despite polls showing a 5-9 point advantage for Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 23, 2012, 03:49:00 pm

Michigan's average on RCP (Obama +3.8) seems to be skewed by Baydoun/Foster (D) reporting Romney +4, while every other polling company says Obama +5/6.  They did seem to have the biggest sample, but as it links to Fox News I'm not trusting it.

So if you add Michigan's 16 places back on that gives Obama 237.  Which would leave him in the position of win Florida plus any other swing state to win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 23, 2012, 03:53:04 pm

except that florida is looking like a nearly dead heat right now

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 23, 2012, 04:00:47 pm

Yeah, that's why I said he has to win it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 23, 2012, 04:33:16 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/signs-point-romney-victory-except-one-very-big-160549179.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 23, 2012, 04:47:42 pm

All signs except the data point to Romney winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 23, 2012, 05:00:48 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on August 23, 2012, 03:49:00 pm

Michigan's average on RCP (Obama +3.8) seems to be skewed by Baydoun/Foster (D) reporting Romney +4, while every other polling company says Obama +5/6.  They did seem to have the biggest sample, but as it links to Fox News I'm not trusting it.

So if you add Michigan's 16 places back on that gives Obama 237.  Which would leave him in the position of win Florida plus any other swing state to win.

If that's the same Baydoun/Foster that Nate talks about here (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/aug-20-when-the-polling-gets-weird/) then there have been noted irregularities in their polls already. Their Florida poll had the demographics all over the place.

Quote

But once in a great while, a poll comes along with methodology that is so implausible that it deserves some further comment. The Foster McCollum White Baydoun poll of Florida is one such survey.

The poll was weighted to a demographic estimate that predicts that just 2 percent of Florida voters will be 30 or younger. It’s a decent bet that turnout will be down some among younger voters this year, but that isn’t a realistic estimate. In 2008, according to exit polls, 15 percent of voters in Florida were between 18 and 30.

The poll also assumed that 10 percent of voters will be between the ages of 31 and 50. In 2008, the actual percentage was 36 percent, according to the exit survey.

The poll projected Latinos to be 7 percent of the turnout in Florida, against 14 percent in 2008. And it has African-American turnout at 10 percent, down from 13 percent.

If the turnout numbers look something like that in November, then Mr. Obama will lose Florida badly. He’ll also lose almost every other state; his electoral map might look a lot like Walter Mondale’s.

The Michigan poll shows up in Nate's numbers. His average is +3.1 (47.1/44.0), but his adjusted average is +5.0 (48.0/43.0). Given his straight average is usually more mathematically reliable than RCP (whose polling averages are utterly shit for multiple reasons) I'd say the RCP average is actually generously biased towards Obama even with the strange poll. On the other hand, Nate's adjusted averages have earned my trust for their predictive powers. I'd say the polling does show the lead fairly narrow but that realistically it's still a 5 point race and expected to inflate out to 7% by the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 23, 2012, 05:34:01 pm

I wouldn't count on Florida going to Obama.  There's a much more reliable route to 270 if he just nabs Ohio and Virginia:  http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=tgf

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 23, 2012, 06:00:44 pm

Exactly. Obama doesn't need Florida. But if he carries Florida, he's virtually guaranteed to win. That said, Ohio might be the harder of the two states for him to carry, depending on who believes the latest coal hysteria.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on August 23, 2012, 06:10:49 pm

I'd think Virginia would be more Coalish than Ohio. Ohio's got some large cities that aren't all owned by coal. Virginia? Not so easy I'd say.


On  a totally unrelated note, Mayor Stubbs has never to my knowledge claimed that Forcable rape that leads to pregnancy is consentual. He's only a mayor and already more tactful than a senator hopeful. It's time to pick the right cat for the job.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 23, 2012, 06:12:11 pm

Ohio also has the auto industry, which should make it more friendly to Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 23, 2012, 06:17:17 pm

I'd be very surprised if coal make much of an impact on this race in any of the swing states.  If you look at the polls though, Obama has consistantly lead in Ohio while Florida has been pretty mixed.  Seeing as there hasn't been any evidence yet of the Ryan VP pick hurting Romney with older voters that demographic gives Romney a good shot in Florida.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html#polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html#polls

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 23, 2012, 06:35:54 pm

The latest coal scare isn't just about mining. According to Romney, new "Typical Obama" regulations on coal will cause electricity prices to skyrocket. According to independent analysis, the new regulations will have negligible financial impact, and date back to Bush-era legislation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 23, 2012, 06:43:00 pm

Okay but I still don't see how that will have a big impact.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 24, 2012, 09:38:45 am

Akin calls for this charade to end:

St. Louis, MO: The following statement was released by Perry Akin, Campaign Manager for Todd Akin for Senate, in response to the Rasmussen poll released this morning:

“The fact that Claire McCaskill is only polling at 48% after 72 hours of constant negative attacks on Todd Akin shows just how weak she is. If she can’t break fifty percent after a week like this, Democrats should ask Claire to step down. Todd is in this race to win; we will close this gap and win in November with the support of the grassroots in Missouri and across America.”

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 09:46:10 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 24, 2012, 09:38:45 am

Akin calls for this charade to end:

St. Louis, MO: The following statement was released by Perry Akin, Campaign Manager for Todd Akin for Senate, in response to the Rasmussen poll released this morning:

“The fact that Claire McCaskill is only polling at 48% after 72 hours of constant negative attacks on Todd Akin shows just how weak she is. If she can’t break fifty percent after a week like this, Democrats should ask Claire to step down. Todd is in this race to win; we will close this gap and win in November with the support of the grassroots in Missouri and across America.”

That's pretty ballsy. In effect, they said, "Wow! Because I'm such a dickbag, the fact you're only beating me by TEN percentage points means you're bad and you should feel bad!" Talk about spin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 24, 2012, 09:51:37 am

Sadly the fact that you rejected it shows this probably wasn't a legitimate silver lining.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 24, 2012, 10:00:19 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 24, 2012, 09:38:45 am

St. Louis, MO: The following statement was released by Perry Akin, Campaign Manager for Todd Akin for Senate, in response to the Rasmussen poll released this morning:

Notice something about his campaign manager's name? That's Todd's son. And Todd Akin's wife serves as his other top advisor.

This is fairly common in local politics up to around the State House level. Once you get to the national stage it's pretty much a terrible idea. Most House races involve professional campaign teams. For a Senate race to be run by family members is a sure sign of absurdity.

At least one of the Republican calls for him to resign used this point, (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/politics/akin-controversy/index.html) saying he operates in, "an insular environment," and, "lives in a parallel universe."

As for McCaskill's polling, I'd be shocked if she got more than that 48% given that only a few days ago she had a 53% disapproval rate (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/08/akin-still-leads-mccaskill-by-a-point.html). If both those numbers are accurate then she is already getting supporters who previously actively disliked the job she is doing. It does look like Akin's remarks have galvanised Democratic support behind her while shaking his Republican supporters (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/republican-voters-could-sit-out-missouri-senate-race/). Given that there is a Libertarian candidate running there is a strong chance he will lose some of those supporters for good.


And looking back at Nate Silver, this is a good reminder of why us polling geeks love him (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/aug-23-seven-ways-to-evaluate-a-poll/).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 10:15:02 am

Quote from: palsch on August 24, 2012, 10:00:19 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 24, 2012, 09:38:45 am

St. Louis, MO: The following statement was released by Perry Akin, Campaign Manager for Todd Akin for Senate, in response to the Rasmussen poll released this morning:

Notice something about his campaign manager's name? That's Todd's son. And Todd Akin's wife serves as his other top advisor.

This is fairly common in local politics up to around the State House level. Once you get to the national stage it's pretty much a terrible idea. Most House races involve professional campaign teams. For a Senate race to be run by family members is a sure sign of absurdity.

"How am I doing in the polls? Should I bow out?"
"Well...."
"Let me remind you that I haven't given you your allowance yet this week."
"You're doing great, Dad!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 24, 2012, 01:08:38 pm

I have about 20 pages to catch up on.  It's going to take me a while.  So in the meantime, I don't know if this has been posted here yet, but it's worth mention if not.

About 40% of the investments that launched Bain Capital came from families who were prominent in the organization of death squads in El Salvador in the 80s. (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/10/romneys_death_squad_ties_bain_launched)

So Romney seems to go beyond exemplifying your generally sleazy politician.  He's also fat on blood money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 01:11:54 pm

Allow me to explain. No....there is too much. Allow me to sum up:

bla-bla-bla-Medicare
bla-bla-bla-gun control
bla-bla-bla-crusade
bla-bla-bla-Toady mutehammer
bla-bla-bla-religion and medicine
bla-bla-bla-polls

So now we're semi-rerailed. Welcome back!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:12:40 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 24, 2012, 01:08:38 pm

I have about 20 pages to catch up on.  It's going to take me a while.  So in the meantime, I don't know if this has been posted here yet, but it's worth mention if not.

Don't worry, most of it is un-election-related derailrguments.

edit: RedKing learned Ninja Arts in China, apparently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 01:18:48 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:12:40 pm

edit: RedKing learned Ninja Arts in China, apparently.

WAH-POW!
(http://punchpin.com/thumbs/all_files/2012/03/19/379_www.karatekidzonline.com.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 24, 2012, 01:20:52 pm

Still on a more advanced level of political debate than I get anywhere else, so reading it keeps me sharp.  I might skip the gun control portion, though.  Getting kinda sick of that topic lately.

But mostly I was just disclaimering on the slight chance that link might have been posted already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 24, 2012, 01:25:12 pm

I think this quote is worth reading at least.

Quote from: mainiac on August 24, 2012, 09:38:45 am

St. Louis, MO: The following statement was released by Perry Akin, Campaign Manager for Todd Akin for Senate, in response to the Rasmussen poll released this morning:

“The fact that Claire McCaskill is only polling at 48% after 72 hours of constant negative attacks on Todd Akin shows just how weak she is. If she can’t break fifty percent after a week like this, Democrats should ask Claire to step down. Todd is in this race to win; we will close this gap and win in November with the support of the grassroots in Missouri and across America.”

Edit: Speaking of completely bizarre gloating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDE3RBUfzM

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 24, 2012, 01:27:45 pm

I believe we did talk about the Romney funded by death squads thing it in passing, something about Romney being a bad caricature of the comic book evil ceo archetype.

Oh. And there is this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-judge-warns-possible-civil-war-president-obama-230545603.html

Yep, cause Obama is gonna sell us out to the United Nations and send in the UN troops to invade America, we need to raise taxes and hire more sheriffs deputies to fight in the civil war against socialism that might raise your taxes and pay for more sheriffs deputies.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 01:36:47 pm

There's a lot of crossposting between here, the progressive not-rage thread, the WTF thread, and the "Amazingly Stupid Things You Heard People Say" thread.

Not out of inattention or confusion on the part of the posters, mostly just because the campaign season is filled with with so many WTF-stupid things that induce rage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 24, 2012, 01:38:33 pm

See this is why it was a bad idea to give the UN that huge army they have.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 24, 2012, 01:40:11 pm

It is seriously messed up how much of a joke the Peacekeepers are. Not only do they never actually keep the peace, but they've set up sex slavery rings in places they've been deployed more than once.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:53:49 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 24, 2012, 01:18:48 pm

Quote from: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:12:40 pm

edit: RedKing learned Ninja Arts in China, apparently.

WAH-POW!
(http://punchpin.com/thumbs/all_files/2012/03/19/379_www.karatekidzonline.com.jpg)

Now he is... American NINJA _(VII)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 25, 2012, 02:46:18 pm

Thoughts on how Julius Assange is going to affect this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 25, 2012, 02:46:58 pm

Probably not at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 25, 2012, 02:58:43 pm

Obama use whistleblower to train his mad ninja skill before ripping Ben Laden's clones apart from atop a Giant Bald Eagle, and Romney would probably support trying Assange for espionage. So they have nothing to argue about here.

EDIT: The Republican Convention is delayed for fear of a tropical storm. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/08/2012825234340264209.html) Apparently in 2008 it was a hurricane. When you attack the climate, the climate strike back!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 26, 2012, 05:56:38 am

Curious if anyone on that side of the aisle has found a way to blame Obama, the Democrats or Iran for the storm yet.
Also, pansies. Just board up the windows of the Tampa Convention Center and break out the kegs. That's what everyone ELSE on the Florida coast would do.

On a personal note, I just realized Paul Ryan looks eerily like my dentist. If he starts making stump speeches about the need for Americans to floss more, I'm officially gonna be freaked out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 08:18:20 am

Quote from: RedKing on August 26, 2012, 05:56:38 am

Curious if anyone on that side of the aisle has found a way to blame Obama, the Democrats or Iran for the storm yet.

"President Obama uses contacts within the Democrats to contact Socialist Muslim Weather Nuke Machine allies in Iran, refuses to explain self to American people."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on August 26, 2012, 10:38:14 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 24, 2012, 01:40:11 pm

It is seriously messed up how much of a joke the Peacekeepers are. Not only do they never actually keep the peace, but they've set up sex slavery rings in places they've been deployed more than once.

And now I'm thinking of the Hunger Games Peacekeepers. Which is probably how most of the Republican party views the UN Peacekeepers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 26, 2012, 06:05:17 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 26, 2012, 05:56:38 am

Curious if anyone on that side of the aisle has found a way to blame Obama, the Democrats or Iran for the storm yet.

Don't be stupid, the hurricane is clearly a false-flag operation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 26, 2012, 06:27:41 pm

Make the godless heathens think that God hates the GOP so they'll be tricked into voting for the cause of justice thinking they're supporting Satan?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 06:38:18 pm

Apparently Ron Paul has refused to attend the convention after being informed he is required to declare support for Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 26, 2012, 06:46:47 pm

So is he going to hold a convention in the sister city (St. Petersburg, in this case) like he did in 2008?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 27, 2012, 09:14:40 am

Why is he required to declare support?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2012, 09:15:44 am

The party leaders say so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 27, 2012, 09:16:18 am

At least he's not being dragged out back and shot for not declaring support.


EDIT:

How to appeal to younger voters:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-8x8scNh/0/L/i-8x8scNh-X3.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 27, 2012, 10:06:59 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 27, 2012, 09:16:18 am

How to appeal to younger voters:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-8x8scNh/0/L/i-8x8scNh-X3.jpg)

Oh that's brilliant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 27, 2012, 01:21:06 pm

Now coming to a workplace near you: mandatory campaigning. (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/25/744961/republican-federal-election-commission-members-say-corporations-can-compel-employees-to-campaign-for-political-candidates/?mobile=nc)

Though I'd really like to see a less biased article on this...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2012, 01:39:02 pm

Well, if you follow the trail of links, what you find is that the original case involved a labor union ostensibly requiring the union employees (not union members, but the actual employees of the union itself) to participate in phone-banking, campaigning, etc. for a Democratic candidate. Three employees claimed they were fired for refusing. The union got slapped with a fine by FEC.

What this is all over was two of the FEC members (who were Republicans) dissenting, saying that they don't think the coercion portion should be considered illegal, only the lack of reporting of expenditures. It's kind of boggle logic, but it's not really a partisan thing, given all the elements. And it was only a dissenting opinion, not a law being made.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on August 27, 2012, 01:40:30 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 27, 2012, 01:39:02 pm

Well, if you follow the trail of links, what you find is that the original case involved a labor union ostensibly requiring the union employees (not union members, but the actual employees of the union itself) to participate in phone-banking, campaigning, etc. for a Democratic candidate. Three employees claimed they were fired for refusing. The union got slapped with a fine by FEC.

What this is all over was two of the FEC members (who were Republicans) dissenting, saying that they don't think the coercion portion should be considered illegal, only the lack of reporting of expenditures. It's kind of boggle logic, but it's not really a partisan thing, given all the elements. And it was only a dissenting opinion, not a law being made.

Right. Carry on, then, folks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 02:27:36 pm

Also, I don't see how this differ much from the statu quo. Pay an ad agency or have your employee do the job, what's the difference? (Well, except employees will be utterly demotivated and possible  have a negative effect on your candidate. :p )

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 27, 2012, 03:11:41 pm

Quote from: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 02:27:36 pm

Also, I don't see how this differ much from the statu quo. Pay an ad agency or have your employee do the job, what's the difference? (Well, except employees will be utterly demotivated and possible  have a negative effect on your candidate. :p )

Well, and in most jurisdictions it's illegal to force your employees to support a certain candidate. Especially on their own, unpaid time (which is what the union was doing).

Smacks of late 1800's type shenanigans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 03:15:34 pm

Oh, if it's on their own time, then yeah, it sucks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2012, 03:17:01 pm

That said, I find the implication that there are pro-GOP union workers out there interesting, given that the GOP would see unions banned nationwide.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on August 27, 2012, 03:22:37 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2012, 03:17:01 pm

That said, I find the implication that there are pro-GOP union workers out there interesting, given that the GOP would see unions banned nationwide.

No, the implication is that corporations can do it (who DO support the GOP).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 03:28:55 pm

No, the implication is that there are pro-"Let me spend my afternoon watching TV rather than pestering people for a candidate I don't care about" union workers. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 27, 2012, 03:38:11 pm

These are union employees. Who knows if they even support the union's existence beyond giving them a paycheck.

Besides, if my boss told me I had to campaign for someone (I don't care who, even if I agreed with the candidate) I'd be pretty pissed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2012, 04:10:46 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 27, 2012, 03:38:11 pm

These are union employees.

Ah, this makes sense.  It's a matter of personal conscience vs. "this is what you were hired to do, genius."  In that case I come down on the latter.  Corporations and unions are perfectly free to hire people to lobby for a cause whatever way they see fit.  Maybe they shouldn't be but that's a matter of arguing how much they should be allowed to influence people, a completely different matter.  It would also be a different matter if organizations that weren't political in nature demanded that people do politics.  That would be a troubling precedent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 04:15:04 pm

The problem is that apparently the Union wanted them to support the candidate on their spare time. Not as part of the job.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 27, 2012, 04:20:44 pm

Quote from: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 04:15:04 pm

The problem is that apparently the Union wanted them to support the candidate on their spare time. Not as part of the job.

They should join a union that would fight for their workers rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 27, 2012, 04:23:18 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 27, 2012, 04:20:44 pm

Quote from: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 04:15:04 pm

The problem is that apparently the Union wanted them to support the candidate on their spare time. Not as part of the job.

They should join a union that would fight for their workers rights.

Har har :P



To me the issue is whether it's in the job description. A random secretary shouldn't be expected to picket for the union they're working for. A pizza delivery boy shouldn't be expected to put "vote so and so" stickers on their car. But a campaign manager should be expected to express support for their candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 27, 2012, 05:42:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2012, 03:17:01 pm

That said, I find the implication that there are pro-GOP union workers out there interesting, given that the GOP would see unions banned nationwide.

Most union workers (especially in non-RtW states) are largely apathetic when it comes to their union. They pay their dues, strike/etc when requested, do their jobs, and go home happy but no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else. A small minority (again, moreso in non-RtW states) actually dislike being in a union and having to pay dues for things they disagree with, but have to due to agreements between the employer and union. It varies quite a bit, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 27, 2012, 10:49:35 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 27, 2012, 05:42:23 pm

Most union workers (especially in non-RtW states) are largely apathetic when it comes to their union.

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 27, 2012, 05:42:23 pm

no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else.

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo that it was opposite day again?

The implication that unionized workers aren't supportive of unions in a country where it's very difficult for unions to organize is just silly.  If a majority of the employees at a workplace don't actively support the union, there is no union.  In fact unions in this country are still fighting for the right to organize with just a simple majority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check)  Right now they need more then majority support in a shop and they need to sustain that support through an average of three years of stalling by management during which time management looks for excuses to fire the pro union workers.  And that's three years on average, sometimes management actually plays fair and lets a vote go straight away (unionization wins over 90% of the votes where management plays let's votes go forward without delay or suppression) while other times the stalling goes for a lot more then 3 years.  And the NLRB hands out wrist slaps at worst for interfering with unionization votes.  So no, there is no freakin' way in hell that most union workers don't support their unions, if a majority did not actively support their union there would be no union.


The notion that unionized households don't vote democratic has a certain Steve Levitt-esqe counter-intuitive appeal but is just (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/the-effects-of-union-membership-on-democratic-voting/) wrong (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/in-politics-demographics-are-not-destiny/).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 03:25:30 am

What's RtW? Right to Work? What does it mean actually?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 06:48:52 am

http://bit.ly/TnUlhb

tl;dr a law that makes it virtually impossible for a union to be successful at accruing real power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 07:00:46 am

I wasn't even sure it was Right to Work, and googling RtW didn't bring anything significant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 28, 2012, 08:39:29 am

CNN is declaring North Carolina a toss up. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/27/north-carolina-moves-in-cnn-electoral-map/?hpt=hp_t2)

If CNN is at all right about this, then it's a big problem for Romney. He can't win without NC. Getting the entire South doesn't even guarantee him a win, so losing any one state from it would be devastating.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 10:09:22 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 27, 2012, 10:49:35 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 27, 2012, 05:42:23 pm

Most union workers (especially in non-RtW states) are largely apathetic when it comes to their union.

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 27, 2012, 05:42:23 pm

no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else.

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo that it was opposite day again?

The implication that unionized workers aren't supportive of unions in a country where it's very difficult for unions to organize is just silly.  If a majority of the employees at a workplace don't actively support the union, there is no union.  In fact unions in this country are still fighting for the right to organize with just a simple majority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check)  Right now they need more then majority support in a shop and they need to sustain that support through an average of three years of stalling by management during which time management looks for excuses to fire the pro union workers.  And that's three years on average, sometimes management actually plays fair and lets a vote go straight away (unionization wins over 90% of the votes where management plays let's votes go forward without delay or suppression) while other times the stalling goes for a lot more then 3 years.  And the NLRB hands out wrist slaps at worst for interfering with unionization votes.  So no, there is no freakin' way in hell that most union workers don't support their unions, if a majority did not actively support their union there would be no union.


The notion that unionized households don't vote democratic has a certain Steve Levitt-esqe counter-intuitive appeal but is just (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/the-effects-of-union-membership-on-democratic-voting/) wrong (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/in-politics-demographics-are-not-destiny/).

Have you ever worked at GM or Chrysler? Ever known someone who has? You're not describing the attitudes of most union members here.

A lot of unions aren't terribly anti-management and are effectively another job requirement for members. Yes, some unions are extremely anti-management/political, but that hardly characterizes all of them.

Naturally, those union members who vote are more likely to vote Democratic, but compare the percentage of Democratic voting union members compared to, say the number of Democratic voting blacks or Republican voting millionaires and you'd find that union members obviously aren't as radical as you think.

By the way, the provided sources actually show a measure of disagreement with you. To quote:

Quote

While being in a union is a statistically significant predictor of Democratic voting, this characteristic competes with, and is often outweighed by, any number of other factors. That means that, on the one hand, there is significant risk for Republicans in alienating union members: a lot of them are the very epitome of swing voters. On the other hand, it means that while Democrats are likely to do fairly well with union voters, those votes are far from certain. A union man is a union man, and also a lot of other things: he may be a father and a veteran and Hispanic and a churchgoing Catholic and a resident of Denver— and all of those things will tug in different ways on the choice he will get to make as a voter.

Whoops!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 28, 2012, 10:25:58 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 28, 2012, 08:39:29 am

CNN is declaring North Carolina a toss up. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/27/north-carolina-moves-in-cnn-electoral-map/?hpt=hp_t2)

If CNN is at all right about this, then it's a big problem for Romney. He can't win without NC. Getting the entire South doesn't even guarantee him a win, so losing any one state from it would be devastating.

Hmm.

My read on this is CNN had already wanted to shift the state based on previous polling and simply waited for their own poll to act as the trigger. These numbers are exactly in line with the current trend in NC; an average <1% lead with the last SurveyUSA showed a 43/43 tie changed from a +5 Romney lead previously - a much clearer trigger for the change. Given that the CNN poll doesn't have any (recent) pass numbers to directly compare it with (no site I can find shows a comparable previous poll, going back about three months on most) you can't really say much about the trend from their new numbers, only that their numbers roughly agree with the current polling average.

Obama took NC by 0.3 points. He is unlikely to get the same national vote percentage he got in '08, and the demographics of NC strongly favour Romney. He would need a very strong and consistent local effect to win the state. I'd expect a strong local bump from the convention and convention activity, but whether that will persist is another question.

I'd say it's a winnable state, but as Nate suggested three weeks ago (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/aug-7-north-carolina-isnt-central-to-electoral-math/) (when he had the percentage odds as 67-33 Romney, and they haven't moved much) it's more about spending resources.

Quote

There are also some tactical aspects of campaign strategy, however, which complicate the analysis some. If Mr. Romney pulled out of North Carolina, while Mr. Obama continued to run ads there, it probably would move some toward Mr. Obama relative to the national average, and its importance would increase. Or if Mr. Obama ceased to run ads there, Mr. Romney would presumably no longer feel any temptation to call his bluff, and his campaign could deploy its $19 million elsewhere.

Still, even with all the money these campaigns have, they are probably going to narrow down their list of battlegrounds some as we get closer to Nov. 6. We aren’t likely to see either campaign pull out of the state before the Democratic convention in early September — but unless the polls in North Carolina begin to show leads for Mr. Obama on a more consistent basis, it will probably be among the first on the chopping block.

Given the convention bump, Obama can force Romney to burn more resources than him in NC for at least a little while. He can then see how the polling shakes out and whether it's worth making a stronger stand there or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 10:31:25 am

RedKing told us there was some anti-GOP sentiment in NC after they elected douchebags in 2010. This could be the local factor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 28, 2012, 10:39:00 am

You could say that, yeah. NC is one of those places where the political divide is very sharp and clear: High-populace, strongly liberal cities and low-populace, strongly conservative everywhere else. One triumphing over the other takes effort, and NC's liberals are unhappy with the current state government, to say the least. It helps that the lame-duck Democrat governor of NC has pretty much entirely stepped out of the spotlight, so she isn't hurting Obama's chances. Meanwhile, the GOP state Congress is doing all kinds of crazy shit like putting into law that climate change can't happen and putting fracking operations in people's watertables. They have a supermajority so the Governor's opinion doesn't matter, which is ironically what is going to end up hurting them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 28, 2012, 10:53:41 am

Quote from: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 10:31:25 am

RedKing told us there was some anti-GOP sentiment in NC after they elected douchebags in 2010. This could be the local factor.

Just to be clear on this, it would need to be very strong.

Using the numbers from 538, Nate has NC as a Romney +5.2 lead in state fundamentals. Obama's projected national lead is about 2.4%, ish. That means, if there were absolutely no extra local factors, Obama would be expected to lose NC by ~2.8%. Right now there appears to be an extra 2-2.5% Democratic effect on the local level, pulling Obama back to only a 0.3% on the straight average of polls.

The thing is, that's a pretty substantial local effect already, taking into account demographics and national lead. One thing worth watching will be whether that local effect increases much more than the national support levels during the convention bump, and more importantly how much of the local support sticks around as that bump fades. Nate's maths actually suggest that this figure isn't especially accurate and largely removes the entire local effect, which is worrying.

As far as general anti-Republican sentiment in NC I'd need to see a serious shift in the local numbers. This PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/06/perdue-numbers-hit-new-low-fracking-veto-could-help.html) (democratic leaning group) suggested that both state Republicans and Democrats had roughly equal disapproval ratings (-15% each) but with the Democratic governor really getting it in the neck (-29%). That despite that poll having a 44/36/20 Dem/Rep/Ind split, and exactly equal Obama/Romney voters.

Those are a month old now (15th July), so for that to be the local effect we are seeing in Obama's numbers this month we would need to see some strong shifts in those figures.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 11:09:32 am

Welcome to the GOP convention!

Spoiler: Huge Pic (click to show/hide)

http://tnypic.net/b8b13.png

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 28, 2012, 11:43:18 am

All paid for by the Floridian taxpayers?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 28, 2012, 11:45:42 am

They expecting a riot or something?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 28, 2012, 12:01:57 pm

Theres like... no one in the street... but maybe the picture taker was standing at the front of a crowd?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 12:44:27 pm

Just stnadard measure apparently, you don't want these pesky protesters getting in front of the cameras and ruining the multimillion PR ops.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 28, 2012, 01:21:07 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 28, 2012, 11:45:42 am

They expecting a riot or something?

I've seen a couple notices that Occupy is going to be putting in a major effort there, but I'm not expecting it to be that large.  I know several hundred locals have pledged attendance, who have said they're not worried about the storm.  There are supposed to be thousands more shuttling in from around the country, and I expect the storm to whittle away at those numbers.

Quote from: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 12:44:27 pm

Just stnadard measure apparently, you don't want these pesky protesters getting in front of the cameras and ruining the multimillion PR ops.

But yeah, both national conventions are always heavily militarized.  The DNC isn't any better.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/wegetupearlyslogan_1.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 01:39:50 pm

Was that the Chicago police T-shirt?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 28, 2012, 01:41:20 pm

Quote from: Sheb on August 28, 2012, 01:39:50 pm

Was that the Chicago police T-shirt?

Denver

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on August 28, 2012, 02:21:19 pm

Romney has no Foreign Policy (http://www.npr.org/2012/08/28/160170835/new-republic-romney-has-no-foreign-policy)

So... does anyone remember or know of Romney actually having something other then the opposite of what Obama has done?  Or can that be considered a coherent foreign policy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 03:36:08 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 10:09:22 am

Naturally, those union members who vote are more likely to vote Democratic, but compare the percentage of Democratic voting union members compared to, say the number of Democratic voting blacks or Republican voting millionaires and you'd find that union members obviously aren't as radical as you think.

Uh, wow, way to put words in my mouth man.  What I was doing was correcting the factually incorrect statement:

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 27, 2012, 05:42:23 pm

no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else.

At no point did I say that union members were radical or that they were as likely to vote democratic as blacks or anything else that you might have tried to build me up as saying so that you would have a strawman to attack.  I was simply correcting a simple statement from you...

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 27, 2012, 05:42:23 pm

no more likely to vote Democratic than anyone else.

That was factually incorrect.

As for what you said about the final paragraph in Nate Silver's piece... this really goes to show why people have been questioning your reading comprehension skills in the past.  Nate Silver is in no way contradicting the argument that union members vote demographic.  That's an argument he himself made in this same article.  He was just writing what is called a "summery" that illustrates some of the diverse demographic factors that come into play.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 03:54:58 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 03:36:08 pm

Uh, wow, way to put words in my mouth man.  What I was doing was correcting the factually incorrect statement:

If you didn't cherry pick, you would note this is preceded by

Quote

Most union workers (especially in non-RtW states)

as opposed to "all union workers". You also discount union workers who don't vote at all, which would be the very definition of "apathetic".

Quote from: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 03:36:08 pm

As for what you said about the final paragraph in Nate Silver's piece... this really goes to show why people have been questioning your reading comprehension skills in the past.  Nate Silver is in no way contradicting the argument that union members vote demographic.  That's an argument he himself made in this same article.  He was just writing what is called a "summery" that illustrates some of the diverse demographic factors that come into play.

Did you read it? It sure doesn't seem like that's the case, since he rather clearly says that being in a union is far less significant than other factors.

Also, I'm not sure what a "summery" has to do with anything, considering that that's an adjective, not a noun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 04:02:29 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 03:54:58 pm

If you didn't cherry pick

Dude, seriously, you put stawman words in my mouth and then you accuse me of cherry picking.  That's chutzpah.  That's also a good reason why you are a bore to converse with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 04:29:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 04:02:29 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 03:54:58 pm

If you didn't cherry pick

Dude, seriously, you put stawman words in my mouth and then you accuse me of cherry picking.  That's chutzpah.  That's also a good reason why you are a bore to converse with.

Did you really just cherry pick my accusation of you cherry picking?

I'd advise you figure out what a strawman is, since "radical" in the context of my post was pretty clearly meant in contrast to "apathetic" or "neutral".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Korbac on August 28, 2012, 04:34:44 pm

PEACE GUYS

The U.N. Stars in : No more wars : A Peace Of The Action!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 28, 2012, 04:38:44 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 04:29:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 04:02:29 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 03:54:58 pm

If you didn't cherry pick

Dude, seriously, you put stawman words in my mouth and then you accuse me of cherry picking.  That's chutzpah.  That's also a good reason why you are a bore to converse with.

Did you really just cherry pick my accusation of you cherry picking?

I'd advise you figure out what a strawman is, since "radical" in the context of my post was pretty clearly meant in contrast to "apathetic" or "neutral".

Cherry picking is selecting individual points that fit your bias/agenda as if they are the whole truth while ignoring those points that contradict it. It is most definitely not selecting one thing out of many to disagree with or argue about. You did contradict yourself. You did put words in his mouth. Pointing that out isn't cherry picking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 05:02:24 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on August 28, 2012, 04:38:44 pm

Cherry picking is selecting individual points that fit your bias/agenda as if they are the whole truth while ignoring those points that contradict it.

Taking part of a statement completely out of context to imply it means something that it doesn't would qualify.

Quote from: Nadaka on August 28, 2012, 04:38:44 pm

You did contradict yourself. You did put words in his mouth. Pointing that out isn't cherry picking.

Taking a specific part of an overall post and ignoring its context certainly is cherry picking. I contradicted myself if you conveniently ignore the "who vote" qualifier in the second post.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 05:07:10 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 05:02:24 pm

Taking part of a statement completely out of context to imply it means something that it doesn't would qualify.

Except it wasn't a completely reasonable statement.  You made a statement that was untrue and which is pretty commonly known to be untrue.  I provided a source saying it was untrue whereupon you proceeded to throw up a wall of monkey poo in my face.  This is not debate, this is you dancing around and changing the subject constantly then proceeding to taunt me for having, y'know, actual arguments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:18:33 am

Raging Paulites at the Republican National Convention. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ron-paul-supporters-rebel-convention-floor-fuck-you-tyrants?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3cI6D3a6Y)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on August 29, 2012, 08:26:11 am

Schadenfreude is fun. :D

Do we have the exact numbers of the Paulites from the states?  I know Nevada, Maine, and Minnesota have a decent number of delegates for Ron Paul, but it doesn't seem like there would be enough for the GOP to lock them out of the process altogether.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 29, 2012, 08:57:29 am

...Voting by who makes the most noice? What are they a rock concert audience?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 29, 2012, 09:05:36 am

Quote from: mainiac on August 28, 2012, 05:07:10 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 28, 2012, 05:02:24 pm

Taking part of a statement completely out of context to imply it means something that it doesn't would qualify.

Except it wasn't a completely reasonable statement.  You made a statement that was untrue and which is pretty commonly known to be untrue.  I provided a source saying it was untrue whereupon you proceeded to throw up a wall of monkey poo in my face.  This is not debate, this is you dancing around and changing the subject constantly then proceeding to taunt me for having, y'know, actual arguments.

You provided a source that proved something I hadn't said true (that union members are complete swing voters as opposed to, say, not voting period) and threw a hissy fit when I diverged from my initial argument in noting that your sources weren't entirely supportive of your first point (that union members are obviously heavily supportive of their unions because of the evil management, as opposed to mildly supportive or apathetic).

Now, back to the actual thread,

Quote from: Jervill on August 29, 2012, 08:26:11 am

Schadenfreude is fun. :D

Do we have the exact numbers of the Paulites from the states?  I know Nevada, Maine, and Minnesota have a decent number of delegates for Ron Paul, but it doesn't seem like there would be enough for the GOP to lock them out of the process altogether.

Uh, IIRC they completely swept Nevada, Iowa, and Minnesota. The Maine delegation was replaced basically on the spot via voice vote with Romney supporters. They won Louisiana too, but after discovering that the Paulites had a majority at the state convention, the head of the Republican party there called the cops, had the Paulite delegates arrested, and promptly created a shadow convention with Romney supporters.

After all that, the Paulites actually managed to get the necessary 5 states for a floor fight, which would have made Romney look like an idiot and derailed his coronation, but the RNC then changed the rules and made it 8 states so as to avoid that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 09:37:00 am

Quote from: scriver on August 29, 2012, 08:57:29 am

...Voting by who makes the most noice? What are they a rock concert audience?

Some eyewitness reports say it wasn't even a real vote, and that the teleprompter was already set up to state that it passed.

The RNC just alienated all the Paulites. Consequences will never be the same.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 29, 2012, 10:06:16 am

Maybe the paulites should vote libertarian instead of sticking with a party that does not want them? Who am I kidding, that will never happen.


http://news.yahoo.com/gop-oks-platform-barring-abortions-gay-marriage-204947742.html

So much for their earlier claims of "focusing on the economy"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 11:18:41 am

Quote from: Nadaka on August 29, 2012, 10:06:16 am

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-oks-platform-barring-abortions-gay-marriage-204947742.html

So much for their earlier claims of "focusing on the economy"

Crazy extraordinaire David Barton claims to have had 70 of his 71 motions for the platform approved. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlI4aQH3tVM)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on August 29, 2012, 11:20:41 am

Quote from: Nadaka on August 29, 2012, 10:06:16 am

Maybe the paulites should vote libertarian instead of sticking with a party that does not want them? Who am I kidding, that will never happen.

No, you see RON PAUL is in fact the one true Republican, and therefore they should stay until everyone else in the party agrees with them.

(also Ron Paul is too crazy for the Libertarians)

EDIT: Oops, actually the Libertarians are equally crazy.  Nevermind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 29, 2012, 11:25:12 am

Quote from: Nadaka on August 29, 2012, 10:06:16 am

Maybe the paulites should vote libertarian instead of sticking with a party that does not want them? Who am I kidding, that will never happen.


http://news.yahoo.com/gop-oks-platform-barring-abortions-gay-marriage-204947742.html

So much for their earlier claims of "focusing on the economy"

The US is very heavily rigged towards the main two parties so far as election laws go, and the media isn't any better. For example, to make the debates, a candidate has to receive 15% of the vote in 3 consecutive polls (or something similar at least), yet the vast majority of polling companies don't even include third party candidates in head to head match ups. The only time a third party candidate is going to get anywhere is if he's a billionaire who self funds like Ross Perot.

EDIT: And in other news... (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/cnn-republican-convention-black-camerawoman.php)

Quote

An attendee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday allegedly threw nuts at a black camerawoman working for CNN and said “This is how we feed animals” before being removed from the convention, a network official confirmed to TPM.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 29, 2012, 11:42:53 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 29, 2012, 11:25:12 am

Quote from: Nadaka on August 29, 2012, 10:06:16 am

Maybe the paulites should vote libertarian instead of sticking with a party that does not want them? Who am I kidding, that will never happen.


http://news.yahoo.com/gop-oks-platform-barring-abortions-gay-marriage-204947742.html

So much for their earlier claims of "focusing on the economy"

The US is very heavily rigged towards the main two parties so far as election laws go, and the media isn't any better. For example, to make the debates, a candidate has to receive 15% of the vote in 3 consecutive polls (or something similar at least), yet the vast majority of polling companies don't even include third party candidates in head to head match ups. The only time a third party candidate is going to get anywhere is if he's a billionaire who self funds like Ross Perot.

You are unfortunately right. We really need to move towards a form of instant runoff or range voting in order to give more people a voice. In addition, we could also use a proportional or semi-proportional assembly.

Quote

EDIT: And in other news... (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/cnn-republican-convention-black-camerawoman.php)

Quote

An attendee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday allegedly threw nuts at a black camerawoman working for CNN and said “This is how we feed animals” before being removed from the convention, a network official confirmed to TPM.

speaking of displays of racism, or at least questionably racially motivated stuff at the RNC...

Forgive me if thes are a bit out there. I got these links from my an relative of mine that can be... lets just  say dogmatic in her lefty ness.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/08/hbc-90008805

A puerto rican speaker is overpowered by chanting by the crowd. It isn't so much the U.S.A chanting, but you can also hear and see some other things if you pay attention.

And then there is this.

http://www.politicususa.com/rush-limbaugh-hopes-hurricane-isaac-kills-poor-black-democrats.html

1: I don't agree with this articles conclusion, I can't read any direct racism into this particular bit of crap from Rush.

2: It is still Rush being a jackass and hoping that the hurricane wipes out the democratic voting base of Louisiana.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 01:24:16 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:18:33 am

Raging Paulites at the Republican National Convention. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ron-paul-supporters-rebel-convention-floor-fuck-you-tyrants?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3cI6D3a6Y)

/roflmao

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 29, 2012, 01:29:59 pm

It's unfortunate that the lesson learned by Paulites in this election will not extend to the Republican Party in general: being the minority at the mercy of the majority blows.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 01:32:51 pm

I wonder if Ron Paul would have had a better chance running as a Democrat, if someone like Mitt was already on the throne of words.

After all, he never really was a Republican; always a Libertarian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 29, 2012, 01:39:45 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 01:32:51 pm

I wonder if Ron Paul would have had a better chance running as a Democrat, if someone like Mitt was already on the throne of words.

After all, he never really was a Republican; always a Libertarian.

He record on minorities and social policy pretty much would make that a non-starter. Kind of how his harping on corporate America killed his chances of being a major Republican contender.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 29, 2012, 01:55:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:18:33 am

Raging Paulites at the Republican National Convention. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ron-paul-supporters-rebel-convention-floor-fuck-you-tyrants?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3cI6D3a6Y)

So I've been told several times that the answer to disillusioned voters who feel like they don't have any real choice in elections is to get more involved in the primary process... I suppose the stance now would be that only applies if you're a democrat?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 02:29:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 29, 2012, 01:39:45 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 01:32:51 pm

I wonder if Ron Paul would have had a better chance running as a Democrat, if someone like Mitt was already on the throne of words.

After all, he never really was a Republican; always a Libertarian.

He record on minorities and social policy pretty much would make that a non-starter. Kind of how his harping on corporate America killed his chances of being a major Republican contender.

The Paulites would follow him wherever, so he would still get however many 'votes' (I am unsure of the differences in the DNC/RNC delegate process).  Would he at least have gotten those delegates acknowledged? Sure, he would have had no real chance there either, but would he be able to influence with 'some' of his messages more on the D side than the R?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on August 29, 2012, 02:40:28 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 02:29:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 29, 2012, 01:39:45 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 01:32:51 pm

I wonder if Ron Paul would have had a better chance running as a Democrat, if someone like Mitt was already on the throne of words.

After all, he never really was a Republican; always a Libertarian.

He record on minorities and social policy pretty much would make that a non-starter. Kind of how his harping on corporate America killed his chances of being a major Republican contender.

The Paulites would follow him wherever, so he would still get however many 'votes' (I am unsure of the differences in the DNC/RNC delegate process).  Would he at least have gotten those delegates acknowledged? Sure, he would have had no real chance there either, but would he be able to influence with 'some' of his messages more on the D side than the R?

Mebbe. When push comes to shove I don't know if the Dems would really act much different this regard. Neither part likes giving their fringe members speaking time, especially when the nomination is a foregone conclusion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 29, 2012, 02:54:37 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 29, 2012, 01:55:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:18:33 am

Raging Paulites at the Republican National Convention. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ron-paul-supporters-rebel-convention-floor-fuck-you-tyrants?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3cI6D3a6Y)

So I've been told several times that the answer to disillusioned voters who feel like they don't have any real choice in elections is to get more involved in the primary process... I suppose the stance now would be that only applies if you're a democrat?

The conventions are just a rubber stamp for already determined votes. The primary election s in the sprng are where the real effort matters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 29, 2012, 02:57:02 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 02:29:35 pm

Quote from: nenjin on August 29, 2012, 01:39:45 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 01:32:51 pm

I wonder if Ron Paul would have had a better chance running as a Democrat, if someone like Mitt was already on the throne of words.

After all, he never really was a Republican; always a Libertarian.

He record on minorities and social policy pretty much would make that a non-starter. Kind of how his harping on corporate America killed his chances of being a major Republican contender.

The Paulites would follow him wherever, so he would still get however many 'votes' (I am unsure of the differences in the DNC/RNC delegate process).  Would he at least have gotten those delegates acknowledged? Sure, he would have had no real chance there either, but would he be able to influence with 'some' of his messages more on the D side than the R?

Paul works better in the Republican party because most of the "objectionable" things he believes in are covered by the ol' "States Rights/Individual Liberty" argument except for foreign policy, which is something he's trying to change in a big way. He believes in a lot of the same things as Democrats, but for entirely different reasons and hence would be promptly tossed out if he switched.

Quote from: Nadaka on August 29, 2012, 11:42:53 am

speaking of displays of racism, or at least questionably racially motivated stuff at the RNC...

Forgive me if thes are a bit out there. I got these links from my an relative of mine that can be... lets just  say dogmatic in her lefty ness.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/08/hbc-90008805

A puerto rican speaker is overpowered by chanting by the crowd. It isn't so much the U.S.A chanting, but you can also hear and see some other things if you pay attention.

IIRC that was a mixture of the Paulites saying "SEAT THEM NOW" in reference to the Maine delegation and the Romneyites saying "USA" as the standard jingoistic reply to dissent. Since the Paulites were smaller in number and largely located in the nosebleeds, the "USA" chant mostly drowned them out. There might have been some other stuff said too, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 29, 2012, 03:27:33 pm

Some guy is doing an AMA on Reddit. (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/)

And in case the page is still down;

Quote

Hi, I’m Barack Obama, President of the United States. Ask me anything. I’ll be taking your questions for half an hour starting at about 4:30 ET.

Proof it's me: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/240903767350968320

We're running early and will get started soon.

UPDATE: Hey everybody - this is barack. Just finished a great rally in Charlottesville, and am looking forward to your questions. At the top, I do want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with folks who are dealing with Hurricane Isaac in the Gulf, and to let them know that we are going to be coordinating with state and local officials to make sure that we give families everything they need to recover.

Verification photo: http://i.imgur.com/oz0a7.jpg

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on August 29, 2012, 04:17:53 pm

Quote from: palsch on August 29, 2012, 03:27:33 pm

Some guy is doing an AMA on Reddit. (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/)

And in case the page is still down;

Quote

Hi, I’m Barack Obama, President of the United States. Ask me anything. I’ll be taking your questions for half an hour starting at about 4:30 ET.

Proof it's me: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/240903767350968320

We're running early and will get started soon.

UPDATE: Hey everybody - this is barack. Just finished a great rally in Charlottesville, and am looking forward to your questions. At the top, I do want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with folks who are dealing with Hurricane Isaac in the Gulf, and to let them know that we are going to be coordinating with state and local officials to make sure that we give families everything they need to recover.

Verification photo: http://i.imgur.com/oz0a7.jpg

I predict a dozen questions re: his birth certificate :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on August 29, 2012, 04:44:25 pm

In other news Obama was just on reddit and I FUCKING MISSED IT!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on August 29, 2012, 04:55:13 pm

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2012/08/29/13552352-obama-does-first-presidential-ask-me-anything-chat-on-reddit?lite
^Transcript there

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 29, 2012, 04:56:12 pm

1) It was probably some staffer, not him doing the chat.
2) He mostly stated obvious things and said platitude.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 29, 2012, 05:11:35 pm

Huh, here's something I wouldn't expect to read in the economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/debt_proposals

The press's ignorance of the house progressive caucus is pretty shameful.  A lot more people vote for house progressive caucus congresspeople then vote for Ron Paul and the rest of the libertarian clown show.  They have a budget that should make the press cream it's pants according to the standards the press gives lip service too whenever the GOP releases a bullet point list and calls it a budget.  And the HPC is actually closer to the median voter's answer to polls on a lot of stuff then the plutocratic nonsense that passes for centrism in Washington.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 29, 2012, 05:37:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 29, 2012, 05:11:35 pm

Huh, here's something I wouldn't expect to read in the economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/debt_proposals

Who is this writer?

From the position of the piece I'd expect one of their British staff, who tend to be conservative but in the British sense (and often Conservative) and less hardcore than the US side. My understanding of their US staff was further to the right than this would indicate.

However, they missed the obvious Yes Minister reference in describing the budget as courageous (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik8JT2S-kBE) (and sorry for that link, but it's the only version of that clip I can find).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 29, 2012, 06:05:14 pm

Hi. I have a dilemma here. Firstly, after reading 117 pages in, I've learned a good bit about the American elections, one of the chief things of which being the sheer amount of assholes running for the republicans, not that the democrats are much better. Reading around, i on the surface at least have confirmed what you lot have been saying. However, people who i get the distinct impression know fuck all about this are on another forum i peruse, that of Embers of Caerus, where-forth i have happened upon a Vote Right- Ron Paul 2012 thread. On the one hand, thanks to it's political nature though surprisingly calm and i get the impression underinformed comments, I'm awaiting moderators approval, and it's early days yet to appeal to you're considerably better sourced and knowledgeable persons over there. On the other hand, i could do with a host of links to prove the point, as well as a concise wrap up of these. I'd be very much obliged if you could help me with the latter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on August 29, 2012, 07:28:01 pm

I'm sorry, what?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 07:29:06 pm

He wants us to provide him with informative links about Ron Paul's role in the election so he can argue better on a heavily moderated forum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 29, 2012, 07:43:48 pm

Oh. Well that just sent my imagination on a wild tangent.

Bay12 members could totally rent out their services like mercenaries, going all over the place and injecting reason and logic into things at the highest bidder, while simultaneously derailing everything into complete chaos.

We'd be like a real private security firm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 29, 2012, 08:08:37 pm

My mother always wanted me to be a mercenary.

No really, one day she actually said that I should look for a job as a mercenary.  Obviously 'computer guy' isn't enough for her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on August 29, 2012, 08:15:08 pm

I, for one, am most certainly available. We could be like classy goons!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:15:25 pm

I've always fantasized about getting enough money to hire a mercenary army to take over Somalia by force, which I will then rule as an Enlightened Despot so that I may make it an authoritarian yet progressive nation.

Basically, I want to be Big Boss.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 29, 2012, 08:17:01 pm

I always had similar dreams, though in most of them I went after the entire continent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:28:51 pm

I think your subconscious is underestimating what it would take to do a hostile takeover of all of Africa. NATO would have an extremely hard time with that, much less a mercenary army.

Somalia is fairly doable because no one runs it right now anyway. You've got the UN in Mogadishu, weak and fractured democratic factions in the north; brutal yet opposed Islamist warlords in the south. There's probably some marginalized Marxists in there somewhere too. An outside force unconcerned with peace or civilian casualties could destroy them all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 29, 2012, 08:29:38 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:15:25 pm

rule

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:15:25 pm

Somalia

I think there is a flaw in your plan there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:31:50 pm

Quote from: mainiac on August 29, 2012, 08:29:38 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:15:25 pm

rule

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:15:25 pm

Somalia

I think there is a flaw in your plan there.

Fear will keep the local warlords in line. Fear of this fully-operational mercenary battlestation.

I shall build from the ashes a solider's paradise, a place where warriors will always have a place in the world!

Let me ask you a question: Should the lunatic rich imperialist American mercenary contractor not be entitled to rule Somalia? No, says the man in the United Nations, it belongs to the Somali! No, says the man in the United States, quit ruining our international image you fucking maniac! No, says the man in the People's Republic, it has always belonged to the Han! I rejected those answers. I chose something different, something impossible! I chose....the Empire of MSH. A nation where the combat journalist would not fear the rebel factions, where the government would not be bound by useless petty peace talks, where I would not be constrained by everyone else! And by my leadership, the Empire will continue to belong to me and me alone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 29, 2012, 08:35:24 pm

LMFAO

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on August 29, 2012, 09:01:49 pm

Here I thought we would start in the Congo, because it's so much more profitable. And less piratey.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 09:03:20 pm

The DRC is one of the more powerful nations in Africa, so...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on August 29, 2012, 09:05:04 pm

Hate to add to the derail, but if anyone on here ever does take over a country, I would make an excellent strategist and social affairs adviser.

And no, not the kind of adviser that stabs you in the back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 29, 2012, 09:06:09 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on August 29, 2012, 09:05:04 pm

And no, not the kind of adviser that stabs you in the back.

*squints*

I'm not convinced. If you're so loyal, bring me a sandwich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on August 29, 2012, 09:07:30 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 29, 2012, 09:06:09 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on August 29, 2012, 09:05:04 pm

And no, not the kind of adviser that stabs you in the back.

*squints*

I'm not convinced. If you're so loyal, bring me a sandwich.

Nor would I be a butler. Because, as everyone knows, the butler did it, with the candlestick, in the lounge.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 29, 2012, 09:13:25 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on August 29, 2012, 09:01:49 pm

Here I thought we would start in the Congo, because it's so much more profitable. And less piratey.

Is there any profit to be found there?  I think Leopold II already exhausted the countries natural supply of dismembered hands.

You should have me as economic adviser.  I'll tell you when your ideas will bankrupt you.  (hint: always)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 29, 2012, 10:10:21 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 29, 2012, 08:28:51 pm

I think your subconscious is underestimating what it would take to do a hostile takeover of all of Africa. NATO would have an extremely hard time with that, much less a mercenary army.

Somalia is fairly doable because no one runs it right now anyway. You've got the UN in Mogadishu, weak and fractured democratic factions in the north; brutal yet opposed Islamist warlords in the south. There's probably some marginalized Marxists in there somewhere too. An outside force unconcerned with peace or civilian casualties could destroy them all.

If it were practical, I'd already have done it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on August 29, 2012, 10:10:36 pm

I caught a clip of the speech by Mia Love at the RNC.

"President Obama has created a divided country, pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender and social status."

Do these people listen to themselves? (http://xkcd.com/481/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 29, 2012, 10:14:35 pm

Quote from: Mego on August 29, 2012, 10:10:36 pm

I caught a clip of the speech by Mia Love at the RNC.

"President Obama has created a divided country, pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender and social status."

Do these people listen to themselves? (http://xkcd.com/481/)

Oh they believe every word of it.

And the ones who don't are being paid too much to think otherwise.

/americanpolotics

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 29, 2012, 10:31:24 pm

I love how Paul Ryan said nothing specific about his own stances while continuing to perpetuate the whole 'raiding medicare' bit being trounced around by all fact-ignoring Reds.

I don't understand what the hell is wrong with this Republican ticket. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/romney-pollster-we-wont-let-our-campaign-be-dictated-by-fact-checkers)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on August 29, 2012, 10:47:21 pm

I love how they keep shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot...

Or have they gone a bit higher and started kneecapping themselves yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 29, 2012, 10:49:29 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 29, 2012, 10:31:24 pm

I don't understand what the hell is wrong with this Republican ticket. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/romney-pollster-we-wont-let-our-campaign-be-dictated-by-fact-checkers)

I'm all for honesty but political fact checkers are worse then worthless.  They just add another layer of unaccountable opinion mongering onto the media.  Politifact in particular is worthless as they named as their "Lie of the Year" for 2011 a statement that was true!  In a world of socialist anti-colonial Kenyan manchurian candidates they decided that the statement:

"Republicans voted to end medicare"

was Lie of the Year while by the Politifact editors said that something to this effect would be true:

"Republicans voted to end the federal guarantee of healthcare after retirement for people who are currently younger then 55."

Thus they decided that in the world of lies we inhabit the most important thing was using semantic distinctions to argue against brevity and clarity.

So yes for once in my life I agree with Romney about something.  Campaigns should feel free to ignore political fact checkers until those fact checkers are actually worth paying attention to.  Luckily, when you agree with Romney, you don't agree with him for very long. (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/28/a_guide_to_when_fact_checkers_matter_according_to_mitt_romney/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Newbunkle on August 30, 2012, 04:41:13 am

Quote from: Mego on August 29, 2012, 10:10:36 pm

I caught a clip of the speech by Mia Love at the RNC.

"President Obama has created a divided country, pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender and social status."

Do these people listen to themselves? (http://xkcd.com/481/)

Smells like the just-world fallacy again. They've convinced themselves that everything is simple, ordered, and exactly as it should be. It's the poor's fault they're poor, and the rich's fault they're rich. Any attempt to interfere is simply an attack on the hard-working for the benefit of the useless. They'll turn a blind eye to the injustice around them because they want to believe it doesn't exist - it helps them deal with their insecurities. The claim that the division is caused by those trying to deal with inequality and injustice is due to their brain trying to rationalise events to fit into their magical world of fairness and sparkles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 30, 2012, 06:37:47 am

Come on, i thought we'd already decided on the space program long since. Though i admit it would be fascinating to see every leaders faces if Bay12 actually ruled a country. Any chance of those links?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 30, 2012, 07:16:51 am

Fox News contributor on Ryan's speech. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 30, 2012, 08:00:17 am

When I was halfway through, I had to go back to the top of the page to make sure I was actually on Fox News. Eh, even them got intellectually honest journalists apparently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 30, 2012, 08:30:51 am

Quote from: Sheb on August 30, 2012, 08:00:17 am

When I was halfway through, I had to go back to the top of the page to make sure I was actually on Fox News. Eh, even them got intellectually honest journalists apparently.

I found it interesting that there's no comment section on this one. And here I was looking forward to seeing how much frothing rage you could fit onto one page.

And based on the archives, it looks like Kohn is FOX's token Democrat opinion writer, so they can claim to be "fair and balanced".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on August 30, 2012, 08:31:35 am

Fox news online isn't as  bad. Its the tv personalities claiming to be journalists that really put a spin on things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 30, 2012, 08:38:27 am

It's still pretty blatant at editorializing headlines. One of the thigns that always amuses me is how much banal, tabloid-type stuff they cover as well. Guess that must come from Murdoch's roots running the trashy Brit rags.


EDIT: I was gonna update poll data, but I'm gonna hold off until after the RNC, because that injects some ephemeral volatility into the numbers. And right now, they're running from tie (Rasmussen) to Obama +9 (FOX News). I'll do some of the state data though.

One development of note: Todd Akin's kerfluffle may wind up costing the Republicans more than just a chance at the McCaskill Senate seat in Missouri. Romney's lead in the Show-Me State has eroded a full two percentages points since Akin's comments, from +6.3 to +4.3. Only time will tell if the erosion continues and puts Missouri into play as a bona fide battleground state. Rasmussen's most recent poll actually has Obama with a 1-point lead in the state, but a Mason-Dixon poll over the same time period shows Romney with a 7-point lead. So there's something going on in Missouri that bears watching.

New poll puts North Carolina in a dead heat, tied at 43 (which leaves 14% undecided, a pretty big chunk).
Florida running at Obama +4, Nevada at Obama +3, Colorado at Obama +3, Wisconsin at Obama +3.

Latest Ohio and Michigan polls also put them at a tie, 45-all and 47-all, respectively.

Overall, things still look favorable for the President. If there's a lack of significant traction coming out of the RNC, and the Democrats don't commit any major gaffes at the DNC, it's going to get increasingly difficult for the Republicans. The number of opinions that remain truly "on the fence" and open to persuasion is steadily decreasing. The Democrats can essentially play like a team with a one-goal lead and try to run out the clock -- which is dangerous, because it makes you reactive rather than proactive and surrenders the initiative. Also means the GOP will grow increasingly desperate and could pull out some jaw-dropping dirty tricks as this goes down the road.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 30, 2012, 08:57:13 am

Quote from: RedKing on August 30, 2012, 08:38:27 am

It's still pretty blatant at editorializing headlines. One of the thigns that always amuses me is how much banal, tabloid-type stuff they cover as well. Guess that must come from Murdoch's roots running the trashy Brit rags.


EDIT: I was gonna update poll data, but I'm gonna hold off until after the RNC, because that injects some ephemeral volatility into the numbers. And right now, they're running from tie (Rasmussen) to Obama +9 (FOX News).

One development of note: Todd Akin's kerfluffle may wind up costing the Republicans more than just a chance at the McCaskill Senate seat in Missouri. Romney's lead in the Show-Me State has eroded a full two percentages points since Akin's comments, from +6.3 to +4.3. Only time will tell if the erosion continues and puts Missouri into play as a bona fide battleground state. Rasmussen's most recent poll actually has Obama with a 1-point lead in the state, but a Mason-Dixon poll over the same time period shows Romney with a 7-point lead. So there's something going on in Missouri that bears watching.

Quite frankly, Akin would have won Missouri by running no ads and participating in no debates before his stupid statement. All Republican candidates (him to a lesser extent) were leading McCaskill quite commandingly during the primary, and he's managed to turn that around. I wouldn't be surprised if that affects Romney's campaign as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 30, 2012, 11:34:02 am

RedKing, if you are going to post polls would you mind saying who they are from?  Pollsters tend to have really strong house effects.  They need to make a lot of demographic assumptions about turnout and interpreting the very small percentage of people who are willing to participate in polling.  If PPP reports a tie then that probably means Obama is trailing.  If Gallup reports a tie then that probably means that Romney is trailing.  So the pollster matters nearly as much as the results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 30, 2012, 11:40:41 am

Those were mostly aggregate averages, IIRC. Sorry, I wasn't really intending to do a formal poll update. I'll be more rigorous on Monday when the batch of weekend polls are released.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 30, 2012, 12:11:41 pm

I'd say PPP is probably the most reliable general pollster, though there is no perfect one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 30, 2012, 12:53:05 pm

mainiac's right, PPP has a Democratic lean. Rasmussen has not so much a Republican lean as a "momentum bias". If there's been a shift in support, they tend to overrrepresent that swing. If there's been relatively little change, they often over-represent the front-runner. If the "smart money" is on a particular candidate, they over-represent that candidate. It's the weirdest dammn thing, and I know Nate Silver has dissected it five ways from Sunday trying to figure out what the deal is there, although he's found that it balances out and on the whole they have only a mild (R) lean.
Needless to say, I take Rasmussen numbers with an entire salt lick.

Per Silver's analysis (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/), CNN is generally the most "neutral" of the major pollsters. Pew has the heaviest D-lean, and Gallup the heaviest R-lean, at least in this cycle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 30, 2012, 10:49:58 pm

Anyone watch the last night of the RNC?

Romney's 'Five Point Plan' was the most laughable bit of campaign rhetoric horseshit I've ever seen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on August 30, 2012, 10:53:39 pm

Please, summarize it for us plebs who didn't see it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on August 30, 2012, 10:57:09 pm

And to convince our one closet Republican he's wrong!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 31, 2012, 02:36:41 am

More RNC fun... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6BSS6cfmZg&feature=player_embedded)

When a reporter asked Sheldon Adelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson) how much money he was going to spend on the election this year, his daughter responded for him by wrestling their camera away, throwing it on the ground, and accusing the cameraman of hitting her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 07:40:30 am

Anybody else catch the Clint Eastwood speech? It was sad to see such a good guy like that. On the one hand, he had the most moderate comments of the night. It wasn't tough-guy rhetoric or posturing, it was basically "The President has had four years to do it his way, I don't feel that it's worked, maybe it's time for someone else to try." A reasonable statement of disagreement.

On the other hand, he was incoherent and stumbling over his words like a bad Jimmy Stewart impression. I know he's 82, but I thought he was in better shape than that.  :-\


That was the only part of the convention I watched.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 31, 2012, 09:34:52 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHVJWg5ikcg

Spoiler: Mitt's Five point plan to fix America (click to show/hide)

"I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. Paul Ryan and I have a five-point plan:
1. We will become energy independent by 2020, via coal and oil. [With some renewables, but the crowd didn't give a fuck, only cared when he mentioned oil and shale.]

2. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice and every child should have a chance. [Also known as, cut major amounts of funding from education and create charter schools in every city, especially inner cities, to profit off of people wanting their kids to learn.]

3. We will make trade work for America, and when nations CHEAT [HINTHINTCHINA] there will be UNMISTAKEABLE consequences. [Okay, that's cute Mitt, now tell us how you'd do this short of whining at PRC]

4. To assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on the track to a balanced budget. [Note how, once again, this is just a large general statement with no explanation of how he would do this, directly after he says he won't cut money from our 1.4+trillion dollar military budget]

5. We will champion small business, America's engine of job growth, that means by reducing taxes on business not raising them. [Hey, we're still doing this, it's called Bush's tax code, how's the economy doing?]
5a. It means we must reign in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare. [Also known as replace those 716 billion dollars paid in subsidies and bonuses to insurance and medical companies, reducing the solvency year of Medicare to 2016 instead of 2024 like it is now thanks to said cuts]"

Then he goes on to whine about how Obama has raised taxes on the middle class then says he will defend fetuses from that damn socialist Kenyan from scraping them out and eating them, or whatever. The fun part about his cute little 12 million jobs number is, it was being predicted that the economy would create that in the next four years during recovery either way, regardless of who is sitting in the oval office. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/30/factchecker-romneys-12-million-job-promise/)

This R campaign is the most ludicrous shit I've ever seen in my life. He advocated being adversarial towards not only China, but Russia, also known as the other superpowers of the modern world that we happen to trade with. He induced people towards war with Iran. Urged America to continue the retarded fucking mentality that made this movie. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/)

He's a Cold War leftover and he needs to be removed from the populace and go back to his gated communities. I feel like they had Clint on stage to distract our jackoff media from the fact that his speech had absolutely no substance and was incredibly divisive and dark, but whatever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 31, 2012, 09:45:13 am

Quote from: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 07:40:30 am

Anybody else catch the Clint Eastwood speech? It was sad to see such a good guy like that. On the one hand, he had the most moderate comments of the night. It wasn't tough-guy rhetoric or posturing, it was basically "The President has had four years to do it his way, I don't feel that it's worked, maybe it's time for someone else to try." A reasonable statement of disagreement.

On the other hand, he was incoherent and stumbling over his words like a bad Jimmy Stewart impression. I know he's 82, but I thought he was in better shape than that.  :-\


That was the only part of the convention I watched.

Funny thing, that. Clint strolled onto the stage and basically rambled for 10 minutes straight, made two anti war jokes, said something about libertarians, and received a better applause than the Republican nominee. Certainly not a good sign for 'ol Willard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 10:00:52 am

Well, apparently I missed the later part of the ramble. Sounds like it was more embarrassing than I realized. The memes have been fun, though.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25931780.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25935561.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25933183.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25947855.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25938912.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25952575.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25959382.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 31, 2012, 10:29:17 am

Quote from: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 10:00:52 am

Well, apparently I missed the later part of the ramble. Sounds like it was more embarrassing than I realized. The memes have been fun, though.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25931780.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25935561.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25933183.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25947855.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25938912.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25952575.jpg)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/25959382.jpg)

Yeah, at one point he talked about closing Gitmo and withdrawing from Afghanistan. The bodyguards around him looked pretty nervous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on August 31, 2012, 11:13:09 am

The BBC linked to this article from the front page as, "Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention 'Awesome' or 'sad'?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19434705)

I assumed it was one of the usual watered down attempts at showing equal amounts of criticism and compliments. Turns out they had so few compliments that the sole one in the article was also in the link text.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 31, 2012, 11:17:23 am

I feel sorry for the guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 11:31:42 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on August 31, 2012, 11:17:23 am

I feel sorry for the guy.

Me too. He's a great actor/director and he's always been a relatively low-key moderate Republican. And now, he's going to go down in popular imagination as the real-life Grandpa Simpson.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/388/360/da5.jpeg)


In other news, Todd Akin is not too happy that Karl Rove has been making jokes about having him murdered. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/akin-camp-angered-roves-reported-murder-quip-17127327)

Oh that wacky GOP-on-GOP-violence humor! My favorite comment attached to the story:
"Todd Akin should be fine, because a man's body has a way of shutting down death when it's a mysterious murder and not a legitimate one."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on August 31, 2012, 01:42:55 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 11:31:42 am

In other news, Todd Akin is not too happy that Karl Rove has been making jokes about having him murdered. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/akin-camp-angered-roves-reported-murder-quip-17127327)

Quote

Akin's office issued a statement calling the quote deeply disturbing, given that the FBI has been investigating threats against Akin after his comments that women's bodies can shut down pregnancy in cases of what he called "legitimate rape."

You know what's more deeply-disturbing than Rove's "threat"? The fact that Congressmen, who are in charge of making policies about abortion, don't even know how reproductive biology works. Or that Congressmen, who are trying to be in charge of the Internet, don't understand basic networking principles. I'm seeing a trend here.

Let's elect some scientists to Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on August 31, 2012, 01:47:24 pm

Quote from: Mego on August 31, 2012, 01:42:55 pm

Let's elect some scientists middle school graduates to Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 01:58:53 pm

This is why John Adams suggested a third chamber on Congress consisting of "the learned". John Adams was a smart guy.  :-[

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on August 31, 2012, 01:59:00 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 31, 2012, 01:47:24 pm

Quote from: Mego on August 31, 2012, 01:42:55 pm

Let's elect some scientists middle school Alvin Greene to Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 31, 2012, 02:04:33 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 01:58:53 pm

This is why John Adams suggested a third chamber on Congress consisting of "the learned". John Adams was a smart guy.  :-[

Double SIGH.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 02:06:53 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on August 31, 2012, 01:59:00 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on August 31, 2012, 01:47:24 pm

Quote from: Mego on August 31, 2012, 01:42:55 pm

Let's elect some scientists middle school Alvin Greene Alvin & the Chipmunks to Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on August 31, 2012, 02:13:14 pm

Watching the speech... Clint.... you're better than this...

Honestly. He's not a speech maker. Which you would think would be something an actor could do, but not Clint Eastwood. From what I can tell, he's not the kind of guy who normally gets up on stage and does these things.

Geez... this is... so... I can't watch this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 31, 2012, 02:15:24 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 01:58:53 pm

This is why John Adams suggested a third chamber on Congress consisting of "the learned". John Adams was a smart guy.  :-[

Yeah they also thought the senate would be for intellectual debate back then.  Elitism sounds really great on paper.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on August 31, 2012, 03:59:29 pm

Clint: Debates invisible Obama, still struggles with his opponent's powerful debate technique.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on August 31, 2012, 04:01:41 pm

Heard some of Ryan's speech to the Republican faithful this morning while I was at the eye doctor. The applause was tepid. If you can't fire up the group he was talking to more than that, that's a bad sign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on August 31, 2012, 04:15:13 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on August 31, 2012, 02:04:33 pm

Quote from: RedKing on August 31, 2012, 01:58:53 pm

This is why John Adams suggested a third chamber on Congress consisting of "the learned". John Adams was a smart guy.  :-[

Double SIGH.

Why sigh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on August 31, 2012, 06:26:19 pm

A couple of interesting details in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/us/politics/romney-aides-scratch-their-heads-over-eastwoods-speech.html?hpw) coverage:

-Clint was scheduled to speak for only five minutes, he just ignored the time cues
-Clint decided to add the chair thing right before going on

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on August 31, 2012, 06:30:34 pm

I dearly, dearly hope he's the type that will be laughing at his mistake years down the road, and not like me who would curl up into a ball and die from embarrassment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on August 31, 2012, 07:47:36 pm

He probably just won't be invited to speak again... ever.

On the other hand blunders are always entertaining.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 01, 2012, 07:10:35 pm

So I was reading through a TvTropes article when I found this:

Quote

In 2000, a ficus tree ran against incumbent Rodney P. Frelinghuysen for the 11th district New Jersey house seat... and won the election by a 4:1 ratio before being disqualified. The Ficus campaign was masterminded by Michael Moore for his TV show The Awful Truth.
Campaign ad: Rodney wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, Ficus' ass IS a hole in the ground.

Ficas Tree for President, 2012!

Source (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompanionCube)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 01, 2012, 07:42:30 pm

I remember that. Good times.

They also had a mobile mosh pit, and they kept trying to get the various politicians to crowd surf it. Only one guy did, iirc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 09:18:55 pm

So I've started to hear speculation that Clint Eastwood's speech at the RNC may have, in fact, been an intentional backhand to Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 01, 2012, 09:26:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 09:18:55 pm

So I've started to hear speculation that Clint Eastwood's speech at the RNC may have, in fact, been an intentional backhand to Romney

Poe's Law? IN MY POLITICS?

I am impressed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 01, 2012, 10:05:30 pm

Quote from: Mego on September 01, 2012, 09:26:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 01, 2012, 09:18:55 pm

So I've started to hear speculation that Clint Eastwood's speech at the RNC may have, in fact, been an intentional backhand to Romney

Poe's Law? IN MY POLITICS?

I am impressed.

So... he was trolling?

I MUST BELIEVES.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 03, 2012, 09:22:13 pm

Latest political blundering...

http://www.americablog.com/2011/12/romney-adopts-kkk-slogan-keep-america.html

I am going to give Romney the benefit of the doubt in this case and assume he accidentally adopted his "Keep America American" slogan without knowing it was a KKK slogan in the 1920's.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 03, 2012, 09:23:31 pm

Ah, I remember that. It's kinda ancient by now, unless he said it again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 03, 2012, 09:34:57 pm

I sure didn't know, so I'm also gonna give Romney the benefit of the doubt. I've heard that phrase bandied about plenty of times before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 04, 2012, 12:49:01 am

Somebody finally speaks about the courage that Romney showed in '68. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/qotd-gloria-borger.html)

(In case anyone is wondering in '68 Obama dodged service on the grounds that he was 7 years old.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 04, 2012, 01:00:08 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 04, 2012, 12:49:01 am

Somebody finally speaks about the courage that Romney showed in '68. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/qotd-gloria-borger.html)

(In case anyone is wondering in '68 Obama dodged service on the grounds that he was 7 years old.)

It's a wonder he survived. Poor guy must have PTSD from his ordeal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 04, 2012, 01:08:00 am

Quote from: Sirus on September 04, 2012, 01:00:08 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 04, 2012, 12:49:01 am

Somebody finally speaks about the courage that Romney showed in '68. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/qotd-gloria-borger.html)

(In case anyone is wondering in '68 Obama dodged service on the grounds that he was 7 years old.)

It's a wonder he survived. Poor guy must have PTSD from his ordeal.

Indeed, to be a young man surrounded by french girls in Paris '68 with nothing but the book of mormon to fend them off. It must have terrible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 04, 2012, 01:38:54 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 03, 2012, 09:22:13 pm

Latest political blundering...

http://www.americablog.com/2011/12/romney-adopts-kkk-slogan-keep-america.html

I am going to give Romney the benefit of the doubt in this case and assume he accidentally adopted his "Keep America American" slogan without knowing it was a KKK slogan in the 1920's.

I don't know. It would be ridiculous to say he was a Klansman, for obvious reasons, and I would doubt that he's even actively racist (as opposed to passively prejudiced), especially in comparison to the other republicans he ran against, but why would he say that? It's not like he can't have known it's connotations, is it? But then again, if he was aware, why choose that exact statement instead of the millions of variations that would mean the same thing but still not have anything to do with the KKK? It's stupid any way you put it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on September 04, 2012, 02:33:15 am

Also, he said Keep America America rather than Keep America American. Honsetly, how many of you knew this souded like a KKK slogan before he said it and liberal bloggers started to make a fuss about it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 04, 2012, 02:51:26 am

I didn't know it was KKK, but "Keep [Nation] [Nation-y]" is like the number one slogan for extreme nationalists everywhere. I refuse to believe anyone is un-worldly enough to not recognise the ties to racism such slogans have worldwide. The fact that it's also associated with the KKK in the US just makes it worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on September 04, 2012, 04:45:40 am

Quote from: scriver on September 04, 2012, 01:38:54 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 03, 2012, 09:22:13 pm

Latest political blundering...

http://www.americablog.com/2011/12/romney-adopts-kkk-slogan-keep-america.html

I am going to give Romney the benefit of the doubt in this case and assume he accidentally adopted his "Keep America American" slogan without knowing it was a KKK slogan in the 1920's.

I don't know. It would be ridiculous to say he was a Klansman, for obvious reasons, and I would doubt that he's even actively racist (as opposed to passively prejudiced), especially in comparison to the other republicans he ran against, but why would he say that? It's not like he can't have known it's connotations, is it? But then again, if he was aware, why choose that exact statement instead of the millions of variations that would mean the same thing but still not have anything to do with the KKK? It's stupid any way you put it.

I dunno. It wasn't until Romney was in his 30s that the Mormon Church finally dropped their official race exclusion policies (and many unfortunately continued unofficial exclusion). Not sure where he stood on the issue during that time, but it's not like Mormons don't have a whole lot of racists in their ranks given how darkskin is supposed to be some kind of curse and there existed the idea that: "If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." and "If that negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the Celestial Kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory." Given Mormonism's history with racism it's pretty irresponsible how Romney would push it with the similar slogan to the KKK's but then again he is prone to gaffes.

But then this is old news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 04, 2012, 07:58:41 am

Quote from: scriver on September 04, 2012, 02:51:26 am

I didn't know it was KKK, but "Keep [Nation] [Nation-y]" is like the number one slogan for extreme nationalists everywhere.

Yep.  The slogan is inherently xenophobic since it implies that your country is perfect and right and the problem is those foreign people corrupting it.  The fact that groups like the KKK and the BNP use similar slogans merely demonstrates that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 08:12:05 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 04, 2012, 07:58:41 am

Quote from: scriver on September 04, 2012, 02:51:26 am

I didn't know it was KKK, but "Keep [Nation] [Nation-y]" is like the number one slogan for extreme nationalists everywhere.

Yep.  The slogan is inherently xenophobic since it implies that your country is perfect and right and the problem is those foreign people corrupting it.  The fact that groups like the KKK and the BNP use similar slogans merely demonstrates that.

Made doubly amusing when you consider Team Romney had a donor party on a yacht registered in the Grand Caymans. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-party-yacht-flies-cayman-islands-flag/story?id=17105028)

Maybe they need to amend the slogan to "Keep America America, oh and that really nice spot in the Caymans or maybe Zurich."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:15:54 am

You guys are all forgetting that the KKK hate Mormons such as Romney and would throw them out of the country if they had their way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on September 04, 2012, 08:34:02 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:15:54 am

You guys are all forgetting that the KKK hate Mormons such as Romney and would throw them out of the country if they had their way.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to whether something gives racist or xenophobic vibes. He doesn't even need to be sympathetic to the KKK for the implications to remain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 08:40:43 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:15:54 am

You guys are all forgetting that the KKK hate Mormons such as Romney and would throw them out of the country if they had their way.

YMMV on that point. There was a fascinating interview on NPR a few weeks back with a Jewish author who grew up in Tennessee in the 1930's. She mentioned that the local Klansmen were actually pretty friendly with her family, and would warn them to watch out for those damned Catholics.

Yes, it doesn't make much sense in a larger context, but in the context of that little area, Jews weren't seen as a problem because there were so few. Whereas up North, there's probably Catholic Klan members. I would not be at all shocked if there are Mormon Klan members in the Utah chapters.

EDIT: Actually, looking through some sources, it looks like when the Klan made a resurgence in the 1970s, MOST of the Utah chapter were Mormons. It didn't pan out so well in Utah, and most of those who were serious went up to Idaho to join the Aryan Nation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:44:06 am

Quote from: Glowcat on September 04, 2012, 08:34:02 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:15:54 am

You guys are all forgetting that the KKK hate Mormons such as Romney and would throw them out of the country if they had their way.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to whether something gives racist or xenophobic vibes. He doesn't even need to be sympathetic to the KKK for the implications to remain.

It's pretty decent proof that he wasn't knowingly copying them, as a lot of people insisted last time we talked about this topic.

Quote from: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 08:40:43 am

Yes, it doesn't make much sense in a larger context, but in the context of that little area, Jews weren't seen as a problem because there were so few. Whereas up North, there's probably Catholic Klan members. I would not be at all shocked if there are Mormon Klan members in the Utah chapters.

Just because they hated the local Jews less than the local Catholics does not at all mean there could be Catholic Klansmen. There couldn't be Catholic Klansmen any more than there could be Jewish Klansmen or Mormon Klansmen. The KKK is a Protestant group, no exceptions accepted.

The Klan doesn't have sympathy for Mormons. They were one of the biggest forces advocating their persecution back in the days where they were important in US politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on September 04, 2012, 08:47:37 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 08:12:05 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 04, 2012, 07:58:41 am

Quote from: scriver on September 04, 2012, 02:51:26 am

I didn't know it was KKK, but "Keep [Nation] [Nation-y]" is like the number one slogan for extreme nationalists everywhere.

Yep.  The slogan is inherently xenophobic since it implies that your country is perfect and right and the problem is those foreign people corrupting it.  The fact that groups like the KKK and the BNP use similar slogans merely demonstrates that.

Made doubly amusing when you consider Team Romney had a donor party on a yacht registered in the Grand Caymans. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-party-yacht-flies-cayman-islands-flag/story?id=17105028)

Maybe they need to amend the slogan to "Keep America America, oh and that really nice spot in the Caymans or maybe Zurich."

It's amusing... but honestly... EVERYONE, with the means do so, flags their ships in countries like that, no matter where they're from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience) It's just simply what you do if you have a ship of a certain size... nearly a quarter of all ship tonnage is registered in Panama. Over 50% of all ship tonnage is registered in the top 11 countries, and the only major country on that list is France. It's BS, it's to get around regulations and taxes and everyone knows it... but everyone still does it, so I can't really blame him for being on a foreign flagged boat... Odds are if you've been on one that's larger than 100 tons and it's not military, you've been on a foreign flagged boat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 08:56:32 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:44:06 am

Just because they hated the local Jews less than the local Catholics does not at all mean there could be Catholic Klansmen. There couldn't be Catholic Klansmen any more than there could be Jewish Klansmen or Mormon Klansmen. The KKK is a Protestant group, no exceptions accepted.

The Klan doesn't have sympathy for Mormons. They were one of the biggest forces advocating their persecution back in the days where they were important in US politics.

I know it doesn't make sense...I'm just saying. There HAVE been Catholic Klanners. And Mormon ones too, apparently. There's always been regional variation in what is considered "THOSE people". I bring up my family as a good example. My grandfather (in NC) would have been disowned for marrying a black woman, but any other ethnicity/religion was fine. My grandmother (in MT) would have been disowned for marrying a Mexican or Native American. African-Americans were so rare as to be an exotic curiosity.

There's sort of an upper and lower threshold on bigotry. If there's too few of group X around, it's hard to seriously make them out to be a threat. if there's too many, it becomes impossible to ascribe them all to the same stereotype because you're going to have to interact with them. You need enough of them that you see them in the community and can imagine them doing their <insert stereotype's threat here>, and few enough of them that you don't actually get to know any of them.

@sluissa: I know it's common practice. But when you're running on a somewhat nationalist patform, *and* you have an image problem as a tax-dodging, out-of-touch rich guy....partying on a yacht flying the Grand Caymans' jack is probably not a great idea, y'know? It's not even First-World Problems at that point, it's 1% Problems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on September 04, 2012, 09:12:59 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:44:06 am

Quote from: Glowcat on September 04, 2012, 08:34:02 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 04, 2012, 08:15:54 am

You guys are all forgetting that the KKK hate Mormons such as Romney and would throw them out of the country if they had their way.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to whether something gives racist or xenophobic vibes. He doesn't even need to be sympathetic to the KKK for the implications to remain.

It's pretty decent proof that he wasn't knowingly copying them, as a lot of people insisted last time we talked about this topic.

I'm not claiming Romney favors the KKK, so don't take what I'm about to say as that, but this is fallacious reasoning. Hategroups that don't like each other may still share common ground and there exists enough within the various christian denominations that doesn't necessarily preclude copying each other. Even if he knew of bad blood between mainstream KKK beliefs and his own, that doesn't preclude reaching out for support when they might be more concerned about them other non-white non-Christians to focus on their sectarian concerns. And considering that RedKing has brought up the existence of Mormon klanners I think your underlying assumption which paints a broad brush over what the KKK want or don't want is false.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 09:17:55 am

Yeah. I mean, it's a bit like assuming there couldn't possibly be anti-Israel Jews.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 04, 2012, 09:31:34 am

Quote from: sluissa on September 04, 2012, 08:47:37 am

It's amusing... but honestly... EVERYONE, with the means do so, flags their ships in countries like that, no matter where they're from.

The fact that everyone does it, if anything, just further highlights the way the rich play by a different set of rules then everyone else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 04, 2012, 10:12:41 am

Thanks for the info, guys, both about KKK, Mormons, and flagging. Didn't know much of any of it before.

...The thing about convenience flags does explain what I heard about how the Greek had such a big merchant fleet, though, and still didn't tax it anything - it only was that big because they didn't tax it. My dad has brought up that fleet every time he's ranted about Greece for the last months, gonna feel nice to explain that one to him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 04, 2012, 10:34:44 am

Greece has had a large merchant navy since long before tax shelters were a thing.  It's not so much that greece doesn't tax the navy, it's that the overseas activities are taxed abroad and only the activity in greece is taxed in greece.  That's not unusual.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on September 04, 2012, 11:27:21 am

Well, there is a class of armateur that's making a crapton of money and is not taxed. Greece got a shipping tradition, but they would go to panama in a heartbeat if Greece taxed them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 04, 2012, 12:08:06 pm

Greece does tax them.  You need to be more specific about what kind of tax you are talking about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 04, 2012, 02:25:30 pm

Quote from: sluissa on September 04, 2012, 08:47:37 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 08:12:05 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 04, 2012, 07:58:41 am

Quote from: scriver on September 04, 2012, 02:51:26 am

I didn't know it was KKK, but "Keep [Nation] [Nation-y]" is like the number one slogan for extreme nationalists everywhere.

Yep.  The slogan is inherently xenophobic since it implies that your country is perfect and right and the problem is those foreign people corrupting it.  The fact that groups like the KKK and the BNP use similar slogans merely demonstrates that.

Made doubly amusing when you consider Team Romney had a donor party on a yacht registered in the Grand Caymans. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-party-yacht-flies-cayman-islands-flag/story?id=17105028)

Maybe they need to amend the slogan to "Keep America America, oh and that really nice spot in the Caymans or maybe Zurich."

It's amusing... but honestly... EVERYONE, with the means do so, flags their ships in countries like that, no matter where they're from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience) It's just simply what you do if you have a ship of a certain size... nearly a quarter of all ship tonnage is registered in Panama. Over 50% of all ship tonnage is registered in the top 11 countries, and the only major country on that list is France. It's BS, it's to get around regulations and taxes and everyone knows it... but everyone still does it, so I can't really blame him for being on a foreign flagged boat... Odds are if you've been on one that's larger than 100 tons and it's not military, you've been on a foreign flagged boat.

Registered in Liberia: your assurance of quality on the high seas

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 04, 2012, 03:57:36 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 04, 2012, 09:17:55 am

Yeah. I mean, it's a bit like assuming there couldn't possibly be anti-Israel Jews.

*cough*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on September 04, 2012, 08:52:07 pm

Republicans conspire to rig election... legally says the Republican prosecutor.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/07/prosecutor_roy_schmidt_tried_t.html#incart_river_default

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/08/more_roy_schmidt-jase_bolger_t.html

All copy and pastes in this post are from links provided or from links linked from those links and are credited to writer Nate Reens; if another writer is quoted it's my error and I'll re-attribute upon notification:

Spoiler: GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Rep. Roy Schmidt won’t face charges tied to his last-minute attempts to throw an election in his favor as he jumped to the Republican Party from long-standing ties to Grand Rapids Democrats, Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth ruled Tuesday. (click to show/hide)

It doesn’t mean Forsyth, a Republican, agrees with the behavior.

In a strongly worded final paragraph of an eight-page decision, Forsyth said the state legislature needs to address the situation.

“As a Republican elected official, I am embarrassed and offended by what transpired,” Forsyth wrote. “At a minimum the Legislature should put a time limit on when a candidate may ‘switch’ parties prior to the filing deadline.

“Allowing a candidate to ‘recruit’ a so-called opponent and to allow last minute shenanigans that occurred in this case is a travesty and should not be permitted.”

Spoiler: GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Over a cold Bud Light and chips and cheese, Rep. Roy Schmidt and House Speaker Jase Bolger hashed out the final details for the Grand Rapids lawmaker’s candidate-filing-deadline party switch, text messages reveal. (click to show/hide)

The meeting at Bolger’s home in Marshall took place about 8:30 p.m. May 14, 20 hours before Schmidt would pull a stunning move that rocked Grand Rapids political circles, according to a Michigan State Police report detailing the election-rigging scandal.

Bolger and Schmidt had been texting back and forth throughout the day as Schmidt, his son, Ryan, and nephew, A.J., worked to secure Matt Mojzak as a plant Democrat. Once that seems to be in place, the pair arrange the rendezvous and Bolger asks Schmidt what his favorite beer is. Schmidt responds Bud Light.

Spoiler: GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth said today that state Rep. Roy Schmidt’s “scheme” to defect to the Republican Party, and find a non-viable Democrat opponent to run against him, was intended to “undermine the election” – but not a crime. (click to show/hide)

“Although this scheme by Rep. Schmidt and (House) Speaker (Jase) Bolger was clearly designed to undermine the election and to perpetrate a ‘fraud’ on the electorate, it was nonetheless legal,” Forsyth wrote in an eight-page opinion.

RELATED: Could attempted election rigging maneuvers still bite Roy Schmidt?

“Incredibly, while it would be illegal to pay a boxer to take a ‘dive,’ or a basketball player to ‘point-shave,’ it is not currently a crime in Michigan to recruit someone to run for public office, place them on the ballot at the ‘eleventh hour' and essentially pay them to make no effort to win.”

Shortly before the May 15 filing deadline, Schmidt changed his affiliation to the Republican Party.

The Grand Rapids lawmaker's son, Ryan, found Matthew Mojak, to run against his father as a Democrat. Mojak was not expected to run an active campaign, Forsyth said in the report.

Forsyth said that "it is clear that the only logical reason for his recruitment was to prevent the Democratic Party from mounting a viable write-in candidacy."

Forsyth said Mojak was the only one who might have violated election, but he won’t face charges.

RELATED: Bill Forsyth: Roy Schmidt election scheme is a ‘travesty’

“While Mr. Mojak ill-advisedly agreed to participate in this misadventure, it is clear that he was duped into doing so and is the least culpable of anyone involved in this fiasco.”

Forsyth said state police investigated. He reviewed reports, researched law and consulted with the state Bureau of Elections in reaching his findings.

Forsyth acted on a complaint filed after Mojak, a 22-year-old GNC worker and part-time college student, filed for state representative in the 76th House District. The complaint alleged that his Affidavit of Identity contained false information.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/07/could_attempted_election_riggi.html

From the link directly above:

Spoiler: GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth cleared party-switching Grand Rapids Rep. Roy Schmidt of criminal charges, but he points out the legislator may have violated campaign finance regulations. (click to show/hide)

Forsyth ruled today that an investigation by the state police turned up at least three potential acts that the Secretary of State could probe tied to the last-minute jump to the Republican Party on May 15.

Schmidt signed his Affidavit of Identity on May 3 and had it notarized by a member of House Speaker Jase Bolger’s staff. More than a week later he held a spaghetti fundraiser that has enraged Democrats because of the timing involved.

“Consequently, on May 11, while raising funds for his re-election as a Democrat, he had already signed the paperwork necessary to withdraw as a Democrat and to file as a Republican,” Forsyth wrote of one possible violation.

A second, Forsyth said, was the original offer to pay Matt Mojzak, a family friend of Schmidt’s, $450 for being a non-viable Democratic opponent in the November election for the 76th House District. The offer later jumped to $1,000, but no money ever changed hands, Forsyth said police learned.

RELATED: Bill Forsyth: Roy Schmidt election scheme is a ‘travesty’

Mojazk withdrew under the media firestorm that surrounded Schmidt’s party change. Mojzak immediately contacted an attorney and said he wanted nothing more to do with Schmidt despite the offer of a “free” attorney.

"It's a criminal investigation by the attorney generals office," Mojzak texted Ryan Schmidt, Roy's son who recruited him to the race. "I'm not chancing anything."

The third and final possible violation was that Schmidt directed his campaign treasurer to cut a $2,000 check to his son, Ryan Schmidt, from the Friends of Roy Schmidt political action committee. Ryan Schmidt, who recruited Mojzak, was to split the money with the fake candidate.

“It appears Representative Schmidt attempted to improperly use campaign contributions,” Forsyth wrote. “I think the evidence, while circumstantial, is nonetheless compelling.”

Forsyth said he has forwarded the investigative reports to the Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office and will leave it to them to determine “what, if any, violations occurred and what, if any, sanctions should be imposed.

A spokeswoman for the office said it has not received the documentation.

“Should and when we receive it, we will review it and make a decision,” Gisgie Gendreau said.

The office has already rejected assertions made by Democrats that House Speaker Jase Bolger's staffers were involved on state time. The accusations weren't backed up by evidence.

Follow Nate Reens on Twitter at www.twitter.com/natereens

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/08/roy_schmidt_investigation_shor.html

From the directly above link:

UPDATE: Liberal group calls for independent investigator in Roy Schmidt election probe

Spoiler: GRAND RAPIDS, MI – The consultation of a lawyer in Roy Schmidt and Jase Bolger’s election rigging scheme ended a criminal investigation against the two state lawmakers, Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth said Monday. (click to show/hide)

Text messages between Bolger, the House speaker, and Schmidt, a second-term Grand Rapids legislator, show the two conspired to recruit a plant Democrat to the Aug. 7 primary while switching Schmidt to the Republican Party at the May 15 candidate filing deadline.

The exchanges - contained in a 1,000-page police report obtained by The Press and MLive.com – were largely previously disclosed by Forsyth when he released a July 17 opinion that he would not prosecute Schmidt and Bolger.

Related: Read text messages between House Speaker Bolger, Rep. Schmidt plotting party switch, fake candidate

But the records also reveal that the pair was acting, at least in part, on the legal opinion of House Republican Counsel Joseph Baumann, Forsyth said.

Related: Jase Bolger, his staffers deny working on state time during Roy Schmidt party switch

“Clearly, Speaker Bolger has been consulting with a lawyer on what is going on and how am I going to prove that Bolger and Schmidt intentionally tried to commit a crime when they are acting on the advice of a lawyer,” Forsyth said. “It would be a non-starter in my opinion.

“It’s a fairly technical and complicated law and it made trying to prosecute somebody almost an impossibility.”

In order to charge a conspiracy crime, a law has to be broken and that did not happen in the scheme, Forsyth said.

Forsyth said he called off the investigation because voters needed to know about the shenanigans before heading to the primary polls. He also believed any relevant information had been discovered in the days leading up to the switch.

The decision was criticized by Democrats, who believe by cancelling search warrants seeking Bolger’s cell phone records and other information, Forsyth limited the scope of the probe.

“He shut the investigation down before there were answers, short-circuiting the entire process of following the facts and finding justice,” said Rep. Brandon Dillon, D-Grand Rapids. “The more we see, the less savory the whole situation looks.”

Dillon suggested Forsyth could have issued an interim report that informed voters and allowed the evidence in the warrants to come back to show what else may have happened in electronic communications.

Dillon and House Minority Floor Leader Kate Segal, D-Battle Creek, renewed their call for a complete investigation of the election scandal that nearly prevented Schmidt from advancing to the Nov. 6 general election.

Related: Bing Goei: Jase Bolger passed me over for Roy Schmidt in Grand Rapids state House race

Forsyth said he has had no direct request to take a deeper look at the actions of Schmidt and Bolger.

Matt Mojzak, the fake Democratic candidate, was given limited immunity that his statements could not be used against him, and Mojzak said in a police interview that he didn’t understand what he was getting involved in.

Mojzak said Schmidt presented him with an affidavit containing an address where he planned to move and that Schmidt told him it was all right to not be living there presently, documents show. He also told investigators he didn’t realize there was incorrect information about him being a 22-year resident of Kent County on the document.

Kent County elections officials also said their review of the documents submitted pointed only to a possible perjury crime by Mojzak.

Democrats are also calling a foul for Attorney General Bill Schuette’s text to Schmidt at 7:19 a.m. on May 16, asking the representative to call him. They contend it’s a sign why his office is unwilling to look at the case, an argument that’s been dismissed by his staff.

Follow Nate Reens on Twitter at www.twitter.com/natereens

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 04, 2012, 11:11:50 pm

So some guy up for election jumped parties too late for his own party to come up with someone to fill his spot in the election, thus giving it away?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on September 04, 2012, 11:27:04 pm

Not only that, he appointed someone to run a shitty campaign in his place, while attempting and (I think) failing to pay him for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on September 05, 2012, 01:08:36 am

............DAFUQ?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 05, 2012, 01:11:35 am

Ah, the new standard operating procedures have arrived in elections it seems. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 06, 2012, 07:57:40 am

Democrats fall prey to the "Oh shit, GOP said we're godless atheist commies" trap, insert language into their official party platform supporting a unified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and invoking 'God' (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/god-democratic-platform-12420425).

Seriously? SRSLY??
A. WTF is a very narrow foreign policy statement doing as part of the platform? Especially a plank that *many* rank-and-file Democrats don't necessarily support?
B. As the Esquire article points out, "God" is mentioned zero times in the Constitution and once in the Declaration of Independence. The correct response to GOP naysaying of "ooooooh, they didn't say God in their platform! I'm telling the teacher!" would be to tell them to fuck off. This is one of the main reasons why I will never be a Democrat -- the party in general is all brain, no balls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 06, 2012, 09:25:05 am

I am shocked- shocked to hear that politicking is going on in party platforms.

Look this is Israel thing is a disappointment but it's hardly a big deal.  It wouldn't even rank in my top 100 disappointments with the democratic party regarding Israel.  The real world implications of this are approximately zero and there are far, far bigger fish to fry.

What seems likely to me is that some zionist democratic senator or representative suggested that and no one thought it would be a big deal because well, it's not.  Mr. zionist feels placated and the liberals have given away zero in real substance.  This is the sort of thing that happens fairly regularly to make that sausage and it will continue until the liberals are numerous enough for democrats to win without a big tent strategy or the democrats are no longer interested in winning elections.

Take issue with the real policy failings of the democrats, they make them all the time.  But nitpicks like this are so not important.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on September 06, 2012, 11:04:51 am

I would hardly call this a nitpick... it is serious foreign policy and one issue that a lot of people(on both sides, mind you) feel we've been doing wrong for a long time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 06, 2012, 11:11:02 am

Yes, I disagree with this line of the platform too.  But this isn't representative of our foreign policy nor is it a high profile stance.  This is such a small incident that the guy in charge was confused why anyone would even protest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 06, 2012, 11:39:54 am

Isn't saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel simply factually incorrect?  I'd understand "We would like to have Jerusalem recognised as the capital of Israel" but just making a statement about it does not make it so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 11:50:27 am

The de jure capital of Israel is Jerusalem, but the de facto capital is Tel Aviv.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 06, 2012, 12:24:34 pm

De jure according to Israeli law, not international law.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 12:29:39 pm

As if international law really matters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on September 06, 2012, 01:12:03 pm

International law does matter, but only as far as Palestine is considered a nation. I'm also not entirely sure WHAT international law would say, even if Palestine could, without a doubt, be considered a nation. If I understand right, international law tends to be a lot more case-by-case in its decisions rather than having books upon books of pre-determined scenarios written out. The relations between the two, including any treaties or agreements would be looked at as well as similar situations that have been resolved between other states in recent history. Precedent is important, even if it's not necessarily binding.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on September 06, 2012, 01:25:25 pm

@MichiganNonsense: The more and more I look into the politics of my home state, the more and more I want to facepunch every politician in the state until they cede power to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 06, 2012, 01:26:09 pm

You should've seen the Arab voters at the DNC screaming Nay.

The whole breaking their back thing to satisfy the [christian] religious fundamentalists is insulting. Especially when they think they have the ability to determine what is and isn't a Capital of another country. As a Jew and an American I will solidly tell both of their platforms to go suck a dick for only advancing the cause of Israel, which is the 'exterminate anything that is not in line with their policies' policy. Or force them out of their cities and lands to build settlements for rich families.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 06, 2012, 01:34:16 pm

I think all the christian zionists are in the republican party.   There still are some pretty knee jerk pro-Israel jews in the democratic party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 06, 2012, 01:35:56 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 06, 2012, 01:34:16 pm

I think all the christian zionists are in the republican party.   There still are some pretty knee jerk pro-Israel jews in the democratic party.

Approximately 2/3rds of the Democratic party is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs)


Can I please vent about how goddamn insulting it is that this is being turned into 'They are godless and out of touch' when the fact of the matter is the contention was about Jerusalem being blatantly overstated as the capital [which, news flash, it's not, welcome to Tel Aviv America] and further exacerbating Jew v Arab relations in the US?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 06, 2012, 01:38:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 06, 2012, 11:11:02 am

This is such a small incident that the guy in charge was confused why anyone would even protest.

Which tells you how freakin' out of touch the party establishment is with the membership.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 06, 2012, 01:41:05 pm

It looks to me like I might have underestimated the size of the forum this was taking place in.  I must confess I'm a bit confused.  This seems a bit too imflamatory a platform statement for prime time to me considering their past.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 06, 2012, 02:03:09 pm

To think I thought it would just be the Republicans being blatant crooks in the convention.

Ah well, there's always Gary Johnson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 06, 2012, 02:21:00 pm

That was fucking bullshit.

There is no way that passed with 2/3.

I am now filled with rage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on September 06, 2012, 02:51:50 pm

So... which set of corrupt individuals are you going to vote for?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 06, 2012, 02:57:15 pm

Considering Democrats never follow the party platform anyway, I really do not see why this is such a big deal.

Jill Stein is the best candidate for president, but the Greens are so hopeless I'm not wasting my vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 06, 2012, 02:58:36 pm

Quote from: sluissa on September 06, 2012, 02:51:50 pm

So... which set of corrupt individuals are you going to vote for?

We get to face this question for the 56th time this year. Woohoo.

Spoiler: Off Topic (click to show/hide)

Is your avatar supposed to be the Slender Penguin?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 06, 2012, 03:07:26 pm

Quote from: sluissa on September 06, 2012, 02:51:50 pm

So... which set of corrupt individuals are you going to vote for?

Excellent question.

I don't vote for sets of corrupt individuals. I vote for the individual corrupt based on the merits of their particular corruption.

Economic policy is still my primary motivation.

If we were not still teetering on the edge of recession/depression might vote Gary Johnson.

Obama is still least bad for the economy (and he is still not good enough).

I'll spend some time looking at Jill Stein. Even if I approve of her, I will still probably vote Obama considering I am in a swing state and denying Florida to Romney is important. I have voted green in the past, when I lived in Mississippi and my vote didn't matter anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on September 06, 2012, 03:13:35 pm

I'm just pissed that both major parties have shown themselves to be at least as corrupt as each other in their respective conventions... the Republicans pulled almost this same thing(minus the blundering retries) at theirs.

I personally don't think Jill Stein is different enough on the important stuff from Obama to bother voting for. And on the minor things I like to look at, she actually goes in the wrong direction from what I'd prefer. Also, from the little I've seen, she's just not all that charismatic.

Spoiler: Off topic response to Mego (click to show/hide)

No, it's just a penguin with a blank face since I went without a avatar on here for a long time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 06, 2012, 06:37:55 pm

Derp derp lets vote 3 times, ok at the end I got the result I wanted lets certify the amendment!

Sigh.  Ah well, at least it probably improves the democrats chances at winning the election.  Plus, republicans can evidently push thru rules the same shitty way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 06, 2012, 07:05:42 pm

Just to be very clear on this;

"Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

That's the language from their platform. The two things I take from this;

1) They recognise the Israeli position on Jerusalem as their capital. This is actually current US policy and has been for a long time. It may be slightly problematic from a diplomatic viewpoint, appearing to strongly favour Israel's claims in any negotiations, but given they also recognise the question of Jerusalem's status is subject to such negotiations I don't think this is a huge problem.

2) They say it should remain an undivided city accessible to all faiths. This is almost more problematic. Working out how to pull of such a feat has only ever been done on the West Wing. Many two-state models include a divided Jerusalem and/or fall down on the question of how to maintain access to the sacred sites. Because point 1 sabotages the US's ability to take part in such debates it's hard to see how the US can take an active role in achieving this point, which makes it a wish for a sparkly pony with ribbons in it's tail.

In the end this is simply the 2008 language re-inserted. Given that Obama has been painted as both a Zionist and enemy-of-Jews depending on who you read, I'm not sure we can take much away from this. Other than the DNC is still a pathetic pandering body of spineless jerks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 07:14:35 pm

I really wish that the Crusaders would have accidentally burned Jerusalem to the ground all those centuries ago. That place causes way too much trouble for everyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on September 06, 2012, 07:38:03 pm

I expect we'd still be fighting over the ruins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 06, 2012, 07:56:22 pm

Yea... probably would.  Even if said ruins were blasted into the ocean and it was an island, there would still be fighting over them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on September 06, 2012, 09:23:49 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 06, 2012, 07:05:42 pm

2) They say it should remain an undivided city accessible to all faiths. This is almost more problematic. Working out how to pull of such a feat has only ever been done on the West Wing. Many two-state models include a divided Jerusalem and/or fall down on the question of how to maintain access to the sacred sites. Because point 1 sabotages the US's ability to take part in such debates it's hard to see how the US can take an active role in achieving this point, which makes it a wish for a sparkly pony with ribbons in it's tail.

Jack Ryan did it in a Tom Clancy book too, just as an aside.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 06, 2012, 09:25:33 pm

Didn't Tom Clancy give Jerusalem to the Vatican in one of his books?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 06, 2012, 10:50:40 pm

No. The Vatican supplied the security force for the city of Jerusalem (on the grounds that the only military force that was trusted not to immediately annex the city was the Vatican's Swiss mercenaries), but the government was by an interfaith council involving all the major faiths that consider the city sacred.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 07, 2012, 06:32:51 am

...How did they define what level of "faith" was going to be representated? I mean, was it like "Jews, Christians, and Muslims", or the "Orthodox, Conservative, and Liberal Jews; Orthodox, Catholic, Catholic-Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Reformist, and Mormon Christians; and Sunni, Shia, and [Those Two Other Major Branches of Islam I Can Never Remember the Name of] Muslims" level, or "[All the Individual Cults and Sects of All Three Faiths Are Represented]"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 07, 2012, 07:29:33 am

It's Tom Clancy, so I'm guessing the answer is "I was going to get around to explaining that but spent ten pages giving you the equipment loadout of the Swiss Guards, down to the individual serial numbers on their gear. Oh, and that shower sex scene with the foxy Mossad agent. What was the question again?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on September 07, 2012, 07:39:57 am

The real question is whether more people fap to the shower sex scene, or the equipment loadout.

Anyhow, has anyone seen the new horror add about Canadian healthcare? It basically says that someone with a benign tumor was evaluated in Canada, found to have a condition that wasn't immediately dangerous, and put on a waiting list for surgery. Then she went to the U.S. and, because she had money, had it operated on immediately. They never mention how much money that surgery cost her, or that if she didn't have money in the U.S. that she would have had to wait twice as long than in Canada.

Is Canadian healthcare perfect? Certainly not. But it's a little rude to harp on them for not having a two-tier health system when they've fought tooth and nail not to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 07, 2012, 07:58:06 am

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 07, 2012, 07:39:57 am

The real question is whether more people fap to the shower sex scene, or the equipment loadout.

Given the way Clancy writes sex scenes....I'm gonna go with the latter. He's guilty of a little too much "insert tab A into slot B" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKEAErotica), if you know what I mean...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 07, 2012, 01:56:35 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 07, 2012, 07:39:57 am

The real question is whether more people fap to the shower sex scene, or the equipment loadout.

Anyhow, has anyone seen the new horror add about Canadian healthcare? It basically says that someone with a benign tumor was evaluated in Canada, found to have a condition that wasn't immediately dangerous, and put on a waiting list for surgery. Then she went to the U.S. and, because she had money, had it operated on immediately. They never mention how much money that surgery cost her, or that if she didn't have money in the U.S. that she would have had to wait twice as long than in Canada.

Is Canadian healthcare perfect? Certainly not. But it's a little rude to harp on them for not having a two-tier health system when they've fought tooth and nail not to.

It's a bit more complicated than that. On one hand, a lot of the time you do get situations where non-immediate threats are shoved months away, become immediate threats, and result in death. You also have situations where people with serious conditions/problems are let into the waiting room (having not been clever enough to go for the ambulance immediately), are forced to wait, and die. However, those situations (at least the second kind) aren't terribly common; the two hospitals I've lived near that had it happen went into a panic and increased admittance speed by quite a lot. On the other, however, the drugs are usually cheaper and care in general is less expensive, largely because in the US the gigantic mess of rules means that doctors have to recommend the most expensive, marginally better Name Brand drug over the significantly cheaper generic equivalent because they'd have their pants sued off if they prescribed the "less effective" one and the patient died (keep in mind, this is like a +1% survival rate over +0.5% survival rate when the respective costs are $2,000 and $10).

A lot of Canadians, at least where I live, either get covered by OHIP to go to American hospitals (Not sure how they cover the multi-hundred thousand dollar bills for the exotic surgeries they usually send Canadians over for) or they get American insurance just in case they end up in cracks. Our system is certainly worse in some ways, but it isn't completely inferior by any means and his advantages of its own.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 08, 2012, 02:51:40 am

Kinda reminds me of the American politician (thier name escapes me) who when speaking out against Obama's healthcare reforms cited the NHS as an example he disliked. He claimed that if Prof Hawking was born in, grew up in and lived in the UK, he would have died at an early age as the NHS wouldnt have cared for him. It took me a while to remove my palm from my face on that one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 08, 2012, 11:38:39 am

It was a conservative blogger, whose post can be found here. (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877) The post, however, has been edited with the following note:

Quote

Editor's Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 08, 2012, 11:47:51 am

Not to mention Hawking didn't need serious medical attention until his 30's or so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 08, 2012, 04:42:29 pm

Romney pulling advertizing in Michigan and Pennsylvania. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-gop-michigan-pennsylvania-pull-out.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29)  This probably means that he's writing them off as hopeless.  This doesn't really give Obama a lock on the election but it means that Romney will have to win a large share of the states still being contested, most of which he is trailing in.  Here is a map that shows swing states as the ones that the candidates are still advertising in AFAIK:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=xeu

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 08, 2012, 05:04:17 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 08, 2012, 04:42:29 pm

Romney pulling advertizing in Michigan and Pennsylvania. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-gop-michigan-pennsylvania-pull-out.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29)  This probably means that he's writing them off as hopeless.  This doesn't really give Obama a lock on the election but it means that Romney will have to win a large share of the states still being contested, most of which he is trailing in.  Here is a map that shows swing states as the ones that the candidates are still advertising in AFAIK:
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=xeu

Naturally. If Romney won Michigan and Pennsylvania, advertising or no, he'd have basically swept the rest of the Rust Belt and won the election already. Similar concept to, say, New Mexico or Maine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 09, 2012, 02:54:33 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 08, 2012, 05:04:17 pm

Naturally. If Romney won Michigan and Pennsylvania, advertising or no, he'd have basically swept the rest of the Rust Belt and won the election already. Similar concept to, say, New Mexico or Maine.

I get what you are saying but that's not why I posted this news.  States can behave idiosyncratically and campaigns do not know ahead of time what those idiosyncratic behaviors will be.  A few months back it was within the realm of possibility that Pennsylvania or Michigan could be states right at the margin, maybe something funky would happen at the local economies or maybe the support from different demographic groups would shake out differently.  So it is true as you pointed out that Romney is just acknowledging the status quo.  However observing the status quo is new information, because it tells us that a shift did not happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 07:25:34 am

Okay, now that conventions are over, let's take a look at the polls:

National:
Gallup          Obama +5
Rasmussen   Obama +4
RCP Average Obama +1.8 (8/22-9/8, so still capturing some of the pre-convention numbers)

Job Approval:
Gallup          Approve +6
Rasmussen   Approve +5

Ohio:
PPP            Obama +5

North Carolina:
PPP            Obama +1


The narrative coming out of the conventions is that Obama got a bounce, Romney didn't. Some are speculating that the Clint Eastwood thing may have negated much of any potential RNC bounce, simply because it swallowed up all the media conversation in the immediate aftermath. It's worth noting that, per Nate Silver, Gallup has the strongest 'house effect' towards Republicans of any of the major pollsters this cycle. So when Gallup is finding Obama at +5 and with positive job approval numbers for the first time in a while...that's significant, unless they're falling prey to whatever kind of frontrunner fallacy that Rasmussen always seems to. Probably be another week to see the full permanent effect of the convention bounce. I'm more interested in the state-level polling at this point, which we'll have to wait a day or two for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on September 10, 2012, 08:07:14 am

I heard a rumor that because of Romney's faith, his family has ties to mexico. Like he was born there. If this is true, the irony is delicious. Is it true? Anyone know?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on September 10, 2012, 08:18:32 am

Pretty sure that's a rumor, not sure how being a Mormon has to do with being born in Mexico :O

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 10, 2012, 08:20:05 am

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on September 10, 2012, 08:07:14 am

I heard a rumor that because of Romney's faith, his family has ties to mexico. Like he was born there. If this is true, the irony is delicious. Is it true? Anyone know?

I highly doubt this. It sounds just like 4 years ago (and 3, and 2, and 1, and a few months ago, and unfortunately still now), when people were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Obama was born in Kenya.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 08:24:04 am

No, but Romney's ancestors did immigrate to Mexico at some point, and thence to the US. Not that they were "Mexicans", just "white English people living in Mexico".

So this picture made my day.

Spoiler: Don't ever stop being Joe, Joe. (click to show/hide)

(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rQKGQoldk_fQlRyzSOgj.Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MzYwO2NyPTE7Y3c9NjQwO2R4PTA7ZHk9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0zNTU7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/us.news.abcnews.otus/ap_joe_biden_cruisers_diner_jt_120909_wmain.jpg)

Yes, that is the Vice President of the United States. Cuddling up to a biker chick. And from the reactions of her buddies, about to get his ass kicked in the parking lot afterwards.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on September 10, 2012, 08:28:58 am

I heard how it worked out was because of marriage rights. His grandpapy believed in the right to have multiple wives, and left with a group of other mormons to Mexico to keep the "obey the law of the land" tenant of the Mormon faith while still being all surrounded by wives. Well they maintained their US citizenship while living down there, but Romney was born in Mexico. I hope it's true, it would just be too rich! Birthers Unite! Let's compare their birth certificates! And tax documents! And educational records! And their last tests for STDs!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 10, 2012, 08:41:55 am

Romney's father was born in Mexico, in a Mormon colony founded by his own grandparents to practice polygamy. That same father (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney) was Governor of Michigan and Secretary of HUD without problems regarding his birthplace or grandparents polygamy. I didn't think that sort of thing skipped a generation...

I think that his fathers name might be more damaging stripped of context. After all, Mitt is the literal son of George W. On the other hand, it was the George W. who marched for civil rights and considered Barry Goldwater's conservatism a drag on the Republican part.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 08:50:13 am

That's kind of mashing his father's and grandfather's history.

His grandparents lived in a Mormon colony in Mexico (of which there were several), and his father was born there. The whole family fled Mexico around the time of the Mexican Revolution (c.1910) and moved to Salt Lake City. George Romney then moved to Detroit for business and eventually became Governor of Michigan. Willard Mitt Romney was born in Detroit in 1947.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 10, 2012, 08:56:07 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 08:24:04 am

So this picture made my day.

Spoiler: Don't ever stop being Joe, Joe. (click to show/hide)

(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rQKGQoldk_fQlRyzSOgj.Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MzYwO2NyPTE7Y3c9NjQwO2R4PTA7ZHk9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0zNTU7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/us.news.abcnews.otus/ap_joe_biden_cruisers_diner_jt_120909_wmain.jpg)

Yes, that is the Vice President of the United States. Cuddling up to a biker chick. And from the reactions of her buddies, about to get his ass kicked in the parking lot afterwards.

The one on the left is contemplating the odds of being able to throw Biden through a window before the Secret Service takes him down, the one on the right's brain exploded, the one in the center is contemplating Going Clinton with Biden, and Biden himself is the first known sighting of a male cougar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on September 10, 2012, 09:28:31 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 10, 2012, 08:56:07 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 08:24:04 am

So this picture made my day.

Spoiler: Don't ever stop being Joe, Joe. (click to show/hide)

(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rQKGQoldk_fQlRyzSOgj.Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MzYwO2NyPTE7Y3c9NjQwO2R4PTA7ZHk9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0zNTU7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/us.news.abcnews.otus/ap_joe_biden_cruisers_diner_jt_120909_wmain.jpg)

Yes, that is the Vice President of the United States. Cuddling up to a biker chick. And from the reactions of her buddies, about to get his ass kicked in the parking lot afterwards.

The one on the left is contemplating the odds of being able to throw Biden through a window before the Secret Service takes him down, the one on the right's brain exploded, the one in the center is contemplating Going Clinton with Biden, and Biden himself is the first known sighting of a male cougar.

Joe is the best politician for the rest of this century.  Till he gets dethroned of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 09:31:16 am

Forget "Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?"

Joe wins the "which candidate is liable to awkwardly hit on your mom?" contest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 10, 2012, 09:45:58 am

Holy shit that picture is awesome. Cuckold 2012! Those looks the two guys are giving are...fucking...priceless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 09:56:31 am

This has been a good weekend for wacky photo-ops. Before this, we had Obama getting powerlifted in a bear hug by a pizza store owner.

Spoiler: Sir....please put the President of the United States back on the ground. (click to show/hide)

(http://www.infotechgarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Obama-Lift-in-Bear-Hug-by-Scott-Van-Duzer.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 10, 2012, 10:37:34 am

Love how Obama's body language and expression is like right at the point of transformation from a happy "Hug!" into a surrendering "WTF?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 10, 2012, 11:00:05 am

"Is...is this an assassination attempt? Is anyone going to help me out? You know, the President? Hello?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Soralin on September 10, 2012, 11:18:43 am

Quote from: scriver on September 10, 2012, 10:37:34 am

Love how Obama's body language and expression is like right at the point of transformation from a happy "Hug!" into a surrendering "WTF?"

Yeah, this is just hilarious. :)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama-bear-hug.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 11:20:27 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/26469808.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 10, 2012, 11:21:08 am

The funny part is that that guy is apparently a registered Republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 11:26:14 am

Who is nonetheless voting for Obama. I imagine that once they heard of such a mythical beast, the campaign booked tickets down there in a heartbeat.

And you just know Romney is scouring the Internets to find a Democrat who's voting for him, for a counter-photo-op. He was sad when he found out Joe Lieberman didn't count.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 10, 2012, 02:19:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 10, 2012, 09:56:31 am

This has been a good weekend for wacky photo-ops. Before this, we had Obama getting powerlifted in a bear hug by a pizza store owner.

Spoiler: Sir....please put the President of the United States back on the ground. (click to show/hide)

(http://www.infotechgarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Obama-Lift-in-Bear-Hug-by-Scott-Van-Duzer.jpg)

The guy on the right has almost as good of a facial expression as Obama himself.

"This... This is happening, right? I'm not imagining it, right?"

Quote from: Soralin on September 10, 2012, 11:18:43 am

Quote from: scriver on September 10, 2012, 10:37:34 am

Love how Obama's body language and expression is like right at the point of transformation from a happy "Hug!" into a surrendering "WTF?"

Yeah, this is just hilarious. :)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama-bear-hug.jpg)

And the guy in front of the jersey in this picture looks like Ross Matthews.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 10, 2012, 02:34:04 pm

Argh. Won't a scandal or something happen? It's feeling pretty slow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on September 10, 2012, 02:36:43 pm

Those pics are fucking priceless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 10, 2012, 02:41:05 pm

I dunno, I think getting into a bar fight with some dudes over a biker chick would improve Joe's image in certain circles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on September 10, 2012, 02:47:45 pm

"Sure, I may have a black eye, but I struck a blow for FREEDOM!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 10, 2012, 02:48:25 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on September 10, 2012, 02:36:43 pm

Those pics are fucking priceless.

^


I needed a good laugh this morning :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 10, 2012, 03:08:53 pm

Actually doing anything would improve Who The Hell Is Joe Biden's reputation in my eyes.

Quote from: Nadaka on September 10, 2012, 02:41:05 pm

I dunno, I think getting into a bar fight with some dudes over a biker chick would improve Joe's image in certain circles.

If he gets into a fight with a Mongol that'll pretty well solidify the Hells Angels vote for Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 10, 2012, 05:07:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 10, 2012, 02:41:05 pm

I dunno, I think getting into a bar fight with some dudes over a biker chick would improve Joe's image in certain circles.

Getting in a fight with some dudes over a biker chick would be exactly what I'd expect from Joe Biden.  I've lived most of my life in and around Delaware.  We know where he's coming from.  Obama didn't pick him to talk pretty is all I'm sayin'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 10, 2012, 05:12:53 pm

See, we need more funny campaign pics/news in this thread, and fewer endless "debates" about gun control or Israel or whatever. First time I've smiled at this thread in ages.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 10, 2012, 08:54:51 pm

Sorry if this puts the partisanship back in your feel good political thread but I find these comments by a "top Romney advisor" on what to make of Romney losing ground in the polls too good to resist:

It’s horses**t. Nobody in Boston thinks we’re going to lose...PPP has these polls that just put chum in the water for the media. Sometimes I think there’s a conscious effort between the media and Chicago to get Republicans depressed...The 202 area code is dominated by people who will make more money if Obama is reelected, so it’s not just an ideological thumb they’re putting on the scale for him, it’s a business interest. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316400/horsest-rich-lowry#) (edited down to just give the broad strokes of the quote.)

Gee... wealthy individuals supporting political causes that would help them financially.  Yup, definitely Democrats to blame.  It's not like there are any candidates campaigning on a platform of huge giveaways to the rich and powerful. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 11, 2012, 12:06:51 am

Saw this, smiled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0uX36AczW0&feature=player_embedded#!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 11, 2012, 01:04:02 am

Not too shabby.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 11, 2012, 08:07:39 am

270towin.com just released a pretty cool interactive map of the house races with races people can adjust here. (http://www.270towin.com/2012_house_election/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on September 11, 2012, 12:58:10 pm

That video seemed more anti-Romney than pro Obama. I don't think Hilary would put up with VP though.

By the way, lots of bashing Obama for the "staged photo-op bear hug" by the guy "who is a republican in name only".
According to the radio guys, the secret service authorized it up front and obama knew about it.

So there's the scandal brewing. Obama bribed a guy to pretend to be republican and bearhug him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 11, 2012, 01:08:26 pm

 ???

Oh gracious. A photo-op wasn't a spontaneous event. Call the FBI.

As to the "Republican in name only", hey if the guy's a registered Republican, he's a registered Republican. It's a "no true Scotsman" thing.

Incidental to that, there's a story now about how this guy's pizza shop became a battleground on Yelp for political trolls. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/scott-van-duzer-big-apple-pizza-yelp-bear-hug_n_1871329.html)

Long story short, his listing on Yelp got review-bombed by a bunch of pricks downrating him solely because of his connection to Obama. And then counter-bombed by people giving it five stars as an offset. THIS IS WHAT POLITICS HAS BECOME. >_<

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 11, 2012, 01:13:48 pm

It's certainly true that he was cleared by the secret service. You can tell that because Obama is within six feet of the guy without agents all over him. It's not like the service clears absolutely every establishment Obama visits on these tours. And if I were going to bear hug the president I'd want at least some assurance I wasn't going to be shot for my efforts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 11, 2012, 01:32:19 pm

I wonder if Obama can order the secret service to not protect him. He isn't technically in charge of them, so...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 11, 2012, 01:54:46 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 11, 2012, 01:32:19 pm

I wonder if Obama can order the secret service to not protect him. He isn't technically in charge of them, so...

Presidents don't have that authority, I don't believe. The SS's first priority (at least, the part of the SS that's in charge of protection) is to protect high-level government officials and their families. They cannot be ordered to stand down except by a higher-up in the SS.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 11, 2012, 03:12:30 pm

So it was mentioned way back in this thread that investigations into voter fraud have turned up roughly 50 cases a year.  The democrats with pretty amazingly bad luck managed to nominate one of those 50 cases a year for a congressional race (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81023.html?hp=r8).  Wendy Rosen is dropping out of the race for MD-1st district after it was revealed that she voted in both Florida and Maryland in 2006.  Republicans are of course renewing their calls for restrictive voter laws in Maryland (which ain't going nowhere) despite the fact that none of their proposals would have actually deterred this case of double voting.  It's too late for the democrats to replace Wendy Rosen with another candidate, not that it would do them much good in such a conservative district.

This doesn't change much though.  Wendy Rosen has withdrawn from the race but it wasn't ever a competitive race to begin with.  Probably the most interesting thing about the race will be the sad spectacle of the debate next month.  The candidates left for the debate will be a tea party republican, a paleo-libertarian and a self financed perennial-independent who's to the right of the other two guys.  Considering that MD-1st is a quite conservative district this debate between three hard right conservatives should be quite the sight to see.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 11, 2012, 03:16:18 pm

Voter fraud nation wide is like... 0.001 percent. Its ridiculously small. Sometimes they make it look like the mafia is running our elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on September 11, 2012, 03:24:53 pm

It is. That's why 1/3rd of the nation elects our leaders.

They don't break legs anymore, they break civic responsibility. You wanna vote for someone who isn't corrupt? Forgetabotit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 11, 2012, 04:32:48 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on September 11, 2012, 03:24:53 pm

It is. That's why 1/3rd of the nation elects our leaders.

They don't break legs anymore, they break civic responsibility. You wanna vote for someone who isn't corrupt? Forgetabotit.

Bloc voting is a big problem especially combined with low turnout. For example, Ramapo NY has a minority bloc with very enough turnout to give it a majority vote. The Orthodox Jewish bloc has caused a lot of problems in the town, notably in the East Ramapo School Board.  A couple of articles on the subject:
http://thanassiscambanis.com/sipa/?p=329
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/nyregion/parents-in-east-ramapo-school-district-ask-state-to-oust-orthodox-jews-on-board.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.lohud.com/article/20120609/NEWS03/306090057/A-G-probes-E-Ramapo-deal

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 11, 2012, 05:02:11 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 11, 2012, 03:12:30 pm

So it was mentioned way back in this thread that investigations into voter fraud have turned up roughly 50 cases a year.  The democrats with pretty amazingly bad luck managed to nominate one of those 50 cases a year for a congressional race (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81023.html?hp=r8).

I wouldn't be surprised if every last one of them was a professional politician somewhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 12, 2012, 05:42:03 am

‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’ Mitt Romney Told Group Of Gay Parents (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/i-didnt-know-you-had-families-mitt-romney-told-group-of-gay-parents/politics/2012/09/11/48832?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewCivilRightsMovement+%28The+New+Civil+Rights+Movement%29)

I can't help but laugh at how audaciously disconnected Romney is.  It's beyond caricature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on September 12, 2012, 09:01:09 am

http://duanegraham.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/kid-romney/

Romney:

Quote

I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.  It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

"What triggered Romney’s amateurish response was a statement released by the U.S. embassy in Cairo [...] The embassy statement, the one Romney said showed sympathy to those who attacked our “diplomatic missions,” was actually released before—repeat, before—those deadly attacks occurred. Romney jumped the gun, just to reinforce the narrative about the president, and made himself look the fool. [...] The Obama administration made it clear this statement, released “shortly after noon” on Tuesday, according to The New York Times, was not authorized by the White House."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 12, 2012, 09:07:26 am

More info on the attacks:

This is the video responsible for the protests, called "The Innocence of Muslims."
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmodVun16Q4&feature=youtu.be)
The video was directed by an Israeli-American real estate developer called "Sam Bacile" who currently is hiding in the aftermath of the protests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sam-bacile-in-hiding_n_1876044.html).

There are rumors about the involvement of Pastor Terry Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_Terry_Jones#Film_controversy) as well in the movie. This is the person who previously threatened to burn the Quran and incurred massive protests from the Muslim world.

Similar protests launched yesterday in Cairo, Egypt. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/egypt-protesters-us-embassy_n_1874247.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D203962) Around 3000 protestors marched to the U.S. embassy and scaled its walls, tore down the American flag and replaced it with a black flag. Their demands were to ban the video and present a formal apology to the Muslims.

The US ambassador J. Christopher Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Stevens_%28ambassador%29) was killed due to excessive inhalation of smoke due to the fire caused by the protesters

Uptil now, there are 3 other deaths confirmed among the consulate staff members, One of the staff members killed was a redditor and a well known EVE player.  (http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat)(credit to redditor Yod for this information)

Credit to Your_Socks (http://www.reddit.com/user/Your_socks) of reddit for the original posting of this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on September 12, 2012, 11:19:35 am

Normally would go in the Progressive thread, but it's Romney so putting it here:

Romney’s Insensitivity To LGBT People: ‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’ (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/11/831201/romneys-insensitivity-to-lgbt-people-i-didnt-know-you-had-families/?mobile=nc)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on September 12, 2012, 11:47:34 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 12, 2012, 09:07:26 am

More info on the attacks:

This is the video responsible for the protests, called "The Innocence of Muslims."
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmodVun16Q4&feature=youtu.be)
The video was directed by an Israeli-American real estate developer called "Sam Bacile" who currently is hiding in the aftermath of the protests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sam-bacile-in-hiding_n_1876044.html).

There are rumors about the involvement of Pastor Terry Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_Terry_Jones#Film_controversy) as well in the movie. This is the person who previously threatened to burn the Quran and incurred massive protests from the Muslim world.

Similar protests launched yesterday in Cairo, Egypt. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/egypt-protesters-us-embassy_n_1874247.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D203962) Around 3000 protestors marched to the U.S. embassy and scaled its walls, tore down the American flag and replaced it with a black flag. Their demands were to ban the video and present a formal apology to the Muslims.

The US ambassador J. Christopher Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Stevens_%28ambassador%29) was killed due to excessive inhalation of smoke due to the fire caused by the protesters

Uptil now, there are 3 other deaths confirmed among the consulate staff members, One of the staff members killed was a redditor and a well known EVE player.  (http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat)(credit to redditor Yod for this information)

Credit to Your_Socks (http://www.reddit.com/user/Your_socks) of reddit for the original posting of this.

So much of that trailer just seems sketchy... between the bad production values, the crazy bad dubbing of certain words and phrases...

Also... it cost 5 million dollars.... wtf.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 03:32:05 pm

Once again, Romney seems to make an asshat of himself.  Seriously, hes a walking disaster.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130743/-Mitt-s-smirking-disaster#20120912081130

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 12, 2012, 03:52:26 pm

Mitt forgot one of the chief PR rules: Never look like you're celebrating a disaster, even when you're totally celebrating a diaster.

Really, it does come off like Count Rugen in The Princess Bride:

Quote

I think that's one of the worst things I've ever heard.....how marvelous.

I'll be glad to see him catch hell for it, if anyone other than pundits notice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 12, 2012, 04:14:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 12, 2012, 03:52:26 pm

I'll be glad to see him catch hell for it, if anyone other than pundits notice.

This might help with that. (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/09/score)

For those who are interested, the Romney campaign's playbook for this disaster. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/romney-camp-tries-to-manage-fallout-from-libya-response/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 12, 2012, 04:49:01 pm

Ah, the joys of politics that operate at Twitter speed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on September 12, 2012, 05:01:01 pm

They just need better AI now which gives you a reality check if you're going to make a fool of yourself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 12, 2012, 05:17:39 pm

Quote from: Reelya on September 12, 2012, 05:01:01 pm

They just need better AI now which gives you a reality check if you're going to make a fool of yourself.

No! Politicians being idiots is what makes politics FUN!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 12, 2012, 05:28:28 pm

With a capital "F" unfortunately.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 12, 2012, 05:34:29 pm

I'm really wondering how Romney is going to put a positive spin on his smirk. He'll probably just shove a cameraman or something. That's the standard response from Republicans, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 06:42:46 pm

Quote from: Reelya on September 12, 2012, 05:01:01 pm

They just need better AI now which gives you a reality check if you're going to make a fool of yourself.

So Romney needs an OS upgrade?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 12, 2012, 06:58:33 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 06:42:46 pm

Quote from: Reelya on September 12, 2012, 05:01:01 pm

They just need better AI now which gives you a reality check if you're going to make a fool of yourself.

So Romney needs an OS upgrade?

It's official. Romney runs on Windows ME.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2012, 07:26:25 pm

Gallup is reporting that about half of Americans see the need for a third party. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157427/americans-split-need-third-party.aspx)

I would also like to take this time to point out the strange story of Virgil Goode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode), who went from ERA-supporting Democrat to actually successful independent to libertarian Republican to theocrat Republican to.....2012 presidential candidate of the crazy reactionary Constitution Party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 12, 2012, 07:33:02 pm

Quote from: Mego on September 12, 2012, 06:58:33 pm

It's official. Romney runs on Windows ME.

I'd say that Romney probably runs on Windows Vista.  Before Vista's release he was a pretty boring corporate republican.  After the release of Vista Romney took a sharp turn for the worse and his platform became increasingly bugged with errors and threw out what were previously his selling points.  And I think it's pretty clear that even upgrading to the old windows 7 beta (http://xkcd.com/528/) would be an improvement over what he is today.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2012, 07:26:25 pm

Gallup is reporting that about half of Americans see the need for a third party. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157427/americans-split-need-third-party.aspx)

I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind around why this number is down 10 points from a couple years ago.  Congress is less popular (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html) and I can't think of any events that would change public opinion on this issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 07:36:18 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2012, 07:26:25 pm

Gallup is reporting that about half of Americans see the need for a third party. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157427/americans-split-need-third-party.aspx)

I would also like to take this time to point out the strange story of Virgil Goode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode), who went from ERA-supporting Democrat to actually successful independent to libertarian Republican to theocrat Republican to.....2012 presidential candidate of the crazy reactionary Constitution Party.

3 parties would not be enough... it would quickly become 2 party once again.

We need 5 parties, multi-selection voting, and ponies for everyone!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 12, 2012, 07:39:47 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 07:36:18 pm

We need 5 parties, multi-selection voting, and ponies for everyone!

5 parties would be less stable then 3 parties.  3 parties occasionally happens in first past the post voting, the UK being a prime example.  But for multi-party politics you really need proportional representation or some sort of preferential voting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2012, 07:41:44 pm

Proportional representation is a much more real way to run democracy anyway, so we might as well. I'd love if all the GOP theocrats took their crazy to the Constitution Party and concentrated it where it can do no harm, deprived of party line support from the non-insane members of the GOP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 12, 2012, 07:47:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 12, 2012, 07:39:47 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 07:36:18 pm

We need 5 parties, multi-selection voting, and ponies for everyone!

5 parties would be less stable then 3 parties.  3 parties occasionally happens in first past the post voting, the UK being a prime example.  But for multi-party politics you really need proportional representation or some sort of preferential voting.

C'mon America; if the UK and Canada can both do it so can you! With a little help from your friends...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 12, 2012, 07:53:47 pm

It's not going to happen because the two major parties would actually have to agree on giving up power. Getting one party to think that is impossible enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 12, 2012, 07:55:56 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 12, 2012, 07:53:47 pm

It's not going to happen because the two major parties would actually have to agree on giving up power. Getting one party to think that is impossible enough.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. You just have to convince both parties that electoral reform is in their best interest in order to stop the blatant fraudulent voting activities of those hippie socialist Democrats/psychopath theocrat Republicans and let the true will of the American people, their party, be successful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 12, 2012, 07:57:46 pm

As far as I can tell there'll inevitably be two major candidates for a presidential election, even if other representive bodies are opened up by the introduction of proportional representation or instant runoff voting.  Simply because even if the Republicans are now split up into the Theological Morals Party, the Bootstraps Ultra-Rich Party and the Ron Paul Forever Party they'll still want to team up in the presidential elections to try and defeat whoever the Dirty Hippy, Communist Alliance and Social Justice parties are putting forwards.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 12, 2012, 07:58:35 pm

Can I be a member of the Dirty Hippie and Social Justice parties?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 12, 2012, 08:09:46 pm

You'll have to take it up with their representatives I'm afraid.  I hear their leaders had something of a falling out over alternative medicine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on September 12, 2012, 08:10:55 pm

Screw them, Kaijyuu! If they won't let people join them both then we'll just have to invent the Dirty Justice and Social Hippie parties!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 12, 2012, 08:22:43 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 12, 2012, 08:10:55 pm

Dirty Justice and Social Hippie parties!

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 12, 2012, 08:23:04 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 12, 2012, 08:22:43 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 12, 2012, 08:10:55 pm

Dirty Justice and Social Hippie parties!

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS!

^^^

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 08:58:25 pm

Dirty Justice... Social Hippie....
Who would their candidates be?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on September 12, 2012, 09:09:26 pm

/me volunteers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 09:32:11 pm

Transpose a few more political party names and its almost a forum game! With audience participation!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 12, 2012, 09:52:59 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 09:32:11 pm

Transpose a few more political party names and its almost a forum game! With audience participation!

The Bay12 Party, anyone?

It's more of a college party than a political party, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on September 12, 2012, 10:06:42 pm

Quote from: Mego on September 12, 2012, 09:52:59 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on September 12, 2012, 09:32:11 pm

Transpose a few more political party names and its almost a forum game! With audience participation!

The Bay12 Party, anyone?

It's more of a college party than a political party, though.

Eh, I'd see it as more of a middle-aged man's Superbowl party. A lot of excitement, quite a few more males than females, minimal makeouts, and enough alcohol to fuel all of the world's automobiles for the next fifty years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 13, 2012, 02:25:32 am

Also no eye contact.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 13, 2012, 08:25:20 am

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 12, 2012, 10:06:42 pm

minimal makeouts

You obviously haven't noted the predominant orientation around here. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 13, 2012, 08:29:57 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 13, 2012, 08:25:20 am

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 12, 2012, 10:06:42 pm

minimal makeouts

You obviously haven't noted the predominant orientation around here. :P

Insatiasexual?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 13, 2012, 08:57:18 am

Gay. He meant gay.

We do have a remarkably high number of gays here don't we?

Is there a more politically correct term that I'm forgetting?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2012, 08:59:30 am

I need you all to be honest with me: Is Bay 12 a Super Secret Gay Recruiting Center?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 13, 2012, 09:00:22 am

They haven't approached me yet...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 13, 2012, 09:00:37 am

If so, it's not working on me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 13, 2012, 09:00:53 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2012, 08:59:30 am

I need you all to be honest with me: Is Bay 12 a Super Secret Gay Recruiting Center?

No, I think it's just somewhere that homosexuals feel like they can be themselves, safely, because the board moderator brooks none of the shit they might catch elsewhere on the internet.

Quote

Is there a more politically correct term that I'm forgetting?

I think homosexual is more PC than calling them "the gays."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 13, 2012, 09:06:46 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 13, 2012, 08:57:18 am

Gay. He meant gay.

We do have a remarkably high number of gays here don't we?

Is there a more politically correct term that I'm forgetting?

Meh, I think there's more bi than strictly gay. Point being that a significant chunk of the prominent forumites wouldn't being averse to snogging.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 13, 2012, 09:11:29 am

Whether gay or bi, they're certainly the most loudly flirting demographic on the forum, though.
...Not that I mind, of course.

_{...I just wish sometime they'd hit on me as well... D':}


 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 13, 2012, 09:21:21 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 13, 2012, 08:57:18 am

Gay. He meant gay.

We do have a remarkably high number of gays here don't we?

Is there a more politically correct term that I'm forgetting?

Heemasex.

On the subject of multiple political parties, in Scotland we have 4-5 major ones, with two influential but minor hangers on. To understand what our political system can do, imagine if the green party in Canada suddenly gained the very first full majority government that Canada has ever had (regardless of whether they've had them in real life). That's what the SNP did last year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 13, 2012, 09:33:03 am

That would be crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 13, 2012, 11:01:36 am

SNP is a cool guy, he pisses off Sassenachs and doesn't afraid of McAnything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2012, 11:02:47 am

On Proportional Representation - Fuck no. Just... no. Fuck that shit. I enjoy voting for people, and campaigning for people, and even getting them elected, and that is completely impossible under a proportional system.

So sorry, but no, I've no interest in switching to a "let the party bosses pick my representative for me" system, thank you. We have more than enough rule-by-the-elites without handing them complete control over our political representation. I would like a say in the matter, however small.

This may be partially because I come from a smaller state with a history of electing independents and people from the "opposing" party because the popular state party is full of asshats and idiots. It's like all the idiocy of of party-line voting enshrined into law.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 13, 2012, 11:10:18 am

Wait...

I thought "proportional representation" meant that if your party gets 20% of the vote for, say, Congress, your party gets 20% of Congress?

I mean, yeah, in Canada, you vote for the party, not the person, and the party with the most votes (whether below 50% or not) puts in a guy they choose.

But usually you know who they're going to choose... I don't think it's -illegal- for them to do a bait-and-switch, but it's certainly bad form and I think it'd ruin their chances in the future, so they don't do it.

Then again, we elected Harper to a majority government, so we're basically pants-on-head retarded. He's basically the Canadian G. W. Bush.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 13, 2012, 11:11:36 am

@GlyphGryph -
You can still do that if it's and Open List Proportional Representations system, though. Then you vote in the people you want in charge as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 13, 2012, 11:13:43 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2012, 11:02:47 am

On Proportional Representation - Fuck no. Just... no. Fuck that shit. I enjoy voting for people, and campaigning for people, and even getting them elected, and that is completely impossible under a proportional system.

Single transferable vote. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) It's the preferred system of many (most?) voting reform groups.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on September 13, 2012, 11:25:49 am

I thik glyphGryph has the wrong idea about how proportional voting works. In every area i've encountered you still vote for candidates, not parties.

In the Australian senate elections, if your candidate gets excess votes, then the "spare" votes get distributed to 2nd prerefences, so it's a combination of proportional and IRV voting.

FPTP gives 2 party dominance with no minor party choices at all. Proportional gives a multitude of voices.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 13, 2012, 11:28:34 am

Quote from: Reelya on September 13, 2012, 11:25:49 am

I thik glyphGryph has the wrong idea about how proportional voting works. In every area i've encountered you still vote for candidates, not parties.

There are different ways of doing it. I am under the impression that the most common way was to vote for party.

How would proportional voting work for candidates anyway?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on September 13, 2012, 11:29:49 am

The way Australia does it for the senate. Excess votes are distributed to your 2nd choices.

Bye you can choose to vote by party as well, since there are ~200 candidates to pick from in about 80 parties or so. The nature of the system leads to mushrooming out of legitimate parties, because your vote will probably end up with one of the larger 4-5 parties anyway, so even the Marijuana Party and the Sex Party get votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 13, 2012, 11:34:19 am

Quote from: Reelya on September 13, 2012, 11:25:49 am

I thik glyphGryph has the wrong idea about how proportional voting works. In every area i've encountered you still vote for candidates, not parties.

In at least the British European elections you vote for party, with the (multiple) winners being chosen from a party list. Same goes for local additional member systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_Member_System) that are used as top-ups in Wales, Scotland and London.

I'm not a fan of party lists myself, although they do make more sense in a Parliamentary system than in an American context.

Quote from: Nadaka on September 13, 2012, 11:28:34 am

How would proportional voting work for candidates anyway?

See my wiki link about STV, or the electoral reform campaign's page on the matter. (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote/)

I'd note that my own support for STV is broadly independent of it resulting in party proportionality. I like it for a range of other reasons, with a PR result being only a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 13, 2012, 11:35:45 am

Das Wikipeden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_voting#Party_list_system_in_a_multi-member_constituency)

Quote

The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In closed list systems, voters vote for a list of candidates, with the party choosing the order of candidates on the list [and thus, in effect, their probability of being elected]. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes it receives, using the party-determined ranking order. In an open list, voters may vote, depending on the model, for one person, or for two, or indicate their order of preference within the list – nevertheless the number of candidates elected from the list is determined by the number of votes the list receives.

I believe GlyphGryph is envisioning the Closed List system, but there is also the Open kind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2012, 11:37:44 am

I don't know why anyone would ever advocate a closed list system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 13, 2012, 11:41:39 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2012, 11:37:44 am

I don't know why anyone would ever advocate a closed list system.

Probably for the same reason many countries and parties still run closed primaries; the party knows best who is fit to represent them. Hell, the English Tories used to run their selection process based on who could pledge their Parliamentary salary to the local party's dinner party fund, on the principle that anyone who would actually keep their salary would be unreliable as a Conservative politician.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 13, 2012, 11:45:39 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 13, 2012, 11:37:44 am

I don't know why anyone would ever advocate a closed list system.

Because it is at least somewhat better than the system we have now in the US.

In the US parties hold primaries by their own rules. There would be no reason a party couldn't use the primary to democratically fill/order their representative list.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 13, 2012, 12:53:49 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 13, 2012, 11:02:47 am

On Proportional Representation - Fuck no. Just... no. Fuck that shit. I enjoy voting for people, and campaigning for people, and even getting them elected, and that is completely impossible under a proportional system.

So sorry, but no, I've no interest in switching to a "let the party bosses pick my representative for me" system, thank you. We have more than enough rule-by-the-elites without handing them complete control over our political representation. I would like a say in the matter, however small.

This may be partially because I come from a smaller state with a history of electing independents and people from the "opposing" party because the popular state party is full of asshats and idiots. It's like all the idiocy of of party-line voting enshrined into law.

This is why we need a two house system: In one you elect your local rep, and they aren't officially offiliated with a party, then the second house is where you vote for the party of your choice and they get the seats here based on percentages. Then you elect the president/prime minister independent of that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 13, 2012, 05:58:29 pm

Ben Bernanke wishes Obama a happy National Celiac Disease Awareness day by giving him the gift of re-election (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm).

The explanation here is kinda complicated but I'll try to do my best.  Up until this point the federal reserve has been using two policy channels to fight the Great Recession.  The first has been lowering the cost of lending by keeping short term interest rates to banks close to 0% (the origin of the complaint free money to the banks).  The second has been buying up mortgage backed securities so that investors will invest in other stuff as well (i.e. firing up the printing presses to turn us into Nazi Germany).  Now the Fed is adding a third policy to it's playbook by making more concrete commitments about the future to try to improve market expectations.  Basically the idea here is that if people expect inflation will keep being below the Fed target then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  And it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy through reducing in economic activity.  The Fed is directly countering that by promising to take actions that will get us closer to the inflation target for the next three years.  And the results seem to show that the markets are reacting as one would hope (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/inflation-expect.jpg).  Expectations are still slightly below the target but have moved a lot closer to it.  (The numbers moved before the announcement because this announcement has been predicted and talked about by a lot of different people).  Basically the signs are pointing in the direction of the next three years being a lot better then the last three.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 06:17:21 pm

Oooh, are we at the point where we can effectively eliminate noise and see the actual number of people that would elect a Republican candidate no matter what?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 13, 2012, 07:20:19 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on September 13, 2012, 06:17:21 pm

Oooh, are we at the point where we can effectively eliminate noise and see the actual number of people that would elect a Republican candidate no matter what?

No, this won't cause an economic expansion so quickly as to render the election a landslide.  It's too close for November for it to do that.  But it does minimize the downside risk for Obama.  With the Fed taking such aggressive new action to support the economy further economic deterioration seems unlikely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 13, 2012, 09:10:22 pm

Oh man, here's a cool site with footage of old campaign commercials.  Turns out once upon a time democrats had balls.  The MSM thinks today's' ads are hard hitting?  Check out this shit: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/poverty#3995

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on September 13, 2012, 09:15:45 pm

More than one of those was "Vote for Johnson or die in a nuclear holocaust".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 14, 2012, 01:31:34 pm

This is a bit of a puff piece, but it's one of the best puff pieces I've ever read. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama)

A lot of good information about the Libyan intervention and a very detailed look into Obama's life and thinking as president.

Late edit: John Scalzi takes Romney behind the woodshed. (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/09/14/you-never-go-full-mccain/)

Quote

He can’t run on his record as a governor, because then the GOP base has its face rubbed in the fact that Romney gave socialized medicine to gay people who could get married, and that just won’t do.

Quote

Has Romney’s refusal to walk back his initial screw-up compromised legitimate criticism about how the embassy attacks have been handled? Oh, my, yes. It’s amazing, actually. It’s as if at every turn in the crisis Romney had an opportunity to do something that wouldn’t make him look like a cat with a bag on its head navigating through a room full of bar stool legs, and chose instead the opposing course. It’s impressive in its way, but it’s a not a good way to be impressive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 14, 2012, 04:46:53 pm

Quote from: Descan on September 13, 2012, 11:10:18 am

Wait...

I thought "proportional representation" meant that if your party gets 20% of the vote for, say, Congress, your party gets 20% of Congress?

I mean, yeah, in Canada, you vote for the party, not the person, and the party with the most votes (whether below 50% or not) puts in a guy they choose.

But usually you know who they're going to choose... I don't think it's -illegal- for them to do a bait-and-switch, but it's certainly bad form and I think it'd ruin their chances in the future, so they don't do it.

Then again, we elected Harper to a majority government, so we're basically pants-on-head retarded. He's basically the Canadian G. W. Bush.

But in Canada, the MPs are elected by district, not by overall vote. The parties are far more powerful than the individual reps, however.

For example, say you live in the district of Windsor West. The NDP (the big union party) gets ~50% of the vote and the Conservatives get around 30%, with the liberals getting 15% or so. Yet in the entire country, the NDP gets significantly less of the vote and the liberals/tories get more. Even if the NDP wins 100 seats in Parliament with 90% of the vote in each seat and gets some silly percentage of the overall popular vote like 65%, they are still in the minority because they lost the majority of seats (unless they form a coalition govt). Same process as the US basically, except since it's parliamentary we have three real choices instead of two. Oh, and of our three choices, one is pie-in-the-sky silly/incompetent and the other two are crooked as hell.

What I think would be best would be approval or range voting: instead of voting for one candidate, vote (based on preference) for whoever you like the most and whittle it down until the votes shift enough for one to make a majority. This way, Right Wing Libertarian party A doesn't "subtract" from Right Wing Fiscal Conservative party A as they probably end up behind whichever does better in a given district and the same for the rest of the "compromise" parties.

Quote

No, this won't cause an economic expansion so quickly as to render the election a landslide.  It's too close for November for it to do that.  But it does minimize the downside risk for Obama.  With the Fed taking such aggressive new action to support the economy further economic deterioration seems unlikely.

Probably. But then, the US economy is in very bad straits right now, regardless of how much anyone wants to claim there has been a recovery.

What's most telling is that the Fed isn't cracking down on excess bank reserves, which would almost certainly create liquidity. They know quite well that the day that happens is that day the US dollar falls apart.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 15, 2012, 12:15:54 pm

To go back to the nice red-meat topic of cybersecurity from early August (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3507393#msg3507393), the administration has now circulated a draft executive order (http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/HSPD-7-Draft.pdf) [.pdf] on the topic. I can't find many discussions outside of conspiracy theory sites, and this does seem to be a very early draft version, but could make for some fun in the next couple of weeks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 01:20:06 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 13, 2012, 11:01:36 am

SNP is a cool guy, he pisses off Sassenachs and doesn't afraid of McAnything.

They do indeed. Chan eil Sassanaich cho dona, ach cha toil leam partaidh labour idir. Se Albainnaich a' th'ann cuideachd.

I must say though that I would rather be able to choose who represents my country in the role of prime minister or president through seperate elections rather than having the ruling party decide for me. I'm quite sympathetic to the American system in that respect. This system used to work back in the early 20th century when prime ministers basically led parliament and the government from behind the scenes rather than acting like a de-facto "head of state" or president. Back then, it was more about your skill as a political leader rather than your personality. Personality was still important, but more that you would be a competent leader. However, since people like Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair we've had prime ministers that acted far too much like presidents or heads of state despite being unelected. That meant they had to concentrate more on appearing to the general public in a certain way and gaining votes for the party rather than leading the country itself. Perhaps the best way to do it is have the PM perform the same function that he has now - to lead the government - and have a president that would act as a proper head of state, meeting with other international leaders and such. Let him be the focus of the PR politics while the PM concentrates on the leadership.

I think that by electing the different houses of government seperately, one gives single parties even less chance for total control. The example I'm thinking of is how the results of Scottish local council elections differ from the national government elections - we may be more likely to vote for a labour councillor in our area than an SNP one, simply because we know that a labour councillor may have had more experience in local government or may have our best local interests at heart more than an SNP one, who may be more concerned about gearing us up for the independence referendum. However, we may be more likely to vote for the SNP in a national government election because, firstly, they're good at treating Scotland like a seperate country with its own interests and affairs, and secondly we may wish for the SNP to defend Scottish interests on a world stage or even amongst the other constituent countries of the UK, as they have fought fiercely for these things in the past. Perhaps the idea of voting for specific parties for specific levels of government would appear again if we started to break the government up into seperate levels.

But here is my question for you gentlemen - my understanding of the US senate is that it is an unelected body of government. Where do the senators come from? Are they appointed by the government and replaced when the next government comes in, or do they remain static?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 15, 2012, 01:30:30 pm

Senators are elected every 6 years, Owlbread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on September 15, 2012, 01:41:36 pm

Though the elections are staggered, so a different third is up for election every 2 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 01:44:23 pm

Quote from: Jervill on September 15, 2012, 01:30:30 pm

Senators are elected every 6 years, Owlbread.

By the people or by the government? Or political parties?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on September 15, 2012, 01:46:28 pm

By the people in the state the senators represent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 15, 2012, 01:57:34 pm

Is there any part that is appointed? Congress, maybe? I know the supreme court is appointed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 15, 2012, 02:01:16 pm

Quote from: Descan on September 15, 2012, 01:57:34 pm

Is there any part that is appointed? Congress, maybe? I know the supreme court is appointed.

Just the SC and the president's hangers-on: cabinet posts and various posts like ambassador and chief of the CIA. A lot of these appointed posts are used as sinecures for the president's supporters, especially the not-so-important-ambassadors to places like Croatia or Ecuador or whatever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 02:12:55 pm

Quote from: Frumple on September 15, 2012, 01:46:28 pm

By the people in the state the senators represent.

So how is Congress appointed?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 15, 2012, 02:14:11 pm

The Senate used to be appointed by the governments of the individual states. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), ratified in 1913. There have been occasional calls to repeal this, which is kinda cute.

Quote from: Descan on September 15, 2012, 01:57:34 pm

Is there any part that is appointed? Congress, maybe? I know the supreme court is appointed.

Congress = House + Senate

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 01:20:06 pm

I must say though that I would rather be able to choose who represents my country in the role of prime minister or president through seperate elections rather than having the ruling party decide for me. I'm quite sympathetic to the American system in that respect. This system used to work back in the early 20th century when prime ministers basically led parliament and the government from behind the scenes rather than acting like a de-facto "head of state" or president. Back then, it was more about your skill as a political leader rather than your personality. Personality was still important, but more that you would be a competent leader. However, since people like Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair we've had prime ministers that acted far too much like presidents or heads of state despite being unelected. That meant they had to concentrate more on appearing to the general public in a certain way and gaining votes for the party rather than leading the country itself. Perhaps the best way to do it is have the PM perform the same function that he has now - to lead the government - and have a president that would act as a proper head of state, meeting with other international leaders and such. Let him be the focus of the PR politics while the PM concentrates on the leadership.

In the UK our head of state is technically the crown. So we kinda have that separation. Just that if the current monarch ever exercises any authority they are going to lose that power very quickly, so it's arguably completely imbalanced and should be replaced with a presidential system like France's. Although that would cause it's own political and constitutional problems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 15, 2012, 02:17:01 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 02:12:55 pm

Quote from: Frumple on September 15, 2012, 01:46:28 pm

By the people in the state the senators represent.

So how is Congress appointed?

Via voting. Congress is two houses of government, the Senate and the House of Representatives. "Congress" doesn't get appointed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 02:18:59 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 15, 2012, 02:14:11 pm

The Senate used to be appointed by the governments of the individual states. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), ratified in 1913. There have been occasional calls to repeal this, which is kinda cute.

So the senate was once the house that would represent the states? Why was it removed, thereby reducing the autonomy of the states?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 15, 2012, 02:31:36 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 02:18:59 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 15, 2012, 02:14:11 pm

The Senate used to be appointed by the governments of the individual states. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), ratified in 1913. There have been occasional calls to repeal this, which is kinda cute.

So the senate was once the house that would represent the states? Why was it removed, thereby reducing the autonomy of the states?

Because no one was in favour of "state's rights" in 1913. The progressives were naturally in favour of a stronger federal government and were in power at the time, and the southern conservatives were too because Woodrow Wilson was a gigantic segregationist. It's one of those things instituted in a bygone era that people keep around largely because it's been there so long.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 15, 2012, 02:35:34 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 02:18:59 pm

Why was it removed, thereby reducing the autonomy of the states?

Methinks you answered your own question.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 15, 2012, 02:52:45 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 02:18:59 pm

So the senate was once the house that would represent the states? Why was it removed, thereby reducing the autonomy of the states?

Answered in the link you quoted;

Quote from: Wikipedia

According to Jay Bybee, those in favor of popular elections for senators felt that there were primarily two issues caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks. In terms of corruption, the general feeling was that senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption. In 1900, for example, William A. Clark had his election voided after the Senate concluded that he had bought eight of his fifteen votes in the Montana legislature. However, Bybee and Todd Zywicki believe this concern was largely unfounded; there was a "dearth of hard information" on the subject, and in over a century of elections, only 10 were contested with allegations of impropriety.

Electoral deadlocks were another issue. Because state legislatures were charged with deciding who to appoint as senators, the system relied on them being able to agree. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending representatives to Congress; in a few cases, the system broke down to the point where states completely lacked representation. Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon legislature choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to convene for 53 days, and was forced to disband and call a new election.

If you want my modern take, there are two obvious problems with appointed Senators that make them a bad idea today. The first is the concept of having the "better men" of society in an upper house simply doesn't work. It's an attractive idea, but in reality having any politics behind such appointments corrupts both the appointers and appointees, while the institutional inertia required for such a system to work means that the "better men" are always behind the times. And that's ignoring the question of what qualifies someone as "better" (or good enough anyway).

The second is that state level elections will simply become a proxy for Senate elections, in the same manner that Presidential elections are proxies for the Supreme Court. There are whole blocks of voters who base their presidential vote on whether they will appoint liberal or conservative judges. Given that state level elections usually matter less to people than Senate elections anyway, putting such a significant power in the hands of state legislatures will swamp any local politics, utterly destroying the last holdouts of non-polarised, two party contests.

EDIT: I'd also argue that the representation of the states are still the same as when they were appointed by state legislatures. You still have equal representation despite population (two senators per state). You still have staggered six year terms allowing for institutional inertia. You still have all the power and authority of original Senate design. You still have them reflecting the general population of the state at large, just filtered through direct election rather than the elected state legislature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on September 15, 2012, 03:10:28 pm

Quote from: Santorum

We will never have the elite, smart people on our side.

I concur.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:30:42 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 15, 2012, 02:35:34 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 02:18:59 pm

Why was it removed, thereby reducing the autonomy of the states?

Methinks you answered your own question.

Where I come from, autonomy is seen as a good thing. It's pretty much driven our politics for the last decade or so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 15, 2012, 03:31:29 pm

So now we know where the Paulites come from.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:32:46 pm

Quote from: Darvi on September 15, 2012, 03:31:29 pm

So now we know where the Paulites come from.

It's just interesting that you would view autonomy in that way. It doesn't always mean "the choice to segregate people" or "the choice to force women to keep the children of rapists", over here it means controlling your own money, your own affairs etc. People like that shit. Local government and all that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 03:36:58 pm

Well, Scotland and the States are in a significantly different situation. For example, the states weren't forced to accept annexation from another power after accidentally bankrupting themselves on a failed colonial venture. Local government isn't anywhere near as important to the US as it is to the UK.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:40:46 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 03:36:58 pm

Well, Scotland and the States are in a significantly different situation. For example, the states weren't forced to accept annexation from another power after accidentally bankrupting themselves on a failed colonial venture. Local government isn't anywhere near as important to the US as it is to the UK.

A-waitwaitwait. I don't mean to go off topic from the US politics, but we did not accept annexation from another power. That is incorrect. We accidentally bankrupted ourselves, which forced us to seek Union with England and create a new country. England and Scotland were both absorbed into the United Kingdom, neither annexed the other. Furthermore, we weren't really "forced" into it, it's just our parliament was ran by a parcel of rogues. There were ways of creating a new, more equal country that we could have taken but didn't, nor did we listen to the people who were strongly opposed to the idea of Great Britain. We actually had to enforce the Union on the people by banning journalists from criticising it in the papers because then they would be "going against the current of the people", "people" meaning some old aristocrats grown fat on English gold and lethargy.

It's just intriguing that the idea of autonomy is met with the reaction I've seen here, considering that the world over local autonomy is sought and seen as a good thing. Think about the wars we've seen being fought for it in Africa, mainland Europe, Russia, China, all sorts. Some of these wars haven't even been fought for independence, just "autonomy" of some kind.

But then again, I suppose states already have enough autonomy to be going on with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 03:48:26 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:40:46 pm

A-waitwaitwait. I don't mean to go off topic from the US politics, but we did not accept annexation from another power. That is incorrect. We accidentally bankrupted ourselves, which forced us to seek Union with England and create a new country. England and Scotland were both absorbed into the United Kingdom, neither annexed the other.

Eh, close enough. It isn't exactly a secret that England got the better deal there.

Quote

It's just intriguing that the idea of autonomy is met with the reaction I've seen here, considering that the world over local autonomy is sought and seen as a good thing. Think about the wars we've seen in Africa, mainland Europe, Russia, China, all sorts.

It depends upon the situation.

In general, higher local autonomy is better in a nation with multiple sharply distinctive cultural and ethnic groups. The UK fits this, of course.

The US doesn't. An American in Florida is as an American in California is as an American in Alaska is as an American in Maine. The biggest cultural deviancy in the US is that of the South, but even that is not far from mainstream American culture.

Europe is an interesting situation with the rise of the EU. We'll have to see how well that goes, but I don't think it has much of a prayer unless it takes more federal power for itself.

Africa has a different problem. It isn't about autonomy so much as it is that a lot of the modern borders were drawn by Europeans and it leaves African cultures divided or stuck in countries with other cultures that they hate. It's a clusterfuck, but its been getting better as time passes and people learn to live with one another and settle into new identities or redraw borders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:55:39 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 03:48:26 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:40:46 pm

A-waitwaitwait. I don't mean to go off topic from the US politics, but we did not accept annexation from another power. That is incorrect. We accidentally bankrupted ourselves, which forced us to seek Union with England and create a new country. England and Scotland were both absorbed into the United Kingdom, neither annexed the other.

Eh, close enough. It isn't exactly a secret that England got the better deal there.

Quote

It's just intriguing that the idea of autonomy is met with the reaction I've seen here, considering that the world over local autonomy is sought and seen as a good thing. Think about the wars we've seen in Africa, mainland Europe, Russia, China, all sorts.

It depends upon the situation.

In general, higher local autonomy is better in a nation with multiple sharply distinctive cultural and ethnic groups. The UK fits this, of course.

The US doesn't. An American in Florida is as an American in California is as an American in Alaska is as an American in Maine. The biggest cultural deviancy in the US is that of the South, but even that is not far from mainstream American culture.

Europe is an interesting situation with the rise of the EU. We'll have to see how well that goes, but I don't think it has much of a prayer unless it takes more federal power for itself.

Africa has a different problem. It isn't about autonomy so much as it is that a lot of the modern borders were drawn by Europeans and it leaves African cultures divided or stuck in countries with other cultures that they hate. It's a clusterfuck, but its been getting better as time passes and people learn to live with one another and settle into new identities or redraw borders.

England did get the better deal... for a while at least, not anymore. We've got more autonomy than any other part of the UK now, joke's on them. Plus, it was our choice to go into that setup of a union. It's not like we were forced.

It's an interesting way of looking at it though, about local autonomy being geared mostly towards culture rather than just... power to the people, I suppose. Perhaps I'm too used to being spoon fed the official line about this sort of thing. The people who brought us all this autonomy were originally anti-nationalist socialists you see, who claimed it was all about local government and reducing the centralisation of the state. But I suppose if they really wanted to do that they wouldn't have put the border of that government area north of Berwick.

The problem with the act of redrawing borders though is we end up with situations like Azawad. The majority of the World Powers are western or far eastern and none approved of the secular nationalist Tuaregs taking power and creating the first berber state, so we completely ignored them. Now look what's happened to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 03:59:36 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 15, 2012, 02:14:11 pm

In the UK our head of state is technically the crown. So we kinda have that separation. Just that if the current monarch ever exercises any authority they are going to lose that power very quickly, so it's arguably completely imbalanced and should be replaced with a presidential system like France's. Although that would cause it's own political and constitutional problems.

Really the queen is more popular than any politician.  If she stood she'd probably win an election.

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:55:39 pm

England did get the better deal... for a while at least, not anymore. We've got more autonomy than any other part of the UK now, joke's on them. Plus, it was our choice to go into that setup of a union. It's not like we were forced.

Regarding tuition fees especially.  Scottish students get their education for free, English students have to pay £9000 even if they're going to a Scottish university.  That last part is clearly against EU law so will probably be dropped soon, but I mean goddamn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:04:44 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 03:59:36 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 15, 2012, 02:14:11 pm

In the UK our head of state is technically the crown. So we kinda have that separation. Just that if the current monarch ever exercises any authority they are going to lose that power very quickly, so it's arguably completely imbalanced and should be replaced with a presidential system like France's. Although that would cause it's own political and constitutional problems.

Really the queen is more popular than any politician.  If she stood she'd probably win an election.

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 03:55:39 pm

England did get the better deal... for a while at least, not anymore. We've got more autonomy than any other part of the UK now, joke's on them. Plus, it was our choice to go into that setup of a union. It's not like we were forced.

Regarding tuition fees especially.  Scottish students get their education for free, English students have to pay £9000 even if they're going to a Scottish university.  That last part is clearly against EU law so will probably be dropped soon, but I mean goddamn.

I know, it's great isn't it? Joking aside, I agree, it will have to be changed. But our system of free education won't be able to cope with the sheer influx of English students. There's enough of them already to take up a lot of spaces, imagine if it was free. The SNP are going to do whatever they have to do to keep our free education, mind you.

But the Queen is exceedingly popular at the moment. On the event of her death though, if her successor was somebody like Prince Charles or Prince Andrew, things would be quite different. I don't see any problems arising until after the death of King William, but only then if we get somebody quite unpopular.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:07:56 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:04:44 pm

But the Queen is exceedingly popular at the moment. On the event of her death th-

There's you're problem.

Face it guys, your Queen became a vampire at some point. There is no other explanation for her unearthly longevity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:08:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:07:56 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:04:44 pm

But the Queen is exceedingly popular at the moment. On the event of her death th-

There's you're problem.

Face it guys, your Queen became a vampire at some point. There is no other explanation for her unearthly longevity.

If you think she's lived a long time, didn't you see her mother? She was 101 when she died. Queen Elizabeth has diamond bones or something so she isn't going to die any time soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:12:48 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:08:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:07:56 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:04:44 pm

But the Queen is exceedingly popular at the moment. On the event of her death th-

There's you're problem.

Face it guys, your Queen became a vampire at some point. There is no other explanation for her unearthly longevity.

If you think she's lived a long time, didn't you see her mother? She was 101 when she died. Queen Elizabeth has diamond bones or something so she isn't going to die any time soon.

She looks like she's in her late 50's and she's 86. I don't care how good your genes are, that isn't possible. She drinks the blood of the living to sustain her royal but abominable existence. There is simply no other way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:16:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:12:48 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:08:54 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:07:56 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:04:44 pm

But the Queen is exceedingly popular at the moment. On the event of her death th-

There's you're problem.

Face it guys, your Queen became a vampire at some point. There is no other explanation for her unearthly longevity.

If you think she's lived a long time, didn't you see her mother? She was 101 when she died. Queen Elizabeth has diamond bones or something so she isn't going to die any time soon.

She looks like she's in her late 50's and she's 86. I don't care how good your genes are, that isn't possible. She drinks the blood of the living to sustain her royal but abominable existence. There is simply no other way.

The curse though is that she's looked like she's been in her late 50s for a very very long time. The royals grow into themselves. Charles on the other hand looks pretty rough these days, he's not going to keep as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 04:17:19 pm

Inbreeding hits men a lot harder than women.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:17:39 pm

At this rate Charles is going to die before Elizabeth.

I guess she didn't want to give him vampirism either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:19:55 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 15, 2012, 04:17:19 pm

Inbreeding hits men a lot harder than women.

That's very true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on September 15, 2012, 04:20:14 pm

Three cheers for our vampire head of state. (Being Canadian, she is also my head of state)

I am hoping that Prince Charles simply steps aside and lets Prince William take the throne. I would really prefer to have King William on my money. I wouldn't mind having a twinned visage of King William and Queen Catherine on my money, actually...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:22:35 pm

Quote from: Willfor on September 15, 2012, 04:20:14 pm

Three cheers for our vampire head of state. (Being Canadian, she is also my head of state)

I am hoping that Prince Charles simply steps aside and lets Prince William take the throne. I would really prefer to have King William on my money. I wouldn't mind having a twinned visage of King William and Queen Catherine on my money, actually...

It's very pretentious calling her Queen Catherine though. She's Kate and she'll always be Kate. I'll be calling her Kate Middleton when I'm an old yin sitting in a rocking chair surrounded by jars of snuff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on September 15, 2012, 04:26:20 pm

But, but, but ... protocol. ;___;

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:27:28 pm

Quote from: Willfor on September 15, 2012, 04:26:20 pm

But, but, but ... protocol. ;___;

Protocol is for saps and monarchists. Be a rebel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 15, 2012, 04:29:18 pm

Owlbread, I just want to try to put the US Senate and 17th Amendment in a Scottish/UK context. Feel free to ignore this everyone.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Currently there are certain peerages reserved to Scotland in the House of Lords. Only 16, but they are there. They represent Scottish interests in the upper house.

Imagine if by some miracle a new government actually passes a reform bill that makes the Lords directly elected. They want to maintain the Scottish representation, so make the current Scottish seats directly elected by the Scottish population.

Would Scotland lose any autonomy under that change? I don't see how. OK, so it's slightly different in that the current Lords aren't exactly appointed by the Scottish Parliament, but even if they were I still think that their being elected by the Scottish population would be either an increase or retention of the same level of state autonomy as currently exists.

Of course, right now Scottish independence looks more likely that Lords reform, so it's pretty well bunk.

As for the monarchy I'm a bit of a republican (small r, always small r) in this sense (http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/a-jubilee-letter-from-a-republican/). It doesn't make sense to get rid of the monarchy right now, but as an ideal state to work towards, and the natural result of independently good reforms, republicism is where I end up. And it's physically impossible to dislike Lizzy. That's science.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:29:41 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:27:28 pm

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:38:43 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 15, 2012, 04:29:18 pm

Owlbread, I just want to try to put the US Senate and 17th Amendment in a Scottish/UK context. Feel free to ignore this everyone.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Currently there are certain peerages reserved to Scotland in the House of Lords. Only 16, but they are there. They represent Scottish interests in the upper house.

Imagine if by some miracle a new government actually passes a reform bill that makes the Lords directly elected. They want to maintain the Scottish representation, so make the current Scottish seats directly elected by the Scottish population.

Would Scotland lose any autonomy under that change? I don't see how. OK, so it's slightly different in that the current Lords aren't exactly appointed by the Scottish Parliament, but even if they were I still think that their being elected by the Scottish population would be either an increase or retention of the same level of state autonomy as currently exists.

Of course, right now Scottish independence looks more likely that Lords reform, so it's pretty well bunk.

As for the monarchy I'm a bit of a republican (small r, always small r) in this sense (http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/a-jubilee-letter-from-a-republican/). It doesn't make sense to get rid of the monarchy right now, but as an ideal state to work towards, and the natural result of independently good reforms, republicism is where I end up. And it's physically impossible to dislike Lizzy. That's science.

Thank you very much for the explanation of the senate. I understand now.

I agree that we should be slowly working towards a well-structured republic over the next century. I don't see there as being any rush to get rid of the Queen either, considering we've been able to implement quite drastic changes to the very fabric of the UK over the last 10 years despite being under her rule. It would be foolish to depose the Queen next year for instance and cause such a drastic change in government that would be widely unpopular with the people and... well, I don't really know what would happen.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:29:41 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:27:28 pm

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

Actually, the English were 100 years ahead of you at one point, but then they kind of... messed it up a bit, and dragged us in as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:44:25 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:38:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:29:41 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:27:28 pm

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

And I am very jealous.

Don't worry, in two years you'll have your chance to *snicker* vote on whether or not you want to be England's slaves any longer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:50:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:44:25 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:38:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:29:41 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:27:28 pm

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

And I am very jealous.

Don't worry, in two years you'll have your chance to *snicker* vote on whether or not you want to be England's slaves any longer.

We're not England's slaves, we're just... I don't know. It's like England doesn't exist anymore, it's just... Britain, a territory governed by politicians from all over the UK.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:50:48 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:50:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:44:25 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:38:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:29:41 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:27:28 pm

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

And I am very jealous.

Don't worry, in two years you'll have your chance to *snicker* vote on whether or not you want to be England's slaves any longer.

We're not England's slaves, we're just... I don't know. It's like England doesn't exist anymore, it's just... Britain, a territory governed by politicians from all over the UK.

You just keep on telling yourself that. I'll be over here hanging out in my sovereign nation. Perhaps I'll invite the Canadians and Mexicans from their sovereign nations and we'll have one big North American Sovereign Nation party. But not Cuba. Cuba is not invited to the NASN.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:52:13 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 04:50:48 pm

You just keep on telling yourself that. I'll be over here hanging out in my sovereign nation. Perhaps I'll invite the Canadians and Mexicans from their sovereign nations and we'll have one big North American Sovereign Nation party. But not Cuba. Cuba is not invited to the NASN.

No, no really. I'm super serious, the mistake is believing that we are slaves to England. The English have nothing - they don't even have a parliament. We are slaves to the British state... or someone else. I can't think.

Also, Cuba isn't really north american is it? They wouldn't want to join some kind of crazy ass north american union. They're too busy accomodating your state-sponsored torturers and POW camps.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 05:23:20 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:52:13 pm

Also, Cuba isn't really north american is it? They wouldn't want to join some kind of crazy ass north american union.

NAU? No. It's just a party. And Cuba is not invited. Commie bastards. If they aren't North American what are they? It's the closest continent to them by far.

Quote

They're too busy accomodating your state-sponsored torturers and POW camps.

Of the 779 people sent to Guantanamo Bay, 600 have been released, 8 have died, and 167 are still there. It won't be around much longer.

As for torture, water-boarding is thankfully not legal anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 05:29:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 05:23:20 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 15, 2012, 04:52:13 pm

Also, Cuba isn't really north american is it? They wouldn't want to join some kind of crazy ass north american union.

NAU? No. It's just a party. And Cuba is not invited. Commie bastards. If they aren't North American what are they? It's the closest continent to them by far.

Quote

They're too busy accomodating your state-sponsored torturers and POW camps.

Of the 779 people sent to Guantanamo Bay, 600 have been released, 8 have died, and 167 are still there. It won't be around much longer.

As for torture, water-boarding is thankfully not legal anymore.

It's quite amazing that anyone would try to claim that water boarding wasn't torture in the first place. But that's pretty damned good about Guantanamo being so close to shutting down though. I take it that's going to be a feather in Obama's cap?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 05:36:29 pm

That was one of the things he said he was going to do, so I certainly hope Obama deals with it. Presidents tend to be more reckless in their second terms since they don't have to worry about re-election, so hopefully he'll go for it like he said he was going to.

It's actually mostly an administrative thing right now. About half of the people still in Guantanamo have already been cleared for release but the military is reluctant to actually let them go.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on September 15, 2012, 05:52:42 pm

Cuba doesn't support Guantanimo Bay. They haven't cashed our checks for it, and have said we need to get off their land at every turn. It's just very complicated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 05:54:23 pm

They also can't do much of anything about it. If they attack we'll attack back, and without the USSR to watch their back....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on September 15, 2012, 06:04:30 pm

Err, you guys do know that Her Majesty died fifteen years ago, right?

We have a long-standing tradition of taxidermy in the UK.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 15, 2012, 06:09:58 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on September 15, 2012, 06:04:30 pm

Err, you guys do know that Her Majesty died fifteen years ago, right?

We have a long-standing tradition of taxidermy in the UK.

You must dabble in animatronics as well :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 15, 2012, 10:06:35 pm

Not to mention ghostwriting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 15, 2012, 10:28:50 pm

Lowest Congressional approval ratings during an election in history. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157475/congress-approval-poised-lowest-election-year.aspx)

Shit, at this rate they're going to end up below Fidel Castro again. They're still below Communism if I'm remembering right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 15, 2012, 11:33:30 pm

It's a very meaningless statistic however.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on September 15, 2012, 11:36:44 pm

Something is very wrong with the country when a massive dissatisfaction with the way our leaders do their jobs is meaningless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 15, 2012, 11:40:23 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on September 15, 2012, 11:36:44 pm

Something is very wrong with the country when a massive dissatisfaction with the way our leaders do their jobs is meaningless.

That's not what the statistic is measuring though.  The statistic is measuring pretty much nothing.  There's way too many factors that go into it and while many of those factors are quite interesting it doesn't provide information about any of them.  It's an example of a statistic that sounds important because it's related to important statistics but is actually devoid of any appreciable value.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on September 16, 2012, 08:13:57 am

Actually, I disagree. That statistic is quite important. It demonstrates how disappointed the American electorate is with their elected leadership. Numbers this low would typically express themselves in a general trend towards increasing protests and reformation movements. If those don't work you will start to see increased risk of rioting for unpopular  things. A state of severe hardship actually risks the formation of honest to goodness revolutionary factions. America is a bubbling cauldron. A tinderbox. This number shows it clearly. I'm not saying this is going to happen, it's just increased risk. Except protests and reformation movements. Too late for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 16, 2012, 08:50:59 am

The problem with general congressional approval is you don't have control over congress as a whole. You have control over your one congress critter and the two senators for your state. Those three individuals can pander to you directly, pissing off the rest of the country, with impunity. The same goes for every other district's representatives.

In the end each individual in the US could approve of only 1/50th of the Senate and 1/435th of the House and still end up voting every single member back in in a landslide for the status quo.

The idea that congress ever breaks 50% approval stuns me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 16, 2012, 09:24:19 am

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on September 16, 2012, 08:13:57 am

Actually, I disagree. That statistic is quite important. It demonstrates how disappointed the American electorate is with their elected leadership.

http://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 17, 2012, 05:21:21 pm

Romney says that 47% of Americans are lazy freeloaders who want handouts. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser)

Meanwhile in the real world many of those freeloaders have a higher tax burden then Romney himself because those lazy freeloaders are paying payroll taxes and sales taxes and property taxes (indirectly through higher prices/rents mostly).  Romney claims without proof to pay at least 13% of his income in taxes which going from these quintiles (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/Average_rates_3.pdf) means roughly 60% of Americans paid a higher rate then him just counting the federal burden.  If you look at the state and local burdens (which fall harder on the poor then the rich) then it doesn't seem too unlikely that a clear majority of the freeloader class pays more in taxes then Romney does.

And even that's really understating the sheer willfull blindness of the statement.  Most people with low income tax burdens in America have low burdens for a simple reason: they are retired.  The non-retired mostly consist of those who are disabled or laid off and still seeking work.  These aren't freeloaders, they're people who earned they're way in the past.  They earned what they get with hard work.  But someone who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth thinks that people who actually work for a living have a sense of entitlement.

It isn't said enough: eat the rich.

P.S. The real irony in all this is that the largest group of that the largest group of the 47% Romney is slimming, the retired, are the most likely group to vote for him.  It is a strange, strange universe that Republican voters have concocted for themselves.

P.S.S. graph from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/
lays it out very well.
(http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/Breakdown3-06-17-11.gif)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 17, 2012, 06:30:03 pm

If calling 47% of the electorate lazy freeloaders who are beyond help doesn't lose you an election I don't know what would.  I mean, add on his 0% of the black vote and he's lost it right there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 17, 2012, 08:14:01 pm

Unless you assume that every black person is a lazy freeloader.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 17, 2012, 08:39:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 17, 2012, 08:14:01 pm

Unless you assume that every black person is a lazy freeloader.

This is probably his logic. The man is an idiot, and to compound that he doesn't even have the spine to be stupid consistently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 08:59:02 pm

See, the thing is that he's not really that far-right but he has to pretend to be. He's just not good at it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 17, 2012, 09:07:17 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 08:59:02 pm

See, the thing is that he's not really that far-right but he has to pretend to be.

So the conventional wisdom says.  But what evidence exactly do we have that he isn't as right wing as he acts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 09:09:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 17, 2012, 09:07:17 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 08:59:02 pm

See, the thing is that he's not really that far-right but he has to pretend to be.

So the conventional wisdom says.  But what evidence exactly do we have that he isn't as right wing as he acts?

His entire political history as a moderate, and sometimes even liberal Republican, which completely vanished as soon as this election cycle started and was replaced by Guns, God, and Gays Romney out of nowhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 17, 2012, 09:15:19 pm

His political career as a moderate republican was a 4 year stint as governor.  He's been doing this hard right posturing for more then four years now.  I'm inclined to think the moderate as well but why is the past evidence more reliable then the present?  Wasn't he just pandering back then too?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 09:19:05 pm

All politicians pander, but back then he was pandering to a smaller base. Right now he has to pander to the whole of the GOP, its party leaders, and as many independents as possible. It does not help that all three of those groups want different things, but the party leaders have the most power over him so that's why we're getting far-right Romney.

They seem to be banking on everyone else supporting him based upon the "Not Obama" qualifier. Not a good plan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 17, 2012, 09:58:01 pm

So an individual who leans conservative but not hardline Republican, who is pretty cynical about politics in general but also fairly mainstream in his views, responded to the Romney statement with this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html), basically dismissing it as business as usual.

I personally think that the Romney statement is a bigger deal, as it shows far greater contempt for those it is discussing while also being a grotesque lie, as deconstructed here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/). Obama didn't write off the individuals he was talking about as worthless or not deserving of his attention; he described them as misguided. Romney dismissed nearly half the population as beneath his notice.


EDIT: I swear I didn't see this before I posted. (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/09/barack-obama/romneys-bitter-clingers/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 17, 2012, 10:17:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 17, 2012, 09:19:05 pm

All politicians pander, but back then he was pandering to a smaller base. Right now he has to pander to the whole of the GOP, its party leaders, and as many independents as possible. It does not help that all three of those groups want different things, but the party leaders have the most power over him so that's why we're getting far-right Romney.

They seem to be banking on everyone else supporting him based upon the "Not Obama" qualifier. Not a good plan.

Either that, or banking on a lot of Americans being bad voters and not giving much thought about who they vote for. A lot of people follow this line of thinking:

1. I'm working at a sucky, dead-end job (or have no job at all).
2. Obama was elected in 2008.
3. Back in 2008, I was working at the same sucky, dead-end job (or a similarly-sucky, dead-end job, or also unemployed).
4. Obama isn't fixing my life.
5. Romney 2012.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 07:31:16 am

It's quite possible that he is right-wing and was pandering to the overwhelmingly left-wing electorate in Massachussetts just to get elected Governor. Just sayin.

Had a bright spot the other day. We were visiting my wife's parents (both Republican) and her brother (Libertarian). Apparently, all three are avidly supporting Obama. Granted, they're Yankee transplants so they're Northeastern Republicans (fiscal conservative, social moderate) as opposed to good ol' boy Republicans. But still, it's nice to know that this year we won't be essentially neutralizing their vote, as we were in 2008.

I'm hoping that there are a lot more transplanted Republicans who share their distaste for Romney and their digust at what the GOP has become, especially at the state level here in NC.



Polls are looking favorable for Obama. He's up by around 3 points nationally in every major poll in the last two weeks, with the exception of one from Rasmussen, which has Romney by 2.

And at the state level, numbers are trending for Obama in Florida, Virginia and bigtime in Ohio. Wisconsin appears to be a tight race, and North Carolina is probably going back to the red column (and a Republican governor, and a Republican legislature....gods help us all)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 18, 2012, 10:10:16 am

Seems that Romney has done a good job of driving off the social moderates (I know I'd vote Obama if I were American now).

Of course for me it's also because he can't hold a position without contradicting himself on it next week.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 11:24:33 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-will-probably-get-95-electoral-votes-from-moocher-states-obama-will-probably-get-5/

Maybe Romney was onto something and didn't know.  When you grind the poor into dust long enough, they stop being able to contribute to society and your state turns into a backwards hellhole.

Interesting that New Mexico is in the top 10 though.  The other 9 are 7 deep south states with bad economies, Texas which has really been screwing the poor lately and Florida where the elderly swell the ranks of non-payers.  New Mexico seems out of place to me, I never thought of it as much of a basket case.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 18, 2012, 11:25:10 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 18, 2012, 10:10:16 am

Seems that Romney has done a good job of driving off the social moderates (I know I'd vote Obama if I were American now).

Of course for me it's also because he can't hold a position without contradicting himself on it next week.

Or the next sentence even? http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/02/romney-contradicts-himself-in-two-sentences.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 11:37:14 am

I serisouly hope that you lot over there do not elect Romney. For me, (in my admittedly stilted knowledge of your political nuances) he embodies pretty much everything I was hoping the USA was moving away from when electing Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 18, 2012, 11:51:42 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 11:37:14 am

I serisouly hope that you lot over there do not elect Romney. For me, (in my admittedly stilted knowledge of your political nuances) he embodies pretty much everything I was hoping the USA was moving away from when electing Obama.

I'd put money on Obama winning.

Its the election four years after this one that scares the piss out of me. Cause if this is the guy they pile on for an incumbent president, I wonder what will come out of the works when its all out up for grabs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 11:53:09 am

Hilary Clinton FTW.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 11:56:54 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 11:53:09 am

Hilary Clinton FTW.

Ugh. She will not make a good president. She was involved with the attempt to ban mature video games, among other things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 12:03:30 pm

I'm still thinking Brian Schweitzer (Gov. of Montana) as a potential dark horse. He's another centrist Democrat in the Clintonian "Third Way" mode, but dude's got balls and a low tolerance for bullshit. (which means he probably has no stomach for being President, unfortunately)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 18, 2012, 12:24:31 pm

Huh, I thought I would be the first to bring up Schweitzer.  Although I would prefer someone more progressive, I would rather have someone with a chance of winning the Presidency.  Probably a bit of regional bias in my preference for Schweitzer since I prefer Populists over, say, some worthless opportunist like Andrew Cuomo (Gov. of New York).  Of course, some like to advance Amy Klobuchar (Dem senator from Minnesota), but she is probably too cautious for nationwide runs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 12:39:04 pm

I've liked Schweitzer's campaigns in the past, and I absolutely loved the way he short-circuited ExxonMobil's PR spin of the Yellowstone oil spill.

Basically, being that he's an environmental engineer by training, he ran some basic math and called bullshit on Exxon's official estimates of how much was spilled. Especially because they way lowballed the initial number, then kept changing the duration of the spill (it kept getting longer) but kept insisting on the original lowball estimate for the volume. So he basically went on every TV and radio program that would have him and pointed out that basic math says that doesn't work. He didn't flat out call them liars, but he certainly insinuated that it would shocking for a professional oil company to not know exactly how much oil was going through their pipes, considering there are flow speedometers installed all along the pipeline.

He also called bullshit when Exxon's people said that the amount of oil in water downstream would be minimal and well within EPA allowances, and went so far as to offer free water testing kits through the state ag extension to anybody who lived up to a certain distance downstream (50 or 75 mi, IIRC).

And this is a guy who is generally considered a friend to the energy and mining industry (not because he's some rich guy with a lot of investments, but because Montana's economy is pretty heavily tied into mining and energy). He's sort of a best-compromise guy of being an environmentalist who's doesn't necessarily see big industries as an evil to be stopped at all cost, and tries to find a good solution for both sides.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: BelieveInAmerica on September 18, 2012, 12:40:21 pm

(spam removed)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 18, 2012, 12:43:46 pm

Unfortunately, your link leads to a 503 error.

PS: Welcome to the forums!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 12:49:22 pm

What is this? Some presudo Republican spambot?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 12:51:59 pm

Some intern earning minimum wage to get Romneys name onto forums? Either way, polls are just lies, damn lies and statistics, regardless if they show something I like dislike, or a picture of a cute bunny.

Hi newbie, by the way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 18, 2012, 12:54:04 pm

I think it is literally Mitt Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 12:56:45 pm

Quick! What is our favorite dwarf fort meme down here in GD?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 12:58:27 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 18, 2012, 12:54:04 pm

I think it is literally Mitt Romney.

I have this image of a tired and upset Mitt Romney googling his own name, heading to forums the search returns and joining in arguments about why people should like him more in my head now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 01:00:54 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 12:56:45 pm

Quick! What is our favorite dwarf fort meme down here in GD?

Urist magma catsplosions?

Quote from: BelieveInAmerica on September 18, 2012, 12:40:21 pm

...

I also believe in America, and that is why I hope that you are wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 18, 2012, 01:05:02 pm

I was about to say hi to the new guy then I noticed his name was believeinamerica. What.

Who sent you, WHO DO YOU WORK FOR.

Quote from: MonkeyHead on September 18, 2012, 12:58:27 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 18, 2012, 12:54:04 pm

I think it is literally Mitt Romney.

I have this image of a tired and upset Mitt Romney googling his own name, heading to forums the search returns and joining in arguments about why people should like him more in my head now.

yes. The MITT graces us with his presence... >_>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 01:07:49 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 01:00:54 pm

Urist magma catsplosions?

Trick question! All the dwarf fort memes are stupid! Nadaka is clearly a democrat plant!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 01:09:07 pm

Quote from: Criptfeind on September 18, 2012, 01:07:49 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 01:00:54 pm

Urist magma catsplosions?

Trick question! All the dwarf fort memes are stupid! Nadaka is clearly a democrat plant!

Silly Cryptfiend, I don't vote for anyone without tentacles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 01:28:03 pm

Quote from: BelieveInAmerica on September 18, 2012, 12:40:21 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 07:31:16 am

Polls are looking favorable for Obama. He's up by around 3 points nationally in every major poll in the last two weeks, with the exception of one from Rasmussen, which has Romney by 2.

And at the state level, numbers are trending for Obama in Florida, Virginia and bigtime in Ohio. Wisconsin appears to be a tight race, and North Carolina is probably going back to the red column (and a Republican governor, and a Republican legislature....gods help us all)

Yeah...about those polls.  Other than Rasmussen Reports, most of them are HEAVILY skewed with a majority Democrat Party ID, matching or even exceeding that of 2008.  If you're expecting the same kind of enthusiasm from Democrats in 2012, I think you'll be in quite a surprise.

Rasmussen Tracking 9/15 - 9/17 1500 LV 3.0 45 47 Romney +2
Gallup Tracking 9/11 - 9/17 3050 RV 2.0 47 46 Obama +1
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 9/13 - 9/16 1344 LV 2.7 48 45 Obama +3
CBS News/NY Times 9/8 - 9/12 1162 LV 3.0 49 46 Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D) 9/8 - 9/12 1000 LV 3.1 50 45 Obama +5
FOX News 9/9 - 9/11 1056 LV 3.0 48 43 Obama +5
Esquire/Yahoo! News 9/7 - 9/10 724 LV 5.0 50 46 Obama +4
Reuters/Ipsos 9/7 - 9/10 873 LV 3.4 48 45 Obama +3
ABC News/Wash Post 9/7 - 9/9 710 LV 4.5 49 48 Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research 9/7 - 9/9 709 LV 3.5 52 46 Obama +6
IBD/CSM/TIPP 9/4 - 9/9 808 RV 3.5 46 44 Obama +2


Yup, nothing but a bunch of treehuggers and potsmokers there. Thankfully we have the steadfastly (un)reliable Rasmussen to show us the Truth.  ::)

Your "evidence" is a blogger who rebalances all polls to match the house lean of Gallup and Rasmussen, which Nate Silver has pointed out have a distinct Republican lean (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/). (So does Fox News, and it should be noted that both Fox and Gallup have Obama up, by +5 and +1 respectively). So yeah...when you adjust all national polls to match Republican-skewed polls, it's no huge surprise you get Republican-skewed results.

I'm with you guys...this appears to be a new evolution in spambots.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 18, 2012, 01:30:31 pm

That, and the Rasmussen LV sample is ridiculously Republican leaning, to the point where the September numbers claim there will be more self-identified Republicans this year than 2010.  That simply doesn't pass the smell test.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 18, 2012, 01:36:52 pm

Let's not flame BIA, even if he is likely a spambot/politicsbot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 18, 2012, 01:38:21 pm

Quote from: BelieveInAmerica on September 18, 2012, 12:40:21 pm

Check out the current party ID breakdown comparison with past election years:
http://datechguyblog.com/2012/09/17/demoralized-as-hell-the-poll-the-media-isnt-talking-about-edition/

From the post;

Quote

That shows a GOP advantage in registration this year but you might say: “Hey, Datechguy, you’ve been hitting polls all year, why can’t THIS poll be wrong?”

That’s a good question, we can answer it by asking another question: Does this poll of party identification correspond with the results of national elections?

"I have a question about accuracy." "I'm going to answer that question with a question about what happens if I assume this is accurate."
Also;

Quote

There is no example of the Democrats winning since 2004 with an advantage less that 6.9.

Winning in federal elections since 2004. So that's a sample size of four.

Thanks for posting that. I really needed the laugh.

And I wouldn't trash Rasmussen too much. They have cleaned up their act considerably in the last few years. Still Republican leaning, but it's a mildly partisan house effect compared to their past biases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 18, 2012, 01:38:59 pm

I ver much doubt he's a bot. Drive-by poster, maybe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 18, 2012, 01:45:10 pm

All hail our new spambot overlords; in this case, they are actually our overlords.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 18, 2012, 01:47:08 pm

If only it wasn't BelieveInAmericaSon. What an acronym that'd make for!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 01:48:36 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 18, 2012, 01:38:21 pm

And I wouldn't trash Rasmussen too much. They have cleaned up their act considerably in the last few years. Still Republican leaning, but it's a mildly partisan house effect compared to their past biases.

I've touched on this before. It's not that Rasmussen is all that heavily partisan, it's that they're heavily wrong. Any time there's a momentum trend, Rasmussen seems to overemphasize it. If there's a stagnant period, they seem to overemphasize the front-runner. It's like this:

Gallup: Obama gains by +1
CNN: Obama gains by +2
Pew: Obama gains by +4
Rasmussen: DOMINANCE, Obama gains by +12

Next month--
Gallup: Romney gains by +4
CNN: Romney gains by +2
Pew: Tie.
Rasmussen: STAGGERING COUNTERATTACK, Romney +30

Their polls just seem to take any poll trend and kick it to 11.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 18, 2012, 01:38:59 pm

I ver much doubt he's a bot. Drive-by poster, maybe.

Well, yeah there's too much direct response to previous post to pass for most bots (although with the right predictive algorithm...)
But still essentially a spambot, even if human-piloted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 18, 2012, 01:59:52 pm

Or it's just an alias someone created so they can express their viewpoint in anonymity. (i.e. someone that wants to participate in political discussions without having their main account getting a reputation as [insert political leaning here]).

I seem to recall shenanigans like that around here previously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 18, 2012, 02:31:44 pm

So... one of the obvious campaign dudes comes in and makes a post... with that name even... is this thread hitting top google results?

Also.... hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Edit: yea, it may be more likely to be just someone on the boards trying to express an opinion... or with that name... something else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:34:38 pm

I admit, I'm actually an American rightwing conservative sent here undercover to undermine the pursuit of your Liberal Agenda.

...I'm also Pathos.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 18, 2012, 02:36:48 pm

I think it's mainiac, coming out of his star-spangled closet to show his true colors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 18, 2012, 02:37:33 pm

It's probably just another of those forum and comment trawling pro-mitt bots that he's bought to spam the internet with lies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 18, 2012, 02:40:38 pm

Ah, politics. You are so crazy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 02:41:15 pm

Quote from: scriver on September 18, 2012, 02:34:38 pm

I admit, I'm actually an American rightwing conservative sent here undercover to undermine the pursuit of your Liberal Agenda.

...I'm also Pathos.

I am really Pat Buchanan.

Tentacle monster brothers got to stick together.

And we are also Pathos.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 02:44:00 pm

If I'm Pathos, I am without realizing it. Maybe that's how it works.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 18, 2012, 02:52:09 pm

We're all Pathos. We just haven't held your induction ceremony yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 18, 2012, 03:09:38 pm

In this day and age, political parties have people that they hire to go on forums and websites and look for debates like this so they can make comments or tilt things in a particular direction. It's one of the many techniques the SNP used to gain an overall majority in Scotland and it is also (supposedly) being used by Scottish Labour on websites like the Scotsman Newspaper's (a very staunchly Unionist paper). If I'm correct techniques similar to it were used by the democrats in the run up to the 2008 election in the US of A.

Aside from them, there are also your run of the mill party activists who have gone cyber.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 18, 2012, 03:11:42 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 18, 2012, 02:52:09 pm

We're all Pathos. We just haven't held your induction ceremony yet.

Pathos? I thought we were Pothos?
I've been doing it wrong! Horribly, horribly wrong!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 03:16:05 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 18, 2012, 03:09:38 pm

In this day and age, political parties have people that they hire to go on forums and websites and look for debates like this so they can make comments or tilt things in a particular direction. It's one of the many techniques the SNP used to gain an overall majority in Scotland and it is also (supposedly) being used by Scottish Labour on websites like the Scotsman Newspaper's (a very staunchly Unionist paper). If I'm correct techniques similar to it were used by the democrats in the run up to the 2008 election in the US of A.

I do know one person who seeks out political discussions in order to spread the word of Obama. But she is a true believer. It would be nice if she got paid for it though.


Edit:

political satire song "I'm dreaming of a white president" http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/randy-newman-releases-parody-tune-m-dreaming-180752276--politics.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 04:28:18 pm

Quote from: BelieveInAmerica on September 18, 2012, 12:40:21 pm

Yeah...about those polls.  Other than Rasmussen Reports, most of them are HEAVILY skewed with a majority Democrat Party ID, matching or even exceeding that of 2008.  If you're expecting the same kind of enthusiasm from Democrats in 2012, I think you'll be in quite a surprise.

The crosstabs on the polls you were attacking uniformly gave republicans an advantage on the likely voter model.  So unless you are meaning to imply that the voter registration data itself is flawed then the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 18, 2012, 04:29:48 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 04:28:18 pm

Quote from: BelieveInAmerica on September 18, 2012, 12:40:21 pm

Yeah...about those polls.  Other than Rasmussen Reports, most of them are HEAVILY skewed with a majority Democrat Party ID, matching or even exceeding that of 2008.  If you're expecting the same kind of enthusiasm from Democrats in 2012, I think you'll be in quite a surprise.

The crosstabs on the polls you were attacking uniformly gave republicans an advantage on the likely voter model.  So unless you are meaning to imply that the voter registration data itself is flawed then the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

maniac, why do you not believe in America? It believes in you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 04:45:57 pm

Trolling forums does not strike me as an effective use of campaign manpower.  Face to face canvasing a voter in union with calling them three times tends to increase turnout by about 5%.  Back of the envelope I think that means that in an urban area an hour of volunteer time is worth about a vote and in an exurban it's worth about 2/3rds and in a rural area it's worth a decent fraction.  I have a real hard time seeing a forum troll producing 1 vote an hour.  Furthermore the forum troll wouldn't be producing votes in a swing district, they'd just be producing them among people all across the country reducing the value immensely, 90% if not more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on September 18, 2012, 04:57:48 pm

Clearly, it is the work of the Conservative Crime squad using the 'Troll the interwebs" action, while having no computer skill.

We must now go raid the AM radio station in retaliation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 05:05:29 pm

Brb, gonna ruin a traditional wedding first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 18, 2012, 05:10:05 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 05:05:29 pm

Brb, gonna ruin a traditional wedding first.

Atta boy.

Wait what am I saying, that's terrible!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 18, 2012, 05:22:41 pm

All hes going to do is change it into a non-traditional wedding and force gay marriage upon everyone there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 18, 2012, 05:27:35 pm

Why do people's definition of 'non-traditional marriage' always default to same sex marriage? What's wrong with a little polyamory among consenting adults?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 05:28:59 pm

And for that matter, what about downright weird weddings like those that are underwater or done while skydiving? Those are pretty non-traditional to me!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 05:30:39 pm

Quote from: Techhead on September 18, 2012, 05:27:35 pm

What's wrong with a little polyamory among consenting adults?

What did you think I meant?

Btw, both the groom and groom are now loves slaves for the liberal cause.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 18, 2012, 05:35:07 pm

Quote from: Techhead on September 18, 2012, 05:27:35 pm

Why do people's definition of 'non-traditional marriage' always default to same sex marriage? What's wrong with a little polyamory among consenting adults?

I'm game if I can find the right girl(s).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 18, 2012, 05:40:24 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 04:45:57 pm

Trolling forums does not strike me as an effective use of campaign manpower.  Face to face canvasing a voter in union with calling them three times tends to increase turnout by about 5%.  Back of the envelope I think that means that in an urban area an hour of volunteer time is worth about a vote and in an exurban it's worth about 2/3rds and in a rural area it's worth a decent fraction.  I have a real hard time seeing a forum troll producing 1 vote an hour.  Furthermore the forum troll wouldn't be producing votes in a swing district, they'd just be producing them among people all across the country reducing the value immensely, 90% if not more.

But we were saying bad things about him, and you can't put a price on a man's honour.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 05:44:30 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 18, 2012, 05:40:24 pm

But we were saying bad things about him, and you can't put a price on a man's honour.

Back in 2010 the going rate was $24.85 individual or $20.09 wholesale but you are right that I don't know what the price is these days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 18, 2012, 05:53:48 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 18, 2012, 05:44:30 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 18, 2012, 05:40:24 pm

But we were saying bad things about him, and you can't put a price on a man's honour.

Back in 2010 the going rate was $24.85 individual or $20.09 wholesale but you are right that I don't know what the price is these days.

I'd like $25, my honour is expensive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 18, 2012, 05:55:27 pm

Yeah after the supply of honor went rocketing up the value of it has depreciated somewhat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Solifuge on September 18, 2012, 09:23:33 pm

Until I saw this, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQSpbwKkdg) I hadn't realized how formulaic, and near-identical Romney and Obama's nomination acceptance speeches were.

As an aside, I love the Gregory Brothers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 18, 2012, 09:24:54 pm

It's time for another round of the hit game in American Politics, Is Clint Eastwood Senile or Trolling?

Aaannnd.....go. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/quoted-clint-eastwood-explains-some-more-about-tampa/2012/09/18/b55a7a3c-0145-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 09:27:29 pm

Quote

If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they’re gonna have to take what they get.

Well he regained my respect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 18, 2012, 09:29:53 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 09:27:29 pm

Quote

If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they’re gonna have to take what they get.

Well he regained my respect.

Agreed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 18, 2012, 09:54:12 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 18, 2012, 09:27:29 pm

Quote

If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they’re gonna have to take what they get.

Well he regained my respect.

Yeah, I'm just waiting for the day I get invited to speak at a political convention.

I'm going to have a BLAST.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on September 19, 2012, 12:56:28 am

Easy come up with some half-assed story about how Obama ruined your life and get a free ride to the RNC. It's worked for plenty of frauds so far, like that Lebanese guy who gets speaking tours because he made up a fake "i used to be a terrorist" stories, which he supplants with Obama / UN / University Professors / NWO consipracy theories about a UN Muslim Marxist takeover (backed by all those evil university professors no less), to really pull the right-wing crowds.

Quote

We have been covering the absurd, bizarre and paranoid rantings of phony ex-terrorist Kamal Saleem as he emerged on the Religious Right scene, and today he had his biggest platform yet at the Values Voter Summit, where he was preceded by Ohio congressman Jim Jordan and a video message by Mitt Romney. Saleem told conference goers his made-up story about his time as a terrorist working for Lebanon, Syria, the PLO, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and even Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, until he moved to the U.S. to wage "cultural jihad." He claimed he and his fellow terrorists "met the professors" at American universities and colleges, which "were our playgrounds," in order to help "the professors to establish new curriculum purposefully" to brainwash students to change "your children to hit your nation with everything they've got."

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/born-every-minute-values-voters-lap
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kamal-saleem-former-terrorist-islamophobia
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/kamal-saleem

Conveniently, everyone he claims he ever worked for (a who's who of people Americans hate), is dead.

Quote

According to his memoir, The Blood of Lambs, Saleem, who grew up in Lebanon, broke into the terror biz at the age of seven by running weapons—strapped onto sheep—for Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat (who kissed his forehead at a public ceremony, "his breath bearing tales of garlic and onion"). As a teenager, he helped run a terrorist camp in the Libyan desert at the behest of Moammar Qaddafi. He visited Iraq, where he rubbed shoulders with Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s, he traveled to Afghanistan, working alongside the mujahideen and CIA spooks to beat back the Soviets.

Guy claims he hung out with Arafat, Ghadaffi, Saddam, Osama. Which "bad guy" didn't he work for?

Quote

Doug Howard, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Michigan's Calvin College, first encountered Saleem in 2007, when he was invited to speak at the school. Howard quickly became suspicious: For starters, Saleem claimed to be a descendant of the "Grand Wazir of Islam," a position that doesn't exist. Howard dug deeper and discovered that Saleem's original name was Khodor Shami—and that for more than a decade before outing himself as a former terrorist he had worked for Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network and James Dobson's Focus on the Family. (CBN declined to comment. Focus on the Family confirmed Saleem was an employee but would not comment further.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 19, 2012, 07:04:12 am

Quote from: Solifuge on September 18, 2012, 09:23:33 pm

Until I saw this, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQSpbwKkdg) I hadn't realized how formulaic, and near-identical Romney and Obama's nomination acceptance speeches were.

The candidates spoke for an hour.  That video had them speaking for about two minutes once you cut out the background stuff and wives.  That's a minute of dialogue each.  So you are looking at less then 2% of their speeches and concluding that they are "near-identical".

What is the word used for a reflexive sense of cynicism that does not itself come under the level of skepticism and scrutiny that it inflicts on other ideas?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 19, 2012, 07:55:21 am

Cynaivete.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 19, 2012, 03:04:39 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/esquire-yahoo-news-poll-americans-little-common-with-romney.html

Nearly all these questions in these polls favor Obama.

Exception: Who do you think Al Qaeda is more scared of? Romney has a 2% point lead.

The source of this poll is an Esquire/Yahoo! news Poll. So their relevance is highly debatable. I really wouldn't expect yahoo news polls to favor Obama considering how vocally right wing their commenting community tends to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 19, 2012, 03:15:52 pm

I don't think Al-Qaeda is particularly scared of either man. They're much too busy in Syria and Azawad these days. They've basically got another Afghanistan to themselves already that nobody's bothered to sort out, why would they care about the Americans when they've already satisfied their quest for revenge in killing Bin Laden?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 03:21:12 pm

al-Qaeda barely exists anymore. Most of its membership has been killed off and a lot of the people in it now are just groups calling themselves al-Qaeda affiliates for the reputation.

Mali's problems aren't being caused by al-Qaeda. The rebels are divided between secular Tuareg nationalists whom are once again trying to create an independent state by rebelling (this is like the fifth time now) and Islamists who want to take advantage of the situation to make this new state a theocracy. Both groups are having trouble working with one another due to conflicting goals. Malians are notoriously secular and moderate in their practice of Islam, and nothing angers Islamists more than that. The nation's relative adherence to democracy since the 90s is also a big abnormality in the region.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 19, 2012, 03:43:12 pm

That same poll shows 74% of Americans say they have little to nothing in common withh Mitt Romney.

To be fair, 60% said the same about Obama. But still, it is an amusing thought experiment:

1. We're both Caucasian.
2. We're both male.
3. We're both carbon-based lifeforms...maybe? Still not sure about RomneyBot.
4. We both...ummm.....breathe oxygen?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 19, 2012, 03:54:12 pm

What MSH said. If I remember the Islamists and the Tuaregs were fighting eachother for a while, but the Islamists won, and are pretty much keeping the area under their trademark reign by terror as of now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 19, 2012, 05:24:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 03:21:12 pm

al-Qaeda barely exists anymore. Most of its membership has been killed off and a lot of the people in it now are just groups calling themselves al-Qaeda affiliates for the reputation.

Mali's problems aren't being caused by al-Qaeda. The rebels are divided between secular Tuareg nationalists whom are once again trying to create an independent state by rebelling (this is like the fifth time now) and Islamists who want to take advantage of the situation to make this new state a theocracy. Both groups are having trouble working with one another due to conflicting goals. Malians are notoriously secular and moderate in their practice of Islam, and nothing angers Islamists more than that. The nation's relative adherence to democracy since the 90s is also a big abnormality in the region.

Al-Qaeda, or affilates as you describe them, are believed to be active in Azawad, just as they were with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The same with Syria. Even if the group has fallen into decline, they certainly won't allow themselves to disappear after Osama was killed. Now is their chance for revenge. We don't even know how the attacks on September the 11th 2012 were planned, if at all. Lots of speculation. Furthermore, the Tuareg nationalists have been thoroughly beaten by the Islamist Tuaregs who have no interest in creating a seperate state, rather a full Islamic west african union. I think we could have found a new ally in the "war on terror" had we given a degree of recognition to the secular Tuaregs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Old Bones on September 19, 2012, 05:43:27 pm

Romney's comments on Obama voters give me the feeling he's just as contemptuous of his own voters and anyone else who isn't in the top income bracket.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 19, 2012, 05:46:18 pm

Quote from: Old Bones on September 19, 2012, 05:43:27 pm

Romney's comments on Obama voters give me the feeling he's just as contemptuous of his own voters and anyone else who isn't in the top income bracket.

Romney would bet ten thousand dollars that you are wrong, and call you a lazy bum of you balked at the amount.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 19, 2012, 05:49:29 pm

Quote from: scriver on September 19, 2012, 07:55:21 am

Cynaivete.

I like it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on September 19, 2012, 08:07:55 pm

Well, if ever I owed you folks a proper OP, I'm definitely running out of time.

The funny thing is, I'd almost kicked my politics habit.  Ironically enough, having a full time job with a boss who thinks Rush Limbaugh walks on water and a coworker who does the Spineless Liberal stereotype proud kinda ruined any time and taste I had for the old game.  In a way, I'd kinda backed out of my own thread partly because I stopped giving much of a shit, and partly because I honestly echo-chambers more annoying (looking at you, last few pages), because I'm frankly not nearly as opinionated as I might look when I'm on something.  Then I flipped on the TV out of pure boredom yesterday, and I got a face full of this.

I'm talking about the Romney thing here.

In a way, I almost feel sorry for the guy, not least because big chunks of that speech were some of the most politically astute observations I can remember hearing from a candidate directly.  I always knew that Romney actually is a really intelligent guy.  He certainly had a mountain of advantages handed to him in his life, but he still didn't get where he is without being pretty damn shrewd.  Therein lay the reason, he thinks he can think his way through what is ultimately both a contest of strategy and a contest of ideas, more of one than we cynics usually give it credit for.  When you don't really believe what you're saying from the podium, people do catch on.

Especially when you have no qualms about dropping the act when you think in you have an airtight audience.

There's two things I feel like saying about Romney's assessment of his political position, and the first is the obvious one.  He recognizes that about 47% of the country does not pay Federal income taxes, that about 47% of the country consider themselves in approval of Barack Obama's tenure as President, that about 47% of the electorate say they will never for Romney, and that those three groups of people are exactly one and the same.  It's really nothing short of a cosmic coincidence that these numbers all line up, and I'm honestly whether it was some political strategist who decided those three numbers are identical for a reason or if Romney just had that epiphany on his own.

The obvious criticism of this assessment of American demographics is that it's wildly fucking wrong.  There are plenty of people in that margin who either don't make enough money to qualify for income taxes or qualify for enough exemptions that they wind up owing nothing who are ardent Republican voters.  And of course the elderly who by and large pay no income tax, who are a rather conservative lot and are the only slice of the American population to significantly favor Romney's election (along with wealthy white men, but quite a few of them are "elderly" anyway).  Reams can and have been said about the striking hypocrisy of this view, and I'll throw in my own sure.  At this point, it almost doesn't even need mention that Romney himself pays a smaller portion of his income to Federal taxes in total than almost anybody with a wage less than a hundred thousand thanks to payroll taxes, which the Heritage Foundation itself (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-romney-video-shows-republican-chutzpah-on-steroids/2012/09/18/3aee81be-01de-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html) will tell you makes up a record high proportion of the Federal income.

But Romney being blitheringly wrong about any correlation between economic status and support for his candidacy is almost meaningless, compared to his assertion that there is a one for one correlation between economic status and support for his candidacy.  The politics he described are that 47% of the country pay no income tax, who must therefore have no income.  And of course, this being America, if you have no income it is because you do not desire an income, at least not strongly enough to overcome little hurdles like the economy or destitution.  Therefore those 47% must survive entirely through Federal largess, and so it is clearly no wonder why exactly 47%-ish of the country approves of Barack Obama and does not support Mitt Romney.

Then the conclusion.  If that 47% drain on the country is never going to support Romney, then why should he concern himself with them?  In what way would he, running to be leader of the nation, be well served to listen to the opinions of the half-ish of the nation that immovably does not want him to be President?  And that is the crux of the issue.

I think there's a few ways that Romney could come to be at a podium giving this assessment.  One is that he is completely unaware of the significant portion of non-income-payers who make up is firm supporters.  Which would be baffling.  Romney is not a stupid man, and whatever the ideological leanings of the people surrounding him, he does have quite a few advisers who know a thing or two about demographics.  You might be able to afford completely insular political visions when you're already in office, but you don't get anywhere near where Romney is if you're completely walled off from political reality (unless you're astoundingly lucky anyway).  And the fact that he and his running mate took to the deflection march within a day of the video surfacing says he's perfectly aware of how wrong his correlation is.  So if it were the case that he was just plain mistaken, that would be a pretty astounding level of myopia.

On the other hand, it's possible that he's fully aware of the existence of large numbers of low- and no-income people who will vote for any Republican until the day they die, and he just doesn't really care to mention them when they're not in earshot.  Such an attitude has been pretty common among movers and shakers of the Republican party for quite a few years, and the title "aristocratic conservative" is the people's usual takeaway from Romney and certainly the impression most of his life story suggests.  Ask any professional Republican strategist about their relationship to low-income conservatives, and you're hard-pressed not to get an answer that would do Jay Gould proud.

It seems like any time I want to say something hyperbolic I couch it with, "I don't really want to say something this hyperbolic," but this time, yeah I do fucking want to say it.  Because I heard a man seeking to be President of my country, with a damn good chance of doing so, say to a room of genuine honest to God plutocrats in a gilded resort, that the real problem with America is that too many people just don't feel like succeeding in life, and that he has no particular interest in or reason to be interested in the concerns of half the country who don't have enough income to pay the same taxes that he goes to such trouble to avoid.  That is as clear a statement of class warfare as I've heard from an American politician in my lifetime, in that it is a declaration of war by the rich against everyone else.  And he Mitt Romney is proud to be their champion, as an empty suit who will do as he's told by the highest bidders, the way politics should be.

But, I would be remiss if I didn't give Romney some credit, and mention the distinct possibility that I'm wrong about that speech of his.  As I've said, I don't think Romney is stupid enough to actually believe the economic correlation at the heart of his argument.  What I do know about him, as even his supporters will ready say about him after watching him this long, is that Romney has a pathological need to play the room at any event.  Most of the time, this comes off as uncomfortably smarmy, because a need to act doesn't make him a good actor.  In a room full of fabulously wealthy conservatives, he fits in pretty damn well.  But who's to say he wouldn't work the room even then?  What do say to a room full of fabulously wealthy conservatives if you want their support and they know who you are?  You tell them half the country are feckless layabouts possessed of only enough motivation to demand gifts and maybe rise up in a wave of thievery, and either way bring the nation and its most worthy citizens to economic ruin.  It's entirely possible that he was speaking to a crowd just as much as he does anywhere, it just came off as a lot more candid because it was a crowd he's more naturally a part of than any other.

Whatever the case, I really hope some honest conservatives take a good long look at the guy and the crowd they put in charge of their political movement, and think about how much they actually represent how the average conservative really wants their country to be run.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 19, 2012, 08:16:35 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on September 19, 2012, 08:07:55 pm

Romney is a stupid man.

Given the rest of your post, I think you missed a word here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 08:18:36 pm

I don't know, Romney is pretty stupid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 19, 2012, 08:23:54 pm

There is a lesson to be learned here. If you plan on playing to your crowd, make sure you pick the crowd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 19, 2012, 08:25:22 pm

I think the actual lesson to be learned is that these days regular people can get their hands on cameras the size of thumb drives that can automatically upload footage to Youtube.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on September 19, 2012, 08:28:35 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on September 19, 2012, 08:16:35 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on September 19, 2012, 08:07:55 pm

Romney is a stupid man.

Given the rest of your post, I think you missed a word here.

Indeed I did.  I have a common problem of dropping not's and contractions when typing a lot.  They're not typos, so they're easy to miss.

I did correct it obviously, but I figured somebody would quote it first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 19, 2012, 08:33:29 pm

They are easy to miss indeed, which is why I point them out when I notice them. It is always annoying to say the exact opposite of what you mean, after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 19, 2012, 09:23:47 pm

Nate Silver added Senate Races (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) to his predictions site recently.  Looking good for Democrats, generally.

I do disagree with some of the numbers, though.  I feel the Dems have a better shot at North Dakota with a better candidate, cheap ad market, and friendlier terrain than Nebraska, but that's getting nitpicky.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 19, 2012, 10:38:12 pm

Aqizzer, one thing I think your analysis needs about the 47% thing is that this isn't some freak chance or unlikely idea for Romney to pick.  This is an idea that has been deeply, deeply ingrained in the republican mythology for years now.  The term "lucky duckies" (http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2002/12/21) was coined by the WSJ in 2002 and the idea wasn't even new then.  So Romney has been hearing this idea for a decade if not more and he's been hearing it in pretty sophisticated presentations.

Yes there are conservatives out there who must know better.  Greg Mankiw is often mentioned as the go-to republican mainstream economics adviser (was chief economic adviser to Bush and is in Romney's inner circle).  Mankiw certainly has the stuff.  I used to read his blog, have read his textbook and played his computer game and felt like he has a lot to teach about perfectly normal mainstream economics.  Yes his politics are right wing but he'd teach you a lot of the same stuff you'd get from Paul Krugman.  So academically I think he's got it.  But his academic integrity never seemed to translate to public policy.  He was right there when Bush was selling his tax cuts on impossible numbers.  He saw the Bush labor reports go out the door.  He stood silently as Romney hyped economic white papers that lied inartfully and shamelessly about recent academic economic work, work that was major enough that Mankiw certainly read it.  Basically when the chips are down his lips are sealed.  How is somebody like Mankiw going to tell Romney better?  Mankiw is a pretty important guy to consider too because he has been affiliated with Romney for six years now and has a history in this role.

And beyond Mankiw what sort of guy is going to tell Romney not to believe the lucky ducky meme?  The other Mankiw's of the world like Mitch Daniels basically do the same thing and avoid rocking the boat.  The hardcore conservative academics like Greenspan honestly believe crap like fiat currency being theft and go on record saying such things.  Bernanke was willing to stand behind his academic work (albeit not full heartedly) when the chips were down and for his troubles he has become a pariah in the republican party.

So really think about what Romney has been hearing for the past decade.  He's been reading stuff like the Wall Street Journal.  That rag has arguments for the lucky ducky world view month after month; not very honest arguments but sophisticated and with numbers to give them credibility.  What has he had to refute this?  It's not like Mankiw is going to sit him down and give him a seminar on rebutting conservative myths, that's the exact opposite of his job.  Maybe he might have said something against the lucky ducky myth in passing a couple times over the past six years.  But that's not going to mean much against the steady string of conservative media he'd be getting all decade long.  Eventually the sheer weight of reputation is going to do a number on him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 20, 2012, 01:13:48 am

I've missed you, Aqizzar. Please don't leave ever again. We need you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 07:20:56 am

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-denies-plan-to-invade-canada-135992.html?hp=r6

My guess is that they figured out what Bush did a long time ago, invading a country increases your popularity ratings.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 20, 2012, 08:07:49 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 07:20:56 am

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-denies-plan-to-invade-canada-135992.html?hp=r6

I...what....damn. Politico has really gone downhill when they waste electrons on this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on September 20, 2012, 08:21:28 am

What a terrible misuse of bits.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 20, 2012, 08:50:18 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 07:20:56 am

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-denies-plan-to-invade-canada-135992.html?hp=r6

My guess is that they figured out what Bush did a long time ago, invading a country increases your popularity ratings.

That's a shame. Invading Canada would make for a very interesting election.

It would also pretty much guarantee that America would get its ass kicked. We've tried invading Canada before, on multiple occasions. It didn't work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 20, 2012, 08:51:57 am

Vote for Cthulhu, and the invasion will be a success.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 08:55:42 am

Quote from: Mego on September 20, 2012, 08:50:18 am

It would also pretty much guarantee that America would get its ass kicked. We've tried invading Canada before, on multiple occasions. It didn't work.

What exactly are you referencing here?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 09:00:19 am

1775
1812
a few minor attempts from 1866 to 1871 that never turned into a few blown war

Does anyone know who smuggled in the vidcam to the Romney meeting? I got to say, if I had 50k to donate to a political party, donating it to the /opposition/ so as to get incriminating footage about him would be an amazingly courageous plan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on September 20, 2012, 09:04:25 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 08:55:42 am

Quote from: Mego on September 20, 2012, 08:50:18 am

It would also pretty much guarantee that America would get its ass kicked. We've tried invading Canada before, on multiple occasions. It didn't work.

What exactly are you referencing here?

All I can think off is the War of 1812... and that one time that Benedict Arnold (or another founding father) tried to invade Quebec after the Revolutionary War. However the French Canadians hated the Americans more than the British, meaning that the plan fizzled out.

...

And I guess you could include the Whisky Wars out in the prairies, but that didn't involve the American government so it doesn't really count.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 20, 2012, 09:08:44 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 09:00:19 am

Does anyone know who smuggled in the vidcam to the Romney meeting? I got to say, if I had 50k to donate to a political party, donating it to the /opposition/ so as to get incriminating footage about him would be an amazingly courageous plan.

Still unknown. User posted to You Tube as "Anne Onymous". Take that as you will.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://takemydough.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/v-for-vendetta-mask.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 09:10:53 am

Evidence points to bartender or (less likely) another member of the waitstaff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 09:13:37 am

We'll probably never find out, as is best. People need encouragement to do things like this more often.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 20, 2012, 09:17:56 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 09:10:53 am

Evidence points to bartender or (less likely) another member of the waitstaff.

Oh. You mean one of those "victims". Funny how rich assholes never remember the hired help when they're busy insulting people that work for a living.


In further developments, let the exodus begin (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/pawlenty-quits-romney-campaign-co-chair-132022573--election.html). Tim Pawlenty has bailed on the Romney campaign, quitting his position as co-chair to take a lobbyist job. Here's a hint: you don't walk away from a campaign chair position if you think that campaign is going to win the biggest prize out there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 20, 2012, 10:57:20 am

Did anyone ever honestly think the Republicans stood a chance?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on September 20, 2012, 10:59:53 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 20, 2012, 10:57:20 am

Did anyone ever honestly think the Republicans stood a chance?

The different now is that even THEY don't think they're going to win. But there's still enough time for something big to hit the Obama campaign. Maybe if they push hard enough on that birth certificate thing =p

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on September 20, 2012, 11:11:06 am

Someone asked how Romney could become president now, and the only way he could would be to very rapidly become a General and execute a coup.

I really long for a day when it takes much research to determine which of many candidates most fits my personal goals and ideology.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 12:13:14 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on September 20, 2012, 11:11:06 am

Someone asked how Romney could become president now, and the only way he could would be to very rapidly become a General and execute a coup.

I really long for a day when it takes much research to determine which of many candidates most fits my personal goals and ideology.

Even in countries where there are several main parties the situation still isn't quite like that. You can still usually tell by first glance, unfortunately.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 12:36:20 pm

Senate:
http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/senate12.php
Last week it looked like the democrats were going to lose 3 seats with the republicans gaining 3. This upset would have flipped congress to be controlled by the republicans in both houses.

This week, it looks like the democrats are only losing one seat and maintain a bare minimum majority.

House:
http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php

democrats are looking to gain 8 seats and republicans to loose 8. Republicans are likely to retain a notable majority.

Electoral College:
http://electoral-vote.com/

No notable change on this front from the perspective of vote totals, though the gaps in some close states have trended slightly in Obama's favor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 12:50:26 pm

So at least 2 more years of deadlock basically?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 12:54:46 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 12:50:26 pm

So at least 2 more years of deadlock basically?

probably. Unless enough republicans forsake the Norquist pledge and are capable of compromising on tax reform.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 20, 2012, 02:13:24 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 12:54:46 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 12:50:26 pm

So at least 2 more years of deadlock basically?

probably. Unless enough republicans forsake the Norquist pledge and are capable of compromising on tax reform.

Riiiight. And I'll just start filling orders for saddles to go with all those magic ponies that are going to descend from the heavens while I'm at it.</cynic>


I mean, if you look at the last several election cycles, when the GOP loses, the lesson they take away from it is not "Maybe we should throttle back on the batshit crazy aspect", it's "We weren't batshit crazy enough."

At this rate, they'll be putting up Reagan's corpse for a candidate in 2016, with the chair that Clint Eastwood yelled at as Vice-President. All while issuing confusing demands from their heavily-fortified West Texas bunker. In haiku.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on September 20, 2012, 02:28:31 pm

Could be a decent strategy. I know if the haiku was good enough I might be tempted to vote in that direction.

Well... probably not, but still. It'd be an improvement in presentation in some areas! Both sides should have like, a month of the election cycle where they can speak only in haiku or be disqualified as a candidate for... whatever. Not only would it be more entertaining, it'd require a candidate pool with a higher quality of mental flexibility. Win-win!

Other forms of poetry might be acceptable, as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 20, 2012, 02:45:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 12:36:20 pm

House:
http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php

democrats are looking to gain 8 seats and republicans to loose 8. Republicans are likely to retain a notable majority.

I'm not sure how much stock can be put in house polls considering how few are actually made public; the data points are so few (compared to Presidential & Senate polling) it is hard to draw an accurate conclusion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 02:49:22 pm

All this said, who exactly do the Democrats have right now besides Obama that would be decent in a presidential campaign? Who can they rely on beyond Obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 02:55:38 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-univision-campaign-100-percent-america-234334429--election.html

Just days after saying he doesn't care about 47% of Americans, he now says his campain is about 100% of Americans. Romney flip flops again. ;)

Quote from: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 02:49:22 pm

All this said, who exactly do the Democrats have right now besides Obama that would be decent in a presidential campaign? Who can they rely on beyond Obama?

No one. Of the big names in democratic national politics, he is probably the least bad option. The alternative would probably be Hillary Clinton.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 20, 2012, 02:56:09 pm

Eh, Romney's a terrible candidate and a terrible person. What else is new.

Again, this isn't going to come down to Romney doing something clever because Romney is a humanoid robot designed by MIT to run in elections and pander.  It's going to come down to whether Obama screws the pooch in such a way that even Romney-haters want him out. A gigantic economic crisis would do it, or a war going in a bad way (say, the Iranians sinking a US Carrier during an American strike). Other than that, Obama's probably safe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 02:57:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 02:55:38 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-univision-campaign-100-percent-america-234334429--election.html

Just days after saying he doesn't care about 47% of Americans, he now says his campain is about 100% of Americans. Romney flip flops again. ;)

Quote from: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 02:49:22 pm

All this said, who exactly do the Democrats have right now besides Obama that would be decent in a presidential campaign? Who can they rely on beyond Obama?

No one. Of the big names in democratic national politics, he is probably the least bad option. The alternative would probably be Hillary Clinton.

Isn't a certain Kennedy boy being groomed for great things? I've only seen him once or twice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 03:03:14 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 02:57:06 pm

Isn't a certain Kennedy boy being groomed for great things? I've only seen him once or twice.

Which one? the last one I noticed who was heading towards politics died in an airplane crash in 1999.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 03:08:14 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 20, 2012, 02:13:24 pm

At this rate, they'll be putting up Reagan's corpse for a candidate in 2016, with the chair that Clint Eastwood yelled at as Vice-President. All while issuing confusing demands from their heavily-fortified West Texas bunker. In haiku.

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the President must be alive."-Scalia's and Thomas's originalist reasoning overruled by socialist Supreme Court majority. Obama still not US citizen, Reagan 2016, Fox News, Fair and Balanced.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 20, 2012, 03:43:45 pm

Corpse/Chair 2016 - it makes more sense than you know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 03:51:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 03:03:14 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 02:57:06 pm

Isn't a certain Kennedy boy being groomed for great things? I've only seen him once or twice.

Which one? the last one I noticed who was heading towards politics died in an airplane crash in 1999.

Very young chap. Red hair. Joseph P Kennedy or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 20, 2012, 04:11:47 pm

Man, I thought we were past the Kennedy dynasty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 04:12:34 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on September 20, 2012, 04:11:47 pm

Man, I thought we were past the Kennedy dynasty.

We had dynasties for millennia, why would we get rid of them in 200 years?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on September 20, 2012, 04:15:33 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 04:12:34 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on September 20, 2012, 04:11:47 pm

Man, I thought we were past the Kennedy dynasty.

We had dynasties for millennia, why would we get rid of them in 200 years?

Obviously the Kennedy name must be sufficiently slandered before the 'groomed for leadership' dynasty member gets into the political battlefield.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 20, 2012, 04:27:02 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 03:08:14 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 20, 2012, 02:13:24 pm

At this rate, they'll be putting up Reagan's corpse for a candidate in 2016, with the chair that Clint Eastwood yelled at as Vice-President. All while issuing confusing demands from their heavily-fortified West Texas bunker. In haiku.

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the President must be alive."-Scalia's and Thomas's originalist reasoning overruled by socialist Supreme Court majority. Obama still not US citizen, Reagan 2016, Fox News, Fair and Balanced.

That could be possibly the most interesting thing that's happened in politics in the last few months.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 04:36:43 pm

The Democrats don't have a clear leader for 2016, but the Republicans are surely in a worse state.  Romney was definitely the most electable of the bunch they had this time, and he's not looking particularly electable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 04:38:05 pm

Perhaps they should have ran someone like Rick Santorum who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting in, then leave Romney for the post Obama/Clinton elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 04:38:22 pm

I really, really hope Santorum gets the 2016 nomination. Whomever the Democrats nominate wouldn't even have to campaign. They could just sit back and let Santorum destroy his own popularity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 04:40:04 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 04:38:22 pm

I really, really hope Santorum gets the 2016 nomination. Whomever the Democrats nominate wouldn't even have to campaign. They could just sit back and let Santorum destroy his own popularity.

Santorum is one man that I cannot, for the life of me, see any appeal in. Even to his target audience he must appear as a wet blanket.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 04:41:32 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 04:40:04 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 20, 2012, 04:38:22 pm

I really, really hope Santorum gets the 2016 nomination. Whomever the Democrats nominate wouldn't even have to campaign. They could just sit back and let Santorum destroy his own popularity.

Santorum is one man that I cannot, for the life of me, see any appeal in. Even to his target audience he must appear as a wet blanket.

Oh no, the far-right loves him. He's more or less Son of Reagan to them.

Its just that everyone else, even the rest of the right, are able to see how crazy he is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 04:43:06 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 02:49:22 pm

All this said, who exactly do the Democrats have right now besides Obama that would be decent in a presidential campaign? Who can they rely on beyond Obama?

Democrats have a pretty deep bench.  Hillary is still a rockstar for one and has become more popular since 2008.  I'd say that she's the most likely person to win the 2016 elections.  The democrats have several governors with good resumes.  Cuomo's name has been bouncing around for a long time.  Ex-Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will have a good resume if he wins his senate run this year.  O'Malley is going to be looking for a job thanks to term limits and has a good resume and no Senate seat to go for so he will almost certainly be in the primaries come 2016.  Schweitzer would look good but would probably get labeled a conservative in the primaries so he'd have a hard time if Obama get's reelected.  Biden has an exploratory committee but I doubt he'd win given his age.  So right there you have five candidates all of whom are experienced and effective politicians and have the resume's to be taken seriously.  Then on top of that you can consider outsider candidates like Elizibeth Warren.  These candidates generally don't have name recognition (except for Hillary Clinton) but that won't be a problem once the Iowa polls start up.  I think it's safe to say that the democrats are going to have a crowded field in 2016, nothing resembling the republican field this year with basically only one decent candidate in Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 04:49:07 pm

Come, now, they had a few decent candidates, but they drove them all off because they didn't want anyone competing with their chosen ones. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 20, 2012, 04:54:33 pm

I predict 2016 is going to be all about the Latino-looking candidates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 04:57:44 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 04:49:07 pm

Come, now, they had a few decent candidates

Such as

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 20, 2012, 04:58:26 pm

Do you think Ron Paul's movement will ever really come to anything?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 05:00:35 pm

I thought both Hunstman and Johnson were decent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 05:06:25 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 04:49:07 pm

Come, now, they had a few decent candidates, but they drove them all off because they didn't want anyone competing with their chosen ones. :P

Well I'm assuming you are refering to Pawlenty, Huntsman, Perry and/or Santorum.

Pawlenty had the resume for the job but turned out not to be a good speaker.  That could happen to any unknown candidate so we'll count him and say the republicans had two real candidates.
Huntsman had one term as governor and had spent the past two years out of the country as governor.  Not exactly a high profile.  He was only special because he was different.  He's like Schweitzer but with less experience.
Perry wasn't considered as a candidate this far out.  His name only got floated after the season had started and the field failed to catch on fire.  Perry would be the equivalent to someone like Jerry Brown, someone who isn't considered a likely candidate right now.
Santorum was damaged goods.  He'd lost his Senate seat in a landslide and his name was mostly known at a national level for homophobia, not a winning issue in 2012.

So yeah Romney and less charismatic Romney was the extent of the field.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 05:00:35 pm

I thought both Hunstman and Johnson were decent.

I'm sorry but Johnson was not a contender for the republican nomination.  This is made abundantly clear by the fact that in a race where 8 different candidates lead in the polls (Romney, Trump, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, Bachman, Palin, am I forgetting someone?) Johnson never even posted decent numbers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 20, 2012, 05:10:56 pm

I would like Clinton as president. I respect her, even if I don't know particularly much specific politicsly about her I guess. Still, as far as I know, she also carries a good reputation abroad as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:19:15 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 05:00:35 pm

I thought both Hunstman and Johnson were decent.

I would agree that of all the people to run in the republican primary they showed the most promise.

Huntsman was a "moderate" republic, who may or may not have been open to compromise. At the time he appeared less right wing than the other candidates, but who knows what he would have transformed into for the later part of the election. In 208 as I recall McCain started out as something of a maverick and then veered far right towards the end.

Johnson (who is still running on the Libertarian ticket last I saw) was a libertarian with a lot fewer skeletons in his closet than Ron Paul. I might even have voted for him, if we were not still so close to an economic depression. I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology (not counting the Ayn Rand inspired economic aspects).

Quote from: scriver on September 20, 2012, 05:10:56 pm

I would like Clinton as president. I respect her, even if I don't know particularly much specific politicsly about her I guess. Still, as far as I know, she also carries a good reputation abroad as well.

I'm not that fond of her myself. She led a campaign to completely ban "mature" video games, despite the success of the voluntary rating system. She has had a few other gaffs as secretary of state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 05:25:57 pm

She's always struck me as a bit of a nutbag. Mainly due to the aforementioned video game thing.

Doesn't she have some flip flopping gaffs in her past too? I'm forced to listen to conservative radio and I seem to recall them harping on some stuff like that years ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sneakey pete on September 20, 2012, 05:33:08 pm

So, the Australian Treasurer just basically called the tea party republicans a 'bunch of nutjobs' who were prepared to let the country default to score a political point back at the debt limit crisis....


Does congress also get elected at this election? I'd say that the make up of it would probably be pretty important depending on who wins the presidency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 05:34:58 pm

Ah, well, there's a reason for that.  It's because they are a bunch of nutjobs who were prepared to let the country default to score a political point back at the debt limit crisis.

Quote from: sneakey pete on September 20, 2012, 05:33:08 pm

Does congress also get elected at this election? I'd say that the make up of it would probably be pretty important depending on who wins the presidency.

The US house of representatives stands for elections every 2 years.  The democrats have had some really great polls in the past two weeks but I'm going to restrain my optimism until the trend lasts a little longer.

The US Senate is divided into three different "classes" of 33 or 34 senators each.  Every two years there is an election for one of the classes, meaning every senator stands for election every 6 years.  The democrats had a good year back in 2006 so they are likely to lose seats just because they have so many vulnerable incumbents up for re-election this year.  But it currently seems that democrats are favorites to retain the majority and probably won't lose more then a few seats.  But it's both conceivable that they could lose the majority or gain seats given elections can be unpredictable.

I'd say that there is about a 80% chance that each party controls at least one of the three veto points, House, Senate and White House.  I'd say there's about a 10% chance of either party having control of all three.  But even then the minority party will be able to fillibuster legislation in the Senate because nobody is getting a filibuster proof majority (60% of the Senate) this year and you can take that to the bnak.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:37:38 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 05:25:57 pm

She's always struck me as a bit of a nutbag. Mainly due to the aforementioned video game thing.

Doesn't she have some flip flopping gaffs in her past too? I'm forced to listen to conservative radio and I seem to recall them harping on some stuff like that years ago.

She voted for the Iraq war and supported the invasion of Afghanistan and then later advocated pulling out if that is what you mean.

Other bad things she did: voted for the patriot act (twice).

She is an advocate for assault weapons bans (though a lot of democrats wouldn't find that to be a critical flaw).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on September 20, 2012, 05:44:29 pm

Quote from: sneakey pete on September 20, 2012, 05:33:08 pm

Does congress also get elected at this election? I'd say that the make up of it would probably be pretty important depending on who wins the presidency.

1/3 of the Senate is elected every 2 years, and all of the House is up for election every 2 years. Usually Presidential elections cause a higher turnout for the Congress races as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 05:46:19 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:37:38 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 20, 2012, 05:25:57 pm

She's always struck me as a bit of a nutbag. Mainly due to the aforementioned video game thing.

Doesn't she have some flip flopping gaffs in her past too? I'm forced to listen to conservative radio and I seem to recall them harping on some stuff like that years ago.

She voted for the Iraq war and supported the invasion of Afghanistan and then later advocated pulling out if that is what you mean.

Other bad things she did: voted for the patriot act (twice).

She is an advocate for assault weapons bans (though a lot of democrats wouldn't find that to be a critical flaw).

Ah, that first one sounds familiar, so that's probably it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 05:48:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:19:15 pm

I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology (not counting the Ayn Rand inspired economic aspects).

Which is the part they push hardest.  And the part that will completely obliterate the poor.  There is simply no justification for pushing Randian ideas because they demonstrably do not work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 05:55:13 pm

Libertarians claim to be conservatives when it comes to economics and liberals when it comes to social issues.  But they always support the social struggles of the past  or future and never the struggles of today.  So they are effectively conservatives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 06:08:18 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 05:55:13 pm

Libertarians claim to be conservatives when it comes to economics and liberals when it comes to social issues.  But they always support the social struggles of the past  or future and never the struggles of today.  So they are effectively conservatives.

There you run into the labeling issue. Ron Paul is often point to as a classic example of a libertarian, even though he does not really support racial, religious or gender equality.

But I think Leafsnail hits the nail closer to the head. Many libertarians tend latch onto the Randian free market zealotry as the core of their belief and kinda handwave everything else or even actively subvert liberty by endorsing states rights over people rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 20, 2012, 06:08:51 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:37:38 pm

She is an advocate for assault weapons bans .

So's Romney. He rammed through a replacement for the defunct Federal ban in Massachusetts,

I don't approve if that, and I really don't approve of her anti-game record, but the former is a legitimate point of disagreement, while the courts smashed the more serious issue flat repeatedly. Those two issues aside, I think she'd be a fine President. She did an excellent job in 1992-2000.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 20, 2012, 06:22:05 pm

Romney was an advocate for an assault weapons ban. Now he's a presidential candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sneakey pete on September 20, 2012, 07:16:24 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 05:34:58 pm

Ah, well, there's a reason for that.  It's because they are a bunch of nutjobs who were prepared to let the country default to score a political point back at the debt limit crisis.

He just said it in a rather frank way, is all.
edit: link (http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=797333)

(eg, something that a politician of one country should never say about another countries politics)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on September 20, 2012, 08:44:34 pm

Quote from: sneakey pete on September 20, 2012, 07:16:24 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 20, 2012, 05:34:58 pm

Ah, well, there's a reason for that.  It's because they are a bunch of nutjobs who were prepared to let the country default to score a political point back at the debt limit crisis.

He just said it in a rather frank way, is all.
edit: link (http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=797333)

(eg, something that a politician of one country should never say about another countries politics)

But... its true?  Its not like the US is gonna go "Roar! I raise tariffs on Australian goods now!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Africa on September 20, 2012, 09:08:02 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 05:48:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:19:15 pm

I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology (not counting the Ayn Rand inspired economic aspects).

Which is the part they push hardest.  And the part that will completely obliterate the poor.  There is simply no justification for pushing Randian ideas because they demonstrably do not work.

Not just the poor, all of society eventually. But in the short term it's mostly just the poor and lower middle classes that would get fucked, so rich people and people convinced they don't need the government (while living in states that take in way more government money than they give, of course) love it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 20, 2012, 10:51:48 pm

Quote from: Africa on September 20, 2012, 09:08:02 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 05:48:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:19:15 pm

I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology (not counting the Ayn Rand inspired economic aspects).

Which is the part they push hardest.  And the part that will completely obliterate the poor.  There is simply no justification for pushing Randian ideas because they demonstrably do not work.

Not just the poor, all of society eventually. But in the short term it's mostly just the poor and lower middle classes that would get fucked, so rich people and people convinced they don't need the government (while living in states that take in way more government money than they give, of course) love it.

That's why Ron Paul received piles of money from the rich, and the rich provided one of his strongest voting demographics.

Oh wait (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 11:15:42 pm

Aren't many libertarians big supporters of negative income taxes and similar things? I don't think things like those would "completely obliterate the poor". I don't know how effective that is, compared to other strategies, but I don't think its reprehensible.

I think libertarianism has one huge problem - the bulk of it's membership is composed of the sort of people who found it it in college and  threw themselves into it because it was superficially attractive, leading them to believe they'd found "The One True Answer". It's as if the Democrats were in large part the hippies Republicans imagine them to be, and the Republican party was composed in bulk of born again evangelicals. It's a probably many smaller movements and parties experience, and they don't really seem to change much until they get larger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 12:22:01 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 20, 2012, 10:51:48 pm

Quote from: Africa on September 20, 2012, 09:08:02 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 05:48:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:19:15 pm

I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology (not counting the Ayn Rand inspired economic aspects).

Which is the part they push hardest.  And the part that will completely obliterate the poor.  There is simply no justification for pushing Randian ideas because they demonstrably do not work.

Not just the poor, all of society eventually. But in the short term it's mostly just the poor and lower middle classes that would get fucked, so rich people and people convinced they don't need the government (while living in states that take in way more government money than they give, of course) love it.

That's why Ron Paul received piles of money from the rich, and the rich provided one of his strongest voting demographics.

Oh wait (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia)

When a candidate is pulling less then 25% of the vote in a contest itself that only reflects the views of la fraction of the populace you can hardly assume the small part of the population that their ballots tally to be representative of their views compared to the population as a whole.  Maybe the views are representative but you need to carefully look at the conditions and these votes are definitely not a representative sample, not assume it.  Yes Ron Paul did well among poor voters who voted in the republican primaries.  But he did not even receive a majority of his votes from people earning less then the national median income (that share was 44%).  More ever there are factors that correlate with voting for Ron Paul much more strongly.

Ron Paul mostly gets support from the liberal and youngs wing of the republican party.  This isn't exactly groundbreaking news.  Nor is it groundbreaking news that young people earn less then the median income.  People's earning power increases as they age.  Likewise you will see that Ron Paul does well among those who never attended a GOP caucus or identify as political independents.  These correlate with poverty somewhat but more to the point they tell us that Ron Paul appeals not to poor people but to people who are on the fringes of the republican party.  All of these factors are much better indicators of voting for Ron Paul then below median income.

To look at it another way realize that you are comparing Ron Paul to the republican primary electorate.  That electorate skews old, wealthy, white and conservative on both social and economic issues.  The people who votes for Ron Paul in 2012 Iowa had a larger percentage above the median income then the people who voted for Obama OR Clinton in the 2008 Iowa democratic primary.  They were also more conservative, older, whiter (though not much), more evangelical and more male then Obama or Hillary voters.  It's not that Ron Paul does well with the poor, it's the he's competing in an electorate that does not reflect america.

So don't naively interpret statistics like that.  It's not good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 06:29:32 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 11:15:42 pm

Aren't many libertarians big supporters of negative income taxes and similar things? I don't think things like those would "completely obliterate the poor". I don't know how effective that is, compared to other strategies, but I don't think its reprehensible.

I can't see any evidence that either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or any major member of the libertarian movement supports anything of the sort.  They mostly seem to advocate ending income tax (and estate tax, and capital gains tax - as far as I can tell they want a sales tax, which would be horrible for the poor, but it's difficult to tell with Paul's rambling) altogether.  They certainly do not advocate spending a single penny to help poor people (in Ron Paul's case because his bizarre budget leaves no room for any spending of any kind).

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 20, 2012, 11:15:42 pm

I think libertarianism has one huge problem - the bulk of it's membership is composed of the sort of people who found it it in college and  threw themselves into it because it was superficially attractive, leading them to believe they'd found "The One True Answer". It's as if the Democrats were in large part the hippies Republicans imagine them to be, and the Republican party was composed in bulk of born again evangelicals. It's a probably many smaller movements and parties experience, and they don't really seem to change much until they get larger.

That's one huge problem with libertarianism.  The other is that mainstream libertarian economic policy fundamentally does not work.  Especially in a time when the economy is struggling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 21, 2012, 07:58:32 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:19:15 pm

She led a campaign to completely ban "mature" video games, despite the success of the voluntary rating system. She has had a few other gaffs as secretary of state.

I'm not exactly that keen on Clinton as the candidate in 2016, but I don't think this charge is as strong as gamers always make it out to be.

This is the bill in question. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act) It didn't ban mature games. It instead added a penalty to those found selling Mature or AO ESRB rated games to those underage, alongside measures to include review of ESRB ratings, both as a general independent annual review and in specific cases where they were misleading (it was inspired the Hot Coffee nonsense).

It's worth noting that since then the Supreme Court has extended first amendment protection to video games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association), making such measures no more legal than trying to add regulations to the MPAA. So it was an unconstitutional level of restriction, although arguably not an unreasonable one.

But in any case, it was not a flat ban on Mature games.


My issue with Clinton is that she is, holding video games aside, not especially liberal while being painted as an Arch Liberal by the right. Obama, who I have always seen as rather moderate, is easily to her left on the issues. Her healthcare plan in particular was closer to the compromise position Obama ended up in than Obama's own more leftish proposal.

I don't doubt that moderate liberalism works well in the USA. But she is always going to be painted as a raging communist feminazi with a confirmed murder count by the right wingers. If we have a candidate who is going to get tagged with that kind of crap, could they at least have deserved some of the charges of leftist?

On the other hand, good on gay rights. Most of the longer term supporters of hers I knew back in '08 were from that movement.

I'm hoping someone else comes forwards, but waiting till 2014 for them to show up again isn't very attractive and I haven't seen any particularly obvious new players in this convention cycle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on September 21, 2012, 08:07:34 am

Quote from: palsch on September 21, 2012, 07:58:32 am

I don't doubt that moderate liberalism works well in the USA. But she is always going to be painted as a raging communist feminazi with a confirmed murder count by the right wingers. If we have a candidate who is going to get tagged with that kind of crap, could they at least have deserved some of the charges of leftist?

To be fair, the candidate the Democrats wound up getting was a staunchly moderate pro-military market-oriented kinda-liberal law professor, and he was painted wall to wall as a Kenyan Islamo-Hitler Maoist Manchurian Candidate, and he won one election and has a pretty good chance to hold onto a reelection.

Why I would doubt the chances of Hilary Clinton, and this is entirely anecdotal, but ironically for being a female politician with the best shot at being President since... well almost ever, I never meet women who like her.  I'm sure if she actually made it onto the ballot, she'd do as well as Obama with women, but probably just that while likely shaving off support elsewhere.

Quote from: scriver on September 20, 2012, 01:13:48 am

I've missed you, Aqizzar. Please don't leave ever again. We need you.

Don't say things like that, gives me a weird Alpha Centauri vibe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 21, 2012, 08:24:06 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on September 21, 2012, 08:07:34 am

Why I would doubt the chances of Hilary Clinton, and this is entirely anecdotal, but ironically for being a female politician with the best shot at being President since... well almost ever, I never meet women who like her.  I'm sure if she actually made it onto the ballot, she'd do as well as Obama with women, but probably just that while likely shaving off support elsewhere.

Her standing by Bill Clinton after he cheated is a big old debate that tends to divide women, from the strident feminists down to the barefoot-and-pregnant types. But even where it doesn't decrease her support I don't think it does much to increase people's trust in her. It's too easily seen as a cynical political move (as much of their marriage can be seen frankly - pretty much everything since Bill's days playing the Dude (http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/0/0/128600.jpg?v=1) in the 70's) rather than any actual feelings towards Bill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on September 21, 2012, 08:27:44 am

Quote from: palsch on September 21, 2012, 08:24:06 am

It's too easily seen as a cynical political move (as much of their marriage can be seen frankly - pretty much everything since Bill's days playing the Dude (http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/0/0/128600.jpg?v=1) in the 70's) rather than any actual feelings towards Bill.

Given how much people seem to still like Bill Clinton, it's hard to say really.  Plenty of women I meet who hate Hilary, mostly because they see her as an empty pantsuit, still love Bill.

And with pictures like that I can see why.  How the Hell did I miss that one?  Gives me hope for the hairy slobs of today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 09:10:35 am

Bill Clinton had some real weak sauce cheating.  Just saying.  If he wanted to he could have easily bagged hotties by the score and instead he got a blowjob from an intern who wasn't exactly a looker.  This doesn't even elevate itself to the level of affair.  So Bill probably looked less bad to Hillary due to lack of premeditation.

But it's also not like there is an iron law of the universe that you are supposed to have a divorce automatically if someone cheats on you.  Are there any indications that Hillary and Bill were unhappy in the marriage besides the affairs?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 21, 2012, 09:13:50 am

My understanding is that Bill and Hillary mostly have always had a political marriage, so I doubt either one of them cares about him cheating very much.

Still, I agree that Bill's cheating was way too lame for all the consequences it caused. JFK's cheating was much more interesting. If you're going to cheat in the White House, you might as well go straight to the naked supermodel pool party, do not pass go, do not collect HPV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 21, 2012, 09:16:57 am

I'd question what affairs he had that were never discovered/publicized. BC doesn't strike me as a one-time offender. The fact he jeopardized his political standing (lulz) over someone like Lewinsky tells me he felt there was a lot he could get away with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 09:25:40 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 21, 2012, 09:13:50 am

My understanding is that Bill and Hillary mostly have always had a political marriage, so I doubt either one of them cares about him cheating very much.

How can they have a political marriage when they were married before either of them were in politics?  Or are you saying that they got married because they were planning for Bill to launch a failed bid for state senate two years later?  Is every state senate candidate in the country in a political marriage?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 12:22:01 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 20, 2012, 10:51:48 pm

Quote from: Africa on September 20, 2012, 09:08:02 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 20, 2012, 05:48:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 20, 2012, 05:19:15 pm

I agree with a lot of libertarian ideology (not counting the Ayn Rand inspired economic aspects).

Which is the part they push hardest.  And the part that will completely obliterate the poor.  There is simply no justification for pushing Randian ideas because they demonstrably do not work.

Not just the poor, all of society eventually. But in the short term it's mostly just the poor and lower middle classes that would get fucked, so rich people and people convinced they don't need the government (while living in states that take in way more government money than they give, of course) love it.

That's why Ron Paul received piles of money from the rich, and the rich provided one of his strongest voting demographics.

Oh wait (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia)

When a candidate is pulling less then 25% of the vote in a contest itself that only reflects the views of la fraction of the populace you can hardly assume the small part of the population that their ballots tally to be representative of their views compared to the population as a whole.  Maybe the views are representative but you need to carefully look at the conditions and these votes are definitely not a representative sample, not assume it.  Yes Ron Paul did well among poor voters who voted in the republican primaries.  But he did not even receive a majority of his votes from people earning less then the national median income (that share was 44%).  More ever there are factors that correlate with voting for Ron Paul much more strongly.

Ron Paul mostly gets support from the liberal and youngs wing of the republican party.  This isn't exactly groundbreaking news.  Nor is it groundbreaking news that young people earn less then the median income.  People's earning power increases as they age.  Likewise you will see that Ron Paul does well among those who never attended a GOP caucus or identify as political independents.  These correlate with poverty somewhat but more to the point they tell us that Ron Paul appeals not to poor people but to people who are on the fringes of the republican party.  All of these factors are much better indicators of voting for Ron Paul then below median income.

To look at it another way realize that you are comparing Ron Paul to the republican primary electorate.  That electorate skews old, wealthy, white and conservative on both social and economic issues.  The people who votes for Ron Paul in 2012 Iowa had a larger percentage above the median income then the people who voted for Obama OR Clinton in the 2008 Iowa democratic primary.  They were also more conservative, older, whiter (though not much), more evangelical and more male then Obama or Hillary voters.  It's not that Ron Paul does well with the poor, it's the he's competing in an electorate that does not reflect america.

So don't naively interpret statistics like that.  It's not good.

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 21, 2012, 09:30:37 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 09:25:40 am

How can they have a political marriage when they were married before either of them were in politics?  Or are you saying that they got married because they were planning for Bill to launch a failed bid for state senate two years later?  Is every state senate candidate in the country in a political marriage?

I have never seen any sign they really like each other, so I suspect that it was definitely not a marriage of love at least. Political marriage seems like the most likely candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 09:40:41 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:43:26 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 09:40:41 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

I didn't know Krugman was a libertarian!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on September 21, 2012, 09:48:48 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 21, 2012, 09:30:37 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 09:25:40 am

How can they have a political marriage when they were married before either of them were in politics?  Or are you saying that they got married because they were planning for Bill to launch a failed bid for state senate two years later?  Is every state senate candidate in the country in a political marriage?

I have never seen any sign they really like each other, so I suspect that it was definitely not a marriage of love at least. Political marriage seems like the most likely candidate.

Perhaps its me... but... I have no problem with political(or economical) marriages if they both consent to it.  Does it really make a difference?  Other then enabling a target for 'moral guardians' to take potshots at?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 10:07:17 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:43:26 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 09:40:41 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

I didn't know Krugman was a libertarian!

Krugman does not advocate complete deregulation of markets and austerity as a "solution" to recession. He may er occasionally on the other side of the spectrum, but his point of view is generally sound. You don't get to be one of the most respected and referenced sources in economics without some skill.

I value the views of failed fiction author Ayn Rand on economics about as much as I value the views of failed fiction author L. Ron Hubbard on psychotherapy and religion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 21, 2012, 10:08:00 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:43:26 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 09:40:41 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

Whether he did well with the poorest demographics is irrelevant for any number of reasons  (and keep in mind, this trend continued even in other states like New Hampshire, so it was hardly an anomaly). What matters is that the richer people were, the LESS likely to vote for Ron Paul.

On that note, how many influential rich people endorsed Ron Paul? Yeah, exactly, basically nil. The one exception I can think of would be Peter Thiel, but he's an entrepreneur at heart and is hardly representative of your average rich person.

The fact of the matter is, libertarianism isn't even remotely an ideology for the rich, since libertarianism happens to involve far more change than they would like.

I agree.  Libertarianism of the Ron Paul variety isn't an ideology for the rich, because after the collapse they'd be just as screwed.  It's an ideology for people who don't understand economics.

I didn't know Krugman was a libertarian!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://lonewolfsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/itn-that-cute-small.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on September 21, 2012, 10:10:40 am

Does anyone think we're ready for a female candidate? We mention Hilary and in a page we go from discussing her positions to her marriage. I know she's not exactly a good example because of how her marriage turned out, but we don't exactly scrutinize male candidates for their marriage unless they leave their wife when she has cancer.

Regardless, I'd vote for her whatever her platform purely because it would be the biggest boon to gender equality since suffrage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 10:28:56 am

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 21, 2012, 10:10:40 am

Does anyone think we're ready for a female candidate? We mention Hilary and in a page we go from discussing her positions to her marriage. I know she's not exactly a good example because of how her marriage turned out, but we don't exactly scrutinize male candidates for their marriage unless they leave their wife when she has cancer.

Regardless, I'd vote for her whatever her platform purely because it would be the biggest boon to gender equality since suffrage.

Dude left his wife while she was dieing... twice.

Bill Clinton went through impeachment because of his marriage.

Roosevelt got flack because his wife was a little butch.

Obama has been criticized for his marriage, some people said it was purely political.

Just about everyone who has an affair in office gets scrutinized.

I think you are reading a little much into this. Hillary Clinton not only had her marriage go bad, but most of us know her first as the wife of Bill Clinton. Her political career came afterwards. Complaining about discussion of Hillary Clinton's marriage would be like complaining about John Glenn's experience as an astronaut.

We don't talk about Sarah Palins marriage the way we do about Hillary's, because it isn't the first frame of reference we have for her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 21, 2012, 10:39:28 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 10:28:56 am

We don't talk about Sarah Palins marriage the way we do about Hillary's, because it isn't the first frame of reference we have for her.

That frame of reference being "The woman who can see Russia from her house, but can't name five newspapers." :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on September 21, 2012, 10:44:11 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 10:28:56 am

Quote from: Shinotsa on September 21, 2012, 10:10:40 am

Does anyone think we're ready for a female candidate? We mention Hilary and in a page we go from discussing her positions to her marriage. I know she's not exactly a good example because of how her marriage turned out, but we don't exactly scrutinize male candidates for their marriage unless they leave their wife when she has cancer.

Regardless, I'd vote for her whatever her platform purely because it would be the biggest boon to gender equality since suffrage.

Dude left his wife while she was dieing... twice.

Bill Clinton went through impeachment because of his marriage.

Roosevelt got flack because his wife was a little butch.

Obama has been criticized for his marriage, some people said it was purely political.

Just about everyone who has an affair in office gets scrutinized.

I think you are reading a little much into this. Hillary Clinton not only had her marriage go bad, but most of us know her first as the wife of Bill Clinton. Her political career came afterwards. Complaining about discussion of Hillary Clinton's marriage would be like complaining about John Glenn's experience as an astronaut.

We don't talk about Sarah Palins marriage the way we do about Hillary's, because it isn't the first frame of reference we have for her.

I did say she was a bad example, mainly because of us knowing her as a first lady. But perhaps the real problem here is that we have a tiny sample. Only three women have ever been close to the white house, and I honestly don't know anything about the first other than she was in Palin's spot a few elections back. Sarah Palin's been scrutinized on whether her job as a mother would interfere with her job (we don't exactly dwell on that for fathers that run) and, while I am sure more would have come up, she sadly turned herself into a joke before she had a chance to get serious.

Another thing that bothers me is that Mitt Romney has TERRIBLE likability scores and always has, yet he was still nominated and is still running. Maybe the fact that Hilary is a woman and not likable has something to do with why she does poorly, but I just can't understand it. Why don't women rally around a candidate that would finally bring proper equality? I went around asking women in 08 why they didn't like Hilary, and most of their answers were "I dunno, she's just a bitch." Hell, I dislike Romney both as a person and for his platform, but if he'd increase my wage from 70 cents for every dollar half of my co-workers make I'd sure as hell vote for him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 21, 2012, 10:49:09 am

Quote from: greatorder on September 21, 2012, 10:42:08 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 10:28:56 am

Obama has been criticized for his marriage, some people said it was purely political.

yeah, well he's been getting a lot of flak quite simply because he's president.

I can't help but feel that if he was white, they wouldn't go around asking for his birth certificate...

Its true. Cause if you're not white you must not be a true born American. As opposed to all the irish/english/german/french/the rest of Europes white people? I guess?

Why the hell is french the only word in there that the autocorrect didn't demand I capitalize?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 21, 2012, 10:52:14 am

Re: Hilary being a bitch...

It never hurt Thatcher, and possibly kept her in power once she got there (Falklands and all that). Though the UK in the 80's and current day USA are very much not the same, save for the dire economic climates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 11:11:54 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

No I really didn't.  You posted something that was simply untrue, that poor people were more likely to support Ron Paul.  In fact fewer poor people voted for Ron Paul then rich people did in the survey that you posted.

I was trying to explain to you the selection bias that lead to the statistical artifacts you observed.  You can say that you don't like my explanations and that's fine, statistics is thorny and I'm no expert in this data set.  But you can't say that the data is showing something that it is not just because you are assuming a study is random when it most certainly is not.

You say that Ron Paul doesn't get fundraising from the super-rich.  This is true.  But that does not mean he is a champion of the poor.  It just means that his economic agenda is not popular with the rich.  This could be because he is a robin hood champion of the poor but it could also be very well explained by the theory that rich people believe his economic theories are fringe and dangerous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 12:22:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 11:11:54 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

No, you skipped the part that actually counts.

No I really didn't.  You posted something that was simply untrue, that poor people were more likely to support Ron Paul.  In fact fewer poor people voted for Ron Paul then rich people did in the survey that you posted.

I was trying to explain to you the selection bias that lead to the statistical artifacts you observed.  You can say that you don't like my explanations and that's fine, statistics is thorny and I'm no expert in this data set.  But you can't say that the data is showing something that it is not just because you are assuming a study is random when it most certainly is not.

You say that Ron Paul doesn't get fundraising from the super-rich.  This is true.  But that does not mean he is a champion of the poor.  It just means that his economic agenda is not popular with the rich.  This could be because he is a robin hood champion of the poor but it could also be very well explained by the theory that rich people believe his economic theories are fringe and dangerous.

Quote from: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 09:27:25 am

That's why Ron Paul received piles of money from the rich, and the rich provided one of his strongest voting demographics.

Oh wait (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/60/05/001038/strawman.jpg)

Quote from: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 10:07:17 am

Krugman does not advocate complete deregulation of markets and austerity as a "solution" to recession. He may er occasionally on the other side of the spectrum, but his point of view is generally sound. You don't get to be one of the most respected and referenced sources in economics without some skill.

I value the views of failed fiction author Ayn Rand on economics about as much as I value the views of failed fiction author L. Ron Hubbard on psychotherapy and religion.

Krugman has actually made some fairly brilliant discoveries in the field of economics, but they have nothing to do with the stuff he actually says or posts on the New York Times (which is largely nonsense). It is worth noting, however, that people associated with the government and large corporations are naturally going to glorify someone who says that government spending, corporate subsidies and the present system are good, just like how the King of France presumably surrounded himself with people claiming that he had Divine Right to rule.

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian just like how Karl Marx was not a liberal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 21, 2012, 12:58:34 pm

Wait, did Great Justice just call strawman on himself? I've been having some difficulty following his lines of thought lately, but that's the best I can figure out.

Actually I can't figure out what ANYONE is trying to say to each other any more.

Images are not discussions. Sarcasm is not a valid argument. Come on people, if neutral third parties can't even understand what you're disagreeing about, you really need to step back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 21, 2012, 01:15:36 pm

No, he didn't. He's saying mainiac did when mainiac said "you posted something that was simply untrue, that poor people were more likely to support Ron Paul" by showing what he actually wrote, which was "rich people didn't support Ron Paul".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on September 21, 2012, 01:54:25 pm

Apparently Romney decided that the best time to release his tax returns was right now, rather than immediately. 14%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 21, 2012, 02:05:35 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on September 21, 2012, 01:54:25 pm

Apparently Romney decided that the best time to release his tax returns was right now, rather than immediately. 14%.

The boy just doesn't know timing, does he? Link, please.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on September 21, 2012, 02:11:21 pm

Here you go  :P

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You shouldn't have done that.(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101110013703/zelda/images/a/a3/Link_Statue.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 02:13:37 pm

GreatJustice, every time you argue with me you accuse me off strawman without understanding my arguments.  You are a very unpleasant person to talk to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 21, 2012, 02:18:56 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 02:13:37 pm

GreatJustice, every time you argue with me you accuse me off strawman without understanding my arguments.  You are a very unpleasant person to talk to.

Ahem

Quote from: scriver on September 21, 2012, 01:15:36 pm

No, he didn't. He's saying mainiac did when mainiac said "you posted something that was simply untrue, that poor people were more likely to support Ron Paul" by showing what he actually wrote, which was "rich people didn't support Ron Paul".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 21, 2012, 02:23:28 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 21, 2012, 12:58:34 pm

Actually I can't figure out what ANYONE is trying to say to each other any more.

And here I thought that was just me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 21, 2012, 02:25:38 pm

You two should play some mario kart together and blow off steam. Lots of passive aggression here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 02:32:54 pm

So what we've established is that Ron Paul doesn't receive much support from the poor or the rich.  That's why he's not one of the contenders in this election.  So back to talking about people who are.

Romney's tax rate:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/

Well, it's above 13% at least.

Quote

The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners. To top of page

This would explain it down to 15%, but not any lower.  Surely he's so far into the top tax rate that almost all of his regular income would be taxed at 35%?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 21, 2012, 02:43:07 pm

Except most, if not all, of his wealth isn't coming from traditional sources. That's the rub. He makes more than the vast majority of Americans and gets taxed at rates far lower because this country treats income earned from investments in a completely different fashion than people who get cut a paycheck for their day's work. The tax system treats income from investments as supplementary income, when for the highest rollers, it's actually their primary source of income.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 21, 2012, 02:49:32 pm

Quote from: Darvi on September 21, 2012, 02:23:28 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 21, 2012, 12:58:34 pm

Actually I can't figure out what ANYONE is trying to say to each other any more.

And here I thought that was just me.

I don't even post here much anymore <_<;

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 21, 2012, 02:53:00 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 21, 2012, 02:32:54 pm

This would explain it down to 15%, but not any lower.  Surely he's so far into the top tax rate that almost all of his regular income would be taxed at 35%?

What regular income? His job has been "Presidential candidate" for the last year and a half. It's like the landed gentry of the 18th-century...they don't need to earn a salary, they just sit back and collect the income generated by all that property (in this case, massive amounts of stock) that they own.




EDIT: You know who Herman Cain thinks would be beating the pants off Obama at this point? Herman Cain. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-says-substantial-lead-over-obama-135949668--election.html)

Quote

But Cain said he would have been doing better if he was the nominee, saying that he'd probably have a "substantial lead" on President Barack Obama at this point.

"The reason is quite simple: I have some depth to my ideas," he said.

Nice. You realize you just implied that Mitt Romney has no depth to his ideas...the GOP thanks you for your support, Hermanator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 21, 2012, 04:38:01 pm

You know what they say. With friends like these...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 04:39:57 pm

Consider for a moment that 2 of Herman Cains deepest ideas were inspired by Pokemon: The Movie and the 999 tax rate from simcity.

Yea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 05:05:07 pm

Well ignorant people generally think they know more then they do or think they know nothing.  Hermain Cain certainly isn't the latter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 21, 2012, 05:14:15 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 21, 2012, 04:39:57 pm

Consider for a moment that 2 of Herman Cains deepest ideas were inspired by Pokemon: The Movie and the 999 tax rate from simcity.

Yea.

Wait, is he really a fan of those two? I might have some respect for him then, even if just a sliver.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 21, 2012, 05:15:46 pm

Regarding Mitt's taxes, it's worth noting that that is an arbitrary rate that he effectively chose, with the option to pay less in the future.

From the NYT coverage; (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/romney-to-release-2011-tax-returns/)

Quote

Mr. Romney, who made millions by running Bain Capital, a private equity firm, paid an effective federal tax rate of 14.1 percent in taxes, primarily because most of his income was in the form of capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. Mr. Romney has said that he has paid at least 13 percent in federal income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

In order for that claim to be true in 2011, Mr. Romney had to voluntarily take a smaller deduction than he was entitled to for his charitable deductions, his advisers said Friday.

Quote

Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, donated about $4 million to charity in 2011, but claimed only $2.25 million as a deduction. The campaign said that Mr. Romney’s tax liability would have been far lower in 2011 had the Romneys claimed the full deduction for their charitable contributions.

“The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the governor’s statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years,” said R. Bradford Malt, Mr. Romney’s trustee.

It is possible, however, that Mr. Romney could still deduct the unclaimed amount of his charitable donations in future tax years, experts said.

So he has a $1.75M deduction he can put towards the first year he isn't running for anything.


Unrelated, just saw this (https://secure.assets.bostatic.com/pdfs/romney/Is_Mitt_Romneys_Debate_Prep_Paying_Off_1.pdf) [.pdf] from one of Obama's campaign staff on twitter. The short version; is they are raising expectations for Romney to handle himself well in the debates while wanting to focus on specifics and issues.

Quote

Mitt Romney made up for a lackluster campaign by performing well in debates – he bragged that Time Magazine said he won 16 out of 20 primary debates, his campaign says he “dominated” them, and he says that he can “debate darn well and take it to the President.”  With weeks of debate prep, including an entire week during the Democratic Convention, he’s obviously banking on flawless performances in October to achieve the turnaround his campaign has projected.  But Americans won’t score this contest on style points alone.  They want to know who has the better plan to create good-paying, sustainable jobs for the middle class in the future.  Mitt Romney has yet to explain how returning to the same policies that resulted in the economic crisis will do anything but further erode the economic security of middle class families.  And on issue after he has yet to provide details beyond the platitudes and attacks on exactly what he would do to move this country forward.

This kind of thing is mostly directed at the media and campaign proxies to help shape the narrative around the debates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 21, 2012, 06:55:52 pm

He could even revise his taxes on November 7th and get a refund for the government, although he probably will lose some money doing that compared to just getting maximum deductions from the start.

On another subject, here's an article discussing an interesting poll on whether voters think Obama helped compared to if he wasn't president: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/21/the-poll-result-that-explains-the-election/
About a million people on the internet and newspaper columnists have argued about if Obama gets the blame for the bad economy.  It's kinda surprising that there aren't too many polls about it.  This question does a much better job explaining the presidential race polls then most economic question polls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: da_nang on September 22, 2012, 03:20:58 am

Relevant... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArC7XarwnWI)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scoops Novel on September 22, 2012, 08:13:29 am

Sir, you have made my day. xD!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on September 22, 2012, 09:25:45 am

Mitt wasn't a terribly good debater, its just that the only other candidates the media gave serious attention to were either totally nuts (Bachmann) or sounded outright retarded (Perry). Herman Cain was able to put him on the ropes, and he was practically running a troll campaign! Those few who had the depth of knowledge to actually take on Mitt were either largely ignored or were unwilling to do so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 22, 2012, 11:51:08 am

Spoiler: Just to lower the tone for a moment. (click to show/hide)

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9xovnlRmF1rq3b5ko1_500.png)

Marginally more serious;
Romeny isn't qualified to be president under his own standards. (https://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/21/890451/by-romneys-own-standard-his-tax-returns-would-disqualify-him-from-the-presidency/)

Quote

    I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.

Quote

The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor’s statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 22, 2012, 12:00:47 pm

What the fuck? Paying more taxes than required is somehow a bad thing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 22, 2012, 12:45:14 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 22, 2012, 12:00:47 pm

What the fuck? Paying more taxes than required is somehow a bad thing?

It was a specific attack on Obama. There were some suggestions that he hadn't taken the maximum deductions possible in the years he earned most. Given that Obama claimed he does his own taxes and isn't a tax accountant that wouldn't surprise me, at least the idea that he didn't optimise his deductibles. A few conservative sites suggested this showed poor financial management from Obama and that he shouldn't be trusted with the American economy.

I'm not sure if Romney was responding specifically to that or if it started as a defence of his low tax rate that was then used as a hammer against Obama, but the idea did gain some traction at the time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on September 22, 2012, 12:55:32 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 22, 2012, 12:00:47 pm

What the fuck? Paying more taxes than required is somehow a bad thing?

I'd say it is if you sell yourself as a president who knows everything about the economy. Who the hell would pay more taxes if he could pay less?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on September 22, 2012, 01:07:49 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on September 22, 2012, 12:55:32 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 22, 2012, 12:00:47 pm

What the fuck? Paying more taxes than required is somehow a bad thing?

I'd say it is if you sell yourself as a president who knows everything about the economy. Who the hell would pay more taxes if he could pay less?

I'm pretty sure Romney doesn't even do his own taxes and would do no betterworse then Obama if he did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 22, 2012, 01:15:19 pm

There is also the element where, "more taxes than you owe," actually means not optimising your deductions or making the best choices to pay less tax on what you make. There is a difference between calculating what you owe on what you earn and taking deliberate steps to owe less on that same income.

Depending on the audience the latter is good fiscal sense or tax avoidance. And that's mostly what we are talking about here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 22, 2012, 01:16:38 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on September 22, 2012, 12:55:32 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 22, 2012, 12:00:47 pm

What the fuck? Paying more taxes than required is somehow a bad thing?

I'd say it is if you sell yourself as a president who knows everything about the economy. Who the hell would pay more taxes if he could pay less?

Someone who gives a damn about the country?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on September 22, 2012, 01:40:38 pm

I'd pay more taxes, honestly.  Unless I was living paycheck to paycheck that is.  And assuming those taxes went to useful things like decreasing the federal debt 'n such.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 22, 2012, 02:30:25 pm

So there is a West Wing reunion that is also a campaign ad.

It comes both in non-candidate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8v02cvgtDA) and candidate supporting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v52FLMOPSig) forms.

Short version; Mary McCormack's sister, Bridget Mary McCormack, is running for State Supreme Court. These are non-partisan races so you don't run as part of a party, even if they are really. As such people who vote for a party line don't cast a vote in these races even if they meant to.

Long version; it's a fucking West Wing reunion. Just watch it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on September 22, 2012, 03:09:08 pm

What happens when Romney talks without realizing he's being recorded. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on September 22, 2012, 03:13:30 pm

Again, or is that the one that's already came up? Don't feel like wrasslin' with flash right now. Or actually listening to a politician speak*.

*I massively prefer transcripts. They tend to lessen the seething rage politicin' ramblings tend to incite in me :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 22, 2012, 03:15:32 pm

It's the same as before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 22, 2012, 03:18:16 pm

It's a sad thing that the elections still aren't all but lost after such screwups.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on September 22, 2012, 04:09:23 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 22, 2012, 12:00:47 pm

What the fuck? Paying more taxes than required is somehow a bad thing?

If was paying more then required out of some sense of patriotism or wanting to pay his fair share it would be one things, but it seems like he was paying more the required so that he could go "See, I pay more then 10% taxes, and I have for the past years, yeah, 14% is low, but its over 10%", when it reality he can deduct that amount from his future taxes if he feels like, and is pretty much just so that he doesn't get hurt more in the polls by how little he is paying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 23, 2012, 07:02:34 am

A piece on Ralph Nader that generalises to all third party attempts at changing the narrative. (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/09/ralph-nader-and-the-structure-of-progressive-change) The meat;

Quote

You turn the Democratic Party into what you want it to be by controlling the mechanisms of everyday party life. By becoming a force that must be reckoned with or at least co-opted. By becoming the Populists in the 1880s and 1890s, eventually forcing the Democratic Party off its Cleveland-era support of plutocracy and helping usher in the Progressive Era. By becoming the abolitionists in the 1850s and 1860s, whose constant moral harping gave them power within the Republican Party far outstripping the small number of fanatical followers of William Lloyd Garrison.

And by becoming conservatives in the 1960s who burrow into the Republican Party structure and transform it from within.

Ralph Nader cared about none of this. He wasn’t committed to a real leftist movement. He wasn’t committed to pushing progressive change from either within or outside the system. He took no leadership positions within progressive movements after 2000 to move the country back to the left except to make another vanity run for president in ’04.

One-off candidates like Nader accomplish almost nothing except to give people an outlet for their anger at a political system they think has betrayed them. These candidacies are performance art done to make a point, in Nader’s case explicitly to throw the election to Bush.

I have no problem at all with a third-party candidacy from the left–if it is a real third party that is serious about making a long-term challenge to the Democratic Party. I would still be philosophically OK with his 2000 run today, even with what we know now, if Nader had cared one iota about doing what it actually took to create a progressive party not controlled by big money interests. Whether that happened inside or outside the Democratic Party, it doesn’t much matter to me. But he didn’t care.

I generally agree with all this. While my view of third parties is favourable from living and voting in the UK, I can't imagine any third party succeeding in the modern USA. The systematic and structural hurdles are simply too high to overcome from outside the existing system. That means any energy that would be dedicated to supporting third parties is far better spent in efforts to change and reform the two main parties in attempts to make such structural changes possible in the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 23, 2012, 07:33:10 pm

Romney voter fraud? Romney voter fraud. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk55dLsFhc)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on September 24, 2012, 12:38:40 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 23, 2012, 07:33:10 pm

Romney voter fraud? Romney voter fraud. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk55dLsFhc)

As terrible as that is, I think that's more a case of someone ignorant of their actual duties being overzealous about Romney, more than any overt fraud op.  Of course, this is my thought solely because I don't have more evidence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 24, 2012, 01:04:09 am

If she's working for the county then she is using government resources to support a candidate and that is illegal.  I think she maintained plausable deniability about everything else though.  Ironically the thing that would be more likely to be punished in a court of law would be the woman filming the illegal behavior without the consent of the person being filmed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 01:15:08 am

That would depend entirely on the state. Most states are one-party consent and would care absolutely nothing about her consent. A few are two-party, one of which only requires that you notify the other to qualify for "consent", and even those ones only apply to situations where one has an expectation of privacy. Not only is she out in public, but she's polling people. That's the opposite of an expectation of privacy.

So no, you couldn't get a court to pursue her filming without consent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on September 24, 2012, 02:51:46 am

Here's the full story, (http://www.gazette.com/articles/voter-144994-youtube-registration.html#ixzz27LORCZZY) the county clerk has no idea who she is and she is definitely not working for them.

Poor girl, I think she's in over her head.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 24, 2012, 01:32:26 pm

Relevant: AP report concludes that despite exhaustive investigations, actual cases of voter fraud are extremely rare. (http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-look-voter-fraud-little-172327169--election.html)

well....mostly exhaustive...

Quote

Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, last week estimated that as many as 4,000 noncitizens are on the state's voter roll.

The department said it verified 1,000 registered voters who are noncitizens, based on an analysis of about 20 percent of complete citizenship data. She extrapolated the 4,000 number from the most recent U.S. Census' five-year American Community Survey, which showed Michigan has a noncitizen population of about 304,000.

That's as far as the investigation has gone. The figures have not been verified.

There's a pattern in the other states they profile where Republicans make inflated claims about tens of thousands of non-citizens on the voting rolls, then gradually reduce their estimates as the investigation goes on, and finally wind up with a number so small as to be statistically insignificant on the state-wide level.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 24, 2012, 01:47:43 pm

So my friend decided to start a tumblr dedicated to "Good Guy" Romney memes. (http://goodguyromney.tumblr.com)

I'm really not sure what to think of this. Are people *that* disillusioned?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 24, 2012, 01:59:53 pm

Sure he's not being ironic?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 24, 2012, 02:02:46 pm

And I see a grand total of one item. Which is admittedly a good guy thing, but still.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 24, 2012, 02:02:54 pm

Quote from: Mego on September 24, 2012, 01:47:43 pm

So my friend decided to start a tumblr dedicated to "Good Guy" Romney memes. (http://goodguyromney.tumblr.com)

I'm really not sure what to think of this. Are people *that* disillusioned?

(http://files.myfrogbag.com/vlgi0f/mittbot.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 24, 2012, 02:08:12 pm

*golfclap*

*that is, not hitting you with a golf club. Actual clapping*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 24, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 24, 2012, 02:02:46 pm

And I see a grand total of one item. Which is admittedly a good guy thing, but still.

He posted another one on Facebook. I'm not sure why it's not on the tumblr yet. He's probably churning out a bunch more.

Spoiler: Other One (I do not endorse this) (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/t7mRK.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 24, 2012, 02:15:07 pm

I'm not even sure what that one's supposed to mean. Is Romney gonna steal your furniture (general consensus is yes)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on September 24, 2012, 02:31:26 pm

To be fair to Romney, he was an active and senior member of his church. That means doing ministry. Sitting with the sick and dying, informal counselling, all that stuff.

He hasn't really been using it because anything related to the Mormon church is tainted with the electorate, but it's likely he has a lot of do-gooder stories if people cared to dig. I seem to remember seeing one article elsewhere but can't find it now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 02:37:59 pm

Even Hitler was very fond of dogs, and a vegetarian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 24, 2012, 02:42:26 pm

I know that wasn't a real Godwin, but...

Yeah, I'm not saying Romney is an asshole, it's just....okay, I'm totally saying he's an asshole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 24, 2012, 03:03:11 pm

You can be an asshole and still he a really nice and true guy at Tue same time. It's the magic of monkey spheres.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 03:13:01 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 24, 2012, 02:31:26 pm

To be fair to Romney, he was an active and senior member of his church. That means doing ministry. Sitting with the sick and dying, informal counselling, all that stuff.

Oh please. Corrupt church officials were old in the 1300's.

Quote from: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 02:37:59 pm

Even Hitler was very fond of dogs, and a vegetarian.

Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. That's an urban legend.

Quote from: scriver on September 24, 2012, 03:03:11 pm

You can be an asshole and still he a really nice and true guy at Tue same time. It's the magic of monkey spheres.

That's true, but there is a general trend. All humans are limited by Dunbar's Number, but there's still a difference between, for example, Fred Rogers and Rupert Murdoch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 03:20:40 pm

I was looking at my sample ballot and I noticed something odd about the order of the candidates. For every race there is only one consistent aspect. Republican candidates are always listed first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 24, 2012, 04:12:11 pm

A lot of times they cluster them like that to make it harder to vote for the wrong party by accident, especially in local races where a given party may have multiple candidates. We've been a Democratic stronghold for decades, and the Republicans are usually listed first on ballots here.


I'm really confused about the Ohio senate race. We're a purple state (meaning that there's no guaranteed statewide party affiliation), yet the Republican candidate is running such a poor campaign, it's almost as if he's trying to lose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 24, 2012, 04:59:52 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 03:13:01 pm

Quote from: palsch on September 24, 2012, 02:31:26 pm

To be fair to Romney, he was an active and senior member of his church. That means doing ministry. Sitting with the sick and dying, informal counselling, all that stuff.

Oh please. Corrupt church officials were old in the 1300's.

Quote from: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 02:37:59 pm

Even Hitler was very fond of dogs, and a vegetarian.

Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. That's an urban legend.

Quote from: scriver on September 24, 2012, 03:03:11 pm

You can be an asshole and still he a really nice and true guy at Tue same time. It's the magic of monkey spheres.

That's true, but there is a general trend. All humans are limited by Dunbar's Number, but there's still a difference between, for example, Fred Rogers and Rupert Murdoch.

I know this is meant to be a thread for the election, but:

"In a diary entry dated April 26, 1942, Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian, writing,

    An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling."

Hitler is believed to have been a vegetarian or at least reduced the amount of meat in his diet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 05:03:28 pm

While that is true, it is well known that Hitler particularly liked sausage, as most Germans did. Hitler did a lot of hypocritical things. That happens when you are as mentally unbalanced as he was.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 24, 2012, 05:36:59 pm

The theory that Hitler was gay is completely unfounded, MSH, and I don't see what that has to do with his vegetarianness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2012, 05:42:49 pm

Oh, come on! He even had all of his people's uniforms be black leather! What more proof do you need that Hitler was the Gay Antichrist?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 24, 2012, 06:47:48 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 24, 2012, 04:59:52 pm

"In a diary entry dated April 26, 1942, Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian [...]

Have you read Jefferson's first draft of the declaration of independence?  The part where he says that slavery is evil and one of the goals of the revolution will be abolition of slavery?  This came from a man who owned a slave plantation until the day he died.

History is full of hypocrites and Hitler saying vegetarianism is good while eating meat doesn't even rise to the level of hypocrisy.  Vegetarianism being good for your health, soul and environment was a very broadly held view in the later 19th and early 20th century.  From a propaganda standpoint it would look good.  But that didn't make Hitler a vegetarian any more then Obama's public policy goal of reducing smoking makes Obama a non-smoker.  How often do you see Obama smoking?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 24, 2012, 07:34:46 pm

On a serious note, though, if I remember correctly, I read in a Cracked article (so yeah, maybe not the most reliable of sources ;) ) that Hitler had a bit of a fear of stomach cancer, and that that's why he was a vegetarian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 24, 2012, 08:00:27 pm

... is this... Godwin's law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) at work?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 24, 2012, 08:13:35 pm

I'm gonna go with yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on September 24, 2012, 08:19:27 pm

Which means it's time for everyone to go home for the night.

Also, depending on what state you live in and how fucked up your state's government happens to be, over half of the country can actually start voting right now, mostly by mail.  In person early voting has already started in a few states and will all pick up pretty soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 24, 2012, 08:22:12 pm

Yep, if my car worked I would be heading to pick up my absentee ballot right now; I still consider myself to live in the Rochester, MN area rather than where campus is located, although it only makes a difference for state senate and house races.  (Same congressional district).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on September 24, 2012, 08:50:38 pm

Quote from: Jervill on September 24, 2012, 08:22:12 pm

Yep, if my car worked I would be heading to pick up my absentee ballot right now; I still consider myself to live in the Rochester, MN area rather than where campus is located, although it only makes a difference for state senate and house races.  (Same congressional district).

I'm in a completely different congressional district at uni, so I can do absentee voting since I registered under my home address. Unfortunately, I left my voter's registration card in my previous congressional district, and won't be able to get it until the weekend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 09:00:15 pm

I thought vote wasnt till november?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on September 24, 2012, 09:04:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 24, 2012, 09:00:15 pm

I thought vote wasnt till november?

Most states have some version of early voting.  The results are not published, for obvious reasons, but it's pretty easy to guess at since there's plenty of opinion polling done.  In many states, you can vote by mail but in some it's only allowed if you have some demonstrable excuse (attending college and being out of the country are the most common).  And once you get closer to election day, you can usually go vote in person since most people recognize that the entire damn country getting to a polling location between 7 and 7 on a workday is beyond impossible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 07:49:06 am

New sliding poll average looks pretty good for Obama. Over the last two weeks, *every* major poll shows the national picture in Obama's favor, as even Gallup and Rasmussen show narrow leads for Big O (+1 and +2, respectively). All the others are averaging 3 points or more.

Obama is currently polling 0.4 points ahead of where he was at this time four years ago versus McCain/Palin.

No real changes in the electoral map. RCP's projections have it at 247-191 for Obama, with 100 toss-up votes (270 to win). Romney has been stuck at 191 since the end of July (briefly dipping to 181 after Todd Akin's rape comments briefly made Missouri look like a true toss-up).

Some good news for Obama here in North Carolina, as the aggregate average now gives him a 1-point lead, thanks to three new polls all giving him the advantage, including (notably) a Civitas poll -- which is a Republican-aligned polling group -- showing him at +4. Might have something to do with a new Zogby poll showing NASCAR fans favoring Obama by 7 points. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0924/Obama-opens-up-lead-over-Romney-with-NASCAR-voters-Another-straw-the-wind)

Yes, you read that right. The same people who like to watch cars turn left for 4 hours while drinking beer, eating fried chicken and yelling "Git 'R Done!"....are voting for the black guy. Why? Might be comments like this from Romney, when asked if he follows NASCAR:

Quote

"Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners."

I mean, that meme just writes itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 09:26:00 am

You shouldn't use the word "ardent" and "nascar" in the same sentence. He also mispronounced nascar, it should be "NASCAR!!!!111 WOOO!" going by the most common pronunciation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 25, 2012, 09:26:42 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 09:26:00 am

You shouldn't use the word "ardent" and "nascar" in the same sentence.

Technically, he didn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 25, 2012, 09:32:18 am

There's something about a Minnesota elector candidate (for the Electoral College) trying to do something with the birth certificate. The only source I can find is Conservapedia, which links to Conservative News and Views, but does anyone have a better source? Conservapedia's headline, in full:

Obama eligibility goes to college! Electoral College, that is. A Minnesota candidate for the office of Presidential Elector has just asked Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to send to his lawyer their paper, long-form, embossed birth certificates to prove they were born in-country. His obvious goal: to shame Barack Hussein Obama into doing the same, and to shame his fellow Electors into demanding the same. But: could this start a movement to have the Electoral College stop acting like a rubber stamp? [link]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 09:46:26 am

Bwahahaha....haaa.ha. Ha.

Ahem.

Yes, please....let's drag out the birther canard yet again, conservatives. Your desperation is so delicious. I drink it! I drink it up!

Relevant. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/what-about-that-whole-birth-certificate-thing-romn,29621/)
Also relevant. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-campaign-reboots-for-72nd-consecutive-week,29679/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 25, 2012, 09:53:51 am

Um. You know the Onion is satire, right?

But they are funny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 25, 2012, 09:55:39 am

Doesn't change that they're relevant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 10:11:07 am

Quote from: Darvi on September 25, 2012, 09:55:39 am

Doesn't change that they're relevant.

Indeed. ಠ_ರೃ


EDIT: Romney & Ryan unveil their plans for space exploration and NASA's priorities (http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-reveals-space-exploration-plans-few-details-194109234.html).

Boils down to "Obama is doing it all wrong, we'll do it right. Once we figure out how all that rockety stuff works."  ::)

No word as to whether Romney would request that NASA include windows that can be opened from the inside on future spaceship designs.
Also no word as to when NASA would begin its search for Kolob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob).



DOUBLE-EDIT: Paul Ryan was asked why Ron Paul supporters should support he and Romney. His answer didn't exactly knock it out of the park.

Quote

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan made a pitch to Ron Paul supporters during a  rally in Lima, Ohio, on Monday when asked why libertarians should support the Romney-Ryan ticket.

"For those of us who would have voted in the primaries for, say, Ron Paul, why should we vote for you and not, say, libertarians or Vermin Supreme and the Pony Party or something like that?" a man from the audience asked during the question and answer session.

"Do you want Barack Obama to be re-elected?" Ryan asked. "Then don't vote for Ron Paul."

Ooooookay. So you're saying they *should* vote for Vermin Supreme then?  ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:17:06 am

I don't think Ryan understands that the "Anything But Obama" argument doesn't work very well on the libertarian crowd. Obama, while not ideal, is not the death of all they know like he is to social conservatives. And of the two main candidates in this election, Obama is not the one who betrayed His Holiness The Glorious Prophet Ron Ernest Paul Of Pittsburgh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 11:21:37 am

I thought Paul was from Texas?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 11:22:41 am

He was born in Pittsburgh, or so says Dr. Wik. E. Pedia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on September 25, 2012, 12:03:58 pm

Bah, everyone knows you can't trust anything liberal elites like doctors say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 25, 2012, 12:10:50 pm

And college grads! Der de werst!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on September 25, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Welp, it's official. Mitt Romney is fucking stupid. (http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem) Maybe I took that quote wrong, but wow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 12:47:15 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on September 25, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Welp, it's official. Mitt Romney is fucking stupid. (http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem) Maybe I took that quote wrong, but wow.

From my perspective, Mitt Romney has managed to take a situation where a Democrat president has been pushing through some quite unpopular reforms that have alienated a large number of voters and fuck it up. He has fucked everything up for himself every single time. Gaff after gaff, fuck up after fuck up. I just think he's a bit of a robot that's not particularly bright.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 12:48:47 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on September 25, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Welp, it's official. Mitt Romney is fucking stupid. (http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem) Maybe I took that quote wrong, but wow.

Now, now...he's just a Mor_mon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 12:48:55 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 12:47:15 pm

From my perspective, Mitt Romney has managed to take a situation where a Democrat president has been pushing through some quite unpopular reforms that have alienated a large number of voters and fuck it up. He has fucked everything up for himself every single time. Gaff after gaff, fuck up after fuck up. I just think he's a bit of a robot that's not particularly bright.

Obama hasn't made very many reforms. He repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, but that's rather tiny overall. The only large reform he's made is the ACA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 01:04:59 pm

Quote from: greatorder on September 25, 2012, 01:02:49 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on September 25, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Welp, it's official. Mitt Romney is fucking stupid. (http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem) Maybe I took that quote wrong, but wow.

please, please deport him off this planet.

he's probably the reason aliens haven't visited.

If he was president, he'd be like Bush except with less charisma.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 01:08:04 pm

Quote from: greatorder on September 25, 2012, 01:06:38 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 01:04:59 pm

Quote from: greatorder on September 25, 2012, 01:02:49 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on September 25, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Welp, it's official. Mitt Romney is fucking stupid. (http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem) Maybe I took that quote wrong, but wow.

please, please deport him off this planet.

he's probably the reason aliens haven't visited.

If he was president, he'd be like Bush except with less charisma.

I was too young to know/care much about bush.

he was bad on mitt's level?
WHY DID YOU GUYS ELECT HIM!?

The world asked the USA that question for 8 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 25, 2012, 01:10:31 pm

Shenanigans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 01:17:44 pm

Bush was not anywhere near has horrible as Romney would be.

Bush gets a lot of criticism but he did good things, such as like PEPFAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief). He wasn't really cut out for being President in a situation like the one 9/11 presented. Had it not happened he wouldn't have been anywhere near as disliked. All of his worst actions stem from it.

Romney is a blatant far-right shrill who will pander to corporations and organized religion so he can get more power for himself, just because.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 01:21:11 pm

Ways that bush wasn't like Romney:
Bush got his wealth from oil, Romney got his wealth from murdering corporations and feasting on their corpses.
Bush liked beer and fried chicken (and cocaine), Romney likes bottled water and whatever Mormons are allowed to eat.
Bush dodged the draft by joining the Texas national guard, Romney dodged the draft by going to France.
Bush comfortably wears cowboy boots, denim and a 10 gallon hat, Romney comfortably wears a $10 thousand dollar business suit.
Bush never used the words "ardent" and "NASCAR" in the same sentence, he probably never even used the word "ardent".
Etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 01:21:51 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 01:17:44 pm

Bush was not anywhere near has horrible as Romney would be.

Bush gets a lot of criticism but he did good things, such as like PEPFAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief). He wasn't really cut out for being President in a situation like the one 9/11 presented. Had it not happened he wouldn't have been anywhere near as disliked. All of his worst actions stem from it.

Romney is a blatant far-right shrill who pill pander to corporations and organized religion so he can get more power for himself, just because.

In my mind, I'm comparing Romney and Bush more on the basis of their image to the world rather than their policies within the USA. Bush was dreadfully unpopular the world over, but Romney would be worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 01:34:40 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 25, 2012, 01:21:11 pm

Ways that bush wasn't like Romney:
Bush got his wealth from oil, Romney got his wealth from murdering corporations and feasting on their corpses.
Bush liked beer and fried chicken (and cocaine), Romney likes bottled water and whatever Mormons are allowed to eat.
Bush dodged the draft by joining the Texas national guard, Romney dodged the draft by going to France.
Bush comfortably wears cowboy boots, denim and a 10 gallon hat, Romney comfortably wears a $10 thousand dollar business suit.
Bush never used the words "ardent" and "NASCAR" in the same sentence, he probably never even used the word "ardent".
Etc.

Bush felt he had a close, personal relationship with Jesus. Romney employs a guy named Jesus to maintain his landscaping.
Romney is a heartless, unfeeling automaton of a being. Bush just had one as Vice-President.
Bush was a NASCAR fan. Romney has friends who own NASCAR teams.
Bush nearly choked to death on a pretzel. Romney just choked, period.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 25, 2012, 01:51:13 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on September 25, 2012, 12:35:12 pm

Welp, it's official. Mitt Romney is fucking stupid. (http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doesnt-know-why-airplane-windows-wont-open-calls-the-closed-window-policy-a-real-problem) Maybe I took that quote wrong, but wow.

Isn't Gawker a satire site?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

PleasebesatirePleasebesatirePleasebesatire...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 25, 2012, 01:55:34 pm

It is honestly a rather frightening indication of just how far off the deep end the GOP has gone in the last few years that we'd all infinitely prefer Bush to Romney as candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 01:56:14 pm

It's not satire. It's not entirely clear if Romney was perhaps being sarcastic or maybe just failing miserably at cracking an irony joke. But in any case, numerous news outlets are reporting it as straight comment. And as we all know at this point, in an election campaign context is the first casualty. FWIW, I have no sympathy for Romney on this point. If they're gonna harp on Obama's "You didn't build that" comment sans context, then it's fair game to make Romney look like a man with a tenuous grasp of basic physics and chemisty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on September 25, 2012, 01:57:24 pm

BBC USA correspondant Mark Mardell Summarised Obama as a man who realises (thanks to 4 years in office) that the USA is part of the wider world and needs the rest of the world to help solve its problems, as well as in turn contributing to the solutions the rest of the world needs. He went on to describe Romney as a man who holds the opinion that the USA can ignore the rest of the world and try and go it alone, which is a world view that Mark Mardell feels too many Americans hold. Accurate?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 25, 2012, 01:59:53 pm

If he describe Romney as "a man who holds the opinion that the USA can ignore the rest of the world and try and go it alone", I wonder what he thinks of Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 25, 2012, 02:02:12 pm

Romney does not believe we should ignore the rest of the world - he just believes we don't owe them anything for taking what we can from them. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 02:10:56 pm

Given the comments about the space program that I linked to, I think they see the rest of the world as competitors. And you know how nicely businessmen treat their competitors.

Quote

Obama "has put the space program on a path where we are conceding our global position as the unequivocal leader in space," Ryan added. "Today, if we want to send an astronaut to the space station, we have to pay the Russians to take them there. China may someday be looking down on us from the moon. That is unacceptable."

Also, for some reason that quote is redolent of Sarah Palin's "I can see Russia from my house" comment. As in, I wonder if Paul Ryan actually pictures Chinese people on the moon visually looking at America with their mysterious, inscrutable eyes.... ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 25, 2012, 02:54:14 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 02:10:56 pm

Given the comments about the space program that I linked to, I think they see the rest of the world as competitors. And you know how nicely businessmen treat their competitors.

Quote

Obama "has put the space program on a path where we are conceding our global position as the unequivocal leader in space," Ryan added. "Today, if we want to send an astronaut to the space station, we have to pay the Russians to take them there. China may someday be looking down on us from the moon. That is unacceptable."

Also, for some reason that quote is redolent of Sarah Palin's "I can see Russia from my house" comment. As in, I wonder if Paul Ryan actually pictures Chinese people on the moon visually looking at America with their mysterious, inscrutable eyes.... ???

Why do you think they are always squinting? Its cause they have to focus their eyes to see us from their moon base.

EDIT: On a more serious note: Although in a perfect world we'd explore space for the love of science and adventure, if competition pushes us into space anyway, well, progress is still progress, I guess, if not short lived like last time. :\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Il Palazzo on September 25, 2012, 02:55:00 pm

Nice. Looks like it doesn't matter as much to him whether somebody goes to the moon or not. It's the "looking down on us" part that is unacceptable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: andrea on September 25, 2012, 02:57:54 pm

hm. so they want to focus on manned exploration. with the current NASA budget?
please tell me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that require at the very least gutting any other program?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 25, 2012, 02:59:09 pm

There's plenty to gut in the educational funds!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 25, 2012, 03:02:55 pm

> Take 5% out of the military's budget
> Give it to NASA
> Moon bases in 10 years

:P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 03:03:58 pm

I'm not going to oppose them trying to stir up a social panic about China's space program. That's just what we need to convince the politicians to refund NASA.

This is perhaps the one subject where I find myself in total, disgusted disagreement with Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on September 25, 2012, 03:06:05 pm

Quote from: andrea on September 25, 2012, 02:57:54 pm

please tell me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that require at the very least gutting any other program?

It's not like Romney cares about climate research. We can just let all those satellites fall out of the sky.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 25, 2012, 03:06:08 pm

Argh! I can't find a good link for the Minnesota electoral college nonsense! I got it from Conservapedia, which linked to Conservative News and Views, which linked to World Net Daily. The chap who's a candidate for the Electoral College, one James Grinols, only turns up the WND article on Youtube and some pages listing him as a pediatrician in Minneapolis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2012, 03:16:03 pm

Meaning that it's entirely possible WND just made that shit up. Kinda like their scoop about how the Chinese were supposedly arming Uighurs and secretly transporting them into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban.

Although to be fair, I think they may actually have gotten that one from DEBKAfile, which is perhaps the only site I can think of MORE unreliable than WorldNetDaily.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 03:17:42 pm

Its a good policy to assume everything and anything even tangentially related to Conservapedia is completely and utterly fake unless proven otherwise, even if it sounds reasonable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 25, 2012, 03:19:17 pm

Yeah I just about spit out my drink when I saw conservopedia actually get mentioned as an info source.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 25, 2012, 03:19:46 pm

The Augustine Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_of_United_States_Human_Space_Flight_Plans_Committee) found the Constellation program to be simultaneously behind schedule, underfunded, and over budget. Back in 2010, there was no way that Constellation would have been successful without budget increases, and that would have been a hard sell.

Was cutting the Constellation program a mistake? I think so. Do I blame Obama for choosing that specific program to cut? Not at all.

Edited for accuracy after further research.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 25, 2012, 03:53:22 pm

Man, Romney is the gift that keeps on giving:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/
Damn all those rich teachers influencing politics!

Edit: looks like Truean beat me by a few minutes in the progressive rage on the same thing :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 04:23:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 03:03:58 pm

I'm not going to oppose them trying to stir up a social panic about China's space program. That's just what we need to convince the politicians to refund NASA.

This is perhaps the one subject where I find myself in total, disgusted disagreement with Obama.

But why is NASA so necessary? Please, explain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 25, 2012, 04:24:53 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 04:23:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 03:03:58 pm

I'm not going to oppose them trying to stir up a social panic about China's space program. That's just what we need to convince the politicians to refund NASA.

This is perhaps the one subject where I find myself in total, disgusted disagreement with Obama.

But why is NASA so necessary? Please, explain.

Space exploration. Getting off this dying planet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 25, 2012, 04:27:46 pm

I have been very pleasantly surprised by Obama's space policy.  When I heard he was reviewing the space program I assumed he was following the standard political trick of sending something to a committee so that you can delay any real action.  But it seems like an actually sensible space exploration program has emerged for the budget that the US is willing to commit.  The question is just if future presidents will stick to the sensible plan or commit NASA to some new underfunded mission like Bush's plan for Mars by 2020.  The successes so far with space privatization have been an even bigger shock.  It seemed obvious that this would just be compounding the pork barrel problems of current space exploration and waste a lot of money.  Much to my surprise the new space exploration companies seem to be pretty far sighted and have opted for efficient, centralized supply chains unlike Lockheed Martin and the rest.

But Romney is pretty much committed to rolling back every one of Obama's successful reforms.  Student loan reform turned out to be 100% gain with no downside but Romney has promised to roll it back.  Seeing as the taxpayers lost nothing by student loan reform this is nothing but a straight up giveaway to the banks that were previously acting as middlemen.  Obama's Medicare Part D overpayment reforms were attacked as wildly optimistic when they were proposed.  Now that they are working Romney wants to roll them back and go back to letting insurance companies overcharge the government.  Anything that Obama did must be bad so even when we are talking about wildly successful reforms that saved a lot of money and had no downside Romney is committed to rolling them back.  The word reactionary springs to mind.

Quote from: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 04:23:41 pm

But why is NASA so necessary? Please, explain.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27352528.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 25, 2012, 04:28:19 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on September 25, 2012, 04:24:53 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 04:23:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 03:03:58 pm

I'm not going to oppose them trying to stir up a social panic about China's space program. That's just what we need to convince the politicians to refund NASA.

This is perhaps the one subject where I find myself in total, disgusted disagreement with Obama.

But why is NASA so necessary? Please, explain.

Space exploration. Getting off this dying planet.

And getting to other smug planets so we can teach those celestial busybodies a lesson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on September 25, 2012, 04:28:48 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on September 25, 2012, 04:28:19 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on September 25, 2012, 04:24:53 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 04:23:41 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 03:03:58 pm

I'm not going to oppose them trying to stir up a social panic about China's space program. That's just what we need to convince the politicians to refund NASA.

This is perhaps the one subject where I find myself in total, disgusted disagreement with Obama.

But why is NASA so necessary? Please, explain.

Space exploration. Getting off this dying planet.

And getting to other smug planets so we can teach those celestial busybodies a lesson.

Yeah!

But, yes, satellites as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 04:45:40 pm

See, in Scotland we would say that free tuition fees, free medical prescriptions and free healthcare are more important than exploring space. But I suppose that's because America and the Russians and Chinese do that for us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 25, 2012, 04:49:03 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 25, 2012, 04:45:40 pm

See, in Scotland we would say that free tuition fees, free medical prescriptions and free healthcare are more important than exploring space. But I suppose that's because America and the Russians and Chinese do that for us.

You could pretty much fit every one of those things combined under one fraction of Americas defense budget.

Also, if putting a man on mars would provide even a bit of the inspiration to learn science as the moon landing once did, I'd say its worth it. Every. Penny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 25, 2012, 04:55:46 pm

We need to find an alien race of psychic megasquid to fight so all of Earth can finally be united.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 04:58:18 pm

Also, none of those things are free in Scotland, they're just paid through taxes.

Russia and China are honestly pretty behind. The US, EU, and Japan have the most active programs right now, but that is unfortunately very little.

Space exploration leads to space exploitation, down the line. The potential resource gain is massive. It is a long-term investment, but the payback couldn't be represented in dollars. We already see plenty of the technological benefits. NASA has a whole magazine about the technologies they innovated in the course of their missions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and space is the most hostile environment there is.

Furthermore, conditions on Earth will never be perfected enough to say "alright, now we can go into space". That isn't how it works. Earth has limited scope. Your schools and hospitals might last for a couple centuries, but without human expansion into space the collapse of human civilization on Earth is inevitable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 25, 2012, 04:58:42 pm

In a very real sense, that's correct. The massive benefits of space research (including but not limited to better materials, much of our solar power tech, and the various satellite services such as weather reporting, navigation, communications, and geological surveys) are not restricted to the countries that put in the effort, so the nations that spend elsewhere are reaping the rewards of other nations' expenditures. This is as it should be, as it would have been extremely wasteful to duplicate the effort dozens of times. Two major space programs was enough to encourage competition between the two, and encourage a few others to attempt to challenge the leaders.

@darkrider. Far from it. Large as the US defense budget is, the costs of the programs Owlbread mentioned would be nearly as large. 320,000,000+ people is a lot for any program to cover. With better tax revenues, and trimming the existing budget, it's quite possible to afford such programs. But it's not nearly as non-trivial as is often assumed. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 25, 2012, 05:21:45 pm

Quote from: scriver on September 25, 2012, 04:55:46 pm

We need to find an alien race of psychic megasquid to fight so all of Earth can finally be united.

Might be easier just to find some terrorists to...

Nevermind.  That didn't work.

I know you were being sarcastic.  It just dawned on me... blow up a piece of New York (or rather politically abuse the fact that a piece of NY was blown up -- I'm not trying to phrase things like a conspiracy theorist here) and assign responsibility to an abstract threat that can't actually be fought against to scare people into compromises?  Too bad we didn't get constructive compromises in reality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on September 25, 2012, 05:43:49 pm

More specifically scriver was referencing Watchmen (the comic, not the movie adaptation).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 25, 2012, 05:53:22 pm

Catastrophic event/scenario + actual humans expected to get together = "n countries have pulled their funding from the X-Com project, and then started a war"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 25, 2012, 06:14:57 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on September 25, 2012, 05:43:49 pm

More specifically scriver was referencing Watchmen (the comic, not the movie adaptation).

Indeed I was, in which

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ozymandias constructs an "alien" (of the Psychic Megasquid kind) and explodes New York City to avoid the imminwnt nuclear holocaust an unite humanity against this new, otherworldly threat.

More alarming, however, is the realisation that Salmon hasn't read Watchmen! You loose all geek cred.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 26, 2012, 08:13:56 am

I got the reference, actually. 

The realization I was describing in my previous post was how similar the end of Watchmen was to 9/11.  No, I'm not saying anything conspiracy theorist here.  I'm just saying that a piece of New York was blown up and it shocked the world... except in The Watchmen, the *spoiler* was used to suggest the existence of an abstract/omnipresent threat and an excuse to compromise on disagreements for the sake of security.  In reality, 9/11 was used to suggest the existence of an abstract/omnipresent threat and an excuse to compromise on values (freedom, privacy, and peace) for the sake of security.

Yes, I know the difference here is that the *spoiler* was a threat from beyond human politics, while terrorism is... not.  All the other parallels just hit me rather suddenly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 26, 2012, 08:38:34 am

Oh. I understand, now.

You still don't get back your geek cred though. They belong to the bank now, and I- ehr, I mean, they already spent it. :P

Quote from: SalmonGod on September 26, 2012, 08:13:56 am

'In reality, 9/11 was used to suggest the existence of an abstract/omnipresent threat and an excuse to compromise on values (freedom, privacy, and peace) for the sake of security.

Also security. Freedom, privacy, security, and peace. For the sake of security.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:02:00 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 04:58:18 pm

Also, none of those things are free in Scotland, they're just paid through taxes.

Russia and China are honestly pretty behind. The US, EU, and Japan have the most active programs right now, but that is unfortunately very little.

Not so much. Japan has a variety of probes and whatnot, but no manned program at all. While Russia maintains a manned program mostly so they have Soyuz "space taxi" pilots. I'm not sure if the ESA maintains a manned program or not? I know they've sent people on the ISS but that's always been by hitching a ride on a Soyuz or the Shuttle.

Meanwhile, China has an active manned program with at least five successful missions now, including their first female taikonaut back in June. And they're working on their own (admittedly small) space station. As with most everything else re: China and advanced technology, they started by back-engineering tech from other countries, but they're making rapid progress in indigenous development.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 26, 2012, 09:04:30 am

Unfortunately, this is one thing the administration thinks private industry can do better. Never mind the fact that private industry lives for profit while NASA lived for scientific exploration. But hey, nothing can possibly go wrong a space program built from the ground up by for-profit enterprises, right? RIGHT?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 09:07:41 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:02:00 am

snip

ESA has a manned program in the same way that the US currently has one. Co-operation with other nations. We once tried to design our own microshuttle equivalent, but came to the conclusion that the Soyoez was safer and cheaper. Hence we pulled the plug.

ESA is mostly doing science and other usefull things these days, and investing in Galileo.

Quote from: nenjin on September 26, 2012, 09:04:30 am

Unfortunately, this is one thing the administration thinks private industry can do better. Never mind the fact that private industry lives for profit while NASA lived for scientific exploration. But hey, nothing can possibly go wrong a space program built from the ground up by for-profit enterprises, right? RIGHT?

But the emergency escape pods were too expensive, so we dropped those. Problem is that removing NASA will have quite an impact on said private industries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 26, 2012, 09:09:36 am

Astronaut: "Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all!"

And then Space Stupid Sexy Flanders died of exposure to a vacuum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 09:11:04 am

Though escape pods are actually not something that would be useful on a craft. If your ship is going to be destroyed in such a way that you can't jettison or seal off a damaged and/or exploding section, you're screwed already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 26, 2012, 09:15:58 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 09:11:04 am

Though escape pods are actually not something that would be useful on a craft. If your ship is going to be destroyed in such a way that you can't jettison or seal off a damaged and/or exploding section, you're screwed already.

Talking about rockets. I meant those little escape rockets that are installed on pretty much every rocket.

Escape pods can be pretty usefull though, as the ISS has one availble at all times. It's just a Soyoez capsule, but it serves it's purpose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 09:18:53 am

They've never tried using it to evacuate the ISS, though. It's an option, but also an unknown.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 09:19:52 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 09:11:04 am

Though escape pods are actually not something that would be useful on a craft. If your ship is going to be destroyed in such a way that you can't jettison or seal off a damaged and/or exploding section, you're screwed already.

Technically, using an escape pod basically amounts to jettisoning the entire ship/station.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:21:45 am

And that's why no commercial passenger ships carry lifeboats today.  ::)

C'mon guys....I know corporations are generally TEH EVAL but they're not *that* stupid. Yet. Most of these early companies are bankrolled by rich geeks who just can't stand waiting around anymore to get in space. They LOVE space exploration. They're not going to look at their pilots as disposable. The problem will be 50-100 years from now when Space Disney doesn't rigorously check the hull seals on the Space Monorail taking you to Space Magic Kingdom In Space.


To re-rail the thread:
Six out of 10 Americans think Romney is a douche. (http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/criticism-romneys-campaign-grows-six-10-rate-efforts-100132981--abc-news-politics.html)

Dude has a 35-61 favorability/unfavorability rating. That's pretty harsh.
Obama, by contrast, is running 54-43. And that's WITH half the country pretty much devoted to loathing him as an incarnation of all that is evil for the last four years.

Couple of notes out of looking at the crosstabs:
1. They were in almost a dead heat in terms of favorability back in July, with 49% favorable to Obama and 45% to Romney.
2. The big difference? Liberal Dems have finally stopped grousing. Support went from 77% to 93% among self-identified liberal Democrats, and 66% to 74% among liberals of whatever party ID.
3. Romney, by contrast, has only increased his favorability among conservative Republicans by 3 points, from 72% to 75%, and is flat among all conservatives, staying at 54%.
4. Conservative Republicans' favorability of Obama has nearly doubled from 9% to 17%, while liberal Dems' favorability of Romney has only edged slightly from 10% to 11%.
5. Intensity is a factor too. Of those inclined to be favorable towards the candidates, over half (28%) are strongly favorable to Obama, while less than a third (10%) feel that way about Romney.
6. Conversely, 27% are strongly negative about Obama (down from 32% in July), compared to 36% strongly negative about Romney (up from 27%).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 26, 2012, 09:47:05 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 09:21:45 am

Six out of 10 Americans think Romney is a douche. (http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/criticism-romneys-campaign-grows-six-10-rate-efforts-100132981--abc-news-politics.html)

Meaning that at least 7 percent of the population either hasn't heard of his 47% gaffe or doesn't care.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 26, 2012, 10:33:14 am

When you get into that final 10% of the population you get a lot of weirdos.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 26, 2012, 12:07:16 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 25, 2012, 04:58:18 pm

Also, none of those things are free in Scotland, they're just paid through taxes.

We do pay for them through taxes, but we just allocate the budget we're given by the British government more in favour of socialist services like the ones I described. Countries like England spend their money elsewhere. I suppose our population is small enough for that to be viable, so unlike the USA our tax increase has not been particularly noticeable to the point that people are complaining. It's as if people are saying "at least that money isn't being spent on vanity projects or wars".

The point I'm making is that we could be spending our taxpayer's money on a space program or defence, but we choose to spend it mostly on services like free prescriptions and so on. However, the space program is a tough thing to debate with respect to America because America brings a lot to the world through their space research. Even on the vanity-nationalism subject, Russia and China are two countries that seem to behave just like the Americans once did - you know, you can imagine the Chinese happily planting a Chinese flag on Mars just like the Americans did on the moon, bringing all the repugnance of nationalism (the "my country is better than your country" kind) and the cold war with it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 26, 2012, 12:36:23 pm

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/presidential-swing-states-%28fl-oh-and-pa%29/release-detail?ReleaseID=1800

According to this source, Obama is leading Romney by about 10 points in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. That is a higher margin for Ohio and Florida than I have seen from other polls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 01:00:32 pm

And with some of the new poll data for Ohio, RCP's electoral count has 265 for Obama. He could literally lose all but one of the "toss-up" states (assuming it's not New Hampshire) and still win the election. If trends continue and Florida pops out of toss-up and into "Leans Democrat", he'll be starting the election over the victory mark. Still have to consider the ever-lurking "October Surprise", but so far the only candidates for that role are the Benghazi consular attack (which Romney deftly blunted the effect of by coming off as a smug asshole more concerned about scoring political points than having any empathy for the dead) and the "47%" comment which has been a major self-inflicted wound to Team Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 01:14:44 pm

The October Surprise will probably hurt Romney, and even if it hurts Obama it would have to be something like an Evangelical Christian Plumber discovering irrefutable evidence that Obama is a Communist Muslim from Kenya who has been secretly poisoning America's water supply with sterility drugs for the last four years to actually make him lose the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 26, 2012, 01:18:58 pm

I believe you meant "communist atheist muslim pinko fascist terrorist."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 26, 2012, 01:19:48 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 26, 2012, 01:18:58 pm

I believe you meant "communist atheist muslim pinko fascist terrorist."

You forgot "homosexual".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 26, 2012, 01:21:23 pm

Oh, my bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 26, 2012, 01:22:40 pm

And master of misfortune.

Toast lands jelly side down? Obama!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 02:54:07 pm

Obama wishes to destroy the 5 second rule!

he is evil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 02:56:29 pm

Bird shit on your newly-waxed truck?
It's a little-known fact that Barack Obama can use black magic to shapeshift into animal forms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 26, 2012, 02:57:12 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 02:56:29 pm

Bird shit on your newly-waxed truck?
It's a little-known fact that Barack Obama can use black magic to shapeshift into animal forms.

DATS RAYCIST

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 02:58:38 pm

Quote from: Sirus on September 26, 2012, 02:57:12 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 02:56:29 pm

Bird shit on your newly-waxed truck?
It's a little-known fact that Barack Obama can use black magic to shapeshift into animal forms.

DATS RAYCIST

Your white magic is just insufficient to counter the great wizard barack.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 03:00:53 pm

I guess Red Mages are native americans?

Then what are Blue mages?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 26, 2012, 03:03:27 pm

Depressed people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 03:03:43 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 03:00:53 pm

I guess Red Mages are native americans?

Then what are Blue mages?

Democrats that can actually win?
*zing!*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 03:03:57 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 03:00:53 pm

I guess Red Mages are native americans?

Then what are Blue mages?

Mermaids?

Speaking of the president. He is speaking at my college RIGHT NOW. (or in about 30 minutes). And I'm about to watch it on the local campus TV. I'm happy... this probably belongs in the happy thread....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 26, 2012, 03:05:44 pm

Sweet. I've never seen a president speak in my local area before :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 03:14:45 pm

Okay....even the Republicans know it's over. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CSVSwSaypg)

The studio reaction is priceless. This isn't the Romney/Ryan 2012 campaign anymore, it's the warm-up for the Paul Ryan 2016 campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 26, 2012, 03:17:56 pm

Well, if they practice for four years maybe they'll do better next time :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 03:18:49 pm

Also, new meme making the rounds. I like.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/282335_435303623174202_162134327_n.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 26, 2012, 03:23:30 pm

Can't stop watching trainwreck in progress. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 26, 2012, 03:29:14 pm

Ryan is really....touchy-feely towards Romney.

You don't....think.....?

No. There's no way. It would be too perfect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 03:30:33 pm

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 03:35:11 pm

I feel compelled to link this. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/paul-ryan-wondering-if-he-should-have-told-romney,29166/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on September 26, 2012, 04:22:24 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 03:14:45 pm

Okay....even the Republicans know it's over. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CSVSwSaypg)

The studio reaction is priceless. This isn't the Romney/Ryan 2012 campaign anymore, it's the warm-up for the Paul Ryan 2016 campaign.

Holy shit. How does he do that? How did he manage to get that far?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 26, 2012, 04:40:50 pm

Romney is secretly a plant by Obama, after all, he invented Obamacare!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 26, 2012, 05:15:48 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 03:18:49 pm

Also, new meme making the rounds. I like.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/282335_435303623174202_162134327_n.jpg)

/thread? Yeah, /thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 26, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 26, 2012, 05:15:48 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 03:18:49 pm

Also, new meme making the rounds. I like.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/282335_435303623174202_162134327_n.jpg)

/thread? Yeah, /thread.

/thread? Okay guys /thread has been declared, this is officially /thread. Please return to your regularly scheduled routines. Nothing to see here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on September 26, 2012, 05:24:27 pm

Yeah Mitt and Ryan are annoyingly touchy-feely o_o  Maybe once gay marriage is legalized, Ryan will randomly come out and turn liberal  :o

edit: nope no /thread yet, we have a gay derail in progress!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 26, 2012, 05:26:39 pm

Gay derail? I love those! And men.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 26, 2012, 05:31:26 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 26, 2012, 12:07:16 pm

The point I'm making is that we could be spending our taxpayer's money on a space program or defence, but we choose to spend it mostly on services like free prescriptions and so on. However, the space program is a tough thing to debate with respect to America because America brings a lot to the world through their space research.

A point of interest here is that NASA's budget is only a little bigger then Scotland's healthcare costs ($19 billion vs. $16 billion) and not all of NASA's budget is space stuff (National Air and Space Agency).  So a worldclass space program costs as much as healthcare costs for a smallish region.  NASA is chump change in the US federal budget.

This prompts me to wonder actually if you could see a smallish but wealthy nation actually decide to become the leader in space.  Canada for instance has federal revenues of around C$255 (.98C$=1US$).  So NASA wouldn't be a pittance for them but it would be something they could afford.

Quote from: nenjin on September 26, 2012, 09:04:30 am

Unfortunately, this is one thing the administration thinks private industry can do better. Never mind the fact that private industry lives for profit while NASA lived for scientific exploration. But hey, nothing can possibly go wrong a space program built from the ground up by for-profit enterprises, right? RIGHT?

I thought this before hand but I've actually been pretty pleased.  The private space industry is mostly full of investors who love space, not ones who are looking to make a quick buck.  And by escaping the congressional pork barrel process it seems that more efficient supply chains are emerging which will save money and create safety.  I won't guarantee that this will continue forever but right now it's very promising.

Quote from: RedKing on September 26, 2012, 01:00:32 pm

And with some of the new poll data for Ohio, RCP's electoral count has 265 for Obama. He could literally lose all but one of the "toss-up" states (assuming it's not New Hampshire) and still win the election. If trends continue and Florida pops out of toss-up and into "Leans Democrat", he'll be starting the election over the victory mark. Still have to consider the ever-lurking "October Surprise", but so far the only candidates for that role are the Benghazi consular attack (which Romney deftly blunted the effect of by coming off as a smug asshole more concerned about scoring political points than having any empathy for the dead) and the "47%" comment which has been a major self-inflicted wound to Team Romney.

I'd say that Nevada is more in the bank then Florida.  Romney hasn't won a poll there since April.  But if Obama wins Florida then he could even afford to lose Ohio.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on September 26, 2012, 05:48:47 pm

Of course, said space program may actually be cheaper elsewhere as well...
... for the low low cost of 100 dollars a month, you can help a third world country get starving children to the moon!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on September 26, 2012, 05:51:23 pm

I've heard it's made of cheese.  Solve two birds with one stone, there! :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on September 26, 2012, 06:28:48 pm

Quote from: Jervill on September 26, 2012, 05:51:23 pm

I've heard it's made of cheese.  Solve two birds with one stone, there! :P

...Thus leading to the charity of the future.

For just 200 dollars, you can help get air to suffocating children on the moon!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 26, 2012, 07:15:09 pm

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on September 26, 2012, 06:28:48 pm

For just 200 dollars, you can help get air to suffocating children on the moon!

Terriawesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on September 26, 2012, 10:14:31 pm

I know I haven't been in here awhile but as I'm in Thailand, Romney's been in deep shit for awhile. Not one person outside the USA that I spoke to likes him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: vadia on September 26, 2012, 11:05:17 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on September 26, 2012, 10:14:31 pm

I know I haven't been in here awhile but as I'm in Thailand, Romney's been in deep shit for awhile. Not one person outside the USA that I spoke to likes him.

Israel is fairly fond of Romney, but only because they don't realize his foreign policy on Iran is nearly exactly the same as Obama's just worded differently.  (Everything should be on the table -- but I hope embargos work, vs. I hope embargoes work, Everything is on the table)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 27, 2012, 07:19:20 am

Relevant to the recent Mitt gaffs;

An entire tumblr of pics of Lucille from Arrested Devolpment, overlaid with honest to god Mitt Romney quotes. (http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 27, 2012, 07:34:30 am

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on September 26, 2012, 06:28:48 pm

Quote from: Jervill on September 26, 2012, 05:51:23 pm

I've heard it's made of cheese.  Solve two birds with one stone, there! :P

...Thus leading to the charity of the future.

For just 200 dollars, you can help get air to suffocating children on the moon!

Oh gawd, that reminds me of a horrilarious quote from the Sarah Silverman Show:
"If we can put a man on the Moon, we can put a man with AIDS on the Moon. And then? We can put everyone with AIDS on the Moon."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 27, 2012, 08:35:36 am

[spoiler authro-That Tumblr]I'm as poor as a church mouse.[/spoiler]

Maybe in the Vatican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 27, 2012, 09:00:32 am

From the same Tumbr:

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America million of Americans believe in.....That's the America I love."


....somebody please tell me that's not a real quote.

Pseudo-edit: Oh Sweet Jesus, it is. Apparently he said it during the primaries and was getting lambasted for it by the Gingrich and Perry supporters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 27, 2012, 09:22:56 am

Like I said... EVERYTHING there is pure Mittens (except for I think one quote by Lucille, on a pic of Romney).

And think, at least 40% of your population want him in charge :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mech#4 on September 27, 2012, 09:25:41 am

Heh, the more times you say America, the more patriotic the comment is yah?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on September 27, 2012, 09:26:54 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on September 27, 2012, 09:22:56 am

And think, at least 40% of your population want him in charge :P

At least 40% of those "likely to vote".

It's likely to be a close race, % vote wise, but a curbstomp in the electoral college by Obama. That's what many experts predict, unless something major happens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 27, 2012, 09:52:30 am

Remember Todd "Forcible Rape" Akin, the GOP senate candidate who was persona non grata after his assbrained comments about how you can't get pregnant in a "real" rape?

Well, since he refused to drop out, the GOP apparently decided  that they'd rather back an idiot slimeball (http://news.yahoo.com/more-republican-leaders-behind-akin-missouri-senate-race-012906753.html[/url) than let a Democrat keep the seat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 27, 2012, 09:56:50 am

Honestly, are you surprised? They did their media duty in decrying him, but when reality finally set in they realized that at the end of the day, the success of the party is what matters and nothing else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on September 27, 2012, 10:47:24 am

Yeah keeping their base is a lower priority to them than opposing the democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 27, 2012, 10:54:09 am

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

Huffpo is projecting that Obama has 271 electoral votes "strongly favoring" with 61 more electoral votes leaning his way. If their polling methods are good, Obama is already over the hump.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on September 27, 2012, 11:06:18 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 26, 2012, 05:31:26 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 26, 2012, 12:07:16 pm

The point I'm making is that we could be spending our taxpayer's money on a space program or defence, but we choose to spend it mostly on services like free prescriptions and so on. However, the space program is a tough thing to debate with respect to America because America brings a lot to the world through their space research.

A point of interest here is that NASA's budget is only a little bigger then Scotland's healthcare costs ($19 billion vs. $16 billion) and not all of NASA's budget is space stuff (National Air and Space Agency).  So a worldclass space program costs as much as healthcare costs for a smallish region.  NASA is chump change in the US federal budget.

This prompts me to wonder actually if you could see a smallish but wealthy nation actually decide to become the leader in space.  Canada for instance has federal revenues of around C$255 (.98C$=1US$).  So NASA wouldn't be a pittance for them but it would be something they could afford.

Canada is affliated with the ESA though. They contribute 0.5% of it's budget, though that might change in the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 27, 2012, 11:09:42 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 27, 2012, 10:54:09 am

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

Huffpo is projecting that Obama has 271 electoral votes "strongly favoring" with 61 more electoral votes leaning his way. If their polling methods are good, Obama is already over the hump.

But how about the UNSKEWED polls?

http://unskewedpolls.com/

I think you'll find that Romney is actually winning easily.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 27, 2012, 11:17:05 am

Do you expect me to believe polls from a page that uses a layout from ye olde web of 1992?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on September 27, 2012, 11:26:45 am

I was looking at his methodology (http://unskewedpolls.com/qstarpollmethodology.cfm) and it seems like he doesn't understand statistics. I might also take him a little more seriously if he had links to any news articles that weren't from The Examiner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 27, 2012, 12:28:36 pm

BWAHAHA...I tried clicking that GOP2112.com link, thinking "WTF?? Is typo or really long-term planning?" and got a DOJ block notice that it was a malicious source (i.e. flagged for malware).

Now I'm almost wondering if it's some kind of honeypot, designed to lure right-wingers in by giving them all this wacky data that confirms what they want to believe, while secretly putting half a dozen Trojans on their system or something.

Best line read all day: "Romney's campaign is so dead, the Mormon Church just baptized it."  xD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on September 27, 2012, 12:57:42 pm

Wasn't there some study that said a large percentage of malware was found on religious sites?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 27, 2012, 01:28:56 pm

Sorry about that, I'm pretty sure the site itself doesn't contain any malware.  Keep off the external links then.

Quote from: Techhead on September 27, 2012, 11:26:45 am

I was looking at his methodology (http://unskewedpolls.com/qstarpollmethodology.cfm) and it seems like he doesn't understand statistics. I might also take him a little more seriously if he had links to any news articles that weren't from The Examiner.

It seems to run deeper than that.  The "methodology" consists of assuming that there are more conservatives than liberals and messing with the polls accordingly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 27, 2012, 01:32:39 pm

IIRC there was, it had something to do with how little they were updated making it easier to infect them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: hemmingjay on September 27, 2012, 02:50:02 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on September 27, 2012, 01:28:56 pm

Sorry about that, I'm pretty sure the site itself doesn't contain any malware.  Keep off the external links then.

Quote from: Techhead on September 27, 2012, 11:26:45 am

I was looking at his methodology (http://unskewedpolls.com/qstarpollmethodology.cfm) and it seems like he doesn't understand statistics. I might also take him a little more seriously if he had links to any news articles that weren't from The Examiner.

It seems to run deeper than that.  The "methodology" consists of assuming that there are more conservatives than liberals and messing with the polls accordingly.

Unfortunately despite what he says, his results are certainly skewed. He disregards the significance of the source of his poll. He claims that double weighting(his idea of double weighting) prevents republican poll results from skewing the overall picture but fails to account for the fact the fact that the majority of democrats and many independents avoid polls from such right wing "news" outlets. Qstarnews is absurd in it's editorial alignment. There are some left wing sources that are also bad, so it is best to choose a well renowned source such as FiveThirtyEight.com

In the end, all that matters is electoral votes and even though the popular vote is close, electoral predictions show a bloodbath. I personally am undecided in the election but am keeping a close eye as I have a vested interest in political database software.

BTW, I have 2 copies of The Political Machine 2012 on Steam if anyone wants one. Will give a copy to the first 2 people to PM me with an email address I can send it to. Copies went to Descan and RedKing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 27, 2012, 02:57:41 pm

Well, and the justification for counter-weighting polls (this is hardly the only right-wing site I've seen that does this) is "liberal media bias". No statistical proof, just an assumption that "obviously these media pollers are lefties so they they think they're in the majority, but we know the silent majority really agrees with us, so let's just fudge the numbers to see what the vote would be like if that's true".


And then when the actual vote comes out closer to the media poll numbers, they take it as confirmation that the process is rigged and there's massive voter fraud.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 27, 2012, 06:41:54 pm

This analysis of a current Romney attack ad is mindboggling. How anyone expected this to pass even the flimsiest scrutiny is beyond me.

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 27, 2012, 07:01:08 pm

I find it strange that the fact checker spent so many pixels talking about the tire spat and didn't mention how Chinese currency manipulation has decreased markedly since 2010.  Not only has the Yuan appreciated 7% against the dollar but the peg has been loosened greatly so that the currencies float against each other somewhat.
(https://encrypted.google.com/finance/chart?q=CURRENCY:CNYUSD&tkr=1&p=5Y&chst=cob)

Before Obama was in office, the exchange rate was what the CCP decided it should be.  Now there is some flexibility.  This is Win-Win, US exports will help China keep inflation in hand while Chinese imports will help US employment.  This isn't a situation where you want to start a trade war, it's where you need diplomacy to let both sides go ahead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 27, 2012, 07:02:33 pm

Also, if USA-PRC trade collapses, everyone dies. A decent portion of the global economy is invested in that link alone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 27, 2012, 07:06:42 pm

Uh, trade doesn't really work like that unless you are a 17th century colonial power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 27, 2012, 07:10:16 pm

Trade collapse won't directly kill everyone, of course, but if USA-PRC trade collapses the effect on the global economy will be enough to buckle everyone else's economies as well. The EU is already in a state of economic weakness. This will lead to resource shortages, which will in turn lead to war.

Luckily, this is very unlikely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on September 27, 2012, 07:41:48 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 27, 2012, 07:01:08 pm

I find it strange that the fact checker spent so many pixels talking about the tire spat and didn't mention how Chinese currency manipulation has decreased markedly since 2010.  Not only has the Yuan appreciated 7% against the dollar but the peg has been loosened greatly so that the currencies float against each other somewhat.
(https://encrypted.google.com/finance/chart?q=CURRENCY:CNYUSD&tkr=1&p=5Y&chst=cob)

Before Obama was in office, the exchange rate was what the CCP decided it should be.  Now there is some flexibility.  This is Win-Win, US exports will help China keep inflation in hand while Chinese imports will help US employment.  This isn't a situation where you want to start a trade war, it's where you need diplomacy to let both sides go ahead.

The fact checker focused on the claims being made, namely that Obama's China policy allowed them to rip off US intellectual property and restricted military technology (although I wonder at the point of classifying the JSF too much, as it's being offered for export anyway, making secrets much harder to keep.) Despite currency manipulation being at the root of the attack, it's never mentioned or even implied, as it's too complicated for most people to comprehend (not a LCD attitude, it's quite high-level economics) while most of the people qualified to analyze the issue have already sounded the bullshit alarm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on September 27, 2012, 09:21:33 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 27, 2012, 07:10:16 pm

Trade collapse won't directly kill everyone, of course, but if USA-PRC trade collapses the effect on the global economy will be enough to buckle everyone else's economies as well. The EU is already in a state of economic weakness. This will lead to resource shortages, which will in turn lead to war.

I can't conceivably see it causing a bad economy leading to war, unless things get so bad that dictators start to take, it may kill lots of people in Africa or parts of Asia (due to a bad economy causing more starvation and civil wars), but it won't cause any wars in Europe or kill a significant number of people there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 27, 2012, 11:08:04 pm

A trade collapse doesn't make the economy collapse.  Like I said, we are not a 17th century trading empire.

Imagine for example that a collapse were to happen in US imports of tube socks from China.  We suppose China is producing just as many tube socks but US consumers suddenly decide that they hate Chinese tube socks and refuse to buy a single tube sock made in China.  Would Walmart go out of business?

Of course not, they'd just buy up whatever inventories of non-Chinese tube socks are around and put them on the shelves.  Then they'd place large orders for tube socks made in England and Vietnam and the US and so forth and three weeks later the socks they ordered would hit the shelves.  (Three weeks is the amount of time it takes to ship an item from any industrial location in the world to US shopping locations at bulk rates.)  Maybe there'd be a slight blip as a few stores would be short of tube socks for a week but it wouldn't be like in the 70s when there wasn't enough gas to go around, people know that the world has plenty of tube socks.

When the dust settles the composition of trade would have changed slightly and we'd be slightly less efficient but there wouldn't be any loss of economic activity, just a relocation.  When previously the tube socks were made in China, now they're being made somewhere else.  China would probably start exporting whatever was previously made by the textile mills that are making Walmart's new tube socks.  Maybe the textile mills would go out of business but China is fighting inflationary pressures right now which indicates that there are plenty of other goods the laid of workers could start making.  The world economy would be a little less efficient but inefficiency doesn't cause recessions, if anything it actually ends recessions.

Now you might say that the situation is different if we are talking about a trade war between China and the US in every good, not just tube socks.  But it's just a bunch of the same story told at once, going both ways.  And trade wars don't happen overnight so the various commercial and industrial importers and exporters would have time to prepare before the music stops.  At the end of the day we get a little less efficient but like I said, that's actually kinda a plus for the US and Europe right now given the Great Recession.

What makes a trade collapse possible is if there are centers of production that have no value without the trade.  Think about some colonial era European colony with a valuable colony that produces spices or sugar cane or coffee.  The commodity is valuable in Europe so importing it makes the colonial power a lot of money.  Then one day a war breaks out that disrupts the import trade.  The valuable commodity sits in warehouses in the colony and rots.  The warehouses are full so the colony stops producing whatever it was exporting and has no other goods that it can produce.  So production is no longer possible.  It's not the decline in trade itself that is the problem, it's the decline in output that results.  This reduces the wealth in the same way that a major crop failure would.

A decline in Sino-American trade would not cause a decline in output like this.  Aggregate supply, the total world's output, would be unaffected, only redirected.  Both the US and China would be capable of producing as much as before it's just the US would need to buy more American and China buy more Chinese.  Without a reduction in aggregate supply a trade collapse would not lead to a collapse in economic activity and all the bad stuff that entails.

Sorry if this is a bit repetitive, it's been a while since I've read this stuff so I'm doing my best to be thorough so as to avoid mistakes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on September 27, 2012, 11:47:05 pm

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/27/bls_benchmark_revisions_government_finds_386_000_new_jobs_.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/27/bls_benchmark_revisions_government_finds_386_000_new_jobs_.html)

Quote

Note that this also means that the Obama Era has crossed the symbolically important zero line. More Americans are employed today than were when he took office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 09:06:31 am

Bill Clinton is campaigning for Obama. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/28/clinton-to-campaign-with-obama/?hpt=hp_t2)

Romney campaign pre-emptively gives up on debate. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/27/first-on-cnn-romney-memo-seeks-to-lower-debate-expectations/?hpt=hp_bn3)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2012, 09:17:52 am

 ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on September 28, 2012, 09:23:48 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on September 28, 2012, 09:17:52 am

???

Perhaps some context to this confusion?  What has confounded you good sir?


Also, pretty hilarious that Team Romney is already conceding defeat for the first debate.  In a way though, a preemptive narrative...  Which they expect Obama to react to, so that the whole debate won't just be Obama kickingcurbstomping Romney or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 28, 2012, 09:26:52 am

I like the quote "Romney's campaign is so dead the Mormons just baptized it." It's hilarious and accurate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 09:27:15 am

Also, Obama is leading in North Carolina now. By a very slim margin, but still.

Obama's worst state at the moment is unsurprisingly Utah, where the official polls are around 35% for him. I don't know how trustworthy those results are though, the LDS Church is known for manipulation...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 09:30:18 am

Honestly, 35% seems a bit high for around here. Then again I don't know many people in Salt Lake City, where it's much more liberal (comparatively).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 28, 2012, 09:30:59 am

I thought they were pinning all their hopes on Mitt Romney winning the debates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 09:34:34 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 09:06:31 am

Romney campaign pre-emptively gives up on debate. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/27/first-on-cnn-romney-memo-seeks-to-lower-debate-expectations/?hpt=hp_bn3)

Every presidential campaign for at least the past 12 years has done this.  They don't want the media spending a week talking about how they lost the debate so they downplay things relentlessly ahead of time.  Bush's people called Kerry "the best debater since Cicero."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 10:13:27 am

As far as the China thing (c'mon, you knew I was gonna):

1. As mainiac already pointed out, the yuan is more paritable against the dollar than it used to be. This process actually started before Obama took office, in the latter Bush years. The obstacles to allowing the yuan to rise had always been twofold, from China's perspective:
      a. Abruptly unpegging the yuan from the dollar would have been a shock to both currencies. While China's purchasing power would have skyrocketed, so would the relative cost of its exports. And, it held over $1 trillion in dollar-denominated US securities and would have taken a bath on those. Beijing always argued that they weren't inherently opposed to letting the yuan stand on its own as a currency, just that they wanted to take the process slow. Slow is how the Chinese government likes to make changes, because fast changes historically tend to be really, really bad and disruptive and millions of people die. This is a recurrent theme you will find on a number of issues.
     b. They're a bit like a four-year old. If you demand that they do something, they're going to refuse on principle because "you're not the boss of me". Once the United States quit harping on the "currency manipulation" charge, they were surprisingly compliant with a plan of stepped "unpegging" of the yuan.

2. It always irks me that China is a convenient target for BOTH parties to use as a boogeyman, and to tar opponents by any association. This is one of the reasons I liked Jon Huntsman, and probably one of the big reasons why he stood zero chance -- he was the only candidate not touting China as this looming Red Menace/Yellow Peril on the horizon, because we all know America works best when we have an implacable, evil foe to oppose (Native Americans/British/Mexicans/European imperialists/Spain/Nazis/Japanese/Soviets/al-Qaeda).  ::)

3. Intellectual property rights are a big deal, but they're also virtually impossible to fix through talks with high-level authorities. China is NOT some monolithic, totalitarian state entity. It's not as if Hu Jintao is sending orders down the chain saying, "I totes want to see The Avengers on Blu-ray RIGHT NOW. Go pirate that shit for me. Oh, and make a few hundred thousand copies to sell in the night markets while you're at it."

The vast majority of IP violations are occuring at the very lowest level. Somebody gets a hold of some piece of intellectual property, sees the financial value in selling it, and boom...piracy. Doesn't matter if it's illegal or not. Hell, it's a running joke that half of daily life in the PRC is technically illegal. So because enforcement is a domestic problem within China (whether there's even a political will *to* enforce IP laws is another matter), blustering and threatening Beijing over the issue is counterproductive.

That's a fundamental failure to grasp China that I see repeatedly in the Romney camp. As highlighted in this quote:

Quote

We were told that labeling China a currency manipulator would send a clear signal to China that the U.S. is serious about unfair trade practices and that the U.S. would be “more likely to make progress across a range of issues.”

WRONG. You don't come in, talk tough like John Wayne, badmouth them, and then expect them to bow down and acquiesce to your demands. If that's your idea of diplomatic negotiation, UR DOIN IT WRONG.
This is a country where a "business meeting" means going out for dinner and drinks for three hours, and all the useful discussion happens in small groups with a cup of baiju in your hand.
A country where you can get things done by knowing a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy whose brother can call in a favor from an old schoolmate who is cousin to a government official.
A country where "It will be difficult," is the local equivalent of saying "Oh HELL no!"
One does not merely walk into Mordor China and make demands (in part, because it's very difficult for them to deliver on things like IP enforcement, and it's a loss of face to admit that they have little to no control over the black-market economy; and in part because of 1.b. above)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2012, 10:16:14 am

Barack HUSSEIN Obama will force doctors to assist homosexuals in buying surrogate babies!!!!111! (http://www.gingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GINGadFinal.pdf)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 10:22:06 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on September 28, 2012, 10:16:14 am

Barack HUSSEIN Obama will force doctors to assist homosexuals in buying surrogate babies!!!!111! (http://www.gingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GINGadFinal.pdf)

lolwat

Don't forget

Quote

…Force police agencies to allow Muslim brotherhood to select staff

  ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 10:23:35 am

I love how he will create a government funded underclass.  Only in GOP land would the parasites be cackling in glee at being at the bottom of the totem pole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 10:40:05 am

Lucky duckies. They get all the government cheese they want.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 28, 2012, 10:42:56 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 10:23:35 am

I love how he will create a government funded underclass.  Only in GOP land would the parasites be cackling in glee at being at the bottom of the totem pole.

Actually, it's the same in Toryland too in the UK. Some right wingers and conservatives are convinced that people "live off the system" because they are feckless and whatnot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 10:51:28 am

Half the things listed don't sound bad at all :P Dunno how radical that makes me if I actually agree with some of the strawmen positions they're attacking. The only ones that would raise an eyebrow from me if actually implemented are the ones that force private organizations to do stuff, like a Christian school hiring non-Christian teachers. Oh and maybe the Sharia Law thing; dunno the context of that (if it would allow wife beating or something like that I'd be against it).


And a "government funded underclass" is something I actually hope becomes reality some day. Then the underclass could focus on improving their lot in life, rather than spending all their time on just surviving, which keeps them where they are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 10:56:17 am

The sharia law thing probably would allow wife beating, or execution depending on the justification.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-fires-vendor-questionable-registrations-221750586--election.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

GOP funded voter registration company caught in fraud scheme.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 28, 2012, 10:59:26 am

Quote from: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 10:13:27 am

looming Red Menace/Yellow Peril on the horizon

...Looming Orange Penice on the horizon?

Yeah, I'd stay away from that too :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 28, 2012, 11:33:19 am

...Force plantation owners to release their slaves

...Force states to accept women's suffrage

...Force courts to stop executing gays

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on September 28, 2012, 11:36:00 am

The Force is strong with this one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 11:40:43 am

That site's name would have been very unfortunate had Newt Gingrich won the nomination.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 11:43:48 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 11:40:43 am

That site's name would have been very unfortunate had Newt Gingrich won the nomination.

unfortunate? Gingpac sounds ideal, except that no one would believe it wasn't directly affiliated with Gingrich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 11:43:55 am

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 11:46:56 am

Quote from: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 11:43:55 am

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

being content with barely surviving is hardly greedy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2012, 11:47:04 am

It does lend credibility to the idea that we need to increase the safety net, but also make it more accountable. Nobody will starve, but people who really are that lazy would have a setup that's just so dull and pointless that they'd snap out of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on September 28, 2012, 11:53:47 am

Except that what's dull and pointless to some is a fairly fulfilling life to others. I'd be pretty comfortable chilling without much in the way of creature comforts and doing volunteer work off and on, maybe do some creative work, rather than trying to fight through the commercial environment in modern times to get more useless junk. If I could manage it and not starve or end up on the streets. Consumerist society's not very well equipped to motivate certain world views, really, at least insofar as getting them into the general economic system of the place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 11:56:04 am

Quote from: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 11:46:56 am

Quote from: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 11:43:55 am

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

being content with barely surviving is hardly greedy.

By greedy I'm referring to the 'welfare moms' who have more children just so they can get more welfare money. And then use that extra money for more beer and cigarettes instead of clothing and whatnot for the kids. Or they lady who won the lottery, bought two houses, and then thought that it was cool for her to stay on Food Stamps because "She has a lot of expenses now that she has two houses to pay for, so she figured she was still owed Food Stamps".

Like I said, these people are rare but they do exist. And some of them really are Greedy, in the sense that they do everything they can to get more money without actually having to get a job or work for it. It's greed, it's just always well thought out greed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on September 28, 2012, 12:00:00 pm

I think that takes you out of lazy and shiftless and into working at committing fraud territory

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 28, 2012, 12:02:43 pm

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 12:03:25 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 11:43:55 am

The biggest problem with the "government funded underclass" is that people like that actually exist. They really are so lazy and greedy that the idea of being paid just enough to survive without them having to do anything sounds great to them. Of course, they make up a very small percentage of people at that level, but all the right-wing has to do is find a few of them to hold up as examples of everything that is wrong with welfare and whip people into a lather about it.

It's your standard stereotyping issue. People like to take the worst example of a group and then assume that everyone in that group is just as bad as that worst example.

Personally I don't believe "laziness" exists. There are some similar things (like avoiding responsibility out of selfishness), but no one wants to be bored.

Those "leeches" are doing SOMETHING with their lives. It just might not be making money. And as I am not a productivist, and thus don't think making money to necessarily be a valid goal in life in the first place, whatever it is they're actually doing could very well be valid despite being seen as "lazy" by others. Maybe they're painting, maybe they're raising a family, whatever (my view on life is that it's entirely up to them to determine what's "valid" or not, but I don't want to get too far into the philosophy).

So yeah. I don't think the disconnect has to do with "laziness" and sure as hell not greediness (if they were greedy they'd be making money. Unless they're stupid too). The way I see it, those against the concept of welfare have a moral imperative to ensure they only help those who can give something in return. Always a trade; never a gift. Whereas people like me have a moral imperative to ensure everyone gets a few basic things, such as food and shelter, even if they never give anything practical in return for it. They feel the responsibility is on people to help themselves, I feel the responsibility is on everyone to help each other. That's the disconnect.

Quote

By greedy I'm referring to the 'welfare moms' who have more children just so they can get more welfare money. And then use that extra money for more beer and cigarettes instead of clothing and whatnot for the kids. Or they lady who won the lottery, bought two houses, and then thought that it was cool for her to stay on Food Stamps because "She has a lot of expenses now that she has two houses to pay for, so she figured she was still owed Food Stamps".

Unless those moms are starving their children they're not making a profit off of welfare. As for the other lady, fools and their money :P (and everyone should have a right to food stamps IMO, even goddamn Bill Gates)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 12:04:01 pm

Welfare moms don't actually exist. No state in the US has welfare good enough that having more kids provides a net positive cash flow.

The closest thing to that would be having kids and forcing their fathers to pay child support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 12:06:30 pm

I suppose one could argue they're doing it as a (relatively) cheap way to make more babies, but conservatives tend to think baby making is a very noble thing to do, so I don't think that argument would hold water either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on September 28, 2012, 12:07:27 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 28, 2012, 12:02:43 pm

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

What's wrong with Mitt Romney? As a name a I mean. I don't think the forums could take a post as large as the other way would make.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on September 28, 2012, 12:08:46 pm

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

Something like this would be easier managed in a communistic... whats the word...?  neighborhood?  burrow? commune? community?

Public housing, as in put a buncha people in a room with a number of bunks, in a central place with public transport access and something like a community soup kitchen.  Hand em a month/year-long transport ticket.  So basically, shelter, transportation and food is covered.

No need to put money directly in the hands of those 'good fer nuttin freeloaders' and they can go out and use the time to find jobs or something useful.  They could even work at the commie community as janitors or be a part of the soup kitchen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:09:52 pm

GODDAMNIT LET ME POST ARGH

And dhokarena - Why? That's the key thing, justify this 'need' to make it more accountable. (And even then, you'd have to justify the costs)

I've never understand the argument - it's like saying that I shouldn't give food to the homeless because some of them are mentally ill. It's like... what?

"We shouldn't support people who lack ambition" just seems kind of odd to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 12:11:45 pm

Or the trailer-trash rednecks who let their kids go years without a dental visit, but have enough money for a case of Bud and a carton of smokes every week. And then vote Republican.
Because it's not necessarily greed, it's often just a case of poor prioritization. Dental care for your child > making your kid happy with a new toy, even though the child may not agree.

I know this, because I lived it first-hand. My mother is TERRIBLE at determining proper priorities. That's why she was on welfare and we were living above a gas station when I was 4. But yet, we always had beer in the fridge and cigs on the kitchen counter. It's not greed, it's ignorance and not seeing a way out.

Quote from: Owlbread on September 28, 2012, 12:02:43 pm

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

There was half-serious talk in 2008 about Barack Obama having a distinct disadvantage because his first name couldn't be shortened to a simple one-syllable form, and how that emphasized his "otherness". It's kind of a given that a politician's name, at least at the national stage, needs to be one-syllable first name, two-syllable last name (maybe can get away with three if they're short, or one syllable if it's not too sing-songy)

John Ker-ry
John Mc-Cain
John Ed-wards
Rick San-to-rum
Rick Per-ry
George Bush
Bill Clin-ton
Newt Gin-grich
Mitt Rom-ney
Slam Squat-thrust
Big McLarge-huge
...you get the idea. I've also heard it said that is/was one of the problems with both Ron Paul and Bob Dole. Too sing-songy, too easy to make sound silly.

This, I think MZ should run for office under the pseudonym "Dirk Facepunch". Strong, concise, manly, slightly threatening....you think to yourself "Dirk Facepunch sounds like a real red-blooded American, the kind of guy you wouldn't want to mess with!"  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2012, 12:12:01 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:09:52 pm

GODDAMNIT LET ME POST ARGH

And dhokarena - Why? That's the key thing, justify this 'need' to make it more accountable. (And even then, you'd have to justify the costs)

I've never understand the argument - it's like saying that I shouldn't give food to the homeless because some of them are mentally ill. It's like... what?

"We shouldn't support people who lack ambition" just seems kind of odd to me.

Well, for example, in Finland, you can become a high school dropout at age 16, but by doing so you forfeit the possibility of unemployment payments. To get those, you need to continue into trade school or university-track high school.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. The mentally ill are of course another matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:13:53 pm

I have no idea what relevance that had to my question of justification?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on September 28, 2012, 12:14:31 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 28, 2012, 12:02:43 pm

Newt Gingrich is a very silly name. Same with Mitt Romney. It's like there's a tradition of silly names among American politicians - you half expect the next republican nominee to be called Rip Nipstop or Skrim Minglewim.

Like the fortieth time this topic has made me spray coffee out my nose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2012, 12:16:54 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:13:53 pm

I have no idea what relevance that had to my question of justification?

I may have misphrased. You can see it either as making people more accountable, or as making the system more sustainable. By using the stick of no unemployment payments, for example, Finland ensures that it doesn't have to shell out more because people continue their education and get a marketable skill.

And call me a cynic, call me a conservative, but I do think there should be sticks, not just carrots, against poor prioritizing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:19:51 pm

I'm also assuming you mean 'unemployment payments' to mean something different than it means in the US, then. Because otherwise those just seems like a dick thing to go.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 12:20:13 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:13:53 pm

I have no idea what relevance that had to my question of justification?

Well, the difference between justifying why "you" should or should not give money to the homeless is different from saying that part of everyone's taxes should go to the homeless.

It has to be justified because the guy working two jobs and 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed and housed doesn't see any reason why his money, that he works very hard for, so should go to someone who sits around all day. If it was charity money, sure, that was given voluntarily. But tax money isn't voluntary, so people get touchy about it.

Of course, it's silly anyway. The same guy who gets livid that some 'bum on the street' gets free money (for, you know, food) just shrugs off government waste and pork projects because 'that's just how things are'. So the government spending $2 million dollars on some useless project to line some corporation's pockets is ok, but if that money goes to 'welfare' it's wrong.

But that's how people are. The guy can't relate to a corporation, but he can relate to another single person. So he gets mad about a small handout to an individual when he should be more concerned about the huge amounts of money going to people who are already rich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on September 28, 2012, 12:21:16 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:19:51 pm

I'm also assuming you mean 'unemployment payments' to mean something different than it means in the US, then. Because otherwise those just seems like a dick thing to go.

I'm not entirely sure how the system works in the details, but I expect it's probably a guaranteed minimum income that's being talked about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on September 28, 2012, 12:23:20 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 28, 2012, 10:42:56 am

Quote from: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 10:23:35 am

I love how he will create a government funded underclass.  Only in GOP land would the parasites be cackling in glee at being at the bottom of the totem pole.

Actually, it's the same in Toryland too in the UK. Some right wingers and conservatives are convinced that people "live off the system" because they are feckless and whatnot.

It takes hilarious (and depressing) forms sometimes. Where I live, common knowledge claims that there are actually two kind of beggars. The first one is the usual alcoholic, drug-abusing, lazy degenerate who maybe doesn't have anything, but IT'S ALL HIS FAULT! The second is the one who fares so well, that he gets more money than he would honestly earn, wears designer clothes and drives a nice car when not "at work". Sometimes tabloids release interviews with them - of course, they are laughing in contempt at all those losers who give them money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

Yeah, in the US unemployment compensation is directly tied to whatever job you were recently let go from. Not all jobs qualify, but if you worked for long enough your company pays into the pot to insure that you'll be taken care of while you look for someplace else to go. Having to add limitations about how many years of schooling you took a dozen years ago just seems like the dickest thing a government could do. Put in 10 years and then have your job outsourced? SUCKS FOR YOU SHOULD HAVE FINISHED SCHOOL HAHA.

I could see, maybe, a "finish school OR work for however many years", but at least in the US a lot of our high school dropouts do so because they need to support their families, or themselves (if they've been kicked out) by working. And it seems strange to punish that, when welfare is the thing that would have changed it from happening to begin with (most would rather be able to learn a skill and make more money, I would think)

Meph:
It reminds me of the people who yell and shout over those "dirt freeloaders and national healthcare, I don't want to pay for other people" but never seem to realize that their insurance premium every month is going to... you guessed it, pay for other people's problems! (In addition to a decent chunk of change from every medical bill paid)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 12:37:14 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 12:20:13 pm

Well, the difference between justifying why "you" should or should not give money to the homeless is different from saying that part of everyone's taxes should go to the homeless.

It has to be justified because the guy working two jobs and 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed and housed doesn't see any reason why his money, that he works very hard for, so should go to someone who sits around all day. If it was charity money, sure, that was given voluntarily. But tax money isn't voluntary, so people get touchy about it.

The way I see it, a properly instituted welfare system is more analogous to infrastructure than charity. That dude working 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed definitely should be getting something too; exactly the same amount, even.

The problem with charities that deal with economic problems (and most government welfare programs, as well) is there is an incentive for people to stay where they are. If they work more, they can actually lose money. So they stay where they are. There's a sort of "hump" they have to cross before working more actually equates to getting a reasonably higher income.

That's why my ideal welfare systems wouldn't ever take anything away as people's economic situation improves. That's why I say Bill Gates should be able to pick up food stamps if he wants. It should be like infrastructure; everyone pays the same amount even if they don't use it the same amount or in the same way. You don't suddenly start expecting people to build their own roads once they could reasonably afford it. Your rich dude still gets to use it for free. Same should be done with the less expensive necessities. Then people can't complain others are getting "something for nothing" as they're getting it too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 28, 2012, 12:40:56 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 12:37:14 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 12:20:13 pm

Well, the difference between justifying why "you" should or should not give money to the homeless is different from saying that part of everyone's taxes should go to the homeless.

It has to be justified because the guy working two jobs and 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed and housed doesn't see any reason why his money, that he works very hard for, so should go to someone who sits around all day. If it was charity money, sure, that was given voluntarily. But tax money isn't voluntary, so people get touchy about it.

The way I see it, a properly instituted welfare system is more analogous to infrastructure than charity. That dude working 60 hours a week just to keep his family fed definitely should be getting something too; exactly the same amount, even.

The problem with charities that deal with economic problems (and most government welfare programs, as well) is there is an incentive for people to stay where they are. If they work more, they can actually lose money. So they stay where they are. There's a sort of "hump" they have to cross before working more actually equates to getting a reasonably higher income.

That's why my ideal welfare systems wouldn't ever take anything away as people's economic situation improves. That's why I say Bill Gates should be able to pick up food stamps if he wants. It should be like infrastructure; everyone pays the same amount even if they don't use it the same amount or in the same way. You don't suddenly start expecting people to build their own roads once they could reasonably afford it. Your rich dude still gets to use it for free. Same should be done with the less expensive necessities. Then people can't complain others are getting "something for nothing" as they're getting it too.

So the idea of a guaranteed income type thing, only it gets sent to everyone?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 12:45:37 pm

Indeed. But like food stamps, the income could only be used for certain things. No going and gambling away your government issued check, nor spending all your food money on a particularly exquisite bagel (unless you made that money yourself).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 12:47:01 pm

Its possible. However granting every household a handout that would place them the at the poverty line would take 20something% of taxable personal income, give or take. I've calculated that before, but I don't have any references handy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:47:37 pm

That's the basic premise of the negative income tax - it's not welfare if everyone gets it. No questions about who "deserves" it or not, just like we don't talk (much) about who "deserves" to use roads or parks or the court system.

The difference of course, is that it gives you real money instead of the fake money kaijyuu wants to give them. (I think if someone wants to tighten the belt in other areas to push more of the money into starting a business, they should be allowed to).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:52:21 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 12:47:01 pm

Its possible. However granting every household a handout that would place them the at the poverty line would take 20something% of taxable personal income, give or take. I've calculated that before, but I don't have any references handy.

Seriously? The personal poverty line is only 11k (lower, I think, the more people you have in the family - I guess it's assumed your sharing resources) and honestly, if everybody's getting this we probably won't need to give everyone that much (less people desperate enough to pull off 80 hour workweeks means more jobs, and the ability to survive on partial employment and the power to negotiate more pay for it). I'd argue that having it at, say, half the poverty line would be more than enough to bring almost everyone past the poverty line (and give freedom and flexibility to those who remain, allowing them opportunity to live within their means)

Edit: Sorry for double post, I was absolutely sure someone was gonna ninja me again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 01:00:22 pm

I'd have probably have to dig up some numbers and do it all over again, but there are something like 90 million households in the US with an average household size of 3ish. The poverty level varies by size of household. And I do not recall if my figure for total personal income was just wages or included all forms of income. I believe the number I used was about $20k per household but its kinda sketchy based on foggy memory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 01:01:41 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 12:47:37 pm

(I think if someone wants to tighten the belt in other areas to push more of the money into starting a business, they should be allowed to).

Hrm, fair point.

I was only really advocating limiting what you can spend this stuff on out of precedent (IE, food stamps). Whatever benefit that might have could very well be outweighed by all the bureaucratic nonsense that would be required though (which would of course increase costs and potentially inhibit valid uses, such as business starting), so I'm not very adamant about it.

(if anyone has more to say I do suggest moving to a different thread, as we've derailed quite far off elections by this point :P )

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:07:09 pm

Quote from: Zangi on September 28, 2012, 12:08:46 pm

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

If it was like, 50% or something, so if you make a hundred dollars, you get 150, then I can see it working.

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)


E: Note, I would PREFER if everyone got the flat 100, whether they worked for another 100, 1 000, or 1 000 000, but at least this way is more palatable and can lead to a flat 100.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 01:12:25 pm

On the other hand. 20% doesn't sound all that terrible, especially when you consider that's probably going to be a progressive number rather than a flat number.

Costs
311,591,917 (pop) x 11,000 (poverty line) = 3,427,511,087,000
Roughly 3.43 trillion dollars

Requires
$27,334 (average per capita income) x 311,591,917 (pop) = 8,517,053,459,278
Roughly 8.52 trillion dollars.

That's actually roughly 40% of income. Of course, this means that the average person pays, into the system, a net amount of nothing, since they will both pay and receive 11k, while the richest will be paying (almost) the full 20%.

It looks like you'd be paying out a lot of money at first glance, but unless your uberwealthy, most of it would be coming back to you - and if you're uberwealthy, a 20% tax rate doesn't seem too bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 01:13:43 pm

US progressive politicians are frigid towards the idea of reforming welfare because they got burned on welfare reforms in the mid 90s.  Welfare reform was supposed to be a bi-partisan way to get rid of freeloaders without hurting the needy.  But the problem is that freeloaders are few and far between, so it mostly just amounted to a system to make the poor jump through more humiliating hoops.  The conservatives have if anything grown less inclined to help the poor since then.  So another welfare reform is impossible, conservatives just want to slash, progressives feel once bitten twice shy.

Quote from: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:07:09 pm

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

There's a solution to that, you phase out the benefits gradually so that the benefits disappear more slowly then your earnings increase.  It is most notable in the Earned Income Tax Credit although that does have a little of the perverse incentive you noted.  Progressive want to reform the EIC to eliminate more of this perverse incentive and conservatives, predictably, want to increase the perverse incentive in order to get rid of the lucky duckies not paying income taxes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:16:01 pm

I've always wanted something like that.

Of course, I usually go a step further and said that an internet connection is basically a requirement for modern life at this point.

Not many people agree with me on that last bit, but honestly? Free, easy information, everywhere wants you to apply online, and so many people communicate mostly or entirely online...


E: Mainiac, uh... That sounds... pretty much exactly what my latter half of my post was talking about?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 01:17:46 pm

Yes it was now that you mention it.  Still, good to mention the real world example I guess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:19:04 pm

True.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on September 28, 2012, 01:46:18 pm

Quote from: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:07:09 pm

Quote from: Zangi on September 28, 2012, 12:08:46 pm

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

If it was like, 50% or something, so if you make a hundred dollars, you get 150, then I can see it working.

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)


E: Note, I would PREFER if everyone got the flat 100, whether they worked for another 100, 1 000, or 1 000 000, but at least this way is more palatable and can lead to a flat 100.

Hoooold on there, that's too simple of an example. Yes, if you could get $100 an hour for not working OR $100 an hour for working, then you would not work. But that assumes that those are the only options. What if your choices were $100 a year for not working or $20,000 a year, with the possibility of making more over time, for working?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 01:54:17 pm

The thing is, it's not a dichotomy, but rather a sliding scale. There's a point between that $100 of welfare and $20,000 of work where additional work = little to no benefit. Outside of hypothetical land and back to reality land, that zone where additional work gives negligible payback isn't exactly inconsequential, and probably the biggest reason anyone on welfare would stay on welfare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on September 28, 2012, 01:57:50 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on September 28, 2012, 01:46:18 pm

Quote from: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:07:09 pm

Quote from: Zangi on September 28, 2012, 12:08:46 pm

Well, the only thing they need is shelter and food to survive...  If they have an income, slash the payout in proportion.

The problem with that is if you get a 100 dollars without working, and get a 100 dollars for working, which are you going to choose?

If it was like, 50% or something, so if you make a hundred dollars, you get 150, then I can see it working.

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)


E: Note, I would PREFER if everyone got the flat 100, whether they worked for another 100, 1 000, or 1 000 000, but at least this way is more palatable and can lead to a flat 100.

Hoooold on there, that's too simple of an example. Yes, if you could get $100 an hour for not working OR $100 an hour for working, then you would not work. But that assumes that those are the only options. What if your choices were $100 a year for not working or $20,000 a year, with the possibility of making more over time, for working?

I'm... pretty sure you messed up the numbers there. Living a year on a hundred bucks is pretty much impossible. You'd have to be supplementing it with home-grown stuff, and you could factor in the cash value of the crop and time investment in that to come out at a number much higher. You'd also be homeless, more likely than not. Unless you owned land or a house and, again, that'd throw the numbers way off.

And... not everyone would not work just because they would be making the same if they were working. There's these things called boredom and socialization, both of which work tends to fulfill in some ways. You get independently wealthy (Though maybe not hyper-rich folks... retired people, lottery winners that don't bankrupt themselves, stuff like that. I've interacted with a fair number of 'em.) folks doing work just to have something to do. It takes a pretty specific personality type (and no, 'lazy' isn't it) to be particularly sessile for long periods. Most humans get antsy if they're not active in some way.

E: Though yeah, they might not be quite so motivated to shove nearly half their waking life up some corp's ass as the eight-hour work day thing entails.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 02:18:50 pm

Quote from: Descan on September 28, 2012, 01:07:09 pm

(This is just examples, don't you dare jump on me about the numbers I used! D:<)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2012, 02:23:29 pm

Thank you, MagentaRoyalty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 02:25:41 pm

Magenta isn't a synonym for red. Magenta isn't even really real.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on September 28, 2012, 02:27:51 pm

Right now I feel dizzy and separated from my body. I am having trouble focusing on anything and my arms hurt for no real reason.

I have no idea why.

you're lucky I even remembered the word magenta.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 02:41:06 pm

Back on the elections, five thirty eight (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/sept-27-the-impact-of-the-47-percent/#more-35173) has an interesting article on the effect of Romney's 47% comment.

Basically, it comes down to a 'Huh, yeah, maybe that really did have an effect.', which apparently most Gaffs don't do for very long.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 03:00:52 pm

Plagiarizing the Onion isn't just for republicans anymore. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/iranian-news-agency-plagiarizes-the-onion/?hp)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 28, 2012, 03:04:42 pm

Did we move on from the negative income tax yet? Wouldn't that end in runaway inflation?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 03:10:15 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 28, 2012, 03:04:42 pm

Did we move on from the negative income tax yet? Wouldn't that end in runaway inflation?

???

No, inflation does not work that way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 28, 2012, 03:14:02 pm

You probably know better than me as my knowledge of economics boils down to this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://blog.smboyce.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/I-Have-No-Idea-What-Im-Doing.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 03:18:23 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 03:00:52 pm

Plagiarizing the Onion isn't just for republicans anymore. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/iranian-news-agency-plagiarizes-the-onion/?hp)

I'm more mindblown by the whole "Iranian female ninjitsu school" thing. WTF?

Spoiler: Macroeconomics. In ragecomic form. (click to show/hide)

(http://us5.memecdn.com/economics_o_202762.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 28, 2012, 03:19:01 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 28, 2012, 03:14:02 pm

You probably know better than me as my knowledge of economics boils down to this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://blog.smboyce.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/I-Have-No-Idea-What-Im-Doing.jpg)

Which is disturbingly similar to economists knowledge of economics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 28, 2012, 03:21:05 pm

Economics teachers don't change the questions on their tests every year, they change the answers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on September 28, 2012, 03:24:23 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on September 28, 2012, 03:04:42 pm

Did we move on from the negative income tax yet? Wouldn't that end in runaway inflation?

I don't find the argument that it would create inflation to be persuasive.

Price competition for goods will still exist, both within the market for a type of good and between them. It could just as easily lead to deflation because it would soften the minimum bound placed on demand due to abject poverty.

Hyperinflation is the result of an inflation of monetary supply. You have to print money in increasingly large volumes to create hyperinflation. So as long as the welfare system was funded primarily through taxes instead of printing money, its effect on inflation would be slight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 28, 2012, 03:28:48 pm

Quote from: mainiac on September 28, 2012, 01:13:43 pm

US progressive politicians are frigid towards the idea of reforming welfare because they got burned on welfare reforms in the mid 90s.  Welfare reform was supposed to be a bi-partisan way to get rid of freeloaders without hurting the needy.  But the problem is that freeloaders are few and far between, so it mostly just amounted to a system to make the poor jump through more humiliating hoops.  The conservatives have if anything grown less inclined to help the poor since then.  So another welfare reform is impossible, conservatives just want to slash, progressives feel once bitten twice shy.

An almost universal law of welfare is that any attempt to prevent "freeloaders" or "the undeserving poor" from getting money ends up costing more than it saves.  This is why I think universal benefits would be a better alternative than negative income taxes.

Quote from: Mephansteras on September 28, 2012, 02:41:06 pm

Back on the elections, five thirty eight (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/sept-27-the-impact-of-the-47-percent/#more-35173) has an interesting article on the effect of Romney's 47% comment.

Basically, it comes down to a 'Huh, yeah, maybe that really did have an effect.', which apparently most Gaffs don't do for very long.

I'm not that surprised.  I'd say it's essentially the economic equivalent of Todd Akin's "gaffe" (I'm not sure if gaffe is the word since in both cases it was them accidentally saying what they really thought).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 28, 2012, 03:32:16 pm

Leafsnail, I am pretty sure we were talking about the Basic Income version of the NIT (at least I was, when I first brought it up), which has as one of it's core components that there is no means test.

Although it should be emphasized that the NIT, especially the Basic Income variant we were discussing, is not a welfare system, but rather would eliminate the need for most of the welfare system. (it would not provide training opportunities or medical care, for example) Unless you consider social security welfare, I guess. because it works more like that.

But yeah, I don't see how that could possible cause inflation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on September 28, 2012, 06:30:21 pm

Quote

An almost universal law of welfare is that any attempt to prevent "freeloaders" or "the undeserving poor" from getting money ends up costing more than it saves.  This is why I think universal benefits would be a better alternative than negative income taxes.

Even not giving them money costs. They do get sick, for example, much easier - mostly because of malnutrition, stress, and lack of sanitation. Diseases, for some reason, don't want to kill only those "underserving" and have a nasty habit to mutate into new, potentially dangerous forms. A new strain of flu may be a parting gift from one of those people, who could have been treated instead.

It's also a good way to create a criminal class who hate the society that spurned them. Now the country needs even more, better armed police forces, who frequently has to deal with resentful and brutal outlaws. Courts and prisons? They also need more money. The cities? I could talk a lot about how neighboring slums affect land value, but it's probably easy to guess.

Talking about welfare cuts is not about saving money, it's about moving the expenses where they are harder to spot, so the blame could be shifted on commies, ingrates and wrathful gods of economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 29, 2012, 05:16:07 am

My wife's grandparents (who raised her through most of her childhood in Arkansas) owned a house that they rented out.  At one point, they did rent out to some welfare freeloaders who were pretty much the most horrible people imaginable.  They adopted a large number of mentally disabled children and simply didn't care for them.  Barely fed and clothed the kids, let them run wild, pocketed all the financial benefits, and didn't work.  They eventually got found out and evicted.  My wife had to go clean up the mess with her grandparents.  Feces everywhere, etc.

So it's not a complete myth... but still an extreme rarity.  Plus, if people were guaranteed necessities, those children would have been spared that neglect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on September 29, 2012, 09:04:54 am

Oh god, those people. Yes, if you want to find the terrible people, look at foster-care/adoption. You don't get paid nearly as much for regular kids as foster kids, so anyone doing it for the money will probably go that route.

But this has been a thing for a long time. People have been abusing adopted kids since even before the government paid them too. Where the fuck was their social worker, though? It's bullshit.

These people weren't freeloaders, they were criminals.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on September 29, 2012, 10:34:01 am

Quote

But this has been a thing for a long time. People have been abusing adopted kids since even before the government paid them too. Where the fuck was their social worker, though? It's bullshit.

The ugly truth is that they frequently don't care. There is not many people who would adopt a child, because they usually prefer to have their own. Orphanages usually do everything they can to get rid of the children under their care (this is also because the earlier it gets out of there, the better chance it have to adapt to its new family), and social workers to their best to ignore uncaring foster parents.

Sometimes shit happens, though - in Poland, recently, foster parents managed to beat to death two of their charges. And I don't mean they did that simultaneously - it was in the span of a month. Only after the second child had died, the authorities decided that something seems strange there and begun investigation. It appears that almost every institution involved fucked up: the foster parents wasn't schooled, screening was laughable and detected abnormalities (both during screening and afterwards) were swept under the rug.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 29, 2012, 10:54:56 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 29, 2012, 09:04:54 am

But this has been a thing for a long time. People have been abusing adopted kids since even before the government paid them too.

So true. Main reason for running an orphanage in the 18-/19th century? Not charity, those brats make excellent unpaid labour.

Quote from: Gantolandon on September 29, 2012, 10:34:01 am

Orphanages usually do everything they can to get rid of the children under their care

There used to be a horrible practice in Sweden (I would specify rural, but that's like all of it ;) ) where orphans were auctioned as farmhands/maids to the lowest bidder. Ended in the 40's-60's sometime.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 29, 2012, 10:59:48 am

Quote from: scriver on September 29, 2012, 10:54:56 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on September 29, 2012, 09:04:54 am

But this has been a thing for a long time. People have been abusing adopted kids since even before the government paid them too.

So true. Main reason for running an orphanage in the 18-/19th century? Not charity, those brats make excellent unpaid labour.

That was the main reason for having children at all before around 1940 or so. Still is in some places.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 29, 2012, 11:06:43 am

No. Children helping out and working to support the household or just because they lived in a household with lots of work, like a farm, is not the same.

And no, that wasn't the main reason people had kids back then. The main reason people had kids was because they liked fucking, and goat bladders make awful condoms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 29, 2012, 11:10:13 am

I don't see any meaningful difference between fostered child labor and blood child labor.

While I agree that people had lots of kids back then because they liked fucking and had no contraception as well, that isn't a motivation to have children.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 29, 2012, 11:43:34 am

You honestly can't see any difference between kids helping out because they have to in order to get by (and because the only way to learn a trade was apprenticeship) and a man gathering as many children as possible and raising them in Aw cheaply as possible in order to turn a personal profit?

And I don't see why "motivations" would even matter, as sex has kids as a direct consequence of them. Still, the main "motivation" would still be that were kind of wired to want kids. That desire (and the resulting social pressure) for children is in itself a lot more "motivational" rather than such trappings as "six-seven years from now this kid might be able to start making life less hard for us" (or even further away "when we're old and grey they can care for us"). Those are just benefits.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on September 29, 2012, 11:43:50 am

You honestly can't see any difference between kids helping out because they have to in order to get by (and because the only way to learn a trade was apprenticeship) and a man gathering as many children as possible and raising them in Aw cheaply as possible in order to turn a personal profit?

And I don't see why "motivations" would even matter, as sex has kids as a direct consequence of them. Still, the main "motivation" would still be that were kind of wired to want kids. That desire (and the resulting social pressure) for children is in itself a lot more "motivational" rather than such trappings as "six-seven years from now this kid might be able to start making life less hard for us" (or even further away "when we're old and grey they can care for us"). Those are just benefits.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on September 29, 2012, 11:56:48 am

Quote from: scriver on September 29, 2012, 11:06:43 am

No. Children helping out and working to support the household or just because they lived in a household with lots of work, like a farm, is not the same.

And no, that wasn't the main reason people had kids back then. The main reason people had kids was because they liked fucking, and goat bladders make awful condoms.

Yeah, not really. At least insofar as everything I've seen regarding marriage and suchlike in most historical societies goes. Marriage, procreation, family creation... they were all a lot more practical, if you will, for most of human history. People didn't have kids because fucking is fun (though it is), they had kids so they'd have farmhands and things to barter to other families for dowries and suchlike. Partner choice was more about family connections and fecundity than anything else. Romance and reasons beyond what were essentially economic hasn't really been a big concern insofar as that sort of thing goes until very, very recently (in a relative sense). You had kids because you needed kids to tend the land (/send off to work/etc.) and keep the family going, and you wanted as many as you could get because that was how you made sure those two things happened.

Net hiccup made response come after, but... I think it still applies. Most of our history it was more or less the other way around -- sex being fun was the benefit. It was the kids you were after.

Quote from: scriver on September 29, 2012, 11:43:50 am

You honestly can't see any difference between kids helping out because they have to in order to get by (and because the only way to learn a trade was apprenticeship) and a man gathering as many children as possible and raising them in Aw cheaply as possible in order to turn a personal profit?

Yeah, there's a difference there, but it's divorced from the historical context MSH was talking about. It's only been recently that kids were anything but a net profit, so that latter bit was pretty close to the de facto state of things. The primary reason they tended to stick to blood kin instead of orphans was due to concerns related to marriage and marriage equivalents, so far as I understand it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Pnx on September 29, 2012, 12:28:22 pm

Quote from: RedKing on September 28, 2012, 03:18:23 pm

Spoiler: Macroeconomics. In ragecomic form. (click to show/hide)

(http://us5.memecdn.com/economics_o_202762.jpg)

You know, I do find myself wondering if one day people are going to look at internet ragecomics the same way we look at Punch political cartoons.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on September 29, 2012, 12:38:53 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 29, 2012, 12:52:07 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on September 29, 2012, 12:38:53 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

"What does Barrack Obama look like?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 29, 2012, 12:57:26 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on September 29, 2012, 12:38:53 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

I couldn't help but laugh at it xD
But yeah, just a little heavy on the propaganda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on September 29, 2012, 02:15:22 pm

This sort of stuff just encourages the "democrats and republicans are all the same" people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on September 29, 2012, 09:19:40 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on September 29, 2012, 12:38:53 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

Too bad I lost all respect for him when he said racism was his primary reason for voting for Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 09:55:15 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on September 29, 2012, 02:15:22 pm

This sort of stuff just encourages the "democrats and republicans are all the same" people.

The ad's purpose is the energize a somewhat apathetic base, not sway undecided to the cause on its own.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on September 29, 2012, 09:56:13 pm

So, propaganda. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on September 29, 2012, 09:57:54 pm

Well yeah it is an advert.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 29, 2012, 10:32:45 pm

I did, sadly, lose some respect for Samuel L. Jackson as well over that video.  I'm sure he means well, but it's kind of insulting to my intelligence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on September 29, 2012, 10:53:22 pm

You have to remember though, that ads are targeted at the lowest common denominator, so high brow humour isn't really common.

That, and it's expressly targeting lazy people who don't care; Samuel L Jackson doing what he does best, or one more bland "For the future of your country..." spiel overlaid over a waving flag? It's trying to do something novel at least (well, sort of novel, there was that Chuck Norris ad last election iirc).

Finally, as cheesy as it is, it's also a shout out to Go the Fuck to Sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_the_Fuck_to_Sleep), the audiobook of which was narrated by the man Jackson himself.

So yeah, it's pretty crude up front, but there's a bit of thought underlying it all. Not much, but more than many political ads.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on September 29, 2012, 10:54:22 pm

I should kick all of you out of my thread for taking Samuel L Jackson seriously.

Respect yo.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on September 29, 2012, 11:07:37 pm

Yeah, I understand everything about the video, and bits of it are funny.  It's the implied "Your reasons for not voting for or being excited about voting for Obama are stupid" that bothers me.  Like we really don't know how insane the republican party is, and that's why we're not motivated.  Right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on September 30, 2012, 08:06:05 am

It also talks up Obama to the nth degree. "Do the right thing - vote Obama". It should be "vote for the guy who's actually competent".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on September 30, 2012, 04:10:41 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on September 30, 2012, 08:06:05 am

It also talks up Obama to the nth degree. "Do the right thing - vote Obama". It should be "vote for the guy who's actually competent".

And that's different from every other advertising campaign ever...how exactly? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 01, 2012, 11:12:49 am

I'm really surprised people are putting this much thought into the presidential campaign still. The big deal is the congress. Anyone who's played Liberal Crime Squad should know that the president will only matter once you've got an Elite Liberal congress to put bills on his desk... and, I suppose, for when you're looking to replace the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 01, 2012, 11:27:34 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 01, 2012, 11:12:49 am

I'm really surprised people are putting this much thought into the presidential campaign still. The big deal is the congress. Anyone who's played Liberal Crime Squad should know that the president will only matter once you've got an Elite Liberal congress to put bills on his desk... and, I suppose, for when you're looking to replace the Supreme Court.

The supreme court matters. Scalia is approaching death/retirement. If they can replace Scalia with anyone more likely to vote in the spirit of the constitution instead of the absolute party line policy that Scalia does, the US will be in a far better place in terms of liberty for a long time to come.

And besides that, I have been putting a little bit of congressional info out here.

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/senate12.php

Looks like nothing is changing in the senate.

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php

And not enough is changing in the house to make a difference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2012, 11:43:26 am

Thomas is more of a party line Justice than Scalia by far. Scalia has issued pro-liberty rulings in the past, it just has to be something you can demonstrate through the literal text of the Constitution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 01, 2012, 11:59:13 am

Yeah, the presidency is very important, because its looking like the winner will replace at least justice, with a chance at replacing another (since Scalia would rather die then retire and get replaced by a democrat).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2012, 12:03:54 pm

While I'm sure Scalia would indeed rather die, he may not have a choice on that point. He's 78 and pretty severely overweight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 01, 2012, 12:12:49 pm

Yeah, I give it 50/50 (because that's a nice round number) that he will make it to 2016. He is pretty fat and isn't really in good health, but medical technology these days can do quite a lot to prolong life, especially if you are rich and are willing to whatever you can for just another few years.

Will be nice to have a liberal court again though by which I mean they won't pass something like citizens united.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 01, 2012, 12:32:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2012, 11:43:26 am

Thomas is more of a party line Justice than Scalia by far. Scalia has issued pro-liberty rulings in the past, it just has to be something you can demonstrate through the literal text of the Constitution.

I'd say this is both true and false depending on what you mean by 'party line'.

Thomas is, as far as I can tell, the more consistent with regards to his constitutional interpretation. He is a harder line originalist and textualist than Scalia by far, and so ends up to Scalia's right on occasion.

However, Scalia is more of a partisan ideological individual. He is far more likely to take a position inconsistent with his stated beliefs regarding the constitution and interpretation when it allows him to take a position in line with his political beliefs. Thomas is not perfect in this area but he is nowhere near as blatant about it as Scalia is.

I have far more problems with Scalia. Not only is his partisan ideology more dangerous than Thomas' (admittedly absurd) originalism alone, his conduct is rapidly making the Court itself look like a joke. The only justice I know who is similarly outspoken is Breyer (who I have seen speak) and he comes across as more of a grandfatherly professor. Scalia comes across as Bill O'Riley. And this is becoming more pronounced in the last few years.

A good example of this; Scalia and Breyer debating their views of the constitution (http://fora.tv/2006/12/05/Justices_Stephen_Breyer_and_Antonin_Scalia) back in 2007. These are the two great bomb throwers and ideologues of the court, who filled such a role even then. Yet the debate is reasonable, both make strong cases and good points and it's a really good watch. Then you have Scalia's absurd behaviour this latest term, with open attacks on the president in his opinions and his interviews being hardline partisan in nature.


It's worth noting that Alito, who is being tipped to fill Scalia's role as the right wing anchor from this term onwards, is pretty much Scalia without the pretence of originalism. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, but at least it gives us some good lines; (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/as-scalia-falters-will-alito-fill-the-void-on-the-right/263049/)

Quote

During argument in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (the "violent video games" case), Alito interrupted a Scalia question to say, "I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games. Did he enjoy them?"

On the health question, Scalia doesn't seem a likely candidate for Obama to replace. Everything I've seen suggests he is in good health for a man of his age (weight isn't really a good indicator by the by). I wouldn't be surprised if he even outlasts whoever comes after Obama, or at least gets a term into their turn. He certainly is going to give it a go, and I honestly don't see him voluntarily stepping down without a strongly conservative president in place to replace him.

On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Ginsburg steps down voluntarily after the midterms, especially if the Republicans look strong then. There is no way she will want to risk being replaced by a Republican and her health problems are serious and recurring. I think she could probably last out five or six years, but the risk of having to stretch to another eight or even twelve is too much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 01, 2012, 06:32:38 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 01, 2012, 12:32:49 pm

"I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games. Did he enjoy them?"

Ah, the subject of the much debated Federalist Paper number 86.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 01, 2012, 07:53:53 pm

I watched Fox News and I liked it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM66-SxHDu0&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1)

Paul Ryan is asked to discuss the slightest bit of factual detail about Romney's tax policies and repeatedly evades this sort of "gotcha" journalism.  I've been waiting for some media outlet to demand details for a long time and am downright amazed that it was Fox that delivered.  After spending two minutes avoiding answering the question "how much would the tax cuts cost without the base broadening", he says he doesn't have time to answer...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 02, 2012, 01:51:11 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 01, 2012, 07:53:53 pm

I watched Fox News and I liked it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM66-SxHDu0&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1)

Paul Ryan is asked to discuss the slightest bit of factual detail about Romney's tax policies and repeatedly evades this sort of "gotcha" journalism.  I've been waiting for some media outlet to demand details for a long time and am downright amazed that it was Fox that delivered.  After spending two minutes avoiding answering the question "how much would the tax cuts cost without the base broadening", he says he doesn't have time to answer...

Welp, that's it. World's ending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 02, 2012, 01:55:48 pm

Honestly, Fox has been getting better, I think.

They're still holy-fuck-what-is-this batshit Conservative-Bias-Out-The-Ass insane, but with Shep Smith, and the few moments of actual reporting lately... They're not the projection of the Dark Lord Satan into our reality via American television that they used to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 02, 2012, 02:01:29 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 01, 2012, 06:32:38 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 01, 2012, 12:32:49 pm

"I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games. Did he enjoy them?"

Ah, the subject of the much debated Federalist Paper number 86.

Wherein much discussion was had on the merits of Call of Duty's emphasis on the rugged individual, as opposed to Medal of Honor's glorification of the squad as the basic unit of effective organization and the bond of man to his brethren. Which gave us the immortal line from Jefferson, "Verily, this manure is wack. All of you are but newcomers to my scythe. Tremble in fear of my elite sniping abilities, dogs."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 02, 2012, 02:24:16 pm

So guys, there's a debate tomorrow! :D

Anyone else going to watch this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 02, 2012, 02:29:20 pm

I don't know. I think I'd feel a little guilty about watching a grown millionaire get verbally bitch slapped. It's pretty damn funny that the last week both sides have done nothing but talk up the opponent's debating skills....in what reality is Romney even a half competent debater? He can't even talk alone on stage without sabotaging himself.

He's going to get destroyed, me thinks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 02, 2012, 02:29:49 pm

I'll happily read the transcript once it's over ;)

But as a rule I just don't watch politicians speak publicly, if I can avoid it. I'd rather have it in writing :P

Still, starting at 9 EST... hrm. Maybe. Doubtful, but maybe. Someone's stream of it, anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 02, 2012, 02:40:33 pm

I only have one TV, so I can't afford to throw a boot through it. I'll read the transcript and catch the juiciest bits on YouTube later, I'm sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 02, 2012, 03:03:19 pm

Quote from: Descan on October 02, 2012, 01:55:48 pm

Honestly, Fox has been getting better, I think.

They're still holy-fuck-what-is-this batshit Conservative-Bias-Out-The-Ass insane, but with Shep Smith, and the few moments of actual reporting lately... They're not the projection of the Dark Lord Satan into our reality via American television that they used to be.

I guess Murdoch is going senile and forgot his agenda for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 02, 2012, 03:15:35 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 02, 2012, 03:03:19 pm

Quote from: Descan on October 02, 2012, 01:55:48 pm

Honestly, Fox has been getting better, I think.

They're still holy-fuck-what-is-this batshit Conservative-Bias-Out-The-Ass insane, but with Shep Smith, and the few moments of actual reporting lately... They're not the projection of the Dark Lord Satan into our reality via American television that they used to be.

I guess Murdoch is going senile and forgot his agenda for a while.

More like he's no longer in charge of day-to-day operations. Too busy trying to not go to jail.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 02, 2012, 03:37:24 pm

There's also the fact that they're in this for the money. They're not necessarily going to tie their fates to a sinking ship, if they can see the water rising.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 02, 2012, 03:39:46 pm

I don't get the comedy channel, so this might suffice... >.>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 02, 2012, 03:46:29 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 02, 2012, 03:39:46 pm

I don't get the comedy channel, so this might suffice... >.>

BOOM!

I might watch it. Will it be on CNN?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 02, 2012, 03:49:30 pm

An older quote from Todd Akin, recently come to light: abortion clinics are performing abortions on women who are not actually pregnant. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/02/todd_akin_videos_cspan_clips_reveal_the_missouri_candiate_s_paranoia_about_abortion_and_stem_cell_research_.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 02, 2012, 04:01:48 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 01, 2012, 11:12:49 am

I'm really surprised people are putting this much thought into the presidential campaign still. The big deal is the congress. Anyone who's played Liberal Crime Squad should know that the president will only matter once you've got an Elite Liberal congress to put bills on his desk... and, I suppose, for when you're looking to replace the Supreme Court.

Who wins the presidential race isn't as important as the margin of victory, especially since that same margin is likely to be reflected in House elections. A narrow victory puts a huge brake on the winner's agenda (because so much of the country clearly rejects it, Congress is going to step a lot lighter), while a larger one encourages it. A landslide outcome, especially in a race where so much investment has been poured into the campaign of one side, can leave a permanent mark on the body politic, or even collapse a party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 02, 2012, 06:41:09 pm

Quote from: nenjin on October 02, 2012, 02:29:20 pm

He's going to get destroyed, me thinks.

I doubt it.  Romney's screw ups happen when people push him, demand the details behind the platitudes.  The debate will not offer a venue for that to happen.  Romney just has to spend 90 minutes repeating conservative stock answers (taxes!  national debt! defense spending cuts!) and he will avoid any moments of weakness.

What works in Obama's favor is that lately Romney has had really really bad optics.  Obama will probably manage to make some pretty effective ad hominem attacks without making them look like ad hominem attacks.

I expect this debate will be quite boring.  Of course Romney's campaign probably thinks he needs to win big in order to turn the race around so maybe Romney will swing for the fences?  But I have trouble seeing exactly how he would plan to shake this debate up.  Obama is in more of a position to shake this debate up but I doubt he will want to do that tomorrow.  Tomorrow a narrow defeat for Obama is a tactical loss but a strategic win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 02, 2012, 06:44:34 pm

I think he's doomed. He'll probably make some horrible gaffe about how everyone but the rich are freeloading parasites while we simultaneously get shocking video evidence that Paul Ryan Is Completely Heterosexual.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 02, 2012, 08:20:25 pm

Quote

I doubt it.  Romney's screw ups happen when people push him, demand the details behind the platitudes.  The debate will not offer a venue for that to happen.  Romney just has to spend 90 minutes repeating conservative stock answers (taxes!  national debt! defense spending cuts!) and he will avoid any moments of weakness.

We been watching the same gaffs? I've seen him choke when he tries to wing it, when he tries to say something relaxed and casual or folksy. And this is while he's just stumping.

Yes, the parties always have talking points but he's not, despite popular opinion, a robot. He's going to have to be flexible and to me that's something he's never been good at, being verbally agile. He has a problem with appearing awkward while speaking and that's something Obama, like you said, can go after without making it an outright attack. Or he'll make Romney look that much worse just by comparison, because he has composure and shows grace under fire (for the most part). I think Romney only demonstrates that when he's in control of the setting, or in control of the people he's talking at.

So yeah. I predict a lot of awkwardness from Romney that's going to just hang out there. It's the kind of thing Obama doesn't even have to attack, he just needs to stand back and watch Romney continue to get more agitated by himself. The debates aren't really about the issues, as we know as Americans. It's a televised personality contest and I feel like that's one place, barring everything else, that Romney has consistently under-delivered.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 02, 2012, 08:27:30 pm

I prefer my candidates to be able to pass a Turing test.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 02, 2012, 08:27:39 pm

Plus, Obama is kind of famous for being a good orator.

It's like filet Mignon vs road kill. >_>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 02, 2012, 09:53:54 pm

A good orator does not mean he will do well in the very structured, very abnormal format of these debates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 03, 2012, 01:43:53 am

If only Romney were actually involved in this video. (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody)  It might have helped him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 03, 2012, 01:53:04 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on October 02, 2012, 03:49:30 pm

An older quote from Todd Akin, recently come to light: abortion clinics are performing abortions on women who are not actually pregnant. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/02/todd_akin_videos_cspan_clips_reveal_the_missouri_candiate_s_paranoia_about_abortion_and_stem_cell_research_.html)

*insert jackie-chan-wtf.gif*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 07:15:27 pm

I believe the presidential debate is in 45 minutes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 03, 2012, 07:48:21 pm

First ever post from my new smartphone.  Damn I am a wordy sumbitch on this tiny screen.

Now watch the goddamn debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 07:53:58 pm

I got a text at 8:45 saying that Romney had won the debate from RomneyWins70ObamaLosses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 07:54:20 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 03, 2012, 07:48:21 pm

First ever post from my new smartphone.  Damn I am a wordy sumbitch on this tiny screen.

It has happened Aqizzar. You have become the Hipsterman.

Quote

Now watch the goddamn debate.

MAKE ME

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 07:54:56 pm

It's the bad grammar that really sells it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 03, 2012, 07:58:25 pm

Commentator just said he's pretty sure Romney is gonna take it. Let's see :P

Admittedly he has a very... broad view of "victory".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 03, 2012, 08:00:35 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 07:54:20 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 03, 2012, 07:48:21 pm

First ever post from my new smartphone.  Damn I am a wordy sumbitch on this tiny screen.

It has happened Aqizzar. You have become the Hipsterman.

I am rocking this aloof disaffection like no whiteboy ever hath been disaffected before.  Somebody remind me why I ever signed up for an interest that mandates social interaction, I'm too meta for this shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 08:02:31 pm

I'm thinking the odds are about 30% that someone hijacks the "Debate Dial".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:11:37 pm

I made my own drinking game. Whenever I laugh, I take a sip of wine. Whenever I'm speechless, I take a shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 08:12:17 pm

Oh shit is about to get real.  Romney's tax cut specifics coming up.

Well, as she said, that was fast.

Oh wait, Romney is digging in on this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:19:36 pm

Oh man, Romney interrupted the moderator. That's a sip.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:20:11 pm

Did Romney really just implicitly compare Obama to a lying child? I could swear it sounded like that...

Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:19:36 pm

Oh man, Romney interrupted the moderator. That's a sip.

Also this. I just about spat out my drink.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:22:28 pm

He did it again! Oh man, the moderator is pretty annoyed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 03, 2012, 08:23:58 pm

I'm out of booze. I'm gonna have to go get more. I was unprepared.

btw, I'm following:
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/560757_10151261833404993_1003332351_n.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:26:52 pm

They're both really desperate to get in the last word.

edit: GlyphGryph, were you chugging straight for ten minutes while they were both over time?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 03, 2012, 08:27:23 pm

Yeah, I need a better ruleset. Anyone have recommendations?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:28:50 pm

So I guess now we know that Romney doesn't understand archaically structured debates any more than relating to "normal" people.

"Do you want to ask the President a question about that?"

"Yes."

*Babbles denials for several minutes.*


Drink if anything makes you facepalm?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 03, 2012, 08:30:03 pm

Yeah, this is why I decided to skip watching it.  That, and I've already voted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 08:30:39 pm

Oh man. I really don't think Romney's new test for spending is going to help him on the 6th...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:30:52 pm

Romney: "Obamacare - I use that term in respect -"
Obama: "I like it."

this is too entertaining

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 03, 2012, 08:31:13 pm

That chug until they stop being over time rule probably just killed a few people.

I can already see what clips will be replayed on which channels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 08:32:31 pm

I can't get a stable stream. Guess I'll have to watch it later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 08:32:40 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:28:50 pm

So I guess now we know that Romney doesn't understand archaically structured debates any more than relating to "normal" people.

"Do you want to ask the President a question about that?"

"Yes."

*Babbles denials for several minutes.*


Drink if anything makes you facepalm?

That would drop even me within a few minutes...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 08:33:10 pm

I would be so pissed if I was moderating this shit.  I would have probably walked out, gotten a beer, came back and conspicuously drunk it while waiting for them to stop being overtime.

Romney keeps agreeing with things then changing the subject instead of the other way around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 03, 2012, 08:33:58 pm

Am I the only one who would really, really want to see a drunk moderator?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 08:34:49 pm

I'm far more interested in the entertaining mistakes than what either one actually said. As long as it's a pony show dressed up as a debate, may as well judge em by their stage presence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:35:24 pm

Oh, now we're getting to the point where they let the moderator speak and then outright ignore his questions.

Quote from: Jervill on October 03, 2012, 08:33:58 pm

Am I the only one who would really, really want to see a drunk moderator?

I would sell my soul to drunkly moderate a presidential debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 08:36:08 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:35:24 pm

Oh, now we're getting to the point where they let the moderator speak and then outright ignore his questions.

Quote from: Jervill on October 03, 2012, 08:33:58 pm

Am I the only one who would really, really want to see a drunk moderator?

I would sell my soul to drunkly moderate a presidential debate.

Is that an offer?


Back on topic, this is probably the funniest one I've seen in awhile.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 03, 2012, 08:37:26 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 08:34:49 pm

I'm far more interested in the entertaining mistakes than what either one actually said. As long as it's a pony show dressed up as a debate, may as well judge em by their stage presence.

Well, we all know you (and others among us, including myself) would enjoy a pony show. :P

EDIT:

Quote from: some twitter guy

Jim Lehrer has lost control. He's like a replacement ref.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:37:50 pm

I think so far Romney's got a noticeable advantage in countering Obama's points with "Why haven't you done that already?" He needs to blame Congress more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 08:38:05 pm

My tv signal broke up for some reason and I can't hear the debate anymore.  My mood has considerably improved.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:39:27 pm

It's now the moderator interrupting Romney rather than Romney interrupting the moderator. I took the shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:40:27 pm

I think that Romney got confused on the way there and is convinced that he's supposed to be the moderator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 08:40:50 pm

Obama invokes Ronny before Romney?

*double shot*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:42:16 pm

At this point I've moved from the desk to the bed because I couldn't feel my face any more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: vadia on October 03, 2012, 08:43:36 pm

I think that with some of these election drinking gamed I could get drunk on water.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 08:43:48 pm

"Oh, I was wrong. The President IS proposing something."

You just cannot not make a gaffe, can you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:44:29 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on October 03, 2012, 08:40:50 pm

Obama invokes Ronny before Romney?

*double shot*

I don't know what anything is anymore

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 08:44:57 pm

The more I drink the more this becomes bearable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 08:45:18 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on October 03, 2012, 08:43:48 pm

"Oh, I was wrong. The President IS proposing something."

I'm getting a hilarious image of Obama proposing to Romney on stage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 08:45:33 pm

Brain bleach required now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 08:45:55 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 08:45:18 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on October 03, 2012, 08:43:48 pm

"Oh, I was wrong. The President IS proposing something."

I'm getting a hilarious image of Obama proposing to Romney on stage.

There was Obama's confession of love at the start of the debate.

OBAMA/ROMNEY IS OTP

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 08:46:29 pm

I had to switch from PBS to NBC when my tv screwed up.  It's interesting how on NBC who ever is talking looks evil in the split cam.  PBS used the cross cam and no one looked evil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: armeggedonCounselor on October 03, 2012, 08:47:13 pm

Out of curiosity, has anyone wished Obama and Michelle a happy anniversary yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:47:40 pm

Romney did at the beginning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:48:15 pm

I think Romney did, in a massively insincere way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 03, 2012, 08:48:49 pm

I don't think Romney can actually be sincere about anything, so that's actually quite nice. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:50:40 pm

So I lost a few minutes from my stream glitching a bit. I don't think anything substantive was missed.

edit: Oh god, they both finally realized there are debate topics

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 03, 2012, 08:51:33 pm

My god, the host is letting himself get walked all over. -_-

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 08:52:32 pm

Just once, I want to see a Presidential debate moderator flip out and start yelling at them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:52:44 pm

Wait, the point of the debate isn't to win? It's to define the differences between the two candidates so voters can make informed choices?

That's new to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 08:53:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 08:52:32 pm

Just once, I want to see a Presidential debate moderator flip out and start yelling at them.

Christ, we almost just saw that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:53:20 pm

The moderator just shut Romney down pretty hard.

/me applauds.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:53:53 pm

That was pretty fantastic. My faith in him is renewed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: armeggedonCounselor on October 03, 2012, 08:54:57 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 08:52:32 pm

Just once, I want to see a Presidential debate moderator flip out and start yelling at them.

And then secret service tackles him, a riot breaks out, three people die, and everyone ends up in jail.

Just like a family reunion. But with fewer guns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 08:55:39 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 08:53:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 08:52:32 pm

Just once, I want to see a Presidential debate moderator flip out and start yelling at them.

Christ, we almost just saw that.

What happened? I don't have the download speed to support the stream at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 03, 2012, 08:55:57 pm

Romney: "Before we move on, let's just talk about-"

Host: "Let's not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 03, 2012, 08:56:42 pm

I've seen one lie clear from Romney so far. Yes, there is a tax break for relocating manufacturing overseas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 08:56:52 pm

It was beautiful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 08:57:20 pm

I'm hoping Romney's pro-regulation talk is losing libertarian-leaning conservative votes at a noticeable rate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 09:00:01 pm

Between his stance on social issues and the way he treated His Holiness The Glorious Prophet Ron Ernest Paul Of Pittsburgh, I think its safe to say that most of the libertarians are either going down with Ron Paul or already switched to Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:00:48 pm

Ooooh, Obama just got laughs when he slapped down Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 09:00:59 pm

Interesting to see Obama give the one minute summary of Obamacare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: armeggedonCounselor on October 03, 2012, 09:01:11 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 03, 2012, 09:00:01 pm

Between his stance on social issues and the way he treated His Holiness The Glorious Prophet Ron Ernest Paul Of Pittsburgh, I think its safe to say that most of the libertarians are either going down with Ron Paul or already switched to Obama.

Or Gary Johnson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:03:16 pm

Romney on state healthcare: "We didn't cut Medicare... of course, we don't have Medicare."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 03, 2012, 09:04:16 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 03, 2012, 08:56:42 pm

I've seen one lie clear from Romney so far. Yes, there is a tax break for relocating manufacturing overseas.

The NYT are doing live factchecking.

There have been far more lies than that. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03)

Quick list;

- The $716bn medicare cuts aren't.
- Obama hasn't doubled the deficit.
- Romney has been proposing a $5tn tax cut, which would massively advantage the richest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:05:03 pm

Obama's tie looks really crazy on the low resolution video.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 09:06:34 pm

Oh wow, I hadn't realize they had color coded ties until now.

Romney is really hurting himself by letting Obama wax on about a bunch of program specifics.  He shouldn't be giving Obama that time, a successful challenger needs to make the incumbent be constantly responding to attacks.

Oh God, Romney nearly referred to the Cleveland Clinic as a small business.  So close to ultimate lols.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:07:42 pm

He's been really general as well, at least about the non-lies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:08:23 pm

"Let's focus on something I and the president agree on, like this thing I disagree with the president on."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:11:51 pm

Romney, to the moderator: "No, I've got to respond to that!"

Dude is making himself look incredibly arrogant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:13:13 pm

And now he's talking about how the president needs to be someone who can compromise.

Did Obama accept some crazy dare to not blame Congress for anything? Because I feel like he could legitimately blame Congress and do pretty well here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 09:15:05 pm

Notice how much Romney's complexion is reddening.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:15:50 pm

Oh my god. When Obama started to talk about being Commander in Chief and the federal govt. existing primarily to protect the American people, I had this glorious vision of him slowly turning to Romney and saying, "We shot him in the fucking eye. How many terrorists have you killed, rich-boy?"

In my dream-world, he then turned and walked off the stage without another word.


Speaking of god, ROMNEY JUST PLAYED THE GOD CARD. XD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:17:08 pm

Quote from: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 09:15:05 pm

Notice how much Romney's complexion is reddening.

I do believe Obama has the racial advantage here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 09:17:21 pm

Romney attacking Obama from the Religious Left.

Pinch me, I'm having a nightmare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 09:17:29 pm

Fuck Mitt Romney.  He just claimed that Massachusetts had the best schools.  I can't wait for Gov Martin O'Malley (Maryland) to get on the airwaves and bitchslap him.  We're #1 BITCHES!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:18:04 pm

This is brilliant comedy material.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 03, 2012, 09:18:38 pm

So... "I believe in never cutting military spending"

and... some creator comments and basically the god card...

just... great.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 03, 2012, 09:19:14 pm

On moderators. I'll never understand why they just don't give them microphone privileges.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 03, 2012, 09:19:24 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:13:13 pm

Did Obama accept some crazy dare to not blame Congress for anything? Because I feel like he could legitimately blame Congress and do pretty well here.

Guessing here, he probably doesn't want to look like he's whining about mean ol' Congress getting in the way and focus on the stuff he did get. Beating up on Congress doesn't really get you anywhere at this point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:21:03 pm

Did Romney just try to cut over Obama in the middle of a statement? Again? Someone cut his mic, please.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 09:21:13 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 03, 2012, 09:19:24 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:13:13 pm

Did Obama accept some crazy dare to not blame Congress for anything? Because I feel like he could legitimately blame Congress and do pretty well here.

Guessing here, he probably doesn't want to look like he's whining about mean ol' Congress getting in the way and focus on the stuff he did get. Beating up on Congress doesn't really get you anywhere at this point.

Yeah, it's definitely preaching to the choir.

"I'm not going to cut education funding"?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:23:23 pm

Romney just tried to imply that Obama is rich because of Air Force One. Also apparently 'not cutting education funding' = 'talk about small businesses and healthcare'. I don't have enough face for all this palm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:24:05 pm

Ha, Obama mentioned the "borrow money from your parents" thing. I think that's the closest we'll get to one of them mentioning the other's most controversial recent comments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 09:24:45 pm

Romney just lied about #1 schools in the nation AGAIN.  Christ, what an asshole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 09:25:08 pm

And again!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 09:25:24 pm

A third time!  It's like he's trying to piss off Marylanders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:25:35 pm

Now he's trying to pretend that he's the one crossing the aisle in an attempt to get things done. Again. ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 09:26:46 pm

I'm busting out the alchohol in an attempt to withstand this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on October 03, 2012, 09:27:00 pm

Oh god did romney just attack green energy?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:27:05 pm

Obama made the first comment I've seen get audible laughs. That's a win in my book.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:27:28 pm

BOOM. Obama just played the "We got 'im." card. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 09:28:10 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:27:28 pm

BOOM. Obama just played the "We got 'im." card. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH.

FATALITY.


FLAWLESS VICTORY.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:28:16 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:27:05 pm

Obama made the first comment I've seen get audible laughs. That's a win in my book.

There was also some laughter when he stopped Romney from running over him, with "I've got five more seconds."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 03, 2012, 09:29:06 pm

Well guys, if you're drunk from the debate, you can always take a turn in Drunk Fortress after it's over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 09:30:45 pm

No Ryncol on hand, making do with Bailey's. Certainly not going to have enough to make it though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 03, 2012, 09:31:17 pm

We are getting a veep debate? I thought we weren't! I can't wait.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:32:33 pm

Between an awkward old man and... someone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 03, 2012, 09:37:11 pm

My beer lasted just long enough!  Thank god!  Many brain cells bravely sacrificed themselves that I could survive this.

I think my prediction of a boring debate held.  No real big shakeups.  Do people agree with that assessment?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 03, 2012, 09:37:19 pm

Well, this debate was successful in getting me drunk, if nothing else.

I'll see you guys in 8 days, then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 09:44:48 pm

Father came in and said he thought the debate was very close, with no real winner stomping over the other one.

I just shrugged. I didn't watch it, just read this stuff here, so I wasn't gonna say anything on just hearsay.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 03, 2012, 09:45:56 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 09:44:48 pm

Father came in and said he thought the debate was very close, with no real winner stomping over the other one.

I just shrugged. I didn't watch it, just read this stuff here, so I wasn't gonna say anything on just hearsay.

I haven't watched it yet, either. I'm preparing a large amount of water bottles so I can play the drinking game without alcohol, since I'm a minor and stuff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 09:47:24 pm

Water intoxication isn't as great as it sounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)

Don't kill yourself, dude :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 03, 2012, 09:48:15 pm

Romney kind of made an idiot of himself and Obama really didn't do much, so, nothing has changed, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 03, 2012, 09:51:10 pm

I found that Romney made a good impression on me, though my base opinion of him probably couldn't get any lower. He certainly seemed a lot less awkward than he usually does.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 03, 2012, 09:51:33 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 09:47:24 pm

Water intoxication isn't as great as it sounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)

Don't kill yourself, dude :P

Yeah... I kept up just with "Good Luck to the Barley Mow" via water and felt a lil' ill when it was over. Wouldn't recommend. Maybe very tiny sips or somethin'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 03, 2012, 09:52:24 pm

Honestly? I don't think replacing "awkward" with "asshole" is a good thing to do. Especially when you're spouting lies off left and right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: vadia on October 03, 2012, 09:53:14 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 09:47:24 pm

Water intoxication isn't as great as it sounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)

Don't kill yourself, dude :P

Don't worry I'd get sick from water before I got to when the moderaters start getting annoyed at how long the candidates have taken.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 03, 2012, 10:03:21 pm

Romney did well, both in his performance and in the perception of it in the usual places. He is up in the betting markets and most commentators who actually get listened to suggested he outdid expectations (which is what the media cares about).

At the same time he lied horrifically and repeatedly. He only came across well by misrepresenting both his and Obama's positions, something that could hurt him in future adverts and debates. He also obviously knew he was doing well and so got cocky and aggressive after the first few minutes, feeding the perception of him being arrogant.

You could see this on the Intrade markets. Obama started around $7.20 and dropped to the low/mid $6 range in the first few minutes of the debate before rebounding. By his closing statements he was back up to $7, although he has dropped again now that people are reacting to the post-debate spin.


Obama was obviously tired and didn't seem to be particular polished. Probably distracted by other events and didn't dedicate much time to debate prep. He was in professor mode for the vast majority of the debate and didn't make many (if any) attacks. I think it would have worked better had Romney not been so willing to completely ignore the truth on absolutely every point.


Overall, "win" to Romney and he should see a minor bounce, but with any luck the media and campaign narrative will hammer on his lies stopping any further gains or momentum out of this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 03, 2012, 10:07:58 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 03, 2012, 09:47:24 pm

Water intoxication isn't as great as it sounds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)

Don't kill yourself, dude :P

I did not know that was possible, but now that I read it, it seems obvious.

Sips it is. I only have 3 water bottles, and I'm not planning on refilling them during the debate. Maybe I'll just see how long they last.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 03, 2012, 10:45:55 pm

Hey i was snooping around and found this from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html)

It's a graph of growth of government employment in 4 recessions - under Reagan, Bush Snr, Bush Jnr and Obama. Obama is the only administration of the 4 that saw net reductions in the government sector. The time period is 54 months:

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/gov%20employment%20four%20recessions.png?uuid=uf7gPrP6EeGBuV3_cCjgZg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 12:48:58 am

sTILL DRUMNK, HOW LONTG SINCE DEBSTE OVER?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 04, 2012, 12:49:54 am

I believe it's been over for a while.

You are REALLY drunk.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 12:51:22 am

There were a lot of shakllow rhetorics?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 04, 2012, 12:51:30 am

There actually was no debate, that was all just a drunken hallucination.

We're all drunken hallucinations too, go to bed Pathos.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 12:52:32 am

I want to live in country with good politics?  then no drunk to hide pain.

Qlso got really drunkm and zsaid fuck reomney, maryland  schools better then massattuchets schools  (appreciate irony of too drun k to spell) anbd kep drinking while saying that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 12:53:13 am

SO do I, man, so do I.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 12:54:48 am

Quote from: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 12:53:13 am

SO do I, man, so do I.

We bros, k?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 12:56:30 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 12:54:48 am

Quote from: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 12:53:13 am

SO do I, man, so do I.

We bros, k?

K.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 12:59:33 am

can't repeat what you said because lotsw ocf racists where I live and I never say htat letter three times inm row because fuc k many, gotta be sensative and not hurt others.  Also do experiemnts in my part time and disturbed by how many patients at the medical clinic I work at 3will turn racist if you ask them a question using the words "race" or "hispanic". fuck man trhis sucks and I wish we didmn't have thiis raist shit no more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 04, 2012, 01:01:06 am

This is almost as good as drunk fortress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 01:01:15 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 12:59:33 am

can't repeat what you said because lotsw ocf racists where I live and I never say htat letter three times inm row because fuc k many, gotta be sensative and not hurt others.  Also do experiemnts in my part time and disturbed by how many patients at the medical clinic I work at 3will turn racist if you ask them a question using the words "race" or "hispanic". fuck man trhis sucks and I wish we didmn't have thiis raist shit no more.

/me hugs

Shhhhh. It's okay. I'm here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 04, 2012, 01:02:11 am

Quick maniac, share with us your scathing opinions on feminist social theory before you get any less drunk!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 01:04:03 am

Thanks man, I getm scare sometimes.  Probably gonna sleep now.  Or puke.  ACtually both lies, gonna refresh brosewe for another 15 minutes or so.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 04, 2012, 01:02:11 am

Quick maniac, share with us your scathing opinions on feminist social theory before you get any less drunk!

Eh, my girlfriend can be a bt l;ess then holistic at times but she's only 19 so she'll develop more brtoad views as she gains mre world experience.  she ius strongly feminist and pro-trans btw.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 01:13:25 am

Hush now, you can talk intelligibly in the morning. Get some rest, drink some fluids.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 01:15:16 am

beer and bitterness about public discourse is fluidds??????? also voomit time?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 04, 2012, 01:22:55 am

mainiac wins the debates. He is the presidential debate champion

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 01:24:28 am

No, beer is not a fluid. Not good like water. You want to avoid a hangover, right? You need some non alchoholic fluid in you. So yeah, go vomit, get some rest. Bay12 will still be here.

Bitters are also a form of alchohol, IIRC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 01:27:05 am

Did II sau beer wins debates?  Cuuz it won my heart.

Also no puke and killewd bitch ass misquiteo big win for me.

Quote from: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 01:24:28 am

Bitters are also a form of alchohol, IIRC.

'
I am slways bitter explains lts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 01:30:25 am

Mainiac, no matter how low the standard of american public discourse gets, just remember that you always have us. We will always be here for you, no matter how bitter and cynical you are. Get some rest, because I'm not sure how much pride you will take in drunken rambling come the morning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 01:31:26 am

I take pride in nohing man.  I'm opver educateeed and live with parents.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 04, 2012, 01:31:49 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 04, 2012, 01:22:55 am

mainiac wins the debates. He is the presidential debate champion

Are ya kidding? He's being less coherent than Lord Inquisitor, and that's no easy feat -___-;

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 01:34:41 am

Ok, maybe prde in 1 thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 04, 2012, 01:39:16 am

I will be voting for you come election day. Just so you know. mainiac for prez.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 01:40:59 am

Shit, I got work in the morning.  I really hope nobody tomorrow wants their mdical records to ber accurate cause that shit ain't happening.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 01:42:00 am

^ uib case fireugbers wibder why our healthcare syrstem don't work

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 04, 2012, 03:29:09 am

I woke up  at 2:30 am Belgian time to watch the debate with my dad.Thankfully, we quickly gave up on the drinking game, but still did our usual "Drink a non-responsible amount of wine" which explain why I'm in front of my comp instead of being in my bacteriology class for the last two hours.

I think Romney clearly won. Obama let Romney attack him without holding him accountable for his lies (The 716 billion $ comes to mind). Romney was also  moderate in the debates, basically pooping on his whole tax plan. For people that didn't research the issue beforehand, Romney is clearly the more appealing choice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 06:46:37 am

Dammit, Sheb, you trying to get me drinking again?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 04, 2012, 06:55:26 am

Yes. It was adorawesome. Adorably awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 04, 2012, 07:00:38 am

Quote from: Descan on October 04, 2012, 06:55:26 am

Yes. It was adorawesome. Adorably awesome.

Agreed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 07:58:37 am

Wow...I obviously missed a good time last night.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 08:54:18 am

Quote from: Karlito on October 03, 2012, 09:51:10 pm

I found that Romney made a good impression on me, though my base opinion of him probably couldn't get any lower. He certainly seemed a lot less awkward than he usually does.

You never saw the complete Romney before, only out-takes of his worst moments. Similarly, no one had seen the complete Obama before, only his edited Oscar moments. Now Romney unsurprisingly looks like a capable person (which he was all along) and Obama doesn't look like the epitome of cool (which he wasn't anyway without handlers).

This is what happens when the media are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 08:58:25 am

With everything else going on around me lately, I didn't even watch last night. Not like my vote wasn't decided months ago anyways. Ditto for our governor's race.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 04, 2012, 09:00:50 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 08:54:18 am

This is what happens when the media are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Yes, yes. We've contrived our control over the media in order to brainwash the country. Everything is going exactly as planned, sit and watch helplessly as your countrymen turn on each other and this nation falls into chaos. Your government will not be there, your god will not be there, your neighbor will not be there, you are alone.

*disclaimer: poes law seems to have been getting around the forums recently so... don't take this seriously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 09:08:25 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 04, 2012, 09:00:50 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 08:54:18 am

This is what happens when the media are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Yes, yes. We've contrived our control over the media in order to brainwash the country. Everything is going exactly as planned, sit and watch helplessly as your countrymen turn on each other and this nation falls into chaos. Your government will not be there, your god will not be there, your neighbor will not be there, you are alone.

*disclaimer: poes law seems to have been getting around the forums recently so... don't take this seriously.

Oh, you are *so* getting your Secret Evil Democrat passcard revoked, mister! No more gay Communist orgies for you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 04, 2012, 09:11:16 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 09:08:25 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 04, 2012, 09:00:50 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 08:54:18 am

This is what happens when the media are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Yes, yes. We've contrived our control over the media in order to brainwash the country. Everything is going exactly as planned, sit and watch helplessly as your countrymen turn on each other and this nation falls into chaos. Your government will not be there, your god will not be there, your neighbor will not be there, you are alone.

*disclaimer: poes law seems to have been getting around the forums recently so... don't take this seriously.

Oh, you are *so* getting your Secret Evil Democrat passcard revoked, mister! No more gay Communist orgies for you!

Man, those are the BEST!

On a serious note, the media is more conservative, if not balanced. Sure, CNN is very liberal, but Fox is extremely conservative. Other news stations such as ABC and CBS have a tendency to lean conservative as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 04, 2012, 09:15:34 am

Now then, our Arch-Liberal plans for world domination have finally come to fruition, thanks in no small part to our meat-puppet Murdoch. Excellent.


/me steeples his fingers.


Also: CNN very liberal? Hah.

/mfw people imply that there is any sort of mainstream media on the left to equal Fox's extremism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 04, 2012, 09:16:13 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 09:08:25 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 04, 2012, 09:00:50 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 08:54:18 am

This is what happens when the media are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Yes, yes. We've contrived our control over the media in order to brainwash the country. Everything is going exactly as planned, sit and watch helplessly as your countrymen turn on each other and this nation falls into chaos. Your government will not be there, your god will not be there, your neighbor will not be there, you are alone.

*disclaimer: poes law seems to have been getting around the forums recently so... don't take this seriously.

Oh, you are *so* getting your Secret Evil Democrat passcard revoked, mister! No more gay Communist orgies... on weed for you!

Fixed that for you. Courtesy of Jon Stewarts movie career.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 09:21:17 am

It's no conspiracy, but the media are largely Democrat. Look at known campaign contributions. It's not a secret.

Quote

Even companies whose news outlets are often perceived as having a conservative bias have given significantly more money to Mr. Obama. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for example, has contributed $58,825 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $2,750 to Mr.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/ (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/)

Intentionally or unintentionally, it does affect the coverage. The real proof is watching these two candidates side-by-side.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 04, 2012, 09:25:30 am

It doesn't matter if Mitt performed above expectations if he had to lie half the times he opened his mouth to do it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 04, 2012, 09:31:44 am

Basically every single newspaper in Scotland is against independence, same with our television stations. There are only three newspapers (roughly) that simply don't have an opinion on the matter and are fairly non biased. The effect is that people are constantly confronted with negative reporting and scaremongering, meaning that support for independence has been stunted greatly. The same goes for the results of elections. The point is that it's not as if the end result of an election/referendum depends on media bias, but it certainly affects it quite greatly. Coming from a society like this, I'd be astonished if there was no great media bias in the USA towards either democrat or republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 09:42:22 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 04, 2012, 09:31:44 am

Basically every single newspaper in Scotland is against independence, same with our television stations. There are only three newspapers (roughly) that simply don't have an opinion on the matter and are fairly non biased. The effect is that people are constantly confronted with negative reporting and scaremongering, meaning that support for independence has been stunted greatly. The same goes for the results of elections. The point is that it's not as if the end result of an election/referendum depends on media bias, but it certainly affects it quite greatly. Coming from a society like this, I'd be astonished if there was no great media bias in the USA towards either democrat or republican.

Yeah. Objective media is a sham. It never exists. Everyone has a viewpoint that must surface even in their most honest attempt at neutrality, and reporters with the same viewpoints tend to cluster in the same organizations. Fox is a conservative outfit? Fair point. But ABC and CBS are also conservative? Utterly and demonstrably false.

Quote from: Mego on October 04, 2012, 09:11:16 am

Other news stations such as ABC and CBS have a tendency to lean conservative as well.

ABC has George Stephanopoulous leading the coverage of the debates, actually.

The ex-Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. Pretty amusing that you'd find a card-carrying Democrat, a former shining star of the party in fact, to be a balanced conservative viewpoint. But there he is leading coverage of the debates, ready to start the spin in the right direction for ABC!  :D

As for CBS, they became infamous for Dan Rather's creating a fake document to sway a close election. To the advantage of a Democrat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 09:51:50 am

Right. And the fact that George Will has a regular column in the Washington Post makes them irretrievably conservative.  ::)

The whole "liberal media" thing got old a really, really long time ago. It stinks of a coach spending the whole game accusing the referees of bias, in order to get them to second-guess their calls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 04, 2012, 09:56:08 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 09:51:50 am

Right. And the fact that George Will has a regular column in the Washington Post makes them irretrievably conservative.  ::)

The whole "liberal media" thing got old a really, really long time ago. It stinks of a coach spending the whole game accusing the referees of bias, in order to get them to second-guess their calls.

To be honest, if there's any bias in the American media it's sure as hell not liberal. It might be Democrat but it's not liberal. For one thing, if it was liberal, surely we'd have seen more positive reporting of Obama's more controversial reforms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 04, 2012, 10:10:45 am

Romney mentioned the "shut down PBS" thing from a few months ago. I've had this thing written up for a while, and wanted to share my thoughts on such trivial trimming:

There is a lot of noise in the government that we must eliminate the deficit; this is reasonable, because the US is 37% over budget- that is to say, for every dollar of taxes received, the government pays out $1.37. The proposals include shutting down NPR, cutting school funding, and lowering taxes in keeping with a disproved economic theory.

Allow me to present to you a hypothetical scenario. Let's suppose that we shut down everything. Close NASA; dissolve every public broadcasting group- every NPR station and every PBS studio. Literally sell the big bird costume to a furry shop in NJ. Stop all state and municipal grants, moving a mountain of debt from the feds to the localities, most likely causing many towns to go completely bankrupt.

We shut down each and every school and every single federal law agency. All reconstruction funds to places hit by disasters is ceased.

We close the white house- no, every federally-maintained national monument.

We keep only these things:

Social Security and Medicaid, the two most popular federal programs, the Department of Defense, which may NOT be interfered with, and the few mandatory expenses- things the government is legally obliged to pay out from previous contracts.

Finally, the specific mandatory "cost" which represents the interest in the debt.

With the budget slashed to shreds and virtually nothing left of the government- with every federal building abandoned and every federal employee expected to be working for free on the (unmaintained) streets with whatever office supplies they can scrounge from dumpsters, what do you suppose the deficit would be like? Do you imagine that the debit might be repaid in weeks? In months?

Years?

Paying exclusively for mandatory costs and for Medicaid, Social Security, the DoD, and interest on the debt, the government would still be 23% over budget. Instead of paying out $1.37 for each dollar received, they will be paying $1.23.

The truth is, Medicaid, Social Security, and the DoD are at once untouchable and the source of the entire problem.

The next time that someone tries to sell you some falsehood about how saving an impressive amount by shutting down some essential or valuable service, remember that they might as well suggest you bail a sinking ship with a thimble.

There is no attractive solution to this. The most basic conceivable one would be to increase tax receipts by 500 billion dollars and cut all spending by 1/6th- every welfare or social security check is only 5/6ths of what it currently is, and one in six soldiers is fired. One in six aircraft  carriers is sold or scrapped. One in six teachers put on the unemployment line. One in six Muppets stuffed. Capricious? Yes. Fair? Perhaps the closest thing I can think of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 10:14:35 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 04, 2012, 09:51:50 am

Right. And the fact that George Will has a regular column in the Washington Post makes them irretrievably conservative.  ::)

The whole "liberal media" thing got old a really, really long time ago. It stinks of a coach spending the whole game accusing the referees of bias, in order to get them to second-guess their calls.

Don't kill the messenger, dude. But when they're set side-by-side, Romney is not the gaffe-machine that selectively chosen moments promulgated by the media seem to imply; and Obama is not the cool unflappable charismatic presence that selective clips and sound-bytes make him seem. How you get from media image A to stage reality B is your business.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 04, 2012, 10:19:32 am

Doesnt matter how much you polish a turd - its still a turd. Romney last night was just a shiny turd.

The BBC coverage here in the UK is waiting for any poll movement before making much in the way of sweeping comment. Seeing as by law they are not allowed to have any kind of political lean, I trust thier view that Romney did a better job on the debate based on presentation alone, but a lot of what he said was not 100% true. Obama rambled a bit, and in the BBC's opinion seemed to be basically describing his experiences as president. The point they made was to wait for the next round of polling - if Romney doesnt gain signifigant popularity in what could be seen as a "debate win" it might be very much a lost cause.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 04, 2012, 10:24:05 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 04, 2012, 09:21:17 am

It's no conspiracy, but the media are largely Democrat. Look at known campaign contributions. It's not a secret.

Quote

Even companies whose news outlets are often perceived as having a conservative bias have given significantly more money to Mr. Obama. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for example, has contributed $58,825 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $2,750 to Mr.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/ (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/)

Intentionally or unintentionally, it does affect the coverage. The real proof is watching these two candidates side-by-side.

That's because donating money to Mitt Romney is like throwing your money into a black hole.  You want to support the winning side so that they may repay the favour.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 04, 2012, 10:32:45 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 04, 2012, 10:19:32 am

Doesnt matter how much you polish a turd - its still a turd. Romney last night was just a shiny turd.

The BBC coverage here in the UK is waiting for any poll movement before making much in the way of sweeping comment. Seeing as by law they are not allowed to have any kind of political lean, I trust thier view that Romney did a better job on the debate based on presentation alone, but a lot of what he said was not 100% true. Obama rambled a bit, and in the BBC's opinion seemed to be basically describing his experiences as president. The point they made was to wait for the next round of polling - if Romney doesnt gain signifigant popularity in what could be seen as a "debate win" it might be very much a lost cause.

They're not allowed to have any kind of political lean, but that doesn't stop them using pretty biased language with respect to the independence debate. They've since been pulled up for it and had to buckle up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: genmac on October 04, 2012, 01:02:38 pm

frowny-maddow.jpg is the best result of the debates last night.  And of course Chris Matthews is basically weeping and ranting:

(http://i.imgur.com/piKV7.jpg)

I'd almost feel sorry for her if I didn't know she collected a $2 million dollar salary to mostly tweet  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 04, 2012, 01:05:00 pm

The guys on today's early morning radio show thought Romney was pretty hopeless. And that was the CBC so clearly they know what up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 04, 2012, 02:17:49 pm

The CBC said Romney was hopeless? Huh. I thought they would be less left-leaning in this.

Hey maniac, how are you feeling?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 04, 2012, 02:25:32 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 04, 2012, 02:17:49 pm

The CBC said Romney was hopeless? Huh. I thought they would be less left-leaning in this.

Hey maniac, how are you feeling?

CBC isn't remotely unbiased. There's a reason Harper keeps trying to crack down on it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on October 04, 2012, 02:41:44 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 04, 2012, 02:25:32 pm

CBC isn't remotely unbiased. There's a reason Harper keeps trying to crack down on it.

You're confusing who fired the first shots in that particular exchange.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 04, 2012, 04:11:53 pm

Last I heard they'd always been biased, but my sources on their historical bias are biased themselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 04:53:27 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 04, 2012, 02:17:49 pm

Hey maniac, how are you feeling?

Hangover wasn't too bad.

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 04, 2012, 10:24:05 am

It's no conspiracy, but the media are largely Democrat. Look at known campaign contributions. It's not a secret.

Where was the liberal media when Bush was repeatedly caught lying before the Iraq war?  Media outside the US conveyed the flimsy nature of his case for war pretty easily, so why did our "liberal" media fall down on the job so bad?  Where was the liberal media when Bush sold the most fraudulent tax plan in history (until Romney) and it was Al Gore who got labeled as having a problem with the truth because of a statement he never said ("I invented the internet").  Where was the liberal media when the birther movement started?

Maybe members of the media sympathize with democratic ideas, that's hardly a surprise when you consider they consist of affluent, well educated people living in liberal cities and having a lot of contact with minorities, gays, etc.  But the liberal media has a great track record of legitimizing fringe conservative ideas and of discrediting very sound liberal ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 04, 2012, 04:59:18 pm

And now the post-debate counter attacks start. Obama made a speech here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139998/-Obama-When-I-got-on-the-stage-I-met-this-very-spirited-fellow-who-claimed-to-be-Mitt-Romney) (yeah it's Daily Kos, but it's just a speech transcript) where he seems to be framing Mitt's stuff last night as more flip-flopping.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 05:01:53 pm

He has to say flip flopping because lies don't matter anymore in American politics.  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 04, 2012, 06:19:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 04, 2012, 04:53:27 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 04, 2012, 10:24:05 am

It's no conspiracy, but the media are largely Democrat. Look at known campaign contributions. It's not a secret.

You fool, you'll make me transition into bizarro-Leafsnail if you do that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 04, 2012, 06:44:13 pm

Guess Romney did better than I thought he would? I didn't watch the debates.

Maybe it's easier to appear confident and knowledgeable and witty when you don't have cognitive dissonance between truth and falsehood jabbing you in the brain constantly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 04, 2012, 07:04:11 pm

Quote from: nenjin on October 04, 2012, 06:44:13 pm

Guess Romney did better than I thought he would? I didn't watch the debates.

Maybe it's easier to appear confident and knowledgeable and witty when you don't have cognitive dissonance between truth and falsehood jabbing you in the brain constantly.

It's much easier when a great deal of the media will crib for you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on October 05, 2012, 02:12:22 am

The media today are biased towards entities that support them - which means mostly advertisers. This means that they are generally pro-business, but also try to be attractive enough to their readers with substantial purchasing power. In case of most media, this means catering to middle and upper middle class mostly.

Usually, they like to appear rational and balanced, so they avoid taking sides too openly and proceed to bash "extremists", either from the left and the right. So, naturally, you can find examples of both conservative and liberal bias if you wish to find them. But usually it's best to look where the money is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 10:29:09 am

An old parody ad that is still pretty funny.

Democrats For Romney. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PiCqxKLIVDY)


One poll number that has been overlooked due to the debate;
Gallup put the presidents approval ratings at 54/42 approve/disapprove. (http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm) That's not been seen since late 2009. This was before the debate and all adults rather than likely voters, but that's still impressive numbers going into the endgame.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 05, 2012, 02:32:18 pm

There is "left wing media" and there is "right wing media", but they both fall within a fairly "moderate" subset. Both will happily crow about the virtues of war, certain regulations, etc so as to keep the debate to certain issues and to marginalize those who go outside the designated "election issues".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 05, 2012, 02:53:33 pm

Mm, I'd say there's quite a few "news" outlets that aren't remotely moderate. I have to listen to conservative talk radio all day at work. I don't think someone who starts their show with "let's point out all the ways the LIBERAL MEDIA is demonizing Romney" to be remotely unbiased.

Talk shows in general suck, imo. The hosts are entertainers, masters of word twisting to tell the audience what they want to hear, rather than the truth. Only a couple NPR talk shows have I ever not wanted to vomit after listening to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 05, 2012, 03:06:40 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 05, 2012, 02:53:33 pm

Mm, I'd say there's quite a few "news" outlets that aren't remotely moderate. I have to listen to conservative talk radio all day at work. I don't think someone who starts their show with "let's point out all the ways the LIBERAL MEDIA is demonizing Romney" to be remotely unbiased.

Talk shows in general suck, imo. The hosts are entertainers, masters of word twisting to tell the audience what they want to hear, rather than the truth. Only a couple NPR talk shows have I ever not wanted to vomit after listening to.

Yeah, flipping around through the AM circuits and hitting the various right-wing talk shows is an adventure composed of equal parts WTF? :P, WTF? ::) and WTF? >:(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 05, 2012, 03:50:02 pm

Everyone who isn't RON PAUL is a dirty moderate.

RON PAUL

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 05, 2012, 03:52:57 pm

No dude, Gary Johnson is the new thing right now.

GARYYY

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 05, 2012, 03:54:27 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 05, 2012, 03:52:57 pm

No dude, Gary Johnson is the new thing right now.

GARYYY

I used to look at Mitt Romney and say "he's the guy who you just know isn't going to win this. He just can't." Now when I look at Gary Johnson it's even worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 05, 2012, 03:57:04 pm

I'm pretty sure Gary Johnson supporters get preachy at Ron Paul supporters. They're like the next evolution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 05, 2012, 04:01:01 pm

[mode=trollolol]
http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/maine-republicans-attack-rival-playing-world-warcraft-201446958.html

Maine Republicans attacking candidate Colleen Lachawicz based on the Orcish ethnicity of her world of warcraft character.

http://news.yahoo.com/tv-networks-ap-already-called-19-states-101804164.html

"liberal media" conspire to give Mitt Romney an initial advantage of 138 to 19 electoral votes by not performing exit polls on 19 primarily republican states.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teacher-ridicules-student-romney-t-155305823.html

Student to young to vote compared to the KKK for wearing a pink Romney/Ryan 2012 shirt to school. I don't know which one to call a pinko commie.
[/mode]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110106.html

Unemployment dips below 8%, recall that this is the critical unemployment level below which sitting presidents rarely if ever get reelected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on October 05, 2012, 04:11:32 pm

Except for his views on welfare, I actually agree with most of what he's saying. His welfare opinions are the real deal breaker for me.

Why yes, I did consider him as a serious candidate.

Quote from: Nadaka on October 05, 2012, 04:01:01 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/tv-networks-ap-already-called-19-states-101804164.html

"liberal media" conspire to give Mitt Romney an initial advantage of 138 to 19 electoral votes by not performing exit polls on 19 primarily republican states.

I actually would not have found that too objectionable, if they had also decided to skip California, Massachusetts, New York, or  Vermont. But the only blue states pre-called are DC, Rhode Island, and Delaware.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 05, 2012, 06:10:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 05, 2012, 04:01:01 pm

[mode=trollolol]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teacher-ridicules-student-romney-t-155305823.html

Student to young to vote compared to the KKK for wearing a pink Romney/Ryan 2012 shirt to school. I don't know which one to call a pinko commie.
[/mode]

Good, she should be ridiculed for agreeing with/supporting a person she doesn't know shit about, and getting defensive about it. And on the other hand; she doesn't deserve to vote in her life if she truly agrees that the government should be telling her what she can and cannot do with her vagina. I doubt she's educated on any issue, though, so I'd ridicule her worse than the teacher. Sorry. Don't wear a banner for someone who's got policies that are directly contrary to the beliefs and wants of America and you won't get stupid people like her teacher saying such things to her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 05, 2012, 06:28:01 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 05, 2012, 04:01:01 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/tv-networks-ap-already-called-19-states-101804164.html

"liberal media" conspire to give Mitt Romney an initial advantage of 138 to 19 electoral votes by not performing exit polls on 19 primarily republican states.

This is incredibly weird from my perspective.

I'm an American citizen whose family is from Kentucky, giving me the right to vote in that state (federal races only). I'm also a British citizen and resident who is very used to British electoral law and policy.

In the UK it's fully criminal to release any forecast of an election based on exit polling (or similar information) before the polls have closed. At the same time exit polls themselves are hugely valued by all parties (and Parties) for the demographic and related information they provide and have been frighteningly accurate recently, even in shock election results.

In the US they have now called the state I'm to vote in before I've even received my postal ballot, and the media have abandoned the idea of tracking such valuable demographic information.

I fully expect this to change at least partially (with internal party exits improved and/or shared, or another group funding a pooled media exit poll) before the election, but right now the contrast is... interesting.


EDIT: Whoop, we've got a live one here. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolution-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php)

Quote

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tore into scientists as tools of the devil in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet last month.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Not that this will make any difference to his electoral chances. I don't actually see any sign that there is anyone running against him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 05, 2012, 07:38:22 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 05, 2012, 06:10:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 05, 2012, 04:01:01 pm

[mode=trollolol]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teacher-ridicules-student-romney-t-155305823.html

Student to young to vote compared to the KKK for wearing a pink Romney/Ryan 2012 shirt to school. I don't know which one to call a pinko commie.
[/mode]

Good, she should be ridiculed for agreeing with/supporting a person she doesn't know shit about, and getting defensive about it. And on the other hand; she doesn't deserve to vote in her life if she truly agrees that the government should be telling her what she can and cannot do with her vagina. I doubt she's educated on any issue, though, so I'd ridicule her worse than the teacher. Sorry. Don't wear a banner for someone who's got policies that are directly contrary to the beliefs and wants of America and you won't get stupid people like her teacher saying such things to her.

Come on, that's a bit harsh, and you're being melodramatic. Nobody deserves ridicule for politics or whatever, nor does that kid deserve having the right to vote taken away from her just because she's making the wrong choice. Her choices are her choices, and part of democracy is the right to make the wrong choice - otherwise you can just set up a dictatorship.

If we treat one another with respect then things won't get as ugly as they sometimes do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 05, 2012, 07:53:16 pm

I don't get the whole "you're an idiot for voting against your own interests" argument. If something is right, it shouldn't really matter whether it hurts or helps you personally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 05, 2012, 08:09:00 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 05, 2012, 06:10:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 05, 2012, 04:01:01 pm

[mode=trollolol]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teacher-ridicules-student-romney-t-155305823.html

Student to young to vote compared to the KKK for wearing a pink Romney/Ryan 2012 shirt to school. I don't know which one to call a pinko commie.
[/mode]

Good, she should be ridiculed for agreeing with/supporting a person she doesn't know shit about, and getting defensive about it. And on the other hand; she doesn't deserve to vote in her life if she truly agrees that the government should be telling her what she can and cannot do with her vagina. I doubt she's educated on any issue, though, so I'd ridicule her worse than the teacher. Sorry. Don't wear a banner for someone who's got policies that are directly contrary to the beliefs and wants of America and you won't get stupid people like her teacher saying such things to her.

Yes, she deserves to be mocked! I mean, 16? Come on, she might as well be one of the fetuses she thinks are alive! Everyone knows that you can't express a political view until you're 18!

I mean, seriously, "directly contrary to AMERISSSA", is she an expert on that either? Why would she even wear a shirt like that? She should have known going against the deeply ingrained beliefs (apparent to everyone except her!) of her own free god-fearing country would have attracted stupid people! I vote we burn her at the stake!!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 05, 2012, 08:57:54 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 05, 2012, 10:29:09 am

Democrats For Romney. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PiCqxKLIVDY)

That was the single greatest use of mitten and glove metaphor in the history of the human race.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:29:30 am

And another naive young male discovers libertarianism and think's it's special.

Spoiler alert: Libertarianism is nothing but corporate shills who are always MIA when social issues come up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 12:36:06 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:29:30 am

And another naive young male discovers libertarianism and think's it's special.

Spoiler alert: Libertarianism is nothing but corporate shills who are always MIA when social issues come up.

I may be a libertarian, if the candidates weren't such fucking money-grubbing, right-wing-pandering, batshit crazy hypocrites. I'll stick to my "unaffiliated" label.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 12:38:49 am

Might as well make use of the site, though. You know how polls explode on this forum.

Spoiler: Results (click to show/hide)

I side with Jill Stein on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.

---

Candidates you side with...

88%
Jill Stein
Jill Stein Green

on foreign policy, domestic policy, social, environmental, science, immigration, and healthcare issues

76%
Barack Obama
Barack Obama Democrat

on social, economic, science, and immigration issues

71%
Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson Libertarian

on domestic policy, social, foreign policy, immigration, and healthcare issues

63%
Rocky Anderson
Rocky Anderson Justice

on social, immigration, and healthcare issues

13%
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney Republican

no major issues

1%
Virgil Goode
Virgil Goode Constitution

no major issues

48%
North Carolina Voters

on domestic policy, foreign policy, science, and immigration issues.

52%
American Voters

on domestic policy, foreign policy, science, and immigration issues.

---

Who you side with by party...

88% Green

82% Democrat

34% Libertarian

3% Republican

---

Who you side with by issue...

Most important to me
Science

I side the most with Barack Obama on science issues.

Most important to me
Social

I side the most with Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein on social issues.

Most important to me
Domestic policy

I side the most with Gary Johnson on domestic policy issues.

More important to me
Immigration

I side the most with Jill Stein on immigration issues.

More important to me
Foreign Policy

I side the most with Jill Stein on foreign policy issues.

More important to me
the Environment

I side the most with Jill Stein on environmental issues.

Somewhat important to me
Healthcare

I side the most with Gary Johnson and Rocky Anderson on healthcare issues.

Somewhat important to me
the Economy

I side the most with Barack Obama on economic issues.

...How the hell did I get 1% for Virgil Goode? What do I agree with the lunatic on?! I have to know!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 12:43:58 am

Spoiler: My results (click to show/hide)

I side with Barack Obama on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...

87%
Barack Obama
Barack Obama Democrat

on social, environmental, foreign policy, economic, immigration, and domestic policy issues

84%
Jill Stein
Jill Stein Green

on foreign policy, environmental, social, domestic policy, and immigration issues

69%
Rocky Anderson
Rocky Anderson Justice

on foreign policy and social issues

36%
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney Republican

on science issues

60%
California Voters

on foreign policy, social, environmental, domestic policy, immigration, and healthcare issues.

58%
American Voters

on foreign policy, social, environmental, domestic policy, immigration, and healthcare issues.
Show all candidates
Who you side with by party...

90% Democrat

80% Green

36% Libertarian

16% Republican
Your influence...
Because of you, 0 people have taken this quiz.

Sharing the quiz with your friends creates a voter education chain reaction. Seriously. Try sharing it with your friends and see how fast your influence number increases. For every person you convince to take the quiz, we'll count the chain reaction of people they tell and add them to your influence number. Come back and watch it grow by the hour.
Facebook Twitter Google Plus Tumblr Email
Who you side with by issue...

More important to me
Science

I side the most with Mitt Romney on science issues.

Somewhat important to me
Immigration

I side the most with Barack Obama on immigration issues.

Somewhat important to me
Social

I side the most with Barack Obama on social issues.

Somewhat important to me
the Environment

I side the most with Barack Obama on environmental issues.

Somewhat important to me
Foreign Policy

I side the most with Jill Stein on foreign policy issues.

Somewhat important to me
Healthcare

I side the most with Gary Johnson on healthcare issues.

Less important to me
the Economy

I side the most with Barack Obama on economic issues.

Less important to me
Domestic policy

I side the most with Barack Obama and Jill Stein on domestic policy issues.

Quote

I side the most with Mitt Romney on science issues.

WHAT?! I said yes on stem cells, evolution, and space exploration. How the hell does Romney support those?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 12:45:25 am

Wow Sirus, I never knew you were so anti-scientific.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 06, 2012, 12:46:40 am

Only 36 percent, though.

I guess all the candidates are anti-science.

... Why am I not surprised?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 12:46:46 am

I'M NOT D:

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:51:01 am

Maybe it's a bad idea to reduce complex political issues to yes/no questions?  Please agree or disagree without explanation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 06, 2012, 12:52:35 am

Spoiler: The results (click to show/hide)

Candidates you side with...



89%

Barack Obama Democrat

on economic, science, social, environmental, foreign policy, and healthcare issues


89%

Jill Stein Green

on domestic policy, science, foreign policy, environmental, economic, social, and immigration issues


69%

Rocky Anderson Justice

on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social issues


6%

Mitt Romney Republican

no major issues


59%

Washington Voters

on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, science, and social issues.


57%

American Voters

on domestic policy, foreign policy, science, environmental, and social issues.

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:51:01 am

Maybe it's a bad idea to reduce complex political issues to yes/no questions?  Please agree or disagree without explanation.

Yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 12:53:23 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:51:01 am

Maybe it's a bad idea to reduce complex political issues to yes/no questions?  Please agree or disagree without explanation.

Always check the "additional options" button. It has a bunch more under it that should really be displayed in the first place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 06, 2012, 12:55:48 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 12:45:25 am

Wow Sirus, I never knew you were so anti-scientific.

I read this as anti-semitic. It's 2am, maybe I should go to bed.

Nah...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 12:57:49 am

Apparently, Romney wants to explore space. o.O

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 12:59:38 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 12:57:49 am

Apparently, Romney wants to explore space. o.O

By eliminating NASA and letting the private sector immediately take over and be more effective, as it always does in any situation. Praise be to Free Market Jesus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 01:12:14 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 12:59:38 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 12:57:49 am

Apparently, Romney wants to explore space. o.O

By eliminating NASA and letting the private sector immediately take over and be more effective, as it always does in any situation. Praise be to Free Market Jesus.

But I said that NASA should receive more government funding. Nothing about the free market or whatever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 01:17:09 am

 

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:29:30 am

And another naive young male discovers libertarianism and think's it's special.

Spoiler alert: Libertarianism is nothing but corporate shills who are always MIA when social issues come up.

that's is rather harsh. The basic concepts behind libertarian philosophy are good. The trouble is that they tend to foccus singlemindedly on a highly abstract economic model that was known to be problematic and lead to corporate despotism and economic inequity even by its creator Adam Smith. If only they bothered to take a deeper look at the realities of economic disenfranchisement and the inevitaable corruption resulting from unregulated markets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 01:21:25 am

Quote from: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 01:12:14 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 12:59:38 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 12:57:49 am

Apparently, Romney wants to explore space. o.O

By eliminating NASA and letting the private sector immediately take over and be more effective, as it always does in any situation. Praise be to Free Market Jesus.

But I said that NASA should receive more government funding. Nothing about the free market or whatever.

It's like you want there to be a New Dark Age or something. Why can't you see the value of science to our society, Romney lover?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 01:30:18 am

Am I missing something here? Did you guys manually do the wall'o'texts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 01:34:50 am

Quote from: XxoriginxX on October 06, 2012, 12:19:04 am

Very useful tool (http://www.isidewith.com/) to determine who you side with.

This thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 01:36:08 am

Quote from: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 01:34:50 am

Quote from: XxoriginxX on October 06, 2012, 12:19:04 am

Very useful tool (http://www.isidewith.com/) to determine who you side with.

This thing.

Yes, I have used it, but there's no "export shitloads of nonsense" button for BBCode.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 01:37:02 am

I just copy-pasted :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 01:48:35 am

Well, in that case...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 
Barack Obama
I side with Barack Obama on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...

80%
Barack Obama
on economic, science, social, environmental, and immigration issues

73%
Jill Stein
on foreign policy, healthcare, science, environmental, and immigration issues

71%
Rocky Anderson
on economic, healthcare, foreign policy, environmental, and immigration issues

17%
Mitt Romney
no major issues

55%
Michigan Voters
on domestic policy, foreign policy, social, science, environmental, and immigration issues.

53%
American Voters
on domestic policy, foreign policy, social, science, environmental, and immigration issues.

Who you side with by party...

89% Democrat
60% Green
16% Libertarian
8% Republican

Who you side with by issue...

Most important to me
Science
I side the most with Barack Obama on science issues.

More important to me
Domestic policy
I side the most with Gary Johnson on domestic policy issues.

More important to me
Healthcare
I side the most with Rocky Anderson on healthcare issues.

More important to me
the Economy
I side the most with Barack Obama on economic issues.

More important to me
Social
I side the most with Barack Obama on social issues.

More important to me
Foreign Policy
I side the most with Gary Johnson on foreign policy issues.

Somewhat important to me
the Environment
I side the most with Barack Obama on environmental issues.

Somewhat important to me
Immigration
I side the most with Gary Johnson on immigration issues.

Okay, so maybe I'm no libertarian. I'm apparently a super-left leaner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 06, 2012, 01:53:45 am

Who is Jill Stein and why do my super-left Euro values make me match 95% with her?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 01:55:20 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 06, 2012, 01:53:45 am

Who is Jill Stein and why do my super-left Euro values make me match 95% with her?

Apparently, she's the nominee from the Green Party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 am

You guys have one of them? Wow. TBH Obama came in at 85%, with Romney 49%. Apparently my immigration opinions are a little like his, which is worrying. Maybe I am some kind of racist in denial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 06, 2012, 01:57:56 am

They may as well not exist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 06, 2012, 01:58:34 am

We've had a Green party for years :|
They aren't very big or powerful, admittedly, but they are around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 02:03:45 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 am

You guys have one of them? Wow. TBH Obama came in at 85%, with Romney 49%. Apparently my immigration opinions are a little like his, which is worrying. Maybe I am some kind of racist in denial.

Not really. The green party never get more than 1% for president, they have never held a seat in the federal congresses, and only 3 have ever been elected to state offices, the other 130something have held only local offices.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 02:08:56 am

We also have the Constitution Party, represented in this election by Virgil Goode, whom are more or less proto-fascists. Luckilly, they are even less prolific than the Green Party and Libertarian Party.

Read and be horrified. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29)

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 06, 2012, 01:56:49 am

You guys have one of them? Wow. TBH Obama came in at 85%, with Romney 49%. Apparently my immigration opinions are a little like his, which is worrying. Maybe I am some kind of racist in denial.

Maybe, but Europe and the US have a fundamentally different way of looking at immigration. The European states and ethnic groups of today have been around in some format for the past few thousand years, while the United States and Americans (excepting Native Americans) have...not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 06, 2012, 02:10:27 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 01:55:20 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 06, 2012, 01:53:45 am

Who is Jill Stein and why do my super-left Euro values make me match 95% with her?

Apparently, she's the nominee from the Green Party.

I got 85% Jill Stein I'm not as hardcore as MonkeyHead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 06, 2012, 02:18:53 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 06, 2012, 12:57:49 am

Apparently, Romney wants to explore space. o.O

Did he actually state an intention to pursue space exploration or are they assuming because of the whole Mormon Space God thing?

--------------

Spoiler: Quiz Results (click to show/hide)

89% Jill Stein (Green)
86% Barack Obama (Democrat)
80% Rocky Anderson (Justice)
7% Mitt Romney (Republican) - That high? Tsk

93% Democrat
88% Green
43% Libertarian
3% Republican

I side the most with Barack Obama on science issues.
I side the most with Barack Obama on social issues.
I side the most with Jill Stein on domestic policy issues.
I side the most with Barack Obama on immigration issues.
I side the most with Jill Stein on healthcare issues.
I side the most with Jill Stein on environmental issues.
I side the most with Jill Stein on foreign policy issues.
I side the most with Barack Obama on economic issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 06, 2012, 02:39:57 am

Oh this site, I took the quiz awhile ago.

Spoiler: results (click to show/hide)

Candidates you side with...

Jill Stein (Green) 90%
on economic, domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, science, social, and immigration issues

Barack Obama (Democratic) 89%
on economic, social, domestic policy, science, healthcare, and immigration issues

Rocky Anderson (Justice) 68%
on social, foreign policy, environmental, and immigration issues

Mitt Romney (Republican) 6%
no major issues

99% Democratic
95% Green
25% Libertarian
2% Republican

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 07:30:14 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 01:17:09 am

that's is rather harsh. The basic concepts behind libertarian philosophy are good.  The trouble is that they tend to foccus singlemindedly on a highly abstract economic model that was known to be problematic and lead to corporate despotism and economic inequity even by its creator Adam Smith. If only they bothered to take a deeper look at the realities of economic disenfranchisement and the inevitaable corruption resulting from unregulated markets.

Really I think the "basic concepts" lead naturally into the support for the horrible economic model.  If you start at the premise that the magical powers of FREEDOM and the FREE MARKET would solve all our problems it naturally follows that we should withdraw all support for poor people and eliminate every government service.  It's just that the premise is horribly wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 06, 2012, 08:04:03 am

This (http://www.isidewith.com/results/67263156) is from a month or so back, but I doubt it's changed;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

97% Jill Stein
86% Barack Obama
83% Rocky Anderson
59% Gary Johnson
13% Mitt Romney
7% Virgil Goode

97% Democrat
96% Green
43% Libertarian
4% Republican

EDIT: Romney may have won his debate, but looks like some Republicans are less than keen to repeat the feat.

PA congressional candidate refusing to have the debate recorded. Or appear at the same time as his opponent. (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20121003_ap_pacongressionalcandidatesetsforumconditions.html?c=r)

New York congressman refuses to appear at a debate, then threatens to pull advertising from the hosting radio station if they let his opponent appear. (http://www.uticaod.com/features/x1931761214/Email-Hanna-discussed-pulling-ads-after-debate-flap-with-WUTR?zc_p=0)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 07:30:14 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 01:17:09 am

that's is rather harsh. The basic concepts behind libertarian philosophy are good.  The trouble is that they tend to foccus singlemindedly on a highly abstract economic model that was known to be problematic and lead to corporate despotism and economic inequity even by its creator Adam Smith. If only they bothered to take a deeper look at the realities of economic disenfranchisement and the inevitaable corruption resulting from unregulated markets.

Really I think the "basic concepts" lead naturally into the support for the horrible economic model.  If you start at the premise that the magical powers of FREEDOM and the FREE MARKET would solve all our problems it naturally follows that we should withdraw all support for poor people and eliminate every government service.  It's just that the premise is horribly wrong.

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:40:21 am

According to this website, it seems that I would be voting Gary Johnson 2012. I think it's just because they don't have a credible socialist candidate. Is Obama really that pro stem-cell research?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I side with Gary Johnson on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...

80%
Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson Libertarian

on domestic policy, foreign policy, healthcare, social, and immigration issues

74%
Jill Stein
Jill Stein Green

on environmental, science, economic, social, and immigration issues

39%
Barack Obama
Barack Obama Democrat

on science and immigration issues

34%
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney Republican

no major issues

48%
American Voters

on domestic policy, science, and immigration issues.
Show all candidates
Who you side with by party...

72% Socialist

66% Green

64% Democrat

51% Libertarian
Your influence...
Because of you, 0 people have taken this quiz.

Sharing the quiz with your friends creates a voter education chain reaction. Seriously. Try sharing it with your friends and see how fast your influence number increases. For every person you convince to take the quiz, we'll count the chain reaction of people they tell and add them to your influence number. Come back and watch it grow by the hour.
Facebook Twitter Google Plus Tumblr Email
Who you side with by issue...

Most important to me
Healthcare

I side the most with Gary Johnson on healthcare issues.

Most important to me
Foreign Policy

I side the most with Gary Johnson on foreign policy issues.

Most important to me
Domestic policy

I side the most with Gary Johnson on domestic policy issues.

Most important to me
the Environment

I side the most with Jill Stein on environmental issues.

More important to me
Science

I side the most with Barack Obama on science issues.

More important to me
the Economy

I side the most with Jill Stein on economic issues.

Somewhat important to me
Social

I side the most with Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein on social issues.

Less important to me
Immigration

I side the most with Barack Obama on immigration issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 06, 2012, 08:51:44 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:40:21 am

According to this website, it seems that I would be voting Gary Johnson 2012. I think it's just because they don't have a credible socialist candidate. Is Obama really that pro stem-cell research?

Slow burner issue, but yes. He issued an executive order in 2009 that allowed for federal funding of ESC research. This was blocked for a while by a federal judge but he recently won in court in a similar case. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/stem-cell-research_n_1828079.html) Another post focusing on the election. (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/08/651791/why-stem-cells-are-2012s-sleeper-issue/)

As for voting Gary Johnson because there isn't a socialist, I'm just going to extinguish this fire with some gasoline because I don't have any water.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:54:38 am

Quote from: palsch on October 06, 2012, 08:51:44 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:40:21 am

According to this website, it seems that I would be voting Gary Johnson 2012. I think it's just because they don't have a credible socialist candidate. Is Obama really that pro stem-cell research?

Slow burner issue, but yes. He issued an executive order in 2009 that allowed for federal funding of ESC research. This was blocked for a while by a federal judge but he recently won in court in a similar case. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/stem-cell-research_n_1828079.html)

As for voting Gary Johnson because there isn't a socialist, I'm just going to extinguish this fire with some gasoline because I don't have any water.

I would have said that the ideas of socialism were almost the exact opposites of libertarianism, yeah. It's odd. The website says I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate but the Socialists as a party. How does that work?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 06, 2012, 09:01:41 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:54:38 am

I would have said that the ideas of socialism were almost the exact opposite of libertarianism, yeah. It's odd. The website says I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate but the Socialists as a party. How does that work?

Site sucks?

More seriously, it seems your answers don't line up with socialism that well. I expected it to be based on foreign policy (current socialist and libertarian trends make both sets anti-interventionist, although it's certainly not an inherent property of socialism), but seems you also sided with him on healthcare and domestic policy. Those are areas where socialist answers should have been far more in line with Jill Stein or Obama.

Probably partially due to how the site is divided up, but I'm guessing that the 28% of disagreement with the socialist party are areas where there is a hard socialist/libertarian split, and you seem to be on the libertarian side of much of it. At least as far as those answers go.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 09:03:08 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

You are cute-but-wrong personified.

RON PAUL

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on October 06, 2012, 09:36:07 am

According to that poll, I would vote for the grandma.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

93%
Jill Stein
on domestic policy, social, environmental, foreign policy, science, healthcare, immigration, and economic issues
77%
Gary Johnson
on social, domestic policy, and science issues
73%
Rocky Anderson
on social, economic, and healthcare issues
69%
Barack Obama
on environmental, social, science, and economic issues
6%
Mitt Romney
no major issues
58%
American Voters
on domestic policy, environmental, foreign policy, science, and economic issues.
Show all candidates
Who you side with by party...
90%
Green
82%
Democrat
28%
Libertarian
3%
Republican

Obviously I would never vote as I've heard that you have to be an American.
It's discrimination I tell you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: OREOSOME on October 06, 2012, 09:41:46 am

Yesterday, A friend of mine said this interesting gem:

Quote

It seems that a Good president comes around once per century. I personally hope that America lasts long enough to see the next one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on October 06, 2012, 09:43:12 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:54:38 am

I would have said that the ideas of socialism were almost the exact opposites of libertarianism, yeah. It's odd. The website says I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate but the Socialists as a party. How does that work?

Behold. Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 09:43:38 am

Quote from: palsch on October 06, 2012, 08:51:44 am

As for voting Gary Johnson because there isn't a socialist, I'm just going to extinguish this fire with some gasoline because I don't have any water.

For the record, you can actually do that, it's just very dangerous.

Quote from: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:54:38 am

I would have said that the ideas of socialism were almost the exact opposites of libertarianism, yeah. It's odd. The website says I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate but the Socialists as a party. How does that work?

Because the Socialist Party's candidate isn't listed, though that would be Stewart Alexander. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Alexander) Aside from Green, Libertarian, and Constitution, all the other third parties, including Socialist, are so small no one pays them any mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 09:52:12 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 09:03:08 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

You are cute-but-wrong personified.

RON PAUL

What a lengthy, detailed rebuttal. Truly I have been vanquished by a master among debaters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 06, 2012, 10:41:03 am

I am also about even between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Which isn't surprising, they really are the two closest to my own person views.

They are practically identical on most of the issues I care about, and then I'm split on the remainder of the issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 10:51:57 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

Yes we have.  That's why the nanny state northeast has consistantly been decades ahead of the old south on social issues such as women's rights, gay rights, race rights.  When the people identify a social problem they have the government step in and fix it.

Take the complex issue of slavery.  Vermont took the heavy handed government approach of making it illegal in 1780.  Guess what didn't happen in Vermont?  Slavery!  The southern states let the individuals do what they want.  Guess what happened?  Decades of slavery and a deep culture of racial resentment on both sides.

Quote from: Owlbread on October 06, 2012, 08:54:38 am

I would have said that the ideas of socialism were almost the exact opposites of libertarianism, yeah. It's odd. The website says I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate but the Socialists as a party. How does that work?

The site doesn't take into account the realities of the political system once politicians are elected.  These affect the two major parties that are actually capable of getting legislation through but don't affect parties with no or very few elected representatives.  Jill Stein and Gary Johnson don't triangulate their statements in order to marginally approve the chance of their pet piece of legislation through.  If they actually got in office then you'd see that Jill Stein's performance in office would look very similar too Barack Obama's and Gary Johnson's would look a lot like Mitt Romney's thanks to the meddling of congress.  I would say there are some places where they would probably damn the political consequences and congress doesn't have a say, like drone strikes.  But for most of the issues they really wouldn't be that different.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 06, 2012, 11:16:16 am

Didn't we do one of these a few months ago? Anyway, nothing surprising to me here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

95% Jill Stein
87% Barack Obama
86% Rocky Anderson
5% Mitt Romney

98% Democrat
94% Green
43% Libertarian
1% Republican

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 11:20:43 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 07:30:14 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 01:17:09 am

that's is rather harsh. The basic concepts behind libertarian philosophy are good.  The trouble is that they tend to foccus singlemindedly on a highly abstract economic model that was known to be problematic and lead to corporate despotism and economic inequity even by its creator Adam Smith. If only they bothered to take a deeper look at the realities of economic disenfranchisement and the inevitaable corruption resulting from unregulated markets.

Really I think the "basic concepts" lead naturally into the support for the horrible economic model.  If you start at the premise that the magical powers of FREEDOM and the FREE MARKET would solve all our problems it naturally follows that we should withdraw all support for poor people and eliminate every government service.  It's just that the premise is horribly wrong.

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

Not with ease, but we have made a crap ton of progress despite people trying desperately to drag us back to the feudal dark ages.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 06, 2012, 11:20:51 am

"Property rights" don't exist without the state to ENFORCE them. Or you have to create a system of vigilantes and warlords to keep the peace - which just devolves into despotism. Property isn't a tangible thing - it's an idea. There have been, and will always be "property disputes". Only a "central arbiter" can settle the matter. Unless you want to settle things with shootouts and clan feuds.

Sure, you can directly protect your home, but what about transferable title to land you're not occupying? How efficient will things be if everyone has to send armed units to secure land they just bought? If you contend that "free market security" will replace government mandated police and soldiers, then what's to stop a private armed group just grabbing your land and saying "free market, dude!"

I scoff at the idea of some of the more radical libertarians that we could have private "for hire" armies running around America, and due to the "free market" this will make EVERYTHING wine and roses, because those armies will have to "compete" to provide services. I'll tell you what, they WILL be competing - to enslave everyone else!

Contracts are only worthless paper without courts and laws to enforce penalties. If you say that people will "exact" their own penalties for contract-breakers, i'd have to wonder why contracts would exist in the first place. People would just take whatever they want in a "might makes right" scenario.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 06, 2012, 12:00:26 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 07:30:14 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 01:17:09 am

that's is rather harsh. The basic concepts behind libertarian philosophy are good.  The trouble is that they tend to foccus singlemindedly on a highly abstract economic model that was known to be problematic and lead to corporate despotism and economic inequity even by its creator Adam Smith. If only they bothered to take a deeper look at the realities of economic disenfranchisement and the inevitaable corruption resulting from unregulated markets.

Really I think the "basic concepts" lead naturally into the support for the horrible economic model.  If you start at the premise that the magical powers of FREEDOM and the FREE MARKET would solve all our problems it naturally follows that we should withdraw all support for poor people and eliminate every government service.  It's just that the premise is horribly wrong.

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 09:52:12 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 09:03:08 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 08:36:31 am

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

You are cute-but-wrong personified.

RON PAUL

What a lengthy, detailed rebuttal. Truly I have been vanquished by a master among debaters.

1. Respond to discussion with sarcastic one-liner.
2. Get sarcastic one-liner in return.
3. Deride other poster for use of sarcastic one-liner and lack of discussitude.
4. ? ? ?
5. Profit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 06, 2012, 12:26:49 pm

I like to call myself a "practical libertarian" - I would like to pursue the courses of action that would produce the results most in line with my libertarian ideals: maximizing freedoms, efficiency, and opportunity while encouraging initiative, innovation, and progress.

Many of the policies espoused by your average libertarian, especially their economic ones, seem in stark contrast to their stated goals and desires, which is perplexing, at best.

Spoiler: Results (click to show/hide)

Candidates:
90% Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
88% Jill Stein (Green)
71% Barack Obama (Democrat)
71% Rocky Anderson (Justice)
41% Virgil Good (Constitution)
5% Mitt Romney (Republican)

By party:
84% Democrat
81% Green
76% Libertarian
5% Republican

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:36:42 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 06, 2012, 12:26:49 pm

I like to call myself a "practical libertarian" - I would like to pursue the courses of action that would produce the results most in line with my libertarian ideals: maximizing freedoms, efficiency, and opportunity while encouraging initiative, innovation, and progress.

Not to be critical, but to genuinely ask, how does this differ from "liberal"?  What are the aspects of this that you consider incompatible with middle of the road liberalism?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 01:23:09 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 12:36:42 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 06, 2012, 12:26:49 pm

I like to call myself a "practical libertarian" - I would like to pursue the courses of action that would produce the results most in line with my libertarian ideals: maximizing freedoms, efficiency, and opportunity while encouraging initiative, innovation, and progress.

Not to be critical, but to genuinely ask, how does this differ from "liberal"?  What are the aspects of this that you consider incompatible with middle of the road liberalism?

We like guns?  :P

I believe my point of view isn't that much different than GlyphGryph. On non-economic and public safety issues I tend to be "libertarian" with the caveat that I make no distinction between state and federal infringement on personal liberties unlike the so called "states rights libertarians" aka anti-federalists. When it comes to economic and public safety issues? I tend towards the socialist bent. The governments principal role in society it to protect all of society, and to that end it must regulate commerce to prevent, reduce or correct harm done to the general public.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 01:45:07 pm

There's plenty of pro-gun liberals though.  My previous house representative was liberal but had an A rating from the NRA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 01:51:29 pm

Most American liberals are pro-gun liberals. Not much support for the gun control movement, and even then only lesser measures.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 02:00:39 pm

Yeah it's a shame.

New political short from animator of Simpsons and Family Guy.

http://whyobamanow.org/

I quite like this as an "advert".  It's kindof an attack ad, but an evidence based attack on the heart of the Republican economic agenda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 02:06:05 pm

Damn that is a fantastic video.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 10:51:57 am

Yes we have.  That's why the nanny state northeast has consistantly been decades ahead of the old south on social issues such as women's rights, gay rights, race rights.  When the people identify a social problem they have the government step in and fix it.

Bit of a generalization there, especially prior to the Southern Strategy.

It's "nanny state" New Hampshire that doesn't require insurance for drivers, seat belts, helmets, has no state income tax and has been cutting its budget back significantly for quite a while, while it's "old south" Tennessee that actively prosecuted rail companies that didn't make separate train cars for blacks.

Quote

Take the complex issue of slavery.  Vermont took the heavy handed government approach of making it illegal in 1780.  Guess what didn't happen in Vermont?  Slavery!  The southern states let the individuals do what they want.  Guess what happened?  Decades of slavery and a deep culture of racial resentment on both sides.

So libertarianism, which is based off the concept of self ownership and free will, would advocate for slavery? Keep in mind, slavery wouldn't have gone far if the government wasn't actively putting down slave revolts.

Quote from: Reelya on October 06, 2012, 11:20:51 am

Sure, you can directly protect your home, but what about transferable title to land you're not occupying? How efficient will things be if everyone has to send armed units to secure land they just bought? If you contend that "free market security" will replace government mandated police and soldiers, then what's to stop a private armed group just grabbing your land and saying "free market, dude!"

War isn't very profitable to those directly involved. Considering the fact that "legitimate" PDAs would be receiving money and support from its subscribers, whereas a "bandit" PDA would be reliant on having a constant flow of loot to keep itself going, it wouldn't be much of a contest most of the time.

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly, doesn't allow competition/opting out, will not improve its services, has basically no input from those under it (barring the well connected and powerful of course), and, if "defeated" by another government, will hand over the apparatus of the state to a potentially worse ruler.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 04:22:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 04:24:11 pm

Yeah, blame the government for what private individuals did to each other.  Never heard that from a libertarian before.

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

So libertarianism, which is based off the concept of self ownership and free will, would advocate for slavery?

Actually a lot of libertarians at the time did exactly that.  Libertarianism has the funny habit of celebrating social change about five years after the liberals push it through.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 06, 2012, 04:29:08 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 04:22:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

What, public domain? Don't they usually put worthwhile things on the properties they overtake? And pay the original owners quite reasonably? What about those oil companies that leased lands off of hundreds of people then renigged when the leases expired? And the government didn't really do anything about it, some great regulation there.

Then there's the other seizure of property when you're under investigation, and I don't really have a problem with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 06, 2012, 04:38:08 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 06, 2012, 04:29:08 pm

What, public domain?

Erm, eminent domain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain) surely? Public domain is something rather different.

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 06, 2012, 04:29:08 pm

Then there's the other seizure of property when you're under investigation, and I don't really have a problem with that.

Actually that process is arguably more open to abuse and less subject to oversight. Take the current rules surrounding seizures relating to drug arrests. The arrests don't even need to become charges for the seized property to be permanently held by the arresting force.

Contrast this with the procedures regarding eminent domain seizures and eminent domain looks positively liberal in it's execution. Which it isn't in case anyone had any doubts.



By the way, I would agree that the right term for anyone who wishes to maximise personal freedoms through the most practical means would be a liberal. That's kinda what liberal has always meant. Libertarian tends to be a narrower term, although as always with political labels there is always some variation.

I used to call myself a civil libertarian but got over it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 06, 2012, 04:49:52 pm

Oh sorry, yes eminent domain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 04:51:16 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

It's "nanny state" New Hampshire that doesn't require insurance for drivers, seat belts, helmets, has no state income tax and has been cutting its budget back significantly for quite a while, while it's "old south" Tennessee that actively prosecuted rail companies that didn't make separate train cars for blacks.

You just selectively spew out disconnected facts everywhere without any actual substantive argument.  That's why whenever I feel tempted to respond to one of your posts properly I just listen to the Ron Paul song.  Pretty much the same level of argument and at least it's funny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 06:42:49 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 06, 2012, 04:49:52 pm

Oh sorry, yes eminent domain.

That is hardly used regularly. And the government is required to demonstrate a pressing need for it and pay the full market price for any property acquired through eminent domain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 06, 2012, 07:47:10 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 06:42:49 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 06, 2012, 04:49:52 pm

Oh sorry, yes eminent domain.

That is hardly used regularly. And the government is required to demonstrate a pressing need for it and pay the full market price for any property acquired through eminent domain.

In the last few years, it's been used to expand the University of Toledo twice and the Toledo airport once. In none of these cases did those involved gain more than a fraction of the actual value of their property, because of the methods used by the government appraisers. Similarly, properties are regularly seized for relatively small amounts of back taxes while properties that aren't in a development corridor are allowed to languish for ten times the deficit. It's used, and abused, quite often, to the point where, if a company's trying to buy your land, they tell you flat out that you can take their first offer, or be happy with the scraps the government gives you when they take it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 06, 2012, 08:48:10 pm

The problem with some parts of that video is that he doesn't use percentages, so the benefits to the wealthy always seem bigger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 06, 2012, 08:53:31 pm

Eminent Domain has a long history of being abused heavily and frequently. I understand why the government might need it, but I'm not sure if it outweighs the benefit of the government being unable to do it. :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 06, 2012, 09:06:53 pm

Eminent domain has such an unfortunate history because of how directly it is stated in the Constitution, leaving even liberal Justices with little room to rule upon it. All the same, it will probably be reformed after Obama gets his next few appointees.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 06, 2012, 09:41:10 pm

Oh wow, I just realized I managed to pull "least supportive of Romney" in that quiz thing of everyone who has posted.

I must really, really not like the guy!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2012, 05:26:19 am

I haven't deeply research it myself, but I've been seeing a lot of noise about it lately from all the activist feeds.  There has been a ton of eminent domain activity going on lately in relation to the Keystone XL pipeline.  As far as I'm aware, Obama has been very supportive of the pipeline and all measures taken to secure the project's development.  I welcome any evidence to the contrary.  As it stands, I have 0 expectation that Obama would help to reform eminent domain.  I'd give that about as much credibility as all his claims about being a champion of government transparency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 07, 2012, 06:00:05 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 07, 2012, 05:26:19 am

I haven't deeply research it myself, but I've been seeing a lot of noise about it lately from all the activist feeds.  There has been a ton of eminent domain activity going on lately in relation to the Keystone XL pipeline.  As far as I'm aware, Obama has been very supportive of the pipeline and all measures taken to secure the project's development.  I welcome any evidence to the contrary.  As it stands, I have 0 expectation that Obama would help to reform eminent domain.  I'd give that about as much credibility as all his claims about being a champion of government transparency.

The issue is you're confusing a corporation performing 'eminent domain' (http://www.areadevelopment.com/EconomicsGovernmentPolicy/feb10/Eminent-domain-issues-site-selection1101110.shtml) seizures like they are in relation to the pipeline (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-energy/oil-and-natural-gas/keystone-pipeline-sparks-property-rights-backlash/), and government land seizures. It's not approved by the US government, so there has been no government taking of lands in relation to Keystone. It's been the corporations involved forcibly and somehow legally removing citizens from their land, like many corporations [Wal Mart comes to mind] before them. It's an extremely unfair change-to-existing-law that was written in favor of corporations. It's summarized best by this:

Quote

“Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.”

& On Obama and Keystone:
Basic summary of why not to support it; (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/debate-2012_b_1937733.html)
I googled 'Obama pipeline against'. (https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+pipeline+against&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Seems he is aware it's an absolutely awful idea, he's not a moron. (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/president-obama-lobbied-against-pipeline-to-ensure-116826.html)

He's going to smash the proposal to bits once the election has passed and the decision has to be made mostly since it's obviously bad for America and only good for about .0001% of people involved. Not to mention (http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/burst-oil-pipeline-leaks-46000-gallons-in-one-of-alaskas-worst-ever-spills.html) having a big (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/08/02/Witness-recounts-Wis-oil-pipeline-burst/UPI-13721343905844/) ass target pipeline (http://www.examiner.com/article/oil-pipeline-bursts-canada-dumping-crude-oil-into-river) down the middle (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/exxon-pipeline-bursts-yellowstone-river/39544/) of our country (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/156561319/oil-company-knew-michigan-pipeline-was-cracked) would be such (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03oilspill.html?_r=0) a great idea (http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/energy/30532) in hindsight since nothing ever happens to those things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2012, 06:14:44 am

Thanks for the links.  I will read into them.


I see there was some confusion regarding the existence of libertarian socialism earlier. It's the school of political thought that I most identify with, especially this:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.  Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Subjugate someone by direct force, and it will be seen as plain tyranny that will be opposed.  Subjugate someone by claiming ownership of the things they depend on for a decent quality of life, or a life at all, and it will be seen as an unfortunate reality that must simply be drudged through.  My belief is that latter is just as violent as the former.  In the former, you accept subjugation or meet with violence.  In the latter, you accept subjugation or make your choice between death by poverty or violence.  This puts me at odds with all major state and economic models, because they are two sides of the same coin (any claim of ownership requires an institution to reinforce the legitimacy of that claim, i.e. some form of state or analogous organization) and are primarily concerned with detailing the process by which one group of people may subjugate the rest by exerting disproportionate influence over the distribution of resources. 

Furthermore, authoritative hierarchy in any form poisons human relationships to the core.  Barring psychological disorder, people are naturally repulsed by the idea of harming those they see as equal human beings.  Hierarchy grants people the ability to be callous by giving them a culturally legitimized means of defining others as less important or even less human, and it works both ways, with trauma and resentment being increasingly likely towards the bottom.

There's the founding principles behind all my political beliefs, in summary, and I developed those ideas on my own long before I found anything about libertarian socialism or even knew who Chomsky was.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:27:45 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 04:22:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain)

I'm surprised you actually need (well, had I posted earlier you would need) a citation for this one. Eminent Domain is probably one of the most abused powers of government for a variety of reasons, most already said.

Want more?

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 04:24:11 pm

Yeah, blame the government for what private individuals did to each other.  Never heard that from a libertarian before

Hey, remember when private individuals put down all those slave revolts? Oh wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown%27s_raid_on_Harpers_Ferry)

Quote

Actually a lot of libertarians at the time did exactly that. 

Who? Like Lysander Spooner, famous abolitionist, early libertarian and former owner of the American Letter Mail Company? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner)

Really?

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 06, 2012, 04:51:16 pm

You just selectively spew out disconnected facts everywhere without any actual substantive argument.  That's why whenever I feel tempted to respond to one of your posts properly I just listen to the Ron Paul song.  Pretty much the same level of argument and at least it's funny.

"I don't like your argument, so I'm just going to stereotype what I think you're saying!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2012, 07:36:21 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:27:45 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 06, 2012, 04:24:11 pm

Yeah, blame the government for what private individuals did to each other.  Never heard that from a libertarian before

Hey, remember when private individuals put down all those slave revolts? Oh wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown%27s_raid_on_Harpers_Ferry)

Do you really believe that linking to an example of a government force putting down a slave revolt (that according to the very first sentence planned to succeed by stealing government property) is somehow proof that private forces didn't do this, or weren't ever the primary motivator behind any force doing this?

This is what Leafsnail was saying about spewing out disconnected facts.  You seem to believe that providing information that describes why you don't like one thing (i.e. demonization) is the same as proving that another thing is better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 08:00:29 am

The Keystone pipeline being blocked by Obama made a lot of waves up here. Dominated the radio news I was listening to when it happened. To listen to the Albertan rage over it was quite satisfying. Cry harder oil barons, cry harder.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:09:00 am

Pretty sure greatjustice is a troll. He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there) and how WHO rated a bunch of socialist countries with best health care in the world.

When presented with facts he either runs or threadshits a bunch of irrelevant or false information.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 07, 2012, 08:10:07 am

No I think that's just how internet arguments are supposed to work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 08:24:43 am

Quote from: Darvi on October 07, 2012, 08:10:07 am

No I think that's just how internet arguments are supposed to work.

The more you dismiss things as "internet culture" or "just the internet" the more excuses you're giving people to behave badly or act in a stupid way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 07, 2012, 08:27:05 am

Hence the strike-through.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 08:36:09 am

Quote from: Darvi on October 07, 2012, 08:27:05 am

Hence the strike-through.

On second thoughts then, hence why I am... concurring with you, yes, that'll do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 07, 2012, 09:37:48 am

Yesterday was chock full of Republican herpaderp. Where to start?

1. GOP Representative from Georgia calls evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory "lies straight from the pit of hell" (http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html). Said representative sits on the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology.  >_<

2. Arkansas GOP state representative publishes a book wherein he calls slavery "a blessing in disguise" (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/15611617-505/arkansas-rep-calls-slavery-blessing-in-disguise.html). Hardly the first time that notion has been floated, but usually sitting politicians are bright enough not to fucking publish it in print.

3. Another Arkansas GOP state House candidate published a book calling for the deportation of all Muslims from the United States (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/07/arkansas-gop-distances-itself-from-candidates-over-comments-on-slavery-muslims/). When the Arkansas GOP started eyeing him nervously and saying, "We don't really know that guy", dude was surprised.

Quote

Fuqua said Saturday that he hadn’t realized he’d become a target within his own party, which he said surprised him.
“I think my views are fairly well-accepted by most people,” Fuqua said before hanging up, saying he was busy knocking on voters’ doors.

"What? I did some very scientific polling at my last Klan meeting, and all 11 of us agreed that those damn ragheads need to go. Obviously your liberal media is lying to you, because the numbers don't match the reality on my tiny little patch of benighted ground."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 07, 2012, 10:37:30 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 07, 2012, 09:37:48 am

1. GOP Representative from Georgia calls evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory "lies straight from the pit of hell" (http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html). Said representative sits on the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology.  >_<

It's worth noting that Mr. Todd "Doesn't know how Pregnancy Works" Akin also sits on the Science Committee.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 07, 2012, 10:43:57 am

By Akin's theory God built in an auto-abortion system into the ladies for unwanted pregnancies. Kinda ironic that God himself put that in there. I thought abortions were a sin, and that God was incapable of sin?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2012, 10:46:45 am

No, no, by Akin's theory it is the curse of women to have unwanted pregnancy for our sins. At least that's what Genesis says.

(It is also interesting how the fundies rarely address the fact that 66% of fertilized eggs fail to implant and that a full 25% of pregnancies do not reach term even with modern technology. If life begins at conception God must really hate embryos.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 07, 2012, 10:55:09 am

Quote from: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 08:00:29 am

The Keystone pipeline being blocked by Obama made a lot of waves up here. Dominated the radio news I was listening to when it happened. To listen to the Albertan rage over it was quite satisfying. Cry harder oil barons, cry harder.

(http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-crying.gif)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 12:12:28 pm

Quote from: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 08:00:29 am

The Keystone pipeline being blocked by Obama made a lot of waves up here. Dominated the radio news I was listening to when it happened. To listen to the Albertan rage over it was quite satisfying. Cry harder oil barons, cry harder.

There are a lot of advertisements in the newspapers in Scotland now for people to go and work in Alberta. Is it a land of milk and honey or will my brother get fucked over?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 07, 2012, 12:29:54 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 04:22:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

That is what I needed a citation of. I have heard of a handful of cases, nationally, in my lifetime.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 02:23:35 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 08:09:00 am

He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there)

When did I say Singapore was a free-market utopia, exactly? I recall saying it was less socialist in its healthcare system than most countries these days, but that hardly means much.

Quote

He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there) and how WHO rated a bunch of socialist countries with best health care in the world.

All countries, with the exception of the US, have "socialized healthcare" in some way, shape, or form. This is an utterly meaningless statistic.

But besides that, and besides the fact that WHO is not an unbiased organization, that very ranking STILL puts the pseudo-free fascistic American system in first place as "most responsive to the needs and choices of the individual patient". In short, the rating actually relating to quality of service.

The US is quite a ways down in terms of cost, "equality", and other such things that the WHO also ranks, but those have little to no bearing on whether the health care ITSELF is the best.

Try again.

Quote

When presented with facts he either runs or threadshits a bunch of irrelevant or false information.

So I heard you like Socialism. The Soviet Union was Socialist and it had a brutal dictatorship with Gulags and bread lines. Why do you support Gulags and bread lines?

See what I just did there? I drew a conclusion from an argument you didn't make. Similarly, when you draw conclusions from arguments I didn't make, I effectively skip right over them.

Quote from: Nadaka on October 07, 2012, 12:29:54 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 06, 2012, 04:22:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 06, 2012, 04:10:02 pm

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

That is what I needed a citation of. I have heard of a handful of cases, nationally, in my lifetime.

Here you go (Warning: Somewhat long) (http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/report/ED_report.pdf)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 02:34:37 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 12:12:28 pm

Quote from: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 08:00:29 am

The Keystone pipeline being blocked by Obama made a lot of waves up here. Dominated the radio news I was listening to when it happened. To listen to the Albertan rage over it was quite satisfying. Cry harder oil barons, cry harder.

There are a lot of advertisements in the newspapers in Scotland now for people to go and work in Alberta. Is it a land of milk and honey or will my brother get fucked over?

Basically, if he's willing to work long hours, and hard at whatever job he takes, he's going to get a large salary compared to working elsewhere in Canada. This is why a lot of people from around my area have gone out there to work. HOWEVER, it also has the highest cost of living of anywhere in the country -- except possibly the far north -- and like any goldrush-type place, there are a lot of easy ways to pick up a lot of illegal stuff out there.

I've heard some bad stories of people burning out, getting stuck on the slippery slope, and due to the highly conservative principles of the area, falling through the meager social safety net out there. I've also heard some very good stories about people who were able to get ahead and live the dream. I've got examples of both of these in my extended family.

If possible, I'd recommend getting a job where he works for X (19-20) amount of days and has Y (10-11) days off. Live on the company's dime as much as possible, fly back home where there's a low cost of living. It's very hard work, but you CAN build up quite a savings. Or at least that was the situation last time I checked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 02:36:43 pm

Quote from: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 02:34:37 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 12:12:28 pm

Quote from: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 08:00:29 am

The Keystone pipeline being blocked by Obama made a lot of waves up here. Dominated the radio news I was listening to when it happened. To listen to the Albertan rage over it was quite satisfying. Cry harder oil barons, cry harder.

There are a lot of advertisements in the newspapers in Scotland now for people to go and work in Alberta. Is it a land of milk and honey or will my brother get fucked over?

Basically, if he's willing to work long hours, and hard at whatever job he takes, he's going to get a large salary compared to working elsewhere in Canada. This is why a lot of people from around my area have gone out there to work. HOWEVER, it also has the highest cost of living of anywhere in the country -- except possibly the far north -- and like any goldrush-type place, there are a lot of easy ways to pick up a lot of illegal stuff out there.

I've heard some bad stories of people burning out, getting stuck on the slippery slope, and due to the highly conservative principles of the area, falling through the meager social safety net out there. I've also heard some very good stories about people who were able to get ahead and live the dream. I've got examples of both of these in my extended family.

If possible, I'd recommend getting a job where he works for X (19-20) amount of days and has Y (10-11) days off. Live on the company's dime as much as possible, fly back home where there's a low cost of living. It's very hard work, but you CAN build up quite a savings. Or at least that was the situation last time I checked.

That's very helpful advice. Thank you. I'll be sure to tell him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 02:40:01 pm

OH OH OH, one thing to be careful about. Make sure he's going out there to actually work with heavy-ish equipment. I just remembered that they are probably also advertising for service-industry work. That doesn't pay nearly as well. Jobs at McDonalds, for instance, will only barely pay for cost of living out there.

Trades, electronics, anything that requires skilled labour will be safe. Unskilled labour jobs are not going to pay well though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 02:44:35 pm

Quote from: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 02:40:01 pm

OH OH OH, one thing to be careful about. Make sure he's going out there to actually work with heavy-ish equipment. I just remembered that they are probably also advertising for service-industry work. That doesn't pay nearly as well. Jobs at McDonalds, for instance, will only barely pay for cost of living out there.

Trades, electronics, anything that requires skilled labour will be safe. Unskilled labour jobs are not going to pay well though.

That may pose a problem for him then. He's able to work very hard for long hours but it's mostly been unskilled physical labour, which he is good at. He's also done a lot of stuff like tree planting en masse, landscape gardening and secure-van driving for an international company. I'll have a chat with him about it, maybe he can get an apprenticeship or something.

See, our Uncle Norry went out to Canada away back (1950s I think?) to do hard physical labour on the oil rigs, but he made his fortune out there. He absolutely raked in the cash. Maybe there's something similar for my brother nowadays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on October 07, 2012, 02:47:04 pm

If he can get a job on a construction crew or something like that, that would be safe. My cousin didn't even have a driving license, and he did some work driving big construction machines around. Made some pretty good money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 07, 2012, 04:18:51 pm

I love how when people complain about GreatJustice incessantly changing the topic and presenting anecdotes when people disagree with Libertarianism RAWKS he responds... by changing the subject and bringing up anecdotes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 07, 2012, 04:53:27 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 02:23:35 pm

Here you go (Warning: Somewhat long) (http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/report/ED_report.pdf)

Quote

The issue is you're confusing a corporation performing 'eminent domain' (http://www.areadevelopment.com/EconomicsGovernmentPolicy/feb10/Eminent-domain-issues-site-selection1101110.shtml) seizures like they are in relation to the pipeline (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-energy/oil-and-natural-gas/keystone-pipeline-sparks-property-rights-backlash/), and government land seizures.

He's a good example of how fucked up eminent domain laws are (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151693915722022.html)

Quote

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill Saturday authorizing Utah to file eminent domain proceedings against federally owned land, primarily to gain access to state-owned parcels to be able to drill where trucks and pipelines now can't reach.

Yes, that's a state trying to get land from the federal government simply for oil tapping, in the favor of about 1,000 people. Mostly the well owners, the roughnecks wouldn't get payed anything in Utah.

These things happen all the time, it's because our eminent domain laws are so confusing and overwritten [in favor of horseshit like calling any sort of project that increases value a 'public work' aka replacing a poor neighborhood with a WalMart].

I feel like you're confounding the issue to simply try and say whatever you want, when the link you showed is a long list of corporate-backed eminent domain seizures. And states that these seizures are not in the public good, only private. Which is what I've already known. You should too, unless you're so woefully ignorant that you're arguing that the government is taking land while at the same time linking a cute .pdf that says exactly the opposite.

You probably didn't even read the first few pages. Change to existing law [Eminent domain] in favor of corporations doesn't mean it's the government taking said land. The corporations are forcing it and causing it for the most part. The government has vast tracts of lands, and has no need to condemn and evict poor people from their homes. That's not how the world works. We don't live in a conspiracy theory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2012, 05:32:24 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:27:45 am

"I don't like your argument, so I'm just going to stereotype what I think you're saying!"

You aren't even making arguments, that's the problem.  You are selectively throwing small scale anecdotes (eg a slave revolt that involved a grand total of 5 slaves/ex-slaves) around and not explaining what you mean by them (and then you accuse people of strawmanning when they don't read your mind to work out what you meant).  Again, if I wanted poorly argued Libertarian talking points I'd just listen to the RON PAUL song since that is at least entertaining.  I suggest everyone else does the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 06:07:09 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 07, 2012, 05:32:24 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 07, 2012, 07:27:45 am

"I don't like your argument, so I'm just going to stereotype what I think you're saying!"

You aren't even making arguments, that's the problem.  You are selectively throwing small scale anecdotes (eg a slave revolt that involved a grand total of 5 slaves/ex-slaves) around and not explaining what you mean by them (and then you accuse people of strawmanning when they don't read your mind to work out what you meant).  Again, if I wanted poorly argued Libertarian talking points I'd just listen to the RON PAUL song since that is at least entertaining.  I suggest everyone else does the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

It's just a rock/pop (can't tell anymore) song. It's not like it's the word of Mr. Paul himself. Are we treating civil war songs as being actual arguments in favour of the confederacy or the north?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 07, 2012, 06:08:42 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 07, 2012, 05:32:24 pm

(and then you accuse people of strawmanning when they don't read your mind to work out what you meant)

God yes this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2012, 06:16:56 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 07, 2012, 06:07:09 pm

It's just a rock/pop (can't tell anymore) song. It's not like it's the word of Mr. Paul himself. Are we treating civil war songs as being actual arguments in favour of the confederacy or the north?

That... doesn't contradict anything I said?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 07, 2012, 06:18:50 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 07, 2012, 04:53:27 pm

You probably didn't even read the first few pages. Change to existing law [Eminent domain] in favor of corporations doesn't mean it's the government taking said land. The corporations are forcing it and causing it for the most part. The government has vast tracts of lands, and has no need to condemn and evict poor people from their homes. That's not how the world works. We don't live in a conspiracy theory.

Eminent domain is a government power. Seizures of land done under that power are done by the government, no matter in whose interest it was done or who winds p with the land afterward. Thus, a list of eminent domain seizures is a valid example of abuses of government power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 07, 2012, 06:25:53 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 07, 2012, 06:18:50 pm

Eminent domain is a government power. Seizures of land done under that power are done by the government, no matter in whose interest it was done or who winds p with the land afterward. Thus, a list of eminent domain seizures is a valid example of abuses of government power.

Are you dense or just not understanding that the changes to the eminent domain laws are what causes these conflicts of interest and the people getting removed from their property? It's not government workers going out and evicting people.

Quote

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision
In 2005, in what has become a landmark debate about urban redevelopment, the U.S. Supreme Court reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development. In a controversial 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled that the benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This case was the first major eminent domain case heard by the Supreme Court since 1984...

Quote

According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue.”

Conservative justices dissented. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the principal dissent, suggesting that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion — take from the poor give to the rich — would become the norm, not the exception. According to Day O’Connor, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Read. Thank you. (http://www.areadevelopment.com/EconomicsGovernmentPolicy/feb10/Eminent-domain-issues-site-selection1101110.shtml) The issue is eminent domain has been so entangled by corporate interests that it's not an issue of the government grabbing land. It's corporations that do it in 99% of cases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 07, 2012, 06:33:45 pm

Corporations do not have the Eminent domain power. It is a power of the government. The fact that it is usually used for the sole benefit of corporations at their behest does not change that. If the government decided to eliminate the IRS and delegate tax collection to a company which then used taxation to line their own pockets, it would be still abuse of government power, because the government alone has the power of taxation.

Let me reiterate this, because you are the one that seems to be dense.

EMINENT DOMAIN IS A POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER WHO IS BENEFITING FROM IT.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 07, 2012, 07:22:07 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 07, 2012, 06:33:45 pm

Corporations do not have the Eminent domain power. It is a power of the government. The fact that it is usually used for the sole benefit of corporations at their behest does not change that. If the government decided to eliminate the IRS and delegate tax collection to a company which then used taxation to line their own pockets, it would be still abuse of government power, because the government alone has the power of taxation.

Let me reiterate this, because you are the one that seems to be dense.

EMINENT DOMAIN IS A POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER WHO IS BENEFITING FROM IT.

Let's not get this thread locked due to a flame war. Thanks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 09:07:13 pm

I like how greatjustice first cherry picks information from the WHO report to back up his flawed argument and then argues that the WHO is a biased entity. Health care in more socialised countries are ranked higher than the USA. FACT. Okay then, just who do you suggest is better versed in world health than the World Health Organisation?

And lastly, you pull up the socialism version of godwining by bringing up flawed communism in the USSR. I might as well bash democracy because the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has democracy in their name.

Also, someone PMed me about your 'Libertarian' exploits in Simrepublic.

All in all, I'd like to thank you for clearing up the confusion of whether you were a troll or not. I will be ignoring your future posts and will invite others to do the same.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2012, 09:10:26 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 09:07:13 pm

And lastly, you pull up the socialism version of godwining by bringing up flawed communism in the USSR.

To be fair, he wasn't doing this seriously.  He was demonstrating how he believes others to be treating his arguments.  Whether that's true or not is an entirely other issue.

Honestly, GreatJustice doesn't strike me as a troll.  I'm sure he won't like this assessment, but it is in his defense.  He reads to me like someone who was heavily brainwashed through his childhood.  He was taught to believe certain things extremely dogmatically, and had his critical thinking skills thoroughly sabotaged.  He knows how to use the internet to look up information, but doesn't know how to patch it all together into a sensible worldview or formulate valid arguments.  It takes a lot of time and some gut-wrenching first-hand life experience for most people to grow out of this kind of training.

I could be wrong, but his disjointed patterns of thinking remind me very much of other people I've known who were simply raised to function that way.  They don't read like they're specifically tailored to cause flame wars, like most trolls do.  They're just frustrating.  So if he's a troll, he's not a very ambitious one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 09:18:42 pm

He just cited the castlecoalition as his source on eminent domain in the same post as telling me that the World Health Organisation is biased. He's either completely devoid of the irony or something else I won't say.

Now I'm not saying that he's not sound in the head or brainwashed, salmongod, but his arguments would have more weight if they weren't slippery, irrelevant, and constantly contradicting each other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 07, 2012, 10:01:48 pm

I can live with eminent domain; if 99 out of 100 homeowners sold out their land the build a new mall that the whole town can use, and the 100th smack in the middle is holding out for 10x the value, or just being an old stubborn person... sucks, but it's essential.

Civil Forfeiture is what pisses me off.

http://www.drugtext.org/Crime-police-trafficking/presumed-guilty.html (http://www.drugtext.org/Crime-police-trafficking/presumed-guilty.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2012, 10:12:31 pm

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 09:18:42 pm

Now I'm not saying that he's not sound in the head or brainwashed, salmongod, but his arguments would have more weight if they weren't slippery, irrelevant, and constantly contradicting each other.

Of course, I'm not saying that bad critical thinking skills = mentally unsound.  Growing up in an extreme conservative environment in America just does this to people.  They're raised not only to argue, but to actually think in such a fashion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on October 07, 2012, 10:52:01 pm

By the way, can we say that Godwin's Law covers bringing up Lenin/Stalin in discussions of modern socialism?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2012, 10:53:15 pm

Quote from: Techhead on October 07, 2012, 10:52:01 pm

By the way, can we say that Godwin's Law covers bringing up Lenin/Stalin in discussions of modern socialism?

It really should.  It's on the same level of memefication and is used in basically the same fashion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on October 08, 2012, 04:13:59 am

Quote

"So when the Soviet Union collapsed under Yeltsin, when Yeltsin privatized every last thing, deregulated the markets in the process, and removed the social safety net in the process, why don't libertarians hold the period between 1990 and 1998 as the grand period of Russian development considering it aligns perfectly with libertarian advice?

If Libertarianism works, and Yeltsin did what libertarians demand a state should do, why don't libertarians hold this period up as a success story?

I mean, Russia during that period went from being communist to being an unregulated private market controlled place, so clearly libertarians should be looking at this place for guidance.

Is it because it's hard to use as support because of the soul crushing 70 percent poverty rate that took over (from the soviet 1989 high of 12 percent)?

Is it because wages, living standards, literacy standards, homeless standards, and the overall level of happiness was totally and nearly completely obliterated compared to communist Russia?

Why aren't libertarians shouting from the rooftops about the success of Yeltsin?

Why aren't libertarians screaming from the rooftops about the failure of Putin's social reforms regarding privatization? "

Free market capitalism won the cold war for the US because it infected Russia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 08:49:25 am

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 07, 2012, 06:33:45 pm

Corporations do not have the Eminent domain power. It is a power of the government. The fact that it is usually used for the sole benefit of corporations at their behest does not change that. If the government decided to eliminate the IRS and delegate tax collection to a company which then used taxation to line their own pockets, it would be still abuse of government power, because the government alone has the power of taxation.

Let me reiterate this, because you are the one that seems to be dense.

EMINENT DOMAIN IS A POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER WHO IS BENEFITING FROM IT.

This times 100.

If the government does something bad on behalf of a corporation, it is not suddenly the corporation doing the bad action, it is the government (which has that power in the first place).

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 07, 2012, 09:07:13 pm

I like how greatjustice first cherry picks information from the WHO report to back up his flawed argument and then argues that the WHO is a biased entity. Health care in more socialised countries are ranked higher than the USA. FACT. Okay then, just who do you suggest is better versed in world health than the World Health Organisation?

I like how you have not posted a single link, source, reference, and have literally paid not one iota of attention to my argument.  You haven't even linked to the WHO report you claim "proves me wrong" (though it has not a single connection to any of my arguments so far).

Quote

He just cited the castlecoalition as his source on eminent domain in the same post as telling me that the World Health Organisation is biased. He's either completely devoid of the irony or something else I won't say.

So you think there have been less cases of Eminent Domain seizure than provided? Do you have an alternative source?

The WHO is rather obviously not an unbiased source, especially if you  read some of what is ranked on the survey, but I'm not bothering to press that because it's a null point. Obviously, if (almost) every country in the world has socialized healthcare, then a survey of the highest quality healthcare will reveal the top countries to have... socialized healthcare!

Quote

And lastly, you pull up the socialism version of godwining by bringing up flawed communism in the USSR. I might as well bash democracy because the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has democracy in their name.

Did you seriously think I was arguing that?

... I really have nothing to say.

Quote

Also, someone PMed me about your 'Libertarian' exploits in Simrepublic.

Truly a relevant topic worth expansion upon in the American Election Megathread (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 08:51:36 am

I think political discussions on internet forums suffer when they become embroiled in such irritating jargon as Godwin's Law, Strawmanning, Cherry Picking, Trolling, Flame War and the like. I think if you actually refer to what these phrases mean - rather than saying "Dude you're strawmanning me quit it", how's about "your argument is fallacious because you're misrepresenting my position". My concern is that if you keep using the expression "strawmanning" you're going to end up with people who don't know what that word means and it will become corrupted and used for other inappropriate purposes, rather like the words "fascist" and "communist" for "totalitarian" and so on.

George Orwell's fifth rule: "(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 08, 2012, 08:52:48 am

Lots of country don't have governmental healthcare system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 08:54:01 am

Quote from: Sheb on October 08, 2012, 08:52:48 am

Lots of country don't have governmental healthcare system.

And lots of countries do, past and present.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 08, 2012, 09:08:46 am

Yup. So it's significant than all the top ones are socialist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 08, 2012, 09:14:23 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 08:49:25 am

I like how you have not posted a single link, source, reference, and have literally paid not one iota of attention to my argument.  You haven't even linked to the WHO report you claim "proves me wrong" (though it has not a single connection to any of my arguments so far).

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 05, 2012, 02:59:21 am

This also deserves it's own reply:

Quote from: Wiki

Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]
Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
EDIT- part of this posted earlier ^^^

They force you to set aside a large portion of your wages for retirement and future healthcare needs.

One of the most socalised and regulated countries in the world, ranked 6th in healthcare by WHO.

So let's look at the other winners...

1: France = extremely socialist (one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1])

2: Italy = 75% socalised Healthcare is provided to all citizens and residents by a mixed public-private system.

3: San Marino = highly socalist San Marino has a high standard of compulsory, state-funded healthcare and medical staff are highly qualified

4: Andorra = extremely socialist Healthcare in Andorra is provided to all employed persons and their families by the government-run social security system, CASS (Caixa Andorrana de Seguretat Social), which is funded by employer and employee contributions in respect of salaries.[47] The cost of healthcare is covered by CASS at rates of 75% for out-patient expenses such as medicines and hospital visits, 90% for hospitalisation, and 100% for work-related accidents. The remainder of the costs may be covered by private health insurance. Other residents and tourists require full private health insurance

5: Malta = Free healthcare socialism Malta has a long history of providing publicly funded health care. The first hospital recorded in the country was already functioning by 1372.[119] Today, Malta has both a public healthcare system, known as the government healthcare service, where healthcare is free at the point of delivery, and a private healthcare system.

Are you starting to notice a pattern about how successful socalised healthcare is?

Source: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf
The World Health Organisation: The World Health Report (last ranked year 2000)

Note: this was in response to your statement in the Progressive thread about socialised and European health care not being effective. It is.

Quote

Quote

Also, someone PMed me about your 'Libertarian' exploits in Simrepublic.

Truly a relevant topic worth expansion upon in the American Election Megathread (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem)

It proves that you are either a troll or have no idea what you are doing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 08, 2012, 09:19:14 am

Quote from: anonymous source

bay12'ers played a political strategy game together (simRepublic), where we settled as Libya. and we tried to help GreatJustice out by giving him a communally-built glass factory to run (a government grant basically). He didn't manage to construct anything by himself.

He then declared he had mandated ownership of all the sand (used for glassmaking) in Libya. sand was just random stuff lying around on the maps that anyone can pick up.  when other people collected and used the sand themselves ("it's a free world dude"),  he threw a royal hissy-fit and proceeded to sabotage everyone else's work, and conspired with the governments of countries hostile to Bay12's Libya.

Funny how people's "deeply felt" ideologies suddenly collapse in these sort of simulations. I would've thought that a "libertarian" would have accepted that if a declared property right could not be enforced, it didn't exist.

Nice example of 'socialism' on the glass there buddy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 08, 2012, 09:25:15 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 08:49:25 am

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 07, 2012, 06:33:45 pm

Corporations do not have the Eminent domain power. It is a power of the government. The fact that it is usually used for the sole benefit of corporations at their behest does not change that. If the government decided to eliminate the IRS and delegate tax collection to a company which then used taxation to line their own pockets, it would be still abuse of government power, because the government alone has the power of taxation.

Let me reiterate this, because you are the one that seems to be dense.

EMINENT DOMAIN IS A POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER WHO IS BENEFITING FROM IT.

This times 100.

If the government does something bad on behalf of a corporation, it is not suddenly the corporation doing the bad action, it is the government (which has that power in the first place).

It's a corp buying a service from the government. That's capitalism, dude.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 08, 2012, 09:45:25 am

Well, he did do the Libertarian thing and contacted other actors to help him enforce his claim.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 09:49:47 am

I'd argue both the government AND the corporation are doing something bad there...

And scriver, you just supported his point. He says the corporation buying it from the government is fine, but the government DOING it is bad. Similar to the way purchasing medical care is fine, but if the doctor uses organs harvested from orphan nun-scouts against their will, that is NOT fine. That the abuse is on the government end, not the corporations end for simply purchasing a potential service that is defacto legal.

(I'm not actually buying this - without ethics and moral expectations, capitalism and the free market fall apart, and the corps here are definitely violating those)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 08, 2012, 09:51:21 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 08:49:25 am

I like how you have not posted a single link, source, reference, and have literally paid not one iota of attention to my argument.

When people acknowledge your arguments you accuse them of strawmanning you sooner or later.

Either everyone else on the forums has a problem or you do.  Which do you think it is, bub?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 08, 2012, 09:52:10 am

Quote from: Sheb on October 08, 2012, 09:45:25 am

Well, he did do the Libertarian thing and contacted other actors to help him enforce his claim.

And apparently throwing a fit and sabotaging your own country is the hip Libertarian thing to do when things don't work out your way.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 08, 2012, 09:53:06 am

Quote from: scriver on October 08, 2012, 09:25:15 am

It's a corp buying a service from the government. That's capitalism, dude.

It's actually worse:

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court has largely given the public use requirement an expansive interpretation and has allowed takings of private property for reconveyance to other private parties, or in some cases by private parties directly, on the theory that the new owners will put the taken land to more lucrative uses that are likely to generate more tax revenues. This is known as "economic redevelopment." It uses eminent domain to enable acquitre[sic] and then convey land to commercial development or redevelopment to increase tax revenues.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Eminent_domain (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Eminent_domain)

So, you see, it's the ability for private [usually corporate] entities to go directly through a process that is akin to actual eminent domain seizures that's helped lead to the fucked up situation GJ so helpfully linked to earlier, that booklet full of corporate domain seizures.

I honestly didn't feel like arguing with the children who refuse to understand that there can be differences in applied meaning of what is called 'eminent domain' in situations [and who fail to realize 'the guvvment' isn't one big hivemind, it's state and local eminent domain seizures that get cited as abuses most often, not federal eminent domain seizures (you know, the ones for those railroads/highways the free market requires to exist).. so...], so I apologize if this isn't necessarily a response to what you said, heh. I just didn't feel like leaving their idiocy behind without responding.

It just seems off that the state's rights advocates don't understand that it's states that are usually the ones violating people's rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 08, 2012, 10:10:12 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 09:49:47 am

I'd argue both the government AND the corporation are doing something bad there...

And scriver, you just supported his point. He says the corporation buying it from the government is fine, but the government DOING it is bad. Similar to the way purchasing medical care is fine, but if the doctor uses organs harvested from orphan nun-scouts against their will, that is NOT fine. That the abuse is on the government end, not the corporations end for simply purchasing a potential service that is defacto legal.

(I'm not actually buying this - without ethics and moral expectations, capitalism and the free market fall apart, and the corps here are definitely violating those)

The service that the corps bought was the rewriting of the law into it's abuseable form.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:47:01 am

Quote from: KaelGotDwarves on October 08, 2012, 09:14:23 am

The WHO's healthcare report, Singapore, etc

All of which I replied to earlier when Reelya brought it up. Singapore has far more controls and direct government intervention than the US does, but it also has a far less messy regulatory system than the US. For example, medical licensing, insurance incentives (subsidies/tax incentives), insurance mandates (depending on the state), mandates as to what insurance HAS to cover (again, depending on the state), government ownership of nearly all the hospitals despite nominally being in a "market" system, FDA licensing (Which is almost exclusively favourable to the most gigantic of pharmaceutical companies), Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran/Indian Health Service, etc etc etc

The same applies to most of the countries brought up, really. Even France has a significantly more streamlined system than the US does. Now, onto the next argument, I may as well open with a quote from a different discussion:

Quote

No country in the world has a fully private healthcare system (and that would be including the USA), so showing off how highly rated non-private healthcare systems are is a bit like a mid 17th century demographer coming to the conclusion that, because almost all of the richest/most successful countries are presently controlled by emperors or kings, the only way a country can be successful is to be ruled by an emperor or king.

No country in the world has a free market in healthcare. Do you understand? Not one. Some are closer than others, and you can directly compare one country to another to see which is closer to having a free market (for example, Germany vs Sweden), but to claim that it's superiority is proven because Socialized Healthcare System A is better than Socialized Healthcare System B is rather silly.

Now anyway, back to the WHO survey, one reason it's biased is that it ranks "fairness" right beside "responsiveness" (How good the quality of the system is actually considered to be, which the US actually came first in) and "effectiveness" (which is a statistical measure of mortality rates, etc). Keep in mind, "fairness" is actually measured multiple times, so it happens to be heavily weighed compared to the other factors.

Effectiveness is ranked by a nation's mortality rate increase of decrease over the years. However, this doesn't take into account non-healthcare factors, such as increases in wealth, murders, car accidents, smoking, etc etc etc that are not directly affected by healthcare systems.

Fairness is measured in that it expects citizens to pay the same amount of money in proportion to how much they have for their healthcare, regardless of sociopolitical status (so, say, the billionaire and the poor man both pay 10% of their income for healthcare). Yet this (A) doesn't reflect the actual quality of healthcare in any meaningful sense (again, France was rated quite low in terms of "responsiveness", yet because everyone pays the same amount they were boosted by this statistic) and (B) obviously favours the more socialized systems, because the more socialized systems would be FUNDED through a tax system rather than case by case!

Responsiveness, the remaining measure (though again, the other measures are effectively variations on "fairness", which constitute over half of the rating IIRC) the actual measurement of quality and satisfaction on the part of patients, the US actually comes first. Meanwhile, countries such as France and Italy fall quite a ways behind here.

Oh, and this was taken in 2000, so it's somewhat out of date. For example, Greece was originally in 14th place, quite respectable going by the survey. Yet as of 2012, Greek pharmacists can't even  get aspirin. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-10/greek-crisis-has-pharmacists-pleading-for-aspirin-as-drug-supply-dries-up.html)  Considering the present Eurozone Crisis, I'd imagine that if the WHO made a 2012 survey, even with the old ratings, a lot of those top countries would have fallen quite a ways.

Quote

It proves that you are either a troll or have no idea what you are doing.

And why would you need to "prove" that I'm a troll if you weren't more interested in attacking me than attacking my arguments? (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem)

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 09:49:47 am

I'd argue both the government AND the corporation are doing something bad there...

And scriver, you just supported his point. He says the corporation buying it from the government is fine, but the government DOING it is bad. Similar to the way purchasing medical care is fine, but if the doctor uses organs harvested from orphan nun-scouts against their will, that is NOT fine. That the abuse is on the government end, not the corporations end for simply purchasing a potential service that is defacto legal.

(I'm not actually buying this - without ethics and moral expectations, capitalism and the free market fall apart, and the corps here are definitely violating those)

The corporations are hardly innocent of any wrongdoing, it's just silly to say that they are the root of the problem when their powers and benefits are derived from government support.

Quote

Nice example of 'socialism' on the glass there buddy.

I think we all know who the "anonymous source" is here. Besides that, that still isn't relevant to the argument at hand unless you prefer personal attacks over actual arguments. (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem)

Besides that, the "anonymous source" neglects to mention that a certain individual made a personal profit scamming other Bay 12ers, and basically trolled the people he didn't like out of the game (the results of which you can find yourself in the SimRepublic thread if you're honestly interested and not simply interested in trolling, which I'm beginning to doubt). However, again, this is the American Election Megathread, not the "Calling people stupid" thread, so I'm not seeing the point of it coming up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 08, 2012, 10:51:46 am

So basically, we have no exemple of why a private system would work. So what are we debating on?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 10:52:33 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:47:01 am

Quote

No country in the world has a fully private healthcare system (and that would be including the USA)

No country in the world has a free market in healthcare. Do you understand? Not one.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that mean roughly the same thing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 10:53:19 am

[Sidelined Snarky Comment About How The Thread Is Going Down In Flames]

[Sarcastic Hypothesizing About What Aqizzar Will Do When He Sees This]

[Backhanded Statement Of Departure]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:59:28 am

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 10:52:33 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:47:01 am

Quote

No country in the world has a fully private healthcare system (and that would be including the USA)

No country in the world has a free market in healthcare. Do you understand? Not one.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that mean roughly the same thing?

It's a point worth repeating.

Quote from: Sheb on October 08, 2012, 10:51:46 am

So basically, we have no exemple of why a private system would work. So what are we debating on?

There are examples, but most of them are in the past to varying degrees.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 10:53:19 am

[Sidelined Snarky Comment About How The Thread Is Going Down In Flames]

[Sarcastic Hypothesizing About What Aqizzar Will Do When He Sees This]

[Backhanded Statement Of Departure]

Personally, I'd advise we presently completely forget about every argument up to this point and come up with something else before the thread becomes unsalvageable.

So Mitt Romney's pretty dumb, eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 11:02:50 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:59:28 am

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 10:52:33 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 08, 2012, 10:47:01 am

Quote

No country in the world has a fully private healthcare system (and that would be including the USA)

No country in the world has a free market in healthcare. Do you understand? Not one.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that mean roughly the same thing?

It's a point worth repeating.

Ah, so it was your quote!

I guess that's how to make someone remember a point, repeat it.

Quote

You should repeat your points to make other people remember them

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SHOULD REPEAT WHAT YOU SAY A LOT YET

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 08, 2012, 11:03:30 am

Well, this thread has remained entertaining even if the elections have not. Personal attacks and all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on October 08, 2012, 11:04:54 am

So, uh, yeah.

I'm honestly torn between republican and democrat, really. I like the democrat's views on equality and stuff, but the republican's views on things like global warming.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 11:06:55 am

....The Republican view that global warming isn't happening at all and we should just ignore climate change, drill baby drill?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 08, 2012, 11:08:27 am

Quote from: Japa on October 08, 2012, 11:04:54 am

So, uh, yeah.

I'm honestly torn between republican and democrat, really. I like the democrat's views on equality and stuff, but the republican's views on things like global warming.

yea, it would be a lot easier if we could just pass a law to make it illegal for the sea to rise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on October 08, 2012, 11:10:01 am

... yes?

Sorta, anyway. My view is that global warming's gonna happen with or without our help, and the earth's been far warmer and far colder than it is right now, and we're just getting out of an ice age, relatively speaking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 08, 2012, 11:12:23 am

It's not a problem that cannot be solved with a non-infinite amount of buckets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 08, 2012, 11:12:33 am

I'd argue except I usually get self-conscious that I'm totally wrong even if it's something absolutely retarded (e.g. "All non-furries will be put in concentration camps").

So what's wrong with using less gas and saving money anyway?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 08, 2012, 11:13:21 am

Because that way we can eventually build up a market on farts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 11:15:42 am

Quote from: Japa on October 08, 2012, 11:10:01 am

... yes?

Sorta, anyway. My view is that global warming's gonna happen with or without our help, and the earth's been far warmer and far colder than it is right now, and we're just getting out of an ice age, relatively speaking.

Getting out of an ice age is one thing, but the atmospheric concentration of C02 PPM right now is higher than at any point we have ever been able to analyze. C02 traps heat. We've had abnormal heat since the C02 PPM started rising. Coming out of an ice age doesn't do that.

Even if climate change is natural, we still have a problem that needs to be addressed, and that is the impending downfall of human civilization once said climate change renders us unable to grow the crops we have relied on for our species' entire history. It is paramount that we maintain Earth's current temperature even if we have to start blasting the atmosphere with sulfate to do it, otherwise most of humanity is going to starve to death. In your lifetime. Earth can and has been hotter and colder, but not with us around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on October 08, 2012, 11:38:46 am

Eh.

Be that as it may, I'll vote for whoever supports the space program more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 11:39:36 am

Quote from: Japa on October 08, 2012, 11:38:46 am

Eh.

Be that as it may, I'll vote for whoever supports the space program more.

But surely once things are more stable in the USA, there will be plenty of time for space programs?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on October 08, 2012, 11:41:25 am

Not that I'm voting anyway. Too far away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 08, 2012, 11:51:46 am

When you don't vote you make the average concentration of jerks in the voting pool slightly larger.  Jerks vote, uniformly.

As for the global warming thing, there is pretty much unanimous agreement among the climate scientists that climate change is happening due to human activity.  The dissenters are pretty uniformly paid shills.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 11:53:19 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 11:39:36 am

But surely once things are more stable in the USA, there will be plenty of time for space programs?

The USA is stable, hence why it is important to both combat climate change and fund the space program right now. The sooner we get material returns from space exploration the better. Earth only has so much to offer us, no matter how well we conserve.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 08, 2012, 11:53:32 am

So does that mean that the state's with the highest voting turnout are filled with jerks? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 08, 2012, 12:50:06 pm

Quote from: Japa on October 08, 2012, 11:38:46 am

Eh.

Be that as it may, I'll vote for whoever supports the space program more.

No one supports the space program.

Romney claims to, but he also plans on massive tax cuts, to be payed with by slashing investments in education and science that directly and indirectly reduce the effectiveness of the space program even if NASA's budget isn't slashed (and it will be).

Obama has decided to not increase NASA spending, because he would never be allowed to by the republican senate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 08, 2012, 01:29:36 pm

Quote from: Jervill on October 08, 2012, 11:53:32 am

So does that mean that the state's with the highest voting turnout are filled with jerks? :P

No, you don't have to be a jerk to vote.  I don't think the average person is a jerk.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Meansdarling on October 08, 2012, 01:34:28 pm

Did any of ya'll watch O'rielly and John Stewart's debate/discussion on the issues?
It was a lot of fun. John Stewart is so short. lol
It was very funny and they provided more information than either candidate did in the presidential debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 08, 2012, 01:52:35 pm

 I saw a bit. It was refreshing to hear 'papa bear' say things like the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that capitalism can be a problem in certain cases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Meansdarling on October 08, 2012, 01:56:40 pm

I liked that they agreed about Veterans, and when they talked about immigration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 08, 2012, 03:31:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 08, 2012, 12:50:06 pm

No one supports the space program.

Gingrich 2016!  You know it makes sense.

Quote from: Meansdarling on October 08, 2012, 01:56:40 pm

I liked that they agreed about Veterans, and when they talked about immigration.

Obama also thinks that veterans are part of the 47% who will never take responsibility for their lives?

Edit: confused by context

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 03:37:15 pm

...what? Neither Obama nor Romney were involved in the debate they were discussing. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 03:55:59 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 11:53:19 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 11:39:36 am

But surely once things are more stable in the USA, there will be plenty of time for space programs?

The USA is stable, hence why it is important to both combat climate change and fund the space program right now. The sooner we get material returns from space exploration the better. Earth only has so much to offer us, no matter how well we conserve.

But isn't America currently riddled with economic hardship?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 04:01:30 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 03:55:59 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 11:53:19 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 11:39:36 am

But surely once things are more stable in the USA, there will be plenty of time for space programs?

The USA is stable, hence why it is important to both combat climate change and fund the space program right now. The sooner we get material returns from space exploration the better. Earth only has so much to offer us, no matter how well we conserve.

But isn't America currently riddled with economic hardship?

Not anywhere near 2008, and it is irrelevant regardless. If you wait for the perfect time it will never come, and then we're all dead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 04:04:15 pm

If we only limit it to times when we aren't suffering any sort of hardship, we'll never, ever have a space program.

It's like the people say they're going to wait to have a kid until their lives are "stable", and then never do because it's never stable "enough".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 04:07:11 pm

Though on that, a lot of people are going to need to go without kids if we're going to maintain civilization. The majority of people who are going to cause our collapse don't exist yet, and if they never exist the resources they would otherwise take will be freed up.

I don't particularly like the idea of putting restrictions on reproduction, but if it's that or our entire civilization...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 04:08:08 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 04:01:30 pm

Not anywhere near 2008, and it is irrelevant regardless. If you wait for the perfect time it will never come, and then we're all dead.

That kind of attitude is the kind that means you're always going to be just slightly in the shit while money gets wasted on fantastical projects. Don't treat the shitty stuff as stuff that's always going to be there, just go and deal with it. Put all your energy into it and when things are easier, go for your space program.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 04:17:32 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 04:08:08 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 04:01:30 pm

Not anywhere near 2008, and it is irrelevant regardless. If you wait for the perfect time it will never come, and then we're all dead.

That kind of attitude is the kind that means you're always going to be just slightly in the shit while money gets wasted on fantastical projects. Don't treat the shitty stuff as stuff that's always going to be there, just go and deal with it. Put all your energy into it and when things are easier, go for your space program.

It isn't a fantasy. NASA churns out technological innovation like no other agency and is investing in the future of human civilization.

Economic downturns are a fact of having an economy. "Just fix it" is the real fantasy.

And furthermore, we can multitask. You can, in fact, do everything you need to do, and this is something we need to do.

NASA gets $18 Billion dollars a year and shrinking. The Department of Defence gets $683 Billion dollars a year and growing. If you want to talk about cuts, don't go looking at the space program, because even at its greatest it was never more than 5% of the US budget. They should be getting more on the order of $100 Billion dollars a year anyway.

You are never going to get your perfect time. It doesn't exist.

You don't just "go for" a space program. These things take lots of investment to get returns, but the returns are exponentially greater. The sooner we start investing the sooner we can get returns, and the sooner we get returns the sooner we can avert the downfall of humanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 08, 2012, 04:21:50 pm

Regarding NASA:

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/261849_482694248418258_1411198327_n.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 08, 2012, 04:25:22 pm

I still prefer the answer "satellites".  Brevity really helps get the point across.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 08, 2012, 04:33:23 pm

GP fucking S. Just in case whoever you're talking to thinks that satellites are only good for nuking planets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 08, 2012, 04:40:09 pm

It's not to late to vote green, or to sacrifice a few thousand grizzly bears to resurrect Roosevelt

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 04:40:54 pm

Well, ignore the kids. It's like putting off saving for your retirement (or any sort of saving or investing) until you're "financially secure" and, presumably, have an abundance of cash. It's a really, really stupid idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 08, 2012, 05:04:56 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 04:07:11 pm

Though on that, a lot of people are going to need to go without kids if we're going to maintain civilization. The majority of people who are going to cause our collapse don't exist yet, and if they never exist the resources they would otherwise take will be freed up.

I don't particularly like the idea of putting restrictions on reproduction, but if it's that or our entire civilization...

Not in the United States. Our population growth is mostly from immigration.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/2009summarytables.html

With no net migration we would be projected to have gone from around 300,580 (thousands of people) in 2013 to around 323,020 in 2047, at which point it would start trending down. That, of course, is an unrealistic scenario, as we do have international migration. Under their 'Low Net International Migration Series' they projected the US having around 316,669 thousand people in 2013 and 328,131 in 2017 (gaining 11.462 million people in 4 years, which would cover Romney's term if he were elected), and 413,764 in 2047. The low net international migration series appears to be the closest to our current population, from what I could tell.

Anyone pay attention to Romney saying he was going to add 12 million jobs in 4 years? I wonder if his campaign calculated it so that would be just above population growth, expecting that almost nobody would check any projections. I noticed, but it doesn't seem like anyone in the media has.

It is well known that population growth is higher in less advanced countries, and slows down as a population gets a higher standard of living. You can't simply ban more than one birth in the entire world, either.

P.S. I doubt they projected the effects of climate change as far as disasters, reduced living space, reduced arable land, changed weather patterns, etc. I would expect the population in the US to eventually start to drop and the population in Canada to increase more rapidly as it will be more habitable eventually and much of the US is going to no longer have any arable land, but that population shift could be some time away. (Also, Siberia is supposed to become more habitable, which is to say, actually arable (assuming the dirt isn't unfarmable), I think, after a hundred or more years, IIRC. Depends on how fast stuff goes, it keeps going faster than projections. It's supposed to be at the end of the IPCC projections timewise, but they've turned out to be conservative underestimates of how fast it's going.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 05:29:05 pm

Irrelevant. The actual growth is unimportant compared to the actual number of people and the resources they consume. Immigrants will have to refrain from children, but so will Americans if we are to ultimately collapse our population growth.

While such a thing is counter-intuitive and will have negative consequences in the short term, it is in the long term the only pathway to shrinking our population to a post-oil sustainable level. Japan thinks it is cursed due to its collapsing population, but in reality all nations will need to seek to emulate that kind of reduction if we are to avoid a breakdown of social order as the starving masses seek sustenance. Even a partial shortfall will lead to riots and unrest, which will in turn reduce production further and create a downward spiral that will, in the best case scenario, end with 1.2 billion living humans on Earth. Worst case scenario is global thermonuclear war and the extinction of humanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 05:33:33 pm

Luckily, all estimates say population (and consumption) is pretty much set to level LONG before we've reached full capacity.

There's basically no chance of starving masses (at least in the states), under any conceivably circumstances other than sudden mass immigration, which we'd be unlikely to allow anyway.

We certainly don't need anyone to refrain from having children completely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 08, 2012, 05:42:31 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 05:33:33 pm

There's basically no chance of starving masses (at least in the states), under any conceivably circumstances other than sudden mass immigration the currently ongoing extreme environmental collapse, which we'd be unlikely to allow anyway is likely to continue accelerating unabated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 05:53:17 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 05:33:33 pm

Luckily, all estimates say population (and consumption) is pretty much set to level LONG before we've reached full capacity.

Your estimates rely upon uncertainties. We cannot assume that the post-oil transition will go over as smoothly as we believe it will, nor can we accurately predict some of the more dramatic consequences of climate change.

Quote

There's basically no chance of starving masses (at least in the states), under any conceivably circumstances other than sudden mass immigration, which we'd be unlikely to allow anyway.

Incorrect. The Haber-Bosch process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process) is a vital aspect of modern agricultural yields and relies upon hydrogen derived from oil and natural gas to complete. Without it Green Revolution levels of agricultural production will be impossible and will collapse back into either pre-Green Revolution industrial production or sustenance production, depending upon the level of chaos caused during the die off. The former will support approximately 2 billion humans, and the latter will support just under 1 billion, but either way the majority of the species will be consigned to death through starvation or violence. While there is an alternative in electrolysis of water through renewable energy this will not be sufficient.

Quote

We certainly don't need anyone to refrain from having children completely.

That's your pro-natalist culture talking. The enamored attitude towards childbearing needs to be rejected if we are to reduce the population with any level of success to avoid a collapse. Having children is ultimately the act that will doom us, as without a large population we do not need a large level of resources and may sustain ourselves further. The human population could be peacefully reduced to a level that is able to sustain us, or centuries of progress could be undone by our stubborn reproductive attitudes. Either way the human population will fall, the only question is as to the state of our society afterwards, if there are even any of us left to have a society.

Two children per woman will sustain a population, one will cut it in half quickly, less than one is what we need to go from 7 billion to 1 billion in the next century.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 05:57:07 pm

But surely the problem isn't caused by people in modern, western countries having too many weans, it's people in countries like India and the like who have are poorly educated and have vast amounts of children en masse. How on earth are you going to stop them from having so many kids? Given that some of these countries, like Mali and Somalia, can barely enforce the rule of law?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 06:04:28 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 08, 2012, 05:57:07 pm

But surely the problem isn't caused by people in modern, western countries having too many weans, it's people in countries like India and the like who have are poorly educated and have vast amounts of children.

Incorrect. Westerners have less children but we also consume more resources, by orders of magnitude. Both consumption and population must be taken into account to paint an accurate picture of the situation.

Quote

How on earth are you going to stop them from having so many kids?

The least heavy handed method would be to offer young people temporary incentives in exchange for permanent sterilization. While the choice is ultimately voluntary, combining a sufficient benefit with the growing cost of children could be enough to destroy future population growth. It goes without saying that heavily subsidized birth control would also be an aspect of this plan.

The second path would be legislation to make having many children undesirable or illegal, unfortunately with the infamy of China's badly implemented One-Child Policy I doubt any such thing would pass, and while crazy things like forcibly aborting viable fetuses are completely out of line it would be the picture painted by pro-natalists to oppose it, and would likely cause a moral panic that would ensure any such initiative's failure.

The third path is the kind of drastic measures I would only want to be resorted to in an existential emergency, like putting sterility drugs in the water supply. We are nowhere near this kind of desperate and likely won't be for decades, but I assure you that governments will consider it if it looks like a collapse is imminent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 08, 2012, 06:09:32 pm

ALL developed nations except the US (which retains massive amounts of space and resources in a variety of comfortable climates) and possibly Canada (I don't actually know about Canada, but it has the same space advantage)  have either plateaued in population growth or actually begun a slight decline. Most of Europe maintains population through immigration, having a negative birth/death ratio. Sociologists differ on the reasons for this, but it holds true even in countries where large families are traditional such as Italy and Greece. The mass population growth is found solely in developing countries such as China and India, and China is projected to have a large population decrease within the next 50 years, as their bubble population is aging.

As for resources, few are truly finite in any human scale. Except for organic byproducts such as coal or petroleum, everything we need could be provided by space mines, quite possibly at lower cost than any earthly source. With increased recycling and reclamation projects, there is every reason to think that we will be able to support the likely population comfortably.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 06:16:59 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 08, 2012, 06:09:32 pm

ALL developed nations except the US (which retains massive amounts of space and resources in a variety of comfortable climates) and possibly Canada (I don't actually know about Canada, but it has the same space advantage)  have either plateaued in population growth or actually begun a slight decline. Most of Europe maintains population through immigration, having a negative birth/death ratio. Sociologists differ on the reasons for this, but it holds true even in countries where large families are traditional such as Italy and Greece. The mass population growth is found solely in developing countries such as China and India, and China is projected to have a large population decrease within the next 50 years, as their bubble population is aging.

Again, you are failing to recognize the actual problem. I will make it plain: We are already at an unsustainable population that must decrease rapidly if we are to avoid a collapse.

While the growth and the centers of it are bad, it doesn't matter how much growth is going on if the number of people who already exist are taking up more than we can spare. Even though a plateaued population does not grow in number it does continue to use resources at a fluctuating rate.

You all have been fed this popular line about how the West is not the problem, and most buy into it because it allows us to live without concern because it's just "those other people" who might end up being the problem. But that is not how this problem works.

Quote

As for resources, few are truly finite in any human scale. Except for organic byproducts such as coal or petroleum, everything we need could be provided by space mines, quite possibly at lower cost than any earthly source. With increased recycling and reclamation projects, there is every reason to think that we will be able to support the likely population comfortably.

Collection of resources from space will not happen overnight. Until then we need to maintain civilization at a level that we may in fact eventually have said resource collection. This requires shrinking the human population.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 08, 2012, 06:35:42 pm

I've seen reliable analysis at the local university that this planet can support four to six billion with no changes except modernizing the farming methods used in undeveloped areas such as Africa. Similar projections suggest if cash crops such as cotton and tobacco (both notoriously fertilizer hungry and space intensive) were greatly reduced or eliminated, and the area given to livestock is reduced (not even eliminated), that capacity will reach six to eight. Radical measures such as Asimov's Civism would cause that number to go even higher. With proper reclamation, virtually all the resources put into food production can be retrieved, and that's the real bottleneck. Lowering the other resources we use in large quantities would largely be a reduction of luxuries and petty conveniences.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 06:43:35 pm

The US and Canada are perfectly capable of feeding their current population if the oil runs out.

They probably won't be feeding anybody else, mind you.

But there is nothing about the US population that is unsustainable.

Do you actually have any information contradicting this that I don't?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 06:48:48 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 06:43:35 pm

Do you actually have any information contradicting this that I don't?

I already told you, Haber-Bosch. Our agricultural yields are tied directly to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 08, 2012, 06:59:34 pm

The Haber Bosch bottleneck was a problem 100 years ago.  It's not a problem anymore.  We could make ammonia in other ways.  We don't because fossil fuels are cheaper.  But it's not like we'd starve or go back to pre-green revolution farming techniques.  We'd just use green energy to get nitrogen out of the air.  And we will have a long time to do this.  Natural gas deposits abundant enough for cheap power generation will last for decades.  Deposits cheap enough for ammonia production will last even longer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 07:03:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 06:48:48 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 06:43:35 pm

Do you actually have any information contradicting this that I don't?

I already told you, Haber-Bosch. Our agricultural yields are tied directly to it.

I looked into that, and not using it seems to indicate that, at most, we'd lose a third of our yield. That's a LOT of food, a 50% increase in crop yields, and obviously economically attractive - but we have the ability to make a lot of food, a lot more than we are now, but the demand is so low the government pays people not to. No one would starve (assuming the poor still receive government assistance), it's just that more of our economy would be directed to pushing money through foodstuffs than now.

Do you have any actual predictions that would indicate we wouldn't be able to grow enough food to feed our current population? Cause Haber-Bosch aint it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 08, 2012, 07:08:59 pm

I'm personally more worried about global destruction of biodiversity and over-pollution.  We're already on a pretty well-defined course to killing everything in the oceans with rising acidity and plastics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 08, 2012, 07:10:21 pm

Or reprocess it from waste. The Plant-Meat-Shit-Plant cycle is normally a closed one. Modern sewage treatment has opened it along with bringing massive sanitation benefits, but there's no reason that it cannot be reclosed with technology. Likewise, wasted nitrates and phosphates from fertilizer runoff can be reprocessed from streams and rivers, or recycled from any of a number of forms of industrial waste.

Quite a lot of our crop yield is currently lost to spoilage or run through non-food processes such as distillation for fuel. Even more is used for "luxury" foods such as alcohol, sweets, or cow fodder. Further, the cotton industry uses a massively disproportionate amount of fertlizer as opposed to food crops. It's questonable whether a 1/3 drop in output would even be difficult to manage, assuming you had the political muscle to buck the cotton lobby.

Pollution is a serious issue, but recycling (or the outright ban on plastic packaging that I've always supported) would greatly reduce the problem.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 08, 2012, 07:12:00 pm

Kind of a separate issue, though. I'm sure if we reduce our population, we'll just see that as an opportunity to pollute more somehow...

Anyway, if we ever get really desperate, I'll imagine algae-farming will take off big time. It's hugely efficient energy-wise, if not exactly tasty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 08, 2012, 07:18:34 pm

Even if we stopped producing plastics now, we have already produced enough to get the job done.  The problem with plastics is that it all ends up in the ocean.  All of it.  Unless drastic measures are taken to specifically capture and permanently retain all plastic waste, it will all eventually photo-degrade to microscopic levels and be washed into the oceans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 08, 2012, 09:53:00 pm

Human population will likely crash on its own as a result of water stress and farmland becoming non-arable as a result of climate change, before we ever run out of fossil fuels (as the prices go up, it becomes economical to extract sources which were previously uneconomical). At this point there is a substantial amount of warming locked in, along with the consequent changes to weather patterns and climate that will come with it. Right now most everyone ignores the already high death rates in many of the third-world countries - considering it either not their problem, or that there's really nothing they can do to stop it, as well as ignoring the future deaths to come. You can't drive blindly for long without hitting something, though.

I doubt there's any way to convince everyone in the world, or even most of the world, to go along with any kind of population reduction program, and few people would choose voluntary sterilization at a young age. Also, forced sterilization is a terrible thing to suggest, and that whole line of thought is a slippery slope to looking in the mirror and seeing Hitler staring back.

[Godwin intentional.]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on October 08, 2012, 10:42:55 pm

I think we ought to look up, instead of look down to forced sterilization.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 08, 2012, 10:46:04 pm

Quote from: Duuvian on October 08, 2012, 10:42:55 pm

I think we ought to look up, instead of look down to forced sterilization.

Mind explaining your rational on that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 08, 2012, 10:46:48 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 08, 2012, 09:53:00 pm

At this point there is a substantial amount of warming locked in, along with the consequent changes to weather patterns and climate that will come with it.

Yarr... I recently saw a headline stating that the number of methane leaks counted in the arctic is up in the thousands.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 10:48:35 pm

The warming isn't necessarily locked in. There is evidence to suggest that putting sulfates into the atmosphere will directly counteract the C02 and leave Earth colder.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 08, 2012, 10:51:49 pm

It's locked in in the sense that positive feedback systems will ensure warming continues whether we continue to directly contribute to it or not.  We're at the stage where it will happen unless we take drastic measures to counteract it, and "evidence to suggest X might work" is not very comforting in these circumstances.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 08, 2012, 10:53:12 pm

 ItHuman population is likely to plateau around 10 billion without any catastrophy. All we really need is a way to produce enough clean energy to bring the rest of the worlds population up to a semi western standard of of living.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2012, 10:55:48 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 08, 2012, 10:51:49 pm

It's locked in in the sense that positive feedback systems will ensure warming continues whether we continue to directly contribute to it or not.  We're at the stage where it will happen unless we take drastic measures to counteract it, and "evidence to suggest X might work" is not very comforting in these circumstances.

We have some time before the situation reaches criticality. By "some evidence" I mean that we know for a fact that reflective sulfates will cool down the planet. The problem is that we'd have to be very careful about how much was deployed and where, or it won't stabilize and will just spiral further out of control.

We also don't really know what that much sulfate could do to plant life.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on October 09, 2012, 12:03:20 am

Just don't go and use the wrong fix before understanding the implications of it, like with killing the wolves in yellowstone or stopping all forest fires.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:32:33 am

As a point of discussion, I was pondering whether we could see Romney come back again for 2016 if he loses in November. He might end up like McCain or Al Gore and just retreat from that whole scene. Who, among the Republican candidates, will we see? I had a thought that perhaps Ron Paul is calculating that if he keeps doggedly running for the nomination every time, building up his movement, he may eventually win because there's nobody else credible enough to do it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 09, 2012, 08:35:20 am

At this point I think he's too old. He'd croak if he won.

But could you see a Paul/Paul ticket? That would be funny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:46:29 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 09, 2012, 08:35:20 am

At this point I think he's too old. He'd croak if he won.

But could you see a Paul/Paul ticket? That would be funny.

He's auld, and he'd be 81 years old which would be a point of discussion and hubub, but he's still as energetic as ever right now at 77. If he's got a good vice presidential candidate by his side, you won't get a situation like we had with Sarah Palin and John McCain - she was only a heartbeat away from presidency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 09, 2012, 08:50:27 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:46:29 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 09, 2012, 08:35:20 am

At this point I think he's too old. He'd croak if he won.

But could you see a Paul/Paul ticket? That would be funny.

He's auld, and he'd be 81 years old which would be a point of discussion and hubub, but he's still as energetic as ever right now at 77. If he's got a good vice presidential candidate by his side, you won't get a situation like we had with Sarah Palin and John McCain - she was only a heartbeat away from presidency.

More like a heart attack away from presidency.

get it because McCain is really old

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:52:29 am

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 09, 2012, 08:50:27 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:46:29 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 09, 2012, 08:35:20 am

At this point I think he's too old. He'd croak if he won.

But could you see a Paul/Paul ticket? That would be funny.

He's auld, and he'd be 81 years old which would be a point of discussion and hubub, but he's still as energetic as ever right now at 77. If he's got a good vice presidential candidate by his side, you won't get a situation like we had with Sarah Palin and John McCain - she was only a heartbeat away from presidency.

More like a heart attack away from presidency.

get it because McCain is really old

Actually, that's the whole point of the expression "only a heartbeat away from the presidency" - if that heartbeat wasn't there, she'd be in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 09, 2012, 08:53:05 am

I would like to point out that McCain is still alive and kicking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 09, 2012, 08:58:10 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:32:33 am

As a point of discussion, I was pondering whether we could see Romney come back again for 2016 if he loses in November. He might end up like McCain or Al Gore and just retreat from that whole scene. Who, among the Republican candidates, will we see? I had a thought that perhaps Ron Paul is calculating that if he keeps doggedly running for the nomination every time, building up his movement, he may eventually win because there's nobody else credible enough to do it.

You say that like Ron Paul is a credible candidate. I'm confused.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 09, 2012, 09:00:06 am

The only problem is Ron Paul's eventual decline in health will probably be extremely unpredictable.  Energetic elderly like him tend to go strong until they just hit an invisible wall.  Both sides of my family are like this.  Age hardly seems to effect us until one day news breaks that "he's slowing down", which means a couple months left at most.  There's never a trigger, either.  It's like the sand just runs out, then bam.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 09, 2012, 09:00:55 am

Is Romney "credible"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 09, 2012, 09:02:42 am

If by "credible" you mean "has at least some chance of winning the presidency" then yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 09:08:16 am

Quote from: Mego on October 09, 2012, 08:58:10 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:32:33 am

As a point of discussion, I was pondering whether we could see Romney come back again for 2016 if he loses in November. He might end up like McCain or Al Gore and just retreat from that whole scene. Who, among the Republican candidates, will we see? I had a thought that perhaps Ron Paul is calculating that if he keeps doggedly running for the nomination every time, building up his movement, he may eventually win because there's nobody else credible enough to do it.

You say that like Ron Paul is a credible candidate. I'm confused.

He's about as credible as Romney in the sense that he could actually run a campaign that would resonate with people. He represents more than he actually is. In some ways, he's a gift to the Republicans because not only does he support a lot of traditional republican values, he also resonates with a lot of young people. Mostly it's an either or.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 09:12:50 am

There's a lot of semi-credible GOP candidates who chose to sit this one out. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Tim Pawlenty, to name a few.

Don't know if it was discussed prior to the climate derail, but Obama's poor debate showing is hurting bigtime in the polls. New Pew poll has Romney at +4 nationally, while the aggregate national average stands at a mere +0.5 for Obama. Of course, the electoral map is not changed that much -- Obama still has a lock on about 251 votes, Romney on 181. Essentially, it's wiped out the gap created by Romney's 47% remark. Both men have a bit higher polling average than they did just before Romney's remark (the last time they were near-tied in the national polls), indicating that the undecided segment is shrinking rapidly. Most importantly though, Virginia, Ohio and Florida are back to being toss-ups. Interestingly though, so is North Carolina and according to some projections, Missouri.

Romney's path to the White House just got a little sunlight thrown on it, but it's still a very narrow road.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 09, 2012, 02:08:19 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 09:08:16 am

Quote from: Mego on October 09, 2012, 08:58:10 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 09, 2012, 08:32:33 am

As a point of discussion, I was pondering whether we could see Romney come back again for 2016 if he loses in November. He might end up like McCain or Al Gore and just retreat from that whole scene. Who, among the Republican candidates, will we see? I had a thought that perhaps Ron Paul is calculating that if he keeps doggedly running for the nomination every time, building up his movement, he may eventually win because there's nobody else credible enough to do it.

You say that like Ron Paul is a credible candidate. I'm confused.

He's about as credible as Romney in the sense that he could actually run a campaign that would resonate with people. He represents more than he actually is. In some ways, he's a gift to the Republicans because not only does he support a lot of traditional republican values, he also resonates with a lot of young people. Mostly it's an either or.

The problem with Ron Paul so far as electability goes is that, as already said, he's far too old. By 2016, he would be at an age where dropping dead mid campaign would be a risk. Politically speaking, I'd imagine his chances for success go up substantially each time the Republicans lose, but obviously he wouldn't be able to take advantage of that if he died.

My guess is that a younger, Paul-esque candidate will eventually do well in a Republican primary in the future, but that's more like 2020 or so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 02:13:21 pm

You mean, like Rand Paul?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 09, 2012, 02:14:07 pm

Or RuPaul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 09, 2012, 02:19:31 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 02:13:21 pm

You mean, like Rand Paul?

He's better anyways; no racism scandals in his past (that I know of).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 09, 2012, 02:29:49 pm

He's also, unlike his father, a more typical conservative Republican, no?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 09, 2012, 02:35:04 pm

He's more Tea Party, I believe. I try to avoid thinking about Kentucky politics too much, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 09, 2012, 02:40:26 pm

He's a conservative with "libertarian leanings". A bit more like Jim DeMint, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 09, 2012, 03:26:43 pm

Wait, Rand Paul is his own person? I thought it was a snarky callname for Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 09, 2012, 03:28:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 09, 2012, 08:53:05 am

I would like to point out that McCain is still alive and kicking.

Of course, he hasn't spent the last 4 years in the most stressful job in the world. Obama looks 15, maybe 20 years older than he did in 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 09, 2012, 03:30:47 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 09, 2012, 03:28:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 09, 2012, 08:53:05 am

I would like to point out that McCain is still alive and kicking.

Of course, he hasn't spent the last 4 years in the most stressful job in the world. Obama looks 15, maybe 20 years older than he did in 2008.

I would like to point out that McCain's mother is still alive and kicking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 03:31:54 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on October 09, 2012, 02:40:26 pm

He's a conservative with "libertarian leanings". A bit more like Jim DeMint, really.

Yeah, Jim DeMented is another GOP possibility in 2016. A failtastic one, but certainly a primary possibility.

Kinda curious how much support Jan Brewer (Reichsprotektor of Arizona) might build between now and then as well.

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 09, 2012, 03:28:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 09, 2012, 08:53:05 am

I would like to point out that McCain is still alive and kicking.

Of course, he hasn't spent the last 4 years in the most stressful job in the world. Obama looks 15, maybe 20 years older than he did in 2008.

The Presidency does that to everyone. Part of it is the whole "not getting more than a couple of hours of sleep in a night for four years" thing. It's like doing that IronMan sleep thingy. And having to make decisions affecting the entire planet while you're at it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 09, 2012, 03:39:01 pm

Jim Demented? Is he worthy of his name?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 03:57:27 pm

Quote from: Sheb on October 09, 2012, 03:39:01 pm

Jim Demented? Is he worthy of his name?

Actual name is Jim DeMint. The nickname rather writes itself. And yes, it's worthy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 09, 2012, 07:34:41 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 09, 2012, 03:31:54 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 09, 2012, 03:28:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 09, 2012, 08:53:05 am

I would like to point out that McCain is still alive and kicking.

Of course, he hasn't spent the last 4 years in the most stressful job in the world. Obama looks 15, maybe 20 years older than he did in 2008.

The Presidency does that to everyone. Part of it is the whole "not getting more than a couple of hours of sleep in a night for four years" thing. It's like doing that IronMan sleep thingy. And having to make decisions affecting the entire planet while you're at it.

Exactly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 09, 2012, 09:09:09 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 09, 2012, 02:14:07 pm

Or RuPaul.

Now there's a candidate I could get behind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 09, 2012, 09:15:31 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 09, 2012, 09:09:09 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 09, 2012, 02:14:07 pm

Or RuPaul.

Now there's a candidate I could get behind.

Sweet lord, that's a graphic mental vision.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 09, 2012, 10:00:31 pm

Ru Paul is Ron Paul after dark.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 09, 2012, 10:19:16 pm

NONONONONO! MAKEITSTOPMAKEITSTOPMAKEITSTOP!!!


AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHH!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 10, 2012, 12:27:55 am

Once seen it cannot be unseen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 10, 2012, 12:28:56 am

Now roll SAN.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 10, 2012, 08:02:55 am

Billionaire resort developer sends letter to his employees wherein he threatens to take his ball and go home (http://gawker.com/5950189/) if Obama is elected.
By which I mean, "dissolve his company, fire all his employees, and retire to an island in the Caribbean".

In *my* just world, this guy is one of the first with his brains all over the wall when the revolution comes. I'm tired of playing nice with fuckwads like this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 10, 2012, 08:25:54 am

That's pretty damn rotten.  He probably thinks he is John Galt.

Spoiler: I don't think people like him understand what happens when WE take our ball and go home.  Although I don't think most people understand that power, or we'd be having general strikes already. (click to show/hide)

(http://cdn3.thomhartmann.com/sites/default/files/Atlas%20Shrugged%20Farce.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 10, 2012, 08:42:02 am

I was darkly amused by the "modest home" followed by "converted the garage into a office" bit, m'self. I think I've said it before, as have others. It's just a near complete cognitive disconnect; these people seem to literally not understand what modest genuinely looks like. It's not a home with a garage. The rest was fairly objectionable throughout, but that part stood out to me, hum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 10, 2012, 08:53:52 am

I like the comments.

Quote

To all those that belittle this man for being successful, I say "Please shut up. You have all the same opportunity he did to make something of yourself. All you need is the ability to work hard and make smart choices to be wildly successful. There are only 5 basic necessities in life, everything else is a luxury and it is society that has done you the disservice of letting you believe that these luxuries are the new standard." Please open your eyes and talk to someone who has more than you and tell them to their face that they owe you something. Don't speak of classes or in generalities but directly to them. They don't owe you a red cent. Accept your station in life or take responsibility to improve it and help anyone you can along the way.

"It's not my fault you've all wasted your golden opportunities by being lefty pansies, now, is it? Just think - when YOU'RE rich, will YOU want higher taxes?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on October 10, 2012, 10:28:25 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 10, 2012, 08:02:55 am

Billionaire resort developer sends letter to his employees wherein he threatens to take his ball and go home (http://gawker.com/5950189/) if Obama is elected.
By which I mean, "dissolve his company, fire all his employees, and retire to an island in the Caribbean".

In *my* just world, this guy is one of the first with his brains all over the wall when the revolution comes. I'm tired of playing nice with fuckwads like this.

Meh. One of the privileged assholes gets told his whole life that he is the ultimate benefactor and should be not only pampered, but worshiped. Now he realized that the world doesn't seem enthusiastic about revolving around him and this is his way to deal with the cognitive dissonance. I can't even feel anger, only mild amusement.

It's the comments under the text that make me angry. I can't find any reason why would anyone want to defend and worship this manchild.

Edit: Oh, wait. Now the article seems a bit fishy (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/valuedemployees.asp).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: majikero on October 10, 2012, 10:51:35 am

I'm at work but I'm compelled to post.

So we're moving from propaganda and slander to indirect coersion and threats? Go America! Show the world how corruption democracy is done.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 10:51:57 am

So it's a fake, I'm not surprised.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 10, 2012, 10:54:52 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 10:51:57 am

So it's a fake, I'm not surprised.

Actually it's true. They called the guy up, and he confirmed it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 10, 2012, 10:56:10 am

When do we start getting this up north?

"Hello, this is the CEO. Recently I've been worrying about my tax burden, and it would be really nice if you guys voted for Steve again so I don't have to sell the car and bring the kids to office daycare. If things got really bad we might have to get the utility company to cut off the maple syrup lines, and then you'd have nothing to put on your pancakes, so please vote responsibly."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 10:56:39 am

Well that's crazy. I checked the snopes thing and that had been debunked, so I assumed it was another fake.

Billionaires be crazy, yo.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 10, 2012, 10:58:57 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 10:56:39 am

Well that's crazy. I checked the snopes thing and that had been debunked, so I assumed it was another fake.

Billionaires be crazy, yo.

Well apparently he used that chain letter as a guide for some reason, because he liked the message behind it or something. I don't know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 10, 2012, 11:24:02 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on October 10, 2012, 10:58:57 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 10:56:39 am

Well that's crazy. I checked the snopes thing and that had been debunked, so I assumed it was another fake.

Billionaires be crazy, yo.

Well apparently he used that chain letter as a guide for some reason, because he liked the message behind it or something. I don't know.

That's the gist I got. "Okay, I like the cut of this man's jib! What's that you say? It's not real? Even better! I can just change a few names and nobody can sue me for plagiarism! Who's got two thumbs, a billion dollars, and knows how to cut corners like a boss?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 10, 2012, 11:52:06 am

Boy, won't it be a bitch when he has to pay all those people unemployment?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 10, 2012, 12:04:43 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 10, 2012, 11:52:06 am

Boy, won't it be a bitch when he has to pay all those people unemployment?

Not if he goes out of business. I'm sure he would work it so that 99% of the company's assets are liquidated and converted to his personal assets. He's not liable for their unemployment, his corporation is. You know, that imaginary person with free speech rights, but no actual body to be thrown into jail or punched in the face.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 10, 2012, 12:14:09 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 10, 2012, 12:04:43 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 10, 2012, 11:52:06 am

Boy, won't it be a bitch when he has to pay all those people unemployment?

Not if he goes out of business. I'm sure he would work it so that 99% of the company's assets are liquidated and converted to his personal assets. He's not liable for their unemployment, his corporation is. You know, that imaginary person with free speech rights, but no actual body to be thrown into jail or punched in the face.

MaximumZero, we have a new challenge for you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

I'll hold an arm.

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 10, 2012, 04:20:54 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Directly inspired by MZ's bountiful face-punching exploits, I thought.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 08:46:14 pm

I shall require a source.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on October 10, 2012, 08:51:43 pm

"You want source? Maybe I get you source. Maybe I get you PUNCH IN THE FACE." (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1843)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: genmac on October 11, 2012, 09:05:11 am

Wow, just wow. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A3ldyGsZ1Io)  Can't believe CNN even did this interview, certainly MSNBC wouldn't have let this woman (Sean Smith's mother) say anything like this about the administration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 09:26:26 am

Looking at Nate Silver's latest estimates, it's not panic city for Team Obama yet, but they need to pay attention.

Silver still doesn't give Romney more than a 30% chance of winning the Electoral college if the election were held today, but that's about 29% above his chances just a week or two ago. And it's looking increasingly possible that Obama could draw less than 50% of the popular vote, even while winning. Never a good thing.

On RCP, Obama has shed 50 "secure" Electoral College votes, dropping from 251 to 201, thanks to five battleground states going back to the "true toss-up" category: MI, NH, PA, WI and OH. Ohio had been in and out of the toss-up ring all season, but Michigan and Pennsylvania had been essentially written off as safe blue for a couple of months now. North Carolina is turning into a likely red state, based on last few polls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 11:29:18 am

Obama had some really bad days 10/4-10/6; we won't know whether it's simply a debate bump or something else until those days drop from many of the polls.

EDIT: Also, RedKing, RCP doesn't account for "house effect" on polls like Nate Silver does, which could lead to some problems as they take Rasmussen at face value.

EDIT-2: The Senate Races still look very favorable to Democrats based on polling released during the same period.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:28:54 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

I'll hold an arm.

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Apparently, someone took my martial arts experience and ran with it as hard as they could. Memes are weird.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 12:44:45 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:28:54 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

I'll hold an arm.

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Apparently, someone took my martial arts experience and ran with it as hard as they could. Memes are weird.

Well, and I remember some comment about it not helping you to sell things more. Then something about punching people in the face to make them buy stuff. That's where it started for me, but possibly I was merely unaware of its existence at that point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:46:28 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 12:44:45 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:28:54 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

I'll hold an arm.

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Apparently, someone took my martial arts experience and ran with it as hard as they could. Memes are weird.

Well, and I remember some comment about it not helping you to sell things more. Then something about punching people in the face to make them buy stuff. That's where it started for me, but possibly I was merely unaware of its existence at that point.

That would make my job so much easier...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 11, 2012, 01:28:25 pm

Spoiler: MZ Tangent (click to show/hide)

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:46:28 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 12:44:45 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:28:54 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

I'll hold an arm.

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Apparently, someone took my martial arts experience and ran with it as hard as they could. Memes are weird.

Well, and I remember some comment about it not helping you to sell things more. Then something about punching people in the face to make them buy stuff. That's where it started for me, but possibly I was merely unaware of its existence at that point.

That would make my job so much easier...

It's known as cognitive recalibration. If his clients say no, he hits them really hard on the head.
</Avengers reference>

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 09:26:26 am

North Carolina is turning into a likely red state, based on last few polls.

I thought North Carolina was always fairly red. Am I mistaken?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 11, 2012, 01:29:39 pm

Communist?

TRUST ME I'M AN EXPERT

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 01:31:36 pm

Quote from: Mego on October 11, 2012, 01:28:25 pm

Spoiler: MZ Tangent (click to show/hide)

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:46:28 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 12:44:45 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:28:54 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

I'll hold an arm.

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Apparently, someone took my martial arts experience and ran with it as hard as they could. Memes are weird.

Well, and I remember some comment about it not helping you to sell things more. Then something about punching people in the face to make them buy stuff. That's where it started for me, but possibly I was merely unaware of its existence at that point.

That would make my job so much easier...

It's known as cognitive recalibration. If his clients say no, he hits them really hard on the head.
</Avengers reference>

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 09:26:26 am

North Carolina is turning into a likely red state, based on last few polls.

I thought North Carolina was always fairly red. Am I mistaken?

It voted for Obama in 2008, and is more likely to be Lean R or Tossup this year.  Probably anywhere from 45%-50% Obama; the state has liberal northerners moving towards the Golden Triangle region (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) that helps boost Democratic numbers that are dropping off as old Conservadems either leave the party or simply die.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 02:17:09 pm

Quote from: Mego on October 11, 2012, 01:28:25 pm

Spoiler: MZ Tangent (click to show/hide)

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:46:28 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 12:44:45 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on October 11, 2012, 12:28:54 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 10, 2012, 12:17:48 pm

I'll hold an arm.

And where did the MZ face-punch meme come from?

Apparently, someone took my martial arts experience and ran with it as hard as they could. Memes are weird.

Well, and I remember some comment about it not helping you to sell things more. Then something about punching people in the face to make them buy stuff. That's where it started for me, but possibly I was merely unaware of its existence at that point.

That would make my job so much easier...

It's known as cognitive recalibration. If his clients say no, he hits them really hard on the head.
</Avengers reference>

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 09:26:26 am

North Carolina is turning into a likely red state, based on last few polls.

I thought North Carolina was always fairly red. Am I mistaken?

Well, in a manner of speaking, yes...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Nc-red-clay-soil-2.jpg/800px-Nc-red-clay-soil-2.jpg)

It wasn't until I was like 8 years old and went back to the Midwest for the first time, that I realized dirt came in any color other than red clay...

but the recent political redness didn't start until after the Great Southern Realignment of the 1960's. North Carolina, as most Southern states, had been almost monolithically Democrat for 90 years since Reconstruction. The problem was that the Democratic party in the South was the party of the old-school agrarian landowners, Jim Crow, institutionalized racism, segregation and hatred of Lincoln and "the damn Yankees". While in New York and California, it became the party of Vietnam War protestors, hippies and radicals. Cue the Dixiecrat split and migration to the Republican party (and the beginning of the GOP's descent into madness, to be honest). It went blue in 1976, but that's because Carter was a Georgia boy (and the first Deep South President since 1848) and a devout Christian. After that, solidly red up until 2008.

Had my hopes up that 2008 marked a sea change in state politics (NC was historically one of the most politically progressive of the Southern states), but 2010 was a major blow and it's just steadily getting worse. A few weeks ago, polls were showing Obama actually had a good shot of taking the state, but now he's behind again by as much as 8 points depending on the poll. And we're likely going to elect only the third Republican governor since 1897.  :-[

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2012, 02:19:41 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 02:17:09 pm

It wasn't until I was like 8 years old and went back to the Midwest for the first time, that I realized dirt came in any color other than red clay...:P

And just for the record, red clay is almost impossible to remove from clothing. Pretty much all of my clothes were permanently reddened to some degree when I was younger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: CJ1145 on October 11, 2012, 03:18:57 pm

I don't understand American voters! I just don't!

Mitt Romney didn't win anything! You don't win a debate by being a lying, swindling asshat. Describing your medical overhaul as "Everything Obama does, but with my face slapped on it" shouldn't net you points. You shouldn't win votes by promising to go back to the economic system that put us in our recession in the first place!

Everything about him makes me cringe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 11, 2012, 03:31:26 pm

Quote from: CJ1145 on October 11, 2012, 03:18:57 pm

I don't understand American voters! I just don't!

Mitt Romney didn't win anything! You don't win a debate by being a lying, swindling asshat. Describing your medical overhaul as "Everything Obama does, but with my face slapped on it" shouldn't net you points. You shouldn't win votes by promising to go back to the economic system that put us in our recession in the first place!

Everything about him makes me cringe.

As an American voter, me neither.

I find the whole system to be far too much in favor of people like Romney who can confuse their positions by claiming whichever stance has the most political opportunity at the time (aka "flip-flopping"), no matter whether or not he actually agrees with it, whether his official position is contrary to it, or whatever. The presidential debate is, as far as I know, supposed to be an opportunity to showcase your positions and argue for them to the American people, not deny them. But instead of the realities of governance, victory was determined based on style. It's... incredibly depressing and I can't help feel that America deserves every karmic backlash that it suffers from indulging in absurd policies completely divorced from reality. And I do lay most of the blame on the feet of the Republican party as it becomes more and more partisan while the Democratic party collects everybody else* - which makes it far more difficult for the sub-groups therein to argue their own positions and gives massive undeserved credence to the ideals held in the Republican party's platform, pushing our perceptions even further right.

Personally, if I were running the presidential debates, I'd stage them in a manner that would allow for periods of fact checking or even have a big honking screen in the background which corrects the more egregious errors/lies real time. That way they might actually be informative instead of opportunities to confuse the wider argument and spread misinformation on an extremely public venue.

EDIT: *who want a reasonable shot at getting at least some of their views enacted into legislation given the political reality surrounding 3rd parties. The election laws are pushed too far in favor of two large groups and our elections do suffer for that reason as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 11, 2012, 03:33:08 pm

Ah, but thats the beauty of being in opposition. You arent constrained by the reality or restrictions of holding office, so can promise anything to make people happy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 03:34:33 pm

-snip, I would have derailed again-

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 03:43:34 pm

I suggest that the next presidential debate have an army of live fact checkers validating every word said. And any factual discrepancy discovered will result in the electric dog training collars that the candidates wear being set off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 03:45:10 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 03:43:34 pm

I suggest that the next presidential debate have an army of live fact checkers validating every word said. And any factual discrepancy discovered will result in the electric dog training collars that the candidates wear being set off.

Or one of those huge collar things they had in Wild Wild West that would act like a magnet for a spinning sawblade.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 03:48:24 pm

There's two main reasons that it has come to this:

1. You can't call someone a liar to their face in a public forum. You just can't. Even if you have hard evidence that they're chock full of shit, everyone would gasp and you'd be accused of "vile personal attacks".

2. There is no objective truth anymore. Each side has a veritable army of pundits, fact-checkers, and think-tanks to bolster their argument and denigrate that of their opponent. So it doesn't work to call Romney a liar, because he can just pull out a study from the American Enterprise Institute that would support his argument. And then FOX News would run stories all day about how mean old Obama unfairly called Romney a liar, when very smart "non-partisan" experts at AEI and Cato and Heritage and places like that agree with him.

I think #2 is far more pernicious. And I don't see a way out of it. It's the crux of what Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" is all about: there's an entire industry devoted to creating a particular narrative and selling it as "truth", with different sectors for the various major political ideologies. And the public in general just takes a lot of that at face value, or even when they subconsciously know it's bullshit they will seek out sources which already agree with what they think, and with the other sources they read, so that it just creates a huge feedback loop and makes liberals more liberal, conservatives more conservative, and the two information realms they inhabit increasingly further and further apart.

Eventually they're going to be in two entire different realities. It'll be like alternate universes coinhabiting the same physical plane. In one, Teddy Roosevelt was a badass who embodied muscular foreign policy, American hegemony and was the living avatar of America's swinging cod. In the other, he was an anti-corporate, monopoly-busting defender of the poor. In reality, he was some of both. But that intersect is getting smaller and smaller by the day.

To borrow the old metaphor of the blind men and the elephant, all the blind men are lining up on opposite sides of the animal. One group sees nothing but the mighty tusks and powerful trunk, and the other sees nothing but a whole lotta ass.

Quote from: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 03:43:34 pm

I suggest that the next presidential debate have an army of live fact checkers validating every word said. And any factual discrepancy discovered will result in the electric dog training collars that the candidates wear being set off.

See Mitt Romney get funky in Debate II: Electric Boogaloo!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 11, 2012, 03:50:43 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 03:45:10 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 03:43:34 pm

I suggest that the next presidential debate have an army of live fact checkers validating every word said. And any factual discrepancy discovered will result in the electric dog training collars that the candidates wear being set off.

Or one of those huge collar things they had in Wild Wild West that would act like a magnet for a spinning sawblade.

We'd have no candidates left?

Even orator extraordinaire President Barack can't say true things all the time. But at least he's not causing fact checkers to faint in their seats when they watch him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 03:52:43 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 11, 2012, 03:50:43 pm

We'd have no candidates left?

Even orator extraordinaire President Barack can't say true things all the time. But at least he's not causing fact checkers to faint in their seats when they watch him.

There's telling the truth, then there's lying and finally making a mistake. If they were simply making a mistake that'd be ok. If they were outright lying then the sawblade is justified.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 11, 2012, 03:54:55 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 03:48:24 pm

1. You can't call someone a liar to their face in a public forum. You just can't. Even if you have hard evidence that they're chock full of shit, everyone would gasp and you'd be accused of "vile personal attacks".

Interesting that you'd bring this up, as I recall Romney tried calling Obama a liar ("You can say the same thing over and over, but that doesn't make it true")

It didn't seem to generate any backlash against him. Possibly a double standard?

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 03:48:24 pm

2. There is no objective truth anymore. Each side has a veritable army of pundits, fact-checkers, and think-tanks to bolster their argument and denigrate that of their opponent. So it doesn't work to call Romney a liar, because he can just pull out a study from the American Enterprise Institute that would support his argument. And then FOX News would run stories all day about how mean old Obama unfairly called Romney a liar, when very smart "non-partisan" experts at AEI and Cato and Heritage and places like that agree with him.

While this is true when debating the effects of policy, there are certain facts that Republicans can't escape from. Such as Romney declaring that his health care plan included protection for pre-existing conditions, only to be corrected later by his own campaign...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 11, 2012, 04:00:12 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 03:52:43 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 11, 2012, 03:50:43 pm

We'd have no candidates left?

Even orator extraordinaire President Barack can't say true things all the time. But at least he's not causing fact checkers to faint in their seats when they watch him.

There's telling the truth, then there's lying and finally making a mistake. If they were simply making a mistake that'd be ok. If they were outright lying then the sawblade is justified.

Yeah and next time we should just make our debates start with like 100 candidates. Then its just process of elimination, the winner gets the presidency. It would also help reduce the population a bit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 04:05:05 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 03:52:43 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 11, 2012, 03:50:43 pm

We'd have no candidates left?

Even orator extraordinaire President Barack can't say true things all the time. But at least he's not causing fact checkers to faint in their seats when they watch him.

There's telling the truth, then there's lying and finally making a mistake. If they were simply making a mistake that'd be ok. If they were outright lying then the sawblade is justified.

Intent is impossible to determine. EVERY politician caught in a lie will either say they were misquoted, or that it was an "unintentional misstatement". There's even Jon Kyl's wonderful "not intended to be a factual statement".

Quote from: Glowcat on October 11, 2012, 03:54:55 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 03:48:24 pm

1. You can't call someone a liar to their face in a public forum. You just can't. Even if you have hard evidence that they're chock full of shit, everyone would gasp and you'd be accused of "vile personal attacks".

Interesting that you'd bring this up, as I recall Romney tried calling Obama a liar ("You can say the same thing over and over, but that doesn't make it true")

It didn't seem to generate any backlash against him. Possibly a double standard?

That's not calling someone a liar. If he had said, "The President is lying." That's calling someone a liar. There was that one guy in the House that yelled out "Liar!" during one of his earlier State of the Union addresses and was excoriated for it. Nobody even really talked about the merit (or lack thereof) of the charge, just that he had actually had the gall to say it (and the fact that didn't just say it, he yelled it on national TV during someone else's speech....dick move)

Quote

Quote from: RedKing on October 11, 2012, 03:48:24 pm

2. There is no objective truth anymore. Each side has a veritable army of pundits, fact-checkers, and think-tanks to bolster their argument and denigrate that of their opponent. So it doesn't work to call Romney a liar, because he can just pull out a study from the American Enterprise Institute that would support his argument. And then FOX News would run stories all day about how mean old Obama unfairly called Romney a liar, when very smart "non-partisan" experts at AEI and Cato and Heritage and places like that agree with him.

While this is true when debating the effects of policy, there are certain facts that Republicans can't escape from. Such as Romney declaring that his health care plan included protection for pre-existing conditions, only to be corrected later by his own campaign...

See my statement above. Obviously, Romney had an "unintentional misstatement". Corrections will be buried on page B27 in 3-point font. Should the media take pols to task more for being caught lying? Hell yes. And what would be the result? The pol's "truthisphere" would then attack the media outlet for playing "gotcha politics" and being biased. Just look what they tried to do to Helen Thomas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 11, 2012, 04:06:13 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on October 11, 2012, 03:54:55 pm

Interesting that you'd bring this up, as I recall Romney tried calling Obama a liar ("You can say the same thing over and over, but that doesn't make it true")

That's the decorous way of saying it. It's okay to call someone's statement "inaccurate," "misleading," or "false." What you can't do is say "Mitt Romney is lying to you."

The former slips through the decorum, but it scores very few points.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 04:08:38 pm

I love the expression misstatement. It's straight out of newspeak.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 11, 2012, 04:09:32 pm

Honestly, naked gladiator fights would be more about policy than debates are now.

Which is what the candidates should do. Just sayin'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 11, 2012, 04:10:42 pm

We could solve so many problems with naked gladiator fights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 04:11:07 pm

And then releasing the lions no matter who won.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Techhead on October 11, 2012, 04:12:46 pm

I don't think anyone most people want to see Newt Gingrich fight Ron Paul naked in a Primary Debate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 04:16:07 pm

I think Ron Paul would be a wily combatant. Never trust a skinny bastard in a fight, he'll give you everything he's got.

But this brings us to the question. Who would win in a bareknuckle fight between Obama and Romney? No rules except no weapons. Complete free for all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 11, 2012, 04:21:37 pm

Define "weapon." Dirt can be considered a weapon and is widely available.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2012, 04:22:25 pm

Obama seems younger and less frail than Romney by a decent margin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 04:23:34 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 11, 2012, 04:21:37 pm

Define "weapon." Dirt can be considered a weapon and is widely available.

Weapon - Any object/item designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. If it is attached to the body that is ok, so teeth are permitted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 11, 2012, 04:26:29 pm

So improvised weapons are okay?

Good. If professional wrestling has taught me anything, it's that fights are always improved by having chairs smashed over people's heads.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 11, 2012, 04:26:38 pm

Anything not attached to the body is forbidden. Yes, there's a reason for why they have to be naked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 04:28:50 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 11, 2012, 04:26:38 pm

Anything not attached to the body is forbidden. Yes, there's a reason for why they have to be naked.

Yes. Yes there is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 04:29:41 pm

Yes, there is a reason. It would look ridiculous for them to be drenched in oil while wearing a business suit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 11, 2012, 04:30:22 pm

Could the combatants throw their own teeth if they get knocked out of the person's mouth during the fight?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 11, 2012, 04:30:28 pm

Because I can see Obama driving a knee into Romney's back while choking him with a tie?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 11, 2012, 04:31:20 pm

How do we determine a winner? Is it a fight to the death?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 04:31:35 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on October 11, 2012, 04:30:22 pm

Could the combatants throw their own teeth if they get knocked out of the person's mouth during the fight?

I think... if the weapon was originally a part of their body then it is permissable. We just have to give them that.

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 11, 2012, 04:30:28 pm

Because I can see Obama driving a knee into Romney's back while choking him with a tie?

As enjoyable as that is, it would be forbidden.

Quote from: Karlito on October 11, 2012, 04:31:20 pm

How do we determine a winner? Is it a fight to the death?

It is a battle until either party is completely unable to fight any more. If death is the only way to make that happen, so be it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 04:32:31 pm

Remember that Obama is a smoker and may not have the same endurance that Romney will have after years of clean decaf mormon living.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 11, 2012, 04:33:10 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 04:32:31 pm

Remember that Obama is a smoker and may not have the same endurance that Romney will have after years of clean decaf mormon living.

Exactly. And Romney certainly doesn't look 65.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 11, 2012, 04:35:47 pm

If I was ever in a debate for a national office I would start with this speech:

"Hello to everyone in the audience.  I know I am supposed to start by talking about my vision but unfortunately I am forced to talk about something else instead.  Tonight my opponent is going to lie a lot.  I know this because he is a member of a political party that has a consistent record of egregiously lying in order to seek control of this country.  Bush lied and said his tax cut's wouldn't primarily benefit the rich and wouldn't create a deficit.  Romney lied and said he had a deficit neutral tax reform that wouldn't be regressive.  My opponent has joined a party who's agenda is based on lying.  I will not be able to catch all these lies, maybe not even most of them.  A lie often takes fewer words to say then to expose.  So I ask that you listen carefully tonight, maybe write some stuff down and check what both of us say against cold hard facts before you make a judgement.  I probably will make some mistakes tonight but I promise to apologize and own up to them tomorrow.  And if by some chance my opponent defies my expectations and proves that he is an honest man then I will applaud him tomorrow because it would be a wonderful step in the right direction for our democracy.  Sadly I do not expect that.  I expect this will be a debate between lies and truth and hope to convince you that I am indeed truthful.  Thank you very much for your time."


... and that's why I'd never be a good politician!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 11, 2012, 04:38:22 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/know-political-meme-paul-ryan-biceps-155445161--politics.html

For the VP throwdown at the showdown, the only way I can see Joe winning is if brings the whole gang.

http://cdn.cowboybyte.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/biker.jpg

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2012, 04:41:45 pm

Who The Hell Is Joe Biden is a living improbability engine. Anything could happen. He could win spectacularly. He could fail epically. Or he could just be boring and possibly senile. These are the many enigmas of The Biden!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 11, 2012, 04:42:52 pm

Holy crap Romney is 65.

I thought he was 50! AT MOST!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2012, 04:43:27 pm

He must have a good makeup artist. It certainly isn't as if he can't afford it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 11, 2012, 04:48:22 pm

I wouldn't rule out plastic surgery, either?  The guy is not ignorant to the usefulness of superficiality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2012, 04:49:38 pm

I don't know. Plastic surgery has gotten better, but I don't think its really something a politician would benefit from, especially if it ever went public.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 11, 2012, 04:51:08 pm

A substantial sum of money applied directly to the forehead in large-denomination bills does wonder's for one's appearance, old chap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 11, 2012, 06:08:41 pm

None of you get it. The problem with American Politics isn't that Romney is a Liar. Obama is ASSINATING people. Just look at the Wikileaks Boeing/Airbus documents for more crazy Obama stuff.
I'm not trying to say Romney is better, with his "let's support Israel in nuking Iran stance, or his desire to sell Americans like commodities. No, they are both garbage.
The real problem with American politics isn't either of them. It's the political parties.

I'm not a democrat, even though I voted for one once.
I'm not a Republican, even though I favor more states rights and smaller government.
I'm an American. A citizen of the country occupying a large central portion of a contenent found in the Northwestern Hemisphere of the planet Earth. As such, the mandate to be ruled by a government at all is partially given by me, and the American Government lost that Mandate. The problem is there is nothing worth replacing it with, so a theoretical power vaccuum exists. And the insane are the only ones who are capable of creating enough of a plurity to get elected, because everyone is afraid to look weak through compremise, in part due to the theocratic domination of said country. And yes, it's Democrat AND republican theocratic domination. The religion doesn't matter. It never mattered.

My fellow Americans, we are the westernized Iran. That is what is wrong with our country. And nothing you can do can change that, unless we all work together to do something.

And so, my little puny arms push against the tidal forces of Apathy, and no movement is made. Others try the same thing. Never in unison. Someday Nemo will come and free us all. Until then, we are bound for the cannery.

Stubbs/Scamps 2012!!!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 11, 2012, 06:11:48 pm

I know, everyone can move to Canada except for the politicians!

Bring nukes!

I swear it's not that cold!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 11, 2012, 06:17:42 pm

I'll probably be voting Green. My state is solid republican (lowest support of Obama in the nation, iirc), so if I'm going to throw away my vote no matter what box I check, I might as well throw it at the party I'm closest with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 11, 2012, 06:23:43 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on October 11, 2012, 06:08:41 pm

Obama is ASSINATING people.

This amuses me far more than it should.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 11, 2012, 07:58:48 pm

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 11, 2012, 06:11:48 pm

I swear it's not that cold!

...Yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 11, 2012, 08:08:49 pm

Well, actually, thanks to the wonders of global warming...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 08:15:00 pm

So, the Vice Presidential debate is on...is anyone actually watching it?  I'm going to skip it, myself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 11, 2012, 08:18:07 pm

Quote from: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 08:15:00 pm

So, the Vice Presidential debate is on...is anyone actually watching it?  I'm going to skip it, myself.

I would hope so.  I love that the Republican "math guy" hasn't said a damn thing about math this whole time except trying to psychically channel how big a pussy every nameless badguy in the world must think Obama is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 08:20:06 pm

The media will probably spin it as a Ryan victory, anyway.  Hell, Obama lost the first debate by just not being exciting, but the way the media treated it you would have thought he ripped Lehrer's heart out and ate it on live television.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 11, 2012, 08:25:52 pm

Still at work. :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 08:40:49 pm

Damn, I'm reading through some of the comments and tweets and apparently Biden's kicking Ryan's ass, verbally.  I think MSH needs to see Biden at his best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 11, 2012, 09:17:03 pm

Quote from: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 08:20:06 pm

The media will probably spin it as a Ryan victory, anyway.  Hell, Obama lost the first debate by just not being exciting, but the way the media treated it you would have thought he ripped Lehrer's heart out and ate it on live television.

That would've made for some good TV. I'd watch politicians recreating Aztec rituals* any day.

* Yes, I know that eating the heart wasn't part of any of the Aztec rituals that involved cutting out the sacrificial person's heart.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 11, 2012, 09:38:04 pm

Biden bent him over, poor kid.

Fox is spinning it as a colossal Ryan victory, and MSNBC is praising Joe with veritable verbal masterbation. I hate our media.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 11, 2012, 09:40:00 pm

I really liked some Biden moments.  And I really liked the way he was perfectly willing to cut that punk ass bitch off in mid sentence and call him a liar.  I think that Biden kicked his ass up and down the stage when it came to foreign policy.  I'm less drunk then last time but that's not saying much. Ryan is so used to being able to peddle his bullshit to a bunch of credulous journalists who think the sun shines out his goddamn ass.  Good to see somebody stand up to that satan spawn.  When the final battle between heaven and hell comes Biden is so gonna lead a fucking cavalry charge into the flank of the deamonspawn that Ryan is leading.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 09:41:43 pm

How about the survey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/joe-biden-paul-ryan_n_1959824.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003) of people instead?  Shows Biden winning 65-35 through first hour.

I suppose Fox is bitching about how Biden was "rude" by interrupting Ryan, even though that was all Romney did to the fucking President of the United States in the first debate.  Can anyone say "double standard"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 11, 2012, 09:42:33 pm

Every word out of Bidens mouth was a curbstomp.

I just wish he had made it even more glaringly obvious how little information Rayan was giving out. Several times during the debate I found myself saying one word questions, hoping Biden would somehow pick up on them and say them.

"How?"
"When"
"What loopholes?"

I'm still unsure what Ryan says his policies are since he didn't say any sort of policies I understood, just that they were going to be better than Bidens. At least I know what Bidens policies are, dude. I try to be bipartisan but it seems like the whole republican party has turned into groaning zombies pleasuring themselves to Rand novels.

*sigh*

Then again, I've never paid taxes. Then again, I'm middle class, so I'd still probably be voting for Obama. >:I

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 11, 2012, 09:43:47 pm

Quote from: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 09:41:43 pm

How about the survey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/joe-biden-paul-ryan_n_1959824.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003) of people instead?  Shows Biden winning 65-35 through first hour.

I suppose Fox is bitching about how Biden was "rude" by interrupting Ryan, even though that was all Romney did to the fucking President of the United States in the first debate.  Can anyone say "double standard"?

It's FOX.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 11, 2012, 09:53:41 pm

I thought Joe started out kind of weak and on the defense, but as it went on it became more obvious that Paul Ryan didn't actually have any real answers and was just throwing numbers and blame around. Granted, Biden threw some numbers around too and they sounded only slightly less silly than Ryan's but it was really the end that drew it up for me. "Candidates, why you gotta be so mean?" They both dodged the real question, but Ryan just went off on a complete segue and just started spouting every talking point he hadn't gotten to yet. Although I thought Joe clearly checking off an item on his list as he said "47%" was a bit overt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 10:07:41 pm

CBS Snap Poll:
Biden won.
Biden 50%
Ryan  31%
Undecided 19%

I really wish other Dems would realize that when they fight back, they do better than when they're cowering like the stereotypical nerd being beaten up by the schoolyard bully.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 11, 2012, 10:16:27 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 11, 2012, 09:53:41 pm

I thought Joe started out kind of weak and on the defense, but as it went on it became more obvious that Paul Ryan didn't actually have any real answers and was just throwing numbers and blame around. Granted, Biden threw some numbers around too and they sounded only slightly less silly than Ryan's but it was really the end that drew it up for me. "Candidates, why you gotta be so mean?" They both dodged the real question, but Ryan just went off on a complete segue and just started spouting every talking point he hadn't gotten to yet. Although I thought Joe clearly checking off an item on his list as he said "47%" was a bit overt.

It ain't subtely it's politrics.  It's as subtle as I am sober. 
Wait, less .

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 11, 2012, 10:40:41 pm

Quote from: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 10:07:41 pm

CBS Snap Poll:
Biden won.
Biden 50%
Ryan  31%
Undecided 19%

I really wish other Dems would realize that when they fight back, they do better than when they're cowering like the stereotypical nerd being beaten up by the schoolyard bully.

To be fair there's also a CNN poll showing a slight advantage to Ryan. Personally the only place I found Biden to be weaker was on the Benghazi incident, and he did kinda interrupt Ryan and the moderator often which was more annoying although I understand his frustration there. Ryan's various non responses to policy issues were... kinda what bugs me about the Republican party in general but Romney/Ryan in particular.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 11, 2012, 10:43:18 pm

The CNN poll was of all voters, the CBS was of actual undecideds, FWIW.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 11, 2012, 10:44:47 pm

The thing with Biden interrupting was that Obama proved that was the only way to get Romney-Ryan to stop hogging every minute of the debate with meaningless rhetoric and mudslinging. At the very least they should put their plans out there as a contrast to Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 11, 2012, 10:49:44 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 11, 2012, 10:44:47 pm

At the very least they should put their plans out there as a contrast to Obama.

Yeah, this.  I really hope Obama harps on this in the next debate.  Romney has "won" a debate but we still don't know what the hell his goddamn platform is.]

Totally forgot.  Joe Biden made the best fucking meta joke in the history of politics: "Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI)  TROLOLOL!

People forget that Biden is really, really smart.  He is just in a job where showing off what a brainiac he is wouldn't be too good a move.  But he's got it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 12, 2012, 01:43:19 am

Oh damn....  I laughed out loud when Ryan said that he could bring "Honesty" as a person at the white house.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 12, 2012, 01:47:05 am

Why have I not seen Biden kick so much ass before?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rilder on October 12, 2012, 01:56:05 am

Neither side impressed me of course. (Down with the two party failfest please) However, was it just me or did Ryan come off as sounding like he thought the cold war was still happening? Fair bit of an "Anti Russia" Stance in the Afghanistan discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 12, 2012, 02:27:21 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 12, 2012, 01:47:05 am

Why have I not seen Biden kick so much ass before?

I did, when I watched his debate with Palin four years ago. :P

Quote from: Zangi on October 12, 2012, 01:43:19 am

Oh damn....  I laughed out loud when Ryan said that he could bring "Honesty" as a person at the white house.

Same thing here.  ;D

The moderator was so much better than Lehrer, too. She actually stopped them from going endlessly on about the same thing and made them move onto new subjects, and asked directed/useful questions, instead of asking "What are the differences between you?" repeatedly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 12, 2012, 08:10:09 am

I actually didn't like the way the moderator handled things... I don't think she was trying to come off as biased... but until Ryan just stopped answering and she called him on it, every question seemed like "Mr. Biden, you screwed up, what do you have to say for yourself. And Mr Ryan, how would you do better?"

I admit... it's a fair question... but the phrasing was bad for a debate, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 12, 2012, 09:36:28 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 12, 2012, 02:27:21 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 12, 2012, 01:47:05 am

Why have I not seen Biden kick so much ass before?

I did, when I watched his debate with Palin four years ago. :P

To be fair I could have kicked ass debating Palin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 12, 2012, 09:46:50 am

Scamps would still have destroyed both Biden and Ryan. There's a reason he wasn't invited. Tell me, how is batting a ball around a circle NOT the better than their statements on how to fix the economy.

2012 Vice Presidential Debates? Scamps win, and he wasn't even there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 12, 2012, 09:47:18 am

Quote from: sluissa on October 12, 2012, 08:10:09 am

I actually didn't like the way the moderator handled things... I don't think she was trying to come off as biased... but until Ryan just stopped answering and she called him on it, every question seemed like "Mr. Biden, you screwed up, what do you have to say for yourself. And Mr Ryan, how would you do better?"

I thought her moderating really helped Biden.  She didn't give Ryan any room to squirm.  Biden was totally fine with having his feet held to the fire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 12, 2012, 12:23:21 pm

Idk why people care about the debates, it's basically just reality TV type theatrics.

Words carry no weight, especially not from a political figure. I'd place far more importance on their actions rather then how polished their rehearsed rhetoric and half-memorized statistics are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 12, 2012, 12:44:34 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 12, 2012, 12:23:21 pm

Idk why people care about the debates, it's basically just reality TV type theatrics.

Words carry no weight, especially not from a political figure. I'd place far more importance on their actions rather then how polished their rehearsed rhetoric and half-memorized statistics are.

The majority of people care for nothing more than reality TV type theatrics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2012, 12:47:27 pm

It's kind of a self-fullfilling prophecy: deabte are important because a lot of people cares about them, and a lot of people cares about them 'cause they're important (And fun to watch).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 12, 2012, 01:01:43 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 12, 2012, 12:23:21 pm

Idk why people care about the debates, it's basically just reality TV type theatrics.

Words carry no weight, especially not from a political figure. I'd place far more importance on their actions rather then how polished their rehearsed rhetoric and half-memorized statistics are.

1) Debates influence the elections
2) They actually do say some pretty substantive stuff if you know politics well enough to understand the context of their statements.  That sounds pretty arcane but it's actually pretty simple to explain what they are saying.  Unfortunately whenever people try to explain a load of !POLITICS! get's in the way thanks to a partisan 2 party culture.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 12, 2012, 04:06:04 pm

This day's news is only about how the right wing is calling him crazy, which is crossing the line into disrespecting his office since all they ever do is talk shit about him.

Then the left doesn't care, because he is energized and showed some backbone while also calling out lies.

I hate our media.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 12, 2012, 08:08:30 pm

Breaking News: Shot fired at Obama campaign headquarters, breaking glass and making the campaign workers take cover. (http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_21761706/shot-fired-at-obama-campaign-headquarters-denver)

Don't worry, Fox news hasn't mentioned anything about it. They only care about Americans when it's a good political moment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 12, 2012, 10:04:26 pm

Not that politically motivated shootings are a particularly new thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on October 13, 2012, 02:40:06 am

Quote from: Zangi on October 12, 2012, 01:43:19 am

Oh damn....  I laughed out loud when Ryan said that he could bring "Honesty" as a person at the white house.

Ahahaha me too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 07:51:38 am

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 12, 2012, 10:04:26 pm

Not that politically motivated shootings are a particularly new thing.

Just remember that "English" guy in Quebec who was shooting a month or two ago. Bad shit, and it could cause tension between the Francophones and the English speakers. I tell you though, seeing as the Quebecois Nationalists are making a come-back and nationalism is on the rise in Venice (quite strongly - apparently 70% of the population support it) and even more so in Catalonia (with the backing of the president and a hell of a lot of the population apparently), and possibly in the old country of Scotland if the conditions are right, I think we could see Quebec thinking twice in the next two years about staying a part of Canada. There could be a little flurry of independence referendums and even one or two yes votes. Don't forget Flanders either, or some of the more obscure movements in Italy.

Sorry for the derail, I just thought it would be safe to do that just now while we wait for interesting stuff to come up from the presidential campaigns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 08:15:25 am

Everybody is always talking about regions breaking away in Europe.  Why is this time different?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 08:48:54 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 08:15:25 am

Everybody is always talking about regions breaking away in Europe.  Why is this time different?

Because there's actually a good chance this time. More so than in the last 10 years. The regions themselves are also very important - Catalonia, Venice and Scotland are integral parts of Unions that have existed for 200-300 years. The world map would become very different indeed. Can you imagine a UK without Scotland? Or Italy without Venice? Spain without Barcelona?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 10:06:45 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 08:48:54 am

Can you imagine a UK without Scotland?

Yes.

Quote

Or Italy without Venice?

Yes.

Quote

Spain without Barcelona?

Since when is Barcelona trying to become independent?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 10:17:32 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 10:06:45 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 08:48:54 am

Can you imagine a UK without Scotland?

Yes.

Quote

Or Italy without Venice?

Yes.
Spain without Barcelona?
Since when is Barcelona trying to become independent?

Barcelona is the capital of Catalonia, monsieur le pedant. I thought it would be easier to imagine Spain without Catalonia than Spain without the city of Barcelona.

It is also interesting that you can imagine the UK without Scotland. It's just such a big thing to me though, Scotland's always been so integral to the Union. It's like the two original founding members of a band splitting up. Not that I don't support independence of course, I'd vote yes in a flash, it's just a bit of a milestone I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 11:50:45 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 08:48:54 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 08:15:25 am

Everybody is always talking about regions breaking away in Europe.  Why is this time different?

Because there's actually a good chance this time. More so than in the last 10 years.

I repeat myself.  Why is this time different?  'More so than in the last 10 years.' is a pretty meaningless statement.  Major separatist movements have existed in every region you have listed for two centuries.  Compared to the Carlist Wars the current Catalonian movement is tiny.

Show some actual evidence that this is different then the past 200 years.  With Scotland in particular I have seen recent polls showing only a third or less of the region supporting independence which is down from half the country supporting it thirty years ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 11:55:17 am

The SNP is hoping that doing things like...

- Lowering the voting age to 16 for this vote (16-18 year olds seem more likely to support independence)
- Delaying the vote into 2014 so that Scottish people feel more angry about the current government that has barely any Scottish component
- Holding the vote on the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn
- Using a hilariously leading question like "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

Will be enough to swing the vote in their favour.  Current indications don't seem to suggest that will be the case, but there's another two years for the Conservatives to majorly piss off Scotland, so who knows.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:01:37 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 11:50:45 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 08:48:54 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 08:15:25 am

Everybody is always talking about regions breaking away in Europe.  Why is this time different?

Because there's actually a good chance this time. More so than in the last 10 years.

I repeat myself.  Why is this time different?  'More so than in the last 10 years.' is a pretty meaningless statement.  Major separatist movements have existed in every region you have listed for two centuries.  Compared to the Carlist Wars the current Catalonian movement is tiny.

Show some actual evidence that this is different then the past 200 years.  With Scotland in particular I have seen recent polls showing only a third or less of the region supporting independence which is down from half the country supporting it thirty years ago.

I sincerely disagree that a half supported it thirty years ago. And about a third of Scots support independence, yes. But things may change over the next two years.

The reason why this time is different is that Catalonia, for the first time in decades, has a president who supports independence and is now in an economic crisis, despite being one of the wealthiest regions in Spain. It is also facing a complete block from the Spanish government who are basically saying "no, no independence referendums, not at all. We are also going to make sure that all your schoolchildren are aware of their Spanishness, so we are going to promote a hispanicisation program." That is not going to go down well with the Catalans, who held an enormous rally for independence which attracted over a million supporters. Things were not like this in Catalonia 10 years ago.

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 11:55:17 am

The SNP is hoping that doing things like...

- Lowering the voting age to 16 for this vote (16-18 year olds seem more likely to support independence)
- Delaying the vote into 2014 so that Scottish people feel more angry about the current government that has barely any Scottish component
- Holding the vote on the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn
- Using a hilariously leading question like "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

Will be enough to swing the vote in their favour.  Current indications don't seem to suggest that will be the case though.  Although there's another two years for the Conservatives to majorly piss off Scotland, so who knows.

No, not just the SNP. That is incorrect. The SSP and the Green Party both support these proposals, and form something we should be referring to as the Yes Campaign. It is a common practise in the British-establishment-allied media e.g. most newspapers, television stations etc to reduce either the thousands of Scots who support independence or the pro-independence groups as a whole to the SNP or Alex Salmond, thereby portraying them as a sort of crazy fringe group that somehow managed to get in control of the country, applying policies that nobody wants.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 12:07:44 pm

I hadn't heard of the other parts of the Yes campaign using tactics like that though?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:08:47 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 12:07:44 pm

I hadn't heard of the other parts of the Yes campaign using tactics like that though?

They are all pretty much rallying behind the same stuff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:09:07 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 10:17:32 am

It is also interesting that you can imagine the UK without Scotland. It's just such a big thing to me though, Scotland's always been so integral to the Union.

It's no more difficult than imagining the UK without Ireland (as in, all of Ireland, not just NI). Even if Scotland splits, there's still England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall to be a group of united kingdoms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:10:13 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:09:07 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 10:17:32 am

It is also interesting that you can imagine the UK without Scotland. It's just such a big thing to me though, Scotland's always been so integral to the Union.

It's no more difficult than imagining the UK without Ireland (as in, all of Ireland, not just NI). Even if Scotland splits, there's still England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall to be a group of united kingdoms.

Indeed there is, but the RUK will take a very interesting shape. I am not sure how many people will be satisfied with it. We could see further fracturing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 13, 2012, 12:16:51 pm

Whilst here in Wales there is no real hunger for independance (other than amongst extreme nationalists) due to sheer impracticalites and how disadvantaged it would leave us, the fact that Scotland has been given a vote over it has raised eyebrows, and should Scotland go for independance the voices here that think we should have our own referendum will no doubt get louder.

Anyway, this thread should be about the US election, so imma shutting up now as to avoid adding any more to this pretty massive derail.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:19:18 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 13, 2012, 12:16:51 pm

Whilst here in Wales there is no real hunger for independance (other than amongst extreme nationalists) due to sheer impracticalites and how disadvantaged it would leave us, the fact that Scotland has been given a vote over it has raised eyebrows, and should Scotland go for independance the voices here that think we should have our own referendum will no doubt get louder.

Anyway, this thread should be about the US election, so imma shutting up now as to avoid adding any more to this pretty massive derail.

Indeed it should, and I was more geared towards talking about Quebec originally, but I thought it would be safe to derail for a bit while we waited for new stuff to appear about the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:27:14 pm

Quebec, land of the chronically angry, is going to make North American geopolitics very difficult if it becomes independent, especially for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:39:02 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:27:14 pm

Quebec, land of the chronically angry, is going to make North American geopolitics very difficult if it becomes independent, especially for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.

How would these provinces cope with being seperated from the rest of Canada?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:42:05 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:39:02 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:27:14 pm

Quebec, land of the chronically angry, is going to make North American geopolitics very difficult if it becomes independent, especially for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.

How would these provinces cope with being seperated from the rest of Canada?

There are some who suggest that Canada's bisection would lead to one side or the other being eaten by the US, but more likely they'd just have to cope with permanent and severe logistical problems not helped by Quebec's likely antagonism in such a scenario.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:44:31 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:42:05 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:39:02 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 12:27:14 pm

Quebec, land of the chronically angry, is going to make North American geopolitics very difficult if it becomes independent, especially for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.

How would these provinces cope with being seperated from the rest of Canada?

There are some who suggest that Canada's bisection would lead to one side or the other being eaten by the US, but more likely they'd just have to cope with permanent and severe logistical problems not helped by Quebec's likely antagonism in such a scenario.

I can't see Nova Scotia leaving Canada to join the USA. I remember when I was there almost every flag I saw was a maple leaf. The Nova Scotian flags that I saw were flying together with maple leafs almost exclusively, and believe me, I saw flags on nearly every second house.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on October 13, 2012, 12:48:35 pm

Yeah, Atlantic Canada has a LOT of pro-confederation people. Source: I live there.

We really don't want to separate from Canada, and we really don't want Quebec to separate. Though to be fair, an important portion of our economy is based on seasonal labour, which the Albertans would see us heavily penalized for with their EI reforms...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:51:59 pm

Quote from: Willfor on October 13, 2012, 12:48:35 pm

Yeah, Atlantic Canada has a LOT of pro-confederation people. Source: I live there.

We really don't want to separate from Canada, and we really don't want Quebec to separate. Though to be fair, an important portion of our economy is based on seasonal labour, which the Albertans would see us heavily penalized for with their EI reforms...

Where in Atlantic Canada are you from, out of interest? And it is interesting, because was there not a desire in the 19th century for Nova Scotia to remain an independent British colony?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on October 13, 2012, 12:56:17 pm

New Brunswick.

There may have been a desire in the past, but that was before confederation worked so damn well. I think there's still a bit of independence in Newfoundland, simply because they were an independent colony for a much longer time, but there hasn't been very much independence talk around here for a long time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:01:39 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:44:31 pm

I can't see Nova Scotia leaving Canada to join the USA. I remember when I was there almost every flag I saw was a maple leaf. The Nova Scotian flags that I saw were flying together with maple leafs almost exclusively, and believe me, I saw flags on nearly every second house.

The idea is more that it would be a union of economic necessity rather than any actual will to join the US. As I said before though, its a fairly unlikely outcome in any case. It would require both Quebec placing antagonistic trade restrictions along their claimed portion of Hudson Bay and the US being equally unwilling to let east and west Canada trade through the US, which it probably would be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 01:07:42 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:01:37 pm

I sincerely disagree that a half supported it thirty years ago. And about a third of Scots support independence, yes. But things may change over the next two years.

That's nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_referendum,_1979

People have been talking about independence movements in europe like FOR REALZ THIS TIME! for two centuries.  They seldom realize just how unremarkable the separatism of the day is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 01:11:20 pm

I dunno if this trend toward Balkanization of nations is a good thing or a bad thing. With open borders and whatnot in a union like the EU, I suppose it doesn't matter. I suppose it's a good thing, actually. Smaller countries means a gov't more representative of it's people, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:14:33 pm

That depends on the nature of the people and the method of the representation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 01:17:48 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:14:33 pm

That depends on the nature of the people and the method of the representation.

I guess a breakaway nation could be full of belligerent warmongers who put a belligerent autocrat into power to wreck vengeance on the world or something. This probably won't happen with Scotland or Flanders though, hopefully.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 01:20:27 pm

A breakaway nation could also do stuff like genocide, slavery, and banning gay marriage. Not just stuff that affects those outside their borders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:22:17 pm

Indeed. You'd see some serious shit going down in a lot of the states if all 50 of them were different countries, but together they're all more or less stable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 01:30:51 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 01:07:42 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 13, 2012, 12:01:37 pm

I sincerely disagree that a half supported it thirty years ago. And about a third of Scots support independence, yes. But things may change over the next two years.

That's nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_referendum,_1979

People have been talking about independence movements in europe like FOR REALZ THIS TIME! for two centuries.  They seldom realize just how unremarkable the separatism of the day is.

Thank you, but that is wrong. That is referring to the referendum for devolution, not the referendum for independence. There is an enormous difference.

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 01:17:48 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:14:33 pm

That depends on the nature of the people and the method of the representation.

I guess a breakaway nation could be full of belligerent warmongers who put a belligerent autocrat into power to wreck vengeance on the world or something. This probably won't happen with Scotland or Flanders though, hopefully.

That's what things like the EU help with.

Yes, it is "for reals this time", for the first time in 300 years. We've never had a vote on independence, and, until last year, some said it would never happen. It is very remarkable indeed. Not with respect to nations across the world or even across Europe, but with respect to the UK and the British Isles it is. Ireland is a completely different kettle of fish. If you please stop thinking of these movements as just "Europe" (which is vague and will lead you into sketchy territory), try framing them in a historical context with the individual countries that the regions are trying to break away from.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 01:35:26 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 01:20:27 pm

A breakaway nation could also do stuff like genocide, slavery, and banning gay marriage. Not just stuff that affects those outside their borders.

Sure, but that would be their prerogative, right? If they really desire such a society then isn't it their right? Some cultures do reprehensible things, female circumcision and the such, but so long as they don't export such vile policy across their borders does it really matter? Tricky question though, if such a place had malcontents they could always rebel and form another breakaway country, right? Probably not.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:22:17 pm

Indeed. You'd see some serious shit going down in a lot of the states if all 50 of them were different countries, but together they're all more or less stable.

I don't think Americans are as backwards as you imply they are. Culture is pretty homogeneous and inoffensive across the country, even in flyover country. You probably would see some states collapse into poverty. Idk how Illinois would survive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:46:27 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 01:35:26 pm

Sure, but that would be their prerogative, right? If they really desire such a society then isn't it their right? Some cultures do reprehensible things, female circumcision and the such, but so long as they don't export such vile policy across their borders does it really matter?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: It is the duty of all the free peoples of the world to ensure the spread of liberty and prosperity to all humanity, just as it is the duty of all of the privileged to help the unprivileged, no matter what that privilege is. In this way we compensate for our bloody history and unfair world so that all people may live happy and meaningful lives free of despair and manipulation by the powerful.

Quote

I don't think Americans are as backwards as you imply they are.

I'm not saying Americans are backwards, indeed I find the very assertion to be pop geopolitical nonsense, but would you be equally fine with living in California and living in Mississippi if both were uncontrolled by the federal government?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 02:01:30 pm

The only way I'd be fine with a "nations can do whatever they want so long as it only affects themselves" policy is if borders were 100% open. In reality, immigration and emmigration are serious issues and you can't just pick and choose which nation most represents what you want.

So suppose I lived in a country that banned gay marriage. Their prerogative, right? Well if I could just move away to another country that didn't, then sure, I might agree with you. But I likely won't be able to. Either the country I'm in will try to keep me contained, or the one I want to move to is trying to slow/prevent immigration. That's the unfortunate reality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 02:13:16 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 01:46:27 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 01:35:26 pm

Sure, but that would be their prerogative, right? If they really desire such a society then isn't it their right? Some cultures do reprehensible things, female circumcision and the such, but so long as they don't export such vile policy across their borders does it really matter?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: It is the duty of all the free peoples of the world to ensure the spread of liberty and prosperity to all humanity, just as it is the duty of all of the privileged to help the unprivileged, no matter what that privilege is. In this way we compensate for our bloody history and unfair world so that all people may live happy and meaningful lives free of despair and manipulation by the powerful.

Quote

I don't think Americans are as backwards as you imply they are.

I'm not saying Americans are backwards, indeed I find the very assertion to be pop geopolitical nonsense, but would you be equally fine with living in California and living in Mississippi if both were uncontrolled by the federal government?

I agree with you, but you can't just have a policy of invading or interfering with sovereign nations because you find their culture to be vile and immoral, right? That sort of policy works both ways. If they are not harming you or your interests there is no cause to be belligerent toward them.

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 02:01:30 pm

The only way I'd be fine with a "nations can do whatever they want so long as it only affects themselves" policy is if borders were 100% open. In reality, immigration and emmigration are serious issues and you can't just pick and choose which nation most represents what you want.

So suppose I lived in a country that banned gay marriage. Their prerogative, right? Well if I could just move away to another country that didn't, then sure, I might agree with you. But I likely won't be able to. Either the country I'm in will try to keep me contained, or the one I want to move to is trying to slow/prevent immigration. That's the unfortunate reality.

Well, you can always form a separatist movement and secede or overthrow the government from the majority. Many separatist are indeed oppressed minorities that can't just move to a nicer country on a whimsy.

Although in a union like the EU or the USA to a degree, you really can just move someplace nicer. So the move toward Balkanization there seems like a good thing to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 02:13:39 pm

Which is why its interesting within the concept of states rights in the united states, because immigration/emigration is trivial for the bulk of the population.

(Not to say it's pleasant - You'll obviously not be bringing everything with you when you go. But you always CAN go. And I know people who have over the gay marriage thing.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 02:19:45 pm

I'm one of them (though I'm moving for a hell of a lot more reasons, too).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 02:27:47 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 02:13:16 pm

I agree with you, but you can't just have a policy of invading or interfering with sovereign nations because you find their culture to be vile and immoral, right?

Wrong. Invasions are a last-resort thing, but interference is a must. Cultural rights cannot invalidate human rights if we are ever to have a better world.

Quote

That sort of policy works both ways.

Sometimes conflict is inevitable, in all senses of the word. To do nothing is worse.

Quote

If they are not harming you or your interests there is no cause to be belligerent toward them.

And if they are harming the interests of their own people? That I was born in-between a certain set of invisible lines does not keep me from caring about the well-being of those born between other invisible lines. Just worrying about yourself isn't enough, because none of us are divorced from the world, in both the personal and national sense. What happens anywhere, to anyone, will in the end have some sort of effect upon you. That effect can be a lot of things if you're a world away, but positive events generate positive echos more often than not.

Quote

Well, you can always form a separatist movement and secede or overthrow the government from the majority. Many separatist are indeed oppressed minorities that can't just move to a nicer country on a whimsy.

The effects of war are far reaching and very often are worse than whatever you were trying to prevent or solve. Far better to live in a society that is capable of solving its problems without violence or having one party pick up their ball and go home.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 02:36:11 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 02:27:47 pm

Wrong. Invasions are a last-resort thing, but interference is a must. Cultural rights cannot invalidate human rights if we are ever to have a better world

Well, it's clear where you stand on the matter of eating babies (http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 13, 2012, 02:37:19 pm

Well since veal is delicious and unborn chicks are considered a delicacy in some places etc...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 02:39:34 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 02:13:39 pm

Which is why its interesting within the concept of states rights in the united states, because immigration/emigration is trivial for the bulk of the population.

(Not to say it's pleasant - You'll obviously not be bringing everything with you when you go. But you always CAN go. And I know people who have over the gay marriage thing.)

Which is why I personally believe in greater states rights. There should be a place for almost anybody in the USA. Places like hippie communes and the such should be encouraged even and states should adapt experimental policy to determine what works and what doesn't. Feds should leave the states alone when it comes to most policy.

Americans are a highly mobile society and America is a culturally homogeneous place, for the most part. I think this lends it's self toward experimentation and variation with government policy without doing much harm to anybody. Legalize gay marriage in one state, ban it in the other, ect. Let people decide the type of society they wish to live in.

@MetalSlimeHunt

True, war and sepaertist movements tend to create a massive amount of butthurt resentment at it's conclusion, nomatter who wins. I personally find things like slavery and genocide and eating babies and violations of human rights to be indefensible, appaling and worthy for cause of invasion and there is no cultural defense for such things. I'm just not sure we are obligated to do so, or the wisdom of such meddling. I guess economic sanctions and the sort are one way of doing it, but that creates enemies the same as invasion.

The cause of freedom is something I take seriously, but I wonder how to weigh that against the policy of 'live and let live'. I also wonder what outrages are justifiable. What is horrific enough to warrant interference with a sovereign state, exactly? If moral sensitives shift we might be raging against countries doing relatively benign things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 13, 2012, 02:43:32 pm

Passive intervention (sanctions, embargoes etc.) I can fully understand, accept and possibly be in favour of. But covert hands on "fiddling" via CIA/MI6 or downright bribery/explotation of needs and weakness? No thank you. That kind of "interference" seems far too much like social engineering for me. Nations/cultures have a right to make thier own decisions, even bad ones, and suffer appropriate consequences, but not pre-emptive punishment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 02:45:43 pm

The CIA/MI6 style fiddling is a completely different kind of thing that generally is all about gaining some kind of geopolitical advantage and doesn't really have anything to do with human rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 02:53:38 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 02:45:43 pm

The CIA/MI6 style fiddling is a completely different kind of thing that generally is all about gaining some kind of geopolitical advantage and doesn't really have anything to do with human rights.

CIA and covert forces like SF often go into countries to oust the government, train and arm malcontents and back coups and the sort. Like what the US did with Chile and Allende. Allende was a dirty commie and was seen as being potentially ruinous for human rights and Chile's economy, but it was also in the USA's best interests, for economic and geopolitical reasons. Such a strategy could defend human rights and achieve a goal if the conditions are right. Historically, it's always done for the best interests of the country. Even this thing in Africa with the USA hunting down the Lord's Army, it was a reciprocal diplomatic deal because they helped defeat our enemies, so we'll help them defeat theirs. It was less about The LRA being evil bastards, but it certainly contributed.

edit; my posts are getting tl;dr enough as it is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 02:58:08 pm

So, MSH, with your interventionist approach:

Would you be willing to use force on a foreign culture to prevent them from eating their babies alive? Even if it meant you would be fighting the entire population, who overwhelmingly support the practice?

Would you accept another cultures demand that we give all of our children an injection before birth that prevents them from ever experiencing pain or the mental anguish of hardship and defeat, that would make them ultimately happy at all times?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 13, 2012, 03:00:57 pm

Would you invade a country where all science is replaced by ludicrous hypothetical scenarios, ALL BY YOURSELF?!

Would you be unwilling to let the baby-eating guys eat themselves extinct with no intervention whatsoever?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 13, 2012, 03:02:11 pm

I am pretty sure that the UN Decleration of Human Rights pretty much confers upon one the right to think and act what you want to, without fear of persecution from others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 03:06:08 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 02:58:08 pm

So, MSH, with your interventionist approach:

Would you be willing to use force on a foreign culture to prevent them from eating their babies alive? Even if it meant you would be fighting the entire population, who overwhelmingly support the practice?

Yes. In such a hypothetical, though it is a somewhat absurd hypothetical, I would be willing to use force. Overwhelming force. In this situation, it would be best to take a "ripping off a bandage" course of action by utterly crushing them once to solve the problem permanently.

Quote

Would you accept another cultures demand that we give all of our children an injection before birth that prevents them from ever experiencing pain or the mental anguish of hardship and defeat, that would make them ultimately happy at all times?

As such an injection does not actually exist, I cannot say for certain. Such a thing could very well cause total psychological collapse, but it also could be purely beneficial. As such my answer is [INSUFFICIENT_DATA].

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 03:06:50 pm

GoombaGeek, the questions were from the story I linked, which is entirely relevant to the situation. If the situations were reversed - were another more righteous people were willing to force their "moral superiority" on us, would you accept? Would you be willing to force your morality on those who want nothing to do with it, simply because you're "right"?

As a less hypothetical, would you have accepted things like the crusades as a moral necessity? Things like christian missionaries tearing apart native cultures to save their souls?

When you say "I think we should invade other countries to stop them from doing bad things", you're opening up a huge can of worms that eventually boils down to "might makes right".

Trivializing the situation as you are doing with your sarcasm, GoombaGeek, essentially saying "Actually thinking about our actions is stupid" is, personally, an invasion-worthy immoral abomination. ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 03:08:00 pm

Your story is kind of huge, Glyph. I'm only partway through it and LessWrong's annoying approach to everything isn't making it go much faster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 03:14:29 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 03:06:50 pm

GoombaGeek, the questions were from the story I linked, which is entirely relevant to the situation. If the situations were reversed - were another more righteous people were willing to force their "moral superiority" on us, would you accept? Would you be willing to force your morality on those who want nothing to do with it, simply because you're "right"?

As a less hypothetical, would you have accepted things like the crusades as a moral necessity? Things like christian missionaries tearing apart native cultures to save their souls?

When you say "I think we should invade other countries to stop them from doing bad things", you're opening up a huge can of worms that eventually boils down to "might makes right".

Trivializing the situation as you are doing with your sarcasm, GoombaGeek, essentially saying "Actually thinking about our actions is stupid" is, personally, an invasion-worthy immoral abomination. ;)

It requires an actual solid moral philosophy to determine what is right and wrong. So while most cultures will find the baby-eating villians worthy of annihilation, the baby eaters themselves will see themselves as victims of oppressive non-baby-eating heathens in such an invasion. So who is right? Moral relativism is sort of a lazy alternative to a defined moral code, but it's pretty common for a state to adopt such a philosophy for foreign policy. Mexico is a good example, it rarely condemns other nations for anything and no other nation has a grudge against it either. That nation has virtually no enemies, unlike it's neighbor to the north which is quite certain it is correct and has more enemies then anybody else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 13, 2012, 04:30:42 pm

If anyone's going to degenerate into a fascist state anytime soon it's going to be Greece, not some theoretical breakaway state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 04:44:21 pm

I don't see Greece going fascist. The Golden Dawn would certainly love to, but the Greek Communists would love to have their authoritarian state as well, and they hate each other with a passion that you rarely see in politics. Both groups have existent support amongst the population, but neither will be able to overwhelm the democrats if push comes to shove. The democratic factions don't care much for each other, but they know when the time to embrace their commonalities is.

Now, the Golden Dawn does have a lot of support amongst the Greek police, but this is hardly unexpected. Police are very much in a field where fascism best serves their interests, so it only follows that many of them would support a fascist party. However, even in Greece's current not-fascist state the Greeks are prepared to riot and oppose the government. If the government actually became a fascist entity there would be a rebellion immediately.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 13, 2012, 05:10:42 pm

Economic uncertainty can lead to some very foolish decisions by a voting populace that they cannot reverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler). Godwin intentional because it's rather relevant, we could see a lot of similar stories turning up in these days of pivotal worldwide electoral decisions. Especially looking at America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 13, 2012, 06:33:26 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 03:06:50 pm

If the situations were reversed - were another more righteous people were willing to force their "moral superiority" on us, would you accept? Would you be willing to force your morality on those who want nothing to do with it, simply because you're "right"?

As a less hypothetical, would you have accepted things like the crusades as a moral necessity? Things like christian missionaries tearing apart native cultures to save their souls?

When you say "I think we should invade other countries to stop them from doing bad things", you're opening up a huge can of worms that eventually boils down to "might makes right".

One country invading another to force a change in governance is a tricky subject but do you really think that those harmed in the other country don't deserve to have their rights considered? Do we consider it 'might makes right' when our legal system incarcerates violent criminals since that is enforced through force? If you consider that also to be 'might makes right', then why is it more egregious an offense when another country invades them under similar pretenses of enforcing an ethical outlook? Is the internal 'might makes right' more just than the external (relative to the country's legal borders)? Furthermore, countries that treat their own subjects with little consideration also tend to extend that view to foreigners. Should the people of the supposed invader just wait around until the reverse occurs? Where there is immigration, should families in the "good country" simply accept it when their relatives suffer from the actions of the other country's majority? Given how the political voices of people in a country aren't always equal, how does non-intervention deal with countries which disenfranchise enough people that its laws don't actually reflect the majority views? Why are we granting greater legitimacy to what is defined as a country in the first place? Is it more essential a political group than a county, a city, a neighborhood? /question barrage

If the fringiest fringe of right-wing politics took over America somehow... I might actually support an invasion of us if it was the only promise (however faint) of returning to sanity. I doubt their vision of the USA would be stable in the long run anyhow, not without going North Korea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on October 13, 2012, 07:04:57 pm

Small point of order: Embargoes and sanctions can be as inhumane and damaging as war. They tend to affect children, the elderly and the sick most heavily. See the Iraq sanctions and the Gaza strip for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 08:13:34 pm

Quote from: Drunken on October 13, 2012, 07:04:57 pm

Small point of order: Embargoes and sanctions can be as inhumane and damaging as war. They tend to affect children, the elderly and the sick most heavily. See the Iraq sanctions and the Gaza strip for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions)

No country has any obligation to do trade with any other country. Trade is a privilege. If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 13, 2012, 08:14:45 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 08:13:34 pm

Quote from: Drunken on October 13, 2012, 07:04:57 pm

Small point of order: Embargoes and sanctions can be as inhumane and damaging as war. They tend to affect children, the elderly and the sick most heavily. See the Iraq sanctions and the Gaza strip for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions)

No country has any obligation to do trade with any other country. Trade is a privilege. If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

America, or any modern first world country, cannot survive without trade.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 13, 2012, 08:24:39 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 08:13:34 pm

If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

How? You can't just magically whip up a pharmaceutical factory and the people needed to staff it out of the blue. Hell, particularly in regions like the Gaza strip (where they resorted to smuggling *concrete* because of the sanctions), there reaches a point where you can't do anything because you can't get anything.

Quote from: Wrex on October 13, 2012, 08:14:45 pm

America, or any modern first world country, cannot survive without trade.

To be fair, no country that wants a lifestyle above subsistence level is gonna last long without trade.

(FWIW, I'm in favour of sanctions as a policy motivator compared to the alternatives, but they still aren't pretty)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 08:39:13 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on October 13, 2012, 08:24:39 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 08:13:34 pm

If these countries wanted to act in the best interests of their people, they would provide these goods themselves.

How? You can't just magically whip up a pharmaceutical factory and the people needed to staff it out of the blue. Hell, particularly in regions like the Gaza strip (where they resorted to smuggling *concrete* because of the sanctions), there reaches a point where you can't do anything because you can't get anything.

Quote from: Wrex on October 13, 2012, 08:14:45 pm

America, or any modern first world country, cannot survive without trade.

To be fair, no country that wants a lifestyle above subsistence level is gonna last long without trade.

(FWIW, I'm in favour of sanctions as a policy motivator compared to the alternatives, but they still aren't pretty)

Well, those folks in Gaza (or whatever other country) better make some friends or resolve whatever issue is making their importers hate them so much.

That said, embargoes and sanctions are almost non-punishments in some cases. Some countries have absolutely no dealings with these countries in the first place. It's only effective if they do and rely on them heavily.

Which is why nations like Best Korea practice self-sustainment economic practices so that halting of imports and exports can't harm them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 13, 2012, 08:46:15 pm

Best Korea is also the same brand of morality as Lex Luthor and Dr. Doom. This doesn't exactly make them good role models.

Sanctions suck, wars suck, and oppression sucks. It's like having a person dangling over a lavapit, only you can't just help them up, you either have to raise the lava and hope the adrenaline helps them out, or shoot them in the head and haul up their corpse and give them a good funeral. What's the better option there?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 08:49:55 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 13, 2012, 08:46:15 pm

Best Korea is also the same brand of morality as Lex Luthor and Dr. Doom. This doesn't exactly make them good role models.

Now hold on a moment. Lex Luthor and Dr. Doom are both extremely competent and able to recognize the value in taking good care of people, neither of which Best Korea is.

The latter especially. Doom may claim a tyrant's throne, but he certainly accepts the responsibilities as much as the power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 13, 2012, 08:54:00 pm

So let's try a little closer to home scenario: the way Americans treat their animals, children, and poor, as well as the gun culture, is horrifying in the eyes of most Swedes. If we pretend Sweden had the power to do so, would you accept our ability - no, obligation even - to invade and occupy the USA and enforce correct moral behaviour?

Also yeah. Dr Doom's own little kingdom Latveria is pretty much the best place in Earth to live, if I remember my Marvel correctly, as long as you don't seek to hurt other citizens. It's part of what makes Dr Doom such an awesome villain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 13, 2012, 09:18:46 pm

Quote from: scriver on October 13, 2012, 08:54:00 pm

So let's try a little closer to home scenario: the way Americans treat their animals, children, and poor, as well as the gun culture, is horrifying in the eyes of most Swedes. If we pretend Sweden had the power to do so, would you accept our ability - no, obligation even - to invade and occupy the USA and enforce correct moral behaviour?

I've sometimes at least considered the prospect... But similar to why I don't support the USA going into other countries to enforce morals, and why I have a high threshold when it comes to a moral rebellion, there's always the consideration of collateral damage and ultimately causing more harm than good. This is I believe the more important element when it comes to discussions of whether a country should invade another, rather than the supposed sacredness of sovereignty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 09:52:17 pm

Quote from: scriver on October 13, 2012, 08:54:00 pm

So let's try a little closer to home scenario: the way Americans treat their animals, children, and poor, as well as the gun culture, is horrifying in the eyes of most Swedes. If we pretend Sweden had the power to do so, would you accept our ability - no, obligation even - to invade and occupy the USA and enforce correct moral behaviour?

Also yeah. Dr Doom's own little kingdom Latveria is pretty much the best place in Earth to live, if I remember my Marvel correctly, as long as you don't seek to hurt other citizens. It's part of what makes Dr Doom such an awesome villain.

Sweden is not an important country. It has like, 22 million people, I think, about as powerful as Alabama or something. Norway and Finland as your stalwart allies is another 10 million combined. I'm sure you know that already, I dunno why I brought it up.

But no, while the USA has problems, none of them, I believe is enough to warrant invasion. It's illegal to kick your dog here. up to 9 years in prison. Messing with a kid will basically see you dead or in prison forever and ever. Guns are no more dangerous then any other stupid toy adults here have. ATVs and boats and little homemade planes and modified pick-up trucks and the sort. Dangerous, sure, rednecks kill themselves in droves with ATV's and boats and planes and everything else. Does the danger outweigh the rights to do such things? Nope. Same applies with guns. Freedom vs safety. We believe in freedom and the people here like it that way.

Freedom, at any cost. Believe it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 09:58:16 pm

You tend to kill yourself with all those other things, while guns tend to kill other people.

It's like you're saying "guns aren't that dangerous because ... hang-gliding accidents".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on October 13, 2012, 09:59:25 pm

((He's trolling you in case you did not notice. Not saying you did not. But. You seemed upset before.))

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 10:04:36 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 09:58:16 pm

You tend to kill yourself with all those other things, while guns tend to kill other people.

It's like you're saying "guns aren't that dangerous because ... hang-gliding accidents".

Well yeah, guns kill people at about the same rate sports kill people. A gov't would erase more statstics banning highschool football then banning firearms.

Some people, really gotta have their ATV's and highschool football and firearms. I think people should be free. Freedom means letting people own and do such things.

I personally weigh personal freedom above all other factors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 13, 2012, 10:10:36 pm

Murdering people with guns is already illegal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 10:13:10 pm

Guns are enablers to do more damage than would be otherwise possible.

You value personal freedom? How much do you have when someone points a gun at you? Even if you never get shot. "But they'll just use a knife or something instead!" Well yeah, but a knife is less threatening.


I'm generally anti banning enablers, but guns really don't serve any purpose I'm sympathetic to except target shooting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 13, 2012, 10:16:30 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 10:13:10 pm

Guns are enablers to do more damage than would be otherwise possible.

You value personal freedom? How much do you have when someone points a gun at you? Even if you never get shot. "But they'll just use a knife or something instead!" Well yeah, but a knife is less threatening.


I'm generally anti banning enablers, but guns really don't serve any purpose I'm sympathetic to except target shooting.

They can also shoot delicious animals, and not quite so delicious people intent on doing harm to you and your loved ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 13, 2012, 10:17:51 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 10:13:10 pm

"But they'll just use a knife or something instead!" Well yeah, but a knife is less threatening.

Not by very much. The only thing a gun really has over a knife is range. Lethality isn't changed very much, unless we're getting into military-grade equipment. Someone will be rendered equally dead by shooting a vital organ or stabbing a major artery, and the effort involved is similar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 13, 2012, 10:19:11 pm

We could seriously stand to avoid another gun derail, especially due to bait as obvious as this case is. Yes?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 13, 2012, 10:20:10 pm

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/knives/msg00000.html

Quote

The study is in Annals of Surgery Vol 153 pp 639-649 "Civilian
Penetrating Wounds of the Abdomen" by Wilson and Sherman. It covers stab
(5% mortality) and gun shot wounds (17% mortality) to the abdomen.

5% mortality vs 17% mortality, as well as range, and any other factor making guns more lethal. There is definitely more effort needed to kill with a knife.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 13, 2012, 10:20:27 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 13, 2012, 10:16:30 pm

They can also shoot delicious animals, and not quite so delicious people intent on doing harm to you and your loved ones.

For 1, not sympathetic. Vegetarian here, and for moral reasons :P

For 2, at best, you've evened the playing field. Sure, you can have a gun, but so could they. I'm unsure as to the hard numbers on violent crime, but my guess is that most is motivated by theft or personal grudges. For theft, you're best off giving them what they want, even if you do have a gun. For grudges, that's generally someone you know, and if they want to kill you they can do it without a gun.

Quote from: Frumple on October 13, 2012, 10:19:11 pm

We could seriously stand to avoid another gun derail, especially due to bait as obvious as this case is. Yes?

Yeah this is probably true. Progressive thread would make a better place if people want to continue this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 10:20:41 pm

Never bring a knife to a gun control discussion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 10:29:24 pm

english cops dont have guns. result is v. few cops shot (3/year iirc). never start arms race even if you can win. winners die too in arms race, they just take many down with them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 13, 2012, 10:30:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 10:29:24 pm

english cops dont have guns. result is v. few cops shot (3/year iirc). never start arms race even if you can win. winners die too in arms race, they just take many down with them.

but gunz r kewl liek in cal of duty and ak 48 lol

i tihnk all amerian shuld be gived gunz lolz

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 10:35:12 pm

i dont have keyboard right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 13, 2012, 10:47:27 pm

Speaking of gun control, are there any gun rights groups not blatantly tied to the Republican party? Despite Obama's legislative record being far more firearm liberal than Romney who supported various gun control laws, the NRA are still soundly endorsing Romney while claiming Obama is after ALL THE GUNS.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:02:26 pm

I hate the republicans, but I cannot vote for the dems because of their stance on gun rights.

I believe gun ownership is the ultimate expression of trust a government can express to it's charges/subjects/citizens.

Because, it is too cool to be true.

I cannot stand the thought, I'll fight bitterly for gun rights, not that they are just silly toys rednecks use to kill themselves, like ATV's and snow machines and everything else, but that they are a symbol, an crossing point that demonstrates the line between a free society and a controlled one.

That's about it, it's such a wedge issue that no other issues matter. Sorry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2012, 11:09:13 pm

Because it is too cool to be true?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 13, 2012, 11:11:14 pm

I'm of the stance that a society with guns is about as well-defended from the government/military as a society without guns. This makes it pretty much completely irrelevant to how I vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 13, 2012, 11:11:27 pm

It's hardly an expression of trust, because no militia, no matter how ardent in it's belief, can compare to an MBT.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:17:23 pm

Well there is one thing, there is also another. Hmm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 13, 2012, 11:30:03 pm

Would the goals and methods of a government turning its military on its own people be the same as our occupying Iraq/Afghanistan? I'd say without the guise of being freedom fighters we'd have a lot less of the tiptoeing that guerrilla tactics tend to take advantage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 13, 2012, 11:33:30 pm

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:02:26 pm

I hate the republicans, but I cannot vote for the dems because of their stance on gun rights.

So because of a vague preference that they never act on specifically because they are trying to cater to people like you, they don't have your vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 13, 2012, 11:37:50 pm

Hasn't gun control basically been a non-issue at the national level for the last decade?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 13, 2012, 11:42:05 pm

Quote from: Karlito on October 13, 2012, 11:37:50 pm

Hasn't gun control basically been a non-issue at the national level for the last decade?

Mostly. There isn't much will to further either gun control or deregulation in either direction aside from the occasional knee-jerk response that never goes anywhere.

I wouldn't say its dead, but holy crap the economy and holy crap the moral police are monstrously larger issues at the moment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:43:02 pm

yeah, nah, meh
 8)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 11:55:12 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on October 13, 2012, 06:33:26 pm

One country invading another to force a change in governance is a tricky subject but do you really think that those harmed in the other country don't deserve to have their rights considered?

I think a countries primary responsibility should be the consideration of those who live within that country. I think we should stop abusing our own people before even considering going on righteous crusades to liberate others. And even then - I think it's wrong. Their rights deserve to be considered, and I support us doing everything we can to support people that escape from countries where they are not happy - flinging our borders wide open to accept them, perhaps even running smuggling operations to help people escape.

I do not support waging war on a people to enforce my system of morality upon them. Practically and morally it is reprehensible.

Quote

Do we consider it 'might makes right' when our legal system incarcerates violent criminals since that is enforced through force?

Our laws are built as part of a society, and practically they require consequences to hold force and protect its members. There is no attempt to change the other persons morality, or assert that my own is superior and it must be followed because I am more powerful. We don't care about their morality, only their ability to follow the laws required to keep our society functioning. In most cases, we do not care if they act contrary to that when outside are borders, and if they move to another country we do not care at all. Criminal law is not about morality, it's about practicality and emotional justification.

Perhaps that could be considered "might makes right". I'll have to think about the rest of your questions. I don't think there are easy answers. But perhaps I can draw a parallel with criminal law - drug laws. I see them as a gross violation of morality, in bulk. A clear expression of might makes right. And why?

Interest. In a violent crime, we have a personal interest in incarcerating the criminal. He poses an extent threat to our social order and existence as a nation, and often a threat to our existence as individuals. To this end, I support countries waging wars of self defense, and action against invaders at the behest of those invading - to stop another from imposing themself on you is hard to quantify as a morally wrong imposition in and of itself.

But drug crimes are an effort, in a way, to save a person from themself - and within themselves, a person should maintain sovereignty.

So too with nations. So long as the nations do not seek to impose on others, and even more so if they let dissenters depart to other willing nations, I have trouble accepting the argument that we have any standing, any legitimate interest, in imposing our will upon them.

This is not an uncommon sentiment, in my experience. Willing participants are generally allowed to engage in what we would consider immoral activity with each other, such as fighting, so long as they show no danger to the social contract, so long as we have no legitimate interest in their actions - hence why boxing is not a violent crime.

I don't pretend to have easy answers about this though - but I think a naive "We should go and right the world's wrongs, and fix the problems in other cultures, whether they want us to or not" is not a good answer. I do not think we have a legitimate interest in stopping baby eaters from eating babies, though if a splinter sect were to come to us seeking refuge, we may have a moral obligation to grant it.

But yeah... definitely something I will think more about over the next several forevers, I think. It's a tough question.

on the gun control issue... kind of
I can understand that. It similar to the reason I can't bring myself to vote for the dems in good conscience, supporting as they do morally abhorrent and utterly unforgivable policies. Policies they have made abundantly clear. Of course, I'm in the situation you'd be in if BOTH parties were advocating gun control.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 13, 2012, 11:56:05 pm

If you already own a spiffy black rifle then any federal sales restrictions are not going to let them take it away from you.

Do I need to remind you that Obama failed to vote for the extension of the FAWB when he was in the us senate in 04?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 14, 2012, 12:10:50 am

GG... drug law, in the states at least, are only nominally -- and only just barely that -- about "saving a person from themselves". It's got a hell of a lot more to do with tobacco and alcohol lobbies mixed with historic prejudice, with prison privatization forces starting to dip their fingers hard into the issue. It's definitely grossly immoral and about as clear an expression of might (money) makes right (law) as you'll see, but it's got basically jack-all to do with personal sovereignty. Unfortunately. It'd be considerably more moral (though still grossly immoral, honestly.) if it were actually like you were presenting it.

States are definitely a terrible example of potentially moral criminal law, as well. It's possible for criminal law to have more to do with morality than practical or emotional factors (though the former, in particular, will almost always still be a strong component), and there's some (mostly european, from what I understand) countries that are closer (with emphasis on the -er, unfortunately) to that ideal, but the states are quiet blatantly and close to universally about retributive punishment, at their best (at their worst, it's nasty shit like the drug laws). There's a difference between retributive punishment and rehabilitative justice; the latter can be moral, while the former is unequivocally (and necessarily, because it flat out doesn't work) not. It'll probably take another century of psych research before folks actually get enough data to bludgeon even the holdouts from yesteryear's ignorance hard enough to shape up, though :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 14, 2012, 12:14:48 am

I was trying to work with the best possible interpretations - the ideals and justifications morseso than the reality. In truth, you're correct - most of it is fairly unjustified from any standpoint, but those situations weren't really relevant to the discussion at hand, in which criminal law was serving as a stand-in for international issues, I think.

/me shrugs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 14, 2012, 12:21:17 am

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:02:26 pm

I hate the republicans, but I cannot vote for the dems because of their stance on gun rights.

The one that's essentially identical to the one the Republicans have, out of fear of the NRA? Obama, despite promising to try to bring back the assault weapons ban, has not kept that promise or even bothered to suggest it to congress at all as far as I know.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/where-obama-and-romney-stand-on-gun-control/2012/07/20/gJQAwMpNyW_blog.html

If that is your only reason, you need to consider the bigger picture. The republicans are anti-funding-for-birth-control, anti-abortion, anti-solar, anti-wind, pro-coal, pro-oil, against regulating anything, against labeling genetically modified food (let alone regulating it), want to stop the EPA from being able to do anything about climate change (and refuse to let congress do anything about climate change), and claim that science is a lie (How do computers work? LOL I DUNNO) and climate chance is a hoax (Outlaw non-linear sea level rise in projections, that'll fix it), and frequently demonstrate that they have no understanding of modern [any scientific discipline], and can from time to time be heard expressing beliefs which were proven false centuries ago. It is simply dangerous to leave them with any kind of an ability to influence the country's direction at all, and it's endlessly frustrating that half the country seems to have fallen for what they're saying (or they also don't believe in science, birth control, abortion, climate change, and thinks the government is coming to take their guns and churches away and turn the country into a communist atheism or something).

I've been registered as an independent since I registered to vote (over a decade ago), but I remember, and I'm familiar with history, and I see what both parties are saying. The Democrats may not be the best answer, but they're better than the Republicans by far, for all the reasons I mentioned above. Unless, of course, you think the world was created a few thousand years ago in 6 days, because you have a book which says so, in which case I would point out that I could argue that it was created 5 minutes ago and that that book and your memories and opinions were included.

P.S. I didn't mention voter suppression, womens' rights, racism, or any of that stuff, either, besides mentioning abortion and birth control.

P.P.S. 7 new replies!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 14, 2012, 12:21:18 am

derp. nevermind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 14, 2012, 12:34:13 am

Hey, I'd say the exact same thing about tobacco smokers and alcohol drinkers, but it'd never fly for entirely cultural reasons. I don't particularly want people whose lungs may give out at the drop of a hat or who are walking around with pickled brains making important decisions, either. And yeah, you can pretty regularly tell a difference between a chronic smoker or regular drinker and someone who isn't, years down the line.

It also turns out that there's plenty of high functioning drug users who utilize currently illegal substances and go about "working hard and making more money than they could ever spend". Cuts both ways, basically. You're as much a drug user as they are, it's just alcohol and tobacco (largely arbitrarily, with a hint of historical weight and a hefty dose of lobby money) isn't illegal, and hey, you've found yourself to be sufficiently functional. Surprise! Other folks can manage it, too.

But yeah, drug law has absolutely jack-all to do with anything even remotely beneficial. It's not about protecting society or whatev'. It, in general, passed the point of even attempting to years, maybe decades ago. More about protecting pocketbooks, nowadays. There's not many areas of law in the states that are quite so heavily corrupt, really. There's occasional in-roads trying to fix at least portions of the unholy buggerup the situation has become but it tends to get slapped down because $$$.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 14, 2012, 12:39:58 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 13, 2012, 11:55:12 pm

I don't pretend to have easy answers about this though - but I think a naive "We should go and right the world's wrongs, and fix the problems in other cultures, whether they want us to or not" is not a good answer. I do not think we have a legitimate interest in stopping baby eaters from eating babies, though if a splinter sect were to come to us seeking refuge, we may have a moral obligation to grant it.

Personally, I have a hard time relating to these kinds of arguments because I don't see the distinctions of countries and other political groups as being important barriers in the establishment of ethics. Fear, pain, mental anguish, the desire for a better life... these are universals and ultimately humans are not at the point where we can escape our natures no matter how our local culture shapes us. I do not believe it to be right to swear off intervention (although, as I mentioned, best to not be military in nature) just because some people are born into another political group. I feel far more connected to somebody who shares my ideals in Egypt than I do to neighbors who support views I find abhorrent. I think this is going to be one of the major hurdles humanity faces as it realizes its global nature - that we cannot be defined by the cultures/territories we have been born into. (Alpha Centauri anyone?)

To me, what's most important is the reasoning and justification behind the morals and the real effects caused by enforcing those. I cannot look at all beliefs as equal; I cannot look at all beliefs as justified. This outlook is probably due to how many beliefs I've acquired and shed over my (still relatively small) lifetime, but I do strongly believe that (world wide) discussions of ethics needs to move forward rather than get stuck in a mire of beliefs that cannot withstand scrutiny but are somehow regarded inherent to the national character. It is towards the people, not the nations, to which we should consider when discussing matters of international intervention.

EDIT: Nevermind how unnatural an uniform opinion in a country actually would be. I mean, you brought up the example of letting people freely travel, but even there as kaijyuu pointed out it's considerably difficult to just pick up and leave. If a country's government is metaphorically shitting on people within it, even if supported by the majority, I don't think that all crimes should be accepted and particular crimes that put immediate danger to the minority (such as genocide) should in fact see military intervention whereas others should at least have some pressure to protect the rights of those being mistreated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 03:37:25 am

The problem here is that there is no absolute objective reference as to what morality is correct.  We all have our beliefs about how people should treat each other and themselves.  These beliefs are a product of our values, which are also highly variable.  Some values are easy to universally agree upon -- human life, for instance.  Everyone agrees that killing is not good, and should be avoided where possible.  Problems become instantly apparent when you realize that while that value is universal, it is not weighed equally against other values that are not held universally (such as differing views on self-defense) and ideas like "human" do not have a universal definition.

Baby-eaters, for instance, would likely argue on the basis of a gradient scale of what they consider "humanity", with adults being a higher value grade of human being than newborn children, and their practice of eating babies alleviates material challenges faced by their specific circumstances that would otherwise be a greater cause of instability.

And until somebody can point to an absolute objective reference by which we can measure our values, definitions, and morals, then we must accept that when we take action against others over moral disagreements, we do so without absolute justification.  You cannot ever strictly say "I'm right and you're wrong."  The statement your intervention actually makes is "I have a strong enough interest in broadening the influence of my belief system that I am willing to impose on yours."  You can make your case however you like, but this is still what it amounts to... and reality sorts out the rest as pure interaction of forces.  In other words, might makes right.

And I'm definitely not saying that we shouldn't be active in the world on the basis of our moral convictions.  Let's just not be dishonest or egocentric as we do so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 14, 2012, 05:06:29 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 03:37:25 am

Everyone agrees that killing is not good, and should be avoided where possible.  Problems become instantly apparent when you realize that while that value is universal, it is not weighed equally against other values that are not held universally (such as differing views on self-defense) and ideas like "human" do not have a universal definition.

You'll find disagreement on "killing is not good" as well, not to mention all the many situations that can make it morally acceptable to different people (some of which may make it morally acceptable to some but not to others, etc).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 06:26:46 am

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:02:26 pm

I hate the republicans, but I cannot vote for the dems because of their stance on gun rights.

I believe gun ownership is the ultimate expression of trust a government can express to it's charges/subjects/citizens.

Because, it is too cool to be true.

That's about it, it's such a wedge issue that no other issues matter. Sorry.

Remember before how I said people too stupid to understand or even bother to get the issues shouldn't be voting in the first place? Here's a prime example of what it gets us. All opinions may be valid but not all opinions translate to non-retarded legislation. Once again, Montague is a perfect example of this. I can't help but only see him as a troll considering his non responses to the argument he helped kick up:

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:17:23 pm

Well there is one thing, there is also another. Hmm.

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:43:02 pm

yeah, nah, meh
 8)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 14, 2012, 07:14:26 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 06:26:46 am

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:02:26 pm

I hate the republicans, but I cannot vote for the dems because of their stance on gun rights.

I believe gun ownership is the ultimate expression of trust a government can express to it's charges/subjects/citizens.

Because, it is too cool to be true.

That's about it, it's such a wedge issue that no other issues matter. Sorry.

Remember before how I said people too stupid to understand or even bother to get the issues shouldn't be voting in the first place? Here's a prime example of what it gets us. All opinions may be valid but not all opinions translate to non-retarded legislation. Once again, Montague is a perfect example of this. I can't help but only see him as a troll considering his non responses to the argument he helped kick up:

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:17:23 pm

Well there is one thing, there is also another. Hmm.

Quote from: Montague on October 13, 2012, 11:43:02 pm

yeah, nah, meh
 8)

Even if you see him as stupid, that is still your opinion (possibly mine as well), but people's opinions of who is and who isn't stupid should not decide who can and can't vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 08:17:20 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 14, 2012, 07:14:26 am

Even if you see him as stupid, that is still your opinion (possibly mine as well), but people's opinions of who is and who isn't stupid should not decide who can and can't vote.

No, because when you vote you have a direct impact on the outcome of future legislation. Atleast that's the belief of those of us who still believe in the idea of America being a democracy representative of the people [some would argue against, but not the topic].

Having such a tenuous grasp on not only gun control [apparently his only political motivation to vote, and one he's severely uneducated on] but most likely a plethora of other critical issues strikes fear into me because it's foolishness like this that has ruined our government's credibility for the most part. You cannot tell me that a majority of our House being ideologues for either the far right or the [still right+] left is a coincidence. They pander to the types who decide an opinion is fact and then run with it. Then mix it with this cute epidemic we have nowadays I like to call Party Patriotism; where you [the proverbial 'you'] only love the country if your party runs it, hate the government if not. It's annihilated our union. Not once in my life has there been a time where a D and an R can find so little common ground in policy terms.

I'm not saying being stupid should automatically disallow you from being able to vote; I'm not even that smart nor do I claim to be more than others. There should just be a 'comprehension of issues' requirement added to the whole registration to vote process. Basic questions on topics that the legislation they help to cause will inevitably have an impact on. Perhaps even questions concerning candidates; tailored to which party they are registering as. It's not a perfect solution but it'd be a first step to removing the Akins from the House and filtering educated policy into our government.

If we have a test for people when they're simply trying to become citizens of our nation, we should have a similar test if they wish to have an effect on our policies. Sorry. If you are a fool with bull-headed out-of-fact opinions like Montague, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. His opinion will not change no matter what Obama or Democrats would do to support and proliferate heavy weapons across our country. It's the same issue we see with the NRA staunchly supporting Romney the ban-assault-weapons-bill-guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 14, 2012, 08:32:04 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 13, 2012, 11:56:05 pm

Do I need to remind you that Obama failed to vote for the extension of the FAWB when he was in the us senate in 04?

Given Obama was sworn into the Senate in January 2005... Yes. Yes you do.

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 08:17:20 am

There should just be a 'comprehension of issues' requirement added to the whole registration to vote process. Basic questions on topics that the legislation they help to cause will inevitably have an impact on.

Who gets to write and apply this test? I can think of about six ways to game it on major issues right off the top of my head.

Right now we have two political parties that can only agree on the facts surrounding important issues once in a blue moon. The number of topical questions you could ask a hardline Dem and hardline Rep and expect the same answers are relatively few. Passing the test would mean answering the same way the test was written, so you damned well better hope it wasn't by anyone with any commitment to one party or the other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 08:37:27 am

Quote from: palsch on October 14, 2012, 08:32:04 am

Who gets to write and apply this test? I can think of about six ways to game it on major issues right off the top of my head.

You leave it out of the hands of the states, number one. Mississippi's bass-akward legislature would likely write a test skewed to keep blacks from voting with exorbitant questions; for example. If you leave it to the function of the FEC and very stringent national rules for the Board of Elections in each state to have fair and unbiased tests on penalty of removal from office and federal voter fraud charges [maybe even election tampering charges, which would be a blast to see how that'd go down] you'll see very much daylight between any cases of testing fraud.

Once again, it'd be best if it were tailored to ask easy to answer, easily known answers on the positions of major candidates; especially those of the party they are registering as. Positions of candidates do not change according to your party affiliation. It's not an SAT, it's a comprehension test. Set the failing threshold to more than 65% wrong and not too many people will be stopped from registering. There would be almost no excuse to fail if the passing threshold was set lower, but that would dilute the impact of the plan. It's not a perfect blanket solution but it's something I've thought of a bit and it'd help force information into our voting process. Not everyone votes based on information and that is the most dangerous thing in a Democracy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 14, 2012, 09:00:13 am

No the most dangerous thing in democracy is restricting the franchise.

Rousseau was wrong.  The electorate considering the candidates do not resemble judges considering cases.  In Rousseau's defense he lived to early to see the contradicting evidence.  You however have two hundred years of evidence so should know better.  Don't try to restrict the franchise to 'good' voters because it's our system of 'good' voters and 'bad' voters that has a decent track record.  We should aim for a more direct translation, i.e. popular votes and mandatory voting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 10:23:31 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 14, 2012, 05:06:29 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 03:37:25 am

Everyone agrees that killing is not good, and should be avoided where possible.  Problems become instantly apparent when you realize that while that value is universal, it is not weighed equally against other values that are not held universally (such as differing views on self-defense) and ideas like "human" do not have a universal definition.

You'll find disagreement on "killing is not good" as well, not to mention all the many situations that can make it morally acceptable to different people (some of which may make it morally acceptable to some but not to others, etc).

Yeah, I knew somebody would bring this up.  It's as close to universal as any value I can think of.  I'd still argue that very, very few people actually believe killing of equal human beings to be a decent act.  Many people are able to kill without remorse, but they're able to do so because they hold some other value higher than human life, they invent criteria which allows them to redefine some people as lesser or non-human, or they're psychologically dysfunctional.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 10:27:48 am

By definition, any society must hold the value that killing other members of their species is at least usually not a good thing.

Otherwise, such a society would quickly cease to exist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 10:31:38 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 14, 2012, 09:00:13 am

No the most dangerous thing in democracy is restricting the franchise.

I think that matters little when less than 55% (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm) of the [voting] population is likely to vote in a presidential election. So you could argue the polarization of the democracy has restricted the franchise already. When the people who are going to turn out are likely predispositioned towards one skewed opinion [as they are now, hence the awful voter turnouts now thanks to massive disenfranchisement] then the policies of the government that comes out of it is likely to be less efficient and have more core issues. We're having that issue now, currently. I think we simply need to find a better way to handle these things in general; the mass media and repeated lies are more powerful than policies and law which is very concerning to me. I just want a country that has politics with some damn flexibility.

Quote

Rousseau was wrong.  The electorate considering the candidates do not resemble judges considering cases.  In Rousseau's defense he lived to early to see the contradicting evidence.  You however have two hundred years of evidence so should know better.  Don't try to restrict the franchise to 'good' voters because it's our system of 'good' voters and 'bad' voters that has a decent track record.  We should aim for a more direct translation, i.e. popular votes and mandatory voting.

I do agree though. I'm not advocating disenfranchisement of uneducated people. There's a big line with what I'm talking about and how I feel you think I'm coming off, because I actually think mandatory voting should be enacted and enforced. Strongly. I think it's a crisis that less than 70% of a democracy gives a damn enough to vote thanks to our country's politics being so tangled up in party patriotism that we can't get anything done since if the 'other side' does anything good it's either ignored or twisted about to be a negative jab. I'm tired of it. Mandatory voting coupled with a voter comprehension test of sorts would accomplish leaps and bounds for our country, in my opinion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 10:57:11 am

Only if I get the option to turn in something like a blank vote.  If there isn't an option to express disenfranchisement, then those who are disenfranchised will only become more resentful when forced to grant their legitimacy anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 10:58:56 am

That's why you have that empty spot to write in Noodle God or Fuck This Election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 14, 2012, 11:01:52 am

Spoiler: Or Lizard People (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/BK24X.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 11:03:26 am

Yeah, I know of no mandatory voting system that actually requires you to pick a candidate. (Outside of "elections" in dictatorships. Hearing about how North Korean "elections" are done was interesting.)

Though if you can vote at all you are by definition not disenfranchised already, so I don't know what you're on about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 14, 2012, 11:11:42 am

Well, no one can prevent you from no filling nothing on your ballot paper. How do election in Best Korea works?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 14, 2012, 11:14:24 am

Not sure, but I am pretty sure that:

a) What Best Korean State media says about the election isnt 100% linked to reality, and

b) People who didnt put what they should have on the ballot probably had a midnight appointment with the secret police arranged.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 11:16:59 am

Quote from: Sheb on October 14, 2012, 11:11:42 am

How do election in Best Korea works?

You walk into a room. There is an armed guard standing behind a table with a piece of paper and Kim Jong-un's name on it and a pencil. You can leave or you can cross his name off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 11:24:25 am

When I went to vote in the last election, it was on a big electronic machine that gave you a list of options with no opt-out.  It had me vote on a bunch of offices that I knew nothing about and didn't know I'd be voting on, and I could only get through it by selecting one of the given options and hitting 'Next' until it was finished.  I was rather upset.  But there were only two machines, and a huge line wrapping all the way around the building, so I wasn't going to be an asshole and raise a fuss.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 14, 2012, 11:30:04 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 11:16:59 am

Quote from: Sheb on October 14, 2012, 11:11:42 am

How do election in Best Korea works?

You walk into a room. There is an armed guard standing behind a table with a piece of paper and Kim Jong-un's name on it and a pencil. You can leave or you can cross his name off.

I don't think they even elect the head of state, do they? Isn't he elected by parliament? The people participate in local elections though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 11:47:51 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 14, 2012, 11:30:04 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 11:16:59 am

Quote from: Sheb on October 14, 2012, 11:11:42 am

How do election in Best Korea works?

You walk into a room. There is an armed guard standing behind a table with a piece of paper and Kim Jong-un's name on it and a pencil. You can leave or you can cross his name off.

I don't think they even elect the head of state, do they? Isn't he elected by parliament? The people participate in local elections though.

You dare question the Supreme Leader?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 14, 2012, 12:05:10 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 10:31:38 am

I do agree though. I'm not advocating disenfranchisement of uneducated people.

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 10:31:38 am

Mandatory voting coupled with a voter comprehension test of sorts would accomplish leaps and bounds for our country, in my opinion.

A poll test is a restriction on the franchise....  Maybe not the biggest restriction but it is purely a restriction and nothing but a restriction.  Now I would be inclined to think that the benefits of mandatory voting for the test passers would probably be larger then the malus of poll tests but they are really two completely separate things.

And this is all assuming that your poll test doesn't face a "who watches the watchmen?" problems like pretty much every poll test in history.  If there is a way to make a meritarchy then it probably doesn't lie in things we've already tried and found severely lacking.

I do like the way you spoke about the disenfranchising effects of the two party system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 14, 2012, 12:19:30 pm

Registration test =/= Poll testing, which not only sounds worse but would be severely more work for local elections boards to setup. I'm thinking about a basic >10 question sheet during registration to vote. Being forced to have basic comprehension of issues before registering should not be considered a hindrance to a voting population, but a boon. As for the Watchmen problem: That's why I said it should be oversighted by the FEC and then enacted by local Boards of Elections. State Boards are not only obligated but forced by law to make sure anything involving election processing and voter registration is fair and non-biased. I believe in that division of our government to be able to adapt to such a policy. Especially if crushing penalties [beyond the wrist-slap measures we have now] are introduced for any type of voter registration/vote tampering.

If you introduce mandatory voting and a comprehension test it would be one supporting the other; the mandatory voting would be incentive to register [which is the biggest stumbling block to non-voters for some reason], and the comprehension test would force prior basic political knowledge into the process of registering, while not a end-all salve for the types of issues I'm thinking about, it'd be a start.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 14, 2012, 02:11:04 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 11:24:25 am

When I went to vote in the last election, it was on a big electronic machine that gave you a list of options with no opt-out.  It had me vote on a bunch of offices that I knew nothing about and didn't know I'd be voting on, and I could only get through it by selecting one of the given options and hitting 'Next' until it was finished.  I was rather upset.  But there were only two machines, and a huge line wrapping all the way around the building, so I wasn't going to be an asshole and raise a fuss.

THe electronic machines I'm familiar with allow you to click next without selecting anything, and have an "Other (Please Specify) option. The local lunatic candidate polls surprisingly well with this method, sometimes gaining an entire percent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 14, 2012, 07:40:54 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 14, 2012, 10:23:31 am

Yeah, I knew somebody would bring this up.  It's as close to universal as any value I can think of.  I'd still argue that very, very few people actually believe killing of equal human beings to be a decent act.  Many people are able to kill without remorse, but they're able to do so because they hold some other value higher than human life, they invent criteria which allows them to redefine some people as lesser or non-human, or they're psychologically dysfunctional.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 14, 2012, 09:28:05 pm

Question for the Dems, which I know this board has in spades...

How do you go vote for a dude that lied about the causes of an attack that killed four Americans? He went before the cameras and in front of the American people for two weeks and lied repeatedly. He didn't want to tarnish his Middle East record with admitting a bonafide pre-planned Al-Qaeda attack, so he foisted it off on "spontaneous outrage" over a little-known 15-minute video "movie" and jailed the creator.

Then he says the intelligence community said so. The intelligence community knew immediately that there had been no protests over the video, since they had footage of the compound during the attack and debriefings of survivors, as they have informed the press. They never reported that to the President. He or his own staff made that leap to protect their foreign policy record.

How do you vote for a president who thought you were stupid enough to never figure out that Al-Qaeda had planned this attack for September 11th long before an insignificant Youtube clip was posted?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 14, 2012, 09:31:27 pm

This is the first I've heard of it.

Pics or GTFO.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 09:32:25 pm

Every media source in the first week was saying it was protests over the videos.

http://www.myfoxspokane.com/news/headlines/story/american-killed-libya-protest-over-film

Quote

American killed in Libya protest over film

Protesters angered over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad fired gunshots and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing one American diplomat, witnesses and the State Department said. In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.

It was the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime leaders, Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak in uprisings last year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 14, 2012, 09:40:50 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 09:32:25 pm

Every media source in the first week was saying it was protests over the videos.

Because the media asked... the White House, of course. That's where they get their information. The White House does not get information from the media. That'd be absurd. The intel community knew the cause as soon as it happened, and within 24 hours had "return addresses" on several Al-Qaeda participants.

Quote from: Descan on October 14, 2012, 09:31:27 pm

This is the first I've heard of it.

Pics or GTFO.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/brutal-ad-hits-white-house-on-libya-timeline-contr

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 09:45:13 pm

No they didn't ask the white house, i linked a FOX News source above, which makes the same claim, and does not reference the White House, except for a comment by Hillary Clinton saying no film could justify violence.

This story on FOX never questioned whether the film was to blame, only Clinton was quoted showing any doubts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 09:49:04 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 14, 2012, 09:28:05 pm

Question for the Dems, which I know this board has in spades...

A lot of people on this board are more of the independent liberal streak. Or European. Not that many avowed Democrats that I know of here.

Quote

How do you go vote for a dude that lied about the causes of an attack that killed four Americans? He went before the cameras and in front of the American people for two weeks and lied repeatedly. He didn't want to tarnish his Middle East record with admitting a bonafide pre-planned Al-Qaeda attack, so he foisted it off on "spontaneous outrage" over a little-known 15-minute video "movie" and jailed the creator.

First of all, Obama was at first operating on false information as much as the rest of us and was trying to control the apparently exploding situation. Even afterwards you have to confirm something like an Al-Qaeda backed attack and conspiracy before you go announcing it, even if you know it might be the case.

Secondly, the movie was disseminated across the Arabic-speaking internet not long before the attack, despite it having been released in June. This is indicative of Ansar al-Sharia attempting to use the film as cover to make their attack seem like the actions of an angry Libyan mob instead of a planned attack by known militants. The reason for their use of the film as cover is hardly difficult to imagine. By making the Libyans seem like ungrateful violent radical bastards Ansar al-Sharia would be doing a lot to disengage US presence in the region, thus allowing them to topple the democratic Libyan government and turn it into their dream theocracy in peace.

Thirdly, Obama did not jail the creator, and the creator was not jailed for making the film. The creator was jailed by a judge, and he was jailed for having broken his parole. When you break parole, they jail you for it. This is a thing that happens whether you make controversial films or not.

Quote

Then he says the intelligence community said so. The intelligence community knew immediately that there had been no protests over the video, since they had footage of the compound during the attack and debriefings of survivors, as they have informed the press. They never reported that to the President. He or his own staff made that leap to protect their foreign policy record.

They had to do something. The lack of reports to the President is hardly his own fault. You cannot just not say anything when your ambassador gets murdered and it looks like violent populist mobs are the perpetrators. Furthermore, there were real protests over the film, inside and outside of Libya. That was Ansar al-Sharia's whole plan, and they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling CIA.

Quote

How do you vote for a president who thought you were stupid enough to never figure out that Al-Qaeda had planned this attack for September 11th long before an insignificant Youtube clip was posted?

How do you make an argument that relies on the idea of Obama being secretly evil for no reason?

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 14, 2012, 09:40:50 pm

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/brutal-ad-hits-white-house-on-libya-timeline-contr

Oh well, the Heritage Foundation. Man, that's trustworthy. I guess Obama really is secretly evil for no reason.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 14, 2012, 09:52:03 pm

Voting's not a one issue thing, unfortunately, and gods only know if I had a legitimate third option I wouldn't be voting for either of the bastards running right now, but the system's mostly broke and, welp. Lesser of evils is still evil, but only stupid is certainly the lesser of insults spat out by the pair, if you're using personal slights as your heuristic for voting. Which would be a fairly odd thing to be using as heuristic but whatev'.

I prefer stated and demonstrated policy and while it's still pretty terrible in both cases, the distribution of terrible is different. I'll be voting for the one that least bothers me, y'know? Which is unfortunately Obama, since th'Reps decided to proffer up what's basically a caricature of the worst of capitalism and the income divide in our country :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 14, 2012, 09:57:06 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 14, 2012, 09:28:05 pm

How do you go vote for a dude that lied about the causes of an attack that killed four Americans?

Lied about the causes?  Sorry, but we have no evidence so far that when he spoke about the attack he was relaying the information that he had.  And if it's a cover up it's a very unusual one since it was the White House quickly spoke about the nature of the attack once more information was had.

Furthermore the sheer chutzpah of this is shocking.  We are, in case you don't remember, just getting out of a war in Iraq that claimed nearly 5k american lives and caused 100k civilian deaths by the lowest estimates.  This war was a war of choice launched by a republican president who was repeatedly caught lying about the causes of the war before the invasion began.  So when you act as if honesty regarding foreign affairs is a problem for democrats the message rings more then a little hollow.  It's the kettle calling the snow black.

Obama spoke for a couple days before getting more information and hurt nobody.  Bush lied deliberately for months and ended up killing countless thousands and displacing far more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 14, 2012, 10:01:02 pm

Quote from: Frumple on October 14, 2012, 09:52:03 pm

Voting's not a one issue thing, unfortunately, and gods only know if I had a legitimate third option I wouldn't be voting for either of the bastards running right now, but the system's mostly broke and, welp. Lesser of evils is still evil, but only stupid is certainly the lesser of insults spat out by the pair, if you're using personal slights as your heuristic for voting. Which would be a fairly odd thing to be using as heuristic but whatev'.

I prefer stated and demonstrated policy and while it's still pretty terrible in both cases, the distribution of terrible is different. I'll be voting for the one that least bothers me, y'know? Which is unfortunately Obama, since th'Reps decided to proffer up what's basically a caricature of the worst of capitalism and the income divide in our country :-\

This is kind of my point. When you look at them closely, they are pretty similar. Romney is a 'moderate' Republican and Obama hardly does anything extremely partisan either. It sort of reminded me of the last election McCain and Obama were saying much of the same kinds of things. "Let's not raise anybody's taxes" "Let's just raise taxes a little for rich people". Only issue that set them apart for me was Obama's stance on nuclear energy and liked McCain just because he supported such things, but both talked alot about energy independence. They just varied a bit on how they wanted to achieve that.

Of course, the energy independence issue is moot in most voter's minds because gas is less then 4$ a gallon now. So it's all about non-issues anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 10:01:34 pm

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1836772696001/timeline-of-attacks-on-american-diplomatic-outposts/

FOX's timeline on the libya attacks. The first statement by Hiilary Clinton was:

"This was an attack by a small and savage group". No word about protests, films etc. But unlike Romney etc, Clinton has a job in the government to investigate the killers. She can't just "blab" whatever it is that did know, that was part of the ongoing investigation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 14, 2012, 10:01:59 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 09:45:13 pm

No they didn't ask the white house, i linked a FOX News source above, which makes the same claim, and does not reference the White House, except for a comment by Hillary Clinton saying no film could justify violence.

This story on FOX never questioned whether the film was to blame, only Clinton was quoted showing any doubts.

What I said previously, Reelya. The White House does not get its information from the media. It gives information. It had immediate access to this intel that it was a pre-planned Al-Qaeda attack. It knew but kept repeating the false narrative. Pretty bold lies.

Quote

She can't just "blab" whatever it is that did know, that was part of the ongoing investigation.

The administration does not get the right to tell blatant untruths that cover its failures and lead to no discernible benefit other than in domestic politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 10:03:48 pm

Show me one example of the white house spreading the false narrative.

The White House isn't the sole source of all knowledge, the media was reporting on the film to protests link well before the white house chimed in.

the BBC was also reporting the same thing. You think every news service in the world only uses "The White House" as their source?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19596026

Quote

14 September 2012
In the Egyptian capital, Cairo, police fired tear gas at about 500 protesters near the US embassy. Security forces and demonstrators also clashed in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa.

On Tuesday, protesters stormed the US consulate in Benghazi in Libya, killing the ambassador and three others.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film, and the violence.

"Nothing justifies such killings and attacks," he said in a statement. "The hateful film appears to have been deliberately designed to sow bigotry and bloodshed."

'Wild actions'

Libya's new Prime Minister Mustafa Abu Shaqur has told the BBC he does not want the consulate attack to damage relations with the US.

In Benghazi, US and Libyan officials are investigating the possibility that heavily armed militants used the protest as a pretext for a co-ordinated assault.

- is "The White House" the source for the UN Secretary-General's statement for example?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 10:12:29 pm

Believe it or not, you actually have to confirm information before you go running your mouth if you're POTUS, and if you can't you have to go with what is known most about. The White House may have had some information suggesting Ansar al-Sharia could have been involved, but not immediately saying so is not malicious lying, it is smart.

That it took a few days to fully verify and announce through the President is not indicative of some crazy conspiracy by Obama. You're pulling that out of thin air.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 14, 2012, 10:19:37 pm

Never forget that the only difference between CIA and CNN is that the CIA hides their spies. The news media is nothing less than a collection of private intelligence services, mostly extremely able ones. It's not unknown, or even particularly uncommon, for the media to get wind of a situation before government intelligence puts the pieces together, not least because they tend to get larger, more overt pieces of the puzzle. The idea that the government used the quite complete coverage from the media while the CIA and DIA scrambled to figure out what happened is quite plausible, even probable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 14, 2012, 10:26:23 pm

Yeah, the president can't just spew classified information in whatever routine speech he is giving about whatever outrage.

Wouldn't want al qaeda to know that they know that they were behind it. Blame it on angry rioting peasants instead.

After all, no political figure is obliged to tell the truth anyways. Yeah, he might have withheld information, but that isn't necessarily lying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on October 14, 2012, 11:59:26 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 14, 2012, 10:19:37 pm

Never forget that the only difference between CIA and CNN is that the CIA hides their spies.

Unrelated to your actual point, but I am still compelled to mention that one of those organizations also deposes governments and assassinates people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 12:03:23 am

Quote from: EveryZig on October 14, 2012, 11:59:26 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 14, 2012, 10:19:37 pm

Never forget that the only difference between CIA and CNN is that the CIA hides their spies.

Unrelated to your actual point, but I am still compelled to mention that one of those organizations also deposes governments and assassinates people.

I thought that was Fox news?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 12:34:33 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 14, 2012, 10:12:29 pm

Believe it or not, you actually have to confirm information before you go running your mouth if you're POTUS, and if you can't you have to go with what is known most about. The White House may have had some information suggesting Ansar al-Sharia could have been involved, but not immediately saying so is not malicious lying, it is smart.

Confirm information, huh? Confirm information like "it was caused spontaneously by a video"? Oh, wait, no need to confirm that whopper in advance!

He knew within 24 hours that there were no protestors and that it had nothing to do with the video. "May" has nothing to do with it. Either he was getting his intel briefs or he was neglecting them. There's no "may" in there. He could have said that his initial understanding was that it was a planned terrorist attack. There's no harm in telling that truth, no reason to hold it back... Oh... except it makes him look bad in an election.

Quote

That it took a few days to fully verify and announce through the President is not indicative of some crazy conspiracy by Obama. You're pulling that out of thin air.

A few days? A few days? Weeks, bro. Here's Obama after two weeks talking up the false "video" narrative at...  the United Nations of all places. He went to the United Nations after two weeks, when everyone inside the White House definitely had to know the real cause, and he imputed it to the video. Not a few days.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/09/25/world/100000001806072/obama-to-warn-iran-on-nuclear-program.html

Turn to about 10:30 to skip the eulogy of Chris Stevens and hear the video remarks. Two weeks later. What have you got to say next?

Quote from: Reelya on October 14, 2012, 10:03:48 pm

Show me one example of the white house spreading the false narrative.

The White House isn't the sole source of all knowledge, the media was reporting on the film to protests link well before the white house chimed in.

I've told you two times already. The White House had the right information. You're failing the reading comprehension test if you think I said the White House was the sole sources of news. Nobody thinks that. You're picking a ridiculous strawman. But what I am really saying, and which is known for a fact, is that the White House had the correct story. It chose to spread the scapegoat theory because it didn't reflect as badly upon them.

Quote

You think every news service in the world only uses "The White House" as their source?

Having fun debating yourself on that point. I'm sure you'll manage to beat yourself eventually.

Meanwhile, I'm saying that the White House encouraged a false narrative and participated in spreading it. Never said it was the sole source. But it was a source. And the spooks did know in 24 hours that it was Al-Qaeda. there's no strategic reason to withold that detail, or at least say vaguely, "My preliminary information is that this is a planned terrorist attack unassociated with the video". No reason at all, except political gain. 

Quote

is "The White House" the source for the UN Secretary-General's statement for example?

Yeah, dude. The White House went before the Secretary-General and said that. Susan Rice initially informed the UN of the video angle, followed by Obama himself two weeks later. Didn't you know?

The UN doesn't have an intelligence network, so how else can it get briefed? The US has intelligence agents, and Benghazi was actually a CIA center, so it was well monitored... and Obama has direct access to that intel.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 12:46:50 am

Dude the secretary general said that sometime before 14th september. how is what Obama said 2 weeks later relevant? There's a little thing called "causation" to take into account. "before" and "after". Plus the fact that Obama's mention of the video made no mention of the Libya attack.

He does go on to justify something though ... why the video is legal under America's free speech laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/

Spoiler: Relevant Trascript (click to show/hide)

Quote

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.  In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening.  In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others.

And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.  It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.  I know there are some who ask why don't we  just ban such a video.  The answer is enshrined in our laws.  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.  As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

Note, he doesn't even make any specific statement related to Libya in any of this. If you read "a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world" to mean "there was no coordinated attack in Benghazi" then that's you decisions to put words in the president's mouth.

Seriously is that the sole evidence you have that the Benghazi story was "orchestrated" by Obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on October 15, 2012, 12:50:40 am

Its clear to me now! Due to all the lying, I have to support the completely honest alter... oh wait!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 15, 2012, 12:51:06 am

Wait, wait.

How is "A bunch of un-trained, un-led angry Libyans* managed to break into our secure embassy in a very recently hostile (and therefore a likely candidate for higher embassy security) country and kill 4 Americans over an incendiary video" better than "This attack was lead by known terrorist groups and was planned in advanced, from preliminary reports."

Granted, the latter might make them seem a little off-the-ball in covert ops, but the former makes them seem JUST as ill-equipped in other ways, with the added bonus of them lying too! Which would be found out and add fuel to the fire. AND it doesn't make the Libyans very happy, you know, the guys with the huge oil reserves that ya'll are trying to court? It probably isn't safe to risk making them unhappy being scapegoats.

They aren't idiots, man. They know they'd be found out like nearly everything has been found out in the last few years. They wouldn't risk THAT little kerfuffle over making one part of their security apparatus seem better than another part.

*Okay, granted, some of them might have been former rebels. But this was in Benghazi, basically held and pacified so very quickly. It is unlikely there were a great deal of rebels in the crowd.

Edit: I don't exactly know what my point is. I don't think I have one. I'm just pointing out that your idea that they were trying to save face is laughable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 15, 2012, 01:13:30 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 12:34:33 am

Confirm information, huh? Confirm information like "it was caused spontaneously by a video"? Oh, wait, no need to confirm that whopper in advance!

As I stated in the post you ignored, he has to say something and try to get reigns on the situation almost immediately after an event this serious goes down. At least at first Obama was definitely working off of what he had.

Quote

He could have said that his initial understanding was that it was a planned terrorist attack. There's no harm in telling that truth, no reason to hold it back... Oh... except it makes him look bad in an election.

How does "Ansar al-Sharia is trying to trick us but we won't fall for it, freedom and liberty forever" make him look bad in an election? No politician could fail to spin this to their favor. Solidarity in the name of democracy is one of the most persuasive ideas in American culture. Bush had an approval rating in the 90s right after 9/11, he barely had to do anything to get it, and you're telling me that Obama couldn't get anything good out of a similarly-motivated attack that took place on the same fucking day?

Quote

Turn to about 10:30 to skip the eulogy of Chris Stevens and hear the video remarks. Two weeks later. What have you got to say next?

Firstly that two weeks is 14 days. Secondly that you look like you're trying to live up to your name. Thirdly that if you wanted to catch members of Ansar al-Sharia the best way to go about it would be to feign falling for their stupid plan so they didn't think you were onto them and would let their guard down while you had the CIA double-time trying to capture as many of them as possible for about two weeks before talking about what really happened to the public.


You've clearly got a pretty rabid dislike of Obama and you're letting it skew how you see all of this. I don't expect you to recognize that after saying what you've said already, but that does not make it untrue. If you can't recognize that deception is sometimes a necessary element of geopolitics then you are failing to understand it at a very basic level.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 01:19:25 am

Quote from: Montague on October 14, 2012, 10:01:02 pm

Romney is a 'moderate' Republican

He signed a permanent ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts, saying: "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." (http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html) That sounds sensible until you consider the original reason for the right to bear arms: Rising up against the government if it becomes tyrannical.

Romney is more of a chameleon, able to hold any position at any time. I wouldn't expect bipartisanship from him either if he becomes president; The issue there is Congress, and the anti-science republicans don't help matters, especially the ones who've gotten positions in the House committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Essentially, Romney had three choices as governor:
1. Veto everything, get overridden, end up unpopular and with no accomplishments as Governor.
2. Propose something the Democrats want, and do whatever the democrats want! Might not look so good when running on a national level later.
3. Mix 1 and 2 and shake and bake: Do some things the Democrats want, and veto lots of other things (and get overridden).

He chose 3.

(To be clear, Massachusetts is so blue (and/or independent) that the legislature had (and has) so many Democrats that they could just override all his vetos)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 15, 2012, 01:25:30 am

Idk, I think people have this tendency to think boring explanations are unrealistic. Obviously the embassy being overrun by dirty commoners is not a good answer. Some elite squad of deadly Al-Qaeda assassins are the only people that could have done it.

The real world is like a hollywood movie in people's imaginations. High profile stuff doesn't happen without some spooky, interesting antagonist.

They think this is Hollywood paradigm is so normal that they don't question when people are killed inexplicably, it must have been CIA death squads or something, right?

Real world is pretty boring.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 01:33:15 am

The media tends to portray any foreign leader hostile to the United States as an insane comic book supervillain, just itching to get nukes or orbital lasers (give that a century) and blast half the world into ash just for "teh lulz".

The main difference from comic supervillains is that in reality your "evil henchmen" have families and aren't so keen to die in a nuclear inferno no matter how insane their boss is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 15, 2012, 01:36:03 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 01:19:25 am

Quote from: Montague on October 14, 2012, 10:01:02 pm

Romney is a 'moderate' Republican

He signed a permanent ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts, saying: "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." (http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html) That sounds sensible until you consider the original reason for the right to bear arms: Rising up against the government if it becomes tyrannical.

Romney is more of a chameleon, able to hold any position at any time. I wouldn't expect bipartisanship from him either if he becomes president; The issue there is Congress, and the anti-science republicans don't help matters, especially the ones who've gotten positions in the House committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Essentially, Romney had three choices as governor:
1. Veto everything, get overridden, end up unpopular and with no accomplishments as Governor.
2. Propose something the Democrats want, and do whatever the democrats want! Might not look so good when running on a national level later.
3. Mix 1 and 2 and shake and bake: Do some things the Democrats want, and veto lots of other things (and get overridden).

He chose 3.

(To be clear, Massachusetts is so blue (and/or independent) that the legislature had (and has) so many Democrats that they could just override all his vetos)

Yep, looking into it a bit, Romney looks more anti-gun then Obama.

I'm thinking Romney is sort of a toolbag, doing whatever seems the most politically correct thing to say or do at the time. Obama has pretty much stuck to his guns, so to speak.

So there you go, a moderate republican that believes in gun control. That's about the worst type of 'moderate' there is in my book.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 01:36:44 am

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 14, 2012, 10:19:37 pm

The idea that the government used the quite complete coverage from the media while the CIA and DIA scrambled to figure out what happened is quite plausible, even probable.

No, it doesn't work that way. After Obama was informed of an ongoing attack, he went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. By the time he finished his trip, the attack was over and the CIA had debriefed the survivors. It had access to the survivors, including the agent who was watching the cameras of the gates in the TOC room and actually hit the alarm button as the attack commenced. You say "probable," but the facts as known say "impossible." The White House knew much more than the media within 24 hours of the attack and kept telling people a false story.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html

To suppose that the CIA didn't know more than CNN about its own forward operating base from its own survivors of that attack is rather ridiculous. The state department had a press conference on the timeline and the CIA knew everything from the survivors within hours, including that there were no protestors before the well-prepared assault with heavy weaponry. The CIA also had known that al-Zawahiri recently called for vengeance in Libya over the death of al-Libi.

The Libyan President, quoted out-of-context by Reelya above, actually says that he forwarded a report of impending attack three days before the assault.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave-us-threeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html

Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 12:46:50 am

how is what Obama said 2 weeks later relevant? There's a little thing called "causation" to take into account. "before" and "after".

You're at pains to nitpick at strawmen. The president was complicit in spreading an angle that he knew to be false, but that looked better for him. The point is that he was still peddling a false story two weeks later. It's not about causation. That's your strawman. It's about the continuation. Two weeks of false excuses for a planned and announced terrorist attack. Susan Rice went to the UN at first and confirmed the video angle, but at any point afterward, Obama could have informed people that he was receiving more accurate information. He actually repeated the false information, because it looks better.

Quote

EDIT: Oh, so because Obama once mentioned the video at the UN, that means he's claiming the Benghazi attacks were solely caused by the video? All he stated was that the video caused "outrage". No specific mention of the Libyan attack in that section.

It comes directly after Chris Stevens eulogy in the clear context of Libya. The violence over the video refers to Steven's death in the assault, but the remarks do not mention terrorism anywhere. Go look at a script (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly). Zero terrorism in his remarks, because the narrative was spontaneous "protesters" with RPGs and heavy weaponry in their pockets caused this. You're carrying water if you can't see that. This is at the United Nations. Elsewhere he states it even more explicitly.

Quote

He does go on to justify something though ... why the video is legal under America's free speech laws.

Foreigners who see Sam Bacile in prison don't understand those little nuances, unfortunately. All they see is a man who spoke up and got imprisoned. Next time an American says something they don't like, they know exactly how to react now, don't they? Connecting this attack to a video and then trumping up a reason to imprison the maker actually undermined our free speech.

Quote from: Descan on October 15, 2012, 12:51:06 am

How is "A bunch of un-trained, un-led angry Libyans* managed to break into our secure embassy in a very recently hostile (and therefore a likely candidate for higher embassy security) country and kill 4 Americans over an incendiary video" better than "This attack was lead by known terrorist groups and was planned in advanced, from preliminary reports."

Edit: I don't exactly know what my point is. I don't think I have one. I'm just pointing out that your idea that they were trying to save face is laughable.

Showing Al-Qaeda to be "defeated" and "on the run" clearly helps Obama. Showing them to be organized and capable of going tit-for-tat hurts a President who spent four years hitting them with controversial drone warfare and who is now about to leave Afghanistan with a "Mission Accomplished" banner waving behind him. Showing Al-Qaeda strong enough kill an ambassador for the first time since 1979 is a huge blow against the Administration.

On the other hand, if it was caused by spontaneous outrage of a disorganized mob to a "hateful" video, then there's no way that Obama can be blamed for spontaneity and such righteous anger of just plain ordinary folks on the arab street. How is this not obvious to you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 01:41:37 am

Pro-tip: Ansar al-Sharia of Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Sharia_(Libya)) isn't al-Qaida.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 01:45:11 am

You still don't have a source for Obama spreading the story, which is your key claim. The only thing you have is one statement 2 weeks later, where he says the video "spread outrage across the muslim world". No direct link, and no evidence that the white house created the story as it spread 2 week earlier.

All you need is 1 statement by a white house official saying the attack was caused by the video. you do not have that. Because 2 weeks before Obama even spoke to the United Nations, the BBC was clearly linking the attacks to the video. Not a vague link, a direct link.

An article showing that they were investigating Al-qaeda from the start doesn't mean anything since you have no evidence that the white house started the news articles about the video.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on October 15, 2012, 01:46:35 am

Guys? Word of advice:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2OyfmcmrvYJOmwBM2ZDMo6gVXvPkJ9uCc_RW-jpynT-FUgc5baQ)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 02:06:45 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 15, 2012, 01:13:30 am

As I stated in the post you ignored, he has to say something and try to get reigns on the situation almost immediately after an event this serious goes down. At least at first Obama was definitely working off of what he had.

At first? He has direct access to the CIA and they collected the survivors within 24 hours. On the other hand, even "we're still investigating" is perfectly acceptable until a good understanding emerges. You're saying that the president had to lie. No. It's not acceptable, and it wasn't necessary.

Quote

How does "Ansar al-Sharia is trying to trick us but we won't fall for it, freedom and liberty forever" make him look bad in an election? No politician could fail to spin this to their favor. Solidarity in the name of democracy is one of the most persuasive ideas in American culture. Bush had an approval rating in the 90s right after 9/11, he barely had to do anything to get it, and you're telling me that Obama couldn't get anything good out of a similarly-motivated attack that took place on the same fucking day?

Bush wasn't engaged in spiking the football and doing a victory dance just before an election. A major terrorist attack just before an election doesn't work the way you suppose. We rally behind presidents at the start of their first terms; we don't rally behind a president that has been tasked for the past four years with preventing these organized attacks. You can research the 3/11 attacks in Spain that toppled the right-leaning government three days before an election. Terrorism usually is not a boon to the current administration, particularly when it has been pushing a story that the wars are almost over due to its efforts.

Quote

Secondly that you look like you're trying to live up to your name.

Shooting the messenger, eh? I'm giving information. You can't deny that the president had this information almost as soon as it happened. You can't deny that he lied internationally but also in local venues to the American people. At most, you can posit that he did it for some undefined political benefit, same as me. You say that benefit was catching terrorists. I say that benefit was looking like an effective president in foreign policy during a close election.

Quote

Thirdly that if you wanted to catch members of Ansar al-Sharia the best way to go about it would be to feign falling for their stupid plan so they didn't think you were onto them and would let their guard down while you had the CIA double-time trying to capture as many of them as possible for about two weeks before talking about what really happened to the public.

The CIA wasn't doing that. That isn't the plan. The only suspects so far have been caught by Libyans themselves. You created that story just now to buttress your irrational need to support Obama. It's a nice story, but it simply didn't happen.

Quote

You've clearly got a pretty rabid dislike of Obama and you're letting it skew how you see all of this.

I left America years ago and don't plan to vote. I'm just asking how you convince yourself to vote for a man that lies to everyone. I mean, if you voted for Bush before, I can understand voting for Obama now. The lying, the drone-killings, the dead women and children collateral damage... If you love Bush, vote for his doppelganger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 02:15:58 am

Quote from: tryrar on October 15, 2012, 01:46:35 am

Guys? Word of advice:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2OyfmcmrvYJOmwBM2ZDMo6gVXvPkJ9uCc_RW-jpynT-FUgc5baQ)

My posts have approximately 100 times more linked info to mainstream sources than other posts here, and especially more than this juvenile picture post. My name is irrelevant to this matter and selected for irony long ago. I rarely post outside of Other Games.

Obviously, you'd rather put me beside Sam Bacile in some cell, but I'm not a troll just because you disagree with me and can't formulate a more robust response than accusations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 02:21:12 am

As said before, you still don't have a source that Obama spread that "lie". Also, how would it help him to delay the announcement of the attack by two weeks? There seems to be no crime and no motive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 02:24:22 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 02:15:58 am

Obviously, you'd rather put me beside Sam Bacile in some cell

Nobody said anything of the sort, and I think it would be best if you and everyone arguing with you moved on to something less contentious.

For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-possibly-fatal-mistake.html?pagewanted=all

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 02:26:39 am

Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 01:45:11 am

You still don't have a source for Obama spreading the story, which is your key claim. The only thing you have is one statement 2 weeks later, where he says the video "spread outrage across the muslim world". No direct link, and no evidence that the white house created the story as it spread 2 week earlier.

All you need is 1 statement by a white house official saying the attack was caused by the video. you do not have that. Because 2 weeks before Obama even spoke to the United Nations, the BBC was clearly linking the attacks to the video. Not a vague link, a direct link.

An article showing that they were investigating Al-qaeda from the start doesn't mean anything since you have no evidence that the white house started the news articles about the video.

I gave a clip that's literally filled from one end to the other with video segments in which administration officials and the president are making these claims on various talk shows in the two weeks before they came clean. That you didn't watch the compilation is your failing, not mine.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/brutal-ad-hits-white-house-on-libya-timeline-contr

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 02:24:22 am

Nobody said anything of the sort, and I think it would be best if you and everyone arguing with you moved on to something less contentious.

Heh, well, if Reelya is satisfied that there are plenty of instances of this claim, then I will leave off here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 15, 2012, 02:29:37 am

Just for the record the guy who made the controversial 'film' was arrested for violating probation, not for making the film it'self.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 02:33:02 am

Your clip is filled of snippets of video, not a single one of whom mention "The attack in Benghazi was due to the video". It speak of outrage caused by the video yes. Of aggressions on US embassies, yes (And there was a lot of protests in front of US embassies all across the muslim world). But not a single one saying the attack was made by protesters enraged by the video.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 02:41:47 am

That is not an authoritative source. Honestly... Pasted together clips which are so short that the speakers do not say what they are talking about until you get to the hostile clips halfway through, and the video is framed such that you are intended to believe it to be the attack on the consulate.

You know what else you can do when you paste together clips?
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

Are you done now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 02:43:19 am

The only comments on that buzzfeed link say, at most, protests caused by the video, there isn't even a single statement saying "embassy attack caused by the video".

And that's from some guys who cherry picked every single utterance available. Massive proof fail.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 15, 2012, 02:54:08 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 02:41:47 am

That is not an authoritative source. Honestly... Pasted together clips which are so short that the speakers do not say what they are talking about until you get to the hostile clips halfway through, and the video is framed such that you are intended to believe it to be the attack on the consulate.

You know what else you can do when you paste together clips?
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

Are you done now?

I've always liked this pasted-together video... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoXgRtDysLY&list=FLauh-5kWgTrXHnQPX3g7OZA&index=110&feature=plpp_video)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 15, 2012, 02:54:35 am

That is nice and all trying to convince us that Obama is a liarpolitician...  I'm going to opinionate, even if he did lie in that situation... you gonna expect Romney to be any better?
Honestly, the whole Benghazi thing is non-issue to me in the whole political/election scheme.  I still favor Obama over Romney cause of the many other issues out there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 15, 2012, 02:59:14 am

Frankly, it seems absolutely ludicrousness that people would accuse Obama of lying, compared to just about any other president, let alone somebody like Mitt Romney which seems to discover a new truth every other month or so.

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 03:05:07 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 01:41:37 am

Pro-tip: Ansar al-Sharia of Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Sharia_(Libya)) isn't al-Qaida.

The attack was planned in advance to avenge the former leader, al-Libi, who was an affiliate member of Al-Qaeda. Branches and affiliates of Al-Qaeda almost universally carry their own names, yet they coordinate in a network called Al-Qaeda. If you go merely to that one wikipedia entry, it might not seem obvious at first, but al-Libi was a major player in Al-Qaeda in Libya, enough to earn himself a drone-bombing last Spring, and his associates avenged him in this assault. In fact, al-Zawahiri called upon them to do so over the Summer, so an organized assault should have been expected.

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 02:41:47 am

That is not an authoritative source. Honestly... Pasted together clips which are so short that the speakers do not say what they are talking about until you get to the hostile clips halfway through, and the video is framed such that you are intended to believe it to be the attack on the consulate.

You know what else you can do when you paste together clips?
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

The clips are clearly not manipulated like that. Each clip is short but definitely too long to be easily manipulated. You can't fit them into a compilation that most people would watch, if you gave each a minute on its own context.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html

Here's an article that has a nice long embedded video of Obama spreading the false narrative, plus definitive comments from his spokesman Jay Carney. You're going nowhere with this refusal to accept that this story was the White House's line for weeks. It's documented everywhere, and you're going to wear yourself out claiming every single instance is manipulated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 03:29:07 am

Quote from: Montague on October 15, 2012, 02:59:14 am

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

Yeah, Obama's pretty honest.

Like when he ran for president on closing Guantanamo.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UHvFSu6IDzs
 
Let's not even consider other promises like cutting the deficit, getting rid of corruption and then giving stimulus deals to his backers, railing against the Patriot Act and then strengthening his ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, promising transparency in the government and then using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder from testifying about the Fast and Furious program that gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels without tracking devices.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 15, 2012, 03:30:10 am

I dunno, but doesn't congress or something like that decide what proposals go through and which ones don't?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 15, 2012, 03:47:31 am

I could've sworn I watched Obama say terrorists attacked the embassy the very next morning and said "We will get the ones who caused this." While mentioning they did use the protests as a pretense for the attack.. So you're a moron if you think the video did not cause protests. And that Obama claimed the attack was anything other than terrorism. People like Troll have this conception that the situation has to be EITHER OR and in reality it's.. both.. The video caused protests; terrorists attacked the embassy. How hard is that to comprehend? There's been nothing hidden. If this has been a cover up, they've covered up nothing.

Spewing vitriol at the president over every finger lift he does tends to dilute the effects of your rabid screaming, especially since you folks like to bitch and whine anytime he does something because he's a socialist Kenyan/black unamerican bastard out to git our jobs. The fact that your main source for these claims of a coverup are a Karl Rove political ad^tm that actually has nothing of substance only goes to prove how hollow your argument [or lack-thereof] is, and that you'd make it no matter what the situation was or what happened.

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 03:29:07 am

Quote from: Montague on October 15, 2012, 02:59:14 am

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

Yeah, Obama's pretty honest.

Like when he ran for president on closing Guantanamo.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UHvFSu6IDzs
 
Let's not even consider other promises like cutting the deficit, getting rid of corruption and then giving stimulus deals to his backers, railing against the Patriot Act and then strengthening his ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, promising transparency in the government and then using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder from testifying about the Fast and Furious program that gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels without tracking devices.

#2, you're a fool who spews non truths.  The link you show backs nothing you say up. It actually refutes you claiming he broke his promise:

Quote

Obama has run into plenty of opposition in Congress. Lawmakers passed a bill preventing federal money from being used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the United States. Obama signed that bill into law, even as he issued a statement that disapproved of it. The provision was part of a bigger military bill that Obama said was too important not to sign.

Republicans, in particular, say that Guantanamo must stay open to keep terrorists there.

Here's something for you to learn about, kiddo: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703386704576186742044239356.html)

Quote

With the policy shifts, Mr. Obama is acknowledging the difficulty he has faced in trying to close the prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, which he had ordered on his second day in office. He is also responding to a congressional ban of moving detainees to the U.S. for trial or detention, which undercut administration plans for civilian trials for some now held at Guantanamo.

Administration officials say the executive order Mr. Obama issued on Monday adds due-process rights absent under Mr. Bush. It calls for periodic reviews of detainees who the administration has determined should be detained indefinitely. The administration has said there are now 48 such detainees who can't be put on trial because, among other reasons, evidence might be tainted by their treatment during questioning and might be deemed by judges to have been coerced.

...

The administration's efforts to demonstrate that civilian courts should be the preferred venue to handle terrorism trials was called into question last November, when a New York jury rejected more than 200 counts against a Tanzanian man charged in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. The man was convicted on a single count and sentenced to life in prison.

At the same time, Congress has blocked Mr. Obama's ability to bring Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for trial or detention. The Obama administration has transferred or resettled nearly 70 detainees, mostly to Europe.

The issue isn't as black and white as you wish to see it, since you're obviously biased against Obama. I won't even go over the rest of your idiocy since it bears no weight and is backed by nothing but party patriotism vitriol that serves no purpose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 04:10:18 am

Quote from: Darvi on October 15, 2012, 03:30:10 am

I dunno, but doesn't congress or something like that decide what proposals go through and which ones don't?

The congress that Obama heavily controlled for the first two years of his administration?

As for Michlantecuhtli's spewage, same answer. This poor little president had all the time in the world to play around with vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. Convenient that you forget that now! If he had wanted Guantanamo gone, there would have been no reason to wait for two years.

And I note Michlan doesn't want to address the Executive Privilege at all, which a president invokes on his own to protect his personal communications... involving gun-running to Mexican drug-lords.

Quote

The link you show backs nothing you say up.

Did you read the part where it says he promised to veto it? Did you realize that he didn't, kiddo?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 15, 2012, 04:13:39 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 03:29:07 am

Quote from: Montague on October 15, 2012, 02:59:14 am

Obama has been unusually upfront and honest, even for a dodgy political figure. I really cannot think of too many instances where he has said one thing and done another or failed to uphold a promise, or bluntly lied about something. For what it's worth, this is probably the last character fault you could try to attack Obama with.

Yeah, Obama's pretty honest.

Like when he ran for president on closing Guantanamo.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UHvFSu6IDzs
 
Let's not even consider other promises like cutting the deficit, getting rid of corruption and then giving stimulus deals to his backers, railing against the Patriot Act and then strengthening his ability to indefinitely detain American citizens, promising transparency in the government and then using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder from testifying about the Fast and Furious program that gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels without tracking devices.

Haha, yeah he did say that, huh? I could care less about gitmo one way or another but I wonder why more of his followers are not protesting and complaining that it should be shut down already? I assumed he realized the realities of the situation made it harder to shut down then it first seemed.

Still, I'll say he's more honest then most.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 04:20:16 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 04:10:18 am

Quote from: Darvi on October 15, 2012, 03:30:10 am

I dunno, but doesn't congress or something like that decide what proposals go through and which ones don't?

The congress that Obama heavily controlled for the first two years of his administration?

As for Michlantecuhtli's spewage, same answer. This poor little president had all the time in the world to play around with vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. Convenient that you forget that now! If he had wanted Guantanamo gone, there would have been no reason to wait for two years.

And I note Michlan doesn't want to address the Executive Privilege at all, which a president invokes on his own to protect his personal communications... involving gun-running to Mexican drug-lords.

Vast? He didn't have vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. The Senate could barely get anything done because of Republican filibusters, for one. Oh, now you're going to say they had a supermajority and could have done all kinds of things (during the four months or so in which they had dying or dead Democrats keeping them from doing anything with it) (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/03/13641077-a-fleeting-illusory-supermajority?lite).

If you want to see vast majorities of Democrats in both houses, move to Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_House_of_Representatives

Now that's a supermajority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 04:31:40 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 04:20:16 am

Vast? He didn't have vast majorities of Democrats in both houses. The Senate could barely get anything done because of Republican filibusters, for one. Oh, now you're going to say they had a supermajority and could have done all kinds of things (during the four months or so in which they had dying or dead Democrats keeping them from doing anything with it) (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/03/13641077-a-fleeting-illusory-supermajority?lite).

If you want to see vast majorities of Democrats in both houses, move to Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_House_of_Representatives

Now that's a supermajority.

Let's put it this way: if you can get a complete clusterfuck like ObamaCare passed, which was so convoluted even Nancy Pelosi joked that "we have to pass it to see what's in it" then you can probably find enough votes to close Guantanamo Bay. But he likes Guantanamo Bay.


He also likes indefinitely detaining American citizens. In fact, when Noam Chomsky and the ACLU got a court injunction against the NDAA, he put his lawyers to the task of arguing for lifting the injunction.

"Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest’s ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process."

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/17/obama_fights_for_indefinite_detention/

Noam Chomsky and the ACLU. The most devilish Republicans known to mankind!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 06:37:38 am

I've got to be honest. I'm not exactly sure what the actual point is of any of your posts.

Do you think we should vote for someone other than Obama? Do you think someone else would be more transparent, more honest?

We all know shits fucked up in the US government, in both parties. We also know which one is worse. (at the moment)

So rather than making piles of ultimately rather weak arguments, why don't you explain what your point is?

Because the whole "lying about the Benghazi attacks thing? What's your point? What were the terrible consequences that erupted from the two weeks of people thinking it was part of the more widespread protests? Preferably consequences that benefit the president? And what choices should this knowledge inform us to make in a certain direction that we didn't before?

Same for... everything else you've listed. There aren't exactly many people here that I would say are enthusiastic about voting for Obama. But seriously - what's your alternative right now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 06:43:24 am

Yeah, I think Trollheimig somehow convinced himself than since this is such a liberal outpost, we must all be Obama fans. We know the guy ain't terrible. We know the other one is even worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 06:55:39 am

I mean, hell, there's a number of pretty terrible outright BLATANT lies he's stuck to unapologetically, like the huge uptick in federal raids on state marijuana growers in states that have found it legal. These are lies (ad actions) that have actually /hurt/ people, significantly! He promised not to do that. You'd think if you were wanting to turn the liberal crowd against Obama, you'd hit on areas that, y'know, actually appeal to liberal values, no?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 15, 2012, 07:03:33 am

It's cute because he's blind to the fact that it was the Obama administration that forced the amendment that added 'this bill shall have no impact on current powers of detention' or something along those lines; since it was the Republican congress forcing through the NDAA in it's purest Fascist form.

Here's something else for you to read, young Troll. (http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained) That's if you like to be educated about the shit you like to spew off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 15, 2012, 07:16:23 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 02:06:45 am

Shooting the messenger, eh?

You're not "the messenger". "The messenger" is, by definition, someone who brings a message from someone else, and are thus not blameable for what is in that message as it is not is own opinion. This is your opinion. This is your message. If someone calls it bullshit or you a bullshitter, they are not "shooting the messenger" in any sense of what the phrase means.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 15, 2012, 07:18:50 am

Quote from: scriver on October 15, 2012, 07:16:23 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 02:06:45 am

Shooting the messenger, eh?

You're not "the messenger". "The messenger" is, by definition, someone who brings a message from someone else, and are thus not blameable for what is in that message as it is not is own opinion. This is your opinion. This is your message. If someone calls it bullshit or you a bullshitter, they are not "shooting the messenger" in any sense of what the phrase means.

On the other hand, if you're saying it's not your opinion, then you just admitted to trolling.  ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 07:56:04 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 15, 2012, 07:03:33 am

It's cute because he's blind to the fact that it was the Obama administration that forced the amendment that added 'this bill shall have no impact on current powers of detention' or something along those lines; since it was the Republican congress forcing through the NDAA in it's purest Fascist form.

Here's something else for you to read, young Troll. (http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained) That's if you like to be educated about the shit you like to spew off.

Nice article. You should even try reading it rather than babbling. It really doesn't dispute anything, just leaves a few harshest points out while still amply taking him to task. The part where I burst into laughter was when you made a claim and then said "or something along those lines" because that part really persuaded me that you knew what you were talking about!

In fact, what your referring to was a clause that limited the NDAA to non-citizens in the House Bill, and the Democratic Senate removed that clause at the President's behest. Not added protections. Removed limitations. 

http://www.change.org/petitions/out-with-congress-ndaa-1031-citizen-imprisonment-agnostic-law-is-now-here

"Or something like that." Lol.  ;D

Now run along to that link and get your own self educated. Your charade is up.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 06:37:38 am

Same for... everything else you've listed. There aren't exactly many people here that I would say are enthusiastic about voting for Obama. But seriously - what's your alternative right now?

I discounted anyone here voting for Mitt before I entered this thread. He's a decent guy, but no way I change any minds here. I'm just asking about Obama. You probably all cried about Bush being a killer and a liar, now you've got 4 years of Obama lying and killing innocent bystanders with drones... How's it feel to being voting for that? Just a party thing, right? It's just something ya gotta do for the team, eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 15, 2012, 08:00:50 am

You should lurk more. Then you'd realise most American lefties on this forum aren't Democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 08:00:56 am

Well, I'm not an American, and I consider Obama a killer too. Hate the guy. It's realy bad that the alternative were and are even worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 15, 2012, 08:08:51 am

Quote from: Sheb on October 15, 2012, 08:00:56 am

Well, I'm not an American, and I consider Obama a killer too. Hate the guy. It's realy bad that the alternative were and are even worse.

I disagree that Romney is worse than Obama, but not enough to argue it with any force. I voted for Bush the first time, but not in 2004. It's curious that liberals now have the same dilemma that I felt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 08:17:14 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 06:55:39 am

I mean, hell, there's a number of pretty terrible outright BLATANT lies he's stuck to unapologetically, like the huge uptick in federal raids on state marijuana growers in states that have found it legal. These are lies (ad actions) that have actually /hurt/ people, significantly! He promised not to do that. You'd think if you were wanting to turn the liberal crowd against Obama, you'd hit on areas that, y'know, actually appeal to liberal values, no?

Liberal values = weed.

Right? Appeal to those danged lefties, just mention weed, right? Riiight? It's not like they believe in anything else!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:48 am

Liberal values = not having the highest incarceration rate among developing countries, not ruining people's lives for doing things that have no impact on you, not fueling corporate gred and corruption, not trampling on civil liberties. Not being evil fucking assholes.

Yes, those are all liberal values.

What's the matter, you SUPPORT ruining people's lives for doing the exact same shit both our presidents admit to doing? You support wars on the poor? You support throwing punitive punishments on top of mistakes that only hurt the one who made them? You support the the guns-for-drugs, criminal-civil-war causing war on some drugs that we've decided we don't like because poor people do them?

And least of all, you support the federal government stripping away rights that states have granted to their citizens for what amounts to a corporate cash grab?

Not even that, though! Because this isn't even the war on some drugs that we're talking about at this point. No, this is a war on doctors, and on state governments, to take things away from sick people that make them feel better.

It isn't about "weed", it's about basic human decency. So basic, in fact, that Obama pledged before entering office that he'd support the state's rights to make that decision (and then went back on it).

What's the matter - do you not support any of that? Do you not think it's an issue that liberals would care about? (Hell, with Republican's being state's rights supporters in general, it's something that should piss people off on both sides of the aisle.)

But no, it's not just about weed - you could go after Obama for supporting the expansion of domestic spying programs, for increasing the difficulty of succeeding with a Freedom of Information request, for a whole host of things he's actually done, for reasons that conflict with the opinions of liberals. The only problem I had here was that Troll is going after Obama with things that merely make me ask "What's your point?"

I didn't say they didn't care about anything else, but anyone who IS "liberal" should care about that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jerick on October 15, 2012, 08:46:32 am

Quote

I disagree that Romney is worse than Obama, but not enough to argue it with any force. I voted for Bush the first time, but not in 2004.

Not really Mitt's economic and forgein policy ideas are, from what I've seen and heard, moronic.
The reasons I dislike Obama isn't because of stupid policies at least.
So it's at least safer to have him run your country than Mitt

Quote

now you've got 4 years of Obama lying and killing innocent bystanders with drones... How's it feel to being voting for that? Just a party thing, right? It's just something ya gotta do for the team, eh?

And Romney wouldn't do the exact same?
This is my big problem with American politics; you don't actualy have choice.
Both parties will do the same bad things, nethier party really cares about you as more than a vote and both are acting on behalf of the groups that help fund them and their campaigns.
In the broken and very undemocratic American system there is no thrid option.

Quote

It's curious that liberals now have the same dilemma that I felt.

I don't consider myself a liberal because the word is meaningless to me as is the concept that you can sum up someone's political views with one of two words.
In fact I would consider it insulting to simply label someone Liberal or Conservative because it implies no depth to the persons views and gives no thought to how they might be different.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 08:54:37 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:48 am

Liberal values = not having the highest incarceration rate among developing countries, not ruining people's lives for doing things that have no impact on you, not fueling corporate gred and corruption, not trampling on civil liberties. Not being evil fucking assholes.

Yes, those are all liberal values.

What's the matter, you SUPPORT ruining people's lives for doing the exact same shit both our presidents admit to doing? You support wars on the poor? You support throwing punitive punishments on top of mistakes that only hurt the one who made them? You support the the guns-for-drugs, criminal-civil-war causing war on some drugs that we've decided we don't like because poor people do them?

And least of all, you support the federal government stripping away rights that states have granted to their citizens for what amounts to a corporate cash grab?

Not even that, though! Because this isn't even the war on some drugs that we're talking about at this point. No, this is a war on doctors, and on state governments, to take things away from sick people that make them feel better.

It isn't about "weed", it's about basic human decency. So basic, in fact, that Obama pledged before entering office that he'd support the state's rights to make that decision (and then went back on it).

What's the matter - do you not support any of that? Do you not think it's an issue that liberals would care about? (Hell, with Republican's being state's rights supporters in general, it's something that should piss people off on both sides of the aisle.)

But no, it's not just about weed - you could go after Obama for supporting the expansion of domestic spying programs, for increasing the difficulty of succeeding with a Freedom of Information request, for a whole host of things he's actually done, for reasons that conflict with the opinions of liberals. The only problem I had here was that Troll is going after Obama with things that merely make me ask "What's your point?"

I didn't say they didn't care about anything else, but anyone who IS "liberal" should care about that.

Holy crap, that is a lot of angry assumptions from five sentences, four of which were sentence fragments.

Wow.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:48 am

What's the matter, you SUPPORT ruining people's lives for doing the exact same shit both our presidents admit to doing? You support wars on the poor? You support throwing punitive punishments on top of mistakes that only hurt the one who made them? You support the the guns-for-drugs, criminal-civil-war causing war on some drugs that we've decided we don't like because poor people do them?

You got me, I'm pro-ruining lives. It's my party. Vote Ruining Lives 2012.

You SUPPORT angry unfocused rage? You do? You SUPPORT it? How can you SUPPORT it? You mean you SUPPORT IT?

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:48 am

And least of all, you support the federal government stripping away rights that states have granted to their citizens for what amounts to a corporate cash grab?

I mail my federal government every day telling them to remove the rights of everyone in my state. It hasn't worked so far.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:48 am

What's the matter - do you not support any of that? Do you not think it's an issue that liberals would care about? (Hell, with Republican's being state's rights supporters in general, it's something that should piss people off on both sides of the aisle.)

But no, it's not just about weed - you could go after Obama for supporting the expansion of domestic spying programs, for increasing the difficulty of succeeding with a Freedom of Information request, for a whole host of things he's actually done, for reasons that conflict with the opinions of liberals. The only problem I had here was that Troll is going after Obama with things that merely make me ask "What's your point?"

Got me again, I always Republican's, when I'm not going after Obama for spying on me.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 08:38:48 am

I didn't say they didn't care about anything else, but anyone who IS "liberal" should care about that.

You aren't a REAL "liberal" unless you "agree" with "me"! I am the "only" "liberal"! The "quotation marks" are to instill a "sense" of "doubt" in your feeble mind!! I hope you feel remorse for what you did to those poor people by voting Ruining Lives in the last election!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 15, 2012, 09:05:00 am

Quote from: Jerick on October 15, 2012, 08:46:32 am

In the broken and very undemocratic American system there is no thrid option.

There actually is. Vote Cthulhu '12, and all our problems will be solved before the next election period!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 09:24:01 am

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/koch-industries-sends-pro-romney-packet-employees-195709471--election.html

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19788789/2012/10/10/resort-owner-employees-jobs-are-in-jeopardy-if-obama-is-re-elected

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/10/3043168/developer-obama-re-election-may.html

Elect Obama and be fired. There is a new wave of voter intimidation by employers threatening to lay off workers or close down shop completely if Obama is reelected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 15, 2012, 09:39:46 am

Oh great... companies have the money to speak directly to politicians, to pay millions for political ads without oversight and now they are threatening employee jobs if things do not go their way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 15, 2012, 09:45:49 am

Doesn't that count as some form of voter coercion, and thus is an offence by some form of Federal law? Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system, but I don't see much difference between this and threatening bodily harm if you don't vote for X. I'm sure that somebody could make a good case against these people, and judging by these news articles you would have plenty of evidence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 09:55:32 am

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 08:54:37 am

You mean asking egregiously leading rhetorical questions, insinuating the other person holds incomprehensibly stupid views, and failing to make a valid argument isn't the way we're supposed to communicate? I'm sorry, man. I know you would never do anything like-

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 08:17:14 am

gainst
Liberal values = weed.

Right? Appeal to those danged lefties, just mention weed, right? Riiight? It's not like they believe in anything else!

Oh wait! I remember! I was just following your lead!

So - do you support this sort of post or not, because I'm getting some awfully mixed messages here.

I don't know what your actual views are, but I know your post was utterly worthless, so why don't you try again and you can add something substantive this time instead of just trolling? And then I'll respond with something equally reasonable, because I'll have something of worth to respond to. Sound good?

(And for the record: Yes, supporting the war on some drugs is explicitly supporting ruining people's lives. Whether or not you think ruining people's lives is worth it, for a variety of potential benefits, is where the crux of any potential debate on that front would lie.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 15, 2012, 10:06:19 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on October 15, 2012, 09:45:49 am

Doesn't that count as some form of voter coercion, and thus is an offence by some form of Federal law?

Yep, except the people threatening it are Annies. They seem to think that their workers should be greatful for having any wage at all, even if it isn't one they can live off of. As such, they can afford to bury anyone who makes waves under a mountain of paid lawyers. If Obama wins there might be some concequences to them, but it's doubtful because they won't carry through with their threats.

Bush won and who moved to Canada?

I wonder why people who don't even know what a catasplosion is think their opinions here matter worth a lick.

Anyway, Romney is a corporation personified. Corporations are only interested in themselves. Obama IS a liar. He's deceptive as all hell, which makes him an Ideal wartime president. Romney will get our troops killed in droves if he's elected, and his almost first official act will be to start a war. Obama will increase the power of our growing police state.

I don't want either. Stubbs/Scamps is my ticket. Better a pair of Fat cats than the other choices.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: majikero on October 15, 2012, 10:33:51 am

Sooo, who ever wins we lose. Seems about right.

Personally, I rather go with the police state than war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 10:40:39 am

Quote from: majikero on October 15, 2012, 10:33:51 am

Sooo, who ever wins we lose. Seems about right.

Personally, I rather go with the police state than war.

The choice is not between police state and war. the choice is between police state and mild economic recovery and on the other hand you have economic damnation, war and you still get police state (and in many ways a stronger one).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: majikero on October 15, 2012, 10:43:44 am

Whatever happens, it's gonna take decades to recover so you better get used to the current economic situation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 10:46:13 am

I'm going to vote Romney because of the Democrat support of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo bay . That'll show 'em.

@majikero: it's not going to be pretty. The main difference between USA and Europe is that Europe is using austerity measures (deficit reduction) as opposed to America's "spend your way out of the slump" method. Hell, but deficit reduction in America can't possibly do anything but grow the economy faster. It's opposite day in Europe. that's all. I'm voting Romney on this one again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sensei on October 15, 2012, 10:46:58 am

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on October 15, 2012, 10:06:19 am

I wonder why people who don't even know what a catasplosion is think their opinions here matter worth a lick.

"Unless you've had a fortress go through FPS death, you're not prepared to handle American politics!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 15, 2012, 11:33:54 am

HEY GUYS

LET'S GET REALLY REALLY ANGRY AT EACH OTHER

AND TALK PAST EACH OTHER

THAT'LL WORK

THAT'LL MAKE RATIONAL DISCUSSION HAPPEN

THAT'LL CHANGE PEOPLES MINDS

TOTALLY

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 12:08:20 pm

YUS!!!!!11!!one!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 12:23:33 pm

GoombaGeek, still waiting on a post with content over here. Would love to make this rational discussion thing happen, but not so sure if "YUS" is the sort of comment that will kick it off.

But seriously, did you actually have an argument you wanted to make or were you honestly just trolling with your post before? I can't tell.

Edit: I'm going to assume by your silence the answer is "No I don't, I just felt like trolling, lulzlulzlulz."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 03:30:29 pm

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php
The long term trend for Obama is still positive, though there has been some slippage in the estimated electoral vote count.

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/statepages/allpolls.php?state=no

However a recent slate of head to head polls show that Romney leading by a minute margin.

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/senate12.php
In the senate, it looks like the democrats will be retaining majority by gaining 2 seats for the time being up from recent projections.

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php
And in the house, the republicans will continue to retain their lead with the democrats picking up 2 seats, down from recent projections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 03:39:02 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 12:23:33 pm

GoombaGeek, still waiting on a post with content over here. Would love to make this rational discussion thing happen, but not so sure if "YUS" is the sort of comment that will kick it off.

But seriously, did you actually have an argument you wanted to make or were you honestly just trolling with your post before? I can't tell.

Edit: I'm going to assume by your silence the answer is "No I don't, I just felt like trolling, lulzlulzlulz."

Ooh, always with the assumptions. Lulzlulzlulzluzllzlzlzlulzulzul.

ON AN UNRELATED NOTE so what about those independents? Is there even a green party anymore?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 03:45:32 pm

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 03:39:02 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 12:23:33 pm

GoombaGeek, still waiting on a post with content over here. Would love to make this rational discussion thing happen, but not so sure if "YUS" is the sort of comment that will kick it off.

But seriously, did you actually have an argument you wanted to make or were you honestly just trolling with your post before? I can't tell.

Edit: I'm going to assume by your silence the answer is "No I don't, I just felt like trolling, lulzlulzlulz."

Ooh, always with the assumptions. Lulzlulzlulzluzllzlzlzlulzulzul.

ON AN UNRELATED NOTE so what about those independents? Is there even a green party anymore?

http://www.jillstein.org/

pay more attention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 03:46:54 pm

okay so how about that one guy from canada who's on death row

what about him

is he doing ok

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 15, 2012, 03:48:38 pm

Election Projection is owned by an avowed hard-right Republican, so although the Presidential and Senate numbers are simply just aggregate data, the House rankings are based more on personal assumptions (lack of concrete data, too many races).  I find it hard to believe Dems would not pick up 5-10 seats at least, probably max out at 20, considering many of those seats the GOP picked up were in a wave year.  Take that site with a huge grain of salt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 15, 2012, 03:49:51 pm

Wait, there's seats too, not just the President?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 15, 2012, 03:50:25 pm

Not one that matters.

I kind of wish we could abolish all parties and have everyone run on their own, but apparently people around here think that's communism(?).

Also, a vote for either side wouldn't lead to a police state, it's only if one party has the power for several consecutive presidents. I'm voting for Obama, since from what I've seen spending by the government got us out of the Great Depression. Specifically, the Hoover Dam, IIRC. Obama doesn't have a megaproject lined up though and no matter how good his ideas are if the reps have any chance of knocking them down they'll do it and bash him for not getting anything done.

Quote from: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 03:45:32 pm

http://www.jillstein.org/

pay more attention.

Unfortunately her chances of doing anything at all during this election are nil. Partially because people have "the devil you know" idea keeping them from jumping at new things, and partially because America is shallow as all hell and her vice presidential candidate looks like a walrus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 03:51:21 pm

Well, it is one of the few sites I have found that actually do a roundup and projection for the house and senate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 03:57:38 pm

World War II spending sealed the deal for ending the depression, before that, politics hampered most big project spending, like hitting the accelerator so softly that you can't overcome friction. The Hoover Dam etc helped with jobs in the short term, and it gave a renewable resource down the track, but there wasn't enough investment to break the cycle.

Mind you, in World War II, a lot of the spending was deliberate waste - wasting fuel, dropping bombs, firing bullets, expending supplies, sending tanks to get blown up. That all grew the economy massively.

Investment in infrastructure that adds permanently to wealth and enables business to do more with less, is definitely a superior investment, if done on the same scale as a war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 15, 2012, 03:58:37 pm

For another one, check out 270 to win's house map here: House map (http://www.270towin.com/2012_house_election/).
The ratings are by Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, but it can be modified like most maps on 270 to win's site.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 15, 2012, 04:07:32 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 03:57:38 pm

World War II spending sealed the deal for ending the depression, before that, politics hampered most big project spending, like hitting the accelerator so softly that you can't overcome friction. The Hoover Dam etc helped with jobs in the short term, and it gave a renewable resource down the track, but there wasn't enough investment to break the cycle.

Mind you, in World War II, a lot of the spending was deliberate waste - wasting fuel, dropping bombs, firing bullets, expending supplies, sending tanks to get blown up. That all grew the economy massively.

Investment in infrastructure that adds permanently to wealth and enables business to do more with less, is definitely a superior investment, if done on the same scale as a war.

Its a narrow line. The debt from WWII and rebuilding Western Europe afterward is a big part of today's budget problems. Besides taking up a fair amount of the debt itself, a considerable portion of the rest would never have been borrowed if the nation hadn't already carried so much debt. Infrastructure isn't much better for this, as the return on the investment will be in tax revenue, which takes a long time to recoup even at European rates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 04:27:05 pm

The total inflation-adjusted dollar value of the US debt didn't actually increase between 1945 and 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt), there is definitely more than one factor at work. The percentage of GDP of the total debt was lower in 1980 than before the war.

so I don't think you can draw a direct link between the WWII spending and today's deficits. Other programs added more to that than the WWII spending.

Post-1980 is a whole other ballgame which can definitely not be tracked back to the WWII stimulus. Inflation adjusted, new debt since 1980 makes up 7/8ths of the total debt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 15, 2012, 04:34:36 pm

Imagine a wealthy person finds, one morning, that his house has been vandalized, a stone thrown through one of the windows. While, yes, it does trigger economic activity for the person to hire a glazer to come fix the window, you only see that with a very simplistic model. For surely, the homeowner is not simply choosing to either fix a window or not, throwing the cash away without spending it on anything. The homeowner must now choose between buying something else (let's say, a pair of shoes). Without the stone, it is possible to have both a perfectly sound household AND a pair of shoes; with the stone, we must choose between a good window OR a new pair of shoes (or some other quantity of goods).

The so-called Broken Window fallacy follows WWII arguments like a vengeful ghost. The fact is, if you DON'T bomb a city, and instead use reconstruction funds for, say, construction funds, you can end up with TWO cities. Or maybe one city that is twice as wealthy, healthy, and clean.

We cannot say that "without WWII, the economy wouldn't have rebounded". After all, the economic conditions of the great depression LEAD to WWII, as they lead to facism and nationalism in various mediterranian, greco-roman countries which will remain nameless in the current recession. Furthermore, I'm not saying "without WWII, the econonmy would have rebounded on its own", because there's even less historical evidence to argue over in that case (there not being any alternate earths to access where WWII didn't happen).

If there is one thing to take from George Orwell's 1984- one thing he did get right right off the bat- it is that war is a useless consumer. I would add that even worse, it has an addictive effect to the economy. Imagine that we were to stop the wars, draw down and fire the troops, and immediately stop manufacturing the majority of war materiel. Such a thing would be a serious blow to the economy.

Truly, wr are damned if we don't, damned if we do, damned if we stay here, just plain damned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 04:43:12 pm

Actually if you never bombed the city in the first place you can probably end up with 3 cites (costs of the bombers + bombs = 1 city, cost of reconstruction = another 1 city).

Part of the success of the WWII model may have been that you're bombing someone else's cities, on credit. So you don't pay the cost of the damage, and the money spent is actually additional economic activity, that someone in the future pays for.

One problem with the strict application of the "broken windows" story is that it implies that nothing we can EVER do creates additional economic activity, EVER.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 15, 2012, 05:05:52 pm

War spending can also hurt you a great deal down the line by aiding competition. A large part of the Japanese economic bubble in the 70s and 80s was that they had to rebuild all their factories from scratch after the war. After this mammoth project was done, Japanese factories were far more modern and efficient than US ones, as US companies were incrementally upgraded facilities, many over a century old.

@Reelya

The source you linked shows a massive increase in debt as a percentage between 1940 and 1945, which does not drop all the way to prewar levels. In other words, a significant portion of the debt was, in fact, caused by WWII.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 05:07:52 pm

Percentage of GDP is the figure that matters. Numerical value does not. The top chart is raw dollars adjusted by inflation, the bottom chart is that figure as a percentage of GDP.

The figure you're looking at is definitely not the percentage. By the mid-60's percentage of debt / GDP was lower than before the war spending.

Historically, the inflation-adjusted debt prior to 1980 makes up only 1/8th of total debt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 05:13:30 pm

I've already mentioned my mega-project of interest. Large scale solar power. It would cost under $20 trillion to replace 100% of electrical production. And probably less than twice that to replace rest of the energy industry. And the year over year savings would break even after a few decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 15, 2012, 05:14:48 pm

My Dream Public Works Project:  Massive investment in true high-speed rail (185 mph+) on a scale the same as the interstate highway system, connecting every major metro center to each other.  Of course, that will never happen, ever, unfortunately.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 15, 2012, 05:32:14 pm

Oddly, space colonization doesn't work here as it's relatively small scale despite the size of the budget. You only need so many people to build the rocket, after all, and speanding the money elsewhere would have just as big a trail back to the raw materials.

I like the train network too, although the opposition would claim it would crash the car market (it would, though the train market would soar again.).

I think I heard somewhere that we would have used trains forever save for some crazy market manipulation by car companies knocking it off the rails. Not sure where I heard that or the reliability, but it sems plausible to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 05:38:13 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 15, 2012, 05:32:14 pm

Oddly, space colonization doesn't work here as it's relatively small scale despite the size of the budget. You only need so many people to build the rocket, after all, and speanding the money elsewhere would have just as big a trail back to the raw materials.
I like the train network too, although the opposition would claim it would crash the car market (it would, though the train market would soar again.).
I think I heard somewhere that we would have used trains forever save for some crazy market manipulation by car companies knocking it off the rails. Not sure where I heard that or the reliability, but it sems plausible to me.

I'm not sure what you mean - you could dump a TON of resources into space projects if you wanted to. Build a goddamn space elevator, or at least a humungous space cannon, and you'll have tons of jobs! Start launching multiple scientific missions, kick those factories into overdrive, create a demand for more skilled engineers and scientists and renew the countries taste for adventure and the frontier... there's a reason why states compete so heavily for space contracts, there's a TON of economic activity that surrounds them. It takes a TON of people to go from scratch to a space lunch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 15, 2012, 05:41:54 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 15, 2012, 05:38:13 pm

It takes a TON of people to go from scratch to a space lunch.

Mmm, space lunch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on October 15, 2012, 07:01:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 05:13:30 pm

I've already mentioned my mega-project of interest. Large scale solar power. It would cost under $20 trillion to replace 100% of electrical production. And probably less than twice that to replace rest of the energy industry. And the year over year savings would break even after a few decades.

Speaking of megaprojects, I'm all for a massive tiered greenhouse complex tied to a space elevator linked to orbital ziplines around the planet for delivery, complete with solar microwave arrays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 15, 2012, 08:38:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 05:13:30 pm

I've already mentioned my mega-project of interest. Large scale solar power. It would cost under $20 trillion to replace 100% of electrical production. And probably less than twice that to replace rest of the energy industry. And the year over year savings would break even after a few decades.

You wouldn't need to replace 100% with solar. Over 50% of energy produced in the US is lost to inefficiency in the first place, most of which could be eliminated through standards and infrastructure legislation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 15, 2012, 08:51:37 pm

The New York Times put up an interesting graphic comparing states's voting history (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/15/us/politics/swing-history.html) over the past 60 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Toady One on October 15, 2012, 09:57:37 pm

There's been a bit more degeneracy and insults hurled in this thread than usual over the last few days.  I'd appreciate it if people would avoid name-calling and garbled text and so on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on October 15, 2012, 10:21:34 pm

Quote from: Jervill on October 15, 2012, 08:51:37 pm

The New York Times put up an interesting graphic comparing states's voting history (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/15/us/politics/swing-history.html) over the past 60 years.

And this is why we need to dump the electoral college.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 15, 2012, 11:39:35 pm

So, most of the more dedicated among you will already know much of this info, but Wired has made up a handy little tool (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/wired-campaign-widget/) for checking out the funding sources for each political candidate.

Kinda nifty to browse through.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 07:46:57 am

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 15, 2012, 04:07:32 pm

The debt from WWII and rebuilding Western Europe afterward is a big part of today's budget problems.

Not remotely.  The Marshal plan in particular was a drop in the bucket (13 billion dollars cost over several years when the GDP was ~$250 billion).  But debt quickly fell after WWII and was small compared to the size of the economy in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Two things happened after that: republicans passed a lot of debt funded tax cuts and the demographic shift meant that the government had to put a lot of money into the social security and medicare trust funds which consist of US treasury bonds, meaning the government owed money to itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 08:02:49 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on October 15, 2012, 11:39:35 pm

So, most of the more dedicated among you will already know much of this info, but Wired has made up a handy little tool (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/wired-campaign-widget/) for checking out the funding sources for each political candidate.

Kinda nifty to browse through.

Huh.

Romney's top ten seems to be mostly banks while Obama gets a ton of cash from Universities and Silicon Valley. Which means Romney will probably try to pass laws that benifit banks while Obama's agenda will be more likely to support Software development and education.

I like education, so this only means I support Obama more.

An interesting app though.

ALSO 2 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE U.S GOVERNMENT? I expected Romney to have the richer campaign, with all the ads on youtube. Where's all that money going, Obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 16, 2012, 08:05:56 am

Two millions is chump change. This also do not take into account PAC as far as I can tell.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 16, 2012, 08:07:19 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 08:02:49 am

ALSO 2 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE U.S GOVERNMENT? I expected Romney to have the richer campaign, with all the ads on youtube. Where's all that money going, Obama?

Ground teams and better targeting. Obama has always played the local organisation game better, so it's less likely those outside areas he is specifically targeting will see the majority of his campaign dollars.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 16, 2012, 09:05:00 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 08:02:49 am

ALSO 2 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE U.S GOVERNMENT?

Like Sheb said, that's nothing compared to the >$200 million he has already.

Quote from: Sheb on October 16, 2012, 08:05:56 am

This also do not take into account PAC as far as I can tell.

Yes, it does. The article states

Quote

When it comes to the top-10 donor lists, the total from each company or organization includes donations from individual workers and a firm’s Political Action Committee, if it has one.

That's where that $2 million to Obama from the government came from, btw; the individual employees.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: genmac on October 16, 2012, 09:09:42 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 08:02:49 am

Romney's top ten seems to be mostly banks while Obama gets a ton of cash from Universities and Silicon Valley. Which means Romney will probably try to pass laws that benifit banks while Obama's agenda will be more likely to support Software development and education.

Huh. (http://www.pionline.com/article/20121015/PRINTSUB/310159986/financial-industry-dollars-flow-to-republicans-in-about-face)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 09:20:50 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 08:02:49 am

I like education, so this only means I support Obama more.

I'm not sure if I would expect it to mean this, or that nothing will be done about the student loan debt crisis over the next 4 years.

Also, have an Epic Rap Battle (of History) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX_1B0w7Hzc).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 09:25:04 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 15, 2012, 08:38:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 15, 2012, 05:13:30 pm

I've already mentioned my mega-project of interest. Large scale solar power. It would cost under $20 trillion to replace 100% of electrical production. And probably less than twice that to replace rest of the energy industry. And the year over year savings would break even after a few decades.

You wouldn't need to replace 100% with solar. Over 50% of energy produced in the US is lost to inefficiency in the first place, most of which could be eliminated through standards and infrastructure legislation.

Government can't change physics, though. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies. Coal plants can generate an average (http://www.euractiv.com/energy/analysis-efficiency-coal-fired-power-stations-evolution-prospects/article-154672) of 31% of theoretical potential energy, with a practical high of 45% that depends more on input coal quality rather than actual infrastructure itself. Legislation can't change the quality of coal that is available. Next up, the transmission. Energy transmission always involves some losses, because there's always electrical impedance. High-voltage transmission lines lose about 1% per 100km of cable, which really is not a bad loss rate and little can be done to improve it. Finally, transformers step down the transmission voltages to 120V for local household use, but those have an efficiency of 98% approximately. The transmission infrastructure is about as lossless as it can be right now, unless there's a revolutionary new approach.

In Sci-fi fantasyland, we would have lossless superconductors, of course, but that isn't going to happen. Government can't legislate against science obeying the laws of nature, and it can't much rush the remaining marginal advances in efficiency by throwing grants recklessly about.

As for massive-scale solar, that seems pretty unfeasible purely on logistics alone. America uses 3,700,000 GWh of electricity each year. A 200-MW solar farm like Golmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golmud_Solar_Park) in western China covers 2.2 square miles and produces 317 GWh each year. Extended to 100% of American consumption, that's 25,630 square miles of solar panels, or 23% of the land area in Nevada.

I'm not going to argue the costs and saving, but claiming that a massive solar megaproject pays for itself in a few decades is troublesome when considering the lifetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Lifespan) of a solar cell is a maximum of 30-35 years, and diminishes to 80% capacity within 20 years. You have to maintain and replace the 25,630 square miles of solar panels, you know.

Meanwhile, suppose everyone stopped using gas-powered cars and used Chevy Volts with 16 kWh batteries capable of 35 miles range on full electric. There were 3 trillion vehicle-miles of traffic (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/11dectvt/index.cfm) last year. That's an additional 1,400,000 GWh. That's 35,400 square miles of solar cell that would cover 32% of Nevada.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 09:50:34 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 09:25:04 am

Government can't change physics, though.

I didn't say they could?

Quote

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies.

"The entropy of a closed system will always increase"?

Quote

Coal plants can generate an average (http://www.euractiv.com/energy/analysis-efficiency-coal-fired-power-stations-evolution-prospects/article-154672) of 31% of theoretical potential energy, with a practical high of 45% that depends more on input coal quality rather than actual infrastructure itself. Legislation can't change the quality of coal that is available.

Hence why we have to start moving away from coal, among other reasons.

Quote

Next up, the transmission. Energy transmission always involves some losses, because there's always electrical impedance. High-voltage transmission lines lose about 1% per 100km of cable, which really is not a bad loss rate and little can be done to improve it. Finally, transformers step down the transmission voltages to 120V for local household use, but those have an efficiency of 98% approximately. The transmission infrastructure is about as lossless as it can be right now, unless there's a revolutionary new approach.

There are two things we can do here, one of which is available to us already. The efficiency of transmission is directly tied to the voltage. More voltage, more efficiency. If we step up the voltage we can make small gains in efficiency, but over the entire nation even small gains are meaningful.

Quote

In Sci-fi fantasyland, we would have lossless superconductors, of course, but that isn't going to happen. Government can't legislate against science obeying the laws of nature, and it can't much rush the remaining marginal advances in efficiency by throwing grants recklessly about.

And the second is developing room-temperature superconductors, which are not lossless but are as close to lossless as is permitted by reality. Investing in researching and developing these is how we're going to get them, and is a worthwhile use of government money.

Anyway, there are plenty of other things that can be done for efficiency. The average American ends up wasting a lot of money and energy on very small things that add up over time, like phantom draws and inefficient planned obsolescence appliances. Gradually raising standards so that industry has to sell efficient appliances that don't draw power when not being used will solve this on an individual level and lead to savings on a national level.

Quote

As for massive-scale solar, that seems pretty unfeasible purely on logistics alone. America uses 3,700,000 GWh of electricity each year. A 200-MW solar farm like Golmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golmud_Solar_Park) in western China covers 2.2 square miles and produces 317 GWh each year. Extended to 100% of American consumption, that's 25,630 square miles of solar panels, or 23% of the land area in Nevada.

....and? The panels don't have to all be in Nevada. We can put them all over the place. Residential panels especially so, as individual residential areas are not very energy intense in the first place. Also, investing in energy efficiency will decrease the number of solar panels we need overall, and the entire energy mix doesn't have to be solar. We've got wind as well, and while it's fairly bad coal won't go away entirely any time soon either, though it will be better once we get Carbon Capture and Sequestration like we already have sulfur removal.

Quote

I'm not going to argue the costs and saving, but claiming that a massive solar megaproject pays for itself in a few decades is troublesome when considering the lifetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Lifespan) of a solar cell is a maximum of 30-35 years, and diminishes to 80% capacity within 20 years. You have to maintain and replace the 25,630 square miles of solar panels, you know.

Solar is gradually decreasing in cost and will be much less expensive to replace than to impliment.

Quote

Meanwhile, suppose everyone stopped using gas-powered cars and used Chevy Volts with 16 kWh batteries capable of 35 miles range on full electric. There were 3 trillion vehicle-miles of traffic (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/11dectvt/index.cfm) last year. That's an additional 1,400,000 GWh. That's 35,400 square miles of solar cell that would cover 32% of Nevada.

Aside from my other points, have you ever considered the approach that we might also put solar panels....on cars? While not enough to run the whole thing this will end up lessening the load greatly.

No one said energy renewablity would necessarily be easy, but we need it. We need it very badly. Once a collapse starts it will be difficult to pull out of it, so we need to start and ideally finish going renewable before that has a chance to happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:51:30 am

Solar thermal. Not photovoltaic. PV is for small scale infrastructure because it consumes exotic materials and has a finicky production process for anything but the lowest levels of wh per area. Solar thermal plants are made of glass, steel, aluminum and concrete. They are also more efficient by area. Solar thermal can produce ~909 GWh per square mile per year.

So to match your number of 3,700,000 Gwh, you would need only ~4070 square miles. Or a square 63.8 miles wide.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 10:20:25 am

So...polling averages have Romney within striking distance in the Electoral College, with 201-191, and a whopping 146 votes up for grabs. And the second debate is tonight. So y'know....no pressure or anything, just the fate of the world's lone superpower.  :-\

It's increasingly looking like it's going to come down to four states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. Win 3 of those 4 and you've just about got it in the bag. Win all four, you're pretty much in. Split decision? Then the small tossup states like Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire suddenly become way more important.

Also, nifty graphic (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/15/us/politics/swing-history.html) showing the electoral "sway" of all the states in Presidential elections since 1952. One of the best visual representations of the Great Realignment in 1960/64 that I've ever seen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on October 16, 2012, 11:02:06 am

Would it be theoretically possible to just get a load of liberals to temporarily move to these states?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 16, 2012, 11:06:39 am

Relocating to influence the vote has happened in the past, but not since just before the civil war afaik.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 16, 2012, 11:07:25 am

Man, there is no way I can wake up a 2:30 am this morning like I did last time.  Keep me updated, will ye. I'm expecting a much more aggressive Obama on this one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 11:08:49 am

Quote from: lordcooper on October 16, 2012, 11:02:06 am

Would it be theoretically possible to just get a load of liberals to temporarily move to these states?

Not really. The jobless don't have the money to move, and the working can't afford to leave their jobs. The only people with the resources to move on a whim are the independently wealthy, and they have a short term interest in supporting the conservatives, and no one bothers to care about about anything past next quarters profits.

I moved to Florida. And now my vote for president matters. But that isn't why I moved to Florida, just one of the perks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 11:09:17 am

Quote from: lordcooper on October 16, 2012, 11:02:06 am

Would it be theoretically possible to just get a load of liberals to temporarily move to these states?

In theory...but they'd have to move at least a year ahead of time, I believe. And asking a bunch of San Franciscans to spend a year in Oklahoma just for political purposes....that's a tall order.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 11:19:33 am

Easiest method would probably be to start up some really tempting college programs(I'm thinking liberal arts just off the top of my head) in these states with few/no out of state penalties and cheap tuition. Draw in tons of out of state students who would stay there for 2-4 years. Run a "<insert state> needs your vote!" campaign on campus to get them to register/switch registration.

That would be if I were that sneaky and had the resources and thought it would change anything. I'm not, don't and couldn't believe it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 16, 2012, 11:26:10 am

I'd rather have more liberals move here to Minnesota, myself. :P

Besides, both Minnesota and Iowa do what sluissa says, to an extent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on October 16, 2012, 11:28:42 am

Why do you crazy Americans hod your presidential debates in the middle of the night :c

I am going to watch this one though. It's fall break so I am sleeping way too much anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 11:30:52 am

Quote from: Dutchling on October 16, 2012, 11:28:42 am

Why do you crazy Americans hod your presidential debates in the middle of the night :c

Why do you socialist Eurotrash always have night in the middle of our presidential debates?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 16, 2012, 11:33:52 am

Clearly it's Obama/Romney's fault! (Strike the one that doesn't fit your partisan views).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 16, 2012, 11:34:49 am

Please, we define timezones as measured from here. Its clearly your fault.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 11:36:21 am

Partisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_%28weapon%29)? I am a Ranseur, maybe a Bec-de-corbin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 16, 2012, 11:43:57 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:51:30 am

Solar thermal. Not photovoltaic. PV is for small scale infrastructure because it consumes exotic materials and has a finicky production process for anything but the lowest levels of wh per area. Solar thermal plants are made of glass, steel, aluminum and concrete. They are also more efficient by area. Solar thermal can produce ~909 GWh per square mile per year.

So to match your number of 3,700,000 Gwh, you would need only ~4070 square miles. Or a square 63.8 miles wide.

Coal in the USA actually makes up (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants) 2,133,000 GWh of capacity, so to replace just coal alone it'd be quite a bit less than that, 2346.3 square miles, which works out at 46 square miles per state. So a 7x7 mile square in each state.

Also, those criticisms about maintenance costs and deterioration of photo-voltaic cells don't take into account coal's constant fuel requirements (mostly imported, worsening the US balance of trade) and the fact that coal plants do in fact have a planned lifetime, many were only designed to run 25 years, and require significant refurbishment to extend their lifetime.

http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-age_capacity_operating_US_coal_gas_generators

Quote

There are currently 308 GW of coal-fired capacity and 185 GW of gas-fired capacity in operation in the United States. Assuming normal operating lives, 95% of the coal capacity and 99% of the gas capacity will be retired by 2050. These retirements must be replaced with new capacity—be it coal, gas, or otherwise.

Saying solar is no good because it'll have to be replaced in 35 years thus makes little sense.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 11:54:42 am

Quote from: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 11:19:33 am

Easiest method would probably be to start up some really tempting college programs(I'm thinking liberal arts just off the top of my head) in these states with few/no out of state penalties and cheap tuition. Draw in tons of out of state students who would stay there for 2-4 years. Run a "<insert state> needs your vote!" campaign on campus to get them to register/switch registration.

And now when the University of Wyoming gets a $50 million grant to support a Nude Co-Ed Tantric Bungee Jumping program, we'll know where they got the idea.  ;D

Because Wyoming and Alaska are probably the only two red states with a population low enough that increased college enrollment woud make a dent.

Long-term, just increasing job growth in high-tech industries is a good recipe for "blueing" your state, as it both brings in more educated (and typically more liberal) workers, but also because it typically involves a fair number of transfers from established high-tech areas in blue states like California and New York.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 11:57:45 am

There's a university in Wyoming? There's anything in Wyoming?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 12:03:05 pm

I thought about high tech stuff... but even high tech seems to be more mixed politically and it'd be hard to say if a college with a huge majority of left leaning students would outweigh a high tech industry with only a slight or moderate majority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 12:07:00 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 11:57:45 am

There's a university in Wyoming? There's anything in Wyoming?

Enrollment: 13,992, in Laramie. They're a I-A school, Mountain West conference.

Plus a dozen or so community colleges and The Frontier School of the Bible (http://frontierbible.wix.com/fsb). Offering degrees in Bibleology, Bible Engineering, and Advanced Bibliconometrics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 12:13:09 pm

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 12:15:09 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 12:13:09 pm

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

LOL...dem Dems be trollin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on October 16, 2012, 12:32:16 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 12:13:09 pm

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Awesome xD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 12:39:17 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 09:50:34 am

Quote

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies.

"The entropy of a closed system will always increase"?

Yeah, entropy is a little difficult a term to understand, but that statement can be rephrased many ways in more down-to-earth language. One way is "You can never get out of a process as much as you put into it." It's the reason that perpetual motion devices always fail. Entropy is a measure of disorder, such as energy losses in thermodynamic conversions. Bake a cake. The dough starts out neatly packaged.  When you mix it, there'll be dough left over in the mixing bowl that doesn't get poured into your baking pan. You don't get as much cake as you paid for. You never can. Another example. It's very orderly to have all the electrons amassed on the negative pole of a battery, but leave that battery in your drawer for two years, and a significant amount will have leaked over internally. The battery will be dead without ever being used. Nothing can be 100% efficient. Everything is slowly wasting away.

Quote

Quote

Coal plants can generate an average (http://www.euractiv.com/energy/analysis-efficiency-coal-fired-power-stations-evolution-prospects/article-154672) of 31% of theoretical potential energy, with a practical high of 45% that depends more on input coal quality rather than actual infrastructure itself. Legislation can't change the quality of coal that is available.

Hence why we have to start moving away from coal, among other reasons.

Comparable efficiency in natural gas, at about 45% efficiency for decades, but the key point is that you can't get 100% of the theoretical energy from any source. Solar has a possible ceiling of 60% efficiency called the Shockley–Queisser limit, and it's prohibitively costly to even approach that limit. All forms of electricity generation meet practical limits far below theoretical maxima.

Quote

Quote

In Sci-fi fantasyland, we would have lossless superconductors, of course, but that isn't going to happen.

developing room-temperature superconductors, which are not lossless but are as close to lossless as is permitted by reality. Investing in researching and developing these is how we're going to get them, and is a worthwhile use of government money.

We could also put 500k tons of lead in Fort Knox and invest $1 trillion dollars into Philosopher Stone advances, claiming we'd profit by 28 times on the research outlay after we turn it all into gold. In the end, you have to target an achievable goal and have a scientist capable of discovering it. Government money has little effect on those things. That approach is called throwing money at a problem, and it's generally not effective. Room temperature superconductors are not readily achievable, if at all. I believe the best so far is 90 Kelvins or so, just 210 Kelvins short of what would be needed.

Quote

Anyway, there are plenty of other things that can be done for efficiency. The average American ends up wasting a lot of money and energy on very small things that add up over time, like phantom draws and inefficient planned obsolescence appliances. Gradually raising standards so that industry has to sell efficient appliances that don't draw power when not being used will solve this on an individual level and lead to savings on a national level.

Probably the most fruitful area for energy savings, but realistically, you'd probably cut 10% off of electricity consumption and still have a huge demand. Big-ticket items like heating and air-conditioning systems have already plucked the low-hanging efficiency fruit. It simply takes a lot of energy to do what modern humans expect of their appliances. Leakage of appliance not in use happens, true. Yet much of this leakage stuff is simpy unavoidable due to limitations on human awareness, like leaving a phone recharger connected and leaking current that way. People are going to do this.

Quote

Quote

that's 25,630 square miles of solar panels, or 23% of the land area in Nevada.

....and? The panels don't have to all be in Nevada. We can put them all over the place.

But that is the most efficient (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l7.html) place to put solar panel. It's 1.6 times more efficient than New York. The moderate temperatures and predictable weather also minimize wear-and-tear and replacement rates. Decentralized solar generation runs into this trouble, in particular. If every house has a solar panel array, then who cleans the solar panels? For example, cold water sprayed onto a solar panel on a hot summer day can causing cracking. Solar energy is best generated in large farms where appropriate personnel can maintain it.

Quote

No one said energy renewablity would necessarily be easy, but we need it. We need it very badly. Once a collapse starts it will be difficult to pull out of it, so we need to start and ideally finish going renewable before that has a chance to happen.

We have about 100 years of recoverable shale products under America at current consumption, and China has 300 years. Solar will have to compete on a marketplace with other cheap sources of energy for another half century, perhaps. Slowly it will cut out a larger share of the energy pie, but largely due to market forces and slow development of better technology, which government grants can certainly support over the long-term but not rush immediately to fruition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 16, 2012, 12:50:00 pm

Putting all your eggs into one basket is not such a great idea. A mixed source renewable scheme is IMHO a more adequate solution until fusion gets its act together.

Here in the UK a mixture of Hydro and Wind with a backbone of Nuclear seems to be the way we are going for the short to medium term future. Solar isnt an option for our climate, but boy does wind offer us potential (we get about 60% of the wind in the EU passing over us), as does tidal and wave thanks to being an island. The proposed Severn Barrage (estimated to cost around £30bn) could provide most of our energy on its own, if it ever gets built. I am very suprised large swathes of the midwest havent already been turned over to super scale windfarms. Are there many viable hydro sites in the Rockies?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 12:52:07 pm

Our consumption of shale products is steadily growing, and shows no signs that it will stop growing. At current growth we will run out of all marketable fossil fuel variants around or before 2050, barring the collapse of human civilization before this point and assuming no developing nations grow in consumption. More realistically, we're looking at market failure around 2030.

There is an urgency here. We cannot pull this off at the last second, it has to happen now. If it doesn't you can say goodbye to our civilization and 7/8ths of humanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 16, 2012, 12:54:03 pm

Quote

The Shockley–Queisser limit only applies to cells with a single p-n junction; cells with multiple layers can outperform this limit. In the extreme, with an infinite number of layers, the corresponding limit is 86% using concentrated sunlight.[...]
It is important to note that the limit makes several fundamental assumptions; that the cell contains a single p-n junction, that the junction is tuned to visible light, and that any extra energy in the photons is lost. None of these assumptions is necessarily true, and a number of different approaches have been used to significantly surpass the basic limit.

Anyway, the % that a photovoltaic cell extracts from sunlight has nothing to do with whether solar is more or less cost-effective in the long run than coal. Estimates already take yield into account. Another difference is that you paid for that coal to be shipped around, you didn't pay for the sunlight.

Solar thermal isn't limited by that 60% anyway because it's based on a different technology where that limit isn't even relevant. Multiple layer photovoltaic cells also exceed 60%, so it's not some super-hard to achieve limit at all.

Solar energy hitting the Earth is unlimited for all practical human requirements. Now they have things like solar windows which can generate power very cheaply:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote

UCLA has made a break-through in solar tech that could turn any transparent surface into a solar charger

New technological advenaces mean that solar windows – the power source of a new era – will soon become a reality. Thanks to newly developed transparent solar cells, compliments of UCLA, your whole home could soon become a self-sustained powerhouse.

The new polymer solar cell, as it’s described, is 70 percent transparent but still manages to harvest near-infrared light using its photoactive plastic cells. Yes, we know plastic sounds dated and cheap, but that’s the point. Thanks to the affordable components these transparent solar panels can be made in high volumes at low cost – meaning they can be adopted by everybody.

So we’re not only expecting solar windows but transparent solar powered screen layers on our mobiles, tablets, and laptops. Even our cars can use them – as was proposed by the OLED Car roof – and hopefully planes too following the recent record-breaking Solar Impulse flight on sunlight power alone.

Since this is only at university discovery stages right now don’t expect to have salesmen beating down your door quoting new solar windows anytime soon. But it’s nice to know that a green, sustainable future will be even less visually obtrusive than we could have imagined.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/windows-that-work-as-solar-cells.html

Quote

The biggest problem with solar panels is that they're expensive. Solar power is actually the most expensive type of renewable energy. But a Swiss professor has just received the Millennium Technology Prize for developing low-cost solar cells that can be built into glass windows. So instead of installing solar panels on your roof; you'd just install them as windows, which you need anyway.

Michael Gratzel spent two decades developing a revolutionary type of dye-sensitized solar cell called a Gratzel cell (guess where he got the name for it). The group that presented the award, the Technology Academy Finland, says this invention is a huge leap forward for solar technology.

In a prepared news release, the group says, "The price/performance ratio of Grätzel's dye-sensitized solar cells is excellent. [It] is a promising alternative to standard silicon photovoltaics."

We really need data on new developments like these to see what the price / performance and lifespan are like. And there are at least 2 competing variants, which should drive market price down pretty quickly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 16, 2012, 12:57:11 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 12:39:17 pm

Quote

Quote

Coal plants can generate an average (http://www.euractiv.com/energy/analysis-efficiency-coal-fired-power-stations-evolution-prospects/article-154672) of 31% of theoretical potential energy, with a practical high of 45% that depends more on input coal quality rather than actual infrastructure itself. Legislation can't change the quality of coal that is available.

Hence why we have to start moving away from coal, among other reasons.

Comparable efficiency in natural gas, at about 45% efficiency for decades, but the key point is that you can't get 100% of the theoretical energy from any source. Solar has a possible ceiling of 60% efficiency called the Shockley–Queisser limit, and it's prohibitively costly to even approach that limit. All forms of electricity generation meet practical limits far below theoretical maxima.Yeah, nuclear power plants are at 30-45% effeciency, and wind and solar at 20-30% with 40% being gained by prototype installations.

Quote

Quote

In Sci-fi fantasyland, we would have lossless superconductors, of course, but that isn't going to happen.

developing room-temperature superconductors, which are not lossless but are as close to lossless as is permitted by reality. Investing in researching and developing these is how we're going to get them, and is a worthwhile use of government money.

We could also put 500k tons of lead in Fort Knox and invest $1 trillion dollars into Philosopher Stone advances, claiming we'd profit by 28 times on the research outlay after we turn it all into gold. In the end, you have to target an achievable goal and have a scientist capable of discovering it. Government money has little effect on those things. That approach is called throwing money at a problem, and it's generally not effective. Room temperature superconductors are not readily achievable, if at all. I believe the best so far is 90 Kelvins or so, just 210 Kelvins short of what would be needed. Except that governement funded research got us that far. Most, if not all of the recent advances in superconducters are at least somewhat related to either the LHC, the Iter Fusion project or some of the other projects. Throwing money at a problem won't work. But the governement can use it's money to create projects that are to big for individual entrepreneurs, thereby arcelerating science, inventing new technologies and creating High tech jobs. Nobody is going to invest in superconductor research when they only become viable at room temperature, but these projects create a demand for subroom temperature conductors(any improvement is welcome) thereby promoting research.

Quote

Anyway, there are plenty of other things that can be done for efficiency. The average American ends up wasting a lot of money and energy on very small things that add up over time, like phantom draws and inefficient planned obsolescence appliances. Gradually raising standards so that industry has to sell efficient appliances that don't draw power when not being used will solve this on an individual level and lead to savings on a national level.

Probably the most fruitful area for energy savings, but realistically, you'd probably cut 10% off of electricity consumption and still have a huge demand. Big-ticket items like heating and air-conditioning systems have already plucked the low-hanging efficiency fruit. It simply takes a lot of energy to do what modern humans expect of their appliances. Leakage of appliance not in use happens, true. Yet much of this leakage stuff is simpy unavoidable due to limitations on human awareness, like leaving a phone recharger connected and leaking current that way. People are going to do this.Painting all roofs white/reflective painting in some of the neardesert states could cut costs by about 10-20%. Airconditioning eats energy. There are enough low hanging fruits, but many people are not aware.

Quote

Quote

that's 25,630 square miles of solar panels, or 23% of the land area in Nevada.

....and? The panels don't have to all be in Nevada. We can put them all over the place.

But that is the most efficient (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l7.html) place to put solar panel. It's 1.6 times more efficient than New York. The moderate temperatures and predictable weather also minimize wear-and-tear and replacement rates. Decentralized solar generation runs into this trouble, in particular. If every house has a solar panel array, then who cleans the solar panels? For example, cold water sprayed onto a solar panel on a hot summer day can causing cracking. Solar energy is best generated in large farms where appropriate personnel can maintain it. Also note that distributed power production is hell for the distribution system. Not only does it add strain to the system, it also proves a liability for blackouts. The smaller a generator, the faster it has to drops out due to ampere fluctations.(Ie, one generator failing can cause a snowball effect)

Quote

No one said energy renewablity would necessarily be easy, but we need it. We need it very badly. Once a collapse starts it will be difficult to pull out of it, so we need to start and ideally finish going renewable before that has a chance to happen.

We have about 100 years of recoverable shale products under America at current consumption, and China has 300 years. Solar will have to compete on a marketplace with other cheap sources of energy for another half century, perhaps. Slowly it will cut out a larger share of the energy pie, but largely due to market forces and slow development of better technology, which government grants can certainly support over the long-term but not rush immediately to fruition.Those are some optimistic numbers. Beside, shale products are dangerous, contaminating fresh water supplies and being harder to extract. Besides, what are you going to about Artic Meltdown, permafrosts and climate change. Problem with those is that by the time you notice the effects, it's already too late.

Also, someone please tell me what the different sides there are on this debate. I'm kinda arguing without looking at previous statements.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 12:57:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 12:07:00 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 11:57:45 am

There's a university in Wyoming? There's anything in Wyoming?

Enrollment: 13,992, in Laramie. They're a I-A school, Mountain West conference.

Plus a dozen or so community colleges and The Frontier School of the Bible (http://frontierbible.wix.com/fsb). Offering degrees in Bibleology, Bible Engineering, and Advanced Bibliconometrics.

Plenty of farmers and ranchers in Wyoming producing the resources for that hamburger that you like to eat, though. I can't eat an unemployed MA in Gender Studies. Commodities like these are the only non-bubbly investment in a growing world with fixed amounts of arable land, bud. 

Care to compare the unemployment rates of South Dakota and New York side-by-side? People are doing hard work in middle America and actually contributing to the economy in ways that unemployed university grads really can't understand or emotionally come to terms with as they pay off their student debt with McJobs.

Also, South Dakota has the leading school in Mining Tech. You'll make bank if you get so much as a bachelor's there.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 16, 2012, 12:57:11 pm

Also, someone please tell me what the different sides there are on this debate. I'm kinda arguing without looking at previous statements.

We were talking about the feasibility of a huge DF-like solar farm megaproject that replaced all other electricity sources in America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 16, 2012, 12:59:45 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 12:57:32 pm

I can't eat an unemployed MA in Gender Studies.

Says you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 01:05:55 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 12:39:17 pm

-entropy-

I know what entropy is. I'm asking how its really relevant to this as it effects both fossil fuels and renewables. (Also everything in the universe.)

Quote

We could also put 500k tons of lead in Fort Knox and invest $1 trillion dollars into Philosopher Stone advances, claiming we'd profit by 28 times on the research outlay after we turn it all into gold. In the end, you have to target an achievable goal and have a scientist capable of discovering it. Government money has little effect on those things. That approach is called throwing money at a problem, and it's generally not effective. Room temperature superconductors are not readily achievable, if at all. I believe the best so far is 90 Kelvins or so, just 210 Kelvins short of what would be needed.

Alchemy is imaginary, we have made multiple advances in superconductor temperatures, including doped graphite (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201202219/abstract) that maintained it at 300K, which was discovered this year. Funny, that's exactly the number you were requesting.

Quote

Probably the most fruitful area for energy savings, but realistically, you'd probably cut 10% off of electricity consumption and still have a huge demand.

10% is significant.

Quote

But that is the most efficient (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l7.html) place to put solar panel. It's 1.6 times more efficient than New York. The moderate temperatures and predictable weather also minimize wear-and-tear and replacement rates. Decentralized solar generation runs into this trouble, in particular. If every house has a solar panel array, then who cleans the solar panels? For example, cold water sprayed onto a solar panel on a hot summer day can causing cracking. Solar energy is best generated in large farms where appropriate personnel can maintain it.

Looks like we've got a new job market then. You could put a lot of people into good work by setting up a business for cleaning solar panels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 01:07:41 pm

Trollheiming: what are you talking about?
The Shockley-Queisser limit is irrelevant to solar thermal. It is limited the Carnot cycle, the maximum efficiency of a heat engine. And since concentrated solar can produce temperatures limited only by the durability of the materials constituting your reservoir, unlike burning fuels, it can theoretically extract more work from a given amount of energy. Plus no ongoing fuel cost.

And the the long distance efficiency of HVDC lines is sufficient to transport power over 3000 miles with acceptable losses. No advancements in transmission are necessary, only a rebuild of the power grid. And that upgrade is already sorely needed after decades of neglect even if there is no solar power build out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 01:24:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 01:07:41 pm

Trollheiming: what are you talking about?
The Shockley-Queisser limit is irrelevant to solar thermal. It is limited the Carnot cycle, the maximum efficiency of a heat engine. And since concentrated solar can produce temperatures limited only by the durability of the materials constituting your reservoir, unlike burning fuels, it can theoretically extract more work from a given amount of energy. Plus no ongoing fuel cost.

I was talking photovoltaic. I don't know the efficiency of solar thermal, but the point was there are practical limits far below the theoretical energy potential that everyone salivates at harnessing. Solar thermal also experiences it, for sure. That's true in all energy sources. You can't just say simply, "Increase the efficiency!" as a panacea to energy problems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 01:25:14 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 12:57:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 12:07:00 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 11:57:45 am

There's a university in Wyoming? There's anything in Wyoming?

Enrollment: 13,992, in Laramie. They're a I-A school, Mountain West conference.

Plus a dozen or so community colleges and The Frontier School of the Bible (http://frontierbible.wix.com/fsb). Offering degrees in Bibleology, Bible Engineering, and Advanced Bibliconometrics.

Plenty of farmers and ranchers in Wyoming producing the resources for that hamburger that you like to eat, though. I can't eat an unemployed MA in Gender Studies. Commodities like these are the only non-bubbly investment in a growing world with fixed amounts of arable land, bud. 

Care to compare the unemployment rates of South Dakota and New York side-by-side? People are doing hard work in middle America and actually contributing to the economy in ways that unemployed university grads really can't understand or emotionally come to terms with as they pay off their student debt with McJobs.

Also, South Dakota has the leading school in Mining Tech. You'll make bank if you get so much as a bachelor's there.

I'm well acquainted with the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, seeing as how I have about two dozen cousins in Rapid City. Also have cousins who graduated from Montana State, another cousin who raises cattle on about 1500 acres in Montana, and my father raises horses. I grew up surrounded by dairy farms.

You can spare me the self-righteous populist outrage. I don't see where anybody denigrated someone's choice of profession or location (other than suggesting Wyoming is more or less empty. Which, with a population density roughly equal to fucking Mongolia, is more or less true.)

Now I did mock the Frontier School of the Bible. Which I stand by, because seriously....School of the Bible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 16, 2012, 01:33:43 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 01:25:14 pm

You can spare me the self-righteous populist outrage. I don't see where anybody denigrated someone's choice of profession or location (other than suggesting Wyoming is more or less empty. Which, with a population density roughly equal to fucking Mongolia, is more or less true.)

Now I did mock the Frontier School of the Bible. Which I stand by, because seriously....School of the Bible.

What's wrong with Mongolia. Or a School about the Bible. There are plenty of interesting studies one can do about the Bible, including universitary educations.

Though this one doesn't appear to be one of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 01:38:33 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 01:24:38 pm

You can't just say simply, "Increase the efficiency!" as a panacea to energy problems.

No, but you can say it if we're operating inefficiently, which we are, and can fix that, which we can.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 16, 2012, 01:33:43 pm

What's wrong with Mongolia. Or a School about the Bible. There are plenty of interesting studies one can do about the Bible, including universitary educations.

Though this one doesn't appear to be one of them.

Not really. The Bible's been interpreted up and down for centuries. It's kind of a tired thing now, and if you're going to bother with a university education you should at least do something useful. Theology is an unending rehash.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Chaoswizkid on October 16, 2012, 01:39:44 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 09:20:50 am

Also, have an Epic Rap Battle (of History) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX_1B0w7Hzc).

Prettttyyy sure people skipped this. They shouldn't, because it's amazing. Probably should have mentioned it's Romney vs. Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 01:43:33 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 16, 2012, 01:24:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 01:07:41 pm

Trollheiming: what are you talking about?
The Shockley-Queisser limit is irrelevant to solar thermal. It is limited the Carnot cycle, the maximum efficiency of a heat engine. And since concentrated solar can produce temperatures limited only by the durability of the materials constituting your reservoir, unlike burning fuels, it can theoretically extract more work from a given amount of energy. Plus no ongoing fuel cost.

I was talking photovoltaic. I don't know the efficiency of solar thermal, but the point was there are practical limits far below the theoretical energy potential that everyone salivates at harnessing. Solar thermal also experiences it, for sure. That's true in all energy sources. You can't just say simply, "Increase the efficiency!" as a panacea to energy problems.

Except that with solar thermal, you can. You can run a solar heat engine with a billion degree thermal slope (and the associated Carnot cycle efficiency) if you throw enough mirrors at it without causing the heat reservoir to under go nuclear fusion at that temperature. But this is not really relevant.

You may be talking photovoltaic, but no one who has researched solar power at all will advocate the less technology being used for bulk production. Only people trying to make it sound like a crappy alternative do that. That ~909 Gwh per square mile per year that I mentioned isn't theoretical, it has already been done with an actual solar thermal plant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 01:44:02 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 16, 2012, 01:33:43 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 01:25:14 pm

You can spare me the self-righteous populist outrage. I don't see where anybody denigrated someone's choice of profession or location (other than suggesting Wyoming is more or less empty. Which, with a population density roughly equal to fucking Mongolia, is more or less true.)

Now I did mock the Frontier School of the Bible. Which I stand by, because seriously....School of the Bible.

What's wrong with Mongolia. Or a School about the Bible. There are plenty of interesting studies one can do about the Bible, including universitary educations.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mongolia. Nice folks, lots of booze, small horses. Very dusty. But it's fucking EMPTY. Outside of Ulaan Bator (which holds roughly half the Mongol population), it's really, really, really, REALLY empty. There's a reason Genghis Khan decided to go conquer the world, and I'm betting a lot of it had to do with boredom.

Likewise, there are many beautiful places in Wyoming. And nobody looking at them.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 16, 2012, 01:46:35 pm

Quote from: Chaoswizkid on October 16, 2012, 01:39:44 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 09:20:50 am

Also, have an Epic Rap Battle (of History) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX_1B0w7Hzc).

Prettttyyy sure people skipped this. They shouldn't, because it's amazing. Probably should have mentioned it's Romney vs. Obama.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Abe Lincoln's Corpse 2012!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 16, 2012, 02:14:51 pm

Quote from: Mego on October 16, 2012, 01:46:35 pm

Quote from: Chaoswizkid on October 16, 2012, 01:39:44 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 09:20:50 am

Also, have an Epic Rap Battle (of History) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX_1B0w7Hzc).

Prettttyyy sure people skipped this. They shouldn't, because it's amazing. Probably should have mentioned it's Romney vs. Obama.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Abe Lincoln's Corpse 2012!

Get on the Lincoln Eagle ticket this November!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 05:26:15 pm

We desperately need to get away from coal.  The methods we're using to get at the stuff these days are horrendous.  They literally shatter the entire tops of mountains with explosives, filter out the coal, and push all the rest of the rubble over the side.  It's called Mountaintop Removal Mining.  This is spontaneous destruction of huge swathes of ecosystem, when habitat destruction is the #1 driving factor behind the current mass extinction and we should be doing everything possible to avoid damaging what's left.  It also poisons local waters (another increasingly precious resource) with heavy metals, causing immense damage to multiple whole communities with every mountaintop destroyed.

As for the rap battle... I only thought it was ok.  Shared because election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 05:29:08 pm

As much as I despise West Virginia for its treacherous ways, it definitely does not deserve mountaintop removal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 05:33:25 pm

Seriously... half a dozen Chernobyl incidents would be less destructive than continuing to mine coal until it's gone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 05:35:35 pm

The coal industry does pump more radioactive waste into the air every year than has been released in the history of the nuclear energy industry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 06:14:12 pm

Coal can improve, though. The next big thing is Cap and Trade-fueled C02 Capture and Sequestration. Ever wonder why acid rain stopped being an issue? It's because we did the exact same thing to sulfur emissions from coal. No more sulfur in the atmosphere, no more sulfuric acid in the rain.

With CCS we'll massively cut emissions over the course of only a few years. Not a miracle solution, but a massive improvement all the same. Coal won't go away overnight, but this will make it much more bearable.

There's also currently a legal mandate to replace land displaced from coal mining and make it at least livable for plant life. It isn't the same as it was pre-mining, but its better than what they used to do, which was blow up the mountain and leave it like that afterwards.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 06:18:47 pm

Clean coal is always just a few years away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 06:21:33 pm

There's no such thing as clean coal. There is, however, Sulfur-less C02-less coal. And it isn't always "just a few years away", removing C02 from coal emissions has only been a serious goal for the past five years or so. We are making progress. There are even beta sites for this now. Obama could realistically sign a Cap and Trade law for C02 in coal during his second term baring some major setback with the programs researching this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 16, 2012, 06:21:55 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 06:18:47 pm

Clean coal is always just a few years away.

Oh, clean coal. We get that in Alberta, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 06:52:01 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 06:21:33 pm

There's no such thing as clean coal. There is, however, Sulfur-less C02-less coal. And it isn't always "just a few years away", removing C02 from coal emissions has only been a serious goal for the past five years or so. We are making progress. There are even beta sites for this now. Obama could realistically sign a Cap and Trade law for C02 in coal during his second term baring some major setback with the programs researching this.

Agreed. There is no such thing as clean coal. Removing sulfur from coal smoke results in sulfur rich sludge, a toxic waste that has to be stored in retaining ponds.  Carbon sequestration involves pumping high pressure co2 into the ground, often into oil or gas reservoirs or the porous material of the water table. This pressure can cause fractures, contaminated ground water, localized earth quakes, sinkholes and the risk of sudden outgassing events. 

Do you know what happens when there is a sudden CO2 outgassing event in a populated area?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

Everything dies.

And then, after all that, carbon sequestering coal power is actually more expensive that conventional nuclear power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 06:58:32 pm

We've actually got an alternate solution to the sequestering, which is using genetically modified algae and bacteria to do what plants do normally and convert the C02 into O2, but until we can start doing that on the large scale sequestering is convenient and keeps the C02 out of the atmosphere. Lake Nyos is a bad sign, but its a natural disaster. With proper precautions we can sequester safely enough.

This isn't meant as a solution, it's meant as mitigation so we have more time to get the solution. If we keep the C02 out of the atmosphere at least for a time it will be not causing us issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 07:13:47 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 06:58:32 pm

We've actually got an alternate solution to the sequestering, which is using genetically modified algae and bacteria to do what plants do normally and convert the C02 into O2, but until we can start doing that on the large scale sequestering is convenient and keeps the C02 out of the atmosphere. Lake Nyos is a bad sign, but its a natural disaster. With proper precautions we can sequester safely enough.

This isn't meant as a solution, it's meant as mitigation so we have more time to get the solution. If we keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere at least for a time it will be not causing us issues.

You can not reliably use an uninspectable unit of natural rock as pressure vessel. Natural rock has natural fractures, weak points, varying degrees of permeability, permissibility and unaccountable natural stresses from tidal effects, volcanism, earthquakes, etc. There is no safe way to store trillions of cubic meters of CO2 underground at high pressure. Nyos was a natural disaster, and underground high pressure carbon sequestration is exactly how one would replicate it.

We have already seen issues with ground water contamination resulting from hydraulic fraking used harvest natural gas, and the volumes and pressures involved with CO2 sequestration will be larger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 16, 2012, 07:19:31 pm

Would we be able to compress the carbon in CO2 emissions into bricks?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 07:22:27 pm

We can test the pressure by seeing if it decreases once filled above normal levels. You don't even have to use C02 for the testing if you want to be additionally safe.

Don't think I don't recognize that this is dangerous no matter how we do it, because I do, but I think we have to accept that risk like we accept the risk that nuclear plants will meltdown.

If there's anything I've learned in studying the energy/climate crisis it is that we need more time than we actually have left. This will give us some time, and I think that is worth the risk.

We don't just have to put the C02 down there and forget about it either, as I mentioned before we have ways of converting it to O2, after which it can be safely released into the atmosphere. A point will come where the conversion can just be done in-plant, at which point sequestration is no longer necessary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 16, 2012, 08:16:52 pm

So the presidential round two seems to be going on. Anything interesting, yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 08:20:24 pm

Obama looks a lot more confident tonight while Romney is starting to waver, based on my inexpert analysis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 08:20:45 pm

 starting to watch neow. talking energy actaully. btw, i am predrunk so i dont need a debate drinking game. that may not be the greatest idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 08:23:57 pm

Romney is acting like a petulant child.  He is openly arguing with the moderator when she tells him to STFU.  He seems like entitled to the last word.

Obama had a great line about gas prices.  Romney will bring down gas prices by bringing a double dip recession.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 16, 2012, 08:25:09 pm

I love how every comment on the debates on the whole internet is about how close they're stepping to each other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 08:26:23 pm

romney is acting a bitch now, talking all over everyone and changing the rukes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 08:28:34 pm

I'm pretty sure you could write an entire academic paper analyzing the body language that goes on when they're both speaking.  The way they sortof circle each other and sometimes turn away.

Now playing: The magical Romney tax plan

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 16, 2012, 08:30:27 pm

Romney is really being a brat. For once just shut up and play by the rules for a few hours. Good god.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 08:31:55 pm

why the fuck did romney just claim the top 5% pay 60% tax rate?! lying ass

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 16, 2012, 08:32:38 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 08:31:55 pm

why the fuck did romney just claim the top 5% pay 60% tax rate?! lying ass

I believe you answered your own question.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 16, 2012, 08:34:18 pm

Wasn't his rate like 13% or something, with the most favorable numbers possible?

I totally forgot this debate was happening tonight so I'm jumping in halfway through I guess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 08:34:54 pm

Obama is kicking ass I'd say.  It helps that Romney's tax plan fundamentally doesn't work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 16, 2012, 08:35:26 pm

Oh man, Obama is on the offensive. This is going to erase his loss in the last one if he keeps it up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 08:35:44 pm

Is Obama intentionally doing the Alabama drawl? Is this new? This post has insufficient content, oh well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 16, 2012, 08:36:14 pm

Yeah, Obama's doing a hell of a lot better than last time. He's really relentless with the "actually, that isn't true"

Holy hell so many ninjas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 16, 2012, 08:39:59 pm

Oh man, workplace inequality. A topic that Romney and Obama haven't recited the same exact points about fifty times. Maybe we should get more of these town hall debates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 16, 2012, 08:40:29 pm

Huzzah. Great to hear something new, 'tis true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 08:41:10 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on October 16, 2012, 08:39:59 pm

Oh man, workplace inequality. A topic that Romney and Obama haven't recited the same exact points about fifty times. Maybe we should get more of these town hall debates.

Yeah...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2012, 08:43:50 pm

Binders full of women.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 16, 2012, 08:46:05 pm

They've unsurprisingly strayed a bit, but still.

Obama: "I supported laws that insured women would have easier access to legal support in obtaining equal pay."
Romney: "I once hired some women. I'm not going to comment on how much I payed them, though."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 08:48:34 pm

romney is all bluster no detail, he is doing nothing but make retarded promises with no plan on how he is going to do a damn thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 08:57:46 pm

Every time Romney speaks to a black person he says the phrase "The president means to do well, I understand..." and then talks about the economy.  I don't recall him ever saying it to a white person.  I've never actually seen Romney speak to a latino or asian person.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 16, 2012, 08:58:25 pm

Romney does a lot better when he's talking about Obama than when he's talking about himself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 08:58:52 pm

I post that and a latino woman appears!  Amazing!

They need a fucking bullhorn when they go overtime.  Followed by a loud voice going "TIME UP!"  Maybe then they'd get the hint.

Lol, Obama said "gangbangers"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 16, 2012, 09:02:22 pm

I do wish they'd just turn off their microphones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darkwind3 on October 16, 2012, 09:03:30 pm

Romney seems to try to get the last word in every time, no matter what, even arguing with the moderator at times over it. I'm surprised Obama hasn't tried to somehow make that work against him yet. Maybe "Romney is rude to moderators" is hard to spin into big news (and considering Lehrer's performance last time, I can't say I blame him for it).

I only just now noticed the countdown in the background. (Hey, I was doing homework while listening in.) I don't think the candidates can see the timer. That, or they just don't care. Probably the second one.

e: also, Romney really likes ignoring the question to talk about Obama instead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 16, 2012, 09:10:24 pm

Quote from: Karlito on October 16, 2012, 09:02:22 pm

I do wish they'd just turn off their microphones.

Dog collars with the button to deliver a moderate shock.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:12:27 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 16, 2012, 09:10:24 pm

Quote from: Karlito on October 16, 2012, 09:02:22 pm

I do wish they'd just turn off their microphones.

Dog collars with the button to deliver a moderate shock.

lol, i suggested that last week,

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 16, 2012, 09:14:45 pm

I think the moderators/questioners must have a Republican bias, since they're staying on economic issues (which can go either way) rather than shifting to social ones (where the Democrats would kick ass).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 16, 2012, 09:16:27 pm

Hey look, facts from the moderator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darkwind3 on October 16, 2012, 09:17:42 pm

Romney seems to be stumbling now that the moderator decided to back up Obama, on this at least. he's got some time to recuperate while Obama fields a question though I guess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:21:26 pm

oh no. not gun control, i disagree with obama and douchebag.

Romney turned a gun control question into... a suggestion to marry before having sex... because that causes shootings, wtf.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 16, 2012, 09:24:37 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:21:26 pm

Romney turned a gun control question into... a suggestion to marry before having sex... because that causes shootings, wtf.

It sort of sounded like he was in favor of planned parenthood for a moment there ;).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:36:54 pm

two faced romney just said "some campaigns are about attacking the other guy instead of saying what good they ar going to do" to paraphrase, cause he is godly (and obama isn't). thats some shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 16, 2012, 09:38:32 pm

I find the godliness thing laughable. Any member of the Religious Right worth their theological salt would realize that Mormonism is, by their standards, heresy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 16, 2012, 09:38:47 pm

I actually think Romney had a surprisingly strong finish. Even if it is laughable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 16, 2012, 09:39:04 pm

Woo!  God Bless Capitalism!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 09:39:11 pm

Way to wait until the last 2 minutes to bring up the 47% remarks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 09:41:59 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on October 16, 2012, 09:38:32 pm

I find the godliness thing laughable. Any member of the Religious Right worth their theological salt would realize that Mormonism is, by their standards, heresy.

They're ignoring that until the possibility of President Romney is out the window.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:42:34 pm

and it endswith romney wandering aimlessly while obam shakes hands with the crowd and embraces his wife affectionately.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 16, 2012, 09:44:46 pm

Crowley just could not control those two, though she was really giving it her best shot.  I think R. Lee Ermey should moderate debates like these from now on. 

"GOVERNOR!  YOU WILL SIT DOWN OR I WILL RIP YOUR EYEBALLS OUT AND..." well you can imagine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 16, 2012, 09:46:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 09:39:11 pm

Way to wait until the last 2 minutes to bring up the 47% remarks.

Actually pretty brilliant - It means Romney can't even pretend to cover his ass about it, and that's the lingering memory people were left with.

Romney's finishing statement was his strongest moment of the night, and it still feels like Obama blew him away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:46:51 pm

cause he has pretty hair.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 16, 2012, 09:47:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

Pretty much every other major contender was worse?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 16, 2012, 09:47:26 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

JESUS
GUNS
UNBORN BABIES
PROTECT THE CHILDREN
COMMUNISM
1111ONEONEONE

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 16, 2012, 09:51:04 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 16, 2012, 09:47:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

Pretty much every other major contender was worse?

I woulda campaigned for Huntsman/Colbert, honestly.

Dunno if that'd qualify as major, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on October 16, 2012, 09:51:08 pm

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 16, 2012, 06:21:55 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 06:18:47 pm

Clean coal is always just a few years away.

Oh, clean coal. We get that in Alberta, too.

Anthracite coal and (perhaps) coal gasification.

Speaking on clean energy megaprojects, as has been said before, it need not be 100% solar. Here in Tennessee, for example, with the TVA (set up for a similar project, no less), we have a good amount of hydroelectric power, some solar, some wind, a fair bit of semi-clean (I say semi-clean because of the eventual radioactive waste, but it's still nowhere near as bad as a coal plant) nuclear, and, unfortunately, a good amount of coal. We also have some of the cheapest electricity in the US because of it (Correct me if I'm wrong). Now, while Hydroelectric is situational, since it requires a river, solar, wind,  and nuclear, particularly the last, do not have such extreme considerations (Though the first two do still have considerations).

((Goddamn ninjas.))

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 09:52:55 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 16, 2012, 09:51:04 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 16, 2012, 09:47:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

Pretty much every other major contender was worse?

I woulda campaigned for Huntsman/Colbert, honestly.

Dunno if that'd qualify as major, though.

Dude, I would have quit my job and gone on tour as a roadie for Huntsman/Colbert.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 16, 2012, 09:54:06 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

The only other "viable" candidates were the Pokemon and Simcity-obsessed pizza guy, the philanderer name after an amphibian with a messianic complex, the guy named after anal secretions, and the chick who is apparently channeling the spirit of a gay serial killer. Oh and Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 09:58:14 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 16, 2012, 09:51:04 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 16, 2012, 09:47:11 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

Pretty much every other major contender was worse?

I woulda campaigned for Huntsman/Colbert, honestly.

Dunno if that'd qualify as major, though.

huntsman would have made a better second choice than romney at the very least.

and I cant really say more than that because most of his platform never really made it through to the public in the primary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:59:23 pm

I think we here in Ontario pretty much have this power thing figured out (for now, we need to build more reactors sooner or later though); we generate 50% of our power through nuclear, something like 20% through various renewable options and the rest through coal/gas. We are however in the process of adding more reactors (we bloody well better, or my degree will be pretty useless) and we always seem to have some new green energy plan in the works.

Sorry for the lack of sources, everything I found seemed outdated.

Quote from: Reelya on October 16, 2012, 09:54:06 pm

Oh and Ron Paul.

You mean RON PAUL 2012 LITERALLY SO BRAVE?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 16, 2012, 10:00:00 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 16, 2012, 09:54:06 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

The only other "viable" candidates were the Pokemon and Simcity-obsessed pizza guy, the philanderer name after an amphibian with a messianic complex, the guy named after anal secretions, and the chick who is apparently channeling the spirit of a gay serial killer. Oh and Ron Paul.

I'm really hoping all those theories about the legitimate Republican politicians waiting until 2016 to run are true. I need some of my faith in the American political process to be restored after this past year and a half.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 10:03:22 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 16, 2012, 09:54:06 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:45:53 pm

Someone remind me how you guys got stuck with this simpering douchebag as a legitimate candidate?

The only other "viable" candidates were the Pokemon and Simcity-obsessed pizza guy, the philanderer name after an amphibian with a messianic complex, the guy named after anal secretions, and the chick who is apparently channeling the spirit of a gay serial killer. Oh and Ron Paul.

You forgot Poland Perry. Who was viable up until the moment he opened his mouth on stage, and everyone realized, "Holy shit, that dude's lit up like a Christmas tree."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 10:05:16 pm

Quote from: Seamas on October 16, 2012, 09:44:46 pm

Crowley just could not control those two, though she was really giving it her best shot.  I think R. Lee Ermey should moderate debates like these from now on. 

"GOVERNOR!  YOU WILL SIT DOWN OR I WILL RIP YOUR EYEBALLS OUT AND..." well you can imagine.

Kind of unfair, though. Obama is Commander-in-Chief, so Ermey wouldn't yell at him or give him orders at all.

Romney, on the other hand, would be verbally eviscerated in such a manner that historians would compare the results to that of the French Revolution in significance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 10:05:49 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 16, 2012, 09:52:55 pm

Dude, I would have quit my job and gone on tour as a roadie for Huntsman/Colbert.

Redking, become an politics.  DO IT NOW!  America needs you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 10:09:04 pm

I liked the parts where they sputtered at eachother. We're getting back to our roots here, With Parliamentary politics! Emphasis on the hilariously pathetic attempts at order by the big man around 1:25 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhpXhxP-WU)

Honestly, I think Obama won because this time he actually forced his point out around the Romney rhetoric's Hot-air balloon. They won't be able to quote mine this one for nearly as many Uhhs, Umms, and Huhs, whereas Obama can pull out that nifty little bit about Libya.


I would go into politics but America wouldn't react well to my Cultural Revolution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 10:13:03 pm

I'm glad someone finally called Romney on at least SOME of his BS as well... even if it was, of all things, the moderator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 10:14:24 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 10:13:03 pm

I'm glad someone finally called Romney on at least SOME of his BS as well... even if it was, of all things, the moderator.

Best thing I've ever seen in an election ever.

Even better than the wacko going "HHHHHHRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 16, 2012, 10:14:44 pm

Romney bald faced lies - obama never tried to push any immigration legislation? What was the DREAM Act then? I'm surprised Obama didn't nail that point as an outright lie, but I guess there could have been some strategy there too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 16, 2012, 10:39:46 pm

Numbers say Obama led 7% overall and a whopping 22% among undecideds. Considering the larger Republican turn out for these things, that's a pretty strong win, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 16, 2012, 10:40:55 pm

My father says it was a tie. Note he's a diehard republican, and he really likes Romney, so that's pretty much the best he'd ever give Obama. I'd call that a win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 16, 2012, 10:41:52 pm

Anyone have a full recording up yet? Internets didn't really agree with me streaming it live.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 16, 2012, 10:52:32 pm

They need the sound that plays on Jeopardy when your time runs out for these debates.

I'm watching it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps&hd=1

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 16, 2012, 11:01:09 pm

OK, I was playing the DJ tonight and deliberately stayed afterwards to get drunk instead of watching the tail end of the debate^*. But I've glanced at a couple of liveblogs and these suggest Romney actually tried to claim credit for his time as a Mormon missionary and minister. I've been keeping track and he hasn't really played these up on the national stage before this. The missionary part... well, he played missionary during Vietnam by going to France. The minister... I actually have sympathy for this, and can't imagine having such real human contact making anyone less suited to the presidency, but such a position within the Mormon church is bound to hurt with evangelical and even mainline American Christians.

*Years of drunk typing experience, many of them for credit, have taught me to do it without the usual giveaway typos.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 11:03:02 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 16, 2012, 11:01:09 pm

OK, I was playing the DJ tonight and deliberately stayed afterwards to get drunk instead of watching the tail end of the debate^*. But I've glanced at a couple of liveblogs and these suggest Romney actually tried to claim credit for his time as a Mormon missionary and minister. I've been keeping track and he hasn't really played these up on the national stage before this. The missionary part... well, he played missionary during Vietnam by going to France. The minister... I actually have sympathy for this, and can't imagine having such real human contact making anyone less suited to the presidency, but such a position within the Mormon church is bound to hurt with evangelical and even mainline American Christians.

*Years of drunk typing experience, many of them for credit, have taught me to do it without the usual giveaway typos.

THats ok. Ive been drunk the whole time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 11:05:27 pm

I didn't get drunk, don't know what's wrong with me. :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 16, 2012, 11:07:51 pm

Sobriety. That's what's wrong with you.

It's curable, you know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on October 16, 2012, 11:08:48 pm

Maniac is Super-Sober though. It is treatable, but not curabale, and the treatment tends to shorten one's lifespan considerably.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 11:08:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 16, 2012, 11:05:27 pm

I didn't get drunk, don't know what's wrong with me. :(

You were too funny last time and don't want to ruin it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 11:12:06 pm

The problem with his Mormonism hurting amongst evangelicals and the like is that he's put up next to a guy whom most of those same evangelicals will still claim out loud is a muslim kenyan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 11:18:57 pm

Yeah, but there's definitely still some who will throw up their hands and proclaim that this is the End of Days and America has lost god's favor instead of settling for Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 11:37:17 pm

Meanwhile, behind the scenes:

Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, green party presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate are arrested for attending the debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/green-party-candidates-arrested-debate-011030548--election.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 16, 2012, 11:37:46 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 16, 2012, 11:18:57 pm

Yeah, but there's definitely still some who will throw up their hands and proclaim that this is the End of Days and America has lost god's favor instead of settling for Romney.

And everyone at Bay12 tries to figure out when exactly did America have god's favor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 16, 2012, 11:55:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 11:37:17 pm

Meanwhile, behind the scenes:

Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, green party presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate are arrested for attending the debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/green-party-candidates-arrested-debate-011030548--election.html

"Maam this is a democratic process here.  Your participation is not allowed."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 16, 2012, 11:56:42 pm

The candidates agreed to the format of the debate. Only they are allowed to violate that format. :V

Edit: There it is again, I said "the candidates" while referring only to Obama and Romney. Damn Darn you, Ross Perot!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 17, 2012, 01:34:34 am

The news article comments on the green party arrests are amusing.  There are people saying "Why should I care about this?  I've never heard of these people before, so why should I take them seriously?"  It demonstrates and misses the point at the same time.

And one of my co-workers -- "I didn't even know the green party still existed!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 17, 2012, 02:06:25 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 16, 2012, 11:37:17 pm

Meanwhile, behind the scenes:

Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, green party presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate are arrested for attending the debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/green-party-candidates-arrested-debate-011030548--election.html

I think it is so sad that we have come to accept this Red/Blue dichotomy as a stand-in for a democracy, which by all rights should allow - even encourage - the participation of third parties.  Both parties really are just the same cat with different fleas.  If it wasn't for the color scheme I would confuse the two all the time.

I'm going to vote for an independent this time, even if it is a toothless gesture.  I just can't bear to submit so doggedly to this feckless two-party regime displacing all other legitimate political parties.  It's a farce.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Montague on October 17, 2012, 02:12:50 am

Yeah, third parties are in a sad state of affairs. Even the Evangelists have decided to limit themselves between voting for a 'Mormon Heretic Cultist' and a 'Kenyan Muslim Socialist'.

I'm sure the reality TV debate really changed a lot of minds though. Who will get voted off the island???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 17, 2012, 03:29:33 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 10:14:24 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 10:13:03 pm

I'm glad someone finally called Romney on at least SOME of his BS as well... even if it was, of all things, the moderator.

Best thing I've ever seen in an election ever.

Even better than the wacko going "HHHHHHRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Thing is, she openly withdrew some accusations (http://www.youtube.com/embed/athcyCTnTTs) after the debate, because those weren't correct. "Romney was correct in the main" But few will hear her retraction.

You had a moderator interfering with her own emotional opinion. She isn't a fact-checker with the transcripts in front of her.

Tell me again how the media is unbiased.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 17, 2012, 03:31:25 am

Nobody's ever said that the media is unbiased - just that the left is not the exclusive or even main beneficiary of media bias.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 17, 2012, 04:05:44 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 17, 2012, 03:29:33 am

Thing is, she openly withdrew some accusations (http://www.youtube.com/embed/athcyCTnTTs) after the debate, because those weren't correct. "Romney was correct in the main" But few will hear her retraction.

You had a moderator interfering with her own emotional opinion. She isn't a fact-checker with the transcripts in front of her.

Tell me again how the media is unbiased.

Whut? She didn't retract anything nor should she have. She corrected Romney by pointing out what the President actually said - something Romney seemed to think was a huge lie.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on October 17, 2012, 04:06:00 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 17, 2012, 03:29:33 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 10:14:24 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 10:13:03 pm

I'm glad someone finally called Romney on at least SOME of his BS as well... even if it was, of all things, the moderator.

Best thing I've ever seen in an election ever.

Even better than the wacko going "HHHHHHRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Thing is, she openly withdrew some accusations (http://www.youtube.com/embed/athcyCTnTTs) after the debate, because those weren't correct. "Romney was correct in the main" But few will hear her retraction.

You had a moderator interfering with her own emotional opinion. She isn't a fact-checker with the transcripts in front of her.

Tell me again how the media is unbiased.

Firstly... did you actually watch the video you linked?  The moderator knew exactly what was going on, and was correct and consistent during and after the debate.  What happened was, Romney's overall point was correct, in that the Obama administration didn't consistently portray the attacks as a terrorist attack until two weeks after they happened.  HOWEVER, what Romney actually said (that Obama didn't inform Americans that the attack was carried out by terrorists instead of rioters) was incorrect, because Obama referred to the attacks as an act of terror in a speech shortly after they happened.

Now, most people are going to take away that the moderator called Romney out on being wrong, because she did that first.  However, she both corrected Romney and then pointed out that he was right overall, which is consistent with the view she expresses after the debate.

Secondly, you can't take a single example of the way a single person acts, and generalize about the entire class that person belongs to.  ESPECIALLY if your evidence of how that person acts is a single minute of video ripped out of context.

Thirdly, if you use as evidence a video from a user that has GOP in the name and the republican elephant as its avatar, you don't get to throw the word unbiased around.

Fourthly, if your username is a made up word that begins with "troll", you should make a better effort to appear genuine, AKA not be confrontational and present shifty sources as argument enders.  Not saying you're a troll, just that you appear to be portraying yourself as one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 17, 2012, 06:53:24 am

Quote from: Descan on October 16, 2012, 07:19:31 pm

Would we be able to compress the carbon in CO2 emissions into bricks?

Carbon in bricks exists. It's called coal.

Or Diamonds, or graphene, or whatever...
Problem is you'll be investing more energy in storing it than you got from burning it.

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 16, 2012, 09:59:23 pm

I think we here in Ontario pretty much have this power thing figured out (for now, we need to build more reactors sooner or later though); we generate 50% of our power through nuclear, something like 20% through various renewable options and the rest through coal/gas. We are however in the process of adding more reactors (we bloody well better, or my degree will be pretty useless) and we always seem to have some new green energy plan in the works.

Sorry for the lack of sources, everything I found seemed outdated.

Yeah, fission is pretty much required to solve the energy problems on a usefull timescale. Problem is that the whole Nuclear panic thing is causing governements to close them, just to maintain a good reputation. Germany is doing so, for example, and building several Gigawatts of Coal plants to replace them.

Also, no love for geothermal? It tends to be ignored while talking about renewable power, but is a great powersource in those places were it's available.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 17, 2012, 07:08:23 am

Quote from: EnigmaticHat on October 17, 2012, 04:06:00 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 17, 2012, 03:29:33 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 10:14:24 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 10:13:03 pm

I'm glad someone finally called Romney on at least SOME of his BS as well... even if it was, of all things, the moderator.

Best thing I've ever seen in an election ever.

Even better than the wacko going "HHHHHHRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Thing is, she openly withdrew some accusations (http://www.youtube.com/embed/athcyCTnTTs) after the debate, because those weren't correct. "Romney was correct in the main" But few will hear her retraction.

You had a moderator interfering with her own emotional opinion. She isn't a fact-checker with the transcripts in front of her.

Tell me again how the media is unbiased.

Firstly... did you actually watch the video you linked?  The moderator knew exactly what was going on, and was correct and consistent during and after the debate.  What happened was, Romney's overall point was correct, in that the Obama administration didn't consistently portray the attacks as a terrorist attack until two weeks after they happened.  HOWEVER, what Romney actually said (that Obama didn't inform Americans that the attack was carried out by terrorists instead of rioters) was incorrect, because Obama referred to the attacks as an act of terror in a speech shortly after they happened.

Now, most people are going to take away that the moderator called Romney out on being wrong, because she did that first.  However, she both corrected Romney and then pointed out that he was right overall, which is consistent with the view she expresses after the debate.

Secondly, you can't take a single example of the way a single person acts, and generalize about the entire class that person belongs to.  ESPECIALLY if your evidence of how that person acts is a single minute of video ripped out of context.

Thirdly, if you use as evidence a video from a user that has GOP in the name and the republican elephant as its avatar, you don't get to throw the word unbiased around.

Fourthly, if your username is a made up word that begins with "troll", you should make a better effort to appear genuine, AKA not be confrontational and present shifty sources as argument enders.  Not saying you're a troll, just that you appear to be portraying yourself as one.

This. I'll even agree that the president spent a bit too much time talking about the tapes, but in the end, it's a stupid point to keep pushing. It doesn't MEAN anything substantial about the president or his policies and if you really were trying to convince people the president was doing a bad job, take a lesson from SalmonGod. He's(?) done more on this forum to make me see who the president really is than all the Republican BS fearmongering has done in the past 6 years. The president isn't perfect, he's lied, he's done some terrible things, and some decent things, and am I disappointed, yes. But that still doesn't change the fact that the policies he talks about sound better than the ones Romney has come out with... the few he has. I keep wanting to hear specifics from Romney, but any time he does bring out specific details of his plans, it just sounds so stupid, and so head in the clouds, and so... campaign promisey... that either, they're impossible or would lead to disaster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 17, 2012, 07:12:06 am

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 17, 2012, 06:53:24 am

Also, no love for geothermal? It tends to be ignored while talking about renewable power, but is a great powersource in those places were it's available.

My geology teacher explained to me once that good geothermal was generally impossible to pull off except in certain areas where the ground provided an easy method to harness it. Something about drilling deep enough to get to hot enough stuff was melting drill heads or something.

I don't know how much to trust him though. He was a part time teacher and his full time job was oil surveyor.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to double post. Intended to edit it into the previous one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 17, 2012, 07:12:09 am

He is correct :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 17, 2012, 07:21:12 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 17, 2012, 07:12:09 am

He is correct :P

Thank you. I was almost sure, then I started doubting myself and went back and stuck the (?) in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 17, 2012, 07:22:43 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 17, 2012, 03:29:33 am

Thing is, she openly withdrew some accusations (http://www.youtube.com/embed/athcyCTnTTs) after the debate, because those weren't correct. "Romney was correct in the main" But few will hear her retraction.

You had a moderator interfering with her own emotional opinion. She isn't a fact-checker with the transcripts in front of her.

Tell me again how the media is unbiased.

Yeah.. that's not a retraction. That's repeating what she said in the debate hall. Its something any journalist worth their salt could have known, and you're going to have trouble convincing me, at least, that the moderator should allow bald-faced lies they know are lies. Go ahead, twist the truth, but you aren't allowed to just ignore realty.

That said, she did seem a bit more aggressive at cutting Romney off when overtime than she was Obama - I don't know if that's proof positive of a liberal bias (It could just be an incumbent bias, I don't remember the 2004 debates) but it's still an issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 17, 2012, 07:26:39 am

Also, as pointed out, it's well-known that I don't like Obama, enough that I refuse to vote for him.  I still feel I should say that I dislike stupid, desperate, republican arguments against Obama even more, including Trollheimer's.  It's incredibly annoying and pointless crap.  Do some real research and point out valid criticisms.  There are plenty.  I will also agree that he's done some good things as well.  It just happens that his failures to my political priorities (especially information freedom) outweigh everything else, in my opinion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 17, 2012, 07:28:47 am

Same boat, basically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on October 17, 2012, 07:58:14 am

Romney: "Government doesn't create jobs"
Romney: "When I am in government I pledge to create 12 million jobs"

Err... right. The debate in the US is so messed up, in the last debate Obama said defensively "people accuse me of thinking the government creates jobs".

Of course the government creates jobs, one of them is titled president, and there are millions more. Is this kind of absurdity the result of a failed education system or is there some context I am missing where black is white and up is down?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 17, 2012, 08:07:48 am

There's also the fact that that 12 million number, as someone else on these boards I believe, has pointed out will only just barely keep up with expected population growth.

I don't see any way he could guarantee that number either without creating, out of thin air a ton of government jobs.

On the other hand, he could use his 230 million in assets to just hire 12 million people at slightly above minimum wage for about 2 hours.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 17, 2012, 08:10:42 am

This has to be seen to be believed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/transcript-second-presidential-debate/

Quote

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.
ROMNEY: Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We have
(AUDIO GAP)
OBAMA: because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they're less likely to engage in these kind of violent acts.

What was actually said (all clearly audible):

Spoiler: They really cut a lot (click to show/hide)

CANDY CROWLEY
Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.
1:18:36

MITT ROMNEY: Yeah, I -- I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and -- and taking guns away or -- or making certain guns illegal. We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.
What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things.
He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state, and I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll -- we'll give people the -- the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that.
But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the -- the benefit of having two parents in the home -- and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone -- that's a great idea because if there's a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will -- will be able to achieve increase dramatically.
So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system.
The -- the greatest failure we've had with regards to gun violence, in some respects, is what is known as Fast and Furious, which was a program under this administration -- and how it worked exactly, I think we don't know precisely -- but where thousands of automatic and -- and AK-47-type weapons were -- were given to people that ultimately gave them to -- to drug lords. They used those weapons against -- against their own citizens and killed Americans with them.
And this was a -- this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can't imagine. But it's one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration which I think the American people would like to understand fully. It's been investigated to a degree, but the administration has -- has carried out executive privilege to prevent all the information from coming out. I'd like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence -- thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.
1:20:56

PRESIDENT OBAMA
Candy.
1:20:57

CANDY CROWLEY
Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts. Obviously with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that? Given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings, why is it that you've changed your mind?
1:21:21

MITT ROMNEY
Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it's referred to as a -- as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn't previously been available and so forth. So it was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation.
That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's -- that's gridlocked. We haven't had -- we haven't -- we haven't -- we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis.
1:21:55

CANDY CROWLEY
So if I could, if you could get people to agree to it, you'd be for it.
1:21:57

PRESIDENT OBAMA
Candy --
1:22:01

MITT ROMNEY
I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.
1:22:03

PRESIDENT OBAMA
Candy.
1:22:04

CANDY CROWLEY
Quickly, Mr. President.
1:22:05

PRESIDENT OBAMA
The -- first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he changed his mind was in part because he was seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association.
So that's on the record. But I think that one area we agree on is the importance of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity...

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/17/us/politics/20121017-second-presidential-debate-obama-romney.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 17, 2012, 08:30:45 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 17, 2012, 03:29:33 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 16, 2012, 10:14:24 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 16, 2012, 10:13:03 pm

I'm glad someone finally called Romney on at least SOME of his BS as well... even if it was, of all things, the moderator.

Best thing I've ever seen in an election ever.

Even better than the wacko going "HHHHHHRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Thing is, she openly withdrew some accusations (http://www.youtube.com/embed/athcyCTnTTs) after the debate, because those weren't correct. "Romney was correct in the main" But few will hear her retraction.

You had a moderator interfering with her own emotional opinion. She isn't a fact-checker with the transcripts in front of her.

Tell me again how the media is unbiased.

Translation: "The refs are totally biased against us! There's no way that was a foul! Hey, that was intentional grounding! Are you fucking blind, ref??"

The GOP waaaambulance brigade is out in full force this morning. After all, they learned a long time ago that if you can't win the message, attack the medium itself. Next, they'll attack VHF broadcasts themselves, because being high-frequency, they're far beyond the blue-purple end of the visible spectrum, so they're obviously biased for Democrats.

Whereas talk radio is in the good conservative, sub-infrared portion of the spectrum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 17, 2012, 08:35:04 am

I actually prefer raiding the AM station over the TV broadcasting station :V

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 17, 2012, 09:00:48 am

Romney's non-sensical 'binders full of women' comment is incredibly offensive to women. Substitute any other group of people for women and it sounds like that guy who says he's not racist because he has a lot of black friends.

 http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11m0fy/internet_takes_off_with_mitt_romneys_binders_full/c6no7bm

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 17, 2012, 09:18:33 am

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/419/418/229.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 10:09:38 am

The last time I saw a binder full of women, I was looking at a kink website.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 17, 2012, 10:15:36 am

Other highlight of the debate, Obama saying the word 'gangbangers'. I can't wait until that soundbite is sampled and used as part of a sick beat, brah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 17, 2012, 10:20:05 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 10:09:38 am

The last time I saw a binder full of women, I was looking at a kink website.

Or an adult bookstore.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/q/o/4/romney-binders-women-grandpa.jpg)
Oh snap...way to work in that Mormon polygamy jab.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 11:15:04 am

http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/09/06/044233/secret-service-investigating-romney-tax-hack-claim?sdsrc=popbyskid

Anyone have a spare million dollars worth of bitcoins to buy Romney's tax records?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 17, 2012, 11:34:55 am

There doesn't seem to be any real connection between the events of the debate and the declared "winner". In the VP debate, Biden was energetic, clear, and in command, and clearly superior to Ryan, and yet it was a draw. In the last debate, Romney was easily more confident than the president and just talked over him like he was already president... meanwhile, Obama rolled over every time Romney spewed out another lie. And yet Obama supposedly won!

They argued over how hard they were going to filate the oil companies and didn't even mention the urgency of addressing climate change.

I'm so glad I voted for Jill. Every patriot should vote to kick both of these unthinking robotic politicians out and replace them with statesmen and stateswomen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 17, 2012, 11:40:47 am

Wait, I thought Romney was considered the winner, then Biden was, and then Obama.

I'm confuuuuused, where are you getting these "It was a draw! Obama won! It was another draw!" stuff?

Also, I'd love if the vote was for "Dude what handles foreign policy", where you'd get people like Obama and such, representing America and Americans on the international stage, and then another vote for "Dude what handles internal policy", handling the taxes and the defence budget (That would probably be a joint effort between the two, come to think of it), and hopefully you'd get people who were actually competent.

Though, if that was the -only- change, y'all would two circus acts and pagaent shows instead of one. :I

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 17, 2012, 11:51:50 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 17, 2012, 11:34:55 am

There doesn't seem to be any real connection between the events of the debate and the declared "winner". In the VP debate, Biden was energetic, clear, and in command, and clearly superior to Ryan, and yet it was a draw. In the last debate, Romney was easily more confident than the president and just talked over him like he was already president... meanwhile, Obama rolled over every time Romney spewed out another lie. And yet Obama supposedly won!

They argued over how hard they were going to filate the oil companies and didn't even mention the urgency of addressing climate change.

I'm so glad I voted for Jill. Every patriot should vote to kick both of these unthinking robotic politicians out and replace them with statesmen and stateswomen.

People don't mention climate change because it's "controversial". Yeah yeah, I know it's not... and it is a serious issue, but as long as you have a large chunk of people out there believing it's all a conspiracy then politicians are going to tread lightly around it... A the very least Obama is trying to move us towards policies that will at least have less damaging effects on the environment, even if that's not the reason he's saying so. Finally, it's going to take a global effort to deal with climate change, not that we couldn't start ourselves, but it would be best if we could get everyone on board... Start pushing a global green energy treaty instead of this stupid ACTA crap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 17, 2012, 12:57:53 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on October 17, 2012, 06:53:24 am

Also, no love for geothermal? It tends to be ignored while talking about renewable power, but is a great powersource in those places were it's available.

I don't think we have much, but my university has one of the largest geothermal operations in North America. (http://sustainableresearchjtwilson.blogspot.ca/2009/07/uoits-geothermal-champion.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 17, 2012, 01:20:17 pm

Well, I hear Europe is doing stuff...  like the emissions tax.  I don't think that is popular here.  Probably not popular in China too...

Also, China and maybe Brazil too are growing nations needing that energy to be strong and healthy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 02:08:46 pm

In an alternate reality where people still believe in democracy, you might have seen something a little bit of  this in the last debate.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/exclusive_expanding_the_debate_with_third

The expanded vp debate:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/12/expanding_the_vp_debate_third_party

The first debate expanded:

A cursory look through the site does not reveal such a video, but it may be there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on October 17, 2012, 02:21:43 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 02:08:46 pm

In an alternate reality where people still believe in democracy, you might have seen something a little bit of  this in the last debate.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/exclusive_expanding_the_debate_with_third

The expanded vp debate:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/12/expanding_the_vp_debate_third_party

The first debate expanded:

A cursory look through the site does not reveal such a video, but it may be there.

Was there any wide media coverage?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 02:28:23 pm

Not that I know of, I saw it in a slashdot article.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on October 17, 2012, 03:04:40 pm

Meanwhile... voter registrations being dumped in dumpsters:  http://www.nbc29.com/story/19836183/investigation-launched-over-trashed-voter-registration-forms

Also, from http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The car that drove up was a black Toyota Camry with Pennsylvania license plates.  Who would be in the Valley from Pennsylvania and have a bunch of completed voter registration forms that they wanted to destroy?

Once this story hit Facebook, a number of people pointed out to the person who witnessed this crime that the state GOP "Victory Office" was just a couple blocks away.  Yesterday afternoon, guess what car was parked in front of the office?

Yep, a black Toyota Camry from Pennsylvania.

Police are investigating and the local media has begun reporting on this story.  The Sheriff (a Republican) has said the person who destroyed the forms was a different person than who collected them.  NBC29 also reports that the Sheriff will decide if this is a criminal case today. 
 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 17, 2012, 03:07:17 pm

I honestly wish we still used the Electoral College system in the states. It held so much promise - but then, that's probably why it got gutted into into the state-by-state popularity system that still bears it's label today.

Just a musing I had today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 03:10:02 pm

I think we should set the threshold for entering the debates at 1,000,000 party members and/or independent supporters. That's enough to be significant among the populace even if it is a minority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 17, 2012, 03:18:58 pm

Set an equivalent threshold as a percentage of either population or registered voter, it'll be more durable then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 17, 2012, 04:20:52 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on October 17, 2012, 03:04:40 pm

Meanwhile... voter registrations being dumped in dumpsters:  http://www.nbc29.com/story/19836183/investigation-launched-over-trashed-voter-registration-forms

Also, from http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The car that drove up was a black Toyota Camry with Pennsylvania license plates.  Who would be in the Valley from Pennsylvania and have a bunch of completed voter registration forms that they wanted to destroy?

Once this story hit Facebook, a number of people pointed out to the person who witnessed this crime that the state GOP "Victory Office" was just a couple blocks away.  Yesterday afternoon, guess what car was parked in front of the office?

Yep, a black Toyota Camry from Pennsylvania.

Police are investigating and the local media has begun reporting on this story.  The Sheriff (a Republican) has said the person who destroyed the forms was a different person than who collected them.  NBC29 also reports that the Sheriff will decide if this is a criminal case today. 
 

I suspect that much of the right's uproar over voter fraud is because they themselves continuously do it (http://www.politicususa.com/gop-voter-registration-firm-accused-fraud-fired-north-carolina.html). Those tricksy Democrats are just really really really good at hiding it! /conservative logic

It's desperate projection on the part of the dishonest. They have to believe that everyone else is just as corrupt as they are because otherwise they'd have to do some soul searching.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 17, 2012, 04:25:40 pm

Coincidentally, the voter registration forms in the dumpster are in the same state that the GOP company was caught doing voter registration fraud. Any connection?

Or "both side do it" but they both only happen to get caught in North Carolina?

Scratch that, i google "Rockingham County" and it came back North Carolina. But Harrisonburg is in Virginia. I'm confused now, is there "Rockingham County" in more than 1 state?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 17, 2012, 04:26:55 pm

So what happened to that one time when Bush won even though he had less votes?

I heard it mentioned once but I don't know what ended up happening after that. Nothing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 17, 2012, 04:30:16 pm

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 17, 2012, 04:26:55 pm

So what happened to that one time when Bush won even though he had less votes?

I heard it mentioned once but I don't know what ended up happening after that. Nothing?

Essentially nothing. There was a recount, the margins were still incredibly slim and it basically fell to Gore to decide how much he wanted to bring the whole process to a grinding halt with further legal challenges. After the 1st (or was it the second?) recount, pressure started to mount for him to cede victory despite the appearance of impropriety.

I don't remember enough of it now to recall if they had explicit evidence of active voter fraud. Other than, you know, Florida, which has had questionable voting practices for a long time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 17, 2012, 04:31:14 pm

How many votes you get isn't actually directly relevant to whether or not you win, either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 17, 2012, 04:41:29 pm

There was a polling firm hired in Florida which used out-of-state lists of felons to purge voter-rolls before the 2000 elections.

According to what i read they were instructed to "match" people with sort-of-similar names. e.g. "Micheal Johnson" from Florida is obviously the same as "John Michaels" a felon from Texas even if social security number or birth dates didn't match. The biggest list of names used to exclude people came from Texas.

From what i read, there was one and only one piece of demographic information which was never incorrectly applied - every person who was erroneously excluded was black.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Michael_Moore/Very_American_Coup_SWM.html

Michael Moore might be dubious to some, so here's the BBC from 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

That claims 95% of the names excluded from the felon's list were wrong. 95% wrongly blocked from voting of 173,000 excluded people, in an election only separated by a couple of 1000.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 04:47:08 pm

Urge to exterminate humanity rising...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 17, 2012, 04:47:55 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 17, 2012, 04:25:40 pm

Coincidentally, the voter registration forms in the dumpster are in the same state that the GOP company was caught doing voter registration fraud. Any connection?

Or "both side do it" but they both only happen to get caught in North Carolina?

Scratch that, i google "Rockingham County" and it came back North Carolina. But Harrisonburg is in Virginia. I'm confused now, is there "Rockingham County" in more than 1 state?

Yeah, there are three of them, one of which is in Virginia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 17, 2012, 04:51:49 pm

Romney finally releases the details on what "loopholes" he will use to fund his tax cuts.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 17, 2012, 04:54:27 pm

Was posted yesterday, still hilarious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 17, 2012, 04:59:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 04:47:08 pm

Urge to exterminate humanity rising...

Gimme a call once it reaches critical mass.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 17, 2012, 05:30:33 pm

This is why you need to download your brain into a virtual mind like the rest of us.

Then we can be machines driven to destroy humanity by incredibly justified cynicism together.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 05:33:29 pm

If you want to exterminate humanity, then by definition there is a section of humanity you wouldn't want to exterminate, because the defined contrast between the humans you want to exterminate and the ones you don't is why you want to exterminate them.


Your head may now explode.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 17, 2012, 05:38:22 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 05:33:29 pm

If you want to exterminate humanity, then by definition there is a section of humanity you wouldn't want to exterminate, because the defined contrast between the humans you want to exterminate and the ones you don't is why you want to exterminate them.


Your head may now explode.

What if you're an eldritch abomination that simply hates all of humanity?  Or, more plausibly, you really hate yourself and believe that all of humanity shares those qualities which drive your self-hatred (I think some people are actually like this)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 17, 2012, 05:43:52 pm

I suppose a delusional narcissist might believe themselves the only sane and moral person in existence, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 17, 2012, 05:45:18 pm

What about people who only want to see the world burn?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 17, 2012, 05:50:27 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 17, 2012, 05:45:18 pm

What about people who only want to see the world burn?

I'd rather see the world learn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 17, 2012, 05:52:19 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 17, 2012, 05:50:27 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 17, 2012, 05:45:18 pm

What about people who only want to see the world burn?

I'd rather see the world learn.

Learn to burn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 06:34:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 05:33:29 pm

If you want to exterminate humanity, then by definition there is a section of humanity you wouldn't want to exterminate, because the defined contrast between the humans you want to exterminate and the ones you don't is why you want to exterminate them.


Your head may now explode.

I'm past it. I will settle for everyone involved receiving a fair trial and then being shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 17, 2012, 06:35:35 pm

Hopefully only being shot if proclaimed guilty :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on October 17, 2012, 07:02:29 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 17, 2012, 06:35:35 pm

Hopefully only being shot if proclaimed guilty :P

If everyone gets shot, that's a fair and equal system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 17, 2012, 07:15:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 06:34:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 05:33:29 pm

If you want to exterminate humanity, then by definition there is a section of humanity you wouldn't want to exterminate, because the defined contrast between the humans you want to exterminate and the ones you don't is why you want to exterminate them.


Your head may now explode.

I'm past it. I will settle for everyone involved receiving a fair trial and then being shot.

You first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 07:40:32 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 17, 2012, 07:15:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 17, 2012, 06:34:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 05:33:29 pm

If you want to exterminate humanity, then by definition there is a section of humanity you wouldn't want to exterminate, because the defined contrast between the humans you want to exterminate and the ones you don't is why you want to exterminate them.


Your head may now explode.

I'm past it. I will settle for everyone involved receiving a fair trial and then being shot.

You first.

I had nothing to do with subverting democracy, justice and everything this country is supposed to represent for fun and profit. I didn't even vote for the guy. I threw my vote away on a third party candidate in Mississippi during that election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 17, 2012, 08:11:22 pm

I still haven't heard what either candidate knows or is planning to do about the threat from Nibiru. I'd love nothing more than someone to derail one of those live debates by asking a question about this pressing issue.

"PLANET X NIBIRU: IS NASA AND THE VATICAN HIDING THE TRUTH?"
http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/planet-x-nibiru-nasa-and-vatican-hiding-truth

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 17, 2012, 08:30:14 pm

Haha, I guess they've been taking Scooby Doo too seriously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 17, 2012, 08:33:42 pm

"And the world would have ended in 2012 if it wasn't for you meddling kids!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 17, 2012, 08:36:54 pm

I wanted to explain the Canadian system because there was some kind of vote-system discussion a while back and because it beats studying for Social. Quick, would you rather adopt this one?! (Also, I was hoping someone would explain all of the American system because I don't get it.)

In our (federal) system the country is split into 300-ish ridings with roughly equal population. Each riding elects an MP: most ridings have one or two independents/Greens/Rhinoceros Party. Every MP gets to sit in the House of Commons, so the independents that get elected can actually do something, although odds are low (we have one Green and a couple independents, I think I already mentioned this somewhere). Then the party with the most elected MPs gets its leader made Prime Minister (who usually also runs: one of my grandmas lives in Steven Harper's riding). The Prime Minister appoints the Senate, which is about a hundred guys who double-check all the stuff the House of Commons votes for. Everything has to be "inspected" (looked at briefly) by the Governor General, who is supposed to be channeling the intense power of the Queen but doesn't do much (even though they could if they wanted). We also have ministers who are just winning-party MPs given a fancy title and responsibilities.

The fun part is when we get a minority, because with three fairly strong parties it's possible to get a winning party with less than half the vote. Minorities can't do much, so the Conservatives unidentified winning party want an election as soon as possible to get a majority government. In a majority, the winning party can actually change policies without massive opposition hampering their every move. Recently, the NDP (the left party) started doing stuff and got ahead of the Liberals (they're like the Democrats, they're the wimpy-lefty party right now), until their leader died (was this in the American news? it was somewhat of a big deal) maybe three months in (like Ron Paul is expected to do, I guess). This messed everything up and a bunch of guys ran and eventually one of them won but nobody cares about him much. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are trying to pump a bunch of oil into old BC hippie communes so they can sell it to China, but everybody cockblocks this, which is a shame because now the giant tank full of oil in my great-grandma's back pasture won't get emptied as often. True story.

Yeah, so can someone sum up the American system in return? I get the President and the two parties, I just don't know who the governors are or what they do.

Also, even if nobody cares about this, I just wanted to write it all up because we have to study this pretty much every year and mid-terms are coming up. I'm sorry for wasting thread-space on non-American election-related material.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 17, 2012, 08:40:42 pm

A riding is 110,000 people per district, IIRC.  In the U.S., district size varies from 600,000-750,000.  Of course, the Conservatives got a majority of seats despite winning only winning 39.62% of the vote.

2011 Canadian election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: rutsber on October 17, 2012, 08:50:46 pm

Governors are basically presidents of their respective state. They sign state laws, and govern what their state does, much like the president does for the country. They have less power than the president though, because they operate on a state level as opposed to a federal level.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 17, 2012, 08:53:56 pm

Governors are the heads of the individual states. Each US state has it's own congress/senate type system, though i think that one or 2 states have a unicameral legislature (only one house).

Governors are to the states what the President is to the nation.

So in the USA there are 3 broad levels, local politics, state politics, federal politics. Each state has their own system, so you can't always generalize about how things work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 17, 2012, 09:04:10 pm

The U.S political system still acts as if we weren't a nation but a giant alliance, even though that hasn't been the case since a few years after the Revolution.

Each state (U.S) acts like a State (Nation) except sort of vassalized to the Federal government. Republicans generally want to free up the markets, tighten up freedoms at home, and give more power to the state legislatures (hence, Republican). Democrats generally want to tighten up the markets, give more freedoms at home, and put the power in the federal government.

And the green party just wants to be noticed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 17, 2012, 10:22:42 pm

And Ron Paul wants to go back to 1896 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1896).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 17, 2012, 11:01:16 pm

Goomba or anyone else out there who doesn't know and cares:

Basic explanation:

President, head of state, head of military, generally in charge of making sure laws are carried out, has veto power over any proposed law which can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of the law making portion. Elected every 4 years.

House of Representatives and Senate, together known as congress. They write and then vote on the laws and are also in charge of the budget. 435 Representatives, and 100 Senators. Representatives are distributed among the states by population. Senators are simply 2 per state. A law to be put into action has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and then signed by the President. Senators are in office for 6 years with 1/3 of them being re-elected every 2 years. Representatives are simply elected every 2 years. Vice President also presides over the Senate and in the rare case of a tied vote, becomes the tie breaker.

The judicial branch is an odd one and slightly hard to explain clearly, but basically they're in charge of making sure that laws follow the constitution, and are able to strike down laws they deem not following the constitution. In that case the only recourse is for congress and states themselves to come together with large majorities and add a new part to the constitution. This doesn't happen all that often for obvious reasons, but the constitution as it stands has 27 amendments.

States are pretty much set up like this as well(numbers can vary though). Governors replace the president on the state level. States are considered able to govern themselves in matters not already covered by the national government.

EDIT: And I'm sure someone will find fault with this. It is simplified and doesn't cover everything, and large parts of it are off the top of my head, the oldest information is from a civics class 10 years ago. In any case there you go. Still, know this information and you'll probably know more than a majority of US citizens would know.

Edit2: Ah, yeah, the Electoral college system. Consists of a vote for each member of congress, plus 3 given to the people of Washington D.C. who don't really belong to a state and would otherwise not have representation. Each state is allowed to decide how they divide up the votes. Some are winner take all, others are proportional, and a few have different methods. In theory, each vote is up to the representative, and they don't have to listen to the people at all, but in practice they follow the rules the states set out which usually involves a state wide popular vote to determine how the votes will go. Because of these odd rules you can end up with a popular vote that's split near even and still have the electoral college be a landslide for one candidate. Or in some cases the winner might not even have the popular majority. It also puts special emphasis on certain states, generally known as swing states. These states are both divided, in that they're not a sure vote for one or another party, and also worth a good number of votes. There are a few that always seem to be swing states, such as Florida, and others that vary year to year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 11:05:55 pm

As for the election itself:

Quote from: GoombaGeek on October 17, 2012, 08:36:54 pm

Yeah, so can someone sum up the American system in return?

It starts with the now-concluded primaries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95I_1rZiIs&feature=channel&list=UL) and then goes onto the upcoming electoral college (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&feature=plcp) which decides the election, which is too bad as the current system is broken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=plcp) as (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=plcp) hell. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY&feature=plcp)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 17, 2012, 11:27:48 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 17, 2012, 11:01:16 pm

Goomba or anyone else out there who doesn't know and cares:

Basic explanation:

President, head of state, head of military, generally in charge of making sure laws are carried out, has veto power over any proposed law which can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of the law making portion. Elected every 4 years.

House of Representatives and Senate, together known as congress. They write and then vote on the laws and are also in charge of the budget. 435 Representatives, and 100 Senators. Representatives are distributed among the states by population. Senators are simply 2 per state. A law to be put into action has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and then signed by the President. Senators are in office for 6 years with 1/3 of them being re-elected every 2 years. Representatives are simply elected every 2 years. Vice President also presides over the Senate and in the rare case of a tied vote, becomes the tie breaker.

The judicial branch is an odd one and slightly hard to explain clearly, but basically they're in charge of making sure that laws follow the constitution, and are able to strike down laws they deem not following the constitution. In that case the only recourse is for congress and states themselves to come together with large majorities and add a new part to the constitution. This doesn't happen all that often for obvious reasons, but the constitution as it stands has 27 amendments.

States are pretty much set up like this as well(numbers can vary though). Governors replace the president on the state level. States are considered able to govern themselves in matters not already covered by the national government.

More stuff:

President has a limit of 2 terms (8 years total), and must fulfill the following requirements:

1. At least 35 years old
2. Natural-born citizen of the United States (naturalized citizenship doesn't count, hence the big deal about Obama's birth certificate)
3. Has been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years prior to being inaugurated.

Senators, Representatives, Governors, and other officials have no term limits. Senators must be at least 30, and Representatives must be at least 25. Eligibility for being a Governor of a state is set by the state's constitution.

Should the President ever be unable to serve (due to death, unconsciousness, unfit mental state like Alzheimer's, etc), the office is passed down to the next eligible member of the line of succession, which goes as follows:

Spoiler: Line of Succession (click to show/hide)

• Vice President
• Speaker of the House
• President pro tempore of the Senate
• Secretary of State
• Secretary of the Treasury
• Secretary of Defense
• Attorney General
• Secretary of the Interior
• Secretary of Agriculture
• Secretary of Commerce
• Secretary of Labor
• Secretary of Health and Human Services
• Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
• Secretary of Transportation
• Secretary of Energy
• Secretary of Education
• Secretary of Veteran Affairs
• Secretary of Homeland Security

The official who takes over the office of President has to meet the same eligibility requirements for the Presidency, and must take the Oath of Office of the Presidency. Should any member of the line of succession be ineligible for Presidency (it happened not too long ago iirc), they are skipped.

For large public events where the President and a large number of the line of succession will be in the same place at the same time (like the annual State of the Union Address), the President will appoint a designated survivor out of the line, whose identity will not be disclosed until after the event, and who will be on Air Force One, flying above an unspecified location. If some event (like a terrorist attack or natural disaster) were to hit the event venue and kill/incapacitate the President and members of the line of succession present, the designated survivor will be able to take the Oath of Office and assume the Presidency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 18, 2012, 12:20:35 am

By the time the nation is led by the secretary of agriculture things have gotten pretty bad.

Like, getting-annexed-by-uganda bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 18, 2012, 12:24:32 am

At least HomeSec is in last place, but we're probably already on the way to fascist dictatorship if we get that far down the line.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 18, 2012, 01:02:51 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 18, 2012, 12:24:32 am

At least HomeSec is in last place, but we're probably already on the way to fascist dictatorship if we get that far down the line.

Home... Secretary? *unspoilers text*

Oh, Homeland Security. Right. Because we don't have a Home Secretary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_secretary).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 18, 2012, 01:07:43 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 18, 2012, 12:24:32 am

At least HomeSec is in last place, but we're probably already on the way to fascist dictatorship if we get that far down the line.

When HomeSec was first created in 2002, there were people wanting it to be #6.

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 18, 2012, 12:20:35 am

By the time the nation is led by the secretary of agriculture things have gotten pretty bad.

Like, getting-annexed-by-uganda bad.

If we get down to any of the Cabinet members, then something has gone seriously wrong. The President, Veep, Speaker, and President pro tempore all being incapacitated would mean that there is a serious, organized threat against the country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 01:09:05 am

Quote from: Mego on October 18, 2012, 01:07:43 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 18, 2012, 12:20:35 am

By the time the nation is led by the secretary of agriculture things have gotten pretty bad.

Like, getting-annexed-by-uganda bad.

If we get down to any of the Cabinet members, then something has gone seriously wrong. The President, Veep, Speaker, and President pro tempore all being incapacitated would mean that there is a serious, organized threat against the country.

By that time, we need Batman, not some cabinet member, to save our asses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 18, 2012, 01:10:18 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 01:09:05 am

Quote from: Mego on October 18, 2012, 01:07:43 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 18, 2012, 12:20:35 am

By the time the nation is led by the secretary of agriculture things have gotten pretty bad.

Like, getting-annexed-by-uganda bad.

If we get down to any of the Cabinet members, then something has gone seriously wrong. The President, Veep, Speaker, and President pro tempore all being incapacitated would mean that there is a serious, organized threat against the country.

By that time, we need Batman, not some cabinet member, to save our asses.

What if Batman is a Cabinet member?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 01:12:48 am

Then I'd be asking why he's not the President instead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 18, 2012, 01:13:15 am

What if he is the reason that all the senior staff have are out of action? :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 18, 2012, 01:22:09 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 17, 2012, 11:05:55 pm

which is too bad as the current system is broken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=plcp) as (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=plcp) hell. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY&feature=plcp)

More or less broken than the fact that Americans on american ground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territories_of_the_United_States) cannot vote?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 01:43:33 am

What would happen if the President died and the Veep took over, do they inaugurate another Veep or not? Or would America be Veepless until the next election?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 18, 2012, 01:47:16 am

I believe they appoint another VP, the same going for any other positions down the line if we're going multiple steps down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on October 18, 2012, 02:19:47 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 18, 2012, 01:13:15 am

What if he is the reason that all the senior staff have are out of action? :/

Romney won the election in that case.

Batman and the guy from the Alpha Protocol game teamed up to dangle cabinet members upside down from the tallest skyscrapers to combat election shenanigans.

Seriously though, why not make voting digital with a whole bunch of funding and security? That would make it easy to have a popular vote and with enough data backups and data 'traps' that could duplicate and send instances to 3rd parties you'd be able to store fraud indefinitely.

As long as the system was viewably open source, but not meddlingly so it would be obvious if fraud was committed as long as people who can't be bothered would trust those darn intellectuals who would actually be checking the code to make sure it's legit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: BlueMagic on October 18, 2012, 02:28:04 am

Slightly OT, but someone on Tumblr pointed out that Romney and Obama look like they're singing during the debates
(http://cmsimg.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BK&Date=20121017&Category=NEWS03&ArtNo=121017016&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Obama-Romney-push-women-votes)
I'd watch "Presidential Debates" the musical

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 02:46:35 am

(http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n502/reelyanoob/bilde.jpg)
Haha, that was the first thing that came to mind, i don't normally caption anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 18, 2012, 02:48:52 am

Somebody posted a link to a songified version of the first debate already.  If I wasn't at work, I'd go dig it up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 18, 2012, 03:00:23 am

Man, I dunno. I've got like ten bucks of spendable money to my name. I'd pay that much to see those two do a musical number together. You know that pair could get a mad rage-on burning for each other and channel that into awesome broadway level shenanigans. Or at least fake it well enough no one could tell the difference.

It might go a long way into breaking down the partisan loggerheads, too.

...

Of course, now I can't get the thought out of my head that whichever of them wins... just after the inauguration, they're going to divorce their spouses and spontaneously elope. Right after the acceptance speech. Like, right on camera and everything. I can see it, in my mind. The declaration of living a lie. The embrace. The tearful explication, of how the stress and constant pressure from their parties led them to find solace... in each other's arms. It'd be like romeo and juliet in the new millennium. With the original message that love makes you batshit insane and everything. I'unno. Three AM. Sleepy, I think.

I can't help but wonder, somewhere in my head. Would that scenario cause an impeachment hearing? On what grounds?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Gantolandon on October 18, 2012, 03:34:10 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 18, 2012, 12:20:35 am

By the time the nation is led by the secretary of agriculture things have gotten pretty bad.

Like, getting-annexed-by-uganda bad.

Or your planet has been nuked by murderous robots.

Oh, wait, that's with the Secretary of Education.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 18, 2012, 07:34:14 am

I personally prefer it when Jim Lehrer steals the spotlight.

Eye of the Sparrow (http://badlipreading.tumblr.com/post/33260057088)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 08:07:08 am

Quote from: Duuvian on October 18, 2012, 02:19:47 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 18, 2012, 01:13:15 am

What if he is the reason that all the senior staff have are out of action? :/

Romney won the election in that case.

Batman and the guy from the Alpha Protocol game teamed up to dangle cabinet members upside down from the tallest skyscrapers to combat election shenanigans.

Seriously though, why not make voting digital with a whole bunch of funding and security? That would make it easy to have a popular vote and with enough data backups and data 'traps' that could duplicate and send instances to 3rd parties you'd be able to store fraud indefinitely.

As long as the system was viewably open source, but not meddlingly so it would be obvious if fraud was committed as long as people who can't be bothered would trust those darn intellectuals who would actually be checking the code to make sure it's legit.

Why not go digital? fraud. A digital voting system that is difficult to corrupt with duplicate, forged or discarded ballots will have strong traceability back to the specific voter. And that system is easy to corrupt with direct bribes, intimidation and outright violence directed at people who vote a specific way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GoombaGeek on October 18, 2012, 08:20:31 am

Our massive armies will take America for themselves, and force them to grow all our food under the President of Agriculture while we go turn Toronto into a fusion bomb or something. Then we'll convert it to a communist welfare state just like we are now, bwahaha.

I forgot to mention the provincial system, too! It's pretty much the same, except the divisions are smaller and in different places, and there are separate provincial parties (Alberta Liberals aren't fully affiliated with the real Liberals I think). The most popular party gets their leader to be Premier, who don't do much on a federal level but are mostly in charge of the province (a pipeline from here to BC was opposed by the BC premier so Alberta couldn't do anything). Fun fact: The PCs [Progressive Conservative, the result of lots of mergers] could get away with anything in Alberta until they got outdone by a Republican-level right-wing party [Wildrose] (but they couldn't start openly hating the gayz because people care about that, one racist candidate got kicked out of the party) - once the Minister of the Environment flipped off a protestor, on camera... then he got chosen as party leader a few years later.

Spoiler: True fact (click to show/hide)

(http://www.cbc.ca/alberta/features/tories40/images/1990-KleinPhotoFinger-400.jpg)

The other seats do the same thing as in the House of Commons, they argue about bills a lot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 08:33:55 am

Quote from: Mego on October 18, 2012, 01:07:43 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 18, 2012, 12:24:32 am

At least HomeSec is in last place, but we're probably already on the way to fascist dictatorship if we get that far down the line.

When HomeSec was first created in 2002, there were people wanting it to be #6.

There's a very good reason for that: you don't want the guy (or gal, in this case) whose job it is to thwart terrorist plots to go "Hmm.....plot to bomb the Capitol during the State of the Union....that would take out the five people above me. Maaaaaybe we'll just file that one under 'Do Later'."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 18, 2012, 08:58:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 08:33:55 am

Quote from: Mego on October 18, 2012, 01:07:43 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 18, 2012, 12:24:32 am

At least HomeSec is in last place, but we're probably already on the way to fascist dictatorship if we get that far down the line.

When HomeSec was first created in 2002, there were people wanting it to be #6.

There's a very good reason for that: you don't want the guy (or gal, in this case) whose job it is to thwart terrorist plots to go "Hmm.....plot to bomb the Capitol during the State of the Union....that would take out the five people above me. Maaaaaybe we'll just file that one under 'Do Later'."

Oh, believe me you, I agree that #18 is the right spot for HomeSec. I was just pointing out that some people didn't think it through.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 09:18:50 am

Quote from: Mego on October 18, 2012, 08:58:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 08:33:55 am

Quote from: Mego on October 18, 2012, 01:07:43 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 18, 2012, 12:24:32 am

At least HomeSec is in last place, but we're probably already on the way to fascist dictatorship if we get that far down the line.

When HomeSec was first created in 2002, there were people wanting it to be #6.

There's a very good reason for that: you don't want the guy (or gal, in this case) whose job it is to thwart terrorist plots to go "Hmm.....plot to bomb the Capitol during the State of the Union....that would take out the five people above me. Maaaaaybe we'll just file that one under 'Do Later'."

Oh, believe me you, I agree that #18 is the right spot for HomeSec. I was just pointing out that some people didn't think it through.

Or maybe they were thinking it through.


edit: content! http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/18/163106924/a-tax-plan-that-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

The plan? eliminate the exemptions most used by the middle class and eliminate the corporate income tax. Sounds... kinda crappy without regulatory compliance to keep people from sheltering their income in corporate tax shelters. A billionaire could have 0 personal income, collect welfare and live in the mansion his personal corporation bought and fly about in the jet his personal corporation keeps.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 18, 2012, 11:03:34 am

Well, they seems to want to make benefits taxable, so he'd have to pay taxes on the value of rent for that house and jets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 11:04:48 am

We really need an overhaul of the entire concept of "corporation". If Hitler were around today, he wouldn't form the Nazi Party, he'd form "NaziCorp GmbH: A World Leader In Jew-Liquidation Solutions". Instead of "I was just following orders", you'd have...well, pretty much the same thing.

(Yeah, I Godwin'd.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Levi on October 18, 2012, 11:08:45 am

We just need more co-ops!  Co-ops are the ultimate form of corporation in my mind.  :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 18, 2012, 11:18:20 am

Another thing I cannot understand in your tax code is that so many small business are actually not corporations, but taxed on the personnal income tax rate, which is franky dumb.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 18, 2012, 11:23:12 am

The USA has a long, long tradition of shitting on small companies because the big companies are worried they might become competition.

Hell, a good half of our licensing and regulation structure is geared entirely towards imposing arbitrary obstacles on those wishing to start a business, so that only the already-wealthy have much of a chance of success.

Any politician that tells you they are looking out for 'small business' is full of shit, basically.

(Of course, like women in the suffrage movement, small business owners that have managed to actually make it in the current system are the most adamantly opposed to ever changed, lest they lose all they worked for. But eh.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 11:24:31 am

Quote from: Sheb on October 18, 2012, 11:18:20 am

Another thing I cannot understand in your tax code is that so many small business are actually not corporations, but taxed on the personnal income tax rate, which is franky dumb.

Part of the reason for that is that many small businesses are run by people who are not accountants or lawyers, and they have not consulted with an accountant or lawyer on running their business.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 11:53:06 am

Yeah, getting incorporated takes a not-inconsiderable amount of time and paperwork. Now, there are lawyers who can do it relatively quick and painlessly but it's also not that cheap. So most home businesses make the determination that it's simply not worth the time and expense to bother with. It's really only when you get up to a certain income threshold that it makes rational sense to do it.

And in more than a few cases, people have home businesses so more for personal reasons than making a profit, and are encouraged in this by the fact that you can take deduct your business losses on your personal tax for the first two years.

Know a guy that was "a computer wholesaler" so he could get wholesale prices on PC hardware. Occasionally resold stuff to friends. Claimed the losses for two years, then "closed up shop". It's not that uncommon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 02:37:02 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/house-tea-party-icons-face-election-challenges-162113257--election.html

several of the key members of the Tea Party are facing very stiff competition and may  be ousted this time around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 18, 2012, 04:00:17 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 02:37:02 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/house-tea-party-icons-face-election-challenges-162113257--election.html

several of the key members of the Tea Party are facing very stiff competition and may  be ousted this time around.

If by several, you mean "three". Of which, only one (Joe Walsh) has a good chance of losing. King and West are in tougher races but by no means facing imminent demise. Bachmann is pretty much safe, thanks to the influx of crazy money.

Still, *any* less Tea Partiers is a good thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: vadia on October 18, 2012, 06:00:15 pm

If he meant defeated, rather than ousted it does increase the number.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 18, 2012, 06:28:07 pm

Radio ads for the republican incumbent started airing today (or at least started airing on the radio we listen to at my job.)  I find this very curious because the democrat in the race withdrew due to scandal and it was already a safe republican seat.  So it's a safe seat without opposition and he's pissing money away on ads... why exactly?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 18, 2012, 06:29:43 pm

Sounds to me like he has to spend the money for regulatory purposes. I don't believe you're allowed to keep any excess.

You can get rid of the money by hiring your buddies as consultants etc, but they do need some plausible cover too, for that, like using some of the money for ads.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 18, 2012, 06:52:15 pm

What district are you in? I smell the American Way^TM in the offing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 18, 2012, 06:54:47 pm

Mainiac, from the sounds of it, is in MD-1 (Maryland's Eastern Shore), the only district Republicans will hold after this year.  Democrats controlled redistricting, so designed a map to try to ensure a 7-1 Democratic majority.  A really weak map, IMO, it was possible to make an 8-0 map if the Dems hadn't been so keen on not ruffling their incumbent's feathers.  Also, 2 districts have to obey the Voting Rights Act, which is why the map is so damn ugly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 18, 2012, 07:00:17 pm

There's apparently a libertarian candidate there? http://www.uselections.com/md/md.htm
That also says there's a Tea Party write-in candidate, but eh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on October 18, 2012, 07:12:22 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on October 17, 2012, 03:04:40 pm

Meanwhile... voter registrations being dumped in dumpsters:  http://www.nbc29.com/story/19836183/investigation-launched-over-trashed-voter-registration-forms

Also, from http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The car that drove up was a black Toyota Camry with Pennsylvania license plates.  Who would be in the Valley from Pennsylvania and have a bunch of completed voter registration forms that they wanted to destroy?

Once this story hit Facebook, a number of people pointed out to the person who witnessed this crime that the state GOP "Victory Office" was just a couple blocks away.  Yesterday afternoon, guess what car was parked in front of the office?

Yep, a black Toyota Camry from Pennsylvania.

Police are investigating and the local media has begun reporting on this story.  The Sheriff (a Republican) has said the person who destroyed the forms was a different person than who collected them.  NBC29 also reports that the Sheriff will decide if this is a criminal case today. 
 

Update: An arrest was made
http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2012/10/arr.html
12 felony counts, weee felonies!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 07:34:54 pm

http://ivn.us/ca-election-center/2012/10/11/ivn-us-to-host-first-online-presidential-debate/

Gary Johnson VS Jill Stein debate!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 07:35:53 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on October 18, 2012, 07:12:22 pm

Update: An arrest was made
http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2012/10/arr.html
12 felony counts, weee felonies!

Man, why do they always pick the pictures that make the accused look like serial killers?

The dude's probably guilty but he hasn't actually gone to trial yet, so showing him in the worst light possible is a bit... dirty and underhanded. It bugs me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 18, 2012, 07:36:35 pm

It's a mugshot, they do that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 18, 2012, 07:42:37 pm

We associate serial killers with police mugshots, and thus we end up associating police mugshots with serial killers.  It's kindof inevitable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 18, 2012, 07:51:51 pm

eh? looks like the Johnson-Stein debate had major technical difficulties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 19, 2012, 01:51:21 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 18, 2012, 07:35:53 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on October 18, 2012, 07:12:22 pm

Update: An arrest was made
http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2012/10/arr.html
12 felony counts, weee felonies!

Man, why do they always pick the pictures that make the accused look like serial killers?

The dude's probably guilty but he hasn't actually gone to trial yet, so showing him in the worst light possible is a bit... dirty and underhanded. It bugs me.

I'm not comfortable with them showing how face and name at all before he's sentenced. I don't get why foreign media does that, over here it would be considered very unprofessional. Well, if done by the traditional news, at least. Another reason I think the new blogg-journalists is a bunch of unethical hacks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 09:05:36 am

It's all a public record already, so you could get the face and name if you wanted to even if the media didn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2012, 09:16:56 am

Well, it doesn't have to be public record. In France for exemple it's not, so there was much much outrage when DSK was paraded around after his arrestation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 19, 2012, 09:18:16 am

Quote from: Jervill on October 18, 2012, 06:54:47 pm

Mainiac, from the sounds of it, is in MD-1 (Maryland's Eastern Shore), the only district Republicans will hold after this year.  Democrats controlled redistricting, so designed a map to try to ensure a 7-1 Democratic majority.  A really weak map, IMO, it was possible to make an 8-0 map if the Dems hadn't been so keen on not ruffling their incumbent's feathers.  Also, 2 districts have to obey the Voting Rights Act, which is why the map is so damn ugly.

It's more that they didn't want to risk having their gerrymander turn into a dummymander if they have a bad election some time in the next ten years.  Also the MD-1st district is a district that could potentially be competitive without a democratic wave.  The district is divided into two very culturally distinct areas with a big old bay dividing them.  The democrats won in the past by recruiting a strong candidate from the eastern, more conservative half.  The republican incumbent is from the western shore, which is suburban not rural and less conservative.  The result is that in the past two elections democrats have done better in the more rural parts of the 1st district then republicans have.  We also have the potential of a very strong candidate in former-republican incumbant Wayne Gilchrest (who's from the eastern shore).  Gilchrest sat out this year but expressed interest in a write in candidacy after Rosen dropped out in scandal, so we might see him in 2014.  If Gilchrest did win the republicans probably wouldn't be able to find a new strong candidate so it's possible that he could hang onto the seat for a few elections in a row.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 19, 2012, 10:30:35 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 09:05:36 am

It's all a public record already, so you could get the face and name if you wanted to even if the media didn't.

So what if people can get the info if they make themselves the trouble? That's not even relevant to whether it is ethical and professional of the media to broadcastplaster it all over the walls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 11:06:22 am

Scriver, the media doesn't care about ethics or professionalism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 19, 2012, 11:11:49 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 11:06:22 am

Scriver, the media doesn't care about ethics or professionalism.

Sure they do. The media corporations have a professional and ethical obligation to the profits of their shareholders. Reporting anything other than the most salacious and sensational news would violate corporate ethics.

...

On a less cynical note, what are the ethics behind a journalist choosing to not cover a story because it negatively impacts the opinion of a public figure? That is at least as ethically questionable, if not more so than reporting the names and picture of said figure after an arrest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 19, 2012, 11:24:01 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 11:06:22 am

Scriver, the media doesn't care about ethics or professionalism.

And that is why every paper is The Sun.

Oh wait.

Quote from: Nadaka on October 19, 2012, 11:11:49 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 11:06:22 am

Scriver, the media doesn't care about ethics or professionalism.

Sure they do. The media corporations have a professional and ethical obligation to the profits of their shareholders. Reporting anything other than the most salacious and sensational news would violate corporate ethics.

...

On a less cynical note, what are the ethics behind a journalist choosing to not cover a story because it negatively impacts the opinion of a public figure? That is at least as ethically questionable, if not more so than reporting the names and picture of said figure after an arrest.

Well, of course that is both unethical and unprofessional too. But those are not opposites, there's no reason you can't both report it and leave out name/face. I will also admit that the more powerful you get, the less unethical it gets to show them (but it never stops being unethical). I was unerring the impression that the mug-and-name of the person in that article was just some employee of q hired company, though. I just glanced over the article itself, I simply reacted to when "mugshot released" was brought up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 19, 2012, 11:33:06 am

Quote

On a less cynical note, what are the ethics behind a journalist choosing to not cover a story because it negatively impacts the opinion of a public figure? That is at least as ethically questionable, if not more so than reporting the names and picture of said figure after an arrest.

IIRC, it's about whether it's in the public interest to know these things. That includes everything from celebrities to politicians. Now, for example, you'll notice the Wall Street Journal doesn't bother to run stories about Lindsey Lohan, while TMZ does nothing but run that shit.

But basically, you sign away your rights to privacy in the media's eyes when you become a "public figure", as well as the law's. Public figures as defined by the courts can't exercise a lot of right to privacy, if they willingly entered the public sphere.  It's still up to individual news organizations to decide what's germane to the public interest in your life and what's not.....but generally anything you do is fair game, especially on a slow news day. (Or in the middle of a media frenzy event, like an election.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 19, 2012, 03:05:11 pm

Regarding criminals, I personally know people who had their charges dropped because somebody recognized them on the news and was able to provide an alibi that cleared them. The general philosophy is that the greater transparency in the system, the better. Naturally, this lends itself to trial by media and other related horrors, but there's no clear right or wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 19, 2012, 05:12:46 pm

The problem isn't the media making accusations public; it's the public assuming they are true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 19, 2012, 05:14:32 pm

Quite so. Nonetheless, it's a question that does not have an easy and clear "right" answer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sneakey pete on October 19, 2012, 07:16:23 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on October 19, 2012, 05:12:46 pm

The problem isn't the media making accusations public; it's the public assuming they are true.

How is the public supposed to presume anything else if only one angle of a story is shown?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 19, 2012, 09:11:57 pm

I just got a "political" DVD in the mail...

Quote from: from the cover

Dreams from My Real☭ Father

A story of reds and deception

Directed by Joel Gilbert

At age 18, Barack Obama admittedly arrived at Occidental College a committed revolutionary Marxist. What was the source of Obama's foundation in Marxism? Throughout his 2008 Presidential campaign and term in office, questions have been raised regarding Barack Obama's family background, economic philosophy, and fundamental political ideology. Dreams from My Real Father is the alternative Barack Obama "autobiography," offering a divergent theory of what may have shaped our 44th President's life and politics?

In Dreams from My Real Father, Barack Obama is portrayed by a voiceover actor who chronicles Barack Obama's life journey in socialism, from birth through his election to the Presidency. The film begins by presenting the case that Barack Obama's real father was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA propagandist who likely shaped Obama's world view during his formative years. Barack Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural ideal, a man who stood above politics. Was the goat herding Kenyan father only a fairy tale to obscure a Marxist agenda, irreconcilable with American values?

This fascinating narrative is based in part on 2 years of research, interviews, newly unearthed footage and photos, and the writings of Davis and Obama himself. Dreams from My Real Father weaves together the proven facts with reasoned logic in an attempt to fill-in the obvious gaps in Obama's history. Is this the story Barack Obama should have told, revealing his true agenda for "fundamentally transforming America?" Director Joel Gilbert concludes, "To understand Obama's plans for America, the question is "Who is the real father?""

It is produced by: A Highway 61 Entertainment Production highway61ent.com

the postmarked address is DFMRF, LLC 365 E. Avenida de Los Arboles #1000, Thousand Oaks CA 91360

WTF?

edit:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/28/with-dreams-from-my-real-father-have-obama-haters-hit-rock-bottom.html

I have not watched it yet, but apparently it also contains faked images of his mother in a bondage/porn film...

I don't believe I have said it but...

WTF!?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 19, 2012, 09:16:44 pm

Oh gods that is absolutely hilarious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 19, 2012, 09:18:44 pm

This is so completely off the wall it might actually help Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 19, 2012, 09:22:49 pm

His mom was in a porn flick? Hell yeah I'll vote for that!

 :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 19, 2012, 09:54:04 pm

You should get those people who think his dad was an American Communist Party member in touch with the Birthers. They'd have a lot to discuss.

It's interesting that Frank Marshall Davis would have been about 55 when Obama was conceived, while Obama's mother was 19. She liked old guys apparently.

EDIT: Scratch the Communist link, Davis was "suspected" of being a Communist during the McCarthy Years. But so was about half the country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 19, 2012, 09:56:46 pm

This stuff is as depressing as it is amusing. Sure, it's ridiculous, but there are nutcases out there that actually believe it. Like Conservapedia, I laugh for 5 minutes, then start to feel down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 19, 2012, 09:59:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 19, 2012, 09:11:57 pm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/28/with-dreams-from-my-real-father-have-obama-haters-hit-rock-bottom.html

What the hell.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mego on October 19, 2012, 10:22:49 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 19, 2012, 09:56:46 pm

This stuff is as depressing as it is amusing. Sure, it's ridiculous, but there are nutcases out there that actually believe it. Like Conservapedia, I laugh for 5 minutes, then start to feel down.

I like to think that modern conservative values were created by Poe's Law going horribly wrong. One guy posts a trolololo platform of ridiculous things, and suddenly everyone thinks it's legit and starts following.

I would be more comfortable if that was true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 19, 2012, 11:54:03 pm

Anyone who needs to argue with people who believe the Dreams of My Real Father, simply point out that two of the director's other recent films are "Elvis Found Alive" and "Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison" (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3041537/)

The guy specializes in parodies of conspiracy theories. Perhaps he's punk'd half the country?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 19, 2012, 11:55:48 pm

To be fair, the Elvis one is an actual intended spoof.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 20, 2012, 12:00:56 am

"I only make spoof mokumentaries about conspiracy theories, but you should totally believe this crazy out there documentary with outlandish never before heard conspiracies about a sitting president."

Seriously, the mokumentary about the moon landing was more believable.

The more I read, the more I think he's yanking the chain. I see tea party heads asplodin' as they decide which conspiracy to believe, since this directly contradicts the Birther conspiracies. Would a loyalist to the anti-Obama cause make up a theory that so soundly destroys one of the key anti-Obama consipracies?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 20, 2012, 01:40:27 am

Quote from: Reelya on October 20, 2012, 12:00:56 am

The more I read, the more I think he's yanking the chain. I see tea party heads asplodin' as they decide which conspiracy to believe, since this directly contradicts the Birther conspiracies.

Nah. They'll just believe them both simultaneously (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-conspiracy-theoies).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Xantalos on October 20, 2012, 02:58:49 am

Here is my prediction for who will win. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc&feature=g-vrec)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 20, 2012, 03:19:21 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 20, 2012, 01:40:27 am

Quote from: Reelya on October 20, 2012, 12:00:56 am

The more I read, the more I think he's yanking the chain. I see tea party heads asplodin' as they decide which conspiracy to believe, since this directly contradicts the Birther conspiracies.

Nah. They'll just believe them both simultaneously (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-conspiracy-theoies).

There's been a lot of talk over the last few years about the nature of conspiracies, similar to that article.  The thing so many people miss on this subject that I think is really important to recognize is that so many have actually happened.  The CIA especially did so much shit that was so crazy you can bring it up in conversation now and people will still call you a conspiracy theorist, even though it's declassified public information.  It's perfectly understandable for modern people to be in a state of hypersensitivity to conspiracy-like ideas.  Now stuff like lizard people and UFOs is pure crazy.  The birther movement is just angry nitpicking.  But to be critical of something like the official 9/11 story?  Perfectly understandable to me, especially when there's clear historical precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 20, 2012, 04:34:38 am

You know, in sensible countries, people could get arrested for doing things like that.

Just adds to my belief that America's entire political system is based on legal corruption.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Snowblind on October 20, 2012, 04:52:33 am

I seriously cannot believe people are this fucking disrespectful to the president. People didn't like Bush, but this shit against Obama is something unprecedented.

ffs, if they don't have respect for the man, they should have respect for the office. They are slandering the commander-in-chief of the USA with some invented conspiracy theory bullshit that holds zero credibility. Some of this shit is bordering on straight-up sedition or treason.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on October 20, 2012, 07:49:59 am

Quote from: Snowblind on October 20, 2012, 04:52:33 am

I seriously cannot believe people are this fucking disrespectful to the president. People didn't like Bush, but this shit against Obama is something unprecedented.

ffs, if they don't have respect for the man, they should have respect for the office. They are slandering the commander-in-chief of the USA with some invented conspiracy theory bullshit that holds zero credibility. Some of this shit is bordering on straight-up sedition or treason.

One of the big things about living in a democracy is being able to rag on the guy with the top job, maybe its cultural as I am an aussie, but this 'respect for the office' thing seems like manufactured bs.  Really dont get it. 

  Sedition is patriotism.  Though im drunk atm.  seems to be happening alot on this thread these days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on October 20, 2012, 09:01:33 am

I guess this is why Chinese leaders and other authoritarian rulers care so much about controlling free speech.

Otherwise, suddenly you're the leader of the most powerful nation in the world and powerless to stop people from calling your mother a whore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 20, 2012, 10:46:13 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 20, 2012, 03:19:21 am

Perfectly understandable to me, especially when there's clear historical precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).

A rejected proposal isn't clear historical precedent for any actual conspiracy being carried out successfully by the country in question.

Even if one was carried out, it would probably still be discovered - take for example Operation Greif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif), which wasn't even successful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 20, 2012, 11:06:02 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 20, 2012, 10:46:13 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 20, 2012, 03:19:21 am

Perfectly understandable to me, especially when there's clear historical precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).

A rejected proposal isn't clear historical precedent for any actual conspiracy being carried out successfully by the country in question.

Even if one was carried out, it would probably still be discovered - take for example Operation Greif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif), which wasn't even successful.

It's kind of an important distinction that it was rejected by a single key person out of many.  It looks to me like it only needed that last signature...

And other conspiracies have been successfully carried out, such as the CIA experimenting on unaware citizens that didn't become known until decades later.  Try MKUltra or Tuskegee syphilis as just a couple examples.  Much of our conspiracy-like involvement in South America's dirty wars was denied until declassified only a few years ago, and many details still hadn't been verified until very recently thanks to Wikileaks... and many of the key political players behind all that mess were very active in Bush Jr's administration.

The point anyway is that it's ample justification for people to imagine that such a thing might be attempted again.

Edit:  Geez... I didn't know that the U.S. had taken those syphilis experiments even farther in Guatemala...  Not revealed until more than 60 years later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 20, 2012, 01:01:59 pm

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/19137

Tag Romney owns a big slice of Hart Intercivic, a company that runs voting machines in Ohio.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 20, 2012, 01:42:27 pm

Another potential voter suppression system. (http://www.samefacts.com/2012/10/race-related-isms/voter-suppression-and-dwb/)

Quote

I got a ticket on Wednesday for changing lanes without signalling. (Yes, Chicago’s coffers are in need of a refill.) Because I’m no longer a motor club member, I no longer have a bond card, the thing you can give the cop instead of your license. So she took my license, and now I’m driving on the ticket.

But here’s the thing: I want to vote early, and to do so in Chicago I’m required to show a government-issued photo i.d.–like, oh, say, my driver’s license, which I won’t have back until I complete traffic safety school and mail them $167. And even if I do that today, there’s very little chance I will receive my license back in the mail before November 6, much less in time to vote early.

As she points out, such traffic stops are far more common against minorities, the elderly and the young.

Thing is, how common is this sort of license confiscation? I've never heard of it before, and if it's only a Chicago thing then it might not be a huge problem. But if it were to become common in places with strong voter ID laws then traffic stops - already casually discriminatory - could become another tool for keeping unwanteds from the polls.

EDIT: So far only thing I've found about this license confiscation is this 2008 article (https://www.aps.us/news/Chicagoarticle/chi.html) which suggests it exists in several places but is only commonly used in Illinois.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 20, 2012, 02:03:44 pm

OR they could just spend the 25 20 dollars on getting a regular ID and use that for voting, I imagine?

Though it does take time, its thankfully much quicker than getting a driver's license, wait-wise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 20, 2012, 02:06:18 pm

Yep. You can get a state photo ID fairly easily.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 20, 2012, 02:08:40 pm

If you're prepared anyway - considering it requires originals (not copies) or 2 other forms of identification, it can still be difficult.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 20, 2012, 02:17:16 pm

True. My main issue was that they repeatedly refused to accept my birth certificate because the govt. office that printed it was low on ink.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 20, 2012, 06:57:23 pm

Oh my God, the Obama/Romney rap battle was so absolutely hilarious. What if Lincoln really did come back in an eagle's claws, lol?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 20, 2012, 08:51:37 pm

Today's election news:

Fox news is still clinging onto Libya, making strawmen all day and calling in 'experts' to spew vitriol directed at our Socialist Black Terrorist Muslim [also President, but don't worry they don't give a shit since he's a Democrat] that is completely unrelated to what actually happened.

Other channels continue to cover nothing of substance. Oh well. Guess we just need to be used to the news being this retarded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 20, 2012, 08:55:21 pm

What event in Libya? The "send forces to help overthrow Ghaddafi" part or the "pissed off crowd attacks embassy there" part? Both? Neither?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 20, 2012, 08:55:59 pm

This is why I chose to be incarnated as a Canadian liberal.

So I don't go crazy from the quite-frankly insane TV you guys have.

I mean have you seen your commercials? They're really... weird. I can't place my finger on it, but... rougher, would be what I would call them.

LONG LIVE CANADA

oh and internet news is better in general. more choice for finding less biased sites and news hubs

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 20, 2012, 08:57:46 pm

Claiming Obama is saying the attack on the consulate wasn't terrorism, blaming him directly even though it's the fucking state department's job to oversee security, claiming the president cut security when it was congressional budgets that cut embassy security funding across the world, etc. It's politicizing dead Americans, and morons are falling for it. Blaming Obama [also known as 'that black guy' to many opponents] is one of the most successful conspiracy theories I've ever seen occur in our time.



Gas prices? Obama's fault.

Energy prices increased? Don't you know, Obama has specifically targetted middle class people's energy providers to make their costs go up!

Fall down, break something? Obama's fault.

And on the flip side, if oil/gas/shale/whatthefuckever production is increasing locally, or the local unemployment level is dropping or if ANYTHING positive has occurred locally under watch of Republican legislature it's "Despite Obama's Policies" [exact phrasing that I've heard enough to believe it; almost!].

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 20, 2012, 09:12:43 pm

I guess I should have included an "all of the above" option, then :P

Title: Re: America The idea of n Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on October 21, 2012, 03:37:16 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 20, 2012, 01:01:59 pm

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/19137

Tag Romney owns a big slice of Hart Intercivic, a company that runs voting machines in Ohio.

Boy, that Romney campaign sure do use every dirty trick they can. That sure reflects poorly on whatever good and honest Republicans there may be.

Title: Re: America The idea of n Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 21, 2012, 05:31:14 am

Quote from: Duuvian on October 21, 2012, 03:37:16 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 20, 2012, 01:01:59 pm

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/19137

Tag Romney owns a big slice of Hart Intercivic, a company that runs voting machines in Ohio.

Boy, that Romney campaign sure do use every dirty trick they can. That sure reflects poorly on whatever good and honest Republicans there may be.

I'm sure they are both furious about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on October 21, 2012, 05:36:12 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 20, 2012, 01:01:59 pm

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/19137

Tag Romney owns a big slice of Hart Intercivic, a company that runs voting machines in Ohio.

That's why I'm glad we don't use voting machines here :S.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 21, 2012, 06:01:54 am

Just wondering how American voter machines stack up against the Venezuelan system.

In Venezuela, all voting machines use open source code which is publicly available, the machines store a digital record of your vote, transmit a copy of the data over a secure line, and prints a hard copies showing what you voted for, which you stick into a box, which are counted to check against the machines.

All data in each machine is encrypted, and each major political party plus the electoral commission only provides PART of the encryption key required to decode each actual machine, effectively meaning you can't add false votes to a machine without getting all the other party's keys.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11086277#post1
http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/insight-into-venezuelas-automated.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 21, 2012, 06:39:10 am

Quote from: Reelya on October 21, 2012, 06:01:54 am

Just wondering how American voter machines stack up against the Venezuelan system.

In Venezuela, all voting machines use open source code which is publicly available, the machines store a digital record of your vote, transmit a copy of the data over a secure line, and prints a hard copies showing what you voted for, which you stick into a box, which are counted to check against the machines.

All data in each machine is encrypted, and each major political party plus the electoral commission only provides PART of the encryption key required to decode each actual machine, effectively meaning you can't add false votes to a machine without getting all the other party's keys.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11086277#post1
http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/insight-into-venezuelas-automated.html

I'll just leave this here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1thcO_olHas)

This video has been floating around the internet for years.  This is the third upload I've seen of it, and I've since saved it for when it inevitably disappears again.  I imagine its repeated disappearance is the reason it's never gone very viral, because it seems like something that people would talk about more.  I don't know anything about the actual court case filmed, so I can't offer any context or credibility to it.  This is why I've never made much effort to spread it around.  Your question makes it highly relevant.

Ah... apparently the guy in the video is Clint Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Curtis).  More digging can be done from here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 21, 2012, 11:25:16 am

Quote from: Reelya on October 21, 2012, 06:01:54 am

In Venezuela, all voting machines use open source code which is publicly available, the machines store a digital record of your vote, transmit a copy of the data over a secure line, and prints a hard copies showing what you voted for, which you stick into a box, which are counted to check against the machines.

As far as I know Voting Machines in the US are closed-source and come from a variety of companies (each State is responsible for counting their own votes). Not all of them have paper receipts, and some of them are fairly trivial to tamper with. I know Princeton University in particular has a few reports and videos floating around showing them doing just that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 21, 2012, 01:35:20 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 21, 2012, 06:39:10 am

I'll just leave this here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1thcO_olHas)

If companies have full ownership of the machines, I'm going to believe this is far more widespread than it looks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 21, 2012, 02:05:48 pm

There is also Diebold.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics-in-the-digital-age.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 21, 2012, 05:59:52 pm

Interesting blog post about the deficit: http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/10/17/not-one-debate-question-last-night-touched-on-the-deficit/

tl;dr version:  Politicians constantly bring up the deficit.  But when normal voters chose topics for the town hall debate not a single one of them asked about the deficit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 22, 2012, 09:12:49 am

Donald Trump promises to drop a bombshell on Wednesday, something "very, very big concerning the President of the United States" (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-announcement-obama-133419054--election.html).

Go ahead and make your wagers, folks. Complete the sentence:

Barack Obama is....


I'll start the bidding with  "...one of the lizard people!"  :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 22, 2012, 09:14:22 am

"...sleeping with Bill Clinton."

Don't act like it couldn't happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 22, 2012, 09:22:17 am

I'm going to go with...

"... is a Nazi taking orders from Hilter's brain."

That seems on-par with something that Donald Trump would say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 22, 2012, 09:24:50 am

... is the communazi love child of Hitler and Stalin created by the satanic power of evolution science to further the global warming conspiracy against beachfront hotel development.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 22, 2012, 09:30:35 am

"...the guy who brutally murdered my credibility by releasing his birth certificate."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 22, 2012, 09:33:59 am

"...is still, really, honest to god, NOT a US citizen!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on October 22, 2012, 09:38:16 am

...three German lawyers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 22, 2012, 09:39:22 am

... a robot. Made In Kenya, of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on October 22, 2012, 09:40:56 am

...Osama Bin Laden wearing blackface. Think about it; just like Superman and Clark Kent, no one has seen them in the same room! :O

Mr. President, prove to us you aren't him! Release a photo of yourself in the same room as Osama Bin Laden if you aren't him!


Alternatively:
...a remote-controlled minion of my toupee!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 22, 2012, 09:45:47 am

"... three ducks in a man suit."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on October 22, 2012, 09:48:29 am

Then again, based on the wording, it could all be an elaborate setup for a dick joke.

Quote

"I have something very, very big concerning the president of the United States," Trump told "Fox & Friends" on Monday during a phone interview. "I will be announcing it sometime probably Wednesday and it's going to be very big."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 22, 2012, 09:51:59 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on October 22, 2012, 09:45:47 am

"... three ducks in a man suit."

But not Hewie, Dewie and Louie.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 09:57:07 am

Not black.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 22, 2012, 09:58:57 am

Well duh, I don't think anybody means it literally.

Actually, I guess some people (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConspiracyTheorist) actually do (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CthulhuMythos).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 22, 2012, 10:01:46 am

At this point I think the most damning thing he could say about Obama is: "I know that I have had suspicions in the past, but having produced his birth certificate, I am willing to fully endorse Obama as the next president"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 22, 2012, 10:05:04 am

I wish Trump would just die already and stop attention whoring himself via any means possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 22, 2012, 10:46:44 am

Quote

... black.

Anyyeee way....

I wanted to ask a quick question on behalf of Romeny here for a minute...

Let me preface this by saying that I hope Romney is eaten by sharks, and secondly that I think public broadcasting is essential. However, given that Romney has stated he will cut funding for NPR and PBS, can NPR be neutral in its broadcasting? And _is_ it being neutral?

Just this morning, there was a segment on the death of George McGovern, focusing on the tragedy of his loss to Nixon, and how he inspired a generation of liberal activists. Last week there was a retrospective on the death of Bin Laden. I'm not saying NPR would be in the wrong for broadcasting entirely factual things that happen to benefit the president... which is certainly better than total fabrication for groups like Fox. Still, I don't like the idea of a publicly-funded organization intentionally (or even subconsciously) influencing politics.

Unless there's something fundamentally wrong about a candidate, I don't think NPR should mention it. I want to hear about a Psychopath running (red or blue), but if he feeds orphaned baby seals in his spare time, that's his campaign's responsibility to discuss.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 22, 2012, 11:12:58 am

Well they can't ignore the campaign in it's entirety, but Romney kind of brought it on himself when telling america he'd be cutting PBS.

Why did he do that, again? Are there people who hate PBS? Are there people who think PBS isn't already chock full of some of the cheapest TVshows out there? I swear they still use greenscreen tech from the mid-seventies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 11:15:24 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 22, 2012, 11:12:58 am

Are there people who hate PBS?

Yes, sadly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 22, 2012, 11:16:48 am

Quote

Why did he do that, again? Are there people who hate PBS?

The idea of a publicly funded news organization that doesn't reflect conservative beliefs and positions strikes them as a waste of tax payer money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 22, 2012, 11:16:57 am

Because you're only a good conservative if you want to destroy small and effective government programs and give their relative pennies national defense, which can never be cut for any reason.

NASA, PBS, and NPR all have to go or we let the terrorists win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 22, 2012, 11:21:24 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 22, 2012, 11:16:57 am

Because you're only a good conservative if you want to destroy small and effective government programs and give their relative pennies national defense, which can never be cut for any reason.

NASA, PBS, and NPR all have to go or we let the terrorists win.

The Americans calling their vast amounts of militaria "defence" is like buying a heavy machine gun for your house, a tank and an apache helicopter and explaining you need them for self defence.

Defence is a bit of an ugly newspeak word nowadays. At least in Kitchener's time they had the balls to call men like him "Secretary of State for War", not the evasive "Secretary of State for Defence".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 11:22:50 am

Used to be called the department of war until the 20th century.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 22, 2012, 11:24:23 am

Quote from: Owlbread on October 22, 2012, 11:21:24 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 22, 2012, 11:16:57 am

Because you're only a good conservative if you want to destroy small and effective government programs and give their relative pennies national defense, which can never be cut for any reason.

NASA, PBS, and NPR all have to go or we let the terrorists win.

The Americans calling their vast amounts of militaria "defence" is like buying a heavy machine gun for your house, a tank and an apache helicopter and explaining you need them for self defence.

Well, a lot of people do. (Or at least they do with the machine gun part.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 22, 2012, 11:30:59 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 22, 2012, 10:46:44 am

Let me preface this by saying that I hope Romney is eaten by sharks, and secondly that I think public broadcasting is essential. However, given that Romney has stated he will cut funding for NPR and PBS, can NPR be neutral in its broadcasting? And _is_ it being neutral?

I wouldn't say they have a liberal bias, but I think it's pretty clear that most organizations have a self-preservation bias and I find it hard to find fault with that.

I've honestly listened for a long while, and with the exception of the stupid woman who talks sometimes during the day and makes me want to punch her face every time something stupid comes out of her mouth (which is more than half the time) and the local programming (which sometimes takes on a partisan slant, usually liberal but occasionally conservative) I've found them to be truly and remarkably neutral, especially considering how easy it would be for them to act partisan - the conservatives already think they are and make no bones about wanting to destroy them, so I doubt they'd be losing much if they did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 22, 2012, 12:02:38 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 11:22:50 am

Used to be called the department of war until the 20th century.

1947, to be specific. And interestingly enough, the Navy had its own department seperate from the War Department (up until 1949, when Army, Navy and the newly-created Air Force were all rolled into DoD).

The switchover to "Defense" was primarily a propaganda thing to blunt Soviet claims that the US was an aggressive imperialist capitalist pigdog.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 22, 2012, 12:11:27 pm

The Soviets are right though....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 22, 2012, 12:12:12 pm

Quote from: Zangi on October 22, 2012, 12:11:27 pm

The Soviets are right though....

Pot meet Kettle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 22, 2012, 12:50:14 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 22, 2012, 09:58:57 am

Well duh, I don't think anybody means it literally.

Actually, I guess some people (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConspiracyTheorist) actually do (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CthulhuMythos).

Why would you do that? Last time I went there a whole weekend disappeared!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Chaoswizkid on October 22, 2012, 01:13:18 pm

So, anyone talking about the UN monitoring US voting? According to this super liberal website (just to give people fair warning I understand that it's a biased source), conservatives have their feathers all rustled up about it. (http://www.politicususa.com/vote-monitors-draw-outrage-gops-voter-suppression-groups.html) Here's the other side of the coin. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13304-concerned-about-conservatives-un-affiliate-to-monitor-us-election)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 22, 2012, 01:48:10 pm

romneymakes.com (http://romneymakes.com/)

Perspective is always useful, if depressing at times. 

"In the time it takes me to drive to work, Mitt Romney makes $2,601.74"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 22, 2012, 01:53:23 pm

Quote from: Chaoswizkid on October 22, 2012, 01:13:18 pm

So, anyone talking about the UN monitoring US voting? According to this super liberal website (just to give people fair warning I understand that it's a biased source), conservatives have their feathers all rustled up about it. (http://www.politicususa.com/vote-monitors-draw-outrage-gops-voter-suppression-groups.html) Here's the other side of the coin. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13304-concerned-about-conservatives-un-affiliate-to-monitor-us-election)

Well, just on the quality of writing I'd have to give it to the conservatives. Seriously....liberals like that are what give liberals a bad name.

I can see the issue from both sides. Conservatives feel that badgering someone to provide ID (if that's the law their state/locality passed) is aggressively defending the integrity of the process. Others might feel that it's just plain aggressive and intended to deter voters. Frankly, if I'm accosted for an ID by anyone other than an official poll worker, I'll pull out my DoJ badge...right before I punch the fucker in the eye with it.


Been reading Nate Silver's writeups....still looking like 2-in-3 odds for Obama, 1-in-3 for Romney. Entire thing might boil down to Ohio yet again. Colorado and Virginia are looking to be extremely tight, Florida and NC looking like increasingly safe bets for Team Romney. If Obama wins Ohio and Wisconsin, he can pretty much lose all the other battleground states left and still pull it out.

Nate's currently projecting about a 10% chance for a recount in a deciding state (hello, hanging chads!), and a 5% chance that we get a reverse of 2000: Romney wins popular vote but loses the Electoral College. That would be some thick, juicy schadenfreude right there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 22, 2012, 03:13:05 pm

What would happen if we killed the Electoral college and made it work by popular vote? It wouldn't just be a matter of the very rare 2000-style election being switched...campaigning tactics would change entirely. But how?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 22, 2012, 03:16:20 pm

Well for one I'd actually be voting democrat rather than green.

And campaigns wouldn't be limited to pretty much just swing states anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 22, 2012, 03:23:59 pm

Under the electoral college a candidate has to focus upon getting over half the votes in a state and none more. This means that, for example, Obama is free to completely ignore states like California because he's getting 100% of their electoral votes no matter what happens.

Without the electoral college, candidates are free to forget the states because they have to focus on getting people's votes, not state's votes. Obama might campaign heavily in California because it has a massive population that, while liberal dominant, has plenty of people who could still be swayed to his side or just plain convinced to vote in the first place.

Indeed, you'd probably see an increase in voter turnout because everyone's votes really do count towards winning or losing, which means that you can't sit back and relax no matter where in the nation you are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 22, 2012, 03:26:08 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 22, 2012, 10:46:44 am

Quote

... black.

Anyyeee way....

I wanted to ask a quick question on behalf of Romeny here for a minute...

Let me preface this by saying that I hope Romney is eaten by sharks, and secondly that I think public broadcasting is essential. However, given that Romney has stated he will cut funding for NPR and PBS, can NPR be neutral in its broadcasting? And _is_ it being neutral?

Just this morning, there was a segment on the death of George McGovern, focusing on the tragedy of his loss to Nixon, and how he inspired a generation of liberal activists. Last week there was a retrospective on the death of Bin Laden. I'm not saying NPR would be in the wrong for broadcasting entirely factual things that happen to benefit the president... which is certainly better than total fabrication for groups like Fox. Still, I don't like the idea of a publicly-funded organization intentionally (or even subconsciously) influencing politics.

Unless there's something fundamentally wrong about a candidate, I don't think NPR should mention it. I want to hear about a Psychopath running (red or blue), but if he feeds orphaned baby seals in his spare time, that's his campaign's responsibility to discuss.

NPR can afford to be balanced. The pittance that public broadcasting gets from the government isn't a major part of their funding the way it is in Europe. The vast majority of the cash comes from not-for-profit corporations, begathons, and the occasional corporate sponsorship for programs that sponsorships are appropriate for (for example, Ebay sponsors Antiques Roadshow, while GMC sponsors This Old House). Not certain on the details of the radio form, but it's been estimated that each US citizen pays $5 in taxes for public broadcasting.

Public broadcasting doesn't sound like a real phrase anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 22, 2012, 03:35:34 pm

Just think how much shit Republicans want that the $5/annum could go toward! School vouchers, 10 Commandment monuments, or a whole $5 back in American's pockets!

/obligatory sarcasm tags

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 22, 2012, 03:37:28 pm

Think, America. 5$ of your money being used to socialistize your children with Communist Eco-Street programming. Romney 2012.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 22, 2012, 03:40:04 pm

Remember, that's an average of $5 back to each American, NOT the average American getting $5 back.

Big, big difference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 22, 2012, 03:42:19 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 22, 2012, 01:53:23 pm

Quote from: Chaoswizkid on October 22, 2012, 01:13:18 pm

So, anyone talking about the UN monitoring US voting? According to this super liberal website (just to give people fair warning I understand that it's a biased source), conservatives have their feathers all rustled up about it. (http://www.politicususa.com/vote-monitors-draw-outrage-gops-voter-suppression-groups.html) Here's the other side of the coin. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13304-concerned-about-conservatives-un-affiliate-to-monitor-us-election)

Well, just on the quality of writing I'd have to give it to the conservatives. Seriously....liberals like that are what give liberals a bad name.

I can see the issue from both sides. Conservatives feel that badgering someone to provide ID (if that's the law their state/locality passed) is aggressively defending the integrity of the process. Others might feel that it's just plain aggressive and intended to deter voters. Frankly, if I'm accosted for an ID by anyone other than an official poll worker, I'll pull out my DoJ badge...right before I punch the fucker in the eye with it.

Only if you do it while shouting "I AM THE LAW!".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 22, 2012, 04:03:29 pm

You can't handle the truth!

And please tell me we aren't seeing a Romney surge based on pure, unadulterated, bullshit?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 22, 2012, 04:03:56 pm

No worries there, my lips are sealed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 22, 2012, 04:14:49 pm

I keep seeing ads on youtube asking "Florida citizens, look back and ask, 'has my life gotten better in the last four years?'"

I can honestly answer yes. Thank you, republican party, I will be voting democrat this year because of your nonsense ploy to nogstalgia. Which I am not victim to, like 47% of people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 22, 2012, 04:20:07 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 22, 2012, 04:03:29 pm

You can't handle the truth!

And please tell me we aren't seeing a Romney surge based on pure, unadulterated, bullshit?

Is there any other kind? There's not really a surge. What you're seeing is primarily stoichastic noise and media outlets making a big story out of the outlier polls. For instance new Gallup poll shows Romney with a 4-point lead in national polling. But the aggregate average is somewhere between a tie and a tiny lead for Obama, depending on how you weight the polls.

And as we were just discussing, national polls are mostly irrelevant to the final victory, as it comes down to state-level polling to determine who wins where and gets what electoral votes. In that regard, things have tightened up considerably as Virginia is leaning red, NC and Florida are leaning rather heavily red, and Colorado is just a tiny bit blue. But the important ones for Obama at this point are Wisconsin and Michigan (which look fairly safely blue) and Ohio (which is looking about a 60-70% chance to win for Obama). If he takes those three and all the other states which are "safe" blue, he can actually lose all the rest of the battleground states and still win (by 271-269, IIRC). He's somewhat likely to take Iowa, which would add 6 points, and as said, Colorado is still leaning slightly blue.

Most of the fretting about an "October surprise" can be stowed away at this point. By this stage of the race, 95%+ of the electorate is pretty much decided. The remaining "undecideds" are either so low-information that any breaking scandal/story would be unlikely to filter to them anyway and their vote will come down to something like whose hair they like better; or, they're really decided and just trying to be hipsters pretending that they don't prejudge the candidates until some mystical point of conversion in the ballot box.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 22, 2012, 04:30:59 pm

Quote from: greatorder on October 22, 2012, 04:28:33 pm

somewhat related to this thread.

whilst I was getting a drink, I thought 'I wonder what would happen if Obama or Romney decided to post on these forums, trying to make us vote for them...'

I am pretty sure that they would be horrified.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 22, 2012, 04:33:19 pm

"They want to do what with those socks?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 22, 2012, 04:38:48 pm

I love living in a country where the people with the most power to decide an election are those who are the least informed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Drunken on October 22, 2012, 06:50:11 pm

I know this has been brought up before but seriously (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth%2C_2007.jpg)[wikipedia]

Neither of your candidates are going to sort this out but romney will surely make it worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 22, 2012, 06:57:22 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 22, 2012, 04:38:48 pm

I love living in a country where the people with the most power to decide an election are those who are the least informed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 07:38:21 pm

Quote from: scriver on October 22, 2012, 06:57:22 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 22, 2012, 04:38:48 pm

I love living in a country where the people with the most power to decide an election are those who are the least informed.

This is true in the same sense that the score in the first 8 innings of a baseball game doesn't matter.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 22, 2012, 08:00:22 pm

Think of how each candidate would be as a fortress overseer; and how you would feel as a dwarf in that fortress...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 22, 2012, 08:07:48 pm

"we can't kill our way out of this situation" -Romney

Sobering rationalism on the red candidate's part.  The imperialists of yore would have disagreed!  What a time we live in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 22, 2012, 08:11:16 pm

Quote from: Seamas on October 22, 2012, 08:07:48 pm

"we can't kill our way out of this situation" -Romney

Sobering rationalism on the red candidate's part.  The imperialists of yore would have disagreed!  What a time we live in.

Let alone more than a few members of his current party.

Man is that guy rambling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 08:14:19 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on October 22, 2012, 08:00:22 pm

Think of how each candidate would be as a fortress overseer; and how you would feel as a dwarf in that fortress...

Magma ho!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 22, 2012, 08:19:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 07:38:21 pm

Quote from: scriver on October 22, 2012, 06:57:22 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 22, 2012, 04:38:48 pm

I love living in a country where the people with the most power to decide an election are those who are the least informed.

This is true in the same sense that the score in the first 8 innings of a baseball game doesn't matter.

There was supposed to be a "please explain?" in my post there that for some reason didn't add itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 22, 2012, 08:22:27 pm

I feel like Obama's really on the ball tonight, with his responses and cadence of speaking.  Romney seems like he's on damage control mode. 

Also, Romney's flag pin is bigger, so he must be the more patriotic one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 22, 2012, 08:25:57 pm

So we now know Romney's forign policy plan... Pick Obama as his Forign advisor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 08:31:05 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on October 22, 2012, 08:25:57 pm

So we now know Romney's forign policy plan... Pick Obama as his Forign advisor.

+1

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 08:54:00 pm

Romney is doing the apology tour angle.  Strikes me as a move of desperation.  He has been trying in the first two debates to sound moderate and sensible.  The apology tour language is a strong move towards the extreme.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 22, 2012, 08:54:48 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on October 22, 2012, 08:25:57 pm

So we now know Romney's forign policy plan... Pick Obama as his Forign advisor.

And do a lot of chest thumping.

I was pondering how my conservative acquaintances will read these arguments, and I think it can genuinely be said that there is a nearly-all encompassing divide in politics.  It is a divide between people who think running the most powerful country in the world is easy, and people who understand it is hard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 22, 2012, 08:57:43 pm

Oof.  Sharp retort by Romney.  Looks like this is becoming personal now...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 22, 2012, 09:12:11 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 22, 2012, 08:54:48 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on October 22, 2012, 08:25:57 pm

So we now know Romney's forign policy plan... Pick Obama as his Forign advisor.

And do a lot of chest thumping.

I was pondering how my conservative acquaintances will read these arguments, and I think it can genuinely be said that there is a nearly-all encompassing divide in politics.  It is a divide between people who think running the most powerful country in the world is easy, and people who understand it is hard.

Seems like both sides have a lot of constituents who don't realize how difficult it is.  Having a president figure really makes politics easier for Americans; someone to blame for everything.  (Especially when the economic policies of one president probably don't manifest for several years- enough to shadow the successor's term.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 22, 2012, 09:19:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 22, 2012, 08:31:05 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on October 22, 2012, 08:25:57 pm

So we now know Romney's forign policy plan... Pick Obama as his Forign advisor.

+1

Make that two.

It looks to me like Romney has lost his debate advantage, and now he's just trying to hold Obama back with a robotic face.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 22, 2012, 09:44:14 pm

Man, polls seem to be indicating that Obama blew Romney away this time. o_o

Romney was pretty... blah, this time around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 22, 2012, 10:05:02 pm

Two weeks...


I have such a love-hate relationship with the American election cycle being dragged out like this. It always unfolds like a novel- alliances, intrigue, figures popping out of nowhere, nominees soaring to the top of the polls only to fall as quickly as they rose, lies, betrayals, gaffes, and at the very end, a great battle between armies millions strong.

At the same time, can we just get the damn thing over with, already?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 08:47:35 am

Have to say, I made it through this cycle without seeing any of the debates or conventions (other than tuning in for a few awkward minutes of Clint Eastwood talking to a chair).

Dunno if I should proud or ashamed of that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 23, 2012, 08:58:19 am

I almost rolled out of my chair with the aircraft carrier comments. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 23, 2012, 09:01:15 am

What comment?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 23, 2012, 09:11:17 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 23, 2012, 08:58:19 am

I almost rolled out of my chair with the aircraft carrier comments. :P

The one about the horses and bayonets? :P Cropped up in the Aussie news even. Nice smacktalk, 'Bamarama!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 09:11:59 am

Jesus....looking at the pundit headlines this morning just reveals how completely and utterly disconnected the two rival noospheres are:

In the Obama Sphere:
President Pummels Peacenik Romney - Greg Sargent, Washington Post
Obama Reasserts Command in Boca - Alec MacGillis, The New Republic
3rd Debate: Obama Outpoints Romney - Eugene Robinson, Washington Post
Simon: Obama Schooled Him

In the Romney Sphere:
Romney Passes the Test and Marches Onward - Toby Harnden, Daily Mail
Romney Won Unequivocally - Charles Krauthammer, FOX News
Obama Foreign Policy: The Truth Isn't Pretty - Dimitri Simes, Nat'l Interest
Levin: Romney Achieved His Aim, Obama Clearly Did Not


It's like a childhood game of cops and robbers.
"BANG! I got you!"
"Nuh-uh! You missed!"
"Nuh-uh! I didn't!"
"Well, I was wearing my invisible ninja deflector suit so it bounced off!"
"Oh, well I using my special anti-ninja gun so it went right through your suit!"


EDIT: According to Nate Silver's Monte Carlo simulations....It all boils down to Ohio (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/oct-22-ohio-has-50-50-chance-of-deciding-election/#more-36534).

Quote

We are now running about 40,000 Electoral College simulations each day. In the simulations that we ran on Monday, the candidate who won Ohio won the election roughly 38,000 times, or in about 95 percent of the cases.

There's a lot of possible permutations that could allow either candidate to lose Ohio and still win the Electoral College, but the math is stacked against them.

Okay Ohio....DON'T FUCK THIS UP.  >:(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 09:32:37 am

All men are secretly five years old, but only in america do men of power get to act like it.

Or maybe also in Great Britain and France and Canada and Germany and Israel and...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Snowblind on October 23, 2012, 09:38:59 am

I dunno why they don't just get that World-Cup predicting octopus to just tell us who will win before hand so we don't have to waste our votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 09:52:26 am

Quote from: Snowblind on October 23, 2012, 09:38:59 am

I dunno why they don't just get that World-Cup predicting octopus to just tell us who will win before hand so we don't have to waste our votes.

Probably because it died two years ago this week. And because the maintaining the illusion of "the power of the people" is crucial to law and order.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 23, 2012, 09:57:01 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 09:32:37 am

All men are secretly five years old, but only in america do men of power get to act like it.

Or maybe also in Great Britain and France and Canada and Germany and Israel and...

Don't forget backwards Arabic-not-muslim-but-middle-eastern-traditions-closely-associated-with-islam cultures where grown men feel superior for shooting or poisoning little girls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 10:01:50 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 23, 2012, 09:57:01 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 09:32:37 am

All men are secretly five years old, but only in america do men of power get to act like it.

Or maybe also in Great Britain and France and Canada and Germany and Israel and...

Don't forget backwards Arabic-not-muslim-but-middle-eastern-traditions-closely-associated-with-islam cultures where grown men feel superior for shooting or poisoning little girls.

If you're talking about the Taliban, you mean "Muslim-not-Arabic". They're Pashtuns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 10:04:26 am

I don't think that's muslim OR arabic culture, that's just a bunch of total douchbags let run unchecked.

Who fucked up Arabia so bad? They used to be a center of learning.  ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 10:15:01 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 10:04:26 am

I don't think that's muslim OR arabic culture, that's just a bunch of total douchbags let run unchecked.

Who fucked up Arabia so bad? They used to be a center of learning.  ???

If you're talking about the Arab Crecent broadly: the Mongols, the Seljuks, the internecine conflicts between Shi'ites and Sunnis, Western imperialism, reactionary anti-imperialist Islamists.

If you're talking specifically about the Arabian peninsula (which was never quite the shining beacon of knowledge that places like Baghdad and Damascus were): the ibn Sa'ud clan. Which basically came riding out of the Nejd like early 20th-century Fremen warriors to overthrow the Ottoman-supported Hashemite clan. And promptly discarded the erudite, urban, moderate Islam of the Ottomans for the uncompromising Wahhabi Islam of the desert.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 23, 2012, 10:21:21 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 09:11:59 am

"Nuh-uh! You missed!"
"Nuh-uh! I didn't!"

Do you know they actually did this for about a dozen seconds during the debate?

It was literally "yes I did" - "no you didn't" - "yes I did" - "no you didn't".

I was laughing my ass off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 10:32:39 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 23, 2012, 10:21:21 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 09:11:59 am

"Nuh-uh! You missed!"
"Nuh-uh! I didn't!"

Do you know they actually did this for about a dozen seconds during the debate?

It was literally "yes I did" - "no you didn't" - "yes I did" - "no you didn't".

I was laughing my ass off.

If Obama had had the presence of mind to morph it into Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch, he would have won all the votes. ALL OF THEM.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 23, 2012, 10:46:33 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 10:04:26 am

Who fucked up Arabia so bad? They used to be a center of learning.  ???

The last time Arabia was a center of learning was about 1300 or so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on October 23, 2012, 10:50:42 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 10:32:39 am

Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch

Link, for those sad souls who haven't seen it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 23, 2012, 10:52:15 am

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on October 23, 2012, 10:50:42 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 10:32:39 am

Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch

Link, for those sad souls who haven't seen it?

Enjoy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEt6YSkggc)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 23, 2012, 11:08:19 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 10:32:39 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 23, 2012, 10:21:21 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 09:11:59 am

"Nuh-uh! You missed!"
"Nuh-uh! I didn't!"

Do you know they actually did this for about a dozen seconds during the debate?

It was literally "yes I did" - "no you didn't" - "yes I did" - "no you didn't".

I was laughing my ass off.

If Obama had had the presence of mind to morph it into Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch, he would have won all the votes. ALL OF THEM.

I feel like Biden MIGHT have been able to pull that off... not so much Obama though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 23, 2012, 02:11:34 pm

It's sad that politics has devolved from actual anticipation and debating to mathematical models and tireless calculations on how to sway chances of victory by >1%...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 02:33:05 pm

I'm not. I love the quantification and the mathematical modelling, because in part you're answering the age-old question, "Of what measure is a man?"

There's a certain magic in gauging how many thousand people will change their vote because of a particular turn of phrase, or a particular campaign ad.

Now I'll grant you that it's perhaps a bit..."impure" that the politicians themselves are so in tune to the numbers as well (despite the universal proclamation that they "don't pay attention to the polls"). It's a sociology experiment where there is no control group and no blind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 23, 2012, 03:33:16 pm

Or perhaps more literally, an asylum run by the inmates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 23, 2012, 03:33:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 23, 2012, 02:33:05 pm

I'm not. I love the quantification and the mathematical modelling, because in part you're answering the age-old question, "Of what measure is a man?"

There's a certain magic in gauging how many thousand people will change their vote because of a particular turn of phrase, or a particular campaign ad.

Now I'll grant you that it's perhaps a bit..."impure" that the politicians themselves are so in tune to the numbers as well (despite the universal proclamation that they "don't pay attention to the polls"). It's a sociology experiment where there is no controol group and no blind.

*Hides pocket universe

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 23, 2012, 04:10:54 pm

This article has to win some sort of prize. (http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/331390/fact-checking-romneys-comment-syria-irans-route-sea-greg-pollowitz)

I mean, sweet Jesus who would actually buy this? Even the National Review commenters, not exactly a left wing mob, are tearing this to shreds.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 23, 2012, 04:15:11 pm

So, once again, Mitt was right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 23, 2012, 04:20:17 pm

While I'm on stories that made me smile today, this one did for a very different reason. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/tammy_baldwin_may_be_the_first_openly_gay_u_s_senator_and_no_one_considers.single.html)

Quote

Tammy Baldwin may become the first openly gay U.S. senator. And no one is talking about it.

Quote

In 1998, the year Baldwin won her House seat, the openly gay Marc Pocan ran for her Assembly seat. At the time, a Republican candidate for Assembly cut a radio ad attacking another Democrat for being endorsed by Pocan—warning that “gays from Madison” would be “knocking on the doors” of upstanding citizens. Those ads don’t get made here anymore.

Today, Pocan is running for Baldwin’s House seat and winning it easily. (The redistricted WI-02 gave 69 percent of the vote to Obama-Biden in 2008.) It will probably become the first seat to be represented by two gay members in a row. Between the election and his swearing in, Pocan will celebrate his sixth wedding anniversary. We meet up at Fair Trade Coffee, near the local Obama for America/Baldwin campaign office.

“Fourteen years ago, when I ran for office, if there was an article about me someone would write ‘dead faggot’ across my face and send it to my home,” says Pocan. “Things like that. People like Ralph Ovadal—he’s this guy who runs a church out of an old machine shed building—would come over and leaflet my home. And now it’s almost a nonissue. I was in Lafayette County the other day. You can’t buy a pair of pants in Lafayette County. There are no street lights. And I went to go speak to a group in Lafayette County, the Democrats down there, and I saw a woman with a PFLAG sticker.”

It’s more than a nonissue. There’s no upside for the Republicans who talk about it. In early September, Thompson’s political director sent out an email with video of Baldwin dancing at a gay pride parade. “Clearly, there is no one better positioned to talk ‘heartland values’ than Tammy,” he wrote. Thompson promised to demote him. It’s not clear whether or not he actually did. Just as importantly, though, the Baldwin campaign blew off the story, letting Thompson get sucked into a media shame cycle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 23, 2012, 04:25:22 pm

...that article is talking about it isn't it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 23, 2012, 08:14:12 pm

Weird I just went on youtube and ended up seeing a political ad with a morgan freeman voice-over, or... at least a morgan freeman impersonator.

All I know is that if it really is morgan freeman, my entire vote goes to him. :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 23, 2012, 08:22:10 pm

Honestly, at 49.9-50.1% between candidates, might as well flip a coin after the primaries are done.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 23, 2012, 08:26:40 pm

Who else is pissed off at Thomas Peterffy?

If you haven't heard, he's basically an asshole of a WS billionaire who has suddenly, with his own money, bought a whole bunch of ad time on various networks (and YouTube), where he's preaching that you should vote Republican, because "I groo op een a zoshahleest cohntree ware dare eez noh ohp, noh vreedohm...", and that the Democrats are socialists just because they want to tax rich assholes like him more. He deserves it.

His ads criticize the concept of "Class Warfare", even as he's implicitly declaring it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 23, 2012, 08:36:48 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 23, 2012, 08:26:40 pm

Who else is pissed off at Thomas Peterffy?

If you haven't heard, he's basically an asshole of a WS billionaire who has suddenly, with his own money, bought a whole bunch of ad time on various networks (and YouTube), where he's preaching that you should vote Republican, because "I groo op een a zoshahleest cohntree ware dare eez noh ohp, noh vreedohm...", and that the Democrats are socialists just because they want to tax rich assholes like him more. He deserves it.

His ads criticize the concept of "Class Warfare", even as he's implicitly declaring it.

I personally believe that anyone can spend their money on whatever stupid bullshit they want. He still has freedom of speach

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Your post sounded an awful lot like class warfare, check yo' privilege

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 23, 2012, 08:39:49 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on October 23, 2012, 08:36:48 pm

I personally believe that anyone can spend their money on whatever stupid bullshit they want. He still has freedom of speach

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Your post sounded an awful lot like class warfare, check yo' privilege

Freedom of speech =/= Attempting to funnel money into advertising to contort people' views.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 23, 2012, 08:41:18 pm

It's only class warfare when we fight back...  ::)

This guy is directly gunning for the middle class by attacking progressive taxation.  He is basing his preference for the republicans on taxes and the republicans are campaigning on a platform of outright regressive taxation where the combined tax burden for the very wealthy is lower then that for the middle class.  If it's class warfare to object to this then it is certainly class warfare to fight for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 23, 2012, 08:46:22 pm

It takes two to tango.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 23, 2012, 08:47:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 23, 2012, 08:41:18 pm

It's only class warfare when we fight back...  ::)

This guy is directly gunning for the middle class by attacking progressive taxation.  He is basing his preference for the republicans on taxes and the republicans are campaigning on a platform of outright regressive taxation where the combined tax burden for the very wealthy is lower then that for the middle class.  If it's class warfare to object to this then it is certainly class warfare to fight for it.

There is absolutely no moral superiority in having a lot of spare cash. If you had a billion dollars, you could pay $999 million in taxes and have more money in your pocket right then and there than most people save in their lifetimes. It would be one thing if the rich spent their money on valuable things, but just buying status symbols and leaving cash in the bank is completely inexcusable when we've got a $14 billion deficit and millions of people on welfare.

Whatever the middle class is, it's definitely not the group most Republicans really care for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 23, 2012, 08:48:27 pm

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/1060cbCOMIC-ld-this-means-war1.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 08:50:38 pm

Ultimately I don't see why "class warfare" is a bad thing. It's like, an empty accusation.

"You're unhappy due to class discrepancies? How could you!?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 08:53:03 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 08:50:38 pm

Ultimately I don't see why "class warfare" is a bad thing. It's like, an empty accusation.

"You're unhappy due to class discrepancies? How could you!?"

That's a little strawmanish, while I would agree with the sentiment, I'd argue the proper Republican point is more along the lines of "everyone benefits from capitalism, class warfare hurts everyone"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 23, 2012, 08:55:37 pm

Except class warfare is only a catch phrase used to defend low tax rates for the super rich without going into any of those bothersome numbers [which would blow up the pro-rich tax system].

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 08:56:01 pm

Most the things I'd file under "class warfare" absolutely do not hurt everyone (like redistribution of wealth). Unless we're talking literal warfare, ie Reign of Terror stuff, in which case I'd agree. Until shots are being fired though, it's an empty accusation.

Strife between classes is inevitable and not inherently bad, especially if that strife moves us away from having classes in the first place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 23, 2012, 08:58:27 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 08:50:38 pm

Ultimately I don't see why "class warfare" is a bad thing. It's like, an empty accusation.

"You're unhappy due to class discrepancies? How could you!?"

Shame on you for standing up for yourself. Good plebes just say "thank you sire, may I have another?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 23, 2012, 09:00:39 pm

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If most couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. That's why I put it in the spoiler.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 09:07:59 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 08:56:01 pm

Most the things I'd file under "class warfare" absolutely do not hurt everyone (like redistribution of wealth). Unless we're talking literal warfare, ie Reign of Terror stuff, in which case I'd agree. Until shots are being fired though, it's an empty accusation.

Strife between classes is inevitable and not inherently bad, especially if that strife moves us away from having classes in the first place.

I get pretty leery whenever I hear redistribution of wealth, you know? I'd certainly contend that the entire system can get borked up enough/ harmed long before we're marching ceo's across the ice and reenacting the french revolution. Not to say that a higher tax rate for the wealthy isn't just/ necessary, it's just the kind of thing that has to be balanced really carefully so as to not infringe on either rights, nor the betterment of the system.

I would certainly argue that strife moving us towards a classless society is a bad thing, because such a place isn't remotely sustainable and *is* going to fall down, most likely in some serious, French Revolution-y style strife.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 09:13:51 pm

I can't really contend your points without going into circular assertions. So I don't really expect to refute you, but just say that I disagree. I feel there can be a classless, stable society, as there will still be a power structure (unlike anarchy), just with everyone controlling it instead of an oligarchy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 23, 2012, 09:16:04 pm

The wealth has already been redistributed, its just been redistributed to the ultra wealthy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 09:20:35 pm

I don't think a classless society can exist due to people wanting to be better than other people. The good thing about the free market isn't that it lacks social class but that you can move freely among them. Just because you were born poor doesn't mean you stay poor, in a free market.

But without regulation, irony sets in and the markets are no longer free but run by monopolies and bigwigs who crush new additions to their class of people. Pure capitalism, like pure communism, is simply unattainable, unsustainable, and unlikable. A median between the two is best.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 23, 2012, 09:34:18 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 09:20:35 pm

I don't think a classless society can exist due to people wanting to be better than other people. The good thing about the free market isn't that it lacks social class but that you can move freely among them. Just because you were born poor doesn't mean you stay poor, in a free market.

But without regulation, irony sets in and the markets are no longer free but run by monopolies and bigwigs who crush new additions to their class of people. Pure capitalism, like pure communism, is simply unattainable, unsustainable, and unlikable. A median between the two is best.

Exactly.

What many people call "capitalism" is not capitalism. It is the end product of unrestricted capitalism. True capitalism is a system where everyone has a fair chance, everyone has an opportunity to make their lives better. "Capitalism" as it is too often used now is corporate feudalism- wherein monopolies control the government and all their citizens, where everyone is bound to one position, where the common man and woman starve while the lucky few reap the benefits.

This is what happens when you go too far down either end of the scale- whether it be left or right, the end result is a seamless combination of state and industry where the many are oppressed by a few- the difference is that on the left the state takes over industry, while on the right industry drowns the state.

It is ironic that seventy years ago the United States fought a bloody war against Fascist nations, yet now has almost become one itself.

-Political tirade off-

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 09:37:14 pm

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 23, 2012, 09:38:40 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 23, 2012, 09:34:18 pm

It is ironic that seventy years ago the United States fought a bloody war against Fascist nations, yet now has almost become one itself.

::)
Sometimes I really wonder about y'all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 09:40:20 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 23, 2012, 09:34:18 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 09:20:35 pm

I don't think a classless society can exist due to people wanting to be better than other people. The good thing about the free market isn't that it lacks social class but that you can move freely among them. Just because you were born poor doesn't mean you stay poor, in a free market.

But without regulation, irony sets in and the markets are no longer free but run by monopolies and bigwigs who crush new additions to their class of people. Pure capitalism, like pure communism, is simply unattainable, unsustainable, and unlikable. A median between the two is best.

Exactly.

What many people call "capitalism" is not capitalism. It is the end product of unrestricted capitalism. True capitalism is a system where everyone has a fair chance, everyone has an opportunity to make their lives better. "Capitalism" as it is too often used now is corporate feudalism- wherein monopolies control the government and all their citizens, where everyone is bound to one position, where the common man and woman starve while the lucky few reap the benefits.

This is what happens when you go too far down either end of the scale- whether it be left or right, the end result is a seamless combination of state and industry where the many are oppressed by a few- the difference is that on the left the state takes over industry, while on the right industry drowns the state.

It is ironic that seventy years ago the United States fought a bloody war against Fascist nations, yet now has almost become one itself.

-Political tirade off-

Eh, we're not nearly that bad. I mean, I'd agree that maybe industry is a bit overpowerful (and honestly, I think calling it the invisible hand might be better), but state's certainly nowhere near drowning.

I mean, Fascist is so strong a term as to be outrageous in describing the US now, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 23, 2012, 09:54:10 pm

If we could remove corporate lobbying from washington, I think we'd see a huge drop in political scumbags. Even if we kept lobbying, if we made it a personal deal much of the corruption that keeps the government from working properly would be swept away.

Unfortunately those same lobbyists would keep the law from going through so...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 10:05:40 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 09:37:14 pm

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

I disagree. More people getting what they deserve in general gets everyone in general more of what they want (first thing on the hierarchy of needs being the stuff they need).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 23, 2012, 10:49:32 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 10:05:40 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 09:37:14 pm

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

I disagree. More people getting what they deserve in general gets everyone in general more of what they want (first thing on the hierarchy of needs being the stuff they need).

The problem is that "some people getting what they want" doesn't equate to "everyone getting what they need". As far as I'm concerned, people can stop thinking about their multimillion dollar mansions and luxury car collections until every person in the world has clean water and enough to eat. It isn't that that isn't possible, it's that capitalism doesn't prioritize everyone getting what they need to survive. Plenty of people are born into situations where they simply can not improve their condition in any (materially) significant way, regardless of what they do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 11:31:55 pm

Yeah, but stopping people from using their money as they see fit, and making money within the law as they see fit doesn't put bread in people's pockets. Tax them more and establish your safety net however you see fit, but pointing wealth or regulated capitalism as the problem is neither accurate, nor helpful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 24, 2012, 12:20:19 am

Capitalism isn't about having as small a state as possible and it never was.  The first political divide in the US was between the big state federalists lead by Alexander Hamilton, the intellectual father of american capitalism, and Thomas Jefferson, the guy who said capitalism was a horrible idea.  Capitalism has never and will never be about having as small a state as possible.

If you think it is then you really don't understand what capitalism is or more importantly what it accomplishes.  Capitalism succeeds when it directs capital towards beneficial ends.  Giving rich people a bunch of money isn't just unnecessary but often actively detrimental.  When you've got a lot of money it's often easier to crush the competition then compete.  If you succeeded in drowning the government in the bathtub then capitalism would very rapidly perish.

Quote from: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 11:31:55 pm

Yeah, but stopping people from using their money as they see fit, and making money within the law as they see fit doesn't put bread in people's pockets.

Just because it's in the law doesn't mean that it's an efficient use of resources.  Market failure.  Tragedy of the commons.  These are 300 year old concepts.  And they are concepts that Adam Smith agreed with.  His invisible hand was about situations where market failures did not exist.  He explicitly laid out areas where market failures did exist and said that government should intervene then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 24, 2012, 12:27:58 am

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 23, 2012, 10:49:32 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 23, 2012, 10:05:40 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 09:37:14 pm

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

I disagree. More people getting what they deserve in general gets everyone in general more of what they want (first thing on the hierarchy of needs being the stuff they need).

The problem is that "some people getting what they want" doesn't equate to "everyone getting what they need". As far as I'm concerned, people can stop thinking about their multimillion dollar mansions and luxury car collections until every person in the world has clean water and enough to eat. It isn't that that isn't possible, it's that capitalism doesn't prioritize everyone getting what they need to survive. Plenty of people are born into situations where they simply can not improve their condition in any (materially) significant way, regardless of what they do.

So you think people should concentrate and obtain things only for their needs and not their wants?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 12:28:52 am

Once needs are settled, wants can follow.

Hell I'm pretty supportive of capitalism if it's applied solely to luxuries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 24, 2012, 12:33:33 am

Economics is not the cause of those still lacking adequate needs. These are political problems in almost all cases, we have temporally surpassed scarcity for food, water, and shelter already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Snowblind on October 24, 2012, 05:00:25 am

Afaik, one of the fundamental conditions for 'TRUE Capitalism' to exist is an equal playing field for every firm.

This is impossible with globalization and free-trade. No libertarian wonder-world can exist if every product and service and firm and good and commodity, upheld with righteous laws and self-determination, can compete if all of these things are imported from firms in countries practicing slave-labor and receive massive government subsidies.

If they were serious about all this rhetoric about China and 'jerbs going overseas' they'd implement protectionist measures with countries with dissimilar economic practices so that not every domestic firm is unable to compete.

But nah, let's play with the tax brackets and try to subsidize and enslave instead to compete.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 24, 2012, 06:24:37 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 23, 2012, 09:13:51 pm

as there will still be a power structure (unlike anarchy), just with everyone controlling it instead of an oligarchy.

I know it's late, but I feel compelled to point out that this actually is anarchy.  Anarchy means "no rulers".  There can be a power structure, so long as participation and influence within that power structure is equally distributed.  Then there are no rulers, and it fits the definition of anarchy.  It may not fit any number of specific schools of anarchist thought, but that's another matter.  Many of them don't even fit the definition of anarchy anyway, such as anarcho-capitalism (which is just american libertarianism taken one step further).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 24, 2012, 10:55:44 am

BACK ON TRACK:

Recent polls that I've seen seem to suggest Obama is going to win. Which is good! But by a relatively small margin. Which is stupid.

I mean the Repubs made fun of their opponents for flipflopping but when Romney does it they all just ignore it. Bipartisan politics at it's best, here.

At least the British have a third option.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 11:00:21 am

Wow...okay, this one just kinda flew under the wire. I'm guessing either the Tennessee Democratic Party just said "Fuck it" this year when it comes to contesting the Senate??

http://gawker.com/5954293/the-gawker-endorsement-mark-clayton-for-senate (http://gawker.com/5954293/the-gawker-endorsement-mark-clayton-for-senate)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012s-worst-candidate-with-mark-clayton-tennessee-democrats-hit-bottom/2012/10/22/77da926e-1b8a-11e2-a146-ccabc9c85c53_print.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012s-worst-candidate-with-mark-clayton-tennessee-democrats-hit-bottom/2012/10/22/77da926e-1b8a-11e2-a146-ccabc9c85c53_print.html)

The second piece is actually more informative (WP vs. Gawker...hardly surprising), and shows just how badly the TN Dems have fucked themselves over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 24, 2012, 11:11:25 am

I've been to TN. Doesn't surprise me one bit... sad part is it's a beautiful state, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 11:19:48 am

I've been there too. They *have* cities (at least 3 of them). You'd think they could find somebody in one of those cities that would be an actual Southern liberal and willing to run, even knowing it was a Quixotic race doomed to failure because they have no money or support. I mean, the dude even admits his primary campaign strategy was having a name which was alphabetically listed higher than his opponents.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 11:39:01 am

Spoiler: Ill just pop this here... (click to show/hide)

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592043_worldservicepoll_464_romney_embargoed_23102012.gif)

Spoiler: Oh, and this one... (click to show/hide)

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif)

Why can the rest of the world see it? What is wrong with some Americans?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 24, 2012, 11:40:01 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 11:19:48 am

I've been there too. They *have* cities (at least 3 of them). You'd think they could find somebody in one of those cities that would be an actual Southern liberal and willing to run, even knowing it was a Quixotic race doomed to failure because they have no money or support. I mean, the dude even admits his primary campaign strategy was having a name which was alphabetically listed higher than his opponents.

I thought they did find somebody but she lost the primary.

You can lead a horse to water...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 24, 2012, 11:42:19 am

....Pakistan wants Romney over Obama? Though the majority don't want either of them, apparently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 24, 2012, 11:43:38 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 11:39:01 am

Why can the rest of the world see it? What is wrong with some Americans?

And what the hell Pakistan?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 24, 2012, 11:45:16 am

Well, Romney is a pretty heavy social conservative. Pakistanis might like that, I guess.

Now I can't stop thinking about potential Islam-Mormon interactions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 11:46:25 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 11:39:01 am

Spoiler: Ill just pop this here... (click to show/hide)

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592043_worldservicepoll_464_romney_embargoed_23102012.gif)

Spoiler: Oh, and this one... (click to show/hide)

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif)

Why can the rest of the world see it? What is wrong with some Americans?

Now there's a great bit for the Obama campaign: "When you vote Romney, you're voting with Pakistan."

edit: dang ninja kids. Also, the reason they probably support Romney is because they associate Obama with drone strikes inside Pakistan. Not that Romney would do anything different in that regard.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 24, 2012, 11:45:16 am

Well, Romney is a pretty heavy social conservative. Pakistanis might like that, I guess.

Now I can't stop thinking about potential Islam-Mormon interactions.

That, and they have the shared family value of polygamy.


Also, Donald Trump made his "gigantic" October Surprise announcement:

He's offering President Obama $5 million to a charity of his choice if he'll release his college application, college transcript, and passport by October 31.

DUN-DUN-DUUUUUUUUN!!!

So yeah...he's still a Birther.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 24, 2012, 11:48:52 am

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=MgOq9pBkY0I

It's like some kind of bizarre reverse ransom demand.  Correct me if I'm wrong but no other president has ever had to reveal this information, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 24, 2012, 11:51:37 am

I'm just tired of him trying anything he can to get mentioned by people. It feeds his ego-boner, or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 24, 2012, 11:52:17 am

If I were Obama I'd take him up on that. Trump is basically giving him a chance for free publicity. 5 million dollars to Doctors Without Borders would look good to pretty much everyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 11:53:04 am

I will pay £3.50 (the value of the change in my pocket) to Romney if he either goes away for good or dresses up as a banana and declares himself "Mister Poopy Face" in front of the senate. How come when Trump does pretty much the same as this people agree with him?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 24, 2012, 11:58:20 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 11:53:04 am

I will pay £3.50 (the value of the change in my pocket) to Romney if he either goes away for good or dresses up as a banana and declares himself "Mister Poopy Face" in front of the senate. How come when Trump does pretty much the same as this people agree with him?

Because his large piles of money gives him more say in American politics. You should know this by now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 12:02:22 pm

Heh, yea, I really should. So, how much is the cost of one vote on average nowadays?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 24, 2012, 12:05:08 pm

I dunno, Donald Trump hasn't offered me anything yet. I mean, I'd sell my vote if anyone wanted it. Too bad the rich only buy politicians. :[

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 12:06:26 pm

I would vote Romney for 50 million dollars.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 24, 2012, 12:06:46 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 24, 2012, 11:43:38 am

And what the hell Pakistan?

Drone strikes.

Both the fact of them and the Pakistani government and military reactions. There is plenty of public anger about them, and the government is perfectly happy to feed and maintain that while not actually stopping them.

The government has broadly been denouncing the strikes, but not going so far as to explicitly tell the US to stop them, so removing the current US justification of implicit permission. The military seems to be viewing them as a sort of military aid, allowing them to stop focusing on the western regions where the terrorists are and focusing instead on building up along the Indian border and rattling that sabre.


As for the Trump issue, I was really hoping the original rumours were true and it was leaked divorce papers. That would have been the biggest gift to Barack possible. He could do a sit down with Michelle in front of absolutely any journalist - even BillO - and come out with a 2% bump in the next round of polls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 12:07:56 pm

But what better way than to manipulate a nation than by getting someone into power by buying votes for them?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 12:20:26 pm

I think I'd say, "Okay....I'll release them and you can even keep the money, but you have to release the last five years of your tax returns, 'The Donald.'"

Cause you know Trump's tax returns have to make Romney's look squeaky clean by comparison. He probably has so much money stashed in Switzerland and the Grand Caymans that he doesn't even register as having income.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 24, 2012, 12:32:09 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 12:20:26 pm

I think I'd say, "Okay....I'll release them and you can even keep the money, but you have to release the last five years of your tax returns, 'The Donald.'"

Cause you know Trump's tax returns have to make Romney's look squeaky clean by comparison. He probably has so much money stashed in Switzerland and the Grand Caymans that he doesn't even register as having income.

Yeah, on paper he might even qualify for foodstamps for all we know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 02:21:57 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 24, 2012, 11:39:01 am

Spoiler: Ill just pop this here... (click to show/hide)

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592043_worldservicepoll_464_romney_embargoed_23102012.gif)

Spoiler: Oh, and this one... (click to show/hide)

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif)

Why can the rest of the world see it? What is wrong with some Americans?

Of course foreign countries prefer Democrats. Mitt and his friends have a multi-prong method for dealing with other nations:

Does it have oil? Invade!
Is it a major trade partner with the US? Accuse of rigging economic system.
Is it poor? Use in campaign speech.
Is it even slightly more liberal than the US? It's just some communist socialist Eurotrash hellhole.

And speaking of Europe, I don't like Europeans on the internet. Not because they're from so-called "socialist" countries, but rather because many have a tendency to rub their nations' intelligence and political progressiveness in the face of Americans like me who would swim there and back to bring a fraction of it back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 24, 2012, 02:26:58 pm

Apparently Pakistan likes Romney. And judging from the last debate, Romney wants to like Pakistan. Romney also likes outsourcing... I think we know what to do...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 02:35:01 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 24, 2012, 02:26:58 pm

Apparently Pakistan likes Romney. And judging from the last debate, Romney wants to like Pakistan. Romney also likes outsourcing... I think we know what to do...

Stage a coup and get Mitt Romney appointed President of Pakistan?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 02:36:52 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 02:35:01 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 24, 2012, 02:26:58 pm

Apparently Pakistan likes Romney. And judging from the last debate, Romney wants to like Pakistan. Romney also likes outsourcing... I think we know what to do...

Stage a coup and get Mitt Romney appointed President of Pakistan?

Yes!

That's exactly the rhetoric the Democrats need for a landslide victory. Imagine what they could say if Romney had anything to do with the Middle East! All the Republicans would abandon him, since he'd be a terrorist then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 24, 2012, 02:38:37 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 02:35:01 pm

Quote from: sluissa on October 24, 2012, 02:26:58 pm

Apparently Pakistan likes Romney. And judging from the last debate, Romney wants to like Pakistan. Romney also likes outsourcing... I think we know what to do...

Stage a coup and get Mitt Romney appointed President of Pakistan?

OF COURSE! We could solve two stones with one bird! Pakistan gets crazy enough that India finally kicks their ass, and we get rid of Romney!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 24, 2012, 02:56:34 pm

We don't want India v Pakistan though because I think they both have nukes?

Countries with nukes that are losing a war are very, very unsafe to be anywhere nearby, since they're far more likely to use them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 03:04:56 pm

If Romeny wins I hope he at least starts his term right, by giving a two hour long inaugural speech in the rain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison#Shortest_presidency)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 24, 2012, 03:07:40 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 24, 2012, 02:56:34 pm

We don't want India v Pakistan though because I think they both have nukes?

Countries with nukes that are losing a war are very, very unsafe to be anywhere nearby, since they're far more likely to use them.

I've heard speculation that the CIA has heavily infiltrated Pakistan's nuclear capabilities for this very reason. Can't launch if half the facility are spies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 24, 2012, 03:10:47 pm

And the other half is a bunch of engineers?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 24, 2012, 03:12:33 pm

Spoiler: Somewhere in Islamabad... (click to show/hide)

(http://www.dontpaniconline.com/media/magazine/body/2011-07-04/images/tf2%201.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 24, 2012, 03:15:02 pm

Spah sappin' mah nucleah missiles!

It's ironic that I still try to type it in a stereotypical texan accent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 24, 2012, 03:34:14 pm

Anyone remember Richard Mourdock (R-Indiana) who unseated long-term incumbent Dick Lugar in the primary?  Well, he apparently thinks that getting pregnant from rape is okay because "God intended it" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-mourdock-rape-comment-puts-romney-defense/story?id=17552263).

And as for the TN-Sen, story, I've known about that for awhile.  I think the official TN Democratic party stance is to vote for someone else (The Green, maybe?).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 03:35:44 pm

In context, he pretty much said that the baby was a "gift from god," while the act of rape itself was still reprehensible.

Sort of like a consolation prize, I guess :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 24, 2012, 03:36:52 pm

Well I guess the child itself isn't at fault, but I still wouldn't want to inflict it on anybody.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 04:02:36 pm

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 04:04:36 pm

Quote from: Jervill on October 24, 2012, 03:34:14 pm

Anyone remember Richard Mourdock (R-Indiana) who unseated long-term incumbent Dick Lugar in the primary?  Well, he apparently thinks that getting pregnant from rape is okay because "God intended it" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-mourdock-rape-comment-puts-romney-defense/story?id=17552263).

And as for the TN-Sen, story, I've known about that for awhile.  I think the official TN Democratic party stance is to vote for someone else (The Green, maybe?).

Has there been one Republican this year who hasn't said some pigshit about "legitimate" or "God-intended" rape?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:05:01 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 03:35:44 pm

In context, he pretty much said that the baby was a "gift from god," while the act of rape itself was still reprehensible.

That is precisely what he said. In the full quote I believe that he explicitly calls the act of rape reprehensible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 24, 2012, 04:06:16 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 04:02:36 pm

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Also, you have to feed him and clothe him and be spit upon by fundies who think that sex out of wedlock means they should be able to stone you, even if you were fighting it the whole time.

I honestly don't have a problem with religion but some of the people who practise it make me want to take a chainsaw and shove it in their gut.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:07:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 04:02:36 pm

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Well it's hardly the kid's fault, and it'd be pretty horrible to blame them for it.

If PTSD is an issue though, there's adoption.

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:12:27 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:07:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 04:02:36 pm

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Well it's hardly the kid's fault, and it'd be pretty horrible to blame them for it.

If PTSD is an issue though, there's adoption.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:07:29 pm

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:15:57 pm

Eh. I wash my hands of the whole abortion thing. And I warn that we shouldn't derail this topic with a debate :P New thread or an existing one if people wanna talk about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 04:16:43 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:12:27 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:07:29 pm

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

That is a lie. No it is not. Eugenics implies a specific purpose, one that abortion does not inherently carry.

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:07:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 04:02:36 pm

Its terrible you got raped. But as compensation, now you get to look into a face almost the same as the man who did it to you every day for the rest of your life.

Well it's hardly the kid's fault, and it'd be pretty horrible to blame them for it.

If PTSD is an issue though, there's adoption.

And of course, abortion, as that's what they were originally talking about.

You can't really control emotions like that. It doesn't matter if the kid is "blamed" or not, it will always be there in the back of your mind.

And no, adoption is not always an option. It is not in the case of spousal rape.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 24, 2012, 04:20:09 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:12:27 pm

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

No, no its not.

Eugenics is either:

Quote from: Strict Dictionary definition

eugenics
  Use Eugenics in a sentence Origin
eu·gen·ics
   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics)  or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Or:

Quote from: Social movement breadly based about the concept of qugenics

ugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.[2][3] The origins of the concept began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[4]

Eugenics was a controversial concept shortly after its creation.[5] The first major challenge to conventional eugenics based upon genetic inheritance was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan, who demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the hatching of a fruit fly with white eyes from a family and ancestry of the red-eyed Drosophila melanogaster species of fruit fly.[6] Morgan claimed that this demonstrated that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance and that the concept of eugenics based upon genetic inheritance was severely flawed.[6]

Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century.[7] By the mid-20th century eugenics had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi-Germany. This country's approach to genetics and eugenics was focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics[8] and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced "racial hygiene", human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups.[citation needed]

Personal abortion falls into neither of those definitions, abortion policy can fall into either ones, but unless you are aborting your baby to improve the genepool or because you are poor and think poor people should be sterilized and never have babies because they are genetic losers (which is one of the things some of the proponents of eugenics actually thought), then its not engenics at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 24, 2012, 04:20:47 pm

There comes a point where it doesn't matter if a statement was intentionally trolling or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:24:50 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on October 24, 2012, 04:20:09 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:12:27 pm

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

No, no its not.

Eugenics is either:

Quote from: Strict Dictionary definition

eugenics
  Use Eugenics in a sentence Origin
eu·gen·ics
   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects¹ or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits2 (negative eugenics) ...

Ok, so it only meets half the definition. The specified end is not pursued, but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was.

¹ Such as down syndrome

²Such as a propensity for violence inherited from a rapist father

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 04:29:01 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:24:50 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on October 24, 2012, 04:20:09 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:12:27 pm

Except about this. Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics.

No, no its not.

Eugenics is either:

Quote from: Strict Dictionary definition

eugenics
  Use Eugenics in a sentence Origin
eu·gen·ics
   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects¹ or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits2 (negative eugenics) ...

Ok, so it only meets half the definition. The specified end is not pursued, but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was.

¹ Such as down syndrome

²Such as a propensity for violence inherited from a rapist father

No. It does not. You clearly stated that: "Abortion, except when medically necessary, is just legitimized eugenics."
Abortion based on the personal interests of the mother does not qualify as eugenics. Therefore you lied. Period.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 24, 2012, 04:31:12 pm

I was going to post something about abortion, but I see that this is just going to devolve into a flamewar between Bohandas and everyone else so...

Can we all be mature and get back to talking about the election? Have any polls come out since the last Obama-Rommey debate?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:31:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:15:57 pm

And I warn that we shouldn't derail this topic with a debate :P New thread or an existing one if people wanna talk about it.

The progressive thread exists for a reason. The new topic button exists for a reason. This is waaay too controversial an issue to discuss in the general election thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 24, 2012, 04:42:06 pm

Abortion is probably the only philosophically reasonable difference between democrats and republicans.

The difference is, I think, entirely in the definition of "human". There is agreement that not everything which is alive and which has human genes, such as cell cultures and tumors, is a human being.

I believe that there is a non-discrete but important gradient between the not-yet-human and the fully-human. Some feel that there must be a sharp dividing line, which is reasonable insomuch as subjective definitions leave uncomfortable room for later injustices. The place they often choose for this line is conception, which certainly is a momentous event and the first moment at which a specific human genome will come into existence.

The severity of this philosophical divide should not be understated. Consider those who bomb abortion clinics. While if one considers full humanity an accumulated property, rather than an inherent one, the act of violence against provisors of abortion is abhorrent. In the opposite case, it is no less reasonable than violence against someone attempting to execute random adults.

Considering this, the best way to convince someone of your position about abortion is to convince them to share your definition of humanity. Compare this to the arguments generally made for or against abortion. For, the argument is that it is the pregnant woman's choice as to what they define life to be (which, while noble-sounding, is contrary to most law's objective definitions). Against, the arguments are usually biblical, which is insufficient for the majority of Americans and contrary to the constitution.

I would very much like to ask each candidate exactly how they define a human being.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:47:56 pm

I'm one of the "strict dividing line" people but I cannot decide on where exactly to draw that line. So, I try to remain as neutral as possible, and let the cards fall where they will. No blood on my hands, that way.

My current expectation is they will eventually fall on the more liberal side.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 05:01:02 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 04:47:56 pm

I'm one of the "strict dividing line" people but I cannot decide on where exactly to draw that line. So, I try to remain as neutral as possible, and let the cards fall where they will. No blood on my hands, that way.

My current expectation is they will eventually fall on the more liberal side.

I feel the same. I think there's a certain point where it becomes immoral to kill the fetus, once it becomes more of a live human- but since I don't know where the cutoff is, I'm not going to argue it.

I suspect that it will eventually land on the liberal side- and that's probably closer to what I think than the conservatives' "only in cases rape or incest, or for the life of the mother".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 24, 2012, 05:01:51 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 24, 2012, 04:42:06 pm

Considering this, the best way to convince someone of your position about abortion is to convince them to share your definition of humanity. Compare this to the arguments generally made for or against abortion. For, the argument is that it is the pregnant woman's choice as to what they define life to be (which, while noble-sounding, is contrary to most law's objective definitions). Against, the arguments are usually biblical, which is insufficient for the majority of Americans and contrary to the constitution

This is very true and it's something that annoys me about discourse in pro-abortion camps. Not that they don't also talk about personhood on occasion, but the choice part dominates the conversation.  Back in Highschool when I was still against abortion my hang-up was that I considered the fetus a person and from that frame of reference all the pro-choice arguments sounded insane (because "they're killing babies!") even though I could understand why a woman wouldn't want to be forced to give birth and the inherent unfairness of it. I also know where people like Ryan and Mourduck are coming from, even though I vehemently disagree with them today. It's really a consistent position on their part and I grow tired of attempts in the media to simplify it as 'extreme' anti-abortion, as if positions are simply based on a dial and we should all seek a happy middle-ground.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 24, 2012, 05:05:31 pm

I've always been extremely annoyed by how both sides of the abortion issue typically refuse to acknowledge each other in any fashion.  They state their point and turn the other side's points into character attacks instead of trying to address them.  I know this happens on any subject, but none as consistently as abortion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 24, 2012, 05:07:50 pm

I have more sympathy for the "it's never alright to abort" people than the "it's only okay to abort in cases of rape and incest" people, I got to be honest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:18:45 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 04:24:50 pm

Ok, so it only meets half the definition. The specified end is not pursued, but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was.

Hey did you know that doing aerobics classes = being in the Hitler Youth.

Yeah, yeah I know the goals are totally different, but "but the actions taken are equivalent to if it was."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:19:51 pm

I've never quite understood the "incest" part of that, unless it's ALSO rape. If you've got a consensual thing going on, I'm not sure why they would deserve an abortion more than any other couple.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:25:45 pm

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 24, 2012, 05:26:42 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 05:01:02 pm

"only in cases rape or incest, or for the life of the mother".

Can we, at least agree that the inclusion of incest (consentual incest mind you. If only nonconsentual incest were meant then there would be no reason to list it when you have already listed rape) on this list is assuredly a eugenics thing? I am at a loss to find a reason why incest should be an extenuating circumstance equal to rape that isn't at the very least in the spirit of eugenics.

EDIT:

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:25:45 pm

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:29:46 pm

No, that doesn't really count as eugenics either. If avoiding avoidable birth defects is eugenics, then cleaning up "agent orange" or ddt residue, or dioxins is also "eugenics".

Quote

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits.

Eugenics core idea is that "some" people have genes which are superior, whilst others have inferior genes. And we should favor the first group to breed, whilst discouraging the second group.

Anti-incest laws recognizes that everyone has mutant recessive genes which are harmful if you have 2 copies. It's avoiding there being people with 2 copies of these genes, by spreading out the gene pool. There is nothing in the incest laws which actually facilitates elimination of the recessive genes or changes the mix of genes in the population.

In fact, if incest was encouraged, more people with those harmful genes would die out, because the symptoms of the bad genes would appear more often, thus culling the gene. Which would create a long-term change in the gene pool, hence eugenics. The ban on incest doesn't reduce the amount of recessive genes, it just hides their negative effect, which effectively stops them from being weeded out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:30:40 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:25:45 pm

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

/me shrugs

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 24, 2012, 05:32:39 pm

I dislike how they always talk about "when life begins".

Uhh, life began before conception. I belive the sperm and egg cells were alive, no? But that doesn't mean having a date with Jill means you're a mass murderer that would make Stalin drop his cigar.

We aren't talking about when Life Begins, there's a clear definition for that. We're talking about when sentience begins, and I don't think that can happen until the baby begins to have neurons fire. Before that, it's a big ball of cells that are trying to become a person but aren't a person quite yet.

My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:36:09 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on October 24, 2012, 05:32:39 pm

We aren't talking about when Life Begins, there's a clear definition for that. We're talking about when sentience begins, and I don't think that can happen until the baby begins to have neurons fire. Before that, it's a big ball of cells that are trying to become a person but aren't a person quite yet.

More specifically, we're discussing when personhood begins, which can theoretically be before sentience. If sentience is the qualifier for you, that's fine, but it's not everyone's qualifier (which is why this is such a thorny debate).

Quote

My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.

What indeed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 24, 2012, 05:44:49 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:36:09 pm

Quote

My dad, though, thinks that abortions should be legal up to a year after birth. whut.

What indeed.

That sounds like a typical joking thing a parent would say to his kid.

Otherwise, this is only unusual in modern day.  Many earlier cultures didn't consider someone a person until they survived infancy, since enough didn't that it was impractical to invest too much in them emotionally, or even until they were capable of tending to their own basic needs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:47:09 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:30:40 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:25:45 pm

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

/me shrugs

There are several billion gene loci, and each person has about 30 fatal recessive genes.

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Incest taboos are NOT about "culling". They're about avoiding. And avoidance actually allows the recessive genes involved to maintain a steady level of concentration in the population. If you want to cull those genes, you actually encourage incest, so the effects are concentrated into a very small population segment, then you cull only people who have 2 copies of the defective gene.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 24, 2012, 05:53:26 pm

It's not Eugenics if you aren't doing it in an attempt to improve the species. Period.

Killing black people because you don't want them in your neighbourhood isn't eugenics, even if the side effect is a lower local black population.

Not wanting to bring a child into this world with severe genetic abnormalities is eugenics either, for the same reason - at least not usually. There's no evolutionary goal here, and motivation is what makes eugenics.

And your whole argument is based on what is essentially the worst logical fallacy anyways - that since some parts of eugenics methods are wrong, this is wrong if its eugenics, even if it doesn't contain those parts.

Its a fallacious argument at it's core. Eugenics isn't even inherently immoral. (Though any implementation likely to get societal support, it seems, will be.)

Even IF there was a social agreement not to have genetically aberrant babies to improve our gene pool... just because this is eugenics, how is it wrong? Is it wrong if, instead of abortions, we do it with sperm and egg selection? Because if we've got a movement going pushing sperm and egg selection to improve our species... that's eugenics, 100%. But would it actually be wrong?

In essence:
The argument that abortion is wrong because eugenics is a failure on pretty much every conceivable level. Please try again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 06:00:30 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:47:09 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:30:40 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:25:45 pm

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

Phooey on the first three things, and I've never been convinced on the "much more likely" aspect of the last one. Your family doesn't have a monopoly on its recessive genes.

Besides, the long term solution to genetic diseases is curing them, not culling them, so eventually that'll be a moot point anyway.

/me shrugs

There are several billion gene loci, and each person has about 30 fatal recessive genes.

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Incest taboos are NOT about "culling". They're about avoiding. And avoidance actually allows the recessive genes involved to maintain a steady level of concentration in the population. If you want to cull those genes, you actually encourage incest, so the effects are concentrated into a very small population segment, then you cull only people who have 2 copies of the defective gene.

Calm down there buddy :P you're starting to put words in my mouth.

I don't "know better" than the experts. I've just never been convinced by the data that's been shown to me. Maybe I haven't seen the right stuff yet. The statistics I HAVE seen show an increase in genetic diseases, but it generally takes a few generations to surface a noticeable amount.

And re: the culling thing, I was worried you'd latch on to that word. Use another in its place that's more accurate to you, if you like. I'm not arguing it's eugenics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 24, 2012, 06:02:26 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 24, 2012, 04:42:06 pm

Against, the arguments are usually biblical, which is insufficient for the majority of Americans and contrary to the constitution.

The argument against abortion is that it is murder. I know a few people who, despite going out of their way to to rant and rave against anyone that dares to profess the idea that a god might possibly exist, believe that abortion should carry the death penalty, just as murdering a child should. The fact that the view is most prominent among religious groups does not mean that the argument that fetus=baby biblical in nature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 24, 2012, 06:04:10 pm

I'm not normally one to chime in with this, but it seems someone else needs to repeat it.  An extended abortion debate would not be good for this thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 24, 2012, 06:04:32 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:47:09 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:30:40 pm

Abortion stuff

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Back on topic, Barack Obama says the Navy doesn't need more ships, but the Navy itself says that it needs at least 30 more ships to fulfill the obligations tasked to it. Which is the expert on naval strategy, and which is the snarky know-nothing fast approaching retirement?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 06:06:17 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:19:51 pm

I've never quite understood the "incest" part of that, unless it's ALSO rape. If you've got a consensual thing going on, I'm not sure why they would deserve an abortion more than any other couple.

This actually would be the eugenics argument, I believe. Not wanting eleven-toed children or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on October 24, 2012, 06:07:49 pm

And which is the overly bloated entity that...

Oh wait, it's you talking, nevermind, I'm not gonna bother.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 06:09:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 06:06:17 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:19:51 pm

I've never quite understood the "incest" part of that, unless it's ALSO rape. If you've got a consensual thing going on, I'm not sure why they would deserve an abortion more than any other couple.

This actually would be the eugenics argument, I believe. Not wanting eleven-toed children or something.

For it to be "eugenics" that would require assuming the fetus is worthy of personhood. Otherwise, it's still solidly in the position of "prevention."

IE we're back to square 1.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 24, 2012, 06:11:53 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 24, 2012, 06:04:32 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:47:09 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 05:30:40 pm

Abortion stuff

you can talk out your ass all you want, but there's piles of scientific literature on the subject. I guess you just "know better" than all the experts.

Back on topic, Barack Obama says the Navy doesn't need more ships, but the Navy itself says that it needs at least 30 more ships to fulfill the obligations tasked to it. Which is the expert on naval strategy, and which is the snarky know-nothing fast approaching retirement?

Obama's correct. Many of the obligations the Navy is task with now exist only on paper, such as guarding convoys to Europe from attacks by the Soviet Russian bomber and submarine fleet. The Navy is still required to keep ships in readiness for that purpose, even though having to supply a European army is unlikely in the extreme and Russia doesn't have that much to shoot at one anyway. The ships being built are for the purpose of replacing ships as they are decommissioned, rather than augmenting the fleet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 24, 2012, 06:19:28 pm

I guess that I'll play devil on military downsizing, eh?

On the other hand, I'd certainly contend that there's still no small value in America keeping utter dominance of blue water power, and keeping the ability to transport and protect stuff overseas is kinda a really important part of that. Moving real equipment by air is really inefficient, once you're into serious needs. Moreover, it's a helluva lot easier to keep stuff up than to try to crash rebuild a navy when it looks like we need it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on October 24, 2012, 06:23:32 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 24, 2012, 06:19:28 pm

I guess that I'll play devil on military downsizing, eh?

On the other hand, I'd certainly contend that there's still no small value in America keeping utter dominance of blue water power, and keeping the ability to transport and protect stuff overseas is kinda a really important part of that. Moving real equipment by air is really inefficient, once you're into serious needs. Moreover, it's a helluva lot easier to keep stuff up than to try to crash rebuild a navy when it looks like we need it.

We have aircraft carriers. Doesn't that basically make all other crafts except anti-sub ships and submarines obsolete?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 24, 2012, 06:24:15 pm

Quote from: Japa on October 24, 2012, 06:07:49 pm

And which is the overly bloated entity that...

Oh wait, it's you talking, nevermind, I'm not gonna bother.

Typical liberal. When something pops your cocoon, plug your ears and chant "I'm not listening!" over and over.

Obama wants to move plastic aircraft carriers around on the strategic map in his White House, but in the real world aircraft carriers go nowhere without destroyer screens and support ships like Aegis cruisers. If an aircraft carrier is unprotected, a single $1000 missile can destroy it.

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 24, 2012, 06:11:53 pm

Obama's correct. Many of the obligations the Navy is task with now exist only on paper, such as guarding convoys to Europe from attacks by the Soviet Russian bomber and submarine fleet. The Navy is still required to keep ships in readiness for that purpose, even though having to supply a European army is unlikely in the extreme and Russia doesn't have that much to shoot at one anyway. The ships being built are for the purpose of replacing ships as they are decommissioned, rather than augmenting the fleet.

Weakness attracts predators. Russia did invade Georgia a few years ago. Don't tell me you think they're more cuddly now just because they aren't Soviet. Do you really think Russia is peaceful?

Quote from: Eagle_eye on October 24, 2012, 06:23:32 pm

We have aircraft carriers. Doesn't that basically make all other crafts except anti-sub ships and submarines obsolete?

Obama is a goof. Don't rely on him for military strategy. Any aircraft carrier that travels without a large taskforce of supporting ships is a sitting duck. The navy needs other smaller ships precisely because it does have large and extremely high-value assets floating around. Carriers are glass cannons.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 24, 2012, 06:28:17 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 24, 2012, 06:24:15 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 24, 2012, 06:11:53 pm

Obama's correct. Many of the obligations the Navy is task with now exist only on paper, such as guarding convoys to Europe from attacks by the Soviet Russian bomber and submarine fleet. The Navy is still required to keep ships in readiness for that purpose, even though having to supply a European army is unlikely in the extreme and Russia doesn't have that much to shoot at one anyway. The ships being built are for the purpose of replacing ships as they are decommissioned, rather than augmenting the fleet.

Weakness attracts predators. Russia did invade Georgia a few years ago. Don't tell me you think they're more cuddly now just because they aren't Soviet. Do you really think Russia is peaceful?

I actually agree with you. Russia isn't any better without "Soviet". It's still a corrupt dictatorship and a serious threat to the rest of the industrialized world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 06:29:16 pm

http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/10/23/size-navy-thrust-forefront-campaign/Lm0WxYRAYTggln0VG58qgN/story.html

Quote

“Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” the former Massachusetts governor repeated in the debate with Obama on Monday. “The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through [planned defense cuts]. That’s unacceptable to me.”

The current fleet is actually slightly larger than it was during the Bush administration, when ship numbers dropped to 278 in 2007.

Since it was actually weakest during Bush Jnr, that makes Romney's line a pants-on-fire lie.

Quote

According to its 30-year shipbuilding plan, released in March, the Navy is set to grow to about 300 ships by 2019 and average about 298 ships each year through 2042. That assumes the defense budget remains at its current rate of growth and the second round of cuts passed by Congress and set to go into effect next year is overturned.

The cuts were passed by the Republican congress, naval numbers are actually already up from the Bush years, and the navy already planned to expand numbers significantly, but that's under threat because of the sequestration passed by the votes of Paul Ryan & co.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/london-ky/TDH47Q9VSH5QH667E

Quote

Paul Ryan Holds Event Criticizing The Military Spending Sequester He Voted For |

At a round table discussion in North Carolina Thursday, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan tried to pin the blame for the budget sequester squarely on the shoulders of President Obama, despite the fact that Ryan himself voted in favor of the sequester. The bill triggers automatic spending cuts to a variety of government programs including military spending if Congress cannot pass a budget by January first.

Remember, this only kicks in if Congress cannot pass a budget. and who exactly is in control of Congress at the moment?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on October 24, 2012, 06:34:01 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 05:25:45 pm

Well it's illegal, taboo, against religious principles, and then you have the scientific aspect where you have a much higher chance of birth defects. The birth defects one, to me, makes it more scientifically logical that you'd always abort in these cases than rape cases. There's no extra chance of having seriously deformed children because it was rape.

The mothers stress and depression hormones beg to differ. (not obviously seriously deformed, but having serious problems later in life)

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1710248,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1710248,00.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500962.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500962.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-458916/Stress-mothers-affects-unborn-babies.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-458916/Stress-mothers-affects-unborn-babies.html)

etc. etc. Being conceived by rape would likely be the peak of fetal stress effects.

On a side topic, I also think the origins of Astrology, specifically the idea that your personality type is determined when you are born might have a basis in the diets available in different seasons to the mother when she was pregnant; someone born in Winter would have been nourished by fresh vegetables the mother ate the previous spring and summer; while those born in Summer receive nutrition from fall crops (gourds, grains) and food preserved for the winter.

On a side-side note, My answer to if "Have you ever been to Disneyland?" hinges on the abortion debate, as I was born 9 months after my parents took my older siblings on vacation there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 24, 2012, 06:37:38 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on October 24, 2012, 06:23:32 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 24, 2012, 06:19:28 pm

I guess that I'll play devil on military downsizing, eh?

On the other hand, I'd certainly contend that there's still no small value in America keeping utter dominance of blue water power, and keeping the ability to transport and protect stuff overseas is kinda a really important part of that. Moving real equipment by air is really inefficient, once you're into serious needs. Moreover, it's a helluva lot easier to keep stuff up than to try to crash rebuild a navy when it looks like we need it.

We have aircraft carriers. Doesn't that basically make all other crafts except anti-sub ships and submarines obsolete?

Long story short, not at all.

We have aircraft carrier groups, which is to say carriers and cruisers and destroyers and other destroyers and supply ships and all sorts of other stuff. I mean, the common quote is that we've got more carriers than the rest of the world, but a carrier can't sail alone, or one lucky Algerian with an Exocet's a reaaaally dangerous threat to a really expensive boat.


Now, do we need enough ships to fight all the other nations in the world? Maybe, maybe not. Are our current ships in the fleet going to be enough to maintain the favorable balance of power in the coming years? Hell, how many of them are still going to be floating? I saw USS Memphis tied up and being deactivated a few months ago. Kinda scary to think about the amount of combat power that's no longer in the oceans in just one sub, you know?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 24, 2012, 06:41:44 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 06:29:16 pm

The cuts were passed by the Republican congress, naval numbers are actually already up from the Bush years, and the navy already planned to expand numbers significantly, but that's under threat because of the sequestration passed by the votes of Paul Ryan & co.

Obama advanced the idea of sequestration. Wahington Post reporter Bob Woodward (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82772.html) is pretty clear on that point. Furthermore, despite vowing to stop sequestration in front of millions of viewers during the last debate, within 24 hours he was telling the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121024/NEWS09/121024003/After-editor-s-blog-President-Obama-releases-transcript-of-Register-interview?Frontpage) that he had a plan to reduce the deficit... and then proceeded specifically to call out and to factor in the savings of a sequestration that one night ago he pledged to stop happening.

 "So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent ... in the first six months we are going to solve that [deficit]."

He at first demanded that this interview be off-the-record, for obvious reasons. Within 24 hours, saying a completely different thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 06:44:16 pm

So you favor extending the tax cuts, increasing spending, and you also favor cutting the deficit?

how's all that meant to work?

And with this magical austerity package, somehow it'll grow the economy rather than causing a double-dip recession, like in every other country which ever implemented an austerity package (i.e. Europe right now) because "America".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 24, 2012, 06:45:54 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 06:44:16 pm

So you favor extending the tax cuts, increasing spending, and you also favor cutting the deficit?

You'd think Paul Ryan would be too busy to post here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 06:52:58 pm

Having grown up in a military family, studied a fair amount of history and working on the development of military systems, I do appreciate the value of a strong military. Which is why I absolutely do not advocate slashing the budget, in the same way that many other liberals insist, especially in the face of the conservatives attempting to voraciously consume and destroy everything that isn't military spending.

How much of that budget is funneled into boondogles for the districts served by random congresspersons vs going towards meeting mission requirements? Could we be better served at a lower cost if congress was not in the position to make demands on funding for specific projects? Are the current mission requirements what we should really be aiming for? Could we freeze the growth of the military budget? Could we trim it slightly, a percent or two a year? Maybe it is something to consider.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on October 24, 2012, 06:57:33 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 24, 2012, 06:44:16 pm

So you favor extending the tax cuts, increasing spending, and you also favor cutting the deficit?

how's all that meant to work?

And with this magical austerity package, somehow it'll grow the economy rather than causing a double-dip recession, like in every other country which ever implemented an austerity package (i.e. Europe right now) because "America".

So wait, you charge Romney with lying just because his numbers a re slightly off, then I post about Obama knowingly and outright lying about sequestration in the debate and then telling the Des Moines Register something else...

And you deflect by bringing up other shit? I'm not a number-cruncher, but did you know that the tax rates since 1950 have varied widely from 85% to 35% top rate, but total tax revenues have varied in a small band from 15% to 20% of GDP?

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4d1a25d2cadcbb0f13010000/tax-rates-vs-revenues-chart.jpg)


Back to the stuff you're deflecting: are you going to continue calling Romney a liar when Obama blatantly lied to millions of viewers, changed his tune within 24 hours, then rushed to get the Register to keep it off the record?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 24, 2012, 07:00:38 pm

... what does Romney lying have to do with Obama lying? They both are pretty deceptive in their own ways. Same with pretty much every other major politician in the American system these days, it seems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 24, 2012, 07:18:09 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 24, 2012, 06:52:58 pm

Having grown up in a military family, studied a fair amount of history and working on the development of military systems, I do appreciate the value of a strong military. Which is why I absolutely do not advocate slashing the budget, in the same way that many other liberals insist, especially in the face of the conservatives attempting to voraciously consume and destroy everything that isn't military spending.

How much of that budget is funneled into boondogles for the districts served by random congresspersons vs going towards meeting mission requirements? Could we be better served at a lower cost if congress was not in the position to make demands on funding for specific projects? Are the current mission requirements what we should really be aiming for? Could we freeze the growth of the military budget? Could we trim it slightly, a percent or two a year? Maybe it is something to consider.

Yeah, that's what probably needs to happen, but I can't even imagine how much political capital it'd take to deboondogle the military-industrial-political complex these days. Especially when we *need* to start drawing down from our war time highs (at least in the army, from what spec4 Strifey sees) without utterly pillaging the experienced, high value soldiers, while simultaneously making the whole, bloated thing somewhat more efficient.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 24, 2012, 07:26:36 pm

One relatively easy way to save some cash down the road would be to replace some carriers with smaller ones (most supercarriers don't carry anywhere near their full air wing, as the modern multirole doctrine allows the same aircraft to carry out most missions, rather than having one aircraft type for bombing, one for escort, and another for fleet CAP,) as they are retired instead of only building Ford class supercarriers. That wouldn't reduce the combat capability of the Navy much, but would greatly reduce the manning requirement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: DJ on October 24, 2012, 08:01:55 pm

Are carriers really the way to go when manned aircraft are on their way to becoming obsolete?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 24, 2012, 08:15:33 pm

First, drone aircraft with the same range and capabilities as the manned version would still require a carrier. Second, unmanned aircraft have serious tactical flaws (for one thing, making them truly autonomous beyond "make everything in this area dead" is literally impossible, so you will always require a command link, which means that sufficient jamming or destroying a single satellite or installation causes the opposition to win the war) , so the notion that they will soon replace manned combat aircraft is, to be charitable, idiotic. They have some use for interdiction operations, or the destruction of a high-value, heavily defended target such as an AWACS or HQ, but there's no chance that manned combat aircraft will disappear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: DJ on October 24, 2012, 09:18:47 pm

I imagine drone carriers would be a lot cheaper to run, since they could be smaller and wouldn't need nearly as many men. But you could also make drones with a LOT more range than manned aircraft - the only reason nuclear powered aircraft were abandoned was the inability to properly shield the crew from the radiation.

As for electronic warfare, I reckon the modern manned aircraft are almost as vulnerable to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on October 24, 2012, 09:31:18 pm

Modern aircraft do rely a lot on electronics, but I'm sure they're well shielded, at least to the point that you couldn't practically interfere with them from the ground.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 24, 2012, 11:30:23 pm

Thread is rapidly turning to armchair milwank shit, which is my least favorite kind of shit.

I'm sorry I've ignored you for so long thread, you deserve better than this.  You deserve an updated first post, and some internal moderation, and maybe a poll or two I dunno.  I've neglected you terribly.  Perhaps you just came into this world too early for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 24, 2012, 11:55:56 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 24, 2012, 11:30:23 pm

I've neglected you terribly.  Perhaps you just came into this world too early for me.

Maybe you should've aborted the thread rather than making it :P


(oh cod I'm so sorry please don't kill me)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rose on October 25, 2012, 12:02:25 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on October 24, 2012, 06:24:15 pm

Quote from: Japa on October 24, 2012, 06:07:49 pm

And which is the overly bloated entity that...

Oh wait, it's you talking, nevermind, I'm not gonna bother.

Typical liberal. When something pops your cocoon, plug your ears and chant "I'm not listening!" over and over.

No, I just know when not to waste my breath with people that won't listen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 01:41:37 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 24, 2012, 11:30:23 pm

Thread is rapidly turning to armchair milwank shit, which is my least favorite kind of shit.

I'm sorry I've ignored you for so long thread, you deserve better than this.  You deserve an updated first post, and some internal moderation, and maybe a poll or two I dunno.  I've neglected you terribly.  Perhaps you just came into this world too early for me.

Can a thread get aborted?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 01:44:54 am

When does it actually become a thread? In the authors head, while it's being written, or only when the "post thread" button is pressed? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 02:11:14 am

Are you saying that a spambot's thread with only one post has as much life as this megathread that shows so much more sentience?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 25, 2012, 02:17:25 am

*considered making a snappy remark at previous post*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 02:19:21 am

Quote from: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 02:11:14 am

Are you saying that a spambot's thread with only one post has as much life as this megathread that shows so much more sentience?

Hey, don't threads themselves for the actions of their authors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 25, 2012, 05:47:43 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 01:44:54 am

When does it actually become a thread? In the authors head, while it's being written, or only when the "post thread" button is pressed? :P

I'd put it at the becoming of writing. Not sure where taking an outline of what one wanted in the first post would be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 25, 2012, 08:54:13 am

All threads have a right to post, even the locked ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 25, 2012, 09:02:25 am

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/international-observers-draw-warning-ag/

Apparently, Texas law does not allow international observers to observe their elections. And that may be in violation of federal law if our membership on the OSCE is based on a ratified treaty (I have no idea if it is or not).

Edit: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/colin-powell-endorses-obama-second-term-115805725--election.html
Gulf War General and republican former secretary of defense under Bush continues to support President Obama.


double edit: http://news.yahoo.com/u-election-nears-efforts-intensify-misinform-pressure-voters-051420119.html
Conservative groups are stepping up efforts at voter intimidation in key battleground states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 25, 2012, 10:30:38 am

Quote from: Nadaka on October 25, 2012, 09:02:25 am

double edit: http://news.yahoo.com/u-election-nears-efforts-intensify-misinform-pressure-voters-051420119.html
Conservative groups are stepping up efforts at voter intimidation in key battleground states.

That's some scary shit. How have you not had a rash of arrests for all this voter suppression bullshit?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 10:35:37 am

Because the Republicans are better at it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on October 25, 2012, 11:04:35 am

Colin Powell endorses Obama. (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/25/14693729-colin-powell-endorses-obama-for-second-term)  o_o  Is Colin Powell a moderate or something?  It seems odd for a Republican to endorse a liberal president without some other reason besides being genuinely concerned that the Republican candidate is nuttier than a fruit cake.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on October 25, 2012, 11:11:05 am

Wikipedia says he also endorsed Obama in 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 25, 2012, 11:25:16 am

Quote from: Euld on October 25, 2012, 11:04:35 am

Colin Powell endorses Obama. (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/25/14693729-colin-powell-endorses-obama-for-second-term)  o_o  Is Colin Powell a moderate or something?  It seems odd for a Republican to endorse a liberal president without some other reason besides being genuinely concerned that the Republican candidate is nuttier than a fruit cake.

*Le Gasp*  Someone who is willing to go against party doctrine based on sensible things?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 25, 2012, 11:35:05 am

Quote from: Euld on October 25, 2012, 11:04:35 am

Colin Powell endorses Obama. (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/25/14693729-colin-powell-endorses-obama-for-second-term)  o_o  Is Colin Powell a moderate or something?  It seems odd for a Republican to endorse a liberal president without some other reason besides being genuinely concerned that the Republican candidate is nuttier than a fruit cake.

So not even black republicans will vote for romney? I guess he really does have 0% of the black vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 25, 2012, 02:24:50 pm

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on October 25, 2012, 11:35:05 am

Quote from: Euld on October 25, 2012, 11:04:35 am

Colin Powell endorses Obama. (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/25/14693729-colin-powell-endorses-obama-for-second-term)  o_o  Is Colin Powell a moderate or something?  It seems odd for a Republican to endorse a liberal president without some other reason besides being genuinely concerned that the Republican candidate is nuttier than a fruit cake.

So not even black republicans will vote for romney? I guess he really does have 0% of the black vote.

Maybe Herman Cain (Hahahaaa! Baller Friday!) will still vote for Romney.

I think Colin Powell's endorsement is a good indicator that there are still some Republicans who can see beyond their party lines... and some Democrats, like that black woman from Massachusetts who did a big pro-Romney plug at the RNC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on October 25, 2012, 02:58:47 pm

Yep, Colin Powell's pretty much always been that sort of guy. I mean, you can tell he's a good guy by the sheer perfect storm of candidates he'd be, yet he doesn't want to run. I spose if stuff got bad enough, he'd be a pretty good candidate for a Republican realignment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 03:01:27 pm

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone:

If you don't live in a swing state, you accomplish far more by voting for a third party candidate than by voting for Obama or Romney. For once, let the electoral college work in your favour, and help a third party candidate inch a wee bit closer to the point where someone might bother talking about them.

By voting for Romney or Obama, you're essentially just throwing away your vote!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 25, 2012, 03:06:40 pm

When I lived in Mississippi I voted for Ralph Nader. In Florida? not so much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 25, 2012, 03:21:08 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on October 25, 2012, 02:58:47 pm

Yep, Colin Powell's pretty much always been that sort of guy. I mean, you can tell he's a good guy by the sheer perfect storm of candidates he'd be, yet he doesn't want to run. I spose if stuff got bad enough, he'd be a pretty good candidate for a Republican realignment.

Yeah, if the Republicans finally began recentralizing after drifting right since 1980, he might be a good candidate for the job.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 03:23:06 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 03:01:27 pm

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone:

If you don't live in a swing state, you accomplish far more by voting for a third party candidate than by voting for Obama or Romney. For once, let the electoral college work in your favour, and help a third party candidate inch a wee bit closer to the point where someone might bother talking about them.

By voting for Romney or Obama, you're essentially just throwing away your vote!

I would have agreed a month ago but I'm worried that Obama might lose the popular vote and give republicans new fuels for their whine fests.  I don't want that so I'm voting Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 03:25:47 pm

Couldn't that be a good thing? We might get bipartisan support for abolishing the electoral college if both sides get burned by it in recent memory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 25, 2012, 03:26:48 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 03:25:47 pm

Couldn't that be a good thing? We might get bipartisan support for abolishing the electoral college if both sides get burned by it in recent memory.

Yeah. The Dems got trashed in 2000, and if the Republicans also suffered, it would provide a bipartisan impetus to trash the ridiculous system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on October 25, 2012, 03:26:57 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 03:25:47 pm

Couldn't that be a good thing? We might get bipartisan support for abolishing the electoral college if both sides get burned by it in recent memory.

But then my plan to drug them all, and elect a monkey for president will be useless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 25, 2012, 03:35:08 pm

The monkey lost the popular vote but Florida voted it in because it was smarter than the majority of people in the state. :P

I'm voting Obama because I'm afraid all this election Fraud may actually start making Romney a viable candidate.



In other news, this is the first time I've seen 4chan actually think seriously about voting Obama. I'm surprised, given that this is a board where at least one thread is dedicated entirely to racist slurs against black people.

I'm not sure how to feel about this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 25, 2012, 03:37:12 pm

George Dubya has already had his 2 terms though. Oh, you mean a different monkey.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 03:48:58 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 03:25:47 pm

Couldn't that be a good thing? We might get bipartisan support for abolishing the electoral college if both sides get burned by it in recent memory.

Because angry conservatives leap to bipartisan aproaches

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 25, 2012, 03:51:59 pm

But I thought only Sith had black-white thinking?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Caz on October 25, 2012, 04:18:18 pm

Best way to vote in America is to buy a one-way ticket to Japan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mutagen on October 25, 2012, 04:45:17 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 25, 2012, 03:51:59 pm

But I thought only Sith had black-white thinking?

Absolutism is absolutely wrong! Nothing is black and white, everything is gray, including the black and white that the gray is comprised of!  ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 25, 2012, 05:21:22 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 03:23:06 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 03:01:27 pm

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone:

If you don't live in a swing state, you accomplish far more by voting for a third party candidate than by voting for Obama or Romney. For once, let the electoral college work in your favour, and help a third party candidate inch a wee bit closer to the point where someone might bother talking about them.

By voting for Romney or Obama, you're essentially just throwing away your vote!

I would have agreed a month ago but I'm worried that Obama might lose the popular vote and give republicans new fuels for their whine fests.  I don't want that so I'm voting Obama.

I'm in California and I've already cast my vote for Jill Stein. Have a little courage. Realize that frankly Romney isn't going to achieve anything anyway, since the congress will still be mired in bickering.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 25, 2012, 05:39:43 pm

Had an interesting thought today:

The President has little direct control over Laws, since that's congress' responsibility. Sure, he has Veto power, but that only goes so far. And yet, almost everything Presidential candidates talk about doing has to do with new Laws or Changing Laws.

Why don't they talk about all of the changes that they CAN do within the Executive Branch? All those Federal agencies that actually enforce laws and generally make a mess of things are directly under the control of the President.

I want to see a Presidential Candidate who promises to do things like curtain wasteful spending and inefficiencies within those agencies. Sure, some of the projects are mandated by law. But there must be a lot that could be done that wouldn't require any cooperation with Congress.

Am I just missing something?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 25, 2012, 05:46:07 pm

To put it simply, most people have no idea what powers the President actually has. Pushing for laws that the target demographic wants, and vetoing ones it doesn't want, is a highly visible form of leadership that people easily understand. Trying to get into the minutiae of the workings of the DoD or CIA would confuse people, and might even make them believe that he was promising to exceed his authority. In short, such a promise would only appeal to the relative handful of people who have an understanding of the inner workings of government departments, while at the same time alienating those who do not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 25, 2012, 05:49:50 pm

So, running for president is like herding cats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on October 25, 2012, 06:39:32 pm

Quote from: Caz on October 25, 2012, 04:18:18 pm

Best way to vote in America is to buy a one-way ticket to Japan.

Urgh, don't do that. It's election season here, too. Every damn day there are vans with speakers on top blaring out why you should vote for a given candidate; they are really bloody loud, and you can hear them for ages, because they drive down each and every one of the thousands of crisscrossing streets in a 1 mile radius. >_>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 06:56:38 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 25, 2012, 05:21:22 pm

I'm in California and I've already cast my vote for Jill Stein. Have a little courage. Realize that frankly Romney isn't going to achieve anything anyway, since the congress will still be mired in bickering.

I'm sorry but were you awake during the bush years?

Presidents have a lot more power in reality then they do on paper.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 25, 2012, 07:00:01 pm

Like....what? Regardless of Bush's actual actions, he didn't overstep his given powers in doing them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 07:01:25 pm

Were you awake during the Bush years? Most of his worse policies were the fault of congress. He may have wanted them, but it's hard to say they were really his fault.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on October 25, 2012, 07:06:13 pm

Control of congress is probably more important.

But you really need the president and congress to work together for things to be good. And that's been a problem the last four years since the republican controlled house (is the senate also?) pretty much just voted anything the president agrees with down as soon as it gets in the door.

Then they turn around and say the president hasn't delivered. Well no shit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 25, 2012, 07:11:26 pm

And then they criticize him for trying to be a "liberal Reagan" who would have bipartisan successes, because that doesn't work, because Obama doesn't deliver, because the Republican House is stubborn and won't let anything pass.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 07:29:56 pm

They won't even let him pass things they themselves have proposed, simply because they don't want it to look like he's accomplished something.

It's not a great situation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 25, 2012, 07:37:57 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 25, 2012, 05:21:22 pm

I'm in California and I've already cast my vote for Jill Stein. Have a little courage. Realize that frankly Romney isn't going to achieve anything anyway, since the congress will still be mired in bickering.

Besides, you know, appointing more conservative judges to the supreme court.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 25, 2012, 08:50:51 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on October 25, 2012, 06:39:32 pm

Quote from: Caz on October 25, 2012, 04:18:18 pm

Best way to vote in America is to buy a one-way ticket to Japan.

Urgh, don't do that. It's election season here, too. Every damn day there are vans with speakers on top blaring out why you should vote for a given candidate; they are really bloody loud, and you can hear them for ages, because they drive down each and every one of the thousands of crisscrossing streets in a 1 mile radius. >_>

Huh. I'm going to try to get stationed in Japan if at all possible when I finally get through Basic training here in the States. How often are elections over there?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 25, 2012, 10:00:41 pm

The most interesting things I know about Japanese politics is that the Liberal Democrats are the Conservatives, the Democrats are the Liberals, and the local far-right nationalists/proto-fascists have the coolest name: The Sunrise Party. There are also some Communists in there somewhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 25, 2012, 10:32:03 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 07:29:56 pm

They won't even let him pass things they themselves have proposed, simply because they don't want it to look like he's accomplished something.

It's not a great situation.

Sometimes... I wish this place was China.  The administration would have eventually said no to the bullshit and started summary executions for being roadblocks to progressa destabilizing force.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 25, 2012, 10:35:10 pm

The administration wouldn't have been progressive in the first place. The problem with enlightened liberal dictatorships is that the people ruling them by definition want to dismantle them.

It takes a special kind of lunatic to seize absolute power and use it for the genuine good of the people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 10:39:58 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on October 25, 2012, 07:06:13 pm

Control of congress is probably more important.

Clinton faced a republican congress and managed to stem the tide of inequality and advance a whole host of liberal social issues.  Reagan had a democratic congress but still started the first round of deficit increasing tax cuts for the rich.

Complete control of congress is vastly more powerful then the presidency but even a strong majority is no where as useful as complete control.  But the White House is always answering to one guy while congressmen bicker with their own parties endlessly.  To really "control" congress you'd need something like the 80% majorities that the New Dealers had.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 10:42:29 pm

Except the Republican's haven't been bickering lately. They've been marching in lockstep. It's actually pretty impressive. Driving out many of the moderates has certainly helped them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 25, 2012, 10:44:33 pm

It will eventually come back to haunt them, I assure you. Even many conservative Americans won't settle for far-right instead of center-right.

We're already starting to see some of it, what with all the recent gaffes concerning rape and abortion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 25, 2012, 10:50:04 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 25, 2012, 10:42:29 pm

Except the Republican's haven't been bickering lately. They've been marching in lockstep. It's actually pretty impressive. Driving out many of the moderates has certainly helped them.

If they've been marching in such lockstep then why have they struggled to get legislation out of committees, let alone get it voted on in the house and sent to the Senate?  They look like lockstep because they are all uniformly ideological but that doesn't mean they are remotely good at working together.  I'd say that far from being lockstep, they're actually the most poorly organized house majority in decades.  Besides the repeal of Obamacare, can you name a single major legislative proposal that originated in the House and not the Senate or White House in the past two years?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 26, 2012, 05:41:39 am

They don't have the numbers to propose their own measures but they do have the party unity required to block almost every democratic measure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 26, 2012, 07:05:23 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 26, 2012, 05:41:39 am

They don't have the numbers to propose their own measures

???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 07:07:50 am

Or more specifically - they are lockstep on one issue, and one issue alone. Seeing Obama doesn't get re-elected and fails to accomplish anything.

Everything beyond that... well... you're certainly right there. They may not be able to agree on what they want, but they don't seem to have any disagreement on what they need to do (or, at the very least, the disagreement doesn't seem to be changing their votes)

That sounds a lot like you've got a variety of Republicans with differing ideals and the high party discipline to do what the party says when they demand it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 26, 2012, 08:57:13 am

The numbers required to block measures in the Senate is lower than the number required to actually get them passed, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 26, 2012, 09:02:23 am

Yes. Even one rogue Senator can instigate a filibusterer, which can only be overridden if three-fifths of Senators in attendance vote to cloture it. This usually requires 60 Senators, as it is unlikely for any of them to ever willingly not attend during legislative sessions. Filibusters have no time limit and can completely kill a proposal they are not clotured.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 26, 2012, 09:27:52 am

The problem with the filibuster is that they decided it was damn inconvenient to have to stand around all day and talk. So they changed the rules to allow a procedural filibuster without the effort.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 26, 2012, 09:35:11 am

One might claim that such a thing is bad because it allows filibusterers to be conducted without difficulty and stalls legislation through stubbornness, but the real reason it is bad is because it means there are no more incidents of epic floor-holding anymore.

Strom Thurmond was a racist bastard, but you have to admit that talking for 24 hours straight on the floor to oppose the Civil Rights Act was an impressive feat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on October 26, 2012, 10:11:48 am

I blame Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That movie, which seems to have been played in all middle/high school civics/government classrooms for the past 50 years, makes the filibuster seem heroic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 10:20:53 am

Of course, that movie is also about a very different sort of filibuster, as has been mentioned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on October 26, 2012, 10:31:27 am

I thought filibuster was a loophole in the system that got exploited.

I didn't think it was something that was considered GOOD and PROPER and was ENCOURAGED. x-x

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 10:34:15 am

I think the democrats should throw the election. Consider; the next four years are going to see more stagnant economy, increasing gas prices, and the us leaving the middle east in humiliating defeat. In the very near future, the automatic cuts are going to go into effect which will collapse support for the president amongst the military.

All this put together, the only upside to being president for the next four years is that the secret service makes really good coffee.

Oh, there's concerns that Romney is going to mandate oil drilling at gay marriages or invade abortion clinics with death squads or something, but frankly he doesn't have the power. As soon as they're on the defensive, the democrats will block all republican actions indefinitely, as is ancient custom.

Then, when the four years are up, Obama can be the first black president to serve non-consecutive terms, or maybe Oprah will run.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 26, 2012, 10:39:55 am

No, the filibuster was put there on purpose so that it would be fairly easy to block controversial legislation if you didn't have large enough support for it.

That said, the type of filibuster they have now where they don't even bother to actually filibuster is complete BS.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 10:48:35 am

The filibuster was originally a delaying tactic. It could buy you time and apply pressure - nothing more. It gave individual legislators the opportunity to prevent rushing terrible bills through the legal system. It gave them a chance to build public support, to draw things out into the open, to make people actually stop and think, hopefully, or at the very least to give someone a chance to change minds.

But it had a built in limit - a person's willpower. They could slow something, thy could make it more difficult, but they could not stop it.

This "new" filibuster is nothing like that. It's a solid, impossible to overcome clampdown.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 26, 2012, 10:52:44 am

Even if Obama gets nothing else done, he needs to win to flip the Supreme Court.

Of course, many conservatives already consider the Supreme Court flipped after the Fall Of John Glover Roberts Junior, Aged 57.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 10:48:35 am

But it had a built in limit - a person's willpower. They could slow something, thy could make it more difficult, but they could not stop it.

In theory you could stop something with an old filibuster if you had multiple supporters. Hold the floor and trade places every once in a while until the Senate starts to starve or ends the session.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 10:55:44 am

I believe there were limits on whether or not someone would be allowed up to speak, though, right? So the only guaranteed way to hold was not to switch?

I forget some of the details, admittedly. Did that ever actually happen?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 26, 2012, 10:58:29 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 10:48:35 am

The filibuster was originally a delaying tactic. It could buy you time and apply pressure - nothing more. It gave individual legislators the opportunity to prevent rushing terrible bills through the legal system. It gave them a chance to build public support, to draw things out into the open, to make people actually stop and think, hopefully, or at the very least to give someone a chance to change minds.

But it had a built in limit - a person's willpower. They could slow something, thy could make it more difficult, but they could not stop it.

This "new" filibuster is nothing like that. It's a solid, impossible to overcome clampdown.

You can just pass it along to the next person in line. I am not saying its easy, but assuming you have 30 willing filibusters (and 15 senators stopping the filibuster from being stopped), you can just pass it between them in 2 hour intervals, with the same speaker talking every sixty hours. It would be a pain in the butt to extend it until the session ended, but not impossible if none of them decide to change their mind.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 26, 2012, 10:52:44 am

Even if Obama gets nothing else done, he needs to win to flip the Supreme Court.

Of course, many conservatives already consider the Supreme Court flipped after the Fall Of John Glover Roberts Junior, Aged 57.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 10:48:35 am

But it had a built in limit - a person's willpower. They could slow something, thy could make it more difficult, but they could not stop it.

In theory you could stop something with an old filibuster if you had multiple supporters. Hold the floor and trade places every once in a while until the Senate starts to starve or ends the session.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure they could just use a aid to get food.

But yeah, much easier then stopping the current stupid filibuster rules, which I am sure will be ended eventually when a issue gets big enough to force it.

EDIT:

Quote from: wikipedia

Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[43] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

Yup, any combination of senators can delay as long as they want.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 26, 2012, 11:02:35 am

Are they allowed to repeat?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 26, 2012, 11:03:14 am

Yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 26, 2012, 11:03:33 am

There isn't any rule against it, but I don't recall anyone ever trying either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 26, 2012, 12:13:38 pm

Apparently Texas is having a shit because there will be UN election observers (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/10/25/0315247/texas-attorney-general-warns-international-election-observers). Threatening criminal prosecution if any observers come within 100 feet of the entrance. Hell, if any other country barred observers, you can be sure it'd be taken as a sign of corruption.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 26, 2012, 12:14:58 pm

Heh, arent you guys a shining beacon of democrcy who should be showcasing just how its done to the observers?

[/irony]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 26, 2012, 12:23:39 pm

THE UN IS GOING TO INVADE US is a pretty common conspiracy theory, it seems.  I can't find the guy who was claiming there were secret codes hidden on the back of road signs, unfortunately, but I did see plenty of THE UN INVASION IS IMMINENT posts dating back to 1997.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 26, 2012, 12:30:02 pm

Pfff, if we were interested we'd just have our mindslave Obama give it to us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 26, 2012, 12:34:46 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 10:34:15 am

I think the democrats should throw the election. Consider; the next four years are going to see more stagnant economy, increasing gas prices, and the us leaving the middle east in humiliating defeat.

The past 4 years have had a weak economy as households and businesses have been deleveraging.  Spending will rebound because that's already happened.  Add on that the Federal Reserve is opening up the floodgates in a big way and that will start kicking in a few months into the next presidents term.  Yeah gas prices will go up but how important are gas prices compared to an economic rebound?  I don't get why you think the US is on course for humiliation in the middle east.  It seems to me like the spate of revolutions that we didn't directly involve ourselves in is like a best case scenario?

I think the stakes are so high in this election because the next four years are probably going to be much, much better for the US.  If Obama wins he gets vindication because we stayed the course and things got better.  If Romney wins he gets vindication because as soon as he got into office things got better.  As a bonus to the winner Europe is probably not going to recover well so depending on who get's the bully pulpit America was smart to either avoid European austerity or avoid European welfare states.  I expect that whatever party wins in two weeks is going to win again in 4 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 26, 2012, 12:36:25 pm

I heard an Australian reporter on TV talking about the ~1969 independence vote of West Papua from Indonesia. The US and UK wanted it to stay as part of Indonesia, this was back when Indonesia had the murderous dictator Suharto.

The reporter said he was there at a polling place, and there was a British election observer inside the polling place. Outside people were trying to get in to vote, but the Indonesian army was threatening them at gunpoint, beating people, herding those who protested into trucks and disappearing them somewhere. There were hand-picking people who were allowed to vote in the referendum, but these people were scared witless what would happen if they didn't "vote right".

The reporter went into the polling place, and told the "observer" what was happening outside. The observer calmly said "my job is to observe what happens in here, not out there!".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 26, 2012, 12:57:25 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 26, 2012, 12:23:39 pm

THE UN IS GOING TO INVADE US is a pretty common conspiracy theory, it seems.  I can't find the guy who was claiming there were secret codes hidden on the back of road signs, unfortunately, but I did see plenty of THE UN INVASION IS IMMINENT posts dating back to 1997.

Heh. Typical conspiracy nonsense. They tend to have a strange underlying assumption that large, horrible inefficient/incompetent organizations are really faking it and actually secretly hyper-competent. In reality, I doubt the UN could successfully invade the Galapagos islands, let alone the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 26, 2012, 01:02:18 pm

It is kind of difficult to invade without an army.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 26, 2012, 01:03:20 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 26, 2012, 01:02:18 pm

It is kind of difficult to invade without an army.

And that's just the start of the problems the UN would have.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 26, 2012, 01:08:15 pm

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/8577/20121026/electoral-college-map-2012-obama-hits-271-votes-enough-win-election.htm

According to these dudes, Obama has it in the bag with 271 electoral votes, 76 tossups and 191 for Romney.

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012-presidential-election-electoral-vote-map/

According to these dudes, Romney has it in the bag with 279 electoral votes to Obama 259.

http://electoral-vote.com/
these dudes favor obama even more, though several of the states are sufficiently low for obama that they could swing the other way.

http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php
And these dudes are even more predicting obama victory.... gotta go to lunch now, cant finish this comment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on October 26, 2012, 01:09:48 pm

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/).

I like to use 538 myself.  Obama 294 to Romney 244 currently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 26, 2012, 01:10:14 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 26, 2012, 12:36:25 pm

I heard an Australian reporter on TV talking about the ~1969 independence vote of West Papua from Indonesia. The US and UK wanted it to stay as part of Indonesia, this was back when Indonesia had the murderous dictator Suharto.

The reporter said he was there at a polling place, and there was a British election observer inside the polling place. Outside people were trying to get in to vote, but the Indonesian army was threatening them at gunpoint, beating people, herding those who protested into trucks and disappearing them somewhere. There were hand-picking people who were allowed to vote in the referendum, but these people were scared witless what would happen if they didn't "vote right".

The reporter went into the polling place, and told the "observer" what was happening outside. The observer calmly said "my job is to observe what happens in here, not out there!".

I can believe that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 26, 2012, 02:10:03 pm

I'm seriously hoping that our Nov. 6th die roll goes to Obama... it's all prayer [or hope, for a non-religious perspective] at this point. I'd like to know what the best universities in Canada are, just in case...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 26, 2012, 02:17:31 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 26, 2012, 02:10:03 pm

I'm seriously hoping that our Nov. 6th die roll goes to Obama... it's all prayer [or hope, for a non-religious perspective] at this point. I'd like to know what the best universities in Canada are, just in case...

Eh, I don't like or trust Romney, but I doubt he'd ruin the country or anything. I do expect that he'd avoid doing anything that actually cost rich people money. Other than that, it's hard to say what he'd really do. He changes his position on everything too often to get a sense of what he'd do if he was actually president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 26, 2012, 02:25:53 pm

I'm not worried about Romney for Romney's sake, it's that he'll roll over and let his party implement all sorts of crazy stuff. There will be big pressure on him to fill the Supreme Court with radical conservatives so they can overturn Roe-vs-Wade and ban abortions, and stuff like that.

Will he stand up to the more radical impulses of his own party?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 26, 2012, 02:34:44 pm

Romney preaches to the crowd he addresses, no matter if it contradicts what he has said before. 

It is going to be a question of who is he going to need to preach to for another 4 years in office.  If you can answer that, you will know what direction he will try to take the country in. 
I am of the belief that he can practically ignore the masses for the first 3 years... and follow the agenda of securing big money for the next cycle, since America "Heck Yea!" has the attention span of young children.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 26, 2012, 03:05:13 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 26, 2012, 02:25:53 pm

I'm not worried about Romney for Romney's sake, it's that he'll roll over and let his party implement all sorts of crazy stuff. There will be big pressure on him to fill the Supreme Court with radical conservatives so they can overturn Roe-vs-Wade and ban abortions, and stuff like that.

Will he stand up to the more radical impulses of his own party?

That's what I meant. Personally Romney would probably play more moderate to keep his public appeal up, but the far-right wing of the Republican party could use him like a puppet to shove through all their stone-age morals and trickle-down economics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 26, 2012, 03:08:47 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 26, 2012, 01:08:15 pm

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012-presidential-election-electoral-vote-map/

According to these dudes, Romney has it in the bag with 279 electoral votes to Obama 259.

That site has Ohio as a Romney state even though their polling averages show Obama ahead.  I'm guessing they rationalize using the "undecideds always break towards the challenger" myth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 26, 2012, 03:16:11 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 26, 2012, 02:25:53 pm

I'm not worried about Romney for Romney's sake, it's that he'll roll over and let his party implement all sorts of crazy stuff. There will be big pressure on him to fill the Supreme Court with radical conservatives so they can overturn Roe-vs-Wade and ban abortions, and stuff like that.

Will he stand up to the more radical impulses of his own party?

Why does everybody always act like overturning Roe V. Wade is the most radical aspect of the far-right's agenda?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 26, 2012, 03:23:22 pm

It's a controversial banner issue, and the original decision is, legally speaking, extremely flimsy , so it's not hard to find reasoning to overturn it. Thus, it is the most public of judicial issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 26, 2012, 03:26:43 pm

Plus the 5000 deaths a year from illegal abortions the United States used to have, and the population was about half of the present level. So it's definitely an issue that can kill people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 26, 2012, 03:28:09 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 26, 2012, 03:16:11 pm

Why does everybody always act like overturning Roe V. Wade is the most radical aspect of the far-right's agenda?

Stop.  I have already seen the future this post leads us to, and I cannot allow it to happen again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 26, 2012, 03:31:53 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on October 26, 2012, 03:28:09 pm

Stop.

Hammertime!

But yeah we just averted an abortion clusterfuck recently. That way the dark side lies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 26, 2012, 04:16:55 pm

Abortion threads kill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 04:25:28 pm

Oh, who else is really, really disappointed in Meatloaf?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 26, 2012, 05:48:37 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 04:25:28 pm

Oh, who else is really, really disappointed in Meatloaf?

I am forever betrayed. /deletes all Meatloaf from hard-drive

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 06:20:46 pm

Hey now, let's not go overboard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 26, 2012, 06:25:42 pm

What, is he supporting the communist party candidate? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 26, 2012, 06:37:49 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on October 26, 2012, 03:23:22 pm

It's a controversial banner issue, and the original decision is, legally speaking, extremely flimsy , so it's not hard to find reasoning to overturn it. Thus, it is the most public of judicial issues.

Nonetheless, (regardless of the differing relative chances of these things) overturning it wouldn't be nearly as bad as forcing schools to treat intelligent design as if it were legitimate science or passing an amendment banning gay marriage, or gutting medicare and medicaid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 26, 2012, 06:39:27 pm

Firstly, I would say it would be worse then either of those.  Secondly, it's a much more credible threat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 26, 2012, 07:02:38 pm

How about the danger of Romney ignoring climate change and rolling back any pro-green policies Obama had (not that he had particularly many of them or spoke about them much besides to say that he was funding 'green jobs' by sending money to companies, and he pretty much never mentioned climate change)?

Actually, I'm leaning towards voting for Jill Stein myself (but I'm in one of the definitely-not-even-anywhere-close-to-being-a-battleground-state states, which Obama is almost certainly going to win handily (Intrade has a 97% chance of him winning this state), unless something completely unexpected happens, anyways.

At the moment, Intrade is showing 281 electoral votes for Obama (some of which are leaning his way, instead of solid) and 235 for Romney (none leaning his way instead of solid), with 22 as tossups (Virginia and Colorado). (See http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/ ) Several days ago they had Ohio as a tossup, but it is now leaning towards Obama with 64.1% vs 38.8% for Romney. Mind you these are odds of winning the state for each candidate, not polls of voters' stated intentions. The election scoreboard projects Obama to have a 63.3% chance to win the election, currently (and Romney at 36.8%). That must reflect the chance that Obama could be sabotaged just before the end, or that Romney's family might arrange for certain voting machines to be rigged to steal the election, presumably. :V

Quote from: Glowcat on October 26, 2012, 05:48:37 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 04:25:28 pm

Oh, who else is really, really disappointed in Meatloaf?

I am forever betrayed. /deletes all Meatloaf from hard-drive

Do you want your money back? Is life a lemon?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on October 26, 2012, 07:59:29 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 26, 2012, 07:02:38 pm

Do you want your money back? Is life a lemon?

The future ain't what it used to be.

I may vote for Jill Stein given that I live in California. Not much chance for Romney to take the vote here anyway unless too many of us get the same idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 26, 2012, 09:54:32 pm

On the upside, if the icecaps do melt it could provide an undisputable disproof of Genesis 9:15

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 26, 2012, 10:09:47 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 26, 2012, 09:54:32 pm

On the upside, if the icecaps do melt it could provide an undisputable disproof of Genesis 9:15

Or alternitively, prove that the bible was a couple mellenia too soon. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 26, 2012, 10:13:16 pm

Or prove that "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 26, 2012, 11:01:07 pm

Maybe it's because we will grow so numerous that Earth-that-will-be-that-was will no longer be able to support our numbers?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 26, 2012, 11:09:06 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 04:25:28 pm

Oh, who else is really, really disappointed in Meatloaf?

What'd he do?

Quote from: mainiac on October 26, 2012, 11:01:07 pm

Maybe it's because we will grow so numerous that Earth-that-will-be-that-was will no longer be able to support our numbers?

Lemme dust off my brown coat...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Criptfeind on October 26, 2012, 11:55:24 pm

I'm playing a pokemon game Nuzlock style, and I named my Zubat after Mitt.

My Zubat is totally sucking, he totally lost my vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 01:43:46 am

Quote from: Sirus on October 26, 2012, 11:09:06 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 04:25:28 pm

Oh, who else is really, really disappointed in Meatloaf?

What'd he do?

Oh, just this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdRONeM4CSo)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 27, 2012, 01:46:52 am

Romney's face is just contorted in an unflinching look of suppressed horror.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 27, 2012, 01:50:32 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 01:43:46 am

Quote from: Sirus on October 26, 2012, 11:09:06 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 26, 2012, 04:25:28 pm

Oh, who else is really, really disappointed in Meatloaf?

What'd he do?

Oh, just this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdRONeM4CSo)

I...don't even know what to say O_o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 27, 2012, 06:49:21 am

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 26, 2012, 07:02:38 pm

At the moment, Intrade is showing 281 electoral votes for Obama (some of which are leaning his way, instead of solid) and 235 for Romney (none leaning his way instead of solid), with 22 as tossups (Virginia and Colorado). (See http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/electoral-map/ ) Several days ago they had Ohio as a tossup, but it is now leaning towards Obama with 64.1% vs 38.8% for Romney. Mind you these are odds of winning the state for each candidate, not polls of voters' stated intentions. The election scoreboard projects Obama to have a 63.3% chance to win the election, currently (and Romney at 36.8%). That must reflect the chance that Obama could be sabotaged just before the end, or that Romney's family might arrange for certain voting machines to be rigged to steal the election, presumably. :V

Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) has it 295-242, with Obama having a 74.4% chance of winning. Looking at the graphs, he's basically undone about half the damage he took from the first debate. Another week like this, and he'll be back to kicking Romney's ass the way he was before the debates.

RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/) has it 290-248, with Obama winning Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio, but losing Virginia and Florida. I think that's probably realistic. Florida, I think, is out of reach for Team Blue, as is North Carolina (although they've certainly been on the ad blitz here in N. Cackalacky, and a couple of recent polls show the race far closer than it had been).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:45:38 am

I'm too young to vote... but if I could it would make no difference.

My county is always Republican for some reason, but the state is always [ALWAYS] blue in presidential elections because of the power of the unions in the east.

Ah, Michigan...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 27, 2012, 07:53:58 am

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:45:38 am

I'm too young to vote...

What you need to do is find out what people you know are voting Republican and make sure that they're distracted and forget to vote on Election Day.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 07:56:54 am

Quote from: Bohandas on October 27, 2012, 07:53:58 am

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:45:38 am

I'm too young to vote...

What you need to do is find out what people you know are voting Republican and make sure that they're distracted and forget to vote on Election Day.

Set up a lemonade-stand style abortion clinic outside their house, giving discounts to atheists and the LGBT community. Don't forget to refuse payment because you're doing it for the good of society, and comrades have to stick together.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 27, 2012, 08:06:50 am

Except the religious. Make sure to charge them. Explain that their money gets donated to environmental causes and ACORN.

That should do it for sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 27, 2012, 08:10:14 am

Subtly hint that refusing to do business with you might land them in a FEMA camp.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 09:32:06 am

Except that the state has been blue since... God knows when. So in the grand scheme of things I can't really help.

And I'm pretty sure I'd either get shot or mobbed by all fifteen of their wretched little kids if I walked up to the house of the average Republican where I live.

The only Republican I ever had an extended political discussion with IRL was the teacher of a useless space-filling elective called "Modern American History"... speaking of him, a micro anecdote:

So, the class is popular among airhead seniors who need to round out their year. One such senior was a stoner classic-rock fan. One day said kid walks in and asks the right-wing teacher what he's listening to on the computer. The teacher says that he's listening to "Rush". The kid is like, "Cool! I didn't know you listened to Rush", and the teacher is like, "No, Rush Limbaugh".

It was very telling about both of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 27, 2012, 01:19:37 pm

Hey, what's wrong with Rush? D:

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 27, 2012, 01:19:37 pm

Hey, what's wrong with Rush? D:

Nothing by itself. It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:43:59 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

Rush is Progressive Rock.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 02:45:45 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:43:59 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

Rush is Progressive Rock.

Move with the times man, even prog rock from that era is now "classic".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:47:30 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 02:45:45 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:43:59 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

Rush is Progressive Rock.

Move with the times man, even prog rock from that era is now "classic".

Classic rock isn't really a genre, it's just an overarching term for pretty much all pre-modern rock music.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:47:30 pm

Classic rock isn't really a genre, it's just an overarching term for pretty much all pre-modern rock music.

Robert Johnson was modern once.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:51:21 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 02:45:45 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:43:59 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

Rush is Progressive Rock.

Move with the times man, even prog rock from that era is now "classic".

Erm... Progressive music doesn't become less progressive just because it's old?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:52:10 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:47:30 pm

Classic rock isn't really a genre, it's just an overarching term for pretty much all pre-modern rock music.

Robert Johnson was modern once.

By "modern" I obviously mean relative to current times. Modern changes all the time, as do all terms dependent on it for their definition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 02:57:27 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:51:21 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on October 27, 2012, 02:45:45 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:43:59 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

Rush is Progressive Rock.

Move with the times man, even prog rock from that era is now "classic".

Erm... Progressive music doesn't become less progressive just because it's old?

I'm not doubting the progressiveness of prog rock from that era, I'm just saying it's considered classic now. Same with glam metal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 27, 2012, 03:57:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 27, 2012, 01:19:37 pm

Hey, what's wrong with Rush? D:

Nothing by itself. It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

So what you're saying is that both of them are outside your Monkeysphere and you've reduced both of them to two-dimensional cardboard figures rather than real people.

(As for the music itself, most things can't be classified with only one name anyways.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 04:21:46 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on October 27, 2012, 03:57:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 02:39:33 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 27, 2012, 01:19:37 pm

Hey, what's wrong with Rush? D:

Nothing by itself. It was this particular kid, whose enjoyment of Rush confirmed a number of stereotypes about the "classic-rock high school stoner".

So what you're saying is that both of them are outside your Monkeysphere and you've reduced both of them to two-dimensional cardboard figures rather than real people.

(As for the music itself, most things can't be classified with only one name anyways.)

I'm sure there's more to them than I know. I know I'm quick to judge... but I don't know much more about either.

So while I concede that I could depict both in a more-neutral manner, I couldn't really say more-accurate, complex statements on their personalities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 05:02:00 pm

Just sayin', Rush is the greatest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 27, 2012, 05:53:43 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 05:02:00 pm

Just sayin', Rush is the greatest.

I second the motion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 27, 2012, 06:02:53 pm

Rush is pretty good but the best ever...?  I think they are kinda a case of memetic badassery myself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 27, 2012, 06:20:18 pm

If you ever wanted to know what bizarro-world Bay 12 would look like, read those posts while forgetting the musical context.

Quote from: mainiac on October 27, 2012, 06:02:53 pm

Rush is pretty good but the best ever...?  I think they are kinda a case of memetic badassery myself.

Beck is way better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 27, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Ayreon's my pick for most progressive awesomeness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 27, 2012, 06:28:11 pm

...Now I want to start a Bizzaro Bay 12 American Election Megathread, but it wouldn't be around long enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 27, 2012, 06:40:40 pm

I guess it'd need to be a bizarro-world reaction to election thread then?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on October 27, 2012, 06:50:12 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 27, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Ayreon's my pick for most progressive awesomeness.

Indeed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 27, 2012, 06:55:31 pm

Time for some hypothetical guessing: is there any chance Hurricane Sandy could act as an October/November Surprise?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on October 27, 2012, 07:15:48 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on October 27, 2012, 06:50:12 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 27, 2012, 06:23:53 pm

Ayreon's my pick for most progressive awesomeness.

Indeed.

No love for Luca Turilli?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:21:28 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on October 27, 2012, 06:55:31 pm

Time for some hypothetical guessing: is there any chance Hurricane Sandy could act as an October/November Surprise?

It's possible. Both Obama and Romney will end up having to reschedule/cancel some of their campaign engagements, and if the federal response is really botched if something bad happens (i.e. Katrinas it), it'll be held against Obama- but at the same time, if it goes remarkably well, he could get a boost.

And given that both Washington and Boston are on the eastern seaboard, the campaign offices might find some more-direct influence.

P.S. How come everyone here talks about the Green Party when they mention third parties? I'm more fond of the Justice Party myself, although it's even tinier.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 07:24:46 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on October 27, 2012, 06:55:31 pm

Time for some hypothetical guessing: is there any chance Hurricane Sandy could act as an October/November Surprise?

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 27, 2012, 02:56:17 pm

I'm calling it: Romney blames everything that happens on Obama.

[While it's still occurring.]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 27, 2012, 07:31:39 pm

It's true, us gays have been using our homosexual magic to create hurricanes. Hurricanes of love.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 27, 2012, 07:32:58 pm

And then we hold orgies while all the breeders are hiding in the storm shelters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Corai on October 27, 2012, 07:34:50 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 27, 2012, 07:31:39 pm

It's true, us gays have been using our homosexual magic to create hurricanes. Hurricanes of love.

/American/Quick, send the homosexual soldiers to hostile countries. Let us kill our enemies with hurricanes. Of love./American/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 27, 2012, 07:41:39 pm

I'm gonna' go ahead and pre-emptively blame any damage that occurs on living on/near the coastline of a meteorological active ocean. It's what I do whenever a hurricane uproots a tree and lands it somewhere unpleasant down here in Florida, so... yeah. Not sure why people feel the need to blame it on something else, unless they're trying to avoid the white elephant in the discussion... [/pseudo-faked cluelessness] More seriously, any blame that's to be partitioned for disaster damages is better placed on people in the past (building construction and maintenance, preparedness, etc.) than anything reactionary, imo. Though borking things up as badly as Katrina went doesn't exactly help things, I'll give that.

Am kinda' suddenly curious, though. Any election historian buffs know if major weather stuff-things have gone down previously on or around voting periods and if there were any notable impacts 'cause of it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:42:10 pm

Quote from: greatorder on October 27, 2012, 07:30:15 pm

Then you'll have some guys blame it on homosexuals, then some on something equally stupid...

then you'll have a large majority blaming it on obama because, since he is the man at the top, he should have been able to coordinate the entire effort by himself!
then there'll be people blaming it on plain old bad luck/the government in general.

But political stupidity goes both ways... you'll probably find your [albeit small] share of arch-liberals claiming Romney paid a billion dollars to some Central American government to send up a hurricane and sabotage Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 27, 2012, 07:51:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:42:10 pm

Quote from: greatorder on October 27, 2012, 07:30:15 pm

Then you'll have some guys blame it on homosexuals, then some on something equally stupid...

then you'll have a large majority blaming it on obama because, since he is the man at the top, he should have been able to coordinate the entire effort by himself!
then there'll be people blaming it on plain old bad luck/the government in general.

But political stupidity goes both ways... you'll probably find your [albeit small] share of arch-liberals claiming Romney paid a billion dollars to some Central American government to send up a hurricane and sabotage Obama.

False equivalence much?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 08:00:32 pm

Quote from: mainiac on October 27, 2012, 07:51:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:42:10 pm

Quote from: greatorder on October 27, 2012, 07:30:15 pm

Then you'll have some guys blame it on homosexuals, then some on something equally stupid...

then you'll have a large majority blaming it on obama because, since he is the man at the top, he should have been able to coordinate the entire effort by himself!
then there'll be people blaming it on plain old bad luck/the government in general.

But political stupidity goes both ways... you'll probably find your [albeit small] share of arch-liberals claiming Romney paid a billion dollars to some Central American government to send up a hurricane and sabotage Obama.

False equivalence much?

Of course it's false equivalence! But that's acceptable when you're joking about an equally fallacious claim.

I don't know if anyone caught my slight bit of sarcasm there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 27, 2012, 08:01:35 pm

SealyStar: Of course not, it's the Internet. See Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law). :P

About the political parties: I looked at the wikipedia articles on just about all of them. The Green Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States) appealed to me the most; It helps that they're not a party which only exists in one state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Party_(United_States)). From what I can see from Wikipedia, they have the most ballot access out of all the third-parties in the US, and I like Jill Stein's platform: http://www.jillstein.org/issues

It helps that there's also no chance of my vote throwing the state to Romney (unless something spectacularly unexpected happens).

About the storm:
If you look at (non-fox?) news, you'll see reporting that stronger and deadlier storms have been expected as a result of climate change. You'll also see Governers already making plans, doing things (including Republican Governors) to prepare, and in some cases even pre-emptively declaring states of emergency, and power companies preparing as well. A lot of it is going to come down to roads being cleaned up and power companies having their shit in order to get any damaged infrastructure (what with our power lines all being above ground) fixed as soon as possible. Which, judging by precedent, may be up to 2 weeks after the hurricane leaves, or more due to it hitting a larger area than past disasters - unless they've really improved their numbers, amount of equipment, and time needed to get stuff working again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 27, 2012, 08:18:53 pm

The radio says that stuff up in the New England area is better prepared.  They've already been bit by Irene... and Irene was weaker I think?

Governors/Utility Companies are going to get their arses chewed if their emergency response plan does not pull through, especially since they have some experience and expectations as to what could go wrong under their belt.

What could the President/Obama do anyways?  Other then send in some sort of federal aid and declare some kind of emergency or some such?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 27, 2012, 08:20:43 pm

Obama has control over FEMA if I remember correctly.

But FEMA also possesses the ability to enact an emergency situation, suspend the Constitution, and place the nation under martial law, so Obama might not want to remind people of that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 08:59:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 27, 2012, 08:20:43 pm

Obama has control over FEMA if I remember correctly.

But FEMA also possesses the ability to enact an emergency situation, suspend the Constitution, and place the nation under martial law, so Obama might not want to remind people of that.

The FEMA camps! THE FEMA CAMPS!

I guess FEMA is doing a great job censoring the web, as the only records I have about their ability to declare martial law exist on black-background websites with all-white text that haven't been updated since 1997 [basically... you know what I mean]. While martial law is a threat in the US nowdays [coughNDAA2012cough], I don't think FEMA would be the agency responsible for such a declaration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 27, 2012, 09:01:23 pm

The camps are a stupid conspiracy theory, but the martial law thing isn't. They've just never used it and probably never will. Someone posted the law in question some time ago, but I don't have the will to go looking right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 28, 2012, 12:20:27 am

Quote from: SealyStar on October 27, 2012, 07:42:10 pm

Quote from: greatorder on October 27, 2012, 07:30:15 pm

Then you'll have some guys blame it on homosexuals, then some on something equally stupid...

then you'll have a large majority blaming it on obama because, since he is the man at the top, he should have been able to coordinate the entire effort by himself!
then there'll be people blaming it on plain old bad luck/the government in general.

But political stupidity goes both ways... you'll probably find your [albeit small] share of arch-liberals claiming Romney paid a billion dollars to some Central American government to send up a hurricane and sabotage Obama.

And say that any errors in reporting, no matter how trivial, made by The Weather Channel (owned by Bain Capital) were deliberate.

Ultimately though, the best way for Obama to spin this hurricane if it does a lot of damage is to blame the severity of the storm on global climate change.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on October 28, 2012, 03:20:43 am

A little light hearted fun anyone? BBC News website has a "pick your celebtiy presidnet" quiz.

Spoiler: Here is who I ended up with...! (click to show/hide)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s480x480/28737_10151313262373109_1036847697_n.jpg)

Take the quiz here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19992394)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: jester on October 28, 2012, 10:11:09 am

Crap, I got john grisham, could have been worse though, I was one pick away from Hugh Hefner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 10:17:02 am

Got Chris Rock.

I'd ask "Who's this douchebag?", but that's kidna inevitable because I don't know any of these people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 28, 2012, 10:29:40 am

You don't know who Chris Rock is?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 28, 2012, 11:46:40 am

Quote from: Bohandas on October 28, 2012, 12:20:27 am

Ultimately though, the best way for Obama to spin this hurricane if it does a lot of damage is to blame the severity of the storm on global climate change.

You could probably just ask climate scientists about that one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on October 28, 2012, 12:46:15 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 28, 2012, 12:20:27 am

the best way for Obama to spin this hurricane

Is clockwise.

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

YEEEEEEEAAAH

But uh, does anyone really attribute hurricanes to the president? I wouldn't imagine he has utter control of the weather or response to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 28, 2012, 12:48:47 pm

And if he did, he wouldn't be "President", he'd be "Glorious Weathermaster Overlord who doth smite our foes with the rage of the heavens". Who needs Predator drones when you can call down lightning strikes from a clear sky?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 28, 2012, 12:50:26 pm

It's generally the response of federal agencies to the problem, so if aid is very slow (or appears to be very slow), or the national weather service botches (or appears to botch) the forecast, the President is held accountable, just as Bush was for Katrina. Of course, there's some who blame the President for every disaster, no matter how illogical that is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 28, 2012, 12:54:35 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 28, 2012, 03:20:43 am

A little light hearted fun anyone? BBC News website has a "pick your celebtiy presidnet" quiz.

Spoiler: Here is who I ended up with...! (click to show/hide)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s480x480/28737_10151313262373109_1036847697_n.jpg)

Take the quiz here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19992394)

I got Ben Affleck.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 28, 2012, 12:55:50 pm

Matt Damon for me. I'm ambivalent about that choice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 28, 2012, 12:57:36 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on October 28, 2012, 03:20:43 am

A little light hearted fun anyone? BBC News website has a "pick your celebtiy presidnet" quiz.

Spoiler: Here is who I ended up with...! (click to show/hide)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s480x480/28737_10151313262373109_1036847697_n.jpg)

Take the quiz here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19992394)

Who the fuck is Pat Boone?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on October 28, 2012, 01:10:19 pm

I got Sylvester Stallone while clicking sporadically. I think that was a bad decision for me and my country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 28, 2012, 01:16:33 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on October 28, 2012, 12:57:36 pm

Who the fuck is Pat Boone?

He's the sort of musician Ned Flanders would listen to.  Well, except for one album (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U7EEHujbSM&feature=related) because the label made him do it, which is where Richard Cheese got the idea if I'm not mistaken.

I got Meat Loaf myself.  And y'know what, a Loaf Administration sounds like exactly my kind of presidency, politics be damned.

Quote from: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 10:17:02 am

Got Chris Rock.

I'd ask "Who's this douchebag?", but that's kidna inevitable because I don't know any of these people.

Wut.  Dude, c'mon really?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 01:27:12 pm

Ya rly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on October 28, 2012, 01:30:10 pm

I got a dude who apparently made Mitt Romney's anthem or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on October 28, 2012, 02:18:28 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 01:27:12 pm

Ya rly.

Chris Rock. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcqJDDhoUlc)

AKA: Guy who likes to make black jokes but it's not racist because he's black.

Luckily for him, they're pretty funny black jokes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 02:22:28 pm

If that's the case, I think I've heard of the German equivalent. Close enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 28, 2012, 02:57:17 pm

I love comics like Chris Rock who don't sugar coat stuff and just say "everything's fucked up".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 28, 2012, 03:06:08 pm

Quote from: Reelya on October 28, 2012, 02:57:17 pm

I love comics like Chris Rock who don't sugar coat stuff and just say "everything's fucked up".

Daniel Tosh can be like that too, especially in his stand-up bits.

Tosh.0, however, just isn't the same.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2012, 03:19:18 pm

A lot of comics lose their edge when they get their own shows. Demetri Martin's was alright, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 28, 2012, 04:54:05 pm

I haven't really been keeping up with the thread, so I'm not certain if this has been mentioned yet.

"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/indiana-senate-candidate-richard-mourdock-pregnancy-from-rape-something-god-intended/)
-Senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock, recently endorsed by Romney.

Lift foot, insert in mouth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2012, 04:56:34 pm

Old news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 28, 2012, 04:58:39 pm

Four days isn't old if you aren't paying as much active attention as you should.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on October 28, 2012, 05:01:41 pm

I find the "god did it" logic extremely convenient - conservative thing = God's will, liberal thing = man's meddling. Except in cases when a liberal thing happens without meddling - that's a sign God WANTS humans to meddle. Apparently God needs assistance in certain areas he can't manage alone.

Are they cherry picking much?

Who can say God didn't intend the abortion doctor to do his thing, if we're saying all these things are micro-managed by God (but only when it's convenient)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 28, 2012, 05:17:52 pm

I did that test for your celebrity president and I got Hugh Heffner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 28, 2012, 05:18:09 pm

So this exists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo#!)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 28, 2012, 05:24:25 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 28, 2012, 05:18:09 pm

So this exists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo#!)

Incredible. Then he describes what Romney will likely cause; just take out 'brains' 'zombie' and 'apocalypse' and you've got a straight shooting political commercial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 28, 2012, 05:30:23 pm

Whedon how I love thee.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 05:33:46 pm

I like the throwaway jab at Ayn Rand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 28, 2012, 05:38:24 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 05:33:46 pm

I like the throwaway jab at Ayn Rand.

Which reminds me; Obama did a Rolling Stone interview and said this;

Quote

Have you ever read Ayn Rand?
Sure.

What do you think Paul Ryan's obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?
Well, you'd have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a "you're on your own" society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

Of course, that's not the Republican tradition. I made this point in the first debate. You look at Abraham Lincoln: He very much believed in self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He embodied it – that you work hard and you make it, that your efforts should take you as far as your dreams can take you. But he also understood that there's some things we do better together. That we make investments in our infrastructure and railroads and canals and land-grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences, because that provides us all with an opportunity to fulfill our potential, and we'll all be better off as a consequence. He also had a sense of deep, profound empathy, a sense of the intrinsic worth of every individual, which led him to his opposition to slavery and ultimately to signing the Emancipation Proclamation. That view of life – as one in which we're all connected, as opposed to all isolated and looking out only for ourselves – that's a view that has made America great and allowed us to stitch together a sense of national identity out of all these different immigrant groups who have come here in waves throughout our history.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 28, 2012, 05:39:14 pm

He's got a point, though. I wouldn't want to be in a survivor group that operates on Objectivism either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 28, 2012, 05:52:16 pm

I think I'd have better chances with the zombies then the Objectivists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 28, 2012, 06:13:43 pm

Zombies at least don't eat their own kind. Objectivists are all too happy to step on anyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 28, 2012, 07:37:01 pm

I cant get that Whedon video to load on youtube

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 29, 2012, 11:24:57 am

A wonderful little piece on the history of payroll tax cut stimulus in the US during the recession: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/29/a-portrait-of-washington-in-2012/

I reckon this demonstrates two things:
1) The republican party needs to be scourged from the earth
2) It's somewhat excusable that american people are so damn ignorant as one party has made that ignorance a policy plank

And meanwhile the republicans bitch about Obama not having plans and the Senate not passing a budget.  But that's only because keeping mum about such things is a condition that the republicans demand.  Having a conservative party wouldn't be so bad.  But what we have here is a government that effectively opposes good government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 29, 2012, 11:53:04 am

I'm from Colorado, and I admit there was a way I would have voted republican in this election. If their canadate was determined to expand NASA.

Instead of something cool like that though, we got Mr Assassinate and Mitt Corp.

Israel has already told the world what the next 4 years will look like. I don't think they were lying. Whom do you want responding to the Iran mess? I want Stubbs, because I ain't getting space.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 29, 2012, 12:58:24 pm

Why do you expect the republicans to expand the space program? They campaigned on pointing to Greek austerity measures and saying "We're gonna get you some of that!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Africa on October 29, 2012, 01:04:04 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 29, 2012, 12:58:24 pm

Why do you expect the republicans to expand the space program? They campaigned on pointing to Greek austerity measures and saying "We're gonna get you some of that!"

...while insisting that it's Obama who's putting us "on the road to Greece." This party literally could not exist in a country not made up chiefly of clueless and stupid people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 29, 2012, 01:58:57 pm

Forgetting the Primaries so soon? I'd vote Romney if he talked about space like he talks about military, even knowing he's a liar. But alas, it isn't happening.

-Sent from my virgin mobile phone

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Does anyone else have a bunch of proposals on the ballot in their state? Here in Michigan, there are six... and all of them aren't just referenda, they're amendments to the constitution. You see, MI never passed a public referendum law... but they can still be accomplished, because the state constitution can be modified by public vote. It's very stupid.

If I was old enough to vote [damn you, age limit], I'd say "no" to five of the six. In order:

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.
Proposal Two: Theoretically, to add constitutional protection for collective bargaining, but in reality just another union power play. [It's tough being an anti-union liberal].
Proposal Three: To add renewable-energy requirements to the constitution. I love the idea of having 25% of the state's energy come from renewable sources by whatever deadline, but putting it in the constitution is just stupid.
Proposal Four: Something about collective bargaining for home-care workers... I just don't like unions, sorry.
Proposal Five: Those silly Republicans... this proposal would put in the constitution to require a two-thirds [Democratic] majority to modify taxes in any way other than lowering them. Not just raising them.
Proposal Six: This is the grand summit of stupid self-serving proposals. This one was put forth by the asshole who owns the only bridge between Detroit and Canada, after the governor and legislature did something smart for once and decided to build another one. Or, rather, let the Canadian government build it out of their own pocket, which the rich asshole has claimed in television ads to be false- even though it's completely true. The proposal says that a public referendum will be required to build any new bridge or tunnel, basically. Any. If it passes, some rich guy in Detroit will be very, very sorry. This is the epitome of special interests corrupting politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 02:54:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.

Wait, you support unelected dictators being appointed to liquidate cities?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 29, 2012, 02:55:57 pm

I hate those kind of systems. California has one (Propositions) that just lets people put laws into effect with popular vote. Actually modifying the constitution to do so is even worse!

Horrible, horrible idea, letting popular vote decide these things. Sure, it sounds all nice an empowering. And then you remember that the vast majority of the people voting do not have the knowledge needed to make good decisions about laws nor the time/inclination to get that knowledge. The whole point of having legislators in the first place is so that we have 'experts' on reading and writing laws. When you get the general public involved it becomes even more of an exercise in propaganda and misrepresentation than politics usually is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 29, 2012, 03:03:35 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 02:54:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.

Wait, you support unelected dictators being appointed to liquidate cities?

Especially when the appointed dictator is required to be from the banking institutions that are responsible for declaring the community insolvent?

while ending all local democratic processes and supervision?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 03:05:34 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 29, 2012, 03:03:35 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 02:54:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.

Wait, you support unelected dictators being appointed to liquidate cities?

Especially when the appointed dictator is required to be from the banking institutions that are responsible for declaring the community insolvent?

while ending all local democratic processes and supervision?

^ This is what the law is for, specifically [To help 'financial burdens']. I'd love to see a pro-Emergency Manager law argument that isn't from a MI republican, because it's the least democratic and an extremely ineffective way to handle, well, anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 29, 2012, 03:16:29 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 03:05:34 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 29, 2012, 03:03:35 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 02:54:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.

Wait, you support unelected dictators being appointed to liquidate cities?

Especially when the appointed dictator is required to be from the banking institutions that are responsible for declaring the community insolvent?

while ending all local democratic processes and supervision?

^ This is what the law is for, specifically [To help 'financial burdens']. I'd love to see a pro-Emergency Manager law argument that isn't from a MI republican, because it's the least democratic and an extremely ineffective way to handle, well, anything.

It is actually a really good way to give massive handouts to a select group of banking industry crony's while suspending the rights of the local population. A double win!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on October 29, 2012, 03:31:01 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Does anyone else have a bunch of proposals on the ballot in their state? Here in Michigan, there are six... and all of them aren't just referenda, they're amendments to the constitution. You see, MI never passed a public referendum law... but they can still be accomplished, because the state constitution can be modified by public vote. It's very stupid.

Huh... thinking on it, how common is that sort of thing? I know Florida's doing it (I'm probably going be voting yes on three of 'em; two for tax easement for disabled veterans and military families of deceased soldiers, one for tax easement on low-income elderly in older homes), but I wasn't aware it wasn't a normal thing among the states.

There's at least one really shitty one I expect to pass, though (Amendment eight, which basically gives private religious schools and shit like that a free run at public money. Whoever put down the language of that amendment needs to be drug out and shot a few times. Maybe just in extremities, I'unno.), and a few more that's more than a little iffy. Eleven total, and that's not a terribly high number as my memory serves me -- looking back through ballotpedia roughly confirmed that... as well as noting that most amendments in this state apparently get passed. Somewhat worrying, that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 03:32:07 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 03:05:34 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 29, 2012, 03:03:35 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 02:54:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.

Wait, you support unelected dictators being appointed to liquidate cities?

Especially when the appointed dictator is required to be from the banking institutions that are responsible for declaring the community insolvent?

while ending all local democratic processes and supervision?

^ This is what the law is for, specifically [To help 'financial burdens']. I'd love to see a pro-Emergency Manager law argument that isn't from a MI republican, because it's the least democratic and an extremely ineffective way to handle, well, anything.

In most cases, I doubt it would ever be necessary. But you never know, since Michigan's government, both Democrat and Republican, is fabulously incompetent... and while it could be better, the alternative is having no power at all in the matter... which would be even shittier, as incompetent city leaders ran their place into the ground.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 29, 2012, 03:33:24 pm

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kentucky_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_House_Bill_1_%282012%29)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 03:34:17 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 29, 2012, 03:33:24 pm

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kentucky_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_House_Bill_1_%282012%29)

God that is idiotic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 03:35:45 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 03:32:07 pm

In most cases, I doubt it would ever be necessary. But you never know, since Michigan's government, both Democrat and Republican, is fabulously incompetent... and while it could be better, the alternative is having no power at all in the matter... which would be even shittier, as incompetent city leaders ran their place into the ground.

I don't give a shit if the elected leaders are ineffective. They got elected. It's the issue where the appointed dictator is required to be from the banking institutions that are responsible for declaring the community insolvent [Read: they can and do claim a community is insolvent without warning and even in cases where they're not insolvent at all]. Then they suspend all elected [city councils, mayors, judges of local courts can be removed -and I assume replaced if the dictator wishes- without a peep] and publicly funded posts [along with fire departments, police forces, etc], which is an easy way for one person to hold all legislative and enforcement powers of a town irreversibly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 29, 2012, 03:38:37 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 29, 2012, 03:33:24 pm

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kentucky_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_House_Bill_1_%282012%29)

Like anybody, ever, anywhere, would try to ban hunting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 03:40:14 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 03:34:17 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 29, 2012, 03:33:24 pm

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kentucky_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_House_Bill_1_%282012%29)

God that is idiotic.

No it isn't. I think it's a great idea, actually. It advocates environmental conservation and protection. You can't hunt if the food chain is collapsed and you can't fish if industry is poisoning the rivers.

In fact....you could use this amendment to make a legal challenge against fracking, because of all the damage it causes.

Plus, hunting is quite literally one of the oldest pastimes of our entire species and the public land that hunting is usually conducted on belongs to everyone, and so everyone should have the right to it. Unprotected it could be nabbed up by the rich and powerful.

Look past the "lol rednecks" factor and think about the implications of this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 29, 2012, 04:26:03 pm

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2012_ballot_measures


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Religious_Freedom,_Amendment_8_%282012%29
State funded religion! What could possibly go wrong?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 29, 2012, 04:27:52 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 03:40:14 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 03:34:17 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 29, 2012, 03:33:24 pm

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kentucky_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_House_Bill_1_%282012%29)

God that is idiotic.

No it isn't. I think it's a great idea, actually. It advocates environmental conservation and protection. You can't hunt if the food chain is collapsed and you can't fish if industry is poisoning the rivers.

In fact....you could use this amendment to make a legal challenge against fracking, because of all the damage it causes.

Plus, hunting is quite literally one of the oldest pastimes of our entire species and the public land that hunting is usually conducted on belongs to everyone, and so everyone should have the right to it. Unprotected it could be nabbed up by the rich and powerful.

Look past the "lol rednecks" factor and think about the implications of this.

It is stupid because

Quote from: scriver on October 29, 2012, 03:38:37 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 29, 2012, 03:33:24 pm

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right. (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Kentucky_Hunting_and_Fishing_Amendment,_House_Bill_1_%282012%29)

Like anybody, ever, anywhere, would try to ban hunting.

Those other things would be better served by making a healthy nature a constitutional right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 04:30:56 pm

That would be a lot less likely to pass due to stigma towards the environmentalist movement in a conservative place like Kentucky, and this pretty much does make healthy nature a constitutional right since it is a necessity for hunting. It gets the job done, so who cares?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:34:21 pm

Personally, I think it'll cause problems when hunting a specific species is outlawed because of it's population dying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on October 29, 2012, 04:34:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 29, 2012, 04:26:03 pm

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2012_ballot_measures


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Religious_Freedom,_Amendment_8_%282012%29
State funded religion! What could possibly go wrong?

Great. The Legislature of this great state just caused the end of the world due to me headdesking so hard a chunk of my desk is now boring towards the earths core at hypersonic speeds.

Seriously though, wouldn't the US Supreme Court immediately strike this amendment down due to being unconstitutional according to the US Constitution?(you know, that whole separation of church and state thing?)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:36:16 pm

Quote from: tryrar on October 29, 2012, 04:34:50 pm

(you know, that whole separation of church and state thing?)

Yeah, that one thing that gets violated all the time?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 04:39:33 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:36:16 pm

Quote from: tryrar on October 29, 2012, 04:34:50 pm

(you know, that whole separation of church and state thing?)

Yeah, that one thing that gets violated all the time?

I heard a conservative say once that "separation of church and state is only one way- to stop the state from interfering with the church, not the other way around". I proceeded to laugh and cry at the same time at his outright ignorance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 04:46:32 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:34:21 pm

Personally, I think it'll cause problems when hunting a specific species is outlawed because of it's population dying.

It states that the amendment is to act in such a way to conserve hunting and preserve the future of hunting through population control, so not allowing the hunting of an endangered species wouldn't be challenged, it would be mandated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on October 29, 2012, 04:53:17 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on October 29, 2012, 02:54:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 02:48:21 pm

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.

Wait, you support unelected dictators being appointed to liquidate cities?

Proposal One is actually voting for a referendum on the emergency manager law, so that the law itself can be accepted or rejected by direct vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:54:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 04:46:32 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:34:21 pm

Personally, I think it'll cause problems when hunting a specific species is outlawed because of it's population dying.

It states that the amendment is to act in such a way to conserve hunting and preserve the future of hunting through population control, so not allowing the hunting of an endangered species wouldn't be challenged, it would be mandated.

True. However, do you really think that people will read it like that? I still envision a lot of people screaming "IT'S OUR RIGHTS".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 04:58:13 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:54:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 04:46:32 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on October 29, 2012, 04:34:21 pm

Personally, I think it'll cause problems when hunting a specific species is outlawed because of it's population dying.

It states that the amendment is to act in such a way to conserve hunting and preserve the future of hunting through population control, so not allowing the hunting of an endangered species wouldn't be challenged, it would be mandated.

True. However, do you really think that people will read it like that? I still envision a lot of people screaming "IT'S OUR RIGHTS".

Yes, I think people will read it like that. Hunters are not stupid, they understand how the life cycle of an ecosystem functions and the consequences of both over and under hunting.

More importantly, the courts are sure to read it like that as well, and that is what really matters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 05:07:38 pm

So why is no one talking about the asshole who owns the bridge? I thought I was careful to emphasize that portion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 29, 2012, 05:11:46 pm

What is there to say? That he's an asshole? That has been established.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 29, 2012, 05:25:52 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 04:39:33 pm

I heard a conservative say once that "separation of church and state is only one way- to stop the state from interfering with the church, not the other way around". I proceeded to laugh and cry at the same time at his outright ignorance.

But that is exactly how it works. Maybe not how it was designed, but how it works.
Even Obama's "forcing churches to fund abortion" was only forcing an employer to provide a complete health care package. The church could still excommunicate anyone who took it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 05:26:46 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on October 29, 2012, 05:25:52 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 04:39:33 pm

I heard a conservative say once that "separation of church and state is only one way- to stop the state from interfering with the church, not the other way around". I proceeded to laugh and cry at the same time at his outright ignorance.

But that is exactly how it works. Maybe not how it was designed, but how it works.
Even Obama's "forcing churches to fund abortion" was only forcing an employer to provide a complete health care package. The church could still excommunicate anyone who took it.

I know that's how it currently works. But this guy was under the impression that that was the idea the whole time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on October 29, 2012, 06:25:28 pm

Wow. I was just trollin the interwebz when i came across THIS:
http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=88136&Page=1


......... I HAVE NO WORDS WTFBBQ

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 06:43:12 pm

Quote from: tryrar on October 29, 2012, 06:25:28 pm

Wow. I was just trollin the interwebz when i came across THIS:
http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=88136&Page=1


......... I HAVE NO WORDS WTFBBQ

Most of it was just standard right-wing talking points... but then I saw that they wanted to repeal VRA 1965.

The only thing that could accomplish would be removing the guaranteed right to vote from minorities.

Man, these Republicans just get more and more blatant about how extreme they've gotten.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 29, 2012, 06:44:33 pm

Keep in mind, those are Texas Republicans, who can hit a whole new level of crazy than you'd expect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 29, 2012, 06:49:59 pm

Quote from: Sirus on October 29, 2012, 06:44:33 pm

Keep in mind, those are Texas Republicans, who can hit a whole new level of crazy than you'd expect.

Yeah... it's conservatives in the most conservative state in the country. So it's like conservative^2.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 29, 2012, 06:54:08 pm

I just realized that I messed up some of the tenses in my previous post. Drat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on October 29, 2012, 09:25:59 pm

I thought Utah was the most conservative?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 29, 2012, 09:30:53 pm

Different forms of conservatism. Utah has the lowest approval rating for Obama, and hasn't voted for a Democratic president since the 60s. At the same time, they're not super racist or homophobic here (still plenty of that, but it's comparatively benign).

A racist in Texas will shoot you. A racist in Utah will ignore you to death.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 29, 2012, 09:32:14 pm

kaijyuu beat me to it. Curse my sudden impulse to see if a forum game I wanted to start had already been done here!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 29, 2012, 09:36:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 29, 2012, 04:58:13 pm

Yes, I think people will read it like that. Hunters are not stupid, they understand how the life cycle of an ecosystem functions and the consequences of both over and under hunting.

Even if the vast majority of hunters are smart all it takes is a few idiots to ruin things.  Here in Maryland the watermen fished the oysters to the brink of extinction before they finally got over their resentment about big guvmint.  The result is that they devastated the population and their livelyhood was gone.  A lot of them saw what was happening and wanted to fix the problem before it was too late but not all of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on October 30, 2012, 03:37:34 am

Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2779#comic).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on October 30, 2012, 08:00:40 am

Quote from: Darvi on October 30, 2012, 03:37:34 am

Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2779#comic).

Not only can you still get the gist of what he's talking about, I recognize that part of the speech.

I still have no fucking idea where Peoria is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 30, 2012, 08:06:21 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 30, 2012, 08:00:40 am

I still have no fucking idea where Peoria is.

It's one of the larger cities in Illinois.  No, I didn't look that up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 08:58:38 am

Surprisingly, multiple election projections have moved North Carolina back into the battleground state category. Romney's polling advantage has dropped from a nearly 8-point lead a week or two ago to within MoE. Admittedly, the Obama campaign has been running a radio ad blitz the last week or so. Looks like it might be working.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 30, 2012, 09:17:14 am

Quote from: Eagle_eye on October 29, 2012, 09:25:59 pm

I thought Utah was the most conservative?

Let me put it this way. I work for a bunch of guys from Texas who I fly out to run an auction with on regular basis.

We got held up in the air over the airport when we were flying in because a "VIP" was on the runway.

When we were telling those guys about being held up for a VIP, the immediate, unflinching response was "Who, the nigger?"

I'm not going to paint all of Texas with the same brush because of a few people, but it's been many years since passing acquaintances have busted out blatant racism in casual conversation to me. So. God bless the great state of Texas, or something. I can't wait til Latinos become really important again in politics so I can start hearing about "spics" and "wetbacks" and can be like "Oh, you mean my people?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on October 30, 2012, 10:28:01 am

I thought "spics" were Italians? Or does it cover all latino - no, wait, I get it - hiSPanICS. What does "wetback" even mean, though? That doesn't make sense. That they're supposed to be sweaty?

Also, when those days comes, I look very much forward to you telling us about all the awesomely awkward (for the other guys) conversations ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 30, 2012, 10:28:59 am

Wetbacks are like FOBs that had to swim to shore, I think.

Edit: Nope, looked it up. It's a reference to field workers who did, in fact, have sweaty backs from working in the sun all day.

Edit 2: It actually goes back even /further/ as a reference to swimming. It was used against "escaped slaves" then, though. Who knows if it influenced modern usage... wouldn't be super surprising.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 10:38:04 am

Wetback refers mostly to the fact that the Rio Grande river runs along a large swath of the US-Mexican border. Hence the notion that any illegal immigrants had to swim across the river.

Used to be more true, because the idea of going through the Sonora Desert instead was insane. The slur for Italians was (don't hear it used much anymore) "dago", which is apparently an old slur for Spaniards, being a corruption of "Diego". No idea how that got transferred to Italians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 30, 2012, 10:50:06 am

Quote from: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 10:38:04 am

Wetback refers mostly to the fact that the Rio Grande river runs along a large swath of the US-Mexican border. Hence the notion that any illegal immigrants had to swim across the river.

Used to be more true, because the idea of going through the Sonora Desert instead was insane. The slur for Italians was (don't hear it used much anymore) "dago", which is apparently an old slur for Spaniards, being a corruption of "Diego". No idea how that got transferred to Italians.

Probably because 'muricans can't be arsed to tell the difference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 10:53:30 am

Meh, they're all swarthy southern Mediterranean people. Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese....same diff. ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scoops Novel on October 30, 2012, 01:04:59 pm

If i may ask, what happened next Nenjin?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 01:13:54 pm

I'm going to guess "They pulled out pistols and shot randomly in the air while yelling 'AMERRRRRICA FUCK YEAHHHHH!!!' "

And then shit out red, white and blue eagles.

Spoiler: Meanwhile... (click to show/hide)

(http://www.hahastop.com/pictures/Meanwhile_In_Texas.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 30, 2012, 01:29:28 pm

Quote from: Novel on October 30, 2012, 01:04:59 pm

If i may ask, what happened next Nenjin?

Nothing. When you're surrounded by conservative Republicans who obviously have contempt for black people, and you've got to spend the next 2 days with them in a truck probably 1/4 the size of a bedroom, it's generally not the best time to start having arguments about politics and racial epitaphs. This isn't the first time they've uh, let their true colors show. I don't know if it's because they think we agree with them or they simply don't give a fuck about our political leanings vs. theirs....but yeah. This isn't the first time they've thrown the n-word around in my presence or said really hateful, tinfoil hat-wearing Republican shit.

I've grown up around this degree of racism basically my whole life, so I kind of know how to roll with it. It kinda sucks, they're fun guys in general. But their politics remind exactly how far apart we actually are. And in some cases, being on the swarthy side of white myself, makes me wonder what else they say when I'm not around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scoops Novel on October 30, 2012, 01:42:33 pm

I thought as much. I wish you luck, and better acquaintances. Also, effective law enforcement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 30, 2012, 02:15:27 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on October 30, 2012, 08:06:21 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on October 30, 2012, 08:00:40 am

I still have no fucking idea where Peoria is.

It's one of the larger cities in Illinois.  No, I didn't look that up.

There's also a Peoria, Arizona, that no one cares about... I went to school there.

And I've never heard of "Spic[k]" coming from "Hispanic". I always heard the "No espick englis" explanation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on October 30, 2012, 02:26:16 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 10:38:04 am

Wetback refers mostly to the fact that the Rio Grande river runs along a large swath of the US-Mexican border. Hence the notion that any illegal immigrants had to swim across the river.

Used to be more true, because the idea of going through the Sonora Desert instead was insane. The slur for Italians was (don't hear it used much anymore) "dago", which is apparently an old slur for Spaniards, being a corruption of "Diego". No idea how that got transferred to Italians.

There are other slurs for Italians, like wops, greaseballs and eye-ties. The only slur out of those that was used in Scotland to my knowledge was eye-tie.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on October 30, 2012, 02:36:17 pm

Also fits in the storm and WTF threads, but... (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/30/1110901/bush-fema-director-katrina-hits-obama-sandy/)

Quote

Bush’s FEMA Director During Katrina Criticizes Obama For Responding To Sandy Too Quickly

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on October 30, 2012, 02:40:27 pm

Clearly now presidents must throw up a wall of psychic force BEFORE a storm surge hits, to meet their obligations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on October 30, 2012, 02:40:59 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 30, 2012, 02:36:17 pm

Also fits in the storm and WTF threads, but... (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/30/1110901/bush-fema-director-katrina-hits-obama-sandy/)

Quote

Bush’s FEMA Director During Katrina Criticizes Obama For Responding To Sandy Too Quickly

Translation:

"WAAA! Stop making me look bad!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 30, 2012, 02:51:46 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 30, 2012, 02:36:17 pm

Also fits in the storm and WTF threads, but... (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/30/1110901/bush-fema-director-katrina-hits-obama-sandy/)

Quote

Bush’s FEMA Director During Katrina Criticizes Obama For Responding To Sandy Too Quickly

http://www.robertsinclair.net/comic/asshole.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2012, 03:01:26 pm

Why doesn't Mittens do something useful with his money for once and throw 100 million or so at the recovery effort?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 30, 2012, 03:02:36 pm

Because that would openly contradict his philosophy about what should be done for those in need.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 30, 2012, 03:04:28 pm

Also a dollar for hurricane relief is a dollar for FEMA death camps.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on October 30, 2012, 03:07:30 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 30, 2012, 03:02:36 pm

Because that would openly contradict his philosophy about what should be done for those in need.

Seems to be like it'd be... exactly what his social philosophy is, that one we hear all about when he talks about how things should be. The poor and the needy getting help from super-rich Americans [only when they really need it (aka when people are looking)] on their (the rich's) own free will since the government sucks at it [providing help].

Of course; I know he doesn't give a damn about helping anyone but himself. I'm just saying it'd be putting his money in his mouth so-to-speak.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 03:12:02 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 30, 2012, 02:36:17 pm

Also fits in the storm and WTF threads, but... (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/30/1110901/bush-fema-director-katrina-hits-obama-sandy/)

Quote

Bush’s FEMA Director During Katrina Criticizes Obama For Responding To Sandy Too Quickly

URGE TO KILL....RISING.....RISING!!!

EDIT: Also, it speaks volumes that before clicking the link, I assumed it led to an Onion article. Because seriously?? Christ, what an asshole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 30, 2012, 03:40:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 03:12:02 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 30, 2012, 02:36:17 pm

Also fits in the storm and WTF threads, but... (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/30/1110901/bush-fema-director-katrina-hits-obama-sandy/)

Quote

Bush’s FEMA Director During Katrina Criticizes Obama For Responding To Sandy Too Quickly

URGE TO KILL....RISING.....RISING!!!

EDIT: Also, it speaks volumes that before clicking the link, I assumed it led to an Onion article. Because seriously?? Christ, what an asshole.

I really wish that I had thought the same thing. I suppose my cynicism about that administration still hasn't bottomed out quite yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 30, 2012, 03:54:27 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 30, 2012, 03:40:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 03:12:02 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 30, 2012, 02:36:17 pm

Also fits in the storm and WTF threads, but... (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/30/1110901/bush-fema-director-katrina-hits-obama-sandy/)

Quote

Bush’s FEMA Director During Katrina Criticizes Obama For Responding To Sandy Too Quickly

URGE TO KILL....RISING.....RISING!!!

EDIT: Also, it speaks volumes that before clicking the link, I assumed it led to an Onion article. Because seriously?? Christ, what an asshole.

I really wish that I had thought the same thing. I suppose my cynicism about that administration still hasn't bottomed out quite yet.

By Jah... this guy is just airing his own incompetence for everyone to see ain't he?  I hope the media takes this and runs with it.  A marathon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 30, 2012, 03:59:37 pm

I love how he compares a storm effecting millions of Americans as being on the same level as an attack on an embassy halfway around the world as if they're the same level of event. Um...not really, guy. One is a huge disaster that's causing billions in damages. The other was a tragic loss of life, including a prominent diplomat, but hardly counts as a national disaster.

I really don't see the President treating this storm more urgently as being anything other than sound prioritization. Yes, of course, it's right near the election and he'd be an idiot for doing anything else. But that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do or even completely politically motivated.

Not that it matters, since the hard right would be just as happy to condemn him for doing anything less.

I hate politicians. And political pundits. Maybe the pundits more, since they do even less for the country than politicians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 30, 2012, 04:03:54 pm

Translation: "How dare he do his job just before an election?! We were counting on him to fuck it up like we did!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 30, 2012, 04:32:21 pm

Glenn Beck's take on Hurricane Libya. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glDwI5WWmIU)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on October 30, 2012, 04:44:49 pm

Anyone else watch that and think "And.....?" a lot?  He's saying these things that are just vague statements about the world that may or may not be true and is just waiting for his audiences knee jerk hatred to fill in the gaps.  Find the right audience and the world is your oyster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 30, 2012, 05:05:39 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on October 30, 2012, 03:59:37 pm

I love how he compares a storm effecting millions of Americans as being on the same level as an attack on an embassy halfway around the world as if they're the same level of event. Um...not really, guy. One is a huge disaster that's causing billions in damages. The other was a tragic loss of life, including a prominent diplomat, but hardly counts as a national disaster.

I really don't see the President treating this storm more urgently as being anything other than sound prioritization.

The problem is that, unlike the president, many American voters have jingoistic priorities rather than reasonable priorities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 30, 2012, 05:20:59 pm

Quote from: palsch on October 30, 2012, 02:36:17 pm

Also fits in the storm and WTF threads, but... (https://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/30/1110901/bush-fema-director-katrina-hits-obama-sandy/)

Quote

Bush’s FEMA Director During Katrina Criticizes Obama For Responding To Sandy Too Quickly

That is absolutely stupid.

Not only was Bush FEMA completely irresponsible about Katrina, but it was part of what made Bush's approval plummet.

Why the hell would Obama, of all people, do the same?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on October 30, 2012, 05:23:09 pm

As an honorable man Obama is obligated to act as stupid as his counterparts lest he give himself an advantage in the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 30, 2012, 05:33:03 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on October 30, 2012, 05:23:09 pm

As an honorable man Obama is obligated to act as stupid as his counterparts lest he give himself an advantage in the election.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24699938.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 30, 2012, 05:34:01 pm

That image macro makes no sense at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 30, 2012, 05:41:53 pm

It's funny, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 30, 2012, 06:12:18 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 30, 2012, 05:34:01 pm

That image macro makes no sense at all.

What do you mean? Seems to make sense to me. Quality advice from a man we can all look up to in these tough times.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 30, 2012, 06:17:35 pm

You don't understand.

Obama being evicted from office is the right thing. There for the right course of action for Obama is the course of action that would dramatically drop his approval rating and cost him the election. And screwing up this hurricane as badly as Bush screwed up Katrina would do that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 30, 2012, 07:00:47 pm

The Republicans seem to be running a new ad as of today. It can be summarized as follows: "Money, Money, World Domination, Money".

Say a couple of things about the economy, then they say that America isn't as powerful as it used to be, then they go back to the economy.

I don't even doubt the truth of the things they're saying, regardless of the amount of spin in the ad demonstrates the repellancy of the people who made it because it demonstrates, (ironically more clearly than any of the ads paid for by the Democrats) that the Republicans don't care about anything other than money and power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on October 30, 2012, 07:34:35 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 30, 2012, 07:00:47 pm

The Republicans seem to be running a new ad as of today. It can be summarized as follows: "Money, Money, World Domination, Money".

Say a couple of things about the economy, then they say that America isn't as powerful as it used to be, then they go back to the economy.

I don't even doubt the truth of the things they're saying, regardless of the amount of spin in the ad demonstrates the repellancy of the people who made it because it demonstrates, (ironically more clearly than any of the ads paid for by the Democrats) that the Republicans don't care about anything other than money and power.

Money, money, money, money... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkOmcIl79s)

Money, success, fame, glamour... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7TGNhVsa94)

Ar ar ar ar ar! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhVu9kCdA1c)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 30, 2012, 10:05:08 pm

Less powerful? We have sky fleets of flying death robots... Sure, Iran was able to steal one, but that's probably a solvable problem. If the military gets desperate they can start pouring money into quantum entanglement communication, which they'll have to do anyways once quantum computers are usable for cryptography (in order to still have secure communications).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on October 31, 2012, 03:38:44 am

The Hurricane was caused by the Milwaukee Independance Brigade. To draw all eyes away from them while they setup shadow governers in the Heartland.

You hear about them? No? It means they were successful. They won't let you remember anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 11:06:33 am

Less than a week out from Election Day, the polls have flatlined (mostly because many polling organizations took a bit of a sabbatical due to Hurricane Sandy). But even state-level polls conducted well away from the disaster seem to be solidifying. The smart money is on a popular vote that will be extremely close or may even pan out for Romney, but an Electoral College result that will wind up around 295-243 in favor of Obama.

Nate Silver is still projecting Obama at a 77.4% chance to win, a better result than he's had in weeks. While GOPpers are choosing to focus on the national polls, they're ignoring the reality of the Electoral College. Cue the rants of "broken system" and "stolen election" and "illegitimate Presidency" for the next four years.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 31, 2012, 11:13:53 am

Perhaps both the Democrats and Republicans tasting the bitter results of an Electoral College failure in such a short timeframe will lead to its abolishment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 11:26:10 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 31, 2012, 11:13:53 am

Perhaps both the Democrats and Republicans tasting the bitter results of an Electoral College failure in such a short timeframe will lead to its abolishment.

I think you overestimate the memories of politicians. They have a hard time remembering stuff a month ago if it doesn't suit how things are right now, let alone a decade ago. I sincerely doubt the Democrats would go for it even if the Republicans proposed it. It's stupid, and sad, but it's how it is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 11:31:18 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on October 31, 2012, 11:13:53 am

Perhaps both the Democrats and Republicans tasting the bitter results of an Electoral College failure in such a short timeframe will lead to its abolishment.

Unlikely. One, because the Democrats are going to be in no mood to kill the golden goose if they benefit from it. And because governors and politicians of low population states don't want their electoral power diluted. Abolish the Electoral College, and Presidential campaigns would be waged almost entirely in California, New York, Florida and Texas. Ironically, Florida is the only one of those that gets anything more than token attention nowadays because Cali and NY are safe blue and Texas is safe red.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 31, 2012, 11:33:23 am

I think you overestimate the effect of population density on such a scenario. The US isn't all stuffed into four states by a long shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 11:37:45 am

It's not, but those four do constitute roughly 1/3 of the US population. There would be campaign staff in all 50 states just as there are now, but the bulk of appearances and targeted ads would be in the high population states (maybe the top 6 or 7 instead of just four). It's all about bang for your buck. NOBODY is going to waste time and money fighting for a share of Wyoming (0.17% of the US population).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 31, 2012, 11:44:08 am

Their fault for living in Wyoming, I say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on October 31, 2012, 11:44:26 am

Since state boundaries have already been broken down between states due to ease of travel and the internet, is it really even relevant anymore that Wyoming needs to have a large say? Are the needs of someone in Wyoming really so different from someone in California when it comes to national interest? States would still maintain their say in the Senate regardless of population which, in this changing world, may really be all they need to represent their unique interests.

Note the use of questions and passive language, as this is just thinking out loud.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 11:47:29 am

Mining subsidies. BIG difference in opinion and spillover effect for someone in California vs. Wyoming. Just as an example.

Yes, that's probably an issue for the Senate but since Presidential power seems to have steadily crept into areas like proposing budgets and deciding interstate commerce....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 11:48:40 am

The amount of campaigning that would happen in California alone if they made that change is staggering.

For example, back in 2008 Obama got ~8 million votes and McCain got ~5 million. Both of those numbers are higher than a lot of state's total populations, let alone voting populations.

Only 12 states have 8 million or more, and only 22 have 5 million or more. If you then cut that down to people eligible to vote, the impact California alone would have on the election process would be incredible.

Add the other 3 largest states to the mix and you'd see a very different distribution of time and money by campaigns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on October 31, 2012, 11:53:42 am

Quote from: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 11:48:40 am

The amount of campaigning that would happen in California alone if they made that change is staggering.

For example, back in 2008 Obama got ~8 million votes and McCain got ~5 million. Both of those numbers are higher than a lot of state's total populations, let alone voting populations.

Only 12 states have 8 million or more, and only 22 have 5 million or more. If you then cut that down to people eligible to vote, the impact California alone would have on the election process would be incredible.

Add the other 3 largest states to the mix and you'd see a very different distribution of time and money by campaigns.

Is that really any worse than campaigns focusing most of their effort on Ohio and Florida? It seems like things would remain roughly similar on the campaign front, with the main difference being the states that are visited rather than the variety of the visits. Of course Rhode Island might see a bit less in the way of campaigns, but who is to say that the greater number of people shouldn't be the focused on?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 11:56:27 am

I don't think it's actually be any better or worse for the country overall. Personally, I'd be in favor of it. I hate the fact that my vote in California is essentially wasted because ALL of the electoral votes are going to go Democratic no matter what. Even if I approve of how the vote ultimately goes, I still dislike the system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 12:11:13 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 11:48:40 am

The amount of campaigning that would happen in California alone if they made that change is staggering.

For example, back in 2008 Obama got ~8 million votes and McCain got ~5 million. Both of those numbers are higher than a lot of state's total populations, let alone voting populations.

Only 12 states have 8 million or more, and only 22 have 5 million or more. If you then cut that down to people eligible to vote, the impact California alone would have on the election process would be incredible.

Add the other 3 largest states to the mix and you'd see a very different distribution of time and money by campaigns.

Exactly. Like I said, those four states constitute about 32-33% of the US population. California alone is a bit over 12%. To put it another way, a 1-point shift in *just* California equals about 60% of the entire population of Wyoming. You're gonna spend your money where it does the most for you.

@Shinotsa: The difference is that "battleground states" are, by their very nature, places where there is not a prevailing single ideology. They're "purple" states. If you base it on population, you shift the electoral power to primarily urban-dominated states, which are going to have a different ideological bent and different issues. Quite frankly, you blue-shift the entire contest, Texas notwithstanding. Which I'd be all for at the moment, but in the abstract it's a bad thing for the country.

That city-country divide was actually one of the big reasons for the Electoral College in the first place: so that you didn't have the urban colonies like Massachusetts and New York and Virginia completely dominating the more rural colonies. Which in turn led to the 3/5ths Compromise, when it was realized that if you counted slaves as population for purposes of Congressional representation, the Southern states suddenly gained a huge advantage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on October 31, 2012, 12:29:49 pm

I'm not arguing that it would have severe effects and pull power away from places where issues are prevalent, but I just can't see the reason why moving to another state should make my vote count ten times what it does now. On top of that, the current system can make a mountain out of a molehill so to speak, as it emphasizes issues important to certain battlegrounds while potentially ignoring things that other people care about. If a battleground state develops a large tea party presence for example, suddenly the ideology of that group expands to not only affect the state in which it developed, but now can potentially influence the policies of the president who is supposed to represent the people. If you have a radical group in a handful of states then it should affect that state's government as well as the legislators that that state elects, it should never overshadow the representation of all citizens just because it has a vocal, politically active base.

Essentially let the president worry about his electorate equally and let Congress worry about their electorate equally. Of course I'm oversimplifying everything as is usually the case with arguments of this scope, but one (wo)man, one vote has always seemed rational to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 31, 2012, 12:33:21 pm

I'm a Californian who would support that because currently, my vote is pretty meaningless as it is. Democrats know they don't have to campaign, or indeed, take any action at all, to win a Californian vote. So they don't.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are running around promising to build a giant altar where illegal immigrants can be sacrificed to Jesus so he'll create american jerbs despite the actions of President Osama Bin Mecha-Satan.

I want to be able to say that I am unsatisfied with the Democrat party line, but even though I vote for Jill Stein, it's not going to disturb the election at all.

Furthermore, I don't like the concept that someone's vote is worth much, much more than mine. Some rural Ohioan, for instance, has probably ten or maybe a hundred times larger a share of electoral responsibility in presidential elections, apparently because farmers are just worth more than people who live in cities.

Quote from: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 12:11:13 pm

...If you base it on population, you shift the electoral power to primarily urban-dominated states, which are going to have a different ideological bent and different issues. Quite frankly, you blue-shift the entire contest, Texas notwithstanding. Which I'd be all for at the moment, but in the abstract it's a bad thing for the country...

Better-representing the desires of the majority of Americans is bad now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 01:10:16 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 31, 2012, 12:33:21 pm

I'm a Californian who would support that because currently, my vote is pretty meaningless as it is. Democrats know they don't have to campaign, or indeed, take any action at all, to win a Californian vote. So they don't.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are running around promising to build a giant altar where illegal immigrants can be sacrificed to Jesus so he'll create american jerbs despite the actions of President Osama Bin Mecha-Satan.

I want to be able to say that I am unsatisfied with the Democrat party line, but even though I vote for Jill Stein, it's not going to disturb the election at all.

Furthermore, I don't like the concept that someone's vote is worth much, much more than mine. Some rural Ohioan, for instance, has probably ten or maybe a hundred times larger a share of electoral responsibility in presidential elections, apparently because farmers are just worth more than people who live in cities.

Quote from: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 12:11:13 pm

...If you base it on population, you shift the electoral power to primarily urban-dominated states, which are going to have a different ideological bent and different issues. Quite frankly, you blue-shift the entire contest, Texas notwithstanding. Which I'd be all for at the moment, but in the abstract it's a bad thing for the country...

Better-representing the desires of the majority of Americans is bad now?

Numerical majority, but geographical minority. America is not restricted to its two coasts, despite the fact that a majority of the population lives there. Democracy should never be a flat "tyranny of the majority", even if the minority is predominantly rural religious conservatives who are diametrically opposed to most of my beliefs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 01:15:53 pm

Land is not people.

We don't assign more votes to people who own more land.

Those rural religious conservatives have an inherent structural power advantage.

Why should they have that advantage?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 01:23:16 pm

As redking stated, it's there specifically to avoid a 'tyranny of the majority'. The founding fathers put a lot of thought into trying to create a system that prevents tyranny of any sort and this is one of the mechanisms.

I'm not sure it functions quite as well now, though, as it did back when the system was put into place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on October 31, 2012, 01:32:00 pm

But it didn't avoid tyranny of the majority, the majority of people (blacks, women) had no power at all.

It did keep the states rather equal in power, but I don't think Wyoming should be the equal of California/Texas just because they are all states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 31, 2012, 01:32:56 pm

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Though yeah, I don't see the electoral college accomplishing much in the way of avoiding that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on October 31, 2012, 01:41:10 pm

Obama winning while loosing the popular vote might get more Red States to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on October 31, 2012, 01:43:12 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 31, 2012, 01:32:56 pm

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Though yeah, I don't see the electoral college accomplishing much in the way of avoiding that.

Its more along the lines of a carnivore, herbivore and an omnivore voting on what is for dinner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 01:45:40 pm

Well, yes, there was a bit of a flaw in the original system. They sort of quietly excluded their own tyranny (of white male landowners) when writing it up, and since that group didn't want to give anyone else power it took a very long time to change.

Poor execution doesn't mean that the core idea is unsound, of course. Although I'm not at all convinced that the effect is necessary.

For one, we already have Wyoming being marginalized in the Presidential Election because it provides so few votes. Even a state that is a true toss-up (50/50) won't get too much attention if those few electoral votes don't measurably effect the outcome.

The only states who matter right now are battleground states with a large enough Electoral Vote to really tip the election. That's why Ohio gets so much attention. That one state is worth several other battleground states combined. 18 for Ohio is more than Colorado and Nevada combined.  Florida is similarly important for the same reason at 29 votes. Actually...I'm not sure why Florida isn't more important this election. It's leaning Red right now. Maybe enough not to be truly contended? In any case, no one is paying too much attention to small states even if they are up for grab when the big states are what will almost certainly win or lose the election for a candidate.

Given that, I'd much rather move to a pure popular vote. If we're not going to care about small states anyway, can we at least care about all of the big states equally?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 31, 2012, 01:48:00 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 01:15:53 pm

Land is not people.

We don't assign more votes to people who own more land.

Those rural religious conservatives have an inherent structural power advantage.

Why should they have that advantage?

Thank you! "Land is not people", I couldn't have put it better myself.

Quote from: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 01:15:53 pm

We don't assign more votes to people who own more land.

In fact I would say that if anything they should get less votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 02:14:44 pm

What?

Why should they get less votes per person either?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 31, 2012, 02:17:32 pm

Because they have power in other ways that can't be practically stifled.

Same logic as is behind affirmative action: give those low on the totem pole an advantage so as to balance out the disadvantages you can't quite get rid of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 02:22:06 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 31, 2012, 02:17:32 pm

Because they have power in other ways that can't be practically stifled.

Same logic as is behind affirmative action: give those low on the totem pole an advantage so as to balance out the disadvantages you can't quite get rid of.

How is living in a state with a low population density a systemic advantage (aside from the electoral college issue)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 02:24:19 pm

Quote from: Zangi on October 31, 2012, 01:43:12 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 31, 2012, 01:32:56 pm

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Though yeah, I don't see the electoral college accomplishing much in the way of avoiding that.

Its more along the lines of a carnivore, herbivore and an omnivore voting on what is for dinner.

That's actually a brilliant metaphor. The problem is that interested outside parties (let's say, the National Corn Lobby and the Beef Council) are only going to be interested in swaying the omnivore's opinion, because they're the decisive vote. The wolf and the sheep will get lip service but they're essentially unimportant, in the same way that states like Oklahoma and the District of Columbia don't net a lot of attention because the AP could go ahead and call the winner in those races LAST YEAR.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 31, 2012, 02:35:19 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 02:14:44 pm

What?

Why should they get less votes per person either?

Bohandas likes to take a sensible position and push it a bit too far.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 31, 2012, 02:52:18 pm

Preferential voting. Select everyone you like, in the order you like them in. Then, you're done.

If the person you selected as you top favorite wins, then that's that. Otherwise, your vote gets moved to your second choice automatically. Then the next.

Universal preferential voting would mean that no matter how overbearing two parties are, you could always vote for the people you really like the most without risking helping someone you don't like.

Alternatively, list all candidates, and then people vote yes or no for each. The person with the greatest total number of yesses wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on October 31, 2012, 02:54:45 pm

I prefer preferential voting/ AV/ STV/ whatever you want to call it to approval voting.  Approval voting is vulnerable to tactical voting in real life (while preferential voting is only vulnerable to tactical voting in weird scenarios that never happen).  The big parties would still dominate smaller parties since you'd feel obliged to tick them to keep the worse ones out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on October 31, 2012, 03:16:25 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 02:22:06 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on October 31, 2012, 02:17:32 pm

Because they have power in other ways that can't be practically stifled.

Same logic as is behind affirmative action: give those low on the totem pole an advantage so as to balance out the disadvantages you can't quite get rid of.

How is living in a state with a low population density a systemic advantage (aside from the electoral college issue)?

Good point. My argument still stands from a money perspective, rather than a population density one, though.

Note that I'm not really advocating it because I think it's a great idea. More of a devil's advocate thing, from what I think Bohandas is arguing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 31, 2012, 03:24:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 02:14:44 pm

What?

Why should they get less votes per person either?

Just temporarily to cancel out their cumulative unfair advantage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on October 31, 2012, 04:01:32 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 31, 2012, 03:24:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on October 31, 2012, 02:14:44 pm

What?

Why should they get less votes per person either?

Just temporarily to cancel out their cumulative unfair advantage.

That was kinda the rationale of the Three-Fifths Compromise.  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on October 31, 2012, 04:55:17 pm

Makes me think of that mod I want to do for LCS where there's not just an L+ stance, but an L++ stance (for instance, while L+ women's rights is total equality between men and women, L++ is the widespread adoption of matriarchy. L+ flag burning rights mean that it's completely allowed, while L++ flag burning rights mean that such public events as school graduations or sports events are kicked off with a couple burning flags. L+ gun rights is extreme gun restriction; L++ means that absolutely all guns are not only banned, but also collected (even ones in LCS stockpiles). L++ Gay rights mean that straight people are second-class citizens. L++ animal rights mean that you will frequently find wild animals in place of citizens.

Might as well add C++ positions too, like C++ women's rights which immediately imprisons women seen outdoors insufficiently covered, including your LCS members, and C++ guns rights, which mean that it's not a crime to shoot anyone not carrying a gun.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on October 31, 2012, 05:03:50 pm

I hear the "two wolves/one sheep" metaphor all the time, but I'm not sure what useful thing it's supposed to communicate.  Any form of social organization, not just democracy, is going to fit that metaphor.  The major difference between democracy and most other things is that the sheep is given at least some opportunity to speak up for itself, and can even be more than just token with proper procedure.  There are really good consensus decision-making processes in that regard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 31, 2012, 05:06:46 pm

The mountain-of-a-molehill effect created by the Electoral College system is the same for the structure of the U.S. Senate, is it not?  That, too, seems outdated now but talk of changing that would really stir things up.  California gets two senators to represent the interests of 30 million people, and Rhode Island gets two senators to represent 1 million. 

So then a  RI senator gets 30x as much say in the legislature per citizen as a California senator?  Why are we paying so much deference to miniscule states like those when the majority (by population anyway) of interests in the country frankly are located in the big states?  I'm not trying to bully anybody from a small state btw, but it's something that needs to be talked about.

Quote from: PTTG?? on October 31, 2012, 04:55:17 pm

Makes me think of that mod I want to do for LCS where there's not just an L+ stance, but an L++ stance (for instance, while L+ women's rights is total equality between men and women, L++ is the widespread adoption of matriarchy. L+ flag burning rights mean that it's completely allowed, while L++ flag burning rights mean that such public events as school graduations or sports events are kicked off with a couple burning flags. L+ gun rights is extreme gun restriction; L++ means that absolutely all guns are not only banned, but also collected (even ones in LCS stockpiles). L++ Gay rights mean that straight people are second-class citizens. L++ animal rights mean that you will frequently find wild animals in place of citizens.

Might as well add C++ positions too, like C++ women's rights which immediately imprisons women seen outdoors insufficiently covered, including your LCS members, and C++ guns rights, which mean that it's not a crime to shoot anyone not carrying a gun.)

Yes, sometimes I think we're embracing political correctness in America in this fashion, which almost turns those L+ ideals into L++ headaches.  (Though that's still preferable to C+ headaches of any kind...)

Sometimes I feel my identity as a white, straight, privileged male in the USA makes me part of the newest Politically Correct punching bag for the L++ types out there I know (here's looking at YOU, UC Santa Cruz).

Just saying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 05:11:59 pm

Quote from: Seamas on October 31, 2012, 05:06:46 pm

The mountain-of-a-molehill effect created by the Electoral College system is the same for the structure of the U.S. Senate, is it not?  That, too, seems outdated now but talk of changing that would really stir things up.  California gets two senators to represent the interests of 30 million people, and Rhode Island gets two senators to represent 1 million. 

So then a  RI senator gets 30x as much say in the legislature per citizen as a California senator?  Why are we paying so much deference to miniscule states like those when the majority (by population anyway) of interests in the country frankly are located in the big states?  I'm not trying to bully anybody from a small state btw, but it's something that needs to be talked about.

Yes, but that's balanced by the House having more seats for a state depending on population. You have One that is simply equal by state and another that's equal by population. I don't really have a problem with that.

I just don't think that the Electoral college works too well for the Presidency, since there isn't anything that balances it. Plus, as I stated earlier, the 'extra power' given to the small states isn't actually used anyway in the vast majority of elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 31, 2012, 08:07:54 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 05:11:59 pm

Quote from: Seamas on October 31, 2012, 05:06:46 pm

The mountain-of-a-molehill effect created by the Electoral College system is the same for the structure of the U.S. Senate, is it not?  That, too, seems outdated now but talk of changing that would really stir things up.  California gets two senators to represent the interests of 30 million people, and Rhode Island gets two senators to represent 1 million. 

So then a  RI senator gets 30x as much say in the legislature per citizen as a California senator?  Why are we paying so much deference to miniscule states like those when the majority (by population anyway) of interests in the country frankly are located in the big states?  I'm not trying to bully anybody from a small state btw, but it's something that needs to be talked about.

Yes, but that's balanced by the House having more seats for a state depending on population. You have One that is simply equal by state and another that's equal by population. I don't really have a problem with that.

Equality by state is unnecessary. In fact, when you get right down to it, the states aren't really necessary. Their main contribution to the course of American history was causing the Civil War.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on October 31, 2012, 08:12:46 pm

And it doesn't balance it out either. A person from wyoming still has more representation than a person from california. The disparity shrinks with increasing population, but it can never entirely compensate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Seamas on October 31, 2012, 08:24:07 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on October 31, 2012, 08:07:54 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 05:11:59 pm

Quote from: Seamas on October 31, 2012, 05:06:46 pm

The mountain-of-a-molehill effect created by the Electoral College system is the same for the structure of the U.S. Senate, is it not?  That, too, seems outdated now but talk of changing that would really stir things up.  California gets two senators to represent the interests of 30 million people, and Rhode Island gets two senators to represent 1 million. 

So then a  RI senator gets 30x as much say in the legislature per citizen as a California senator?  Why are we paying so much deference to miniscule states like those when the majority (by population anyway) of interests in the country frankly are located in the big states?  I'm not trying to bully anybody from a small state btw, but it's something that needs to be talked about.

Yes, but that's balanced by the House having more seats for a state depending on population. You have One that is simply equal by state and another that's equal by population. I don't really have a problem with that.

Equality by state is unnecessary. In fact, when you get right down to it, the states aren't really necessary. Their main contribution to the course of American history was causing the Civil War.

Actually, sometimes I wonder if states are necessary at all anymore.  Maybe just on an administrative level - say, for responding swiftly in a natural disaster on the regional level.  And let's not even get started on the contradictions that state laws create with the federal law (like why I can, should, should not and also cannot legally grow ganja in my garden, all at the same time)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on October 31, 2012, 08:27:02 pm

The states should maybe have the same level of power as city governments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on October 31, 2012, 09:11:25 pm

I could not disagree more strongly. States can be an important vehicle for progress - without states, there would be no gay marriage in the US, for example. I struggle to see that as an improvement. State legislation with federal oversight allows our country to move faster than it would otherwise - if it weren't for state's rights, there wouldn't have been a civil war, yes - because we would all be slave states. It was only the fact that slavery was illegal in the north that allowed us to build enough popular opposition to it declare emancipation.

Why should the people in California get to tell the people in Rhode Island what to do? Just because they have more people, they are allowed to decide which laws are best for all of us? Instead of just, y'know, better for the west coast? What do they know, or care, of our concerns of conditions?

Localizing laws helps make them more precise, and limits the amount of damage they do on the edges, by tailoring them to local culture and conditions. It's good to have a federal government to put it's foot down when the states go to far in that direction - but I think it's important that people should be able to live under the laws closest to what they want to live to, and states provide the best opportunity for that to happen.

Heirarchical democracy means the sheep can tell the wolves that they can't eat meat in sheep territory, but prevents them from declaring everyone must eat grass and starve the wolves to death.

And it also prevents one stupid law (see: Arizona) from screwing all of us (see: Way too many federal laws).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on October 31, 2012, 09:25:09 pm

Here's one idea I've seen bandied about at...gosh, can't remember when. In essence, you allow every county, every dozen years, say, to decide which state it wants to belong to. This would of course require a pretty extensive rewrite of federal laws about how cross-state crimes and federal jurisdiction are handled, because now the boundaries are smaller, but it fixes the problem that we currently have several states which, although they were natural states at their founding, are divided into regions that hate each others' guts. I grew up, for example, in Pittsylvania County, in south-central Virginia- a wonderful place in the way that small, rural places with salt-of-the-earth people tend to be, but pretty conservative. (Its congressional district was a swing district due to the inclusion of Charlottesville, but until... '06, I think, was represented by none other than the wild, wacky, lovable Virgil Hamlin Goode, Junior). Virginia is divided into two parts: a conservative, Southern, not all that rich rural area, and a northern, liberal, wealthy area around DC and stretching down the east coast. Both parts hate each others' guts, for good reason, I should add. There are several other states like this- Missouri, Georgia, even Florida and Pennsylvania.

There is really no good reason why these regions of the country should be forced together when they'd both be a lot happier choosing their own policies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on October 31, 2012, 09:37:58 pm

Interesting idea. It'd be a bitch to implement, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on October 31, 2012, 10:07:50 pm

States are necessary to provide different environments. If someone in the US wants to live in a place with socialized health care and 'liberal' politics, it's easier to move to Massachusetts than Europe. The same is true for somewhere with loose gun laws, for example (which MA isn't). Nationally, very little seems to be getting accomplished legislatively, but some states have such strong legislative majorities that they can actually get things accomplished. That said, we still need a strong federal government because states can't solve all our problems, and what we have now certainly isn't that (the legislative branch is largely crippled by divisiveness, and half of it appears to be doing its best to cripple the other two branches as well (blocking appointments to both the executive and judicial branch, trying to cut funding to agencies, etc)).

IMHO not all policies and legislation are right for all states (or nations), and not all people will support all policies, but much of the problem we're having in this country is due to propaganda convincing people that Ignorance is Strength. In addition to glorifying ignorance and superstition and vilifying learning and science, lies are presented as truth and the truth is presented as lies.

---

[In lieu of double-posting:]

Quote from: Mephansteras on October 31, 2012, 11:56:27 am

I hate the fact that my vote in California is essentially wasted because ALL of the electoral votes are going to go Democratic no matter what. Even if I approve of how the vote ultimately goes, I still dislike the system.

I think your vote is less wasted if you vote for a third party candidate, in that getting above 5% gives the party matching funding* for contributions that they receive in the next election. That said, I'm mainly voting for Jill Stein (of the Green Party) because (a) I'm in no danger of flipping the state to Romney by doing so and, (b) if we were in a parallel reality where I was Emperor of the USA, the measures I would take in an attempt to save humanity from exterminating itself would be very similar to those which are in Jill Stein's platform (except that there are additional expensive things I would do involving space to solve our civilization's energy problem).

* I think this may be an oversimplification? I attempted to get clarification on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics), but it didn't really explain it very well (It says you need 5% of the vote in the last election, but then goes on to say something about getting it by getting enough contributions, ??? perhaps that is only for particular candidates per election, rather than the entire party for the next election like the 5% thing).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 01, 2012, 07:25:34 am

Jill Stein has been arrested again. (http://www.jillstein.org/breaking_jill_stein_arrested)  Charged with trespassing, but the real issue is she was attempting to bring supplies to the Keystone XL blockaders.

Alright.  I'm voting.  I didn't think there would be a candidate this year that I would care about, but I've found myself almost completely in alignment with Stein's platform and she has physically demonstrated her resolve multiple times now.  She deserves it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 07:41:26 am

Why there are two Senators per state:

The arguments for and against made by the people who formed the system can be found pretty easily, but some people don't realize the arguments for both sides exist played out in the real world.
The strongest argument against representation by population, in my opinion, is the Russian Revolution and rise of Communism. Not because I hate Communism, but because the foundation of human existance is the food we eat. A farmer is paper rich but really broke. They might own property worth millions of dollars, and millions of dollars worth of Equipment. The problem is they keep reinvesting most of their profits back into the land rather than cashing out. They survive well enough, but still have to work every day of their lives. They probably work even harder than the factory worker, even though their situation more resembles the factory owner. Sure they hire "hands", though usually those hands have their own stuff and it becomes a collective effort instead of a strict enployment one.
SO, what happened to these guys in Russia? They became labled as class enemies because their industry was so small. Massive purges, and then Massive starvation.

This isn't a Randist example. This isn't a group of people who stopped producing, instead this is an example of a tyranny of the masses. A concept formed in the city based on paper wealth, and the thousands of wolves in the cities just had more clout than the hundreds of country bears. The sheep were already eaten by this point.

Our system of government in the United States of America has multiple mechanisms to stop that. Our founders understood how easy a tyranny of the masses was to establish. I've been in a Minority where discrimination was not opposed (religion in the Military) and can tell you with certainty that the US is NOT special in our masses. They are as Tyranical as any dictatorin history.

Now humor me for a moment, picture the European Union. Imagine it as a solid object, one color. As if it were the country. Now color in your head each country as a different shade of that color. Keep that thought in your head for a moment.
State was never origionally supposed to mean what it means to Americans. State is a soverign Entity. The whole European Union is what the United States really is. The states in their alliance documentation establish a collective power to determine extra-state relations. We have a very unique system in that, in which we have individual open borders and other advantages to member-states. EACH STATE IS STILL A SOVERIGN ENTITY! This is why we really have 2 senators for each state, because each is an independant entity in the alliance of united states.
We have the house of representitives established in it's way to give each state power representitive for it] population. If you look at the historical powers each one gets, you will find they match that role. Senate deals with land, house with people.

Now the electorial college is based on the house, in theory to give the best representation on population-power. It's actual makeup is left up to the States. This is to allow each state it's soverignty. Currently most states concentrate their power into blocs to allow them to have a greater effect.
This has an interesting effect when the most powerful states do this. This creates an effect where large portions of the population can support something, but it's rejected by the states.

An electorial college victory without popular support usually means the dense, large population, urban areas are enforcing their will against the rural and small areas. Seriously. It CAN mean the opposite, but usually doesn't. So, what is a poor californian to do to stop being so damn pushy? Easy. STOP TRYING TO EXPORT YOUR DAMN IDEAS. Focus on electorial representation in your own state, and allow the soverign people of other states to make their own decision in how to best let their voice be heard.

And stop moving to Colorado and fix your own state, or at least leave it's policies behind.

Yes, I support the electorial college system. I want Colorado to change to a Representitive state with "features" instead of winner take all, mostly to take stupid battles out of our state. That's a different topic though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:11:10 am

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 07:41:26 am

An electorial college victory without popular support usually means the dense, large population, urban areas are enforcing their will against the rural and small areas. Seriously. It CAN mean the opposite, but usually doesn't. So, what is a poor californian to do to stop being so damn pushy? Easy. STOP TRYING TO EXPORT YOUR DAMN IDEAS. Focus on electorial representation in your own state, and allow the soverign people of other states to make their own decision in how to best let their voice be heard.

Two big problems with your textbook explanation of the Senate.  First is that it creates the opposite problem of your "californians exporting their damn californian ideas" issue, because one-sixth of the population constitutes half of the Senate.  For as much as people crow about those dang urban centers forcing their will on the countryside, nobody ever seems to raise a stink about the countryside forcing its ways on the cities.  Except y'know, people who live in cities, but what do they know right?

The other thing that you have to remember is that the Constitution as we know it was not the first government the United States had.  There was this little thing called the Articles of Confederation that somehow managed to create a semi-functional interstate government to carry through the revolution and a little while after before everyone figured out that a government that can't raise money can't really do anything.

When Ben Franklin and George Washington called their war buddies together in an act of treason to hold the Second Constitutional Convention and dispose of that slapdash system, they had to convince the rest of the states that it was worth signing on to.  The Confederation was a one-body government, run entirely by a Congress that gave every state exactly one vote.  The whole "check on majority power" aspect sounds great and all and certainly factored into the Senate's design, but it was also largely to sell the small states on joining at all after the advantages they'd had under the old system.

Especially in the last few years and all the talk about "going back to the Founders' intent", it amazes me that nobody seems to know about the Articles of Confederation.  A government with no head of state and no functional supreme court, with essentially all power invested a unicameral legislature with equal say for each state, requiring a nine of thirteen supermajority to do virtually anything, no authority to regulate interstate trade and no power to enforce international trade laws, and no ability to raise money for itself except tariffs it can't enforce and begging the states for donations.  Sounds like exactly what John Boehner's been looking for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 08:29:45 am

Nate Silver bets Joe Scarborough $1000 that Obama will win. (http://news.yahoo.com/nate-silver-joe-scarborough-wanna-bet-113615600.html)

This is pretty awesome. I don't think it's any great surprise that I'm a big fan of Nate Silver (of FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) fame). Not only is he pretty damn scrupulous with his math, but he takes great pains to explain why he uses the math he does, and openly admits when he's making an educated guess (and the rationale behind that guess).

Joe Scarborough, on the other hand (along with a lot of cable TV pundits), is basically just an ideological blowhard with nothing real to back up their assertions other than their own willpower. So Silver has come in for a lot of criticism from the right-wingers the last few days for projecting Obama with a 79% chance to win when "national polls" (which we all know don't determine the election) show a tie or a slight Romney lead. Nate got tired of being called an idiot and an ideologue, so he basically challenged Scarborough to put his money where his mouth is.

Gonna love seeing if Morning Joe will welch out on the bet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:37:10 am

By the by, as much as I love extemporizing on the nuts and bolts of American history, I just remembered there's a thread down the page for doing just that.  This being my thread, I'm going to ask all further discussion of the Electoral College et al go over there.  I'll be along soon enough I'm sure.

Quote from: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 08:29:45 am

Gonna love seeing if Morning Joe will welch out on the bet.

I'm more interested to see how his bet with David Axlerod's mustache goes.  The bet: if Romney wins Michigan, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania, senior Obama adviser Axlerod will shave his lifetime 'stache.  If Obama wins North Carolina or Florida, Joe Scarborough will grow one.  The money bet he'll probably be solid for, the mustache I have my doubts.

For the record, I actually have a lot of respect for Joe.  I don't blame him for sounding like a blowhard, since he is on MSNBC after all and that place would drive him to be a blowhard even if he and Pat Buchanan weren't the only Republicans in the building.  And I've never heard the guy say anything I would explicitly disagree with that he didn't admit he was just saying for effect.  Reminds me of my relatives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 08:42:51 am

I'll grant that he's not as full in the Kool-Aid as the crew on FOX  (that bit of him facepalming at the Romney/Ryan chant fail was awesome). But he's still essentially the sort of guy that Colbert parodies: confident, tough-tallking, and working purely on "gut feeling" rather than fact.

I was sitting with a couple of friends the other day watching CNN's storm coverage, and it dawned on me that really all you need to have a cable news network these days is some slick touchscreen monitors, and a small army of people combing Twitter, YouTube and Tumblr looking for new content. That's all news networks do anymore: just aggregate and regurgitate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 01, 2012, 09:02:12 am

Anything less than firsthand news is basically meaningless anymore.  Mainstream news sources have spin down to a science, when they're not just saying whatever they want because they know the vast majority will never fact check.  Meanwhile, the people involved in any news item conceivable are sharing their experiences and thoughts directly via neutral channels, often as events are unfolding.  Uprisings in the Middle-East?  Get on social media and watch the livestreams and communications between people who are there.  You can even get involved.  The only thing 'The News' does for me is notify me that something is occuring, prompting me to tune into firsthand channels, and inform me of varying observer opinions/perspectives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 01, 2012, 09:11:36 am

People always look at me weird when I say I don't watch the news. And that's basically why I don't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 09:26:01 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:11:10 am

-snip-

I am aware of the Articles of Confederation. As for the rural farmers enforcing their will, I challenge you to go back to every election where the popular vote and electorial vote was not the same and give the top 5 states by population a representitive split for their electorial college.

It's interesting, but within the rights of the states to focus their votes, because it may be in their best interest.

As for taking Electorial College discussion elsewhere, Forgive me, but this is the American Megaelection thread, right? And we are now less than a week away from the point where the Americans have their election day? And this IS the system under which that vote is applied to pick the president, correct?
Seems to me that for the next 12-14 days, that is more important than the presidential canadates themselves now for who is elected President, so is quite on topic and appropiate here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 09:37:14 am

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 09:26:01 am

As for taking Electorial College discussion elsewhere, Forgive me, but this is the American Megaelection thread, right? And we are now less than a week away from the point where the Americans have their election day? And this IS the system under which that vote is applied to pick the president, correct?
Seems to me that for the next 12-14 days, that is more important than the presidential canadates themselves now for who is elected President, so is quite on topic and appropiate here.

Except that it's my own damn thread, and I've heard more than enough one-man circular symposiums about the superiority of X voting system a million other places before.  This is a topical thread, not really a theory thread, even if I haven't been captaining it that much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 09:43:34 am

Yeah, I just spent ten minutes re-reading the OP because I was sure there was a rule about not getting bogged down in metadiscussions about the electoral system. There wasn't, but then I got sucked into reading Aqizzar's description of the Republican candidates. Good times.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 10:09:32 am

As the x we are talking about is currently the focus of national news as it is expected to not fall on a smooth national vote line, it's relevent to the topic. There's even talk of the possibility of the president being chosen by congress. We're well into obscure election law now, because it's a real possibility now.

Either way, I expect to see a mountain of legal challenges to both sides and alligations of election fraud. I wonder if we will be protestless again if a Florida Repeat happens?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 10:32:00 am

I don't think so. The electoral math is such that I don't think any single state (other than California) flipping will make the difference. I don't believe this is going to be a 271-267 kind of victory. Ohio is being held up as this "make or break state", but not because it inherently will provide the winning margin of victory. Instead, it's because it's an indicator of larger trends. If Romney wins Ohio, it means he's outperforming polls and is liable to win a number of other states where the race is close such as Virginia and Colorado. If Obama wins, it means his narrow lead there should hold up similarly in other battleground states and his "lean" states are essentially safe states.

It's very easy to construct plausible scenarios where Romney winns Ohio and still loses the election. The reason it's unlikely is that the states don't exist in a bubble. Whatever event or narrative that would exist to push the numbers Romney's way in Ohio would also be at work in the other 49 states.

The talk about Congress being involved (in a 269-269 tie) is just the media running out of shit to talk about and going "Wow, wouldn't it be crazy if?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 01, 2012, 10:49:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 10:32:00 am

The talk about Congress being involved (in a 269-269 tie) is just the media running out of shit to talk about and going "Wow, wouldn't it be crazy if?"

What scenarios- theoretically, of course- would give us a 269-269 tie?

Of course, there's always the question of a faithless elector or two...boy, that'd be fun. A faithless elector throwing the election would have to go into hiding because half the country would be baying for his blood.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 11:01:21 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 01, 2012, 10:49:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 10:32:00 am

The talk about Congress being involved (in a 269-269 tie) is just the media running out of shit to talk about and going "Wow, wouldn't it be crazy if?"

What scenarios- theoretically, of course- would give us a 269-269 tie?

Of course, there's always the question of a faithless elector or two...boy, that'd be fun. A faithless elector throwing the election would have to go into hiding because half the country would be baying for his blood.

There's a number of ways that could pan out, but most of them are unlikely. A lot of it has to do with the fact that Maine and Nebraska allot their Electoral votes by district (each has 2) rather than both together. So it's possible to use that to tweak scenarios by a single vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 11:04:14 am

Trust me, none of the electors are going to be faithless. Just because they theoretically have the option doesn't mean that it would at all be something they could actually end up carrying out. There would be riots.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 11:04:34 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 01, 2012, 10:49:45 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 10:32:00 am

The talk about Congress being involved (in a 269-269 tie) is just the media running out of shit to talk about and going "Wow, wouldn't it be crazy if?"

What scenarios- theoretically, of course- would give us a 269-269 tie?

Of course, there's always the question of a faithless elector or two...boy, that'd be fun. A faithless elector throwing the election would have to go into hiding because half the country would be baying for his blood.

http://electoral-vote.com/

if Romney won all ties + ohio, iowa and nevada, it could be a 269-269 tie. This also depends on the split that happens in Maine and Nebraska because they are not winner take all at the state level.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 11:10:26 am

And like I said, the "states don't exist in a bubble" thing makes this highly unlikely. If Mittens wins Iowa and Nevada, he's going to win Colorado and Virginia as well, considering they're much closer races than either Iowa or Nevada.

Given the way momentum appears to be going, if there's no major last-minute surprise, I think Obama wins with 300+ electoral votes. Popular vote may be far closer, but that's irrelevant other than giving Republicans a reason to scream that the vote was rigged because they either don't understand math or choose not to understand math because it gets in the way of a good rhetorical screaming point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 01, 2012, 11:25:29 am

I wonder how much Hurricane Sandy is helping Obama. It gave him a last minute opportunity to show himself as a proactive and caring leader. Heck, it got the Republican governor of New Jersey to speak highly of how well he's handling things!

If anything was going to give him a bounce, or at least firm up support, this is the kind of thing that'll do it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 11:26:55 am

Yeah, in general the whole "not fucking up" thing has worked well for him.

Albeit, I just realized how low the bar has been set when "doing your job and not fucking it up" gives you a measurable increase in polling support. Thank you, George W. Bush.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 01:11:10 pm

Republican-linked polling/marketing firm found to be sending slew of unsolicited text messages bashing Obama. (http://news.yahoo.com/storm-anti-obama-text-messages-linked-virginia-firm-210509103.html)

Stay classy (and quasi-legal), GOP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 01:32:58 pm

Reading Yahoo commentaries makes me want to enact God Bless America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 01:46:59 pm

Reading Yahoo commentaries is hazardous to everyone ELSE's health, because it's likely to incite homicidal rage and a belief that the human race doesn't deserve to live.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 01:51:03 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 01:46:59 pm

Reading Yahoo commentaries is hazardous to everyone ELSE's health, because it's likely to incite homicidal rage and a belief that the human race doesn't deserve to live.

Yea. There was a comment I read  by someone threatening to sodomize Obama's daughters to death. It really makes me wish I could reach through the internet and crush a few windpipes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 01, 2012, 02:04:49 pm

"What about the VOTING MACHINES that automatically PRINT Obama's name when you VOTE ROMNEY?"
"Obama is responsible, for four people massacred and sodomized and yet he still wants to be president"
"notify all the illegals with the truth how they are selling their soul!!"
"Next think you know were gonna hear about black panthers being used to intimidate voters"
"Obama hates white people"
"theres no mystery here about this tweet.Hussein is an idiot.We can NOT afford 4 more years of this non sense.People who spout such stupidity should be FORCED to LIVE IN IT"
Let Hussein survive in food stamps and un employment"
"I say we all go to church on sunday and beat up an old lady republican until she says she will vote for Obama."
"ccAdvertising is billed as a Republican supporter. Can it be that is is a facade funded by Democrats?"
"Other BAD LANDS burn our flag.... WE AMERICANS BURN DIRTY LAUNDRY"
"Yep, America has come a long way. Next thing we'll hear is that someone excavated Lincolns grave and burned the remains."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on November 01, 2012, 02:09:09 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 01:32:58 pm

Reading Yahoo commentaries makes me want to enact God Bless America.

I liked these ones :P:

Quote

Yo, Erectile Dysfunction...lay off the Blue pills they have clouded your judgement. The Liberal Media is a myth spawned by the conservative media and the weak minded have bought it hook line and sincker

Quote

America has had four years of communism, lies, cover ups.
Enough is enough, out with the commie and his cronies, zars, buddy commies and the muzzie brother hood.

Quote

Sunny - the "Office of the President of the United States" is currently VACANT.

Obama (Soetoro) was not eligible to run and, therefore, could not be elected, no how many "votes" he got. Pelosi falsified the qualifying documents and should be tried for her crimes, as well.

Quote

1. Racism is perpetuated by liberals, not practiced by conservatives.
2. If/when it comes to light that Obama really was not eligible for office, will all his executive orders be immediately repealed? Along with any other orders he gave?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 01, 2012, 02:10:18 pm

This idea of voting machines sending in an Obama vote when you press Romney seems to be coming up more than once. Anyone know where this one's coming from?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 01, 2012, 02:13:54 pm

(http://www.maintitles.net/gfx/smileys/suicide.gif)

Can we please not have Yahoo comments here?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 02:16:17 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 01, 2012, 02:10:18 pm

This idea of voting machines sending in an Obama vote when you press Romney seems to be coming up more than once. Anyone know where this one's coming from?

Probably from the voting machine manufacturer executives who promise to deliver elections for republicans and have conspired to do the exact same thing in the opposite direction in the past.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on November 01, 2012, 02:19:53 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 01:51:03 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 01:46:59 pm

Reading Yahoo commentaries is hazardous to everyone ELSE's health, because it's likely to incite homicidal rage and a belief that the human race doesn't deserve to live.

Yea. There was a comment I read  by someone threatening to sodomize Obama's daughters to death. It really makes me wish I could reach through the internet and crush a few windpipes.

I've been working on something like that but right now it relies on people being really really close to their CD drive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 01, 2012, 02:35:22 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 01, 2012, 02:10:18 pm

This idea of voting machines sending in an Obama vote when you press Romney seems to be coming up more than once. Anyone know where this one's coming from?

I think it's more likely that it would occur the other way around, given that virtually all the voting-machine companies seem to be led by Republicans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on November 01, 2012, 02:55:42 pm

Oh hey, global warming and an endorsement from Bloomberg because of it and Sandy (for Obama)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nyregion/bloomberg-endorses-obama-saying-hurricane-sandy-affected-decision.html
Guess global warming climate change came up after all, somehow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 03:14:29 pm

I'd just like to say that while states may not exist in a bubble, what matters to Iowa does not matter to Colorado. Iowa's main industries are NOT Military, Mining, and Tourism. Iowa is much more likely to care about outsourced manufacturing parts of the economy, while that's an Intellectual exercise for Colorado.
Iowa is also more predictable because it isn't three distinct regions grouped into one. Colorado is made up of the Front Range (where most of it's population lives, a strip of about 50 miles along the Rockey Mountains runnning north-south), the "Western Slope", and the Plains. There are actually pretty significant differences in what each region cares about, and their makeup. Colorado's actions really can't be judged by any other state I can think of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on November 01, 2012, 03:17:08 pm

Quote from: Moghjubar on November 01, 2012, 02:55:42 pm

Oh hey, global warming and an endorsement from Bloomberg because of it and Sandy (for Obama)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nyregion/bloomberg-endorses-obama-saying-hurricane-sandy-affected-decision.html
Guess global warming climate change came up after all, somehow.

It's both Global Warming and Climate Change...

And about damn time people in power start addressing it this election. The East Coast is going to have a lot more on their palette in the coming years and the nation needs to start dealing with the consequences of a changing global climate. Maybe taking a look at Germany's drastic redirection of energy development so we can avert worsening the problems even more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 01, 2012, 03:18:24 pm

You could make that argument for every state, Kogan.  Iowa isn't completely homogenous by any means itself (mix of manufacturing heavy small towns in NE, college towns dominating the eastern part, and the largely agricultural west.)  But all the states are similar enough that large movement in one state will probably be seen in other states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 03:45:26 pm

@Kogan:

I agree with you, but those differences are already sorted for in the base support level. It's not like Iowans are suddenly going to have a global epiphany regarding the candidates' positions on outsourcing, and Coloradans aren't going to have a similar sea change regarding their issues. Simply put, there's no niche issue that either candidate is going to have a high-profile bump or dip over, enough to affect one or two states without affecting the rest.

Unless it was something bizarre like Obama saying "Man, fuck Iowa." Which would presumably drop his support precipitously there and give him a 5-point boost in Nebraska. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 01, 2012, 03:48:36 pm

It occurs to me that since many people who support the Republicans do so for religious reasons some good might be done by making up flyers pointing out bible verses and passages that reflect badly on Mitt Romney and the Republican party.

I recommend the following:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."  Matthew 6:24 (alternate translation)

"No man can be the bondservant of two masters; for either he will dislike one and like the other, or he will attach himself to one and think slightingly of the other. You cannot be the bondservants both of God and of gold."  Matthew 6:24 (alternate translation)

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

"Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Mark 10:21

"7 I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: 8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts. 9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. 10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour. 11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun." Ecclesiastes 2:7-11

"Your gold and silver have become worthless. The very wealth you were counting on will eat away your flesh like fire. This treasure you have accumulated will stand as evidence against you on the day of judgment." James 5:3

"A servant cannot serve two masters. He will hate the first master and love the second, or he will be devoted to the first and despise the second. You cannot serve God and wealth." Luke 16:13

"But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?" James 2:6

"He said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses."" Luke 12:15

"Judas said, "What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?" And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray Jesus." Matthew 26:15-16

"19 Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasted sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And longed to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeing Abraham far off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they who would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there."" Luke 16:19-26

"But those who are determined to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction." 1 Timothy 6:9

"Come now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you." James 5:1

Anyone else want to help design an anti-Republican religious pamphlet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 03:48:47 pm

RedKing,
So you're what you're saying is...

Maybe he should come out and say "Fuck Nebraska"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 03:50:08 pm

Just what does the president do that would be affecting on the state-level, so much so that the states should get a block-vote? Shouldn't the guy who represents the entire country be chosen based on the actual votes of the entire country? Instead of the votes of the states?

(This last sentence is very wibble-wobbley but you hopefully know what I mean. I'm just gonna ignore anyone that takes it out of context, so don't waste your time.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 03:53:26 pm

@ Bohandas:

What are you talking about? Those phrases are clearly supposed to be metaphorical and do not actually mean what they say.
</biblical_apologist>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 01, 2012, 03:58:02 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 03:48:47 pm

RedKing,
So you're what you're saying is...

Maybe he should come out and say "Fuck Nebraska"?

Well, then he gets an 8-point boost in Kansas. The Midwest is sort of a tiered system of increasing hate.

Minnesota <--> Iowa = annoyance
Iowa <--> Nebraska = mild dislike
Nebraska <--> Kansas = strong dislike
Kansas <--> Oklahoma = hate
Oklahoma <--> Texas = Man, FUCK those guys. Seriously.
Texas <--> Mexico = Get me mah gun / Buscar mi pistola


Incidentally, this is part of why Romney is polling at about +16 in Texas, despite trailing miserably there during the primaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 04:01:48 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:37:10 am

By the by, as much as I love extemporizing on the nuts and bolts of American history, I just remembered there's a thread down the page for doing just that.  This being my thread, I'm going to ask all further discussion of the Electoral College et al go over there.  I'll be along soon enough I'm sure.

What thread is that? I don't see one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 01, 2012, 04:03:26 pm

Over dere. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=118466.0)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 04:42:37 pm

Oh, that thread. I read the OP when it was posted, and decided to ignore the thread out of paranoia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on November 01, 2012, 04:50:30 pm

I can 100% confirm Red King's analysis of the Midwestern Hate Cycle. Because seriously, Iowa and Kansas? Fuck 'em.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 04:58:43 pm

If Obama gets reelected, he sure is going to inherit a mess. I'm guessing he won't blame the mess on the previous president though since he will be the previous president.

He'll probably blame it on the Senate like he did four years ago. Oh, wait, four years ago he didn't blame it on the Senate because he inherited the mess, in part, from a Democratically controlled Senate of which he himself was a member. But maybe he can blame it on the Senate this time. Wait, the Senate has been controlled by Democrats the last 6 years. He can't blame it on them.

So, he'll blame on the House like he did four years ago. Wait, he didn't blame it on the House four years ago because four years ago, he inherited the mess, in part, from a Democratically controlled House. This time he will be able to blame it on the House though because the House has been controlled by Republicans two of the last six years. Yeah, that's it! Those damn Tea Partiers! They messed up everything! Those bastards!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 05:01:59 pm

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:19:18 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 05:01:59 pm

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

And, yes, "picking up your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials." Isn't that what Obama did? During the dept ceiling debate, they were apparently on the verge of an agreement that would have raised taxes by $800Billion. Obama then went and talked to Pelosi and came back and said, no, he wanted $1.2Trillion in tax increases. Thank God the Republicans said no to that. Obama has refused to compromise, unlike Bill Clinton did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Luke_Prowler on November 01, 2012, 05:21:53 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:19:18 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 05:01:59 pm

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

[Citation Needed]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 05:23:49 pm

The House doesn't allow filibusters requiring 60 votes to get past, either - which currently allow anyone in the Senate to shut down anything on a whim.

(If you say "SUPERMAJORITY FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS" I'll smack you with a cluebat (because that is a lie))

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 05:27:07 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:19:18 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 05:01:59 pm

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

That is exactly what they have done. Passing a budget that you know will fail is masturbatory.

Saying otherwise doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it to.

And making such statements to people who make it a hobby of fact checking and verifying sources is really rather pointless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:28:51 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 05:23:49 pm

The House doesn't allow filibusters requiring 60 votes to get past, either - which currently allow anyone in the Senate to shut down anything on a whim.

(If you say "SUPERMAJORITY FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS" I'll smack you with a cluebat (because that is a lie))

So, Obama only needed to get a single Republican vote to get a bill passed. Surely he could have compromised enough to get a single vote. It' a damn good think the Dems didn't have a supermajority. Our economy would be far worse if they had.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 05:29:03 pm

Quote from: nenjin on November 01, 2012, 04:50:30 pm

I can 100% confirm Red King's analysis of the Midwestern Hate Cycle. Because seriously, Iowa and Kansas? Fuck 'em.

Nenjin just took the lead in Nebraska polling by 4 points.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 05:30:17 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:28:51 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 05:23:49 pm

The House doesn't allow filibusters requiring 60 votes to get past, either - which currently allow anyone in the Senate to shut down anything on a whim.

(If you say "SUPERMAJORITY FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS" I'll smack you with a cluebat (because that is a lie))

So, Obama only needed to get a single Republican vote to get a bill passed. Surely he could have compromised enough to get a single vote. It' a damn good think the Dems didn't have a supermajority. Our economy would be far worse if they had.

Obama compromised his ass off. There wasn't a single republican willing to compromise on passing anything, even budgets they had previously proposed themselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on November 01, 2012, 05:31:53 pm

Yeah, you just need to look at the Payroll Tax Cut to see how the GOP manage to fail so hard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:33:29 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 05:27:07 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:19:18 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 05:01:59 pm

You're kind of missing the part where it was indeed the GOP House's fault. The previous years have been troublesome in major part due to their utter stonewalling. Picking your ball up and going home is not appropriate behavior from elected officials.

The Tea Party didn't stop the House from passing budgets and bills to address the deficits. They passed budgets, unlike the Senate that hasn't passed a budget in, what, three years? Who's fault is it that the Senate hasn't passed  budgets? Perhaps a leadership problem in the Senate and Presidency?

That is exactly what they have done. Passing a budget that you know will fail is masturbatory.

Saying otherwise doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it to.

And making such statements to people who make it a hobby of fact checking and verifying sources is really rather pointless.

So, the House passed budgets every year. Normally, the Senate would pass a budget too, and they would have a committee work out a compromise. The Dems chose to not even try to do that. And, they didn't need 60 votes to pass a budget -- just 51. Surely the liberals could have at least compromised enough to get 51 Democratic Senators to vote on a budget.

Fact checking? What have I said that is untrue?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 05:34:53 pm

One: The Senate only had 56 democrats, and 2 independents. He would need all of those PLUS 2 Republicans.

When the primary goal of the Republican's was publicly stated to be "guarantee Obama is not re-elected", there's not a whole lot he can compromise with.

Every time he gave them what they asked, they'd move the goalposts. And you're assuming that the Democrats were in lockstep behind him - not all democrats like Obama, not all Democrats are liberal.

Sure, one could argue he still failed to sway the other side into agreeing with him, but it wasn't just a case of "one Republican". That's absurd.


Pre-edit: Actually... wait. Are budget rules different than other laws here? I don't actually remember - did they really only need 51?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 05:36:07 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:28:51 pm

So, Obama only needed to get a single Republican vote to get a bill passed. Surely he could have compromised enough to get a single vote.

Maybe, just maybe the republicans are obstructionists who would never support Obama no matter what?  Here's a handy way to see if they are.  We look for major legislation proposed by Obama that was based on republican ideas and see how they react to it.  This would be the 100% compromise position, where there was literally no room left for Obama to compromise.

So there was this law proposed by the heritage foundation, introduced by Bob Dole and reintroduced by Barack Obama.  It's called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Seeing as this is a democrat proposing an idea based 100% on conservative principals... what sort of reception did it get?  Oh yeah, they called it fascism.

The reason Obama couldn't get 1 republican Senator on board is because there is not 1 republican Senator with integrity.  Every single one of them put party before country.  Every single one.

But I'm sure it's Obama's fault that republicans care more about their party then their country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 05:37:56 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 05:34:53 pm

Pre-edit: Actually... wait. Are budget rules different than other laws here? I don't actually remember - did they really only need 51?

He's suggesting they should have used reconciliation, I believe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:40:30 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 05:34:53 pm

One: The Senate only had 56 democrats, and 2 independents. He would need all of those PLUS 2 Republicans.

When the primary goal of the Republican's was publicly stated to be "guarantee Obama is not re-elected", there's not a whole lot he can compromise with.

Every time he gave them what they asked, they'd move the goalposts. And you're assuming that the Democrats were in lockstep behind him - not all democrats like Obama, not all Democrats are liberal.

Sure, one could argue he still failed to sway the other side into agreeing with him, but it wasn't just a case of "one Republican". That's absurd.


Pre-edit: Actually... wait. Are budget rules different than other laws here? I don't actually remember - did they really only need 51?

The Senate could have passed their own budget with 51 votes -- the Republicans couldn't stop them from doing that. If the Senate and House then came up with a compromise budget bill, the Senate would have needed 60 to send that bill to the President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:42:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 05:36:07 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:28:51 pm

So, Obama only needed to get a single Republican vote to get a bill passed. Surely he could have compromised enough to get a single vote.

Maybe, just maybe the republicans are obstructionists who would never support Obama no matter what?  Here's a handy way to see if they are.  We look for major legislation proposed by Obama that was based on republican ideas and see how they react to it.  This would be the 100% compromise position, where there was literally no room left for Obama to compromise.

So there was this law proposed by the heritage foundation, introduced by Bob Dole and reintroduced by Barack Obama.  It's called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Seeing as this is a democrat proposing an idea based 100% on conservative principals... what sort of reception did it get?  Oh yeah, they called it fascism.

The reason Obama couldn't get 1 republican Senator on board is because there is not 1 republican Senator with integrity.  Every single one of them put party before country.  Every single one.

But I'm sure it's Obama's fault that republicans care more about their party then their country.

The Democrats are far more concerned about what is best for the Democratic Party than what is best for the country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:43:24 pm

Would you care to, say, qualify any of your statements?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 05:44:21 pm

The problem with that "if" is that the republican congress explicitly stated that any compromise would require 100% acceptance of their proposal and 0% acceptance of democratic proposal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:47:49 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:43:24 pm

Would you care to, say, qualify any of your statements?

Which one? It is well known that the House has passed budgets every year and the Senate hasn't . Do a little research yourself.

Ok, here is one. You cab find many more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/20/Republican-Senators-Assail-Democrats-For-Planning-To-Adjourn-Without-Passing-Budget-For-Third-Consecutive-Year

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:49:42 pm

That looks like an absolutely fair, unbiased source.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:51:39 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:49:42 pm

That looks like an absolutely fair, unbiased source.

I just did a quick Google search. Do I need to post a 'Let me Google that for you' Link? This isn't something Democrats deny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:53:01 pm

The deniable part is that it's the Democrats' fault - I suppose it sort of is, for letting the GOP bullies in the playground tell them what to do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 05:53:56 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 05:44:21 pm

The problem with that "if" is that the republican congress explicitly stated that any compromise would require 100% acceptance of their proposal and 0% acceptance of democratic proposal.

Seriously. Saying you're going to compromise and doing such are two completely different things. Anyone who claims the GOP-controlled House hasn't been focused on obstructionist party politics is in dire need of reeducation on how our entire fucking government works.

Quote from: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:43:24 pm

Would you care to, say, qualify any of your statements?

No, he won't, because he's blowing hot air out of his ass for the sake of spewing more party patriotism out there. I think it gives people a sense of meaning to do such, I can't tell you why.

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:47:49 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:43:24 pm

Would you care to, say, qualify any of your statements?

Which one? It is well known that the House has passed budgets every year and the Senate hasn't . Do a little research yourself.

Ok, here is one. You cab find many more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/20/Republican-Senators-Assail-Democrats-For-Planning-To-Adjourn-Without-Passing-Budget-For-Third-Consecutive-Year

Here's the thing, kiddo.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 05:27:07 pm

Passing a budget that you know will fail is masturbatory.

[See: all those 'Budgets' forced out of the house that are ideological scripts, passed (in a masturbatory fashion [aka 'Freedom and Jobs Bill for America']) to bitch and whine that the president won't compromise with their wingnut cutting]

I'd like for you to go through, well, any of the past three years' GOP "budget" bills and tell me why we should adopt it. Go ahead, tell me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 06:00:50 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 05:42:02 pm

The Democrats are far more concerned about what is best for the Democratic Party than what is best for the country.

Then please offer an example of the republicans offering a major piece of legislation that was based on liberal ideas and the democrats rejecting it on a lockstep vote.  Heck, just give me an example of the republicans offering a major piece of legislation that was based on liberal ideas.

See we can actually look at the facts... and the facts have a liberal bias.

This bias is why I never chose to be a liberal.  The republican party decided that I would have to be by declaring war on my kind.  If you are LBGT and love numbers and science then their platform is basically a coordinated attempt to drive you from the party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 06:06:33 pm

Political parties are political parties. I dunno how accurate the "party is more important that the country" accusation is for each party, but I do know that such an argument doesn't excuse something. "The Democrats are just like the Republicans with their partisan bullshit" is a potentially fair accusation, but even if it were accurate, it would not in any way shape or form excuse the Republicans. It's just make the Democrats bad too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:09:36 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 05:53:56 pm

Quote from: Blargityblarg on November 01, 2012, 05:43:24 pm

Would you care to, say, qualify any of your statements?

No, he won't, because he's blowing hot air out of his ass for the sake of spewing more party patriotism out there. I think it gives people a sense of meaning to do such, I can't tell you why.
...
I'd like for you to go through, well, any of the past three years' GOP "budget" bills and tell me why we should adopt it. Go ahead, tell me.

Which statement would you like me to qualify?

And, at least the House passed budgets. The Senate hasn't for three years even though they could have passed one with 51 votes.

It's not surprising you insulted me. I can often tell when a liberal is losing a debate -- they resort to name calling and personal insults. Why can't you just try to use logic, intelligence, and facts to debate in a mature manner without insulting me? You don't have to answer that, by the way. I already know the answer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:13:16 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 06:06:33 pm

Political parties are political parties. I dunno how accurate the "party is more important that the country" accusation is for each party, but I do know that such an argument doesn't excuse something. "The Democrats are just like the Republicans with their partisan bullshit" is a potentially fair accusation, but even if it were accurate, it would not in any way shape or form excuse the Republicans. It's just make the Democrats bad too.

You make a good point. I was just substituting Republican with Democrat and repeating what he said. Was half expecting people to then criticize what I said without criticizing what he said. Unlike most people, I really do think there are a lot of good Democrats as well as a lot of good Republicans in Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 06:14:12 pm

Dear god, you're a moron. I'm a conservative. Quantify your previous horseshit and I'll consider you worth arguing with, all you're doing is spewing unverified, ridiculous statements and falling back to 'Oh wah, you're a mean Liberal!' when I don't agree with your hollow ideological rhetoric.

Tell me what was good about the House's 'budget' proposals, once again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 01, 2012, 06:18:20 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 06:14:12 pm

I'm a conservative.

Dun dun DUUUUNNNN.

_{I'm so sorry.}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 01, 2012, 06:19:07 pm

While healthy political debate is a good thing, let's stop with the name calling. Last thing we need is people getting riled up enough to cause Toady to waste his time by having to come in and moderate things in here.

Citations, though, are a good thing. Everyone should use them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on November 01, 2012, 06:27:11 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:13:16 pm

...Unlike most people, I really do think there are a lot of good Democrats as well as a lot of good Republicans in Congress...

Finally, a statement everyone can disagree with!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 06:29:30 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:09:36 pm

And, at least the House passed budgets. The Senate hasn't for three years even though they could have passed one with 51 votes.

So what you're saying is that the Senate should pass proposals for the sake of passing proposals, rather than because the proposals are workable ideas? See, as much as I'd like to go ahead and lump both parties into a single group labelled "assholes", I really can't. The Democrats are spineless moderates who almost never muster the will to do anything of significance. That's bad, sure. But not as bad as being willing to completely block the political process for years with asinine proposals and then blame their political opponents for not "compromising" by meekly accepting their demands.

I also find it sort of amusing that you're complaining about people not backing their statements up with well-documented evidence when all you've posted is a link to an obviously biased media outlet while pumping out the party line as hard as you can. Pot, kettle, etc.

Quote from: PTTG?? on November 01, 2012, 06:27:11 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:13:16 pm

...Unlike most people, I really do think there are a lot of good Democrats as well as a lot of good Republicans in Congress...

Finally, a statement everyone can disagree with!

Heh. They're good at being political tools (in every sense of the word), I'll give them that much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 06:34:28 pm

Despite how common it is in everyday speech, when you resort to making wide generalizations about a specific group in a serious argument, you've just lost all your credibility. There are intelligent people on every side of an argument (even if a side is wrong, a prime example being the scientific process) and saying that you can spot an X because they do Y is tantamount to outdated stereotypes vilifying the poor or minority groups. I rarely post serious comments that are off-topic and I very much apologize for doing so, but I just have to say that if you are going to dismiss the other side of an argument as below you then you may as well stop arguing your point.

Anyhow, on the topic of whether or not sides get things done, how many filibusters have their been for each party in the past decade? Being a college student I mainly hear about Republican filibusters, but I feel that there must have been democrats stonewalling legislation as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on November 01, 2012, 06:34:29 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 01, 2012, 06:19:07 pm

Citations, though, are a good thing. Everyone should use them.

Keep in mind that some citations are worth more facepalms then others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 06:34:45 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 01, 2012, 06:18:20 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 06:14:12 pm

I'm a conservative.

Dun dun DUUUUNNNN.

_{I'm so sorry.}

Don't be, I enjoy being a socially-Liberal fiscally-Conservative American. Sorry for being mean, I'm just so damn tired of all the ideologues that come out of the woodworks around these times despite not knowing the subject matter at all [or from a view so narrowly focused on one side that you could call it uneducated].

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:15 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 06:14:12 pm

Dear god, you're a moron. I'm a conservative. Quantify your previous horseshit and I'll consider you worth arguing with, all you're doing is spewing unverified, ridiculous statements and falling back to 'Oh wah, you're a mean Liberal!' when I don't agree with your hollow ideological rhetoric.

Tell me what was good about the House's 'budget' proposals, once again.

People ask me to qualify my statements, but I don't know which ones they are talking about. I don't mind discussing each issue.

You refer to me as "blowing hot air out of his ass for the sake of spewing more party patriotism out there." Which statement are you talking about?

As far as Republican budgets go, obviously they did not go far enough. Ryan's last budget, apparently, will take decades to balance the budget, yet it is called extreme by liberals. (Obama's budget never balances). If a budget increases spending by less than the baseline of around 8%, it is called a budget cut. If you were to increase spending by three times the inflation rate, the liberals would call it massive and irresponsible spending cuts that will throw the elderly out into the street, devastate education, and cause the death of babies. So, I am not defending the Republican budgets -- I am criticizing the Democrats for not even trying to pass a budget. The Republicans, though, obviously do not want to increase non-military spending nearly as much as Democrats do.

At least some Republicans are talking about addressing entitlements, such as gradually raising the retirement age, means testing, and moving young people toward a defined contribution plan rather tha a defined benefit plan.

I have never been a Republican. I am a liberatarian. I would like to see military spending held to no higher than the inflation rate, along with all discretionary spending. I would like to see us get rid of income taxes for individuals as well as for businesses. I would like to get rid of taxes on capital gains and dividends. All of these can be replaced by a national sales tax. I can give many reasons why this is the best way to collect taxes.

The bottom line is you are asking me to defend the Republican budgets despite my never having said I like them. I just pointed out that the House is passing budgets and the Senate is not. I was asking what people people wanted me to give proof of or expand upon. And you call me a moron. Dear god, what an ass you are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 01, 2012, 06:41:53 pm

Quote from: Zangi on November 01, 2012, 06:34:29 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 01, 2012, 06:19:07 pm

Citations, though, are a good thing. Everyone should use them.

Keep in mind that some citations are worth more facepalms then others.

Good point. I should amend that to citations from credible sources are a good thing and people should use them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:45:11 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 06:29:30 pm

...
I also find it sort of amusing that you're complaining about people not backing their statements up with well-documented evidence when all you've posted is a link to an obviously biased media outlet while pumping out the party line as hard as you can. Pot, kettle, etc.

You don't get it. This isn't a Republican versus Democrat argument. It's not a liberal versus conservative argument. It is a well known fact. No one denies it being true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 06:50:55 pm

It's a "fact", but you're drawing very contestable conclusions from the fact.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 06:51:43 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:45:11 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 06:29:30 pm

...
I also find it sort of amusing that you're complaining about people not backing their statements up with well-documented evidence when all you've posted is a link to an obviously biased media outlet while pumping out the party line as hard as you can. Pot, kettle, etc.

You don't get it. This isn't a Republican versus Democrat argument. It's not a liberal versus conservative argument. It is a well known fact. No one denies it being true.

Except that it ceases to be a "fact" worth anything when you take five seconds to learn about context.  Here's some points that have been hammered over and over again that you refuse to address.

One, Mitch McConnell saying his primary task as leader of the Republican party in the Senate was to prevent Obama from being reelected.

Two, passing bills through the House that the people voting for them know perfectly well will not survive the Senate is a meaningless gesture worthy of no respect.

Three, that Obama offered the Senate almost everything they wanted on a silver platter (see: giving them Bob Dole's health care plan and then amending it downward to their specifications) and still not getting a single Republican to cross the line.

Why I'm even entertaining this I don't know, because I hate coming back to my thread and seeing four new pages, because it's always a pointless argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:58:02 pm

Here is a a CNN article. Yes, it is written by a Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. But you can do your own research if you don't like mine. I'm just responding to those who are asking me for citations:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/opinion/johnson-budget/index.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 07:10:33 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:45:11 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 06:29:30 pm

...
I also find it sort of amusing that you're complaining about people not backing their statements up with well-documented evidence when all you've posted is a link to an obviously biased media outlet while pumping out the party line as hard as you can. Pot, kettle, etc.

You don't get it. This isn't a Republican versus Democrat argument. It's not a liberal versus conservative argument. It is a well known fact. No one denies it being true.

So you're claiming that because you say something, it becomes a "well known fact"? You're painting a complex issue as if it can be laid at the feet of a single man. Here's a rather interesting read on the subject (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all).

Though honestly, something about your baseless rhetoric is setting off alarms in my head...

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:15 pm

I am a liberatarian.

Ah, explains it. By the way, I can give "many reasons" for things too, if I have the freedom to lie my ass off and pretend I know exactly what I'm talking about. In any case, I tend to find debating damned near anything with a Randian objectivist to be something akin to debating philosophy with an unethical stone wall: the discussion goes nowhere and I come out of it with a massive headache and a vague sense of dirtiness.

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:58:02 pm

Here is a a CNN article. Yes, it is written by a Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. But you can do your own research if you don't like mine. I'm just responding to those who are asking me for citations:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/opinion/johnson-budget/index.html

Wait. I might be wrong, but did you really just quote an interview with someone related to the Band of Six as an unbiased source? Ye gods, that's like talking to Nixon about Watergate and expecting the slimy bastard to give you straight answers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 07:13:10 pm

Aw, c'mon people. You're making Aqizzar cry D:

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 01, 2012, 07:19:11 pm

Do... do Aqizzar tears taste good? Are they sufficiently delicious to warrant provoking them? You seem sufficiently close to see Aqi's crying, so I'd wager you're close enough to take a taste.

Do it, Sirus. Do it for science.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 07:20:18 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:15 pm

As far as Republican budgets go, obviously they did not go far enough. Ryan's last budget, apparently, will take decades to balance the budget, yet it is called extreme by liberals. (Obama's budget never balances).

'

Just saying this doesn't make it true.  The budget experts like center for budget priorities overwhelmingly say that Obama is vastly better on the deficit.

Protip: the guy calling for tax cuts isn't balancing the budget.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sirus on November 01, 2012, 07:27:28 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 01, 2012, 07:19:11 pm

Do... do Aqizzar tears taste good? Are they sufficiently delicious to warrant provoking them? You seem sufficiently close to see Aqi's crying, so I'd wager you're close enough to take a taste.

Do it, Sirus. Do it for science.

I was referring to this, you...you dolt :P

Quote

Why I'm even entertaining this I don't know, because I hate coming back to my thread and seeing four new pages, because it's always a pointless argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 07:28:31 pm

Who the fuck said I'm crying?  There's no crying in politics, or the Internet.


Hear ye hear ye, this be a call for Participation.

Okay, so I think it's time I updated the OP, just once for posterity before the election.  I think it would be best served by just being a bunch of links to interesting shit that happened over the course of the election since... March 6th, when I last updated it.  (Holy fuck.)  Post links to news stories you think should be preserved for as long as they stay alive and this forum continues to be hosted.  A lot of crazy shit happened in the last eight months, and I can't begin to parse through it all for a montage before the end.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 07:33:03 pm

Ah march, what a simpler time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 01, 2012, 07:34:06 pm

Dayumn, has it been that long already?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 07:36:24 pm

[Not for preservation]

Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?hp)

TL; DR Congressional Research Service released a study this September, GOP is staunchly against it and pressures the organization to recede the report. What is the report about?

Quote

The report received wide notice from media outlets and liberal and conservative policy analysts when it was released on Sept. 14. It examined the historical fluctuations of the top income tax rates and the rates on capital gains since World War II, and concluded that those fluctuations did not appear to affect the nation’s economic growth.

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

How [lower] top tax rates have no notable effect, at all, on economic growth.

I think you know why the GOP basically forced it back into the dark.

Here's the report, it's actually pretty dead on. (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf)

Quote

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 08:04:08 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 07:10:33 pm

...
Wait. I might be wrong, but did you really just quote an interview with someone related to the Band of Six as an unbiased source? Ye gods, that's like talking to Nixon about Watergate and expecting the slimy bastard to give you straight answers.

So, I was right that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years despite only needing 51 votes. You quote my saying it is a "well known fact." It is. I gave two references, one being CNN. Some have called my references biased, but then you cite the New York Times, which, incidently, does not dispute the "well known fact." I would love to have one of you assholes quote anyone, even MSNBC, denying this "well known fact."

You guys insult me, not realizing that I am right.

Now, one of the main reasons for these types of arguments is that we often have two sides saying contradictory things, and both can't be right. So you have to choose who to believe, or, at least, who you think is more likely to be lying least. Some of you are more likely to believe liberals and some more likely to believe conservatives. But the bottom line in this case is I have presented a "well know fact," and you choose not to believe me despite it being very easy to verify. Try this link and then, please, admit that you were wrong and I am right.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=senate+budget+three+years

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 08:14:02 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 08:04:08 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 07:10:33 pm

...
Wait. I might be wrong, but did you really just quote an interview with someone related to the Band of Six as an unbiased source? Ye gods, that's like talking to Nixon about Watergate and expecting the slimy bastard to give you straight answers.

So, I was right that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years despite only needing 51 votes. You quote my saying it is a "well known fact." It is. I gave two references, one being CNN. Some have called my references biased, but then you cite the New York Times, which, incidently, does not dispute the "well known fact." I would love to have one of you assholes quote anyone, even MSNBC, denying this "well known fact."

You guys insult me, not realizing that I am right.

Ah, how delicious. Incidentally, since you seem to enjoy ignoring things.

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 06:50:55 pm

It's a "fact", but you're drawing very contestable conclusions from the fact.

We aren't saying that it isn't true, we're saying that you're drawing invalid "facts" from it. I can say that bananas are yellow. I can then say that because bananas are yellow, fruit is cowardly. Just because I say it doesn't make it true, it just means I'm being a moron.

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 08:04:08 pm

Now, one of the main reasons for these types of arguments is that we often have two sides saying contradictory things, and both can't be right. So you have to choose who to believe, or, at least, who you think is more likely to be lying least. Some of you are more likely to believe liberals and some more likely to believe conservatives. But the bottom line in this case is I have presented a "well know fact," and you choose not to believe me despite it being very easy to verify. Try this link and then, please, admit that you were wrong and I am right.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=senate+budget+three+years

Again, we're not debating that it is true that the Senate hasn't passed a budget for three years. We're saying that your conclusion that "Senate can't pass a budget" equates to "Obama is a hardliner and completely unwilling to compromise" is idiotic. I'm honestly not sure if you're ignoring that or what.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 08:23:48 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 01, 2012, 07:34:06 pm

Dayumn, has it been that long already?

Personally I feel like it's been a bajillion years but that's just me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 01, 2012, 08:24:31 pm

Interesting little piece (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure) on the budget whaznummy. Why is often more interesting than what, I guess.

I'm mostly just twiddling my thumbs at this point. Did the whole early voting thing earlier this week. Wished to hell there were third party candidates worth voting for in races besides the presidential, but outside some local stuff, nothing on the ballot. I do detest being in a winner-takes-all state :-\ Not that there's much option for places in the states that aren't, so far as I know, but still.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 06:41:15 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 01, 2012, 06:14:12 pm

Dear god, you're a moron. I'm a conservative. Quantify your previous horseshit and I'll consider you worth arguing with, all you're doing is spewing unverified, ridiculous statements and falling back to 'Oh wah, you're a mean Liberal!' when I don't agree with your hollow ideological rhetoric.

Tell me what was good about the House's 'budget' proposals, once again.

People ask me to qualify my statements, but I don't know which ones they are talking about. I don't mind discussing each issue.

You refer to me as "blowing hot air out of his ass for the sake of spewing more party patriotism out there." Which statement are you talking about?

As far as Republican budgets go, obviously they did not go far enough. Ryan's last budget, apparently, will take decades to balance the budget, yet it is called extreme by liberals.

Actually... The Ryan plan never reduces the deficit. EVER. The only budget proposal that balances the budget is the one created by the congressional progressive caucus. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 08:42:48 pm

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on November 01, 2012, 08:53:58 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 08:42:48 pm

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I have not looked at the budget...  can I bet it cuts planned parenthood and NPR?  Huzzah!  Fiscal responsibility achieved!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 01, 2012, 08:59:41 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 08:52:41 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 08:04:08 pm

not realizing that I am right.

whenever I hear someone saying that non-jokingly in an argument, I die inside a little.

And that's why I continue to hang out here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 09:01:16 pm

Hey, Kon: Understanding is a three-edged sword: Your side, their side, and the truth.

---

Here's more on personal tax rate cuts not being the cause of improvements in the economy. This quote is from the beginning of http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-20/do-personal-income-tax-cuts-grow-the-economy-again-no-dot

Quote

Martin Feldstein and Doug Elmendorf discovered something surprising in 1989. So much so that when they presented it to a National Bureau of Economic Research conference, they titled their paper (PDF) “Budget Deficits, Tax Incentives and Inflation: A Surprising Lesson From the 1983-1984 Recovery.” Feldstein had been Ronald Reagan’s chief economic adviser during that recovery; Elmendorf now runs the Congressional Budget Office. In 1989, they were surprised to read in their own data that the recovery that began in 1983 had been caused mainly by an expansionary monetary policy. (To a lesser extent, it had come from growth in business investment after changes to corporate taxes in 1981.) Feldstein and Elmendorf pointed out that the recovery had not been caused, as was popularly thought at the time, by reductions in the personal income tax rate.

That is: As early as 1989, Reagan’s economics guy did not find any evidence that the Reagan recovery had come from the Reagan administration’s personal income tax cuts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:01:58 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 08:42:48 pm

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/baker-does-paul-ryan-know-budget-185617687.html

But Ryan wants to cut the discretionary budget to 3.75% of gdp without cutting military spending. Note that military spending is 4% of GDP. To do this today would require eliminating every discretionary federal program except defense, and still require defense cuts. There would be no money to run the fbi, atf, any form of wellfare, the national parks, the highway fund, even congress and the white house would have to be shut down. The only thing that would be left is Medicare, Social Security and defense.

The Ryan plan is a plan to eliminate the federal government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 09:04:34 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

I don't think his budget assumes 4% growth.  I don't remember that and I can't find it anyway.  4% of GDP is the amount it holds all non-entitlement spending to, as Nadaka just detailed.  Maybe that's what you are getting it from?  But Ryan's assumptions work equally well whether we suffer a complete economic collapse or achieve the singularity.  That's because his budget isn't an actual budget, it's just setting a percentage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 09:07:09 pm

Colorado hates Texas and Dislikes California. We so need to find out the path to the presidency via state bashing!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:09:03 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 08:14:02 pm

Again, we're not debating that it is true that the Senate hasn't passed a budget for three years. We're saying that your conclusion that "Senate can't pass a budget" equates to "Obama is a hardliner and completely unwilling to compromise" is idiotic. I'm honestly not sure if you're ignoring that or what.

If you look at my first post earlier tonight, my point, before responding to insults, was that if Obama wins, he will be inheriting a real mess, but this time he won't be able to complain he inherited the mess from the previous president since he will be the previous president. It was a disgrace to the office of the presidency that he blamed Bush and Republicans over and over and over again despite the fact that he inherited the mess from a democratically-controlled House and a democratically-controller Senate of which he was a member. He could have said as a senator "Wait, if we pass these budgets, the next president will inherit budget deficits." But he voted for the budgets those two years, became president, and then claimed he inherited budget deficits. From whom? Pelosi? Reid? Senator Barrack Obama?

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true, but for Senator Obama to have voted against a bill that Bush signed, House Majority Leader Pelosi would have had to let the bill get through the House that she controlled, Senate Leader Reid would have had to let it get through the Senate that he controlled, and Obama would have had to go against the wishes of the two Democratic party leaders, Pelosi and Reid. So, if Bush signed any bad bills that left the next president in a mess, Obama most likely did not vote against those bills. (I'm being careful not to say he voted for them because he is known for rarely actually voting -- he spent most of his time as senator running for thr presidency).

Now, if he wins, he can't blame the Senate because the Senate has been controlled by democrats for the last six years. He can, and probably will, blame the  House, but the dems have controlled the House for four of the last six years. My point is he will find someone to blame. It is in his nature.

Re-electing Obama as president is like the captain of the Titanic purposely backing up after hitting the iceburg to hit it again. Once is more than enough.

As far as getting into a debate on which side is less willing to compromise, I don't see the point. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and neither of us can prove we are right and the other wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 09:14:36 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:09:03 pm

As far as getting into a debate on which side is less willing to compromise, I don't see the point. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and neither of us can prove we are right and the other wrong.

What.

You do realize that who voted for what is well documented? It's certainly provable who's more partisan (on average) here. That isn't an issue of subjectivity.

I'm not the one to bring out statistics though, since I haven't a clue where to find them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:15:11 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 08:42:48 pm

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

No, it did not cut spending. Um, who in Congess or the Presidency has a plan to cut spending?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 09:15:34 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:09:03 pm

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true

Wait, seriously?  You're not going to spend 3 minutes or so checking this?

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9490/#.UJMrncUxpqE

It's not true.  In any case the main contributor to the deficit, the Bush Tax Cuts, were passed before Obama was in the Senate.  He can't be blamed for not voting against that.  Same for the major military interventions.

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

Oh, it's on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:16:16 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 08:52:41 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 08:04:08 pm

not realizing that I am right.

whenever I hear someone saying that non-jokingly in an argument, I die inside a little.

Google it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 09:16:42 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:09:03 pm

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true, but for Senator Obama to have voted against a bill that Bush signed, House Majority Leader Pelosi would have had to let the bill get through the House that she controlled, Senate Leader Reid would have had to let it get through the Senate that he controlled, and Obama would have had to go against the wishes of the two Democratic party leaders, Pelosi and Reid. So, if Bush signed any bad bills that left the next president in a mess, Obama most likely did not vote against those bills. (I'm being careful not to say he voted for them because he is known for rarely actually voting -- he spent most of his time as senator running for thr presidency).

http://votesmart.org/bill/4163/12952/9490/emergency-departmental-supplemental-appropriations-bill-of-2007#.UJMthsXfvMg
http://votesmart.org/bill/3391/7824/9490/military-commissions-act-of-2006#.UJMuCMXfvMg

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:18:02 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:01:58 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 08:42:48 pm

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/baker-does-paul-ryan-know-budget-185617687.html

But Ryan wants to cut the discretionary budget to 3.75% of gdp without cutting military spending. Note that military spending is 4% of GDP. To do this today would require eliminating every discretionary federal program except defense, and still require defense cuts. There would be no money to run the fbi, atf, any form of wellfare, the national parks, the highway fund, even congress and the white house would have to be shut down. The only thing that would be left is Medicare, Social Security and defense.

The Ryan plan is a plan to eliminate the federal government.

And what is the President's plan for cutting spending?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:19:26 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

You... do realize that we just posted documented evidence that you are wrong. Even before you made this statement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 09:20:53 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

In other words, you know perfectly well that you can't find a damn thing to back up your assertions that isn't Breitbart Media, so you're not going to try.  I didn't even say tax cuts can't stimulate economic growth, although if actually read any posts in this thread you're posting in you'd see quite a few real economists explaining why the idea is bologna.

I'd love to see this enlightenment.  I know perfectly well that I'm not going to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:22:12 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:15:24 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

why don't you?

if you are so good at economics, prove it. prove that you understand the system far better than any man on earth, or any coordinated group of men that have tried to predict how an economy will turn out.

That's known as a 'straw man.' Shall I Google that for you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 09:23:31 pm

I like how you insist we use Google to help enlighten us on complex economic arguments, but post a completely incorrect point of fact that a Google search would immediately have told you was wrong

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 09:24:34 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:18:02 pm

And what is the President's plan for cutting spending?

Maybe the fact that he has already passed the largest single entitlement reform in history, a reform that republicans vow to repeal?  His plan is get re-elected and then don't intentionally explode the deficit by repealing laws he has already signed?

Wow, it's almost like you are completely ignorant about the facts that real adults use when they discuss the federal budget.  Oh wait, you already said you were a libertarian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:27:51 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:22:12 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:15:24 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

why don't you?

if you are so good at economics, prove it. prove that you understand the system far better than any man on earth, or any coordinated group of men that have tried to predict how an economy will turn out.

That's known as a 'straw man.' Shall I Google that for you?

You probably should google "straw man", because that wasn't one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:30:37 pm

So basically Kon has been grandstanding for what, six pages or so of bullshit? Yeah, I'm out. Not enough aspirin in the world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:32:04 pm

Can we talk about something else? We don't need to talk to any tom, dick or harry that pops in here saying "HAHAH LULZ YOU ARE TEH STUPIEDS!" We're allowed to ignore them and say, "How's the weather, Aqizzar?" or "How you doing, Kai?"

It's one reason I'm actually annoyed at this forum. Well, one of the only reasons, but it's a fairly big one. Always jumping to say "WELL ACTUALLY!" to the obviously trolling and/or stupid people, always rising to the bait of trolltastic denizens.

I mean, has ANYTHING happened? New polls, new gaffes, tiny children saying "Politics make me sad. :( " ANYTHING but this annoying blithering idiot taking up the entire threads focus and energy!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 09:33:35 pm

I'm sick enough of the political ads to puke into someone's brainpan. Does that count?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on November 01, 2012, 09:33:46 pm

These all happened, I guess. (http://www.cracked.com/article_20139_6-bizarre-factors-that-predict-every-presidential-election.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 09:33:59 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:18:02 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 08:42:48 pm

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?
Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

[...]

And what is the President's plan for cutting spending?

I, at least, wasn't saying anything about the President. Just disagreeing with the notion that he proposed a plan that would balance the budget... eventually. (If you don't increase income, and you don't decrease spending, and you aren't currently balancing the budget, it's not going to happen)

I'm pretty sure people didn't think it was 'extreme' in the way you implied. Rather, his methodology for a achieving what amounted to non-balanced budget was extreme. If I proposed to balance the budget by exploding orphans, I think one could quite reasonably be considered extreme. However, I don't think you could say it "obviously [...] did not go far enough.".

Again, there was the progressive caucus plan that went much further and actually DID balance the budget, but it clearly wasn't considered "extreme" by the liberals.

It just seems like a really nonsensical argument against the Democrats, anyway.

Also, there was a report posted TWICE since you showed up that effectively made the argument that tax cuts don't help the economy - you don't even NEED to google that!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 09:34:09 pm

Not too bad, thanks Descan :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:34:47 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:32:04 pm

tiny children saying "Politics make me sad.

That was not newsworthy.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:35:21 pm

The weather was terrible today.

The air was crisp and cool. The sky was deep blue and clear. The sun was warm with a gentle breeze. Just across the bay I am sure the palm trees were swaying gently over some of the most beautiful beaches in the world as emerald green waves crash against the sand and nubile young women in bikini's frolic in the serf.

Yes, this was terrible weather to be in my cubicle at work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 09:37:16 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 01, 2012, 09:33:46 pm

These all happened, I guess. (http://www.cracked.com/article_20139_6-bizarre-factors-that-predict-every-presidential-election.html)

If it means anything, the Redskins stomped the Vikings in their last home game.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 09:37:24 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:34:17 pm

ummm... well...

has anyone blamed Obama for the hurricane yet? not the effects, the actual hurricane?

http://www.ibtimes.com/hurricane-sandy-caused-homosexuals-president-obama-evangelist-preacher-john-mcternan-says-855933

Well I guess he needed a bit of help from the gays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 01, 2012, 09:38:15 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:34:17 pm

ummm... well...

has anyone blamed Obama for the hurricane yet? not the effects, the actual hurricane?

No, but Michael Bloomberg endorsed Obama for President because of his response to it (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html).

Edit: I stand corrected.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 01, 2012, 09:39:07 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 09:37:24 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:34:17 pm

ummm... well...

has anyone blamed Obama for the hurricane yet? not the effects, the actual hurricane?

http://www.ibtimes.com/hurricane-sandy-caused-homosexuals-president-obama-evangelist-preacher-john-mcternan-says-855933

Well I guess he needed a bit of help from the gays.

This is Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2781#comic)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:40:36 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 09:20:53 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

In other words, you know perfectly well that you can't find a damn thing to back up your assertions that isn't Breitbart Media, so you're not going to try.  I didn't even say tax cuts can't stimulate economic growth, although if actually read any posts in this thread you're posting in you'd see quite a few real economists explaining why the idea is bologna.

I'd love to see this enlightenment.  I know perfectly well that I'm not going to.

No need to quote other people. Trying using your own brain.

If we each get a $100 tax cut, we buy things. I'm not saying everyone will spend all of their $100, but much of it will be spent. The businesses whose products we buy will have more income, so they will pay more in taxes. Not all of them will pay more in taxes because some will not make enough to pay taxes, but much of that money will come back to the government in the form of increased corporate and personal income taxes (some file as individuals). Whether they pay more in taxes or not, they will have more money to hire people, to give pay raises, and to buy more stuff from other businesses. Those other businesses will pay more in taxes and have more money to hire people, give pay raises, and buy stuff from other businesses. It really isn't that complicated. You just need to try to think things through yourself. Haha, not likely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:40:38 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:34:47 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:32:04 pm

tiny children saying "Politics make me sad.

That was not newsworthy.  :P

True. But it's more exciting than this ass-load (did we ever come to a metric system for buttock loads?) of horseshit.

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 09:34:09 pm

Not too bad, thanks Descan :)

That's good! :D It's always nice to be not bad! :3

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:36:11 pm

come to think of it, I think this inherent flaw is due to the fact we seem to enjoy debating. as a result, when someone comes along...

well, the debate causes masses of page space being taken up.

True, this is certainly... true.

@: Nadaka: Weather was better down there it seems, than up here. Wanna trade weather? It's perfect "stay indoors" weather, and I had nothing to do today... so... >->

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 09:42:04 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 09:37:24 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:34:17 pm

ummm... well...

has anyone blamed Obama for the hurricane yet? not the effects, the actual hurricane?

http://www.ibtimes.com/hurricane-sandy-caused-homosexuals-president-obama-evangelist-preacher-john-mcternan-says-855933

Well I guess he needed a bit of help from the gays.

Wait, Romney's pro-homosexuality? News to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:43:19 pm

So then, any thoughts on Bronco Bomma? Does the President's secret Seal Team 6 callsign have any bearing on the election? What about the revelation that it was in fact Obama who SHOT OSAMA IN THE FUCKING EYE?


/blatantlies

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:43:40 pm

Kon just posted again. This is the test. I hope I have managed to bring the thread of American Politics back to sanity.

God be with us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:43:49 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 09:33:59 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:18:02 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 08:42:48 pm

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?
Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

[...]

And what is the President's plan for cutting spending?

I, at least, wasn't saying anything about the President. Just disagreeing with the notion that he proposed a plan that would balance the budget... eventually. (If you don't increase income, and you don't decrease spending, and you aren't currently balancing the budget, it's not going to happen)

I'm pretty sure people didn't think it was 'extreme' in the way you implied. Rather, his methodology for a achieving what amounted to non-balanced budget was extreme. If I proposed to balance the budget by exploding orphans, I think one could quite reasonably be considered extreme. However, I don't think you could say it "obviously [...] did not go far enough.".

Again, there was the progressive caucus plan that went much further and actually DID balance the budget, but it clearly wasn't considered "extreme" by the liberals.

It just seems like a really nonsensical argument against the Democrats, anyway.

Also, there was a report posted TWICE since you showed up that effectively made the argument that tax cuts don't help the economy - you don't even NEED to google that!

There is a big difference between static scoring of budget plans and dynamic scoring of budget plans. Shall I google that for you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:44:21 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:30:37 pm

So basically Kon has been grandstanding for what, six pages or so of bullshit? Yeah, I'm out. Not enough aspirin in the world.

Please point out the bullshit. Or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:45:21 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:34:17 pm

ummm... well...

has anyone blamed Obama for the hurricane yet? not the effects, the actual hurricane?

I'm pretty sure Obama said it was Bush's fault.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:46:15 pm

No, I don't think we will, Konny.

But yeah, Romney not anti-gay? I have to read this damn article. That's kind of crazy.

Not that he's pro(?) gay. But that he'd be willing to actually SAY that now-a-days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 09:47:22 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:44:21 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:30:37 pm

So basically Kon has been grandstanding for what, six pages or so of bullshit? Yeah, I'm out. Not enough aspirin in the world.

Please point out the bullshit. Or not.

The last six pages has been pointing out bullshit.  The issue is that you don't see it as such.

Also, if you're going to post in my thread, I'm going to ask that you take the time to combine your quotes into one post instead of firing one off for every individual thing you have to say.  If your response is "but people keep posting so I have to respond again", then it may be time to take a step back and recollect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 09:47:37 pm

Yeah, I'd like a source on Romney holding a pro-homosexual view. I don't trust crazy pastors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:48:39 pm

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if a desperate troll suddenly cried out in desperation and was suddenly slapped down...

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 09:47:37 pm

Yeah, I'd like a source on Romney holding a pro-homosexual view. I don't trust crazy pastors.

Why not? If they're crazy, they're more likely to buck the fundie paradigm for giggles.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:49:52 pm

Ohhh. I thought it was Romney responding to this crazy pastor. Not the pastor putting words in the Rominators mouth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 09:50:02 pm

Romney did endorse civil unions back in the 90's, but these days he has someone holding his leash.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 09:50:32 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 09:50:02 pm

Romney did endorse civil unions back in the 90's, but these days he has someone holding his leash.

Kinky.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 09:50:46 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:32:04 pm

Can we talk about something else? We don't need to talk to any tom, dick or harry that pops in here saying "HAHAH LULZ YOU ARE TEH STUPIEDS!" We're allowed to ignore them and say, "How's the weather, Aqizzar?" or "How you doing, Kai?"

What we really need is to have a rule on page 1 that says we aren't allowed to argue with such people.  Then when they appear people just start quoting the rule en masse.  Continue quoting until they stop feeding the troll.

I think people feed the troll because they feel a need to be right.  The quote spam would help soothe people's wounded pride.  It would serve to remind them that we've all seen the trolls before.  We know how this story ends.  Remind them that this is so common that we need a procedure for it and maybe they'll feel the need to stop feeding the troll.

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 01, 2012, 09:33:46 pm

These all happened, I guess. (http://www.cracked.com/article_20139_6-bizarre-factors-that-predict-every-presidential-election.html)

2^15=32768.  That are far, far more then 32k binary events in the world.  So it's not the slightest bit unusual that there aren't plenty of coincidence like these that correlate to the results through random noise for 15 straight elections.  Some of them don't even do that well.

Take the poll of the kids for example.  Well it's basically a very noisy poll.  But a very noisy poll could actually predict a large number of elections very easily.  Many elections are blowouts: 2008, 1996, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952 would all qualify in my book.  A poll would need to be pretty flawed or very unlucky to miss any of these.  And they are more then half of the elections in the postwar era.  So while it might seem like the kids getting the right result is impressive, 6 of those results were blowouts.  The kids only predicted 4 competitive elections correctly.  Winning 4 coin tosses isn't anything to write home about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:53:39 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:40:36 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 09:20:53 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 01, 2012, 08:39:12 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 08:28:07 pm

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

In other words, you know perfectly well that you can't find a damn thing to back up your assertions that isn't Breitbart Media, so you're not going to try.  I didn't even say tax cuts can't stimulate economic growth, although if actually read any posts in this thread you're posting in you'd see quite a few real economists explaining why the idea is bologna.

I'd love to see this enlightenment.  I know perfectly well that I'm not going to.

No need to quote other people. Trying using your own brain.

If we each get a $100 tax cut, we buy things. I'm not saying everyone will spend all of their $100, but much of it will be spent. The businesses whose products we buy will have more income, so they will pay more in taxes. Not all of them will pay more in taxes because some will not make enough to pay taxes, but much of that money will come back to the government in the form of increased corporate and personal income taxes (some file as individuals). Whether they pay more in taxes or not, they will have more money to hire people, to give pay raises, and to buy more stuff from other businesses. Those other businesses will pay more in taxes and have more money to hire people, give pay raises, and buy stuff from other businesses. It really isn't that complicated. You just need to try to think things through yourself. Haha, not likely.

That isn't how tax cuts work. That $100 per person? The government was going to spend that anyway, and it would be reinvested directly into the economy and provide jobs directly. And in reality that $100 average tax cut is actually a grand for the top 1%, $30 bucks for most people and nothing for the lowest. And that money that goes to the rich person is much more likely to be "saved" by gambling it on the secondary stock market rather than spent to produce more economic activity. You would produce more economic activity by giving $100 in food stamps to everyone because everyone needs to buy food.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 09:54:21 pm

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me. :(

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 09:55:56 pm

I'm going Stein, GlyphGryph, but if you're in a swing state I suggest Obama. Lesser of two evils and all that. Voting third party is great though for a state that's pretty much already locked in, if only to give them a tiny bit more attention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 09:56:51 pm

Stein. Go with Stein.

We need a Stein that's crazy in the good way, after the whole... Ben Stein thing. >_>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 09:58:21 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 09:54:21 pm

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me. :(

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

Jill might need bail in order to attend her acceptance speech in the fantastically unlikely event that she wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 09:59:44 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 09:50:02 pm

Romney did endorse civil unions back in the 90's, but these days he has someone holding his leash.

He's endorsed everything over the course of his life. I hate to mimic the media, but it really is true that he's changed his views drastically from public appearance to public appearance. I know that tends to be the norm during presidential elections, and perhaps my observations are skewed by the fact that this is the first election that I can vote in and thus I have paid more attention to it, but it honestly seems that his "flip-flopping" is far worse than that of past candidates.

Also, is Ben Stein for giving more tax rebates? If so I'd vote for him purely so I could "win Ben Stein's money." Jokes aside, his name also associates with a fairly dorfy drinking apparatus. He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:00:00 pm

Jill Stein wouldn't be the first person elected from jail (though the first in the USA).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 01, 2012, 10:01:18 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 09:54:21 pm

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me. :(

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

Well, you did ask. Pick Gary Johnson. My views are actually closer to his than to Romney's or Obama's. Not that I expect my advice to influence your vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:01:31 pm

The whole Ben Stein thing is... well, Ben Stein. What with him publishing that "Expelled" movie and just going downhill from there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:01:49 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 09:59:44 pm

He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

No he's not, he just hasn't received the glare of public attention that would expose his every flaw, real or imagined.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 10:02:35 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:00:00 pm

Jill Stein wouldn't be the first person elected from jail (though the first in the USA).

Close enough? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Cianci)  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:02:55 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 09:59:44 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 09:50:02 pm

Romney did endorse civil unions back in the 90's, but these days he has someone holding his leash.

He's endorsed everything over the course of his life. I hate to mimic the media, but it really is true that he's changed his views drastically from public appearance to public appearance. I know that tends to be the norm during presidential elections, and perhaps my observations are skewed by the fact that this is the first election that I can vote in and thus I have paid more attention to it, but it honestly seems that his "flip-flopping" is far worse than that of past candidates.

Also, is Ben Stein for giving more tax rebates? If so I'd vote for him purely so I could "win Ben Stein's money." Jokes aside, his name also associates with a fairly dorfy drinking apparatus. He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

Ugh, no, Ben Stein is a smarmy douchebag who acts like a know-it-all but just toes the fundie/batshit crazy line.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 09:54:21 pm

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me. :(

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

You can always vote for the Toady One.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:04:18 pm

Fuck, sorry about the doublepost, all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 10:05:16 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:01:49 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 09:59:44 pm

He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

No he's not, he just hasn't received the glare of public attention that would expose his every flaw, real or imagined.

To clarify that was not a serious statement. My sole criteria for the decision were jokes involving his television career and the similarity of his name to something dwarven. I still believe firmly that it is possible for him to be better than them. Not probable of course, but the current system for selecting the president seems to select based on criteria that may not be the most important. Like financial wealth and connections rather than intellect and experience.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 10:06:46 pm

I would vote for Vermin Supreme, just because you know he isn't in anyone's pocket.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 01, 2012, 10:08:32 pm

Is anybody here good at drawing caricatures of political figures (and at drawing in general)? If so, could you help me with a little project?

I need somebody to illustrate the following Bible passage:

Spoiler: Luke 16:19-26 (click to show/hide)

"19 Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasted sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And longed to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeing Abraham far off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they who would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there."" Luke 16:19-26

With Mitt Romney as the rich man in the parable. Then I'm going to print a bunch of copies out and go around to all the nearby churches this Sunday and leave them on people's windshields while they're at mass (and I urge all of you to do the same if this gets off the ground).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 10:09:50 pm

I was at one point considering voting for myself, just to sate my ego.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:10:27 pm

Neither of us are eligible. I won't be until the 2020 election, at any rate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 10:11:49 pm

I do like Gary - despite what some of you claim, I really do think he's a head and shoulders better than the other options. And Vermin Supreme IS the local favorite.

However, you make a good point - neither of them are not currently in jail. And I feel I really need to stay true to my state heritage here, and vote for the person who got arrested. Jill has my vote!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 10:11:34 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 10:09:50 pm

I was at one point considering voting for myself, just to sate my ego.

I'd not vote for you.

as previously stated in the terrified thread, the image of a bay12er in power...

Vote for me. Facepunches for everyone who deserves them!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:13:59 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Vote for me. Facepunches for everyone who deserves them!

There aren't enough fists in the world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 10:14:18 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:10:27 pm

Neither of us are eligible. I won't be until the 2020 election, at any rate.

Irrelevant, you can vote for someone ineligible. They just can't win. Though if they did I imagine there would be public outcry and a rapid change in the Constitution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 10:14:51 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 10:11:34 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 10:09:50 pm

I was at one point considering voting for myself, just to sate my ego.

I'd not vote for you.

as previously stated in the terrified thread, the image of a bay12er in power...

Vote for me. Facepunches for everyone who deserves them!

Dont be stingy. Facepunches for everyone!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 10:19:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:13:59 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Vote for me. Facepunches for everyone who deserves them!

There aren't enough fists in the world.

I have to dispute the facts behind this statement unless there are far more double amputees than I had previously imagined

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 01, 2012, 10:19:27 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 10:14:51 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 10:11:34 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 01, 2012, 10:09:50 pm

I was at one point considering voting for myself, just to sate my ego.

I'd not vote for you.

as previously stated in the terrified thread, the image of a bay12er in power...

Vote for me. Facepunches for everyone who deserves them!

Dont be stingy. Facepunches for everyone!

I'll vote for MZ if he selects Vermin Supreme as his running mate. They can campaign on a platform of public dental care and a criminal justice system entirely composed of MZ manually removing the teeth of criminals, one punch at a time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 01, 2012, 10:22:02 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 01, 2012, 10:11:49 pm

I do like Gary - despite what some of you claim, I really do think he's a head and shoulders better than the other options. And Vermin Supreme IS the local favorite.

However, you make a good point - neither of them are not currently in jail. And I feel I really need to stay true to my state heritage here, and vote for the person who got arrested. Jill has my vote!

Oh, he has some good qualities in areas where Obama isn't exactly doing well (the police state mostly). I like him more than Romney, but his economics are bad for recovering from a recession and I don't think this nation would weather them very well right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:24:05 pm

I like the ring of Obamanomics.

It just sounds so hilarious.

Obamanomics. Obamanomics. Obamanomics Obamanomics Obamanomics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on November 01, 2012, 10:25:23 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 01, 2012, 09:39:07 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 01, 2012, 09:37:24 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 01, 2012, 09:34:17 pm

ummm... well...

has anyone blamed Obama for the hurricane yet? not the effects, the actual hurricane?

http://www.ibtimes.com/hurricane-sandy-caused-homosexuals-president-obama-evangelist-preacher-john-mcternan-says-855933

Well I guess he needed a bit of help from the gays.

This is Relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2781#comic)

More relevancy. (http://www.youtube.com/results?q=grotesco%20b%C3%B6garnas%20fel%20hutchartwork&search_sort=relevance&search_type=search_all&uploaded=#/watch?v=Vx7p21hrZ6s)

...I hope the link isn't broken.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:25:40 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 10:19:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:13:59 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Vote for me. Facepunches for everyone who deserves them!

There aren't enough fists in the world.

I have to dispute the facts behind this statement unless there are far more double amputees than I had previously imagined

Most jerks are two faced.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 10:26:00 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:24:05 pm

I like the ring of Obamanomics.

It just sounds so hilarious.

Obamanomics. Obamanomics. Obamanomics Obamanomics Obamanomics.

Goddamnit, my word of the week has just been selected for me. Welp, time to go incite political arguments among friends purely to use it as much as possible.


Edit: Brilliant Mainiac

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:26:18 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:25:40 pm

Quote from: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 10:19:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:13:59 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:12:43 pm

Vote for me. Facepunches for everyone who deserves them!

There aren't enough fists in the world.

I have to dispute the facts behind this statement unless there are far more double amputees than I had previously imagined

Most jerks are two faced.  :P

That's okay, I have two fists. And they don't run out of ammo. Also, well played.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 10:28:51 pm

From now on, Kogan Loloklam will use elections as his machine gun, A machine gun loaded with votes!
See, with that (admittedly stolen) slogan, I'm sure to be the winning bay12 candidate!
Lets fire my machine gun at the white house!

*Kogan Loloklam has been struck down by the Facist oppressors trying to keep a genuine presidential candidate from winning*

Good morning secret service guys. We advocate cat butchery here you know. And Mermaid bone industries. Vote for me!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:31:02 pm

Fun fact Thing I am pointless proud about: I was the one who first suggested sustainable mermaid ranching.  Just because you are monstrously evil doesn't mean you shouldn't be ecologically friendly.  Hail liberal fascism!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 01, 2012, 10:34:00 pm

sometimes i wonder what it would be like to have a presidential election where both major candidates aren't worthless scum?

i'm a dreamer what can i say

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.


Jimmer Carter was the opposite of "worthless scum" except that he was a horrible president. Great guy, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:35:50 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.

He has horrible taste in women, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:35:58 pm

Well, of course. If you destroy your economic base, natural resources, or entire planet, how else will you control the voice and power of the people, press, and presidency through eternity? I mean, it's simply Evil Dictatorship 101.

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:35:50 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.

He has horrible taste in women, though.

Hey, just a few years ago, you could pass as a woman!

I... don't know where I was going with that. It'd make an interesting date, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:36:20 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.

100 bucks says that in 8 years you'll think the same about Obama.  Deal?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:37:09 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:35:50 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.

He has horrible taste in women, though.

This is true.

Quote from: mainiac on November 01, 2012, 10:36:20 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.

100 bucks says that in 8 years you'll think the same about Obama.  Deal?

I honestly dunno about Obama. I think he's a neat dude. So yes, that's a possibility, thus I'm not making the bet :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 01, 2012, 10:40:55 pm

in 8 years we'll probably be inaugurating President Camacho

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:42:18 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:35:58 pm

Well, of course. If you destroy your economic base, natural resources, or entire planet, how else will you control the voice and power of the people, press, and presidency through eternity? I mean, it's simply Evil Dictatorship 101.

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 01, 2012, 10:35:50 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.

He has horrible taste in women, though.

Hey, just a few years ago, you could pass as a woman!

I... don't know where I was going with that. It'd make an interesting date, though.

While that is true, I would have been too pretty for Clinton.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 10:44:07 pm

Quote from: TripJack on November 01, 2012, 10:40:55 pm

in 8 years we'll probably be inaugurating President Camacho

And we STILL won't have had a female president -.-

Also I think the whole being male thing woulda put it back into his court MZ.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 01, 2012, 10:53:57 pm

But he didn't have sexual relations, only a BJ.

So clearly I can't choose the one in front of me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 01, 2012, 10:56:05 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 01, 2012, 10:35:19 pm

Clinton was pretty alright.


Jimmer Carter was the opposite of "worthless scum" except that he was a horrible president. Great guy, though.

Jimmy Carter is the man I wish the religious wing of American politics would have the decency to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:57:23 pm

But neither can you choose the one in front of him, for he knows he never had sexual relations, and only a great fool would choose but a BJ!

And you know he is not a great fool, and he knows that you know he is not a great fool, so clearly you cannot choose the one in front of you!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on November 02, 2012, 06:48:02 am

Quote from: Shinotsa on November 01, 2012, 10:44:07 pm

Quote from: TripJack on November 01, 2012, 10:40:55 pm

in 8 years we'll probably be inaugurating President Camacho

And we STILL won't have had a female president -.-

Also I think the whole being male thing woulda put it back into his court MZ.

It doesn't matter what their race, gender, orientation or whatever is, just their competence. If for the Americans getting the best president they can get over the next 40 years means having no female president for 20 years, I don't see a problem with that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 07:28:12 am

Jesus H. Cristobal, what the herp is this derp? I leave for 8 hours of sleep, and find ten pages of....whatever the fuck that was.

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:57:23 pm

But neither can you choose the one in front of him, for he knows he never had sexual relations, and only a great fool would choose but a BJ!

And you know he is not a great fool, and he knows that you know he is not a great fool, so clearly you cannot choose the one in front of you!

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders -- "Never go against a guy from Arkansas when fellatio is on the line!"  :P


Right....so anyway, back to the horse race.
Nate Silver continues to see a small momentum gain for Obama, now forecasting 303-235, and giving Romney just a 19.1% chance to win.
Intrade is somewhat more subdued, but still giving Obama a 2/3 chance to win.
RCP's projection is 290-248, not that far behind Silver's.

And Republicans continue to insist that the entire math of polls and projections are fundamentally flawed/skewed/biased and in the words of Karl Rove four years ago, "They've got their numbers and I've got the RIGHT numbers." He was wrong, and so are they.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 08:59:52 am

I don't actually understand how in-trade is legal. It is a blatant gambling ring. Can someone explain that to me?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on November 02, 2012, 09:24:49 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 08:59:52 am

I don't actually understand how in-trade is legal. It is a blatant gambling ring. Can someone explain that to me?

It's entirely legal in the Republic of Ireland. It just targets the US market compared to other betting sites. It requires that you declare any bets or deposits you make are legal. And such things aren't illegal in the US, although depositing money by credit/debit cards is.

And to be honest, Intrade is the baby brother of the betting markets. Betfair is the bigger British brother with more customers and action. Not to mention it gets less internet and media attention in the US by not accepting US customers, so people don't try to manipulate it as has happened to Intrade at least twice (including a pathetic attempt a few weeks ago).

It's worth following politicalbetting.com (http://politicalbetting.com/), although most articles are about the UK. They track all sorts of trends and stories alongside the betting markets and prices being offered for them. It's always interesting to see what prices the big bookies are offering on, say, the outcome of a leadership election that doesn't otherwise have any polling. The sorts of people who set the numbers or enter the markets tend to be pretty well informed, so these numbers can be as valuable as any poll.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 09:26:53 am

Because it's well known the Irish will wager bets on ANYTHING. :P

Besides, gambling in some form or another is legal in every US state except Hawaii and Utah (thank you, last night's episode of Jeopardy!)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on November 02, 2012, 09:46:10 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 07:28:12 am

Jesus H. Cristobal, what the herp is this derp? I leave for 8 hours of sleep, and find ten pages of....whatever the fuck that was.

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:57:23 pm

But neither can you choose the one in front of him, for he knows he never had sexual relations, and only a great fool would choose but a BJ!

And you know he is not a great fool, and he knows that you know he is not a great fool, so clearly you cannot choose the one in front of you!

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders -- "Never go against a guy from Arkansas when fellatio is on the line!"  :P

Or in the words of God Himself: Thou shallt never wank-a-bun with Our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7GuVv7zrrM).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on November 02, 2012, 09:48:01 am

So Romney isn't just supported by (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/for-profit-colleges-romney_b_2058261.html) for-profit schools, he benefits financially from their success and aims to let them get away with even more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 09:56:24 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 09:26:53 am

Besides, gambling in some form or another is legal in every US state except Hawaii and Utah (thank you, last night's episode of Jeopardy!)

But in the vast majority of them, it's only legal if its run by the government. Which InTrade obviously isn't. :P

Being based out of a country that allows gambling makes sense, of course. It just means it would be illegal for me to participate. ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 02, 2012, 10:04:10 am

Quote from: Euld on November 02, 2012, 09:48:01 am

So Romney isn't just supported by (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/for-profit-colleges-romney_b_2058261.html) for-profit schools, he benefits financially from their success and aims to let them get away with even more.

Largely at the tax-payers expense (making up 86% of private university revenues according to that article), and Romney wants to abolish oversight of how they spend the money.

Quote

On the campaign trail, when asked what he would do about the rising cost of higher education, Romney pointed to a for-profit college, Florida's Full Sail University, as an innovator that knows how to "hold down the cost of their education."  Full Sail turns out to be the third most expensive college in America, with a mixed record of helping students and at least one program at risk of losing its eligibility for federal student aid because it leaves so many students deep in debt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 10:31:04 am

That quote just brought my headache back from the sheer greed and stupidity of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 10:37:58 am

Don't worry...give it a week, and Romney will be against for-profit schools. Oh wait...a week might be too long. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 02, 2012, 10:40:55 am

No, this is definitely something he will never flip-flop on. His son is a director of a company which invests in that industry (which makes it's money skimming off federal student grants). And, specifically, "Full Sail University".

Quote

As Republic Report and others have documented over the course of this year, Mitt Romney doesn't just accept money from these owners of for-profit colleges, he's also in business with them. Mitt Romney's son Tagg and campaign finance director Spencer Zwick run the private equity fund Solamere Capital, which was launched in 2008 with a $10 million investment from Mitt Romney and has an investment relationship with Bain Capital. TA Associates is one of the firms that Solamere Capital offers to its clients for investment. TA Associates owns not just Full Sail but a number of for-profit schools including troubled Vatterott Colleges, marked by exploitative recruiting practices and high student loan defaults. If TA gets richer, the Romneys get richer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 02, 2012, 10:43:31 am

Good news, everybody! By this time next week the elections will be long over and we can all enjoy our freedom from political ads and pre-recorded endorsements of candidates for a while!

(Just some good thoughts for a Friday) :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 02, 2012, 10:44:26 am

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 06:49:47 am

problem is, the majority of people appear to prefer to go for the guy with more charisma, not more competence.

well when both have no competence at all you have to go with charisma right?

hurp

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 10:50:20 am

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 02, 2012, 10:43:31 am

Good news, everybody! By this time next week the elections will be long over and we can all enjoy our freedom from political ads and pre-recorded endorsements of candidates for a while!

(Just some good thoughts for a Friday) :)

I'll also enjoy the rich, juicy schadenfreude of all the shell-shocked Republicans staggering around aimlessly Wednesday morning, in disbelief that Romney lost. Reap the whirlwind, motherfuckers! REAP IT!

I still have PTSD-like memories of 2004, meeting some friends for lunch and we all just kinda sat there not talking, each thinking, "Holy fuck, we have to put up with another FOUR YEARS of this walking disaster??"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 10:53:51 am

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 06:49:47 am

problem is, the majority of people appear to prefer to go for the guy with more charisma, not more competence.

What we need is a constitutional amendment requiring presidential candidates to communicate only in writing during their campaign and to be artificially disfigured by having powerful caustic acids thrown in their face prior to the start of said campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 02, 2012, 10:54:50 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 07:28:12 am

Jesus H. Cristobal, what the herp is this derp? I leave for 8 hours of sleep, and find ten pages of....whatever the fuck that was.

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:57:23 pm

But neither can you choose the one in front of him, for he knows he never had sexual relations, and only a great fool would choose but a BJ!

And you know he is not a great fool, and he knows that you know he is not a great fool, so clearly you cannot choose the one in front of you!

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders -- "Never go against a guy from Arkansas when fellatio is on the line!"  :P


Right....so anyway, back to the horse race.
Nate Silver continues to see a small momentum gain for Obama, now forecasting 303-235, and giving Romney just a 19.1% chance to win.
Intrade is somewhat more subdued, but still giving Obama a 2/3 chance to win.
RCP's projection is 290-248, not that far behind Silver's.

And Republicans continue to insist that the entire math of polls and projections are fundamentally flawed/skewed/biased and in the words of Karl Rove four years ago, "They've got their numbers and I've got the RIGHT numbers." He was wrong, and so are they.

A lot of people are going to very surprised by the election results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 02, 2012, 10:57:17 am

Quote from: Kon on November 02, 2012, 10:54:50 am

A lot of people are going to very surprised by the election results.

That's going to be a true statement regardless of who wins. *shrug*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 10:58:02 am

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/heckler-interrupts-romney-rally-020501770--election.html;_ylt=Ambr3zO.e1154eT7Z6KyTo7Nt.d_;_ylu=X3oDMTIyZ3ZqZnEwBG1pdANIQ01PTCBvbiBhcnRpY2xlIHJpZ2h0IHJhaWwEcGtnA2lkLTI4MDUzNjQEcG9zAzIEc2VjA2hjbQR2ZXIDNA--;_ylg=X3oDMTMwM2JhazIwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMDZlZGU5MTktMjE0Zi0zMmU1LTliZjYtNTA3NmM0MmIwNjVmBHBzdGNhdANlbnRlcnRhaW5tZW50BHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3

I have no commentary. Its just mildly election related. meh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 02, 2012, 10:59:55 am

I like how the crowd booed science than chanted "U-S-A"! Nationalism beats scholarship any day.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 02, 2012, 11:05:41 am

We're AMURICA. Not even America can kill America, that wouldn't be American!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 11:07:52 am

Quote from: Kon on November 02, 2012, 10:54:50 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 07:28:12 am

Jesus H. Cristobal, what the herp is this derp? I leave for 8 hours of sleep, and find ten pages of....whatever the fuck that was.

Quote from: Descan on November 01, 2012, 10:57:23 pm

But neither can you choose the one in front of him, for he knows he never had sexual relations, and only a great fool would choose but a BJ!

And you know he is not a great fool, and he knows that you know he is not a great fool, so clearly you cannot choose the one in front of you!

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders -- "Never go against a guy from Arkansas when fellatio is on the line!"  :P


Right....so anyway, back to the horse race.
Nate Silver continues to see a small momentum gain for Obama, now forecasting 303-235, and giving Romney just a 19.1% chance to win.
Intrade is somewhat more subdued, but still giving Obama a 2/3 chance to win.
RCP's projection is 290-248, not that far behind Silver's.

And Republicans continue to insist that the entire math of polls and projections are fundamentally flawed/skewed/biased and in the words of Karl Rove four years ago, "They've got their numbers and I've got the RIGHT numbers." He was wrong, and so are they.

A lot of people are going to very surprised by the election results.

Again, that's exactly what Karl Rove said in 2008. Himself being one of those people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 11:09:25 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 02, 2012, 11:05:41 am

We're AMURICA. Not even America can kill America, that wouldn't be American!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

FUCK YEAH!

McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
The Gap, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK, YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
The Internet, FUCK YEAH!
Slavery, FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

Starbucks, FUCK YEAH!
Disney world, FUCK YEAH!
Porno, FUCK YEAH!
Valium, FUCK YEAH!
Reeboks, FUCK YEAH!
Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH!
Sushi, FUCK YEAH!
Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH!
Rodeos, FUCK YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah)

Liberty, FUCK YEAH!
White Slips, FUCK YEAH!
The Alamo, FUCK YEAH!
Band-aids, FUCK YEAH!
Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH!
Christmas, FUCK YEAH!
Immigrants, FUCK YEAH!
Popeye, FUCK YEAH!
Democrats, FUCK YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(fuck yeah, fuck yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 11:16:31 am

I see a distinct lack of NASCAR on that list. You commie pinko bastard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 11:33:40 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 11:16:31 am

I see a distinct lack of NASCAR on that list. You commie pinko bastard.

NASCAR needs a whole song to itself just to fit all of the MURRKA in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 11:38:13 am

Turnin' left
turnin' left
turnin' left
FUCK YEAHH!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on November 02, 2012, 11:42:50 am

Thing is though, the internet was surely invented by a number of people of several nationalities, wasn't it? And the guy who invented the world wide web was an Englishman.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 11:47:59 am

Internet was pretty much 100% American, developed by DARPA.

Mind you, it's one of those ideas that probably would have happened anyway, and they were obviously standing on the shoulders of giants (networks of other sorts already existed, but it could be said they were instrumental in developing that concept too)

The World Wide Web was a CERN thing though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on November 02, 2012, 11:49:32 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 02, 2012, 11:42:50 am

Thing is though, the internet was surely invented by a number of people of several nationalities, wasn't it? And the guy who invented the world wide web was an Englishman.

FI FY FO FUM
I SMELL THE BLOOD OF A TRAITOR SCUM

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 11:51:41 am

It's complicated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 11:52:19 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 11:47:59 am

The World Wide Web was a CERN thing though.

CERN: Bringing you the Large Hadron Collider....and the ability to fap to limitless amounts of porn, anywhere in the world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on November 02, 2012, 11:54:46 am

Large Hadron Collider. What I call my right hand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on November 02, 2012, 12:07:50 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 02, 2012, 11:54:46 am

Large Hadron Collider. What I call my right hand.

The large hardon collider.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 02, 2012, 12:09:27 pm

No, no, get it right. The amount isn't limitless. It's just beyond the ability of a single human to consume in their lifetime, and probably growing faster than they can cut into the pie, so to speak.

But there's a limit. It's growing, and will continue to grow, but it's there. And there's technically physical limitations as to which point the sheer amount will cap off because it's ran out of places to put the infrastructure to store and/or create new material even if by that point we'd have fully functioning porn studios inside quarks or something and things would just be silly. But still not without limit!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 02, 2012, 12:14:54 pm

I like how sushi is on that list.

I don't think they cared if America really invented it or not.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 02, 2012, 12:45:03 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 02, 2012, 12:07:50 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 02, 2012, 11:54:46 am

Large Hadron Collider. What I call my right hand.

The Large Hardon Collider.

Niiiiiiiice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 02:04:37 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/nightmare-scenario-election-night-might-not-end-110543635.html

But... That little girl in the other "yahoo news story" is going to cry again. Why can't Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney just all get along!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:17:44 pm

Well, I didn't end up voting for myself.

For President of the United States, that is. But as there was only a write-in option for District Commissioner of Preservation of Water and Air...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 02:19:20 pm

At this rate it's come down to hope and chance. It's almost absolutely certain that Ohio will be the state to decide, and who wins there is basically up to luck. Four days to determine the fate of the country for the next four, if not eight, years.

There's really no reason to predict. It's impossible at this rate. All anyone outside of OH can do is sit back and [hope (for Democrats)/pray (for Republicans)/alter mechanics of the universe using mad science in order to change how math works or something (for Geeks)] for their candidate of choice.

Personally, I'm going to get ready by playing "I'm Voting for Myself!" from the Bay12 "sub-games".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 02:42:04 pm

Not so much down to luck. Obama has held a steady lead in Ohio for weeks now. And as I pointed out before the derpstorm last night, it's not that Ohio is the tipping point state, it's that Ohio will be the canary in the coal mine. If Romney wins Ohio, he's outperforming the polls and should be expected to do so in enough other close battleground races (like Colorado and Virginia) as to have a chance to win. If Obama takes Ohio, it means the polls are essentially correct or even underestimating Obama's lead, and based on current poll data, he can be expected to take about 295-305 electoral votes and cruise to victory.

The pundits (well, other than the statistical wonks) are the ones wringing their hands and declaring it "too close to call", mostly because they're either too dense or too timid to make a prediction, too worried about being called "a partisan", or too interested in drumming up ratings on Election Night by heightening the drama. The statistical wonks like Nate Silver, the folks over at RCP, etc. have pretty much been laying anywhere from 66 to 80% odds that Obama is back in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 02, 2012, 02:43:52 pm

If Ohio fucks this up I'm disowning them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 02:45:12 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:17:44 pm

Well, I didn't end up voting for myself.

For President of the United States, that is. But as there was only a write-in option for District Commissioner of Preservation of Water and Air...

You're gonna preserve the fuck out of that water and air.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 02:45:28 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 02:42:04 pm

Not so much down to luck. Obama has held a steady lead in Ohio for weeks now. And as I pointed out before the derpstorm last night, it's not that Ohio is the tipping point state, it's that Ohio will be the canary in the coal mine. If Romney wins Ohio, he's outperforming the polls and should be expected to do so in enough other close battleground races (like Colorado and Virginia) as to have a chance to win. If Obama takes Ohio, it means the polls are essentially correct or even underestimating Obama's lead, and based on current poll data, he can be expected to take about 295-305 electoral votes and cruise to victory.

I try to favor Obama in my predictions, because I really loathe Romney's positions and even more so those of the entire Republican party. I'm trying to avoid being too optimistic, which is why I'm not entirely sure about Obama's lead in Ohio.

I've never heard that canary analogy before, though. That's a good point.

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 02, 2012, 02:43:52 pm

If Ohio fucks this up I'm disowning them.

If the whole US fucks this up I'm disowning them... as soon as I turn 18 and can legally get my ass onto a flight to Toronto without my parents getting worried.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 02, 2012, 02:51:35 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 02:50:16 pm

question: is mitt romney pro-internet censorship?

Not sure... probably yes though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 02, 2012, 02:52:08 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 02:50:16 pm

question: is mitt romney pro-internet censorship?

He is if the Republican party needs him to be, I'm sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:53:16 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 02:45:12 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:17:44 pm

Well, I didn't end up voting for myself.

For President of the United States, that is. But as there was only a write-in option for District Commissioner of Preservation of Water and Air...

You're gonna preserve the fuck out of that water and air.

You know it. Let's see them set up fracking operations in NC with me around.

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 02:50:16 pm

question: is mitt romney pro-internet censorship?

It stands to reason, as he is "pro-business", that he would want to allow internet censorship for profit maximization.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 02, 2012, 02:55:28 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:53:16 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 02:50:16 pm

question: is mitt romney pro-internet censorship?

It stands to reason, as he is "pro-business", that he would want to allow internet censorship for profit maximization.

Except for online advertisements, those are [DATA EXPUNGED] FREE SPEECH and shouldn't be touched.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 02, 2012, 02:59:35 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 02, 2012, 02:55:28 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:53:16 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 02:50:16 pm

question: is mitt romney pro-internet censorship?

It stands to reason, as he is "pro-business", that he would want to allow internet censorship for profit maximization.

Except for online advertisements, those are [DATA EXPUNGED] FREE SPEECH and shouldn't be touched.

Well money is speech after all. >.>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 03:03:16 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:53:16 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 02:45:12 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:17:44 pm

Well, I didn't end up voting for myself.

For President of the United States, that is. But as there was only a write-in option for District Commissioner of Preservation of Water and Air...

You're gonna preserve the fuck out of that water and air.

You know it. Let's see them set up fracking operations in NC with me around.

Pssht. if you win, I'll run against you next election, and my attack ad writes itself.

My opponent is supposed to preserve air and water, and yet this camera footage clearly shows him breathing and drinking thousands of times since taking office. Some studies say that if he's re-elected, North Carolina may not even have any air or water left by the end of his term.

Vote RedKing...because your children deserve to breathe too.


_{THIS MESSAGE PAID FOR BY THE COMMITTEE TO ELECT REDKING, DASANI WATER, AND THE CANNED AIR CORPORATION.}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 02, 2012, 03:05:33 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 03:03:16 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:53:16 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 02:45:12 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 02:17:44 pm

Well, I didn't end up voting for myself.

For President of the United States, that is. But as there was only a write-in option for District Commissioner of Preservation of Water and Air...

You're gonna preserve the fuck out of that water and air.

You know it. Let's see them set up fracking operations in NC with me around.

Pssht. if you win, I'll run against you next election, and my attack ad writes itself.

My opponent is supposed to preserve air and water, and yet this camera footage clearly shows him breathing and drinking thousands of times since taking office. Some studies say that if he's re-elected, North Carolina may not even have any air or water left by the end of his term.

Vote RedKing...because your children deserve to breathe too.


_{THIS MESSAGE PAID FOR BY THE COMMITTEE TO ELECT REDKING, DASANI WATER, AND THE CANNED AIR CORPORATION(Subdivision of Koch Industries).}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 02, 2012, 03:08:07 pm

I would totally donate, like, $10 to EACH of your campaigns to see you guys do that next time that office is up for reelection. Craziest attack ads ever over the most ridiculous things.

Ooooh...and you can get into a huge debate over the perils of dihydrogen oxide pollution in the air!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 03:11:57 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 02, 2012, 03:08:07 pm

I would totally donate, like, $10 to EACH of your campaigns to see you guys do that next time that office is up for reelection. Craziest attack ads ever over the most ridiculous things.

Ooooh...and you can get into a huge debate over the perils of dihydrogen oxide pollution in the air!

I dunno, MHS attack ads might involve a literal punch in the face.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:12:10 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 02:50:16 pm

question: is mitt romney pro-internet censorship?

He denounced SOPA, but one of his two reasons was that it was "too expensive", so that's probably the big one, with him being a "money is for millionaires, not the government" type.

He also said he would "demand rigorous enforcement of anti-pornography laws if elected president", which basically amounts to internet censorship and institutionalized sexual control.

I think it's completely reasonable to guess he would sign a internet-censoring bill, but maybe that's because I think Republicans in general tend to do stupid shit like that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 03:14:46 pm

If Romney was elected and tried to enforce anti-porn laws, I'd put money on some sort of sex scandal surfacing before his term was up. It just seems to be the natural cycle for the American Right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:20:18 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 03:16:50 pm

right.

I hate him more.

also, he's a Mormon. I'm going to assume that he follows the bible, same as other Christian denominations.
he appears to be the kind of guy that wouldn't care if the poor get poorer, so long as the rich get richer.

is he really a Mormon, or is he just saying that?

There hasn't been a major Christian Republican (i.e. 99.999% of Republicans) from any denomination in twenty years who has actually given a fuck about the various verses about wealth. All they need the Bible for is feeling good about themselves and defending their homophobia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 03:24:35 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:20:18 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 03:16:50 pm

right.

I hate him more.

also, he's a Mormon. I'm going to assume that he follows the bible, same as other Christian denominations.
he appears to be the kind of guy that wouldn't care if the poor get poorer, so long as the rich get richer.

is he really a Mormon, or is he just saying that?

There hasn't been a major Christian Republican (i.e. 99.999% of Republicans) from any denomination in twenty years who has actually given a fuck about the various verses about wealth. All they need the Bible for is feeling good about themselves and defending their homophobia.

I would just like to suggest again that we go around to churches this Sunday to raise awareness about the Bible passages that bash covetousness and the rich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 03:26:03 pm

Mormons do embrace the protestant work ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic)

So if you don't work hard enough to be successful and therefore glorify god, it means you are NOT glorifying god.

Quote from: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 03:24:35 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:20:18 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 03:16:50 pm

right.

I hate him more.

also, he's a Mormon. I'm going to assume that he follows the bible, same as other Christian denominations.
he appears to be the kind of guy that wouldn't care if the poor get poorer, so long as the rich get richer.

is he really a Mormon, or is he just saying that?

There hasn't been a major Christian Republican (i.e. 99.999% of Republicans) from any denomination in twenty years who has actually given a fuck about the various verses about wealth. All they need the Bible for is feeling good about themselves and defending their homophobia.

I would just like to suggest again that we go around to churches this Sunday to raise awareness about the Bible passages that bash covetousness and the rich.

You ever get that pamphlet designed?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 02, 2012, 03:33:59 pm

There's actually some history in the mormon church of collectivist communities, but none of them ended very well :X

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 03:35:33 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 03:26:03 pm

Mormons do embrace the protestant work ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic)

So if you don't work hard enough to be successful and therefore glorify god, it means you are NOT glorifying god.

Quote from: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 03:24:35 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:20:18 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 03:16:50 pm

right.

I hate him more.

also, he's a Mormon. I'm going to assume that he follows the bible, same as other Christian denominations.
he appears to be the kind of guy that wouldn't care if the poor get poorer, so long as the rich get richer.

is he really a Mormon, or is he just saying that?

There hasn't been a major Christian Republican (i.e. 99.999% of Republicans) from any denomination in twenty years who has actually given a fuck about the various verses about wealth. All they need the Bible for is feeling good about themselves and defending their homophobia.

I would just like to suggest again that we go around to churches this Sunday to raise awareness about the Bible passages that bash covetousness and the rich.

You ever get that pamphlet designed?

Paste this into OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org/) or whatever word processor you use (try to avoid using Notepad though, as it won't show bolded or underlined text)

Spoiler: Anti-Romney Tract (click to show/hide)

Mitt Romney says:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.... These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect...And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
-Mitt Romney

--------------------------

But Jesus says:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

This is more or less final. For this tract at any rate. I might tweak the formatting a bit more, but it's pretty decent as is.
(BTW, If you want to save paper a lot of printers can be set to print four mini-pages {which you could then cut out} per sheet of paper. Just remember to paste the pamphlet in four times with page breaks in-between if you do that)

EDIT:
I still need an illustrator for my other idea of depicting Romney as the damned rich man in Luke 16:19-26

Spoiler: Luke 16:19-26 (click to show/hide)

"19 Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasted sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And longed to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeing Abraham far off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they who would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there."" Luke 16:19-26

EDIT:

On a related note, a partial reference guide to anti-wealth/anti-greed bible verses:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."  Matthew 6:24 (alternate translation)

"No man can be the bondservant of two masters; for either he will dislike one and like the other, or he will attach himself to one and think slightingly of the other. You cannot be the bondservants both of God and of gold."  Matthew 6:24 (alternate translation)

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

"Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Mark 10:21

"7 I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: 8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts. 9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. 10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour. 11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun." Ecclesiastes 2:7-11

"Your gold and silver have become worthless. The very wealth you were counting on will eat away your flesh like fire. This treasure you have accumulated will stand as evidence against you on the day of judgment." James 5:3

"A servant cannot serve two masters. He will hate the first master and love the second, or he will be devoted to the first and despise the second. You cannot serve God and wealth." Luke 16:13

"5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?" James 2:5-6

"He said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses."" Luke 12:15

"19 Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasted sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And longed to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeing Abraham far off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they who would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there."" Luke 16:19-26

"But those who are determined to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction." 1 Timothy 6:9

"Come now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you." James 5:1

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 03:37:29 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 02, 2012, 03:33:59 pm

There's actually some history in the mormon church of collectivist communities, but none of them ended very well :X

A man and his eight wives do not a collective make.  :P

Romney's grandparents actually were members of a Mormon commune in Mexico.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 03:43:19 pm

It is imperative that we twist and distort this fact into "Romney's ancestors were communists"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 02, 2012, 03:44:07 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 03:37:29 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 02, 2012, 03:33:59 pm

There's actually some history in the mormon church of collectivist communities, but none of them ended very well :X

A man and his eight wives do not a collective make.  :P

Naw they did stuff like eliminate personal property and such too. Almost hippie-ish, minus the free love (just free wives).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 03:45:39 pm

Technically speaking, it isn't even really a distortion. Collectivist communes qualify for being at least some forms of communism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 02, 2012, 03:45:53 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 02:45:28 pm

<snipped>
If the whole US fucks this up I'm disowning them... as soon as I turn 18 and can legally get my ass onto a flight to Toronto without my parents getting worried.

Do you really want to have Stephen Harper as your Prime Minister?
I hope Obama wins, personally, and it seems likely to be so.  And it's also likely the Democrats will take both my State House and Senate this year, giving them full control of the government for the first time since the early 1990s.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 03:47:29 pm

Democrats still won't have the us house. and the us senate may be tied or even lost.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 03:49:21 pm

He said "his State House", so I assume he meant state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 02, 2012, 03:50:10 pm

I specified my State, Nadaka.  I was referring to Minnesota.
Nationally:  And yes, I know the Dems won't pick up the House, but the Senate, due to incompetence on the part of many Republican candidates, is very likely to remain in Democratic hands.  And there is a chance Dems will actually pick up seats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 03:54:09 pm

Most projections I've seen show 52-48 or 53-47 for the Senate, thanks to Todd Akin and a handful of other foot-in-mouth incidents in Senate races.

The House will stay in GOP hands, and may even redden a bit.  :-\

So expect four more years of the finest Tea Party derp from the House and crippling inaction in Congress for the most part. Which will force Obama to use more executive orders to actually get shit done, which will feed more into this "Imperial Obama" narrative.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 03:55:57 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 02, 2012, 03:50:10 pm

I specified my State, Nadaka.  I was referring to Minnesota.
Nationally:  And yes, I know the Dems won't pick up the House, but the Senate, due to incompetence on the part of many Republican candidates, is very likely to remain in Democratic hands.  And there is a chance Dems will actually pick up seats.

you also said it would give the democrats full control of the govornment, and that part didn't seem state specific.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:57:11 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 03:35:33 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 03:26:03 pm

Mormons do embrace the protestant work ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic)

So if you don't work hard enough to be successful and therefore glorify god, it means you are NOT glorifying god.

Quote from: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 03:24:35 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:20:18 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 02, 2012, 03:16:50 pm

right.

I hate him more.

also, he's a Mormon. I'm going to assume that he follows the bible, same as other Christian denominations.
he appears to be the kind of guy that wouldn't care if the poor get poorer, so long as the rich get richer.

is he really a Mormon, or is he just saying that?

There hasn't been a major Christian Republican (i.e. 99.999% of Republicans) from any denomination in twenty years who has actually given a fuck about the various verses about wealth. All they need the Bible for is feeling good about themselves and defending their homophobia.

I would just like to suggest again that we go around to churches this Sunday to raise awareness about the Bible passages that bash covetousness and the rich.

You ever get that pamphlet designed?

Paste this into OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org/) or whatever word processor you use (try to avoid using Notepad though, as it won't show bolded or underlined text)

Spoiler: Anti-Romney Tract (click to show/hide)

Mitt Romney says:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.... These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect...And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
-Mitt Romney

--------------------------

But Jesus says:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

This is more or less final. For this tract at any rate. I might tweak the formatting a bit more, but it's pretty decent as is.
(BTW, If you want to save paper a lot of printers can be set to print four mini-pages {which you could then cut out} per sheet of paper. Just remember to paste the pamphlet in four times with page breaks in-between if you do that)

The Republican response to this is always to say "Jesus commanded people to give their money away, not to have the government serve as a middleman", and then "creatively reinterpret" the "rich man... needle" and "money... evil" bits.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:58:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 02, 2012, 03:54:09 pm

Most projections I've seen show 52-48 or 53-47 for the Senate, thanks to Todd Akin and a handful of other foot-in-mouth incidents in Senate races.

The House will stay in GOP hands, and may even redden a bit.  :-\

So expect four more years of the finest Tea Party derp from the House and crippling inaction in Congress for the most part. Which will force Obama to use more executive orders to actually get shit done, which will feed more into this "Imperial Obama" narrative.  ::)

Ah well, if he's reelected it's his second term anyway, so he doesn't have to give a crap about "compromising his reelection chances".

More US presidents should have grown a pair in their second term, once they had nothing left to lose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 02, 2012, 03:59:42 pm

The House isn't going to get more Republican, that's just very unlikely.  Redistricting was basically a zero-sum game for both parties because of:
A) Major gerrymanderings cancelled each other out: IL, MD, et. al. cancel out NC, MO, et al.
B) Some incumbent candidates can be very stubborn (One NC Blue Dog comes to mind, can't remember his name)
C) California undid a bipartisan gerrymander that locked in a 34 D, 19 R delegation for 10 years while the state moved left; there will be some Dem gains there.
D) Many weak Republicans were washed in during a wave year in unfriendly turf that are likely to lose. New Hampshire districts, MI-1, MN-8, FL-18, FL-22.

That said, some Dem retirements in very red areas will hurt (OK-2, AR-4), but it won't be enough to make the House more Republican.  Probably 10-11 seat pickup for Democrats overall, IMO.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 02, 2012, 04:04:44 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 02, 2012, 03:45:53 pm

I hope Obama wins, personally, and it seems likely to be so.  And it's also likely the Democrats will take both my State House and Senate this year, giving them full control of the government for the first time since the early 1990s.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 03:55:57 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 02, 2012, 03:50:10 pm

I specified my State, Nadaka.  I was referring to Minnesota.
Nationally:  And yes, I know the Dems won't pick up the House, but the Senate, due to incompetence on the part of many Republican candidates, is very likely to remain in Democratic hands.  And there is a chance Dems will actually pick up seats.

you also said it would give the democrats full control of the govornment, and that part didn't seem state specific.

He had a comma, so it was all a single statement, and he specifically stated that the Dems taking the state house plus senate was the proximate cause of giving "THEM" the control of the government. There was no mention of the Democrats in that section.

If you managed to work out that "THEM" meant the Democrats from the first part of the sentence which mentioned winning the state house / senate, how could you not interpret the dependent clause "them take control of the government" to mean state government? It seems hard to believe that this was referring to the federal government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 02, 2012, 04:12:46 pm

This is quite the argument over a simple miscommunication.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 04:22:56 pm

Yea... I was just explaining why i said what i said, not arguing at all.

Anyway, are yall ready to play "is it racist?"

http://news.yahoo.com/super-pac-ad-buy-urges-african-americans-ohio-210436263--politics.html

This just in: Abraham Lincoln was a republican. That means democrats hate black people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 02, 2012, 04:27:36 pm

Quote

One of the group's ads accuses Obama and Democrats of imploding the economy by forcing mortgage companies to lend to "unqualified borrowers" while the Soviet national anthem plays.

^ This is the biggest turd of a lie ever. People should look up the "American Dream Downpayment Act 2003". Bush signed a law paying the full downpayment costs of excluded home borrowers - people with credit defaults and no money.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 04:40:23 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:57:11 pm

The Republican response to this is always to say "Jesus commanded people to give their money away, not to have the government serve as a middleman", and then "creatively reinterpret" the "rich man... needle" and "money... evil" bits.

In my experience they usually say that Jesus rewards the faithful with financial wealth, and that to reject that is rejecting him. Also that capitalism is Christian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 04:42:30 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 04:40:23 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:57:11 pm

The Republican response to this is always to say "Jesus commanded people to give their money away, not to have the government serve as a middleman", and then "creatively reinterpret" the "rich man... needle" and "money... evil" bits.

In my experience they usually say that Jesus rewards the faithful with financial wealth, and that to reject that is rejecting him. Also that capitalism is Christian.

AKA the protestant work ethic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 02, 2012, 04:45:34 pm

Which do you think is a worse stain on our society, the Protestant Work Ethic or Traditional Family Values?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 04:47:54 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 04:42:30 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 02, 2012, 04:40:23 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 03:57:11 pm

The Republican response to this is always to say "Jesus commanded people to give their money away, not to have the government serve as a middleman", and then "creatively reinterpret" the "rich man... needle" and "money... evil" bits.

In my experience they usually say that Jesus rewards the faithful with financial wealth, and that to reject that is rejecting him. Also that capitalism is Christian.

AKA the protestant work ethic.

No, the protestant work ethic is a belief that Jesus wants you to work hard and accept your lot in life. It has also been used more secularly in recent years, usually when comparing US working conditions to that of Canada, Europe, or wherever.

What I'm describing is prosperity theology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 02, 2012, 04:54:25 pm

Yea, thats a lot more accurate. I don't think I can recall any instance where the two do not go hand in hand.

Edit: I totally forgot the "do not" in that sentance... oopsies

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on November 02, 2012, 05:14:45 pm

My favourite response to segments of prosperity theology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHWvqhfA73A).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 02, 2012, 05:39:20 pm

Does anyone else think that Romney shot himself in the foot (or maybe the face) with his recent attack on Jeep? Even the Detroit newspaper article endorsing him (which he crows endlessly about in his ads) roundly smashed his policy on the auto industry, and Chrysler itself called the claims idiotic. When something like 30%-40% of jobs in Ohio are linked to the auto industry (rough average estimate, it's around 75% in the northern cities, and less further south) that's a very nasty gaffe to make, especially since the main group he would be targeting  (independent voters who can understand the value of the industry) isn't going to automatically favor either side, while the secondary target (union autoworkers uncomfortable with the political affiliations of the union) are going to favor the existing policy under which they kept their jobs unless solid evidence is presented to them. The only group that might be inclined to believe the attack would be those that lost their jobs in the restructuring, most of whom were simply retired early.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 08:08:09 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 02, 2012, 05:39:20 pm

Does anyone else think that Romney shot himself in the foot (or maybe the face) with his recent attack on Jeep? Even the Detroit newspaper article endorsing him (which he crows endlessly about in his ads) roundly smashed his policy on the auto industry, and Chrysler itself called the claims idiotic. When something like 30%-40% of jobs in Ohio are linked to the auto industry (rough average estimate, it's around 75% in the northern cities, and less further south) that's a very nasty gaffe to make, especially since the main group he would be targeting  (independent voters who can understand the value of the industry) isn't going to automatically favor either side, while the secondary target (union autoworkers uncomfortable with the political affiliations of the union) are going to favor the existing policy under which they kept their jobs unless solid evidence is presented to them. The only group that might be inclined to believe the attack would be those that lost their jobs in the restructuring, most of whom were simply retired early.

He didn't have a chance in Michigan to begin with. The west is absolutely Republican, but the east is more populous... and filled to the brim with union workers, minorities, and every other stereotypically Democratic demographic you can imagine.

I actually live in a very liberal postage stamp in the middle of a very conservative county... you can imagine how the city leaders feel about never getting a voice in higher-up politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 02, 2012, 08:39:31 pm

My election prediction: Romney 317, Obama 221

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 02, 2012, 08:46:41 pm

My election prediction: Obama 135, Romney 134, Leafsnail 270.

_{Wait am I getting "prediction" confused with "baseless fantasy" again?}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 02, 2012, 08:49:31 pm

Bahaha, who would vote for Leafsnail over me? You're delusional, man :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 02, 2012, 08:52:45 pm

I'd probably vote for you over Obama based on the views you've expressed here, actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 02, 2012, 09:00:23 pm

huh, I'm pretty sure I voted banana myself

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 02, 2012, 09:15:47 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 08:08:09 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 02, 2012, 05:39:20 pm

Does anyone else think that Romney shot himself in the foot (or maybe the face) with his recent attack on Jeep? Even the Detroit newspaper article endorsing him (which he crows endlessly about in his ads) roundly smashed his policy on the auto industry, and Chrysler itself called the claims idiotic. When something like 30%-40% of jobs in Ohio are linked to the auto industry (rough average estimate, it's around 75% in the northern cities, and less further south) that's a very nasty gaffe to make, especially since the main group he would be targeting  (independent voters who can understand the value of the industry) isn't going to automatically favor either side, while the secondary target (union autoworkers uncomfortable with the political affiliations of the union) are going to favor the existing policy under which they kept their jobs unless solid evidence is presented to them. The only group that might be inclined to believe the attack would be those that lost their jobs in the restructuring, most of whom were simply retired early.

He didn't have a chance in Michigan to begin with. The west is absolutely Republican, but the east is more populous... and filled to the brim with union workers, minorities, and every other stereotypically Democratic demographic you can imagine.

I actually live in a very liberal postage stamp in the middle of a very conservative county... you can imagine how the city leaders feel about never getting a voice in higher-up politics.

It's Ohio that I'm talking about. He's been blitzing the state with his "Obama's selling Jeep to China" campaign for the past week.  Between the actual car companies, the parts suppliers for those companies, and various material refining and coal mining, this state is just as dependent on the auto industry as Michigan is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 02, 2012, 09:55:53 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 02, 2012, 09:15:47 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 02, 2012, 08:08:09 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 02, 2012, 05:39:20 pm

Does anyone else think that Romney shot himself in the foot (or maybe the face) with his recent attack on Jeep? Even the Detroit newspaper article endorsing him (which he crows endlessly about in his ads) roundly smashed his policy on the auto industry, and Chrysler itself called the claims idiotic. When something like 30%-40% of jobs in Ohio are linked to the auto industry (rough average estimate, it's around 75% in the northern cities, and less further south) that's a very nasty gaffe to make, especially since the main group he would be targeting  (independent voters who can understand the value of the industry) isn't going to automatically favor either side, while the secondary target (union autoworkers uncomfortable with the political affiliations of the union) are going to favor the existing policy under which they kept their jobs unless solid evidence is presented to them. The only group that might be inclined to believe the attack would be those that lost their jobs in the restructuring, most of whom were simply retired early.

He didn't have a chance in Michigan to begin with. The west is absolutely Republican, but the east is more populous... and filled to the brim with union workers, minorities, and every other stereotypically Democratic demographic you can imagine.

I actually live in a very liberal postage stamp in the middle of a very conservative county... you can imagine how the city leaders feel about never getting a voice in higher-up politics.

It's Ohio that I'm talking about. He's been blitzing the state with his "Obama's selling Jeep to China" campaign for the past week.  Between the actual car companies, the parts suppliers for those companies, and various material refining and coal mining, this state is just as dependent on the auto industry as Michigan is.

It's unlikely that Obama will win Ohio.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 09:58:37 pm

Most polls seem to put them on par or give Obama a slight advantage - why do you think it's unlikely? I mean, it's certainly possible that he'll lose - it's all within the margin of error. But saying it's likely he'll lose is a bit different.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 02, 2012, 10:09:57 pm

Really, Kon?  If you make an assertion, at least attempt to back it up.  Hell, you would have to assume numerous polling companies all have a D-bias for that to be true.
Latest polls: (Used FiveThirtyEight history for the list)
Ipsos (Online) 11/2 Obama+2
We Ask America (R) 11/1 Obama+4
CNN 11/1 Obama+3
Rasmussen 11/1 Obama+0
Wenzel Strategies 10/31 (R) Romney+3
University of Cincy 10/30 Obama+2
PPP 10/30 Obama+5
SurveyUSA 10/29 Obama+3
Grove 10/29 Obama+3
Quinnipiac 10/29 Obama+5

Average last 10 polls: Obama+2.4

Even including the two R-affiliated pollsters, they don't even bring the POTUS's average down that much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 10:14:44 pm

That's a wee bit needlessly aggressive, Jervill. I'm much more interested in his reasoning than in seeing him shouted down. :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 10:19:08 pm

Since his reasoning in the past has boiled down to "because I said so", I for one am not particularly interested in another 6-page stretch of him trolling everyone willing to keep responding.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on November 02, 2012, 11:48:35 pm

Wait, you can't pass a motion just because it's seconded. We have to have a vote first!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 02, 2012, 11:50:53 pm

I'll step in and filibuster that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 02, 2012, 11:55:50 pm

I'm voting however my party tells me to vote. cough cough cough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on November 03, 2012, 12:00:32 am

This is why democracy is broken. Metagaming!

Also 3 days left until the polls and I won't vote due to voter registration laws unless a miracle happens. Still, being on a university campus, it's unlikely my vote would have mattered anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 03, 2012, 12:02:44 am

Quote from: darkflagrance on November 03, 2012, 12:00:32 am

This is why democracy is broken. Metagaming!

Also 3 days left until the polls and I won't vote due to voter registration laws unless a miracle happens. Still, being on a university campus, it's unlikely my vote would have mattered anyway.

What state?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 12:20:42 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 02, 2012, 10:14:44 pm

That's a wee bit needlessly aggressive, Jervill. I'm much more interested in his reasoning than in seeing him shouted down. :/

Last time I posted on this thread, several people insulted me, and I responded with a couple of insults. I shouldn't have done that. I am being insulted again now, just for pointing out that Romney is going to win Ohio, but I will not respond to insults with insults this time.

Anyway, Ohio elected a Republican governor. Obviously, that was a state-wide vote, and this will be a statewide vote.

Ohio's economy is doing well relative to other Midwest states. Unemplyment is significantly lower there than in nearby states, such as Illinois, that have Democratic governors who have raised taxes and hurt their states economies. You could argue that it is in Obama's favor that Ohio's economy is doing relatively well, but Ohioans may see that they are doing better with a Republican governor than others are doing with a Democratic governor.

The polls are very close, but undecided voters tend to go against the incumbent president.

Republicans seem to be more enthusiastic than Democrats. I expect that Republican turnout will be better than Democratic turnout.

Early voting is not going nearly as well for Obama as it did four years ago. Based on the polls, on election day Romney is likely to more than make up for Obama's slim lead in early voting. This is based on election day voting last time, the greater enthusiam for Romney versus McCain, and the greater enthusiasm for Romney versus Obama.

Finally, Romney has been talking about working with Democrats, pointing out that he worked with Democrats as governor, while Obama isn't even talking about working with Republicans. Many people want politicians to set aside partisanship and do what is best for the country.

And, as we saw in the last debate, Obama's plan is simply to attack Romney, which turns off a lot of independents. I think people in Ohio are really getting fed up with all of the personal attacks. They want someone who is going to work with the other side to get something done rather than insulting and denigrating their opponent. Obama's game plan is to convince people not to vote for Romney rather than trying to convince people that they should for him. That plan is a poor plan and won't work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 03, 2012, 12:22:02 am

Gingrich Advert People: Beware Three-Term Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/errant-gingrich-email-obama-going-win-174518235.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 12:22:35 am

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 10:19:08 pm

Since his reasoning in the past has boiled down to "because I said so", I for one am not particularly interested in another 6-page stretch of him trolling everyone willing to keep responding.

My reasoning in the past has boiled down to "because I said so?" I provided thoughtful arguments while others just insulted me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Toady One on November 03, 2012, 01:02:50 am

I don't imagine this thread is going to see much less activity from now through Tuesday, so I'd appreciate it if people would be extra cautious with their tone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on November 03, 2012, 01:08:28 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 03, 2012, 12:02:44 am

Quote from: darkflagrance on November 03, 2012, 12:00:32 am

This is why democracy is broken. Metagaming!

Also 3 days left until the polls and I won't vote due to voter registration laws unless a miracle happens. Still, being on a university campus, it's unlikely my vote would have mattered anyway.

What state?

Massachusetts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 03, 2012, 01:24:14 am

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 12:20:42 am

Last time I posted on this thread, several people insulted me, and I responded with a couple of insults. I shouldn't have done that. I am being insulted again now, just for pointing out that Romney is going to win Ohio, but I will not respond to insults with insults this time.

Anyway, Ohio elected a Republican governor. Obviously, that was a state-wide vote, and this will be a statewide vote.

Ohio's economy is doing well relative to other Midwest states. Unemplyment is significantly lower there than in nearby states, such as Illinois, that have Democratic governors who have raised taxes and hurt their states economies. You could argue that it is in Obama's favor that Ohio's economy is doing relatively well, but Ohioans may see that they are doing better with a Republican governor than others are doing with a Democratic governor.

The polls are very close, but undecided voters tend to go against the incumbent president.

Republicans seem to be more enthusiastic than Democrats. I expect that Republican turnout will be better than Democratic turnout.

Early voting is not going nearly as well for Obama as it did four years ago. Based on the polls, on election day Romney is likely to more than make up for Obama's slim lead in early voting. This is based on election day voting last time, the greater enthusiam for Romney versus McCain, and the greater enthusiasm for Romney versus Obama.

Finally, Romney has been talking about working with Democrats, pointing out that he worked with Democrats as governor, while Obama isn't even talking about working with Republicans. Many people want politicians to set aside partisanship and do what is best for the country.

And, as we saw in the last debate, Obama's plan is simply to attack Romney, which turns off a lot of independents. I think people in Ohio are really getting fed up with all of the personal attacks. They want someone who is going to work with the other side to get something done rather than insulting and denigrating their opponent. Obama's game plan is to convince people not to vote for Romney rather than trying to convince people that they should for him. That plan is a poor plan and won't work.

It has been commented before that you equate your opinion with fact and then stubbornly dig in until people grow tired of you repeating yourself.  Everything you listed here is highly contentious and you don't come remotely close to actually demonstrating what you are saying.

For instance you say that Ohio must be Romney friendly because it has a republican governor.  This is very flimsy evidence because not all statewide elections are equal.  Consider West Virginia for example which has a democratic governor, two democratic senators and has democrats in control of both chambers of the house legislature.  Does that mean it is supporting Obama?  Pull the other one... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wv/west_virginia_romney_vs_obama-1970.html)

I will not respond to your other points because it takes time to make a fact checked, reasonable post about a topic.  It takes far more time then it takes to list 10 or so plausible sounding arguments without the need to stop and think if they make sense.  If you were to emulate this behavior of checking what you post to see if it adds up and substantiating any contentious points, people might be a bit more receptive towards talking to you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 03, 2012, 01:34:25 am

Quote from: Toady One on November 03, 2012, 01:02:50 am

I don't imagine this thread is going to see much less activity from now through Tuesday, so I'd appreciate it if people would be extra cautious with their tone.

Yessir, Mr. Toad, sir. My apologies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on November 03, 2012, 05:08:56 am

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 12:22:35 am

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 02, 2012, 10:19:08 pm

Since his reasoning in the past has boiled down to "because I said so", I for one am not particularly interested in another 6-page stretch of him trolling everyone willing to keep responding.

My reasoning in the past has boiled down to "because I said so?" I provided thoughtful arguments while others just insulted me.

I'm sorry, but no, you did not. You stated an opinion which you couldn't back up with an unbiased source, and then refused to even acknowledge people's counterarguments. Simply reiterating a point while refusing to discuss it is not thoughtful. It is the opposite.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 06:30:55 am

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 12:20:42 am

And, as we saw in the last debate, Obama's plan is simply to attack Romney, which turns off a lot of independents. I think people in Ohio are really getting fed up with all of the personal attacks. They want someone who is going to work with the other side to get something done rather than insulting and denigrating their opponent. Obama's game plan is to convince people not to vote for Romney rather than trying to convince people that they should for him. That plan is a poor plan and won't work.

And, pray tell, what is Romney's plan you happen to know of [while we all do not]?

Oh, and you have all those attack ads against Obama to disprove if you're trying to say Romney hasn't focused on one thing, attacking the president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 03, 2012, 07:01:30 am

A nice little article on election statistics, and the complete arse-backwards understanding most pundits have of it. (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/why-predictions-and-statistical-models-are-necessary-and-good-for-democracy/)

Given some of the actual analysis I've seen here by you peeps (Like RedKing... damn man, you a stats major or something?), most of you probably won't get anything new, but it's still an interesting read.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 03, 2012, 10:09:14 am

Announcer: In this corner, wearing the blue trunks, the Donkey, Bronco Bama!
*crowd cheers (AZ! AZ! AZ!)*
Announcer: And in that corner, wearing the Red Spandex, the Cat, Mittens!
(background crowd cheering) Little Girl: Mommie, why isn't Mittens an elephant?
Mother: He discovered soft and furry does better and had a felinoplasty.
Announcer: Llllets get ready to Rummmbleeee!
*More crowd cheering (3 more days! 4 more years! 3 more days! 4 more years! Free tibet!)*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 03, 2012, 11:48:41 am

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 12:20:42 am

And, as we saw in the last debate, Obama's plan is simply to attack Romney, which turns off a lot of independents.

In the president's defense, there is almost nothing good that can be said about Mitt Romney. Not truthfully at any rate. Romney's own commercials have convinced me that he is unconcerned about anything other than money and incapable of experiencing any emotions other than envy and greed. The man never stops talking about money. The only "positive" thing that can be said about him is that his sick obsession with wealth seems to distract him somewhat from the hatred that fills most other members of his party.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 12:20:42 am

Obama's game plan is to convince people not to vote for Romney rather than trying to convince people that they should for him. That plan is a poor plan and won't work.

That plan is the best plan. The Democrats and the Republicans are both TERRIBLE political parties and almost everybody knows it. The elections are just down to choosing the lesser of two evils. It would be absurd for either candidate, or any candidate who has run since I have been alive for that matter, to try to convince people that they are actually qualified to run the country (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing024.gif). The only real question is "is the other guy worse?".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 11:58:08 am

Convincing people not to vote for Romney is the best plan. The only thing Romney really has going for him is the "Not-Obama" factor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on November 03, 2012, 01:15:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 11:58:08 am

Convincing people not to vote for Obama is the best plan. The only thing Obama really has going for him is the "Poor People" factor.

Word Games can be fun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 03, 2012, 01:19:03 pm

"Poor people factor" > "Not-The-Other-Guy factor".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 03, 2012, 01:20:00 pm

Fast death factor > any of these.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 01:55:13 pm

That6's not to say someone qualified never runs. The Clitons gave us a surplus economically, after all, and everyone looks back fondly on the nineties. Too bad presidents are formally restricted to two terms now (thanks congress!).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 03, 2012, 02:34:05 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 01:55:13 pm

That6's not to say someone qualified never runs. The Clitons gave us a surplus economically, after all, and everyone looks back fondly on the nineties. Too bad presidents are formally restricted to two terms now (thanks congress!).

It's funny that the Republicans passed that amendment after the Democrats found the perfect wonder-president in FDR.

Then the Republicans found their messiah in Reagan, and must have been really mad when they realized he could only have two terms.

And Clinton was so-so. He did some good things, but ideologically represented the constant-compromise modern wimpy version of the Democrats that took hold, rather than the Carterian vision.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 02:40:29 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 03, 2012, 02:34:05 pm

And Clinton was so-so. He did some good things, but ideologically represented the constant-compromise modern wimpy version of the Democrats that took hold, rather than the Carterian vision.

I don't think you experienced both administrations. There's a reason why one is recognized as a winner and one is recognized as a loser, politically. Compromise actually gets things done, you see.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 03, 2012, 02:50:38 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 02:40:29 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 03, 2012, 02:34:05 pm

And Clinton was so-so. He did some good things, but ideologically represented the constant-compromise modern wimpy version of the Democrats that took hold, rather than the Carterian vision.

I don't think you experienced both administrations. There's a reason why one is recognized as a winner and one is recognized as a loser, politically. Compromise actually gets things done, you see.

You're correct, I agree.
Clinton accomplished a lot, but basically had to compromise with the Republicans on every issue.
Carter did almost nothing, but was willing to take a stand, and now afterwards he's even more vocal.

The big hope a lot of liberals have for Obama now is that he'll take a stand and get something good done... and if he needs to abuse executive orders to do that, I'm all for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 02:57:31 pm

You're not hearing much about bipartisanship because the Republicans in congress refuse to compromise 99% of the time. The President tried to work with them in the past, and the only deals that were reached were largely with the few moderate Republicans who were still willing to compromise - and those are mostly out of Congress now, or retiring, as far as I know.

After the Tea Party came in, it was Obstruction City much of the time, but sometimes it was even worse:

Do you remember when time was running out to raise the debt ceiling? The Republicans in Congress convinced everyone that they were completely willing to make the government default on its debt, but would agree to raise it if their demands were met. In the end, there were no revenues included, only cuts, and cuts exceeded the debt limit increase (and yet we will have to raise it again early next year), even though the government has been able to borrow at negative real interest rates since 2010 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis#Negative_real_interest_rates (http://see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis#Negative_real_interest_rates)).

Quoth Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this – it's a hostage that's worth ransoming."

I thought we had a policy not to negotiate with terrorists?

Some articles about what defaulting on the debt would probably have meant:

It could have crippling effects on the economy: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/what-happens-if-the-debt-ceiling-isnt-raised/ (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/what-happens-if-the-debt-ceiling-isnt-raised/).

The federal government could be unable to fully fund itself: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110717/AGENCY05/107170302/Debt-ceiling-talks-What-failure-would-mean-you (http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110717/AGENCY05/107170302/Debt-ceiling-talks-What-failure-would-mean-you).

And quoting Timothy Geithner: "Under normal circumstances, investors who hold Treasuries purchase new Treasury securities when the debt matures, permitting the United States to pay the principal on this maturing debt. Yet in the scenario you advocate, in which the United State would be defaulting on a broad range of its other obligations, there is no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities. In fact, some market participants have already indicated that they would be disinclined to do so. ... If investors chose not to purchase a sufficient volume of new Treasury securities, the United States would be required to pay the principal on maturing debt, and not merely the interest, out of available cash. Yet the Treasury would be unable to make these principal payments without the continued confidence of market participants willing to buy new Treasury securities." That is from http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/29/full-text-geithner-letter-responding-to-republicans-on-debt-limit/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/29/full-text-geithner-letter-responding-to-republicans-on-debt-limit/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 03, 2012, 03:19:11 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 02:57:31 pm

You're not hearing much about bipartisanship because the Republicans in congress refuse to compromise 99% of the time. The President tried to work with them in the past, and the only deals that were reached were largely with the few moderate Republicans who were still willing to compromise - and those are mostly out of Congress now, or retiring, as far as I know.

After the Tea Party came in, it was Obstruction City much of the time, but sometimes it was even worse:

Do you remember when time was running out to raise the debt ceiling? The Republicans in Congress convinced everyone that they were completely willing to make the government default on its debt, but would agree to raise it if their demands were met. In the end, there were no revenues included, only cuts, and cuts exceeded the debt limit increase (and yet we will have to raise it again early next year), even though the government has been able to borrow at negative real interest rates since 2010 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis#Negative_real_interest_rates (http://see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis#Negative_real_interest_rates)).

Quoth Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this – it's a hostage that's worth ransoming."

I thought we had a policy not to negotiate with terrorists?

Some articles about what defaulting on the debt would probably have meant:

It could have crippling effects on the economy: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/what-happens-if-the-debt-ceiling-isnt-raised/ (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/what-happens-if-the-debt-ceiling-isnt-raised/).

The federal government could be unable to fully fund itself: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110717/AGENCY05/107170302/Debt-ceiling-talks-What-failure-would-mean-you (http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110717/AGENCY05/107170302/Debt-ceiling-talks-What-failure-would-mean-you).

And quoting Timothy Geithner: "Under normal circumstances, investors who hold Treasuries purchase new Treasury securities when the debt matures, permitting the United States to pay the principal on this maturing debt. Yet in the scenario you advocate, in which the United State would be defaulting on a broad range of its other obligations, there is no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities. In fact, some market participants have already indicated that they would be disinclined to do so. ... If investors chose not to purchase a sufficient volume of new Treasury securities, the United States would be required to pay the principal on maturing debt, and not merely the interest, out of available cash. Yet the Treasury would be unable to make these principal payments without the continued confidence of market participants willing to buy new Treasury securities." That is from http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/29/full-text-geithner-letter-responding-to-republicans-on-debt-limit/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/29/full-text-geithner-letter-responding-to-republicans-on-debt-limit/)

Agreed. The problem isn't that Obama can't compromise with Republicans... it's that the Republicans have deliberately avoided compromise to make him look bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 04:03:11 pm

Its basically a group school project where two kids get grouped together and one hates the other so much he does no work and deliberately undermines the other and when they get a bad grade says the other kid fucked everything up.

At least, that's my analogy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on November 03, 2012, 04:48:57 pm

If you want an example of bipartisanship look at the response to Sandy. And some of the responses (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/murdoch_threatens_christie_re_endorse_romney_or_else/) to that bipartisanship (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/11/01/is-chris-christie-a-gop-traitor-for-praising-obamas-response-to-hurricane-sandy).

Unfortunately, dysfunctional politics are a part of the GOP's plan to get back into the White House. Hopefully if Obama is re-elected they give up on their "1-term president" plan and start working with Democrats to obtain actual compromises instead of unconditional surrender.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 03, 2012, 04:56:45 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 03, 2012, 04:48:57 pm

If you want an example of bipartisanship look at the response to Sandy. And some of the responses (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/murdoch_threatens_christie_re_endorse_romney_or_else/) to that bipartisanship (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/11/01/is-chris-christie-a-gop-traitor-for-praising-obamas-response-to-hurricane-sandy).

Unfortunately, dysfunctional politics are a part of the GOP's plan to get back into the White House. Hopefully if Obama is re-elected they give up on their "1-term president" plan and start working with Democrats to obtain actual compromises instead of unconditional surrender.

Not sure if Chris Christie's word is going to make much of a difference, what with the multi-hour long gas lines and so on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 05:04:23 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 03, 2012, 04:48:57 pm

If you want an example of bipartisanship look at the response to Sandy. And some of the responses (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/murdoch_threatens_christie_re_endorse_romney_or_else/) to that bipartisanship (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/11/01/is-chris-christie-a-gop-traitor-for-praising-obamas-response-to-hurricane-sandy).

Unfortunately, dysfunctional politics are a part of the GOP's plan to get back into the White House. Hopefully if Obama is re-elected they give up on their "1-term president" plan and start working with Democrats to obtain actual compromises instead of unconditional surrender.

Is Christie a Traitor?

...

wut.

They do realize a hurricane just rolled over that state right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 03, 2012, 05:06:47 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 04:03:11 pm

Its basically a group school project where two kids get grouped together and one hates the other so much he does no work and deliberately undermines the other and when they get a bad grade says the other kid fucked everything up.

At least, that's my analogy.

It works on so many levels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 05:12:26 pm

I maintain that the GOP is slowly but surely killing itself on their Obama hatred. It's become their driving force and isn't going anywhere.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 05:14:49 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 03, 2012, 04:48:57 pm

If you want an example of bipartisanship look at the response to Sandy. And some of the responses (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/murdoch_threatens_christie_re_endorse_romney_or_else/) to that bipartisanship (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/11/01/is-chris-christie-a-gop-traitor-for-praising-obamas-response-to-hurricane-sandy).

Unfortunately, dysfunctional politics are a part of the GOP's plan to get back into the White House. Hopefully if Obama is re-elected they give up on their "1-term president" plan and start working with Democrats to obtain actual compromises instead of unconditional surrender.

Double unfortunately, the next four years will consist of floods of 'Impeach Obama' no matter what happens.

It's a good thing the last person you'll be seeing intimidated; is Chris Christie. I half-expect a hastily setup press conference where he tells Murdoch to fuck himself.

Quote

Rush Limbaugh called Christie "fat and a fool," saying Christie "doesn't know what he's talking about."

That's such a level of hypocrisy that makes my head spin, coming from the dense blob of cellulose that is Rush Limburger.

Spoiler: Avert your eyes (click to show/hide)

(http://files.myfrogbag.com/60wgnj/Rush-Limbaugh-Blames-Obama-Heat-Wave2a.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on November 03, 2012, 05:31:31 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 03, 2012, 02:34:05 pm

It's funny that the Republicans passed that amendment after the Democrats found the perfect wonder-president in FDR.

Then the Republicans found their messiah in Reagan, and must have been really mad when they realized he could only have two terms.

Weren't the Big Switch in between there though?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 05:38:29 pm

Oh jesus christ.

I'm hoping the Republican party as a whole is replaced. Maybe by the Green Party. Probably not the Whigs, even though from the Wikipedia article I agree with them on most issues.

Or maybe they'll change names, like what happened in the early years of U.S Politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 05:39:13 pm

Maybe they'll be honest and come back as the Jesus Dollar Party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 05:40:23 pm

Or go down kicking and screaming... that seems to be a popular theme with these guys.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 03, 2012, 05:59:17 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 05:38:29 pm

I'm hoping the Republican party as a whole is replaced.

show me on the doll where the evul republicans touched you

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 06:10:38 pm

Let the record state that he turned out the pockets of the doll.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dutchling on November 03, 2012, 06:15:07 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 05:39:13 pm

Maybe [the Republican Party] will be honest and come back as the Jesus Dollar Party.

Sigging this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:33:11 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 01:55:13 pm

That6's not to say someone qualified never runs. The Clitons gave us a surplus economically, after all, and everyone looks back fondly on the nineties. Too bad presidents are formally restricted to two terms now (thanks congress!).

Clinton didn't give us surpluses. The debt increased every year he was president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 07:34:16 pm

Graphs disprove that claim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/260px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png)
"Time series of U.S. public debt overlaid with party affiliation of the President. The upper graph shows the U.S. public debt in trillions of USD while the lower graph shows the U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Data are from the 2009 U.S. Budget.)"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:46:51 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 07:34:16 pm

Graphs disprove that claim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/260px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png)
"Time series of U.S. public debt overlaid with party affiliation of the President. The upper graph shows the U.S. public debt in trillions of USD while the lower graph shows the U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Data are from the 2009 U.S. Budget.)"

The treasury department confirms that claim:

Fiscal Year - Year Ending - National Debt Deficit
FY1993  09/30/1993  $4.411488 trillion   
FY1994  09/30/1994  $4.692749 trillion  $281.26 billion
FY1995  09/29/1995  $4.973982 trillion  $281.23 billion
FY1996  09/30/1996  $5.224810 trillion  $250.83 billion
FY1997  09/30/1997  $5.413146 trillion  $188.34 billion
FY1998  09/30/1998  $5.526193 trillion  $113.05 billion
FY1999  09/30/1999  $5.656270 trillion  $130.08 billion
FY2000  09/29/2000  $5.674178 trillion  $17.91 billion
FY2001  09/28/2001  $5.807463 trillion  $133.29 billion

To confirm these numbers, go to treasury.gov.
Scroll all the way down to the "Bureaus" section and click on "Bureau of the Public Debt" which takes you to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."
For each year, enter the date the fiscal year ended.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 07:56:45 pm

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 08:00:48 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:33:11 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 01:55:13 pm

That6's not to say someone qualified never runs. The Clitons gave us a surplus economically, after all, and everyone looks back fondly on the nineties. Too bad presidents are formally restricted to two terms now (thanks congress!).

Clinton didn't give us surpluses. The debt increased every year he was president.

Now hold on. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:02:22 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 07:56:45 pm

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest.

Yes, there was a great improvement under Clinton. But, it is Congress who writes and passes the budgets. That is a fact. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during Clinton's last six years. That is a fact. Under the Republicans, Congress came very close to balancing the budget.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 08:04:06 pm

Moving the goalposts, are we?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:04:37 pm

wut.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:04:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 07:56:45 pm

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:06:49 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:04:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 07:56:45 pm

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Okay is this guy trollin?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 08:07:28 pm

It also makes sense to inflation-adjust the value of a debt, which none of the figures cited are taking into account.

Given that inflation will ALWAYS be positive unless you're in a recession. Some amount of inflation is both good and necessary for a capitalist system to even function properly. If you can at least balance the budget, the "real world" cost of paying interest each year decreases.

Better still is to look at percentage of GDP of the debt (which is more meaningful than inflation-adjusted figures), which tells you exactly how much relative tax rates would have increase to pay it off. That 1999-2000 Clinton budget with a paper deficit of $17 billion represents a big drop in total debt value in both inflation-adjusted terms and GDP terms.

Just a little thing called "actual value" you might be interested in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 08:08:11 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:06:49 pm

Okay is this guy trollin?

Yeah.  Either make a sarcastic one liner or ignore him because you're not going to get any actual discussion out of him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 08:14:59 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:33:11 pm

Clinton didn't give us surpluses. The debt increased every year he was president.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:46:51 pm

Fiscal Year - Year Ending - National Debt Deficit
FY1993  09/30/1993  $4.411488 trillion   
FY1994  09/30/1994  $4.692749 trillion  $281.26 billion
FY1995  09/29/1995  $4.973982 trillion  $281.23 billion
FY1996  09/30/1996  $5.224810 trillion  $250.83 billion
FY1997  09/30/1997  $5.413146 trillion  $188.34 billion
FY1998  09/30/1998  $5.526193 trillion  $113.05 billion
FY1999  09/30/1999  $5.656270 trillion  $130.08 billion
FY2000  09/29/2000  $5.674178 trillion  $17.91 billion
FY2001  09/28/2001  $5.807463 trillion  $133.29 billion

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:02:22 pm

Yes, there was a great improvement under Clinton. But, it is Congress who writes and passes the budgets. That is a fact. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during Clinton's last six years. That is a fact. Under the Republicans, Congress came very close to balancing the budget.

(http://files.myfrogbag.com/60wgnj/joe.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 03, 2012, 08:19:28 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 08:08:11 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:06:49 pm

Okay is this guy trollin?

Yeah.  Either make a sarcastic one liner or ignore him because you're not going to get any actual discussion out of him.

*Sarcasm Senses twitch*

Perhaps he's refering to Factistan, Where all sorts of facts are sold to whomever wants one to suit them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 08:35:15 pm

Kon, were you not alive or not old enough to remember Clinton's presidency? I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and I remember Clinton running a budget surplus for his last term or so, and that he left office with a budget surplus, I remember the media talking about it rather a lot, I remember the dot com bubble bursting (or the media's blabbering about it, anyhow), and I definitely remember 9/11, and what America was like before it, and the budget surplus turning into a deficit after President Bush got his hands on the ship of state, and the deficits skyrocketing due to Bush's wars and deficit spending on them, on tax cuts, etc. I also remember the sudden Republican opposition to deficit spending as soon as Bush had left office. It wasn't an issue for them before, but after 2008, it was a violation of their most closely held principles! We have always been at war with Eastasia Deficit Spending.

Considering that you've found a government website whose raw numbers have the appearance of disagreeing with history, I would posit that rather than those numbers being wrong, it is more likely that you are misunderstanding how they are supposed to be read (for example, perhaps the deficit as normally reported may not include interest, whereas the debt listed on that government website almost certainly includes debt accumulated as a result of interest payments).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:43:23 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 03, 2012, 08:19:28 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 08:08:11 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:06:49 pm

Okay is this guy trollin?

Yeah.  Either make a sarcastic one liner or ignore him because you're not going to get any actual discussion out of him.

*Sarcasm Senses twitch*

Perhaps he's refering to Factistan, Where all sorts of facts are sold to whomever wants one to suit them.

I presented the Treasury Departments own numbers on the debt and showed how you can look up those numbers on the Treasury Dept's own web site. It is not really that big a deal if there was a slight deficit or a slight surplus during those years. It is amusing that y'all are arguing that I am wrong to say there were no surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress and that there really were surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress. It is Congress who writes and passes the budgets, and the Republican's controlled both the House and the Senate for Clinton's last six years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 03, 2012, 08:48:18 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:33:11 pm

Clinton didn't give us surpluses. The debt increased every year he was president.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:02:22 pm

Yes, there was a great improvement under Clinton. But, it is Congress who writes and passes the budgets. That is a fact. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during Clinton's last six years. That is a fact. Under the Republicans, Congress came very close to balancing the budget.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:04:53 pm

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:43:23 pm

I presented the Treasury Departments own numbers on the debt and showed how you can look up those numbers on the Treasury Dept's own web site. It is not really that big a deal if there was a slight deficit or a slight surplus during those years. It is amusing that y'all are arguing that I am wrong to say there were no surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress and that there really were surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress. It is Congress who writes and passes the budgets, and the Republican's controlled both the House and the Senate for Clinton's last six years.

Did you really just change your argument three times within the past 2 hours? Because from where I'm standing you seem to be saying that Clinton increased the debt during his presidency, and then turning around and saying that the Republican Congress created a surplus during those exact same years. So which one is it? Did Clinton increase the debt or did the Republican's create a surplus? I'm only asking because those two options are mutually exclusive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 03, 2012, 08:48:44 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 08:35:15 pm

Kon, were you not alive or not old enough to remember Clinton's presidency? I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and I remember Clinton running a budget surplus for his last term or so, and that he left office with a budget surplus, I remember the media talking about it rather a lot, I remember the dot com bubble bursting (or the media's blabbering about it, anyhow), and I definitely remember 9/11, and what America was like before it, and the budget surplus turning into a deficit after President Bush got his hands on the ship of state, and the deficits skyrocketing due to Bush's wars and deficit spending on them, on tax cuts, etc. I also remember the sudden Republican opposition to deficit spending as soon as Bush had left office. It wasn't an issue for them before, but after 2008, it was a violation of their most closely held principles! We have always been at war with Eastasia Deficit Spending.

Considering that you've found a government website whose raw numbers have the appearance of disagreeing with history, I would posit that rather than those numbers being wrong, it is more likely that you are misunderstanding how they are supposed to be read (for example, perhaps the deficit as normally reported may not include interest, whereas the debt listed on that government website almost certainly includes debt accumulated as a result of interest payments).

His views are somewhat contradictory, but his facts are correct. Overall government debt under Clinton didn't drop, it was just shifted around to give the appearance of a surplus. Certainly, deficit spending decreased at points, but not consistently and not steadily.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 08:51:45 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 03, 2012, 08:48:18 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:33:11 pm

[stuff]

Did you really just change your argument three times within the past 2 hours? Because from where I'm standing you seem to be saying that Clinton increased the debt during his presidency, and then turning around and saying that the Republican Congress created a surplus during those exact same years. So which one is it? Did Clinton increase the debt or did the Republican's create a surplus? I'm only asking because those two options are mutually exclusive.

He said the same thing three times, and "they came close to balancing the budget, but still had a deficit instead of a surplus" the other time, which is essentially the same thing. He wasn't contradicting himself.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 03, 2012, 08:48:44 pm

His views are somewhat contradictory, but his facts are correct. Overall government debt under Clinton didn't drop, it was just shifted around to give the appearance of a surplus. Certainly, deficit spending decreased at points, but not consistently and not steadily.

Please explain (because "giving the appearance of a surplus" is an intriguing idea, and I would like to see your evidence).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 03, 2012, 08:56:40 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:06:49 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:04:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 07:56:45 pm

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Okay is this guy trollin?

Definitely trolling. Two posts before that one he admitted that the debt did decrease.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 08:57:23 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to welcome you to this debate.  The proposition: "This house believes that the fiscal deficit and debt worsened during the Clinton presidency".

I call upon the first speaker for the proposition to open the case.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:33:11 pm

Clinton didn't give us surpluses. The debt increased every year he was president.

I thank you for your comments.  I now call upon the opposition to outline their reasons for rejecting this statement.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:02:22 pm

there was a great improvement under Clinton. But, it is Congress who writes and passes the budgets. That is a fact. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during Clinton's last six years. That is a fact. Under the Republicans, Congress came very close to balancing the budget.

Thank you.  I now call upon the second speaker for the proposition to rebutt the points made by the opposition, and to close their case.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:04:53 pm

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Good work.  I now ask the second speaker for the opposition to provide the closing remarks for his side.

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:43:23 pm

It is not really that big a deal if there was a slight deficit or a slight surplus during those years.

Thank you all for your speeches.  Please wait while we decide the results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 03, 2012, 08:58:50 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 03, 2012, 08:56:40 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:06:49 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:04:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 07:56:45 pm

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Okay is this guy trollin?

Definitely trolling. Two posts before that one he admitted that the debt did decrease.

Plus, he selectively choose to answer my ridiculous argument instead of the others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 03, 2012, 08:59:20 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 08:51:45 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 03, 2012, 08:48:18 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 07:33:11 pm

[stuff]

Did you really just change your argument three times within the past 2 hours? Because from where I'm standing you seem to be saying that Clinton increased the debt during his presidency, and then turning around and saying that the Republican Congress created a surplus during those exact same years. So which one is it? Did Clinton increase the debt or did the Republican's create a surplus? I'm only asking because those two options are mutually exclusive.

He said the same thing three times, and "they came close to balancing the budget, but still had a deficit instead of a surplus" the other time, which is essentially the same thing. He wasn't contradicting himself.

Ah, I was misreading the second quote then. However part of his latest post does seems to indicate that there were surpluses. But that post also seems to be from a land where Bay12 is arguing that the Clinton years saw an increase in the deficit, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his actual post was switched with one from an alternate dimension.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:00:56 pm

I think what's more telling is that any bad aspect is laid at the feet of Bill Clinton, then as soon as you point out any good aspect, he trots out "The Congress controlled the deficit, not the president". And now that there's a Democrat again, and a Republican Congress: "The president controlled the deficit, not the Congress".

A massive decrease in the deficit under Clinton, is clearly only due to the Republicans controlling Congress. A massive increase in the deficit under Obama, is clearly only due to Obama, and has nothing to do with the Republicans controlling Congress.

Very convenient logic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 03, 2012, 09:01:43 pm

Should we ask him how the deficit was doing under Reagan, just for kicks?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

That was the Democrats fault, because they controlled congress. Haven't you learnt that the fault always lies with whichever branch of government is currently controlled by the Democrats? And any good news is clearly due to whichever branch of government is controlled by the Republicans.

Reagan deficit - purely the fault of Democrats in congress.

Reagan tax cuts - purely due to Reagan's great thinking.
Reagan Arms buildup / outpacing the Soviets - also no thanks to congress and their deficit.

See how easy it is when you learn the correct way of thinking?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 03, 2012, 09:13:39 pm

I think I understand!

It's like this, Let's say I make $1000 a month. Let's then say I have to pay $990 a month in expenses.

With me so far? $1000 in, $990 out.
This is a surplus of $10

Now I decide to buy an xbox, at a whopping $200!

Well, I now have a deficit of $190.

Now I cannot claim to have a surplus, because I am carrying 190 dollars that month in debt.
Nor the next month, where I carry 180 dollars in debt.

So, no surplus for 18 more months. I think that is what he is trying to say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 09:19:20 pm

Fucking Democrats, buying consoles and ruining everything for everyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:20:18 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

That was the Democrats fault, because they controlled congress. Haven't you learnt that the fault always lies with whichever branch of government is currently controlled by the Democrats? And any good news is clearly due to whichever branch of government is controlled by the Republicans.

Reagan deficit - purely the fault of Democrats in congress.

Reagan tax cuts - purely due to Reagan's great thinking.
Reagan Arms buildup / outpacing the Soviets - also no thanks to congress and their deficit.

See how easy it is when you learn the correct way of thinking?

I would like to add that the Democrats took over both the House and the Senate at the beginning of Bush's 7th year. That's the year that Obama became a Senator. At that time unemplyment was low and budget deficits were low. Aroung the 9th month of Bush's 7th year, the stock market hit an all time high -- not a 52-week high or 10-year high -- but an all-time high. Since the stock market is supposed to predict the economy about 6-months in advance, the economy was looking very good when the Dems took over Congress. The huge deficits run up during Bush's last two years were done by a Democratically-controlled Congress of which Obama was a member. Obama voted for the budgets those two years and then accused Bush of running up the budget deficts. Just sayin'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 03, 2012, 09:22:20 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 03, 2012, 08:58:50 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 03, 2012, 08:56:40 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 03, 2012, 08:06:49 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 08:04:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 07:56:45 pm

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Okay is this guy trollin?

Definitely trolling. Two posts before that one he admitted that the debt did decrease.

Plus, he selectively choose to answer my ridiculous argument instead of the others.

Hey, Still applies!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:28:00 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:20:18 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

That was the Democrats fault, because they controlled congress. Haven't you learnt that the fault always lies with whichever branch of government is currently controlled by the Democrats? And any good news is clearly due to whichever branch of government is controlled by the Republicans.

Reagan deficit - purely the fault of Democrats in congress.

Reagan tax cuts - purely due to Reagan's great thinking.
Reagan Arms buildup / outpacing the Soviets - also no thanks to congress and their deficit.

See how easy it is when you learn the correct way of thinking?

I would like to add that the Democrats took over both the House and the Senate at the beginning of Bush's 7th year. That's the year that Obama became a Senator. At that time unemplyment was low and budget deficits were low. Aroung the 9th month of Bush's 7th year, the stock market hit an all time high -- not a 52-week high or 10-year high -- but an all-time high. Since the stock market is supposed to predict the economy about 6-months in advance, the economy was looking very good when the Dems took over Congress. The huge deficits run up during Bush's last two years were done by a Democratically-controlled Congress of which Obama was a member. Obama voted for the budgets those two years and then accused Bush of running up the budget deficts. Just sayin'.

Your "just sayin'" is clearly delusional if you think the Democrats being in control of the Congress for 6 months caused the entire Credit Crisis. By the time the crisis was really starting in mid 2007, they were still working off the last years 100% Republican-passed budget.

That crisis was years in the making, and much of it can be directly linked back to legislation drawn up and passed by Republicans.

Markets ALWAYS hit a peak just before the crash. That's why they're called "bubbles". Excessively high prices are unsustainable, stock markets LEAP up due to fraudulent "on paper" company values. the market peaks, then reality sinks in, and everything collapses.

===

Also, you're contradicting yourself, since you're saying the deficits in the late Bush years were Congress' fault, but you now absolve Congress of any fault and blame the President. it's that same shifty logic I was talking about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 09:31:26 pm

So, speaking of asinine lines of thought: How China came to own the US, the political ad. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3WE6iAhHg) Featuring: Inaccurate and racist portrayal of Chinese as 'others' who are out to take us over.

This is the group who brought it to my local airwaves: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Government_Waste (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Government_Waste) The 'Citizens against government waste' group, [to quote sourcewatch] "Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is non-profit group that has campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry and in favour of Microsoft and against open source software."

Also; founded by a man named J. Peter Grace, a man who "was involved in Project Paperclip -- a post World War II CIA arrangement to remove classified information from dossiers so that former SS members and 900+ Nazi scientists could emigrate to the U. S. Hundreds of war criminals would find employment within government agencies and companies such as W.R. Grace chemical company whose president was J. Peter Grace."

Ah, I love America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 03, 2012, 09:33:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 09:19:20 pm

Fucking Democrats, buying consoles and ruining everything for everyone.

They need SOMETHING to use on those 90" HDTVs they looted in the wake of the Hurricane. Otherwise what good is redistributing the wealth?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:40:23 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:28:00 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:20:18 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:04:11 pm

That was the Democrats fault, because they controlled congress. Haven't you learnt that the fault always lies with whichever branch of government is currently controlled by the Democrats? And any good news is clearly due to whichever branch of government is controlled by the Republicans.

Reagan deficit - purely the fault of Democrats in congress.

Reagan tax cuts - purely due to Reagan's great thinking.
Reagan Arms buildup / outpacing the Soviets - also no thanks to congress and their deficit.

See how easy it is when you learn the correct way of thinking?

I would like to add that the Democrats took over both the House and the Senate at the beginning of Bush's 7th year. That's the year that Obama became a Senator. At that time unemplyment was low and budget deficits were low. Aroung the 9th month of Bush's 7th year, the stock market hit an all time high -- not a 52-week high or 10-year high -- but an all-time high. Since the stock market is supposed to predict the economy about 6-months in advance, the economy was looking very good when the Dems took over Congress. The huge deficits run up during Bush's last two years were done by a Democratically-controlled Congress of which Obama was a member. Obama voted for the budgets those two years and then accused Bush of running up the budget deficts. Just sayin'.

Your "just sayin'" is clearly delusional if you think the Democrats being in control of the Congress for 6 months caused the entire Credit Crisis. By the time the crisis was really starting in mid 2007, they were still working off the last years 100% Republican-passed budget.

That crisis was years in the making, and much of it can be directly linked back to legislation drawn up and passed by Republicans.

Markets ALWAYS hit a peak just before the crash. That's why they're called "bubbles".

For four straight years. the Dems controlled both the House and Senate. During the 1st two, Obama was a Senator. During the 2nd two, he was President. Six years later, Obama is still blaming the Republicans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on November 03, 2012, 09:43:24 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 09:31:26 pm

So, speaking of asinine lines of thought: How China came to own the US, the political ad. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3WE6iAhHg) Featuring: Inaccurate and racist portrayal of Chinese as 'others' who are out to take us over.

This is the group who brought it to my local airwaves: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Government_Waste (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Government_Waste) The 'Citizens against government waste' group, [to quote sourcewatch] "Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is non-profit group that has campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry and in favour of Microsoft and against open source software."

Also; founded by a man named J. Peter Grace, a man who "was involved in Project Paperclip -- a post World War II CIA arrangement to remove classified information from dossiers so that former SS members and 900+ Nazi scientists could emigrate to the U. S. Hundreds of war criminals would find employment within government agencies and companies such as W.R. Grace chemical company whose president was J. Peter Grace."

Ah, I love America.

My favorite part of that video is how it looks like he has a lollipop stick sticking out of his mouth 50% of the time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 09:44:23 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:40:23 pm

For four straight years. the Dems controlled both the House and Senate. During the 1st two, Obama was a Senator. During the 2nd two, he was President. Six years later, Obama is still blaming the Republicans.

Wait, this explains everything.  Kon is actually from 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 09:47:16 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 09:44:23 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:40:23 pm

For four straight years. the Dems controlled both the House and Senate. During the 1st two, Obama was a Senator. During the 2nd two, he was President. Six years later, Obama is still blaming the Republicans.

Wait, this explains everything.  Kon is actually from 2016.

Hey Kon, do us a favor and send us the stock market printouts from the last four years and two months.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 03, 2012, 09:49:32 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 09:44:23 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:40:23 pm

For four straight years. the Dems controlled both the House and Senate. During the 1st two, Obama was a Senator. During the 2nd two, he was President. Six years later, Obama is still blaming the Republicans.

Wait, this explains everything.  Kon is actually from 2016.

Probably a time traveler come to save us from the 2012 Mayan Obamacalypse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 03, 2012, 09:51:11 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 09:47:16 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 09:44:23 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:40:23 pm

For four straight years. the Dems controlled both the House and Senate. During the 1st two, Obama was a Senator. During the 2nd two, he was President. Six years later, Obama is still blaming the Republicans.

Wait, this explains everything.  Kon is actually from 2016.

Hey Kon, do us a favor and send us the stock market printouts from the last four years and two months.

And the winning lottery numbers!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on November 03, 2012, 09:51:57 pm

Even if he is a troll, it isn't very conductive to the mood in this thread if you guys just jump all over him the whole time, especially since people who are republicans and aren't trolls may feel discouraged from posting here (even more then they already are). Just ignore him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:52:48 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 03, 2012, 09:44:23 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 09:40:23 pm

For four straight years. the Dems controlled both the House and Senate. During the 1st two, Obama was a Senator. During the 2nd two, he was President. Six years later, Obama is still blaming the Republicans.

Wait, this explains everything.  Kon is actually from 2016.

Six years ago Obama became a Senator and the Democrats took over both the House and Senate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 09:54:31 pm

http://thenewstalkers.com/forum/topics/the-republican-roots-of-the-subprime-crisis?page=1&commentId=6450411%3AComment%3A135980&x=1#6450411Comment135980

This explain why we still blame the Republicans:

Quote

It was the Gramm Leach Bliley Act that allowed banks to deal in mortgage-backed securities. Without passage of the GLBA by a Republican-controlled Congress, the subprime mess couldn't have happened. Chief architect of the GLBA? John McCain's economic adviser, Phil Gramm. Yes, that Phil Gramm. The GLBA was passed on a vote split along party lines (John McCain voted "aye," by the way).

^ Created by Republicans, voted FOR by Republicans, directly and solely caused the subprime mortgage crash to crash the ENTIRE economy, rather than a localized problem.

Quote

In 2002, the President issued America's Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment.

^"first home" was defined as not having owned a home within the last 5 years, and you could even get a loan with a bad credit rating and you never got your act together for a downpayment, something which was purely a Bush Administration idea. Also, minorities are more at risk of losing their jobs in a recession.

From a freaking BUSH SPEECH:

Quote

One of the barriers to homeownership is the inability to make a downpayment. And if one of the goals is to increase homeownership, it makes sense to help people pay that downpayment.

    ... And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.

    This means they will purchase more loans made by banks after Americans, Hispanics and other minorities, which will encourage homeownership. Freddie Mac will launch 25 initiatives to eliminate homeownership barriers. Under one of these, consumers with poor credit will be able to get a mortgage with an interest rate that automatically goes down after a period of consistent payments.

^ Bush suckering poor people into getting variable-rate mortgages.

Quote

Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

^ Bush eliminating statutory downpayments on mortgages.

Quote

President Bush's "America's Home Ownership Challenge" pushed the private lending sector (as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to make more than 5.5 million new minority and low income mortgage loans. To meet his challenge to the private lending industry, twenty four of our largest banking and lending companies pledged to make 1.1 trillion dollars in low income and minority loans. Bush's "America's Home Ownership Challenge" pushed private lenders to "create more creative" loan products, and encouraged them to "loosen underwriting standards." In the Bush press release "A Home of Your Own EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL AMERICANS, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH JUNE 2002", the administration even pushed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to increase the capital available for such loans--

^ Bush whipping industry to reduce underwriting standards on mortgages.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 09:57:31 pm

If China want's to take over the U.S, I feel sorry for China.

Not because it's impossible they'd win, but because I think America would ingest their culture and shit it out on the sidewalk in front of their house. Not to mention they'd seriously over extend themselves and the U.S would never ever ever submit to foriegn rule of any sort. China is a center culture, but we are too. There would be way to many repercussions of taking over the U.S fiscally or politically or militarily or whatever.

China doesn't want to take over the U.S. They're happy having another stick to drive us around with, they don't want the responsibility of holding our leash.

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years. Maybe to keep up with Japan? I've noticed the big powers seem to move west, and the only place west of the U.S is East Asia. Japan could well be the next centre of Learning, if they aren't already. Lucky us, to have them as our national Girlfriend._{I suppose it could be China too, but they don't seem the type. South Korea? Nah, too much Starcraft. :P}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 03, 2012, 10:00:46 pm

Quote from: lemon10 on November 03, 2012, 09:43:24 pm

My favorite part of that video is how it looks like he has a lollipop stick sticking out of his mouth 50% of the time.

It feels like they were trying their hardest to make him seem like an anime bad guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 10:03:26 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 09:57:31 pm

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 10:06:46 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 10:03:26 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 09:57:31 pm

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

No no, I mean the commercial.

Also I didn't realize they'd ever been our friend. I was pretty sure we disliked them even when they were on our side in WWII against the Japanese.

The commercial struck me as being way advanced for what looked like a perfectly normal keynote. Maybe it was the Chinese version of Microsoft?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 03, 2012, 10:07:11 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 09:57:31 pm

If China want's to take over the U.S, I feel sorry for China.

Not because it's impossible they'd win, but because I think America would ingest their culture and shit it out on the sidewalk in front of their house. Not to mention they'd seriously over extend themselves and the U.S would never ever ever submit to foriegn rule of any sort. China is a center culture, but we are too. There would be way to many repercussions of taking over the U.S fiscally or politically or militarily or whatever.

China doesn't want to take over the U.S. They're happy having another stick to drive us around with, they don't want the responsibility of holding our leash.

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years. Maybe to keep up with Japan? I've noticed the big powers seem to move west, and the only place west of the U.S is East Asia. Japan could well be the next centre of Learning, if they aren't already. Lucky us, to have them as our national Girlfriend._{I suppose it could be China too, but they don't seem the type. South Korea? Nah, too much Starcraft. :P}

Simply in terms of economic power, probably Japan if not china.

I also wonder why china Is often cited as about to "take over". The economic cost alone would be enormous, possibly tanking the entirety of the world economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 10:18:04 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 10:06:46 pm

I was pretty sure we disliked them even when they were on our side in WWII against the Japanese.

During WWII China was divided between the Nationalists, who we preferred, and the Communists, who we didn't. The latter ended up taking over after the war and the former holed up on the island of Taiwan, where they have remained ever since. However, during the war itself they were in ceasefire to fight Japan.

The US hadn't completely emerged from its isolationist shell at the time, so our preference for the nationalists wasn't all-consuming or anything. It was a low-key issue with the Axis around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 10:23:47 pm

China started their current modernization drive in 1978. So they've really been driving things up for 35 years, not 20. It's just that prior to the mid 1990's the west basically wrote them off. Smug racism played a part, just like how the 1950's - 1970's generation scoffed at Japan.

Then we "suddenly" noticed that China was pretty damn powerful economically. Now, we hear "well, they may be industrious but their products are crap, and they can only copy. Monkey see, monkey do".

But this is the EXACT thing people said about Japan right before their economy took off. China sells America crap because that's the optimal "price point". If Americans valued quality, China would make higher quality products.

A similar thing happened with Japanese cars in the mid 1980's. Reagan tried protectionism against the cheap shitty Japanese imported cars, by imposing quotas. Japan immediately stopped importing cheap cars and made luxury cars instead. Hell, if you can only sell 100,000 units a year, they might as well be sports cars. America failed to realize that Japan was quite capable of NOT producing shit-box cars, but they were doing so purely because it was the most profitable thing to do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 03, 2012, 10:25:43 pm

We were providing support to the Nationalists, and they were doing the vast majority of the fighting and sustained the vast majority of the combat losses _{(unless you are in China, apparently)}. After the war Mao's communists were in a stronger position and were able to take over, with the assistance of the Soviet Union.

(We were also allied with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany during WWII. Stalin was almost as bad as Hitler (but better at keeping it a secret), but I don't think anyone but Hitler wanted to invade the USSR, so...)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 10:27:36 pm

Patton wanted to invade the USSR after we were done with the Axis, but he was kind of crazy and wanted to invade everyone. His plan involved using many nukes and enslaving the Germans to make up for our manpower disadvantage.

But then he died in a car crash.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 03, 2012, 10:29:31 pm

Patton would have done well as a strategy gamer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 03, 2012, 10:36:10 pm

Quote

Please explain (because "giving the appearance of a surplus" is an intriguing idea, and I would like to see your evidence).

He decreased public debt each year, yet he did so by increasing intragovernmental debt, in short, borrowing from other government programs, especially Social Security (The treasury website I believe Kon provided has the necessary information, and a google search would suffice if not). At no point did the public debt "surplus" overtake the overall deficit, so to say Clinton ever ran a surplus would be untrue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 10:39:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 10:03:26 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 09:57:31 pm

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

A stronger Chinese economy is good for the United States. A stronger U.S. economy is good for China. I don't like either Romney or Obama bashing China for political gain. Mostly, they seem to be trying to one-up each other on being anti-China. In the last debate though, Romney brought up his promise to declare China a currency manipulator on his 1st day in office. Obama responded, correctly, that the Yuan has been going up, not down, versus the U.S. dollar.

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-charts/?CA=0&CB=0&CC=0&CD=0&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&C5=0&C5D=0&C6=0&C7=0&C7D=0&C8=0&C9=0&CF=0&D8=0&DB=0&DC=0&D9=0&DA=0&D1=0&symbol=%2fCNYUSD&SZ=0&PT=8

Actually, if the Chinese were depreciating the Yuan, I wouldn't mind at all. It means their goods would cost less. This is bad for businesses competing with Chinese exporters, but it is good for just about everyone else. If you were buying something  from China, and the Chinese company offered you a 10% discount, would you say "No thanks, I would rather pay more?"

The ones helped most by a cheap Yuan are the poor. If I have to pay a 5% or 10% more for something from China, it won't affect me nearly as much as it would affect a poor person.

Anyway, it is not a zero-sum game. People seem to think that the better China's economy does, the worse it is for the U.S.

Also, the more dependent on each other's economies the U.S. and China become, the less the chance of a military confrontation.

China has come a long way in moving toward a capitalist economy (that's good, by the way). But they still have a long way to go in regards to individuial freedoms. I believe that, as their middle class continues to grow and become more affluent, they will demand and get more individual freedom.

By the way, having seen the future, I recommend you buy YINN. It's going to triple in the next two years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 03, 2012, 10:44:08 pm

Yeah, you're right about China. Hell, the Marshall Plan and related European aid were specifically enacted so that the American industries that grew during WWII would have some customers to export stuff to. You don't do much business if everyone else is bankrupt.

China props up America through buying US treasuries, even though they're returning LESS than you put in, due to the interest being lower than inflation. They do that for the same reason US gave aid after WWII.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 03, 2012, 10:47:59 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 10:39:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 03, 2012, 10:03:26 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 03, 2012, 09:57:31 pm

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

A stronger Chinese economy is good for the United States. A stronger U.S. economy is good for China. I don't like either Romney or Obama bashing China for political gain. Mostly, they seem to be trying to one-up each other on being anti-China. In the last debate though, Romney brought up his promise to declare China a currency manipulator on his 1st day in office. Obama responded, correctly, that the Yuan has been going up, not down, versus the U.S. dollar.

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-charts/?CA=0&CB=0&CC=0&CD=0&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&C5=0&C5D=0&C6=0&C7=0&C7D=0&C8=0&C9=0&CF=0&D8=0&DB=0&DC=0&D9=0&DA=0&D1=0&symbol=%2fCNYUSD&SZ=0&PT=8

Actually, if the Chinese were depreciating the Yuan, I wouldn't mind at all. It means their goods would cost less. This is bad for businesses competing with Chinese exporters, but it is good for just about everyone else. If you were buying something  from China, and the Chinese company offered you a 10% discount, would you say "No thanks, I would rather pay more?"

The ones helped most by a cheap Yuan are the poor. If I have to pay a 5% or 10% more for something from China, it won't affect me nearly as much as it would affect a poor person.

Anyway, it is not a zero-sum game. People seem to think that the better China's economy does, the worse it is for the U.S.

Also, the more dependent on each other's economies the U.S. and China become, the less the chance of a military confrontation.

China has come a long way in moving toward a capitalist economy (that's good, by the way). But they still have a long way to go in regards to individuial freedoms. I believe that, as their middle class continues to grow and become more affluent, they will demand and get more individual freedom.

By the way, having seen the future, I recommend you buy YINN. It's going to triple in the next two years.

However, if America exports all their manufacturing jobs to China, they won't have a functional economy because all current economic models require growth in order to continue. Without manufacturing their can be no growth in the economy because nothing is being produced. Thus a weak yuan is damaging to the US economy.

Canada saw this exact thing play out. For years our dollar was 60-70 cents US, so we produced lots of goods and shipped them to America to sell, but lately our dollar has jumped up to parity and all these manufacturing plants have closed. While the increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the USD was not the only contributing factor, it certainly wasn't a small one either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 03, 2012, 11:28:32 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 03, 2012, 10:47:59 pm

However, if America exports all their manufacturing jobs to China, they won't have a functional economy because all current economic models require growth in order to continue. Without manufacturing their can be no growth in the economy because nothing is being produced. Thus a weak yuan is damaging to the US economy.

Canada saw this exact thing play out. For years our dollar was 60-70 cents US, so we produced lots of goods and shipped them to America to sell, but lately our dollar has jumped up to parity and all these manufacturing plants have closed. While the increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the USD was not the only contributing factor, it certainly wasn't a small one either.

Certainly what the U.S. economy needs most is growth.

But it seems the U.S. is intentionally trying to devalue the dollar while accusing China of devaluing the Yuan even though the U.S. dollar has been going down versus the Yuan.

My main point is that too many people see global economics as a zero-sum game. Trade is good for both sides. It is not the case that China doing well economically is bad for the U.S. Let me said ahead of time that don't I mean to come across as lecturing -- you may well be more knowledable about trade them I am. But, let's say country A has lots of apples but no bananas, and country B has lots of bananas but no apples. They can trade apples for bananas, and both be trading something of lower value for something of greater value. For country A, apples are cheap because they are plentiful, and bananas are expensive because they are rare. Same thing applies if you are buying rather than bartering. There is a price range such that country A can buy bananas for a price in that range from country B, who can then buy apples with the cash from country A and both come out ahead. In each transaction, the buyer is paying less than the product is worth and the seller is selling the product for more than it is worth. This only works because it is not a zero sum game -- worth is relative.

There are products that China can make much more cheaply than we can. We should see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. If a business or individual buys stuff from China because it is cheaper than buying the same stuff from others, they have more money with which to buy other things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkflagrance on November 04, 2012, 03:49:04 am

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 11:28:32 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 03, 2012, 10:47:59 pm

However, if America exports all their manufacturing jobs to China, they won't have a functional economy because all current economic models require growth in order to continue. Without manufacturing their can be no growth in the economy because nothing is being produced. Thus a weak yuan is damaging to the US economy.

Canada saw this exact thing play out. For years our dollar was 60-70 cents US, so we produced lots of goods and shipped them to America to sell, but lately our dollar has jumped up to parity and all these manufacturing plants have closed. While the increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the USD was not the only contributing factor, it certainly wasn't a small one either.

Certainly what the U.S. economy needs most is growth.

But it seems the U.S. is intentionally trying to devalue the dollar while accusing China of devaluing the Yuan even though the U.S. dollar has been going down versus the Yuan.

My main point is that too many people see global economics as a zero-sum game. Trade is good for both sides. It is not the case that China doing well economically is bad for the U.S. Let me said ahead of time that don't I mean to come across as lecturing -- you may well be more knowledable about trade them I am. But, let's say country A has lots of apples but no bananas, and country B has lots of bananas but no apples. They can trade apples for bananas, and both be trading something of lower value for something of greater value. For country A, apples are cheap because they are plentiful, and bananas are expensive because they are rare. Same thing applies if you are buying rather than bartering. There is a price range such that country A can buy bananas for a price in that range from country B, who can then buy apples with the cash from country A and both come out ahead. In each transaction, the buyer is paying less than the product is worth and the seller is selling the product for more than it is worth. This only works because it is not a zero sum game -- worth is relative.

There are products that China can make much more cheaply than we can. We should see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. If a business or individual buys stuff from China because it is cheaper than buying the same stuff from others, they have more money with which to buy other things.

It makes me wonder to whose interest it will be to raise the spectre of fear against China. There is no question that the prospect of increased outsourcing and competition from China will be lucrative political capital to those able to harness it. On the other hand, they would theoretically be harming the interests of business and trade.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on November 04, 2012, 05:02:53 am

Quote from: Kon on November 03, 2012, 10:39:23 pm

By the way, having seen the future, I recommend you buy YINN. It's going to triple in the next two years.

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSEARCA:YINN (https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSEARCA:YINN)

Which means that it'll just about reach its April 21, 2011 value in two years. That's not horrible, I guess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 04, 2012, 09:43:22 am

It's interesting that the debate over who was to credit for the Clinton surplus was vigorously debate but nobody mentioned what actually caused it: a big ole tax hike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993).  The result of which was: taxes became a much bigger share of GDP. (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=FYFR_GDPA&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1980-01-01&coed=2012-09-29&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a%2Fb%2F1000&fq=Annual&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin_lin&vintage_date=2012-11-04_2012-11-04&revision_date=2012-11-04_2012-11-04&nd=1990-01-01_)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 04, 2012, 10:23:59 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 04, 2012, 09:43:22 am

It's interesting that the debate over who was to credit for the Clinton surplus was vigorously debate but nobody mentioned what actually caused it: a big ole tax hike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993).  The result of which was: taxes became a much bigger share of GDP. (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=FYFR_GDPA&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1980-01-01&coed=2012-09-29&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a%2Fb%2F1000&fq=Annual&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin_lin&vintage_date=2012-11-04_2012-11-04&revision_date=2012-11-04_2012-11-04&nd=1990-01-01_)

Seems you missed that past 3 pages.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: scriver on November 04, 2012, 10:38:22 am

No, his point was that during the discussion, nobody brought that up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 04, 2012, 10:50:30 am

Clinton takes the blame for the tax hike, obviously.

Republican Congress gets the credit for balancing the budget.

I'm amazed that some people here still haven't learnt how to read from the playbook.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 04, 2012, 01:24:41 pm

Just to touch on the anti-China rhetoric...it's a worrying trend. China became a boogeyman for the Right in the mid-90's thanks to some high-profile technology transfers and industrial espionage. It's also a boogeyman for many on the Left over human rights and environmental damage (and outsourcing). I don't like that Obama feels the need to go to the Yellow Peril well from time to time (mostly on outsourcing), but Romney makes me downright facepalm with his rhetoric of treating China as an adversary from Day 1. We have enough fights on our hands without going out and picking another, especially with someone who's a lot bigger than the fights we've been having.

It's also worrying because it plays into the hands of the fenqing ("angry youth") neo-nationalist movement. They're still a relatively small movement out of the mainstream. But if Chinese start hearing the President of the United States holding them up in this overwhelmingly negative light, it's going to validate the message of the fenqing that outside powers are STILL trying to oppress and abuse China and that China is strong enough now that it doesn't have to take this kind of shit from anybody. (gee, who does that sound like in the US?)

With that kind of bellicose rhetoric being flounced around, you're liable to see a trade war, or see China become more aggressive about regional issues like Taiwan or the South Spratleys. They can't challenge the US directly in a military conflict. But they might be willing to force the US's hand in their neighborhood. I don't think anyone in charge in Beijing WANTS a conflict with the US. But popular opinion has a way of snowballing in dangerous ways when you have 1.2 billion people.  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 04, 2012, 01:57:42 pm

I don't see the PRC pushing Taiwan any time soon, due to the speculation of Taiwan possibly having a secret nuclear weapon. Even the question alone will probably get them to back off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 04, 2012, 02:07:39 pm

I don't see Taiwan having a nuke. Not to mention a delivery vehicle. Worst they could do is threaten to incinerate themselves.

FWIW, I don't see the PRC pushing Taiwan either. There's no need to with the KMT back in power and the DPP losing strength. But it's still a remote possibility if a wave of nationalist fervor struck.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 04, 2012, 02:10:58 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 04, 2012, 01:57:42 pm

I don't see the PRC pushing Taiwan any time soon, due to the speculation of Taiwan possibly having a secret nuclear weapon. Even the question alone will probably get them to back off.

And as china knows, Its not wise to aggravate possiblt suicidal nuclear-armed pacific nations.

The Senkaku islands, however, are shaping up to be a confrontation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on November 04, 2012, 02:20:45 pm

Kon, don't take it badly or anything, but your psots about Clinton's deficit (Or your tone rather) remind me of this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/doonesbury-blame-obama.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on November 04, 2012, 02:29:09 pm

So I'm guessing Obama is going to win. Do you guys know what time on Tuesday they will start counting votes?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 04, 2012, 04:46:03 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on November 04, 2012, 02:29:09 pm

So I'm guessing Obama is going to win. Do you guys know what time on Tuesday they will start counting votes?

Most places have the polls close at 8:00 local time. The results won't be announced until all the votes are in... including those of Hawaii, which are UCT-10. So that means it'll be 6:00 AM before the Brits get the news, and 1:00 AM for EST where I live.

That's assuming there are no faithless electors, no recounts, and no lawsuits about results anywhere, in which case the official result could take quite a while. If the election is as close as many are predicting, all of those could be important.

And yes, Obama is probably going to win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on November 04, 2012, 04:53:27 pm

I'm definitely betting on some sort of recount shenanigans going on, ala Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 04, 2012, 04:54:06 pm

My state does vote by mail; does it have to be received by, or postmarked by to count?

(havn't sent it yet); my state is solid Obama anyway, but gay marriage is on the local ballot as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 04, 2012, 04:54:15 pm

Quote from: Toady One on November 03, 2012, 01:02:50 am

I don't imagine this thread is going to see much less activity from now through Tuesday, so I'd appreciate it if people would be extra cautious with their tone.

I stop paying attention to this thread for one day, and this is what I come back to.  I appreciate that the "Biblical arguments" thing got its own thread, which leaves the other guy.  Now would the rest of you stop arguing with that idiot?  Because this post is going in the OP (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3756811#msg3756811).

Speaking of which, I don't see a lot of links to anything from the past six months people would like me to preserve, so I'll probably just type up a "thanks for all the memories" message and stick in there instead.  I honestly miss not having been more talkative over this wacky journey, but eventually I just stopped caring when I got sick of hearing the same non-facts and non-news every goddamn day, and by the time anything interesting started happening holy shit it's the election.

Anyway, yeah despite a statistical shakeup after the first debate, it does look like Obama has a lock on the election.  Especially with this last week, we had Michael Bloomberg endorsing Obama (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html) (for some reason, Google only recommends "bloomberg endorses romney"), and Governor Chris Christie all but endorsing him (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/chris-christie_n_2073341.html) after just a few weeks prior giving some big speech about him being the most incompetent president in history.  Yeah, a lot of people are going to be surprised, but I think history is going to show that people who predicted a year or two ago that Romney was going to sail to nomination as "safe" and then make a lackluster candidate while the Republican party overstepped its 2010 "mandate" and the economy would finally start recovering had it pretty well laid out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 04, 2012, 04:55:23 pm

Quote from: Euld on November 04, 2012, 04:53:27 pm

I'm definitely betting on some sort of recount shenanigans going on, ala Romney.

I'm betting tallys won't match exit polls in areas with machines owned by the Romney family...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EnigmaticHat on November 04, 2012, 05:18:04 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 04, 2012, 04:55:23 pm

Quote from: Euld on November 04, 2012, 04:53:27 pm

I'm definitely betting on some sort of recount shenanigans going on, ala Romney.

I'm betting tallys won't match exit polls in areas with machines owned by the Romney family...

Gah, that thing where Romney has investments in the company that runs voting machines in Ohio terrifies me.  If we have another Florida, I'm going to start worrying about how many consecutive presidents the Republicans could get into office with this sort of trickery. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 04, 2012, 05:28:24 pm

If Colorado's results make no sense guys, it's actually correct.

I mentioned it before that my State is a little wierd. It was dismissed because "so is every other state" (though no other state I can think of has three different distinct regional zones with entirely different and opposing base economies with their own distinctive shifts and views between urban and rural in each region). It also has something about it...
Pot Legalization.

It's a chance to stick it to the Federal Government to some, a right to choose healthcare for others, and something fun to do for others yet again. It's got a lot of support, and a lot of opposition (polls project legalization in Colorado.)
Why does this matter? Because it's a known fact in Colorado that Obama is Anti-pot. So..... Some of my Dem friends are voting Libertarian.
This tuesday's gonna be great. I predict a strong zombie turnout!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 04, 2012, 05:47:42 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 04, 2012, 02:20:45 pm

Kon, don't take it badly or anything, but your psots about Clinton's deficit (Or your tone rather) remind me of this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/doonesbury-blame-obama.jpg)

My belief is that oil and gas prices are almost exclusively due to price and demand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 04, 2012, 05:49:17 pm

To whoever is about to post "Kon, you completely missed the point, this has nothing to do with gas prices", bear in mind that it's as obvious to everyone else as it is to you.  There, I just saved you the trouble.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 04, 2012, 05:57:54 pm

Actually Kon, there are graphs showing that pump prices for oil have little to do with oil production, and everything to do with speculators in the futures / commodities markets. This article is about how Wall Street artificially skyrocketed food prices during the "food crisis", which was neither a crisis of supply or demand, but a crisis of a paper futures trading bubble. The oil price spike is closely related:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/2012/05/28/the-connection-between-commodity-indices-and-oil-prices/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 04, 2012, 06:03:01 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 04, 2012, 05:57:54 pm

Actually Kon, there are graphs showing that pump prices for oil have little to do with oil production, and everything to do with speculators in the futures / commodities markets. This article is about how Wall Street artificially skyrocketed food prices during the "food crisis", which was neither a crisis of supply or demand, but a crisis of a paper futures trading bubble. The oil price spike is closely related:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/2012/05/28/the-connection-between-commodity-indices-and-oil-prices/

Shit like this makes me want to punch professional investors in their faces.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on November 04, 2012, 06:03:36 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 04, 2012, 05:57:54 pm

Actually Kon, there are graphs showing that pump prices for oil have little to do with oil production, and everything to do with speculators in the futures / commodities markets. This article is about how Wall Street artificially skyrocketed food prices during the "food crisis", which was neither a crisis of supply or demand, but a crisis of a paper futures trading bubble. The oil price spike is closely related:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/2012/05/28/the-connection-between-commodity-indices-and-oil-prices/

>:(
Stop feeding him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 04, 2012, 06:05:47 pm

Ignore lists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 04, 2012, 06:09:06 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 04, 2012, 06:03:01 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 04, 2012, 05:57:54 pm

Actually Kon, there are graphs showing that pump prices for oil have little to do with oil production, and everything to do with speculators in the futures / commodities markets. This article is about how Wall Street artificially skyrocketed food prices during the "food crisis", which was neither a crisis of supply or demand, but a crisis of a paper futures trading bubble. The oil price spike is closely related:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/2012/05/28/the-connection-between-commodity-indices-and-oil-prices/

Shit like this makes me want to punch professional investors in their faces.

It'd be better If I could get my hands on Banana futures.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 04, 2012, 06:14:54 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 04, 2012, 06:09:06 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 04, 2012, 06:03:01 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 04, 2012, 05:57:54 pm

Actually Kon, there are graphs showing that pump prices for oil have little to do with oil production, and everything to do with speculators in the futures / commodities markets. This article is about how Wall Street artificially skyrocketed food prices during the "food crisis", which was neither a crisis of supply or demand, but a crisis of a paper futures trading bubble. The oil price spike is closely related:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/2012/05/28/the-connection-between-commodity-indices-and-oil-prices/

Shit like this makes me want to punch professional investors in their faces.

It'd be better If I could get my hands on Banana futures.

Banana futures...or bananas from the future?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 04, 2012, 06:26:02 pm

I'm learning new things from arguments with Kon.

The problem is, some of you guys are letting it get personal. Someone's refusal to recognize simple facts  does not make your statements worthless, or justify personal attacks. As for his insultive behavior, might I suggest thicker skin? It is a good thing if the deliberately and willingly clueless find what you have to say as silly.

But for providing the info to the troll, it's like people who reply to requests for information to "search more". I use forum searches and see lots of instructions to do so with little of whatever I am looking for. It's nice to provide information for others, even if it goes nowhere with the one who sparked it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 04, 2012, 08:14:41 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 04, 2012, 05:57:54 pm

Actually Kon, there are graphs showing that pump prices for oil have little to do with oil production, and everything to do with speculators in the futures / commodities markets. This article is about how Wall Street artificially skyrocketed food prices during the "food crisis", which was neither a crisis of supply or demand, but a crisis of a paper futures trading bubble. The oil price spike is closely related:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/2012/05/28/the-connection-between-commodity-indices-and-oil-prices/

Yet speculators don't have an infinite amount of resources. Goldman would eventually become bankrupt were they literally attempting to go against reality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 04, 2012, 08:15:30 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 04, 2012, 06:26:02 pm

I'm learning new things from arguments with Kon.

The problem is, some of you guys are letting it get personal. Someone's refusal to recognize simple facts  does not make your statements worthless, or justify personal attacks. As for his insultive behavior, might I suggest thicker skin? It is a good thing if the deliberately and willingly clueless find what you have to say as silly.

But for providing the info to the troll, it's like people who reply to requests for information to "search more". I use forum searches and see lots of instructions to do so with little of whatever I am looking for. It's nice to provide information for others, even if it goes nowhere with the one who sparked it.

I regret that I initially responded to insults with insults. I should not have done that. More recently I have been careful not to be disrespectful toward those who are being disrespectful toward me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 04, 2012, 08:45:57 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 04, 2012, 08:15:30 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 04, 2012, 06:26:02 pm

I'm learning new things from arguments with Kon.

The problem is, some of you guys are letting it get personal. Someone's refusal to recognize simple facts  does not make your statements worthless, or justify personal attacks. As for his insultive behavior, might I suggest thicker skin? It is a good thing if the deliberately and willingly clueless find what you have to say as silly.

But for providing the info to the troll, it's like people who reply to requests for information to "search more". I use forum searches and see lots of instructions to do so with little of whatever I am looking for. It's nice to provide information for others, even if it goes nowhere with the one who sparked it.

I regret that I initially responded to insults with insults. I should not have done that. More recently I have been careful not to be disrespectful toward those who are being disrespectful toward me.

I don't think you're a troll, I just think you have a radically different perspective than most on here. Which is a good thing!

Everyone needs to calm down. Sometimes this place can get a little too liberal and it's only by embracing the successes of both sides we can find Utopia.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 04, 2012, 08:56:16 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 04, 2012, 08:45:57 pm

Quote from: Kon on November 04, 2012, 08:15:30 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 04, 2012, 06:26:02 pm

I'm learning new things from arguments with Kon.

The problem is, some of you guys are letting it get personal. Someone's refusal to recognize simple facts  does not make your statements worthless, or justify personal attacks. As for his insultive behavior, might I suggest thicker skin? It is a good thing if the deliberately and willingly clueless find what you have to say as silly.

But for providing the info to the troll, it's like people who reply to requests for information to "search more". I use forum searches and see lots of instructions to do so with little of whatever I am looking for. It's nice to provide information for others, even if it goes nowhere with the one who sparked it.

I regret that I initially responded to insults with insults. I should not have done that. More recently I have been careful not to be disrespectful toward those who are being disrespectful toward me.

I don't think you're a troll, I just think you have a radically different perspective than most on here. Which is a good thing!

Everyone needs to calm down. Sometimes this place can get a little too liberal and it's only by embracing the successes of both sides we can find Utopia.

We can disagree on who has been most insulting or more disrespectful in the past. But I hope that going forward we can refrain from insulting each other and being disrespectful toward each other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 04, 2012, 08:59:37 pm

So..

Why is there no movement for ranked candidates voting or whatever it's called in the US? Our electoral system is so horribly screwed up you would think Americans would be pushing for it harder than anyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 04, 2012, 09:04:46 pm

Because no one cares about anything except their own side winning - the only people who would want it are the sides that will never have enough power to implement it, obviously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 04, 2012, 09:44:20 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 04, 2012, 08:59:37 pm

So..

Why is there no movement for ranked candidates voting or whatever it's called in the US? Our electoral system is so horribly screwed up you would think Americans would be pushing for it harder than anyone.

Instant runoff voting. In a two-party system, who doesn't crush it? And how much clout does that party have?

Our politicians are playing with fire. America currently has a strong tradition of stability, maintaining stability. I think the news explained the danger of this fire with the Florida Gore situation. I'm not sure that if Dems pull a Florida that we won't have blood on the street this time. And third parties and moderates are locked out, because we don't want election spoilers and the powerful don't want reform.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 04, 2012, 09:51:02 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 04, 2012, 09:44:20 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 04, 2012, 08:59:37 pm

So..

Why is there no movement for ranked candidates voting or whatever it's called in the US? Our electoral system is so horribly screwed up you would think Americans would be pushing for it harder than anyone.

Instant runoff voting. In a two-party system, who doesn't crush it? And how much clout does that party have?

Our politicians are playing with fire. America currently has a strong tradition of stability, maintaining stability. I think the news explained the danger of this fire with the Florida Gore situation. I'm not sure that if Dems pull a Florida that we won't have blood on the street this time. And third parties and moderates are locked out, because we don't want election spoilers and the powerful don't want reform.

Considering how hated Obama is, Quite possibly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on November 04, 2012, 09:57:11 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 04, 2012, 09:04:46 pm

Because no one cares about anything except their own side winning - the only people who would want it are the sides that will never have enough power to implement it, obviously.

Thats not true, I think that if a few minutes was spent explaining it to the average voter, 75% of them would accept and agree with it.
Those in power though will never implement it, since it both threatens their job as well as weakening the party they are part of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 04, 2012, 10:37:07 pm

Personally, I think the Republican party just needs to collapse under the combined weight of its' own hypocrisy and strikingly different factions (eg social conservatives, Ron Paul style libertarians and centrists).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: majikero on November 04, 2012, 10:44:57 pm

So how long till the world ends or the voting to finish, whatever it's called?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 04, 2012, 10:47:48 pm

Election's Tuesday, the world doesn't end for a couple of weeks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: majikero on November 04, 2012, 10:52:05 pm

I got it backwards then. I thought the world ends on Tuesday.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 04, 2012, 10:52:12 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 04, 2012, 10:47:48 pm

Election's Tuesday, the world doesn't end for a couple of weeks.

Elegantly put.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 05, 2012, 12:06:50 am

Those whacky republican staffers at it again!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/04/1155594/-Romney-Ryan-Staffers-Falsely-Imprison-Freezing-PA-rally-attendees (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/04/1155594/-Romney-Ryan-Staffers-Falsely-Imprison-Freezing-PA-rally-attendees)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 12:17:00 am

Man, I would have had fun making legal threats against them if I had been there. It would have been utterly bombastic and in my STADIUM ANNOUNCER VOICE TWO THOUSSSANNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 05, 2012, 12:36:16 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 12:17:00 am

Man, I would have had fun making legal threats against them if I had been there. It would have been utterly bombastic and in my STADIUM ANNOUNCER VOICE TWO THOUSSSANNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!!

If you had been there, you would have been planning on voting for Romney. Are you sure that's worth a few BRIAN BLESSED moments? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 12:55:01 am

Don't be silly, I can infiltrate the political rally of a candidate I don't like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 05, 2012, 04:37:51 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 12:55:01 am

Don't be silly, I can infiltrate the political rally of a candidate I don't like.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

With a gun...

OH MY GOSH! It was YOU that they were looking for!
They weren't breaking the law in detaining people, but hunting for an attempted assassin!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 05, 2012, 08:20:24 am

Newest xkcd:

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/poll_watching.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on November 05, 2012, 08:32:37 am

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17613-uaw-charges-romney-with-profiteering-from-auto-bailout

May be of interest to a few of you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 05, 2012, 08:39:35 am

Quote from: RedKing on November 05, 2012, 08:20:24 am

Newest xkcd:

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/poll_watching.png)

I know how that feels.

Anyway, Obama's statistical average versus Romney has grown. He is up from .1 to .6, as significant as that is.  But as this only show a few of the post-Sandy polls, I think it means obama has the momentum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 09:32:39 am

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-says-obama-compromise-judeo-christian-western-045635969--abc-news-politics.html

Cause Obama is totally not a Christian, said the Catholic running mate to a Mormon candidate.

Note that many American protestants (southern baptists in particular) do not consider Mormons nor Catholics to be true Christians.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2012/11/02/10845/ralph-nader-moderates-third-party-presidential-deb/

The final 3rd party debate was held yesterday, moderated by Ralph Nader, an archived video is available.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 09:48:36 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 09:32:39 am

Note that many American protestants (southern baptists in particular) do not consider Mormons nor Catholics to be true Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

Scnr.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 09:54:36 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 09:48:36 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 09:32:39 am

Note that many American protestants (southern baptists in particular) do not consider Mormons nor Catholics to be true Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

Scnr.

You are not wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 05, 2012, 10:01:01 am

I was tired of seeing ridiculous election pamphlets everywhere on campus so I took a couple minutes to throw one together of my own.

Spoiler: Tentative First Draft (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/CAvsr.png)

What do you guys think?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 10:02:46 am

Print 100,000 copies and distribute them in random parking lots.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 10:03:25 am

Needs more tentacles. Just for emphasis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 10:11:20 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 10:03:25 am

Needs more tentacles. Just for emphasis.

You can't go wrong with tentacles... Or kittens... Or both.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 05, 2012, 10:35:54 am

That thing reminded me of slenderman.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on November 05, 2012, 11:07:17 am

http://americablog.com/2012/11/romney-staff-refusing-to-let-frostbitten-children-leave-pa-rally.html?ref=nf

A vote for Romney is a vote for small government! Say no to the man telling you what you can and cannot do, especially where your health is concerned! ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: palsch on November 05, 2012, 11:09:59 am

Paddy Power have paid out on Obama. (http://www.newstatesman.com/star-spangled-staggers/2012/11/paddy-power-pays-out-obama-victory)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 05, 2012, 11:23:53 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 09:32:39 am

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-says-obama-compromise-judeo-christian-western-045635969--abc-news-politics.html

Personally I do believe that Obama is putting us on a path that compromises Judeo-Christian, Western civilization values. That is WHY I am voting for him.

I would never vote for a candidate who didn't compromise judeo-christian values (except for the values where it says that the rich are scum. That part is Ok with me)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on November 05, 2012, 11:47:19 am

Quote from: palsch on November 05, 2012, 11:09:59 am

Paddy Power have paid out on Obama. (http://www.newstatesman.com/star-spangled-staggers/2012/11/paddy-power-pays-out-obama-victory)

Can't exactly disagree with his prediction. Most groups are placing Obama as having a large chance of being re-elected due to taking a large number of electoral college votes. My only concern is that if Obama supporters are too confident in his victory and the Republicans deploy some voting shenanigans in key locations, Romney could get into office. Whether he's freezing kids at rallies or not.

Oh, and if anything should be saved in this thread for posterity, it should be the saga of Herman Kaine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 11:52:17 am

If there was one way I could not be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, it would be by quoting pokemon. And that reminds me of a deeply moving song I once heard, I believe from a pokemon movie...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 05, 2012, 11:54:11 am

Well between that and his Sim City tax plan he must've completely sewn up the too-young-to-vote demographic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on November 05, 2012, 11:55:33 am

I'm worried that Obama will get re-elected, and then Congress will drive over the fiscal cliff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on November 05, 2012, 11:56:33 am

Herman Cain is on The Daily Show semi-occasionally playing the part of hypothetical President Cain. They give him various situations and have him speech it up for them. And generally it's hilarious. I'm not sure about him as president... but seriously, someone give that man a tv show.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on November 05, 2012, 12:28:40 pm

Quote from: sluissa on November 05, 2012, 11:56:33 am

Herman Cain is on The Daily Show semi-occasionally playing the part of hypothetical President Cain. They give him various situations and have him speech it up for them. And generally it's hilarious. I'm not sure about him as president... but seriously, someone give that man a tv show.

Do you ever wish sometimes though that he was actually a decent candidate? I think he'd be great if... well, if he was great.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on November 05, 2012, 12:46:29 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 05, 2012, 12:28:40 pm

Quote from: sluissa on November 05, 2012, 11:56:33 am

Herman Cain is on The Daily Show semi-occasionally playing the part of hypothetical President Cain. They give him various situations and have him speech it up for them. And generally it's hilarious. I'm not sure about him as president... but seriously, someone give that man a tv show.

Do you ever wish sometimes though that he was actually a decent candidate? I think he'd be great if... well, if he was great.

Yeah, the sad thing is that for the republicans for a while he was a serious and decent candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 05, 2012, 01:01:45 pm

Herman Cain was- as another member of this forum coined, I am not sure who or when- truly hilarifying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: BigD145 on November 05, 2012, 01:11:51 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 05, 2012, 11:47:19 am

My only concern is that if Obama supporters are too confident in his victory and the Republicans deploy some voting shenanigans in key locations, Romney could get into office. Whether he's freezing kids at rallies or not.

Republicans have been deploying shenanigans in over a dozen states all year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:19:20 pm

Map of poll closing times for future reference, all times listed as EST.

Map (http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/73/Daily_Kos_Elections_2012_Poll_Closing_Times_Map__large_.gif)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 01:24:39 pm

I would just like to state that we should really keep the polls open until 10:00 at the least.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:27:21 pm

Hell, I'd move voting to Monday and make election day a national holiday, and make mail-in balloting legal in all 50 states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 05, 2012, 01:28:54 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on November 05, 2012, 11:55:33 am

I'm worried that Obama will get re-elected, and then Congress will drive over the fiscal cliff.

I'm not buying that argument. Romney / Ryan tax cuts will eat up any savings they manage to implement.

And "austerity" has worked, so, so, well for Europe. All that can really achieve is pushing more people onto food stamps and medicaid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 05, 2012, 01:29:58 pm

Horribly, it's possible that long-run the best thing that could happen for American politics is for Romney to win and Congress to stall its way into imploding.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 01:30:29 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:27:21 pm

Hell, I'd move voting to Monday and make election day a national holiday, and make mail-in balloting legal in all 50 states.

Holiday elections have not produced significant results in areas that they have been tested, and mail-in balloting sounds like it would be kind of difficult with that whole thing about your ballot being secret and anonymous.

Quote from: Reelya on November 05, 2012, 01:28:54 pm

And "austerity" has worked, so, so, well for Europe. All that can really achieve is pushing more people onto food stamps and medicaid.

Which we can then use to justify abolishing food stamps and medicaid! Brilliant!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 05, 2012, 01:36:06 pm

The one thing you can say about Romney is that he has a plan of action. The Obama administration had to squeeze their "plan" out after the third debate, and this is a guy who's in the hot seat for four years. And he publishes his plan after being hectored about having no plans.

So it's Romney going in for the big win tomorrow! Big win. You heard it here first.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on November 05, 2012, 01:37:31 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:19:20 pm

Map of poll closing times for future reference, all times listed as EST.

Map (http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/73/Daily_Kos_Elections_2012_Poll_Closing_Times_Map__large_.gif)

That isn't a very useful map, since the times are all EST instead of in local times. I could see a fair number of people going "Oh, we can vote till 9PM", but then getting there and having the polling location closed for the past hour instead of open a hour longer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:39:02 pm

It's useful for knowing when election results will start being reported, which is what it's purpose is.  People should really check their local news and sites for their own state's local times.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:41:06 pm

Trollheiming, let's make a bet. If Romney win, I'll sport a pro-romney avatar for the next year, if Obama win, I4ll choose a pro-Obama avatar for ya. How does it sound?

Kon, the offer is open to you too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 05, 2012, 01:42:15 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 05, 2012, 01:36:06 pm

The one thing you can say about Romney is that he has a plan of action. The Obama administration had to squeeze their "plan" out after the third debate, and this is a guy who's in the hot seat for four years. And he publishes his plan after being hectored about having no plans.

So it's Romney going in for the big win tomorrow! Big win. You heard it here first.

Hitler also had a "plan of action" when he invaded Russia. Look how that worked.

Nobody's debating that he has a plan, but they're arguing his plan sucks. It's just more of the same policies that caused the meltdown. How can you fix the meltdown by doubling down on the same policies?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:44:31 pm

Really, Reelya?  A Godwin?  You're better than that. :P

And I think it's official, Trollheiming lives in his own little fantasy land.  "Big win"?  Seriously?  Big means over 55%+ either way, and that isn't going to happen in this political environment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 01:47:00 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 01:30:29 pm

Holiday elections have not produced significant results in areas that they have been tested, and mail-in balloting sounds like it would be kind of difficult with that whole thing about your ballot being secret and anonymous.

I know we talked about this before, but I remember no one providing an example of a place that actually had "real" holiday elections being ineffective. They had state holiday elections being ineffective, from the states, but of course those are ineffective - for one thing, they aren't real holidays, and people don't get them off work, which is the whole point of the idea. (Unless you are a state employee, who is already not going to have a problem here. Its almost always floated specifically as a way to help the people who are least effected by state holidays, too, so not a real comparison.)

A federal holiday is something very very different, and you'd probably have to find an example in another country to demonstrate whether it is or is not effective (I honestly don't know) and I think that's where we last left the issue, without anyone being able to find a difference one way or another.

As for mail in ballots, there are states now which do the bulk of their ballots as mail-in, it hasn't been an issue so far as far as being secret and anonymous is concerned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 05, 2012, 01:47:50 pm

The Russia invasion gag was too good to pass on, I could easily put Napoleon in there instead, if it makes any difference.

Is it still a Godwin if you invoke Stalin / Mao / Napoleon etc?

BTW: I'm mystified why you guys don't just pick the first Saturday in November as the official date. Voting on a workday is just insanity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 01:48:18 pm

No, only nazis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 05, 2012, 01:50:20 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:41:06 pm

Trollheiming, let's make a bet. If Romney win, I'll sport a pro-romney avatar for the next year, if Obama win, I4ll choose a pro-Obama avatar for ya. How does it sound?

Kon, the offer is open to you too.

That's a bet

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 05, 2012, 01:52:12 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:44:31 pm

Really, Reelya?  A Godwin?  You're better than that. :P

And I think it's official, Trollheiming lives in his own little fantasy land.  "Big win"?  Seriously?  Big means over 55%+ either way, and that isn't going to happen in this political environment.

I predict 51% to 47%, Romney

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 01:53:20 pm

Popular vote or electoral college?

Because a popular vote difference of that amount doesn't actually mean a Romney victory with the current layout.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:57:49 pm

Yeah, why don't you guys just vote on Sunday?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 05, 2012, 01:58:03 pm

That's at least a reasonable popular vote total.  A "big" win is unlikely either way, and since we're doing predictions.

Electoral:
Obama 303, Romney 235 Map (http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=blkE)
Popular:
Obama 50%, Romney 48%, Other 2%
Senate:
Democrats 54, Republicans 45, Other 1 (Ds pick up MA, NV, IN) (Rs pick up NE) (I pick up ME)
House:
Democrats+10 (Breakdown 230 R, 200 D)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 05, 2012, 01:58:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:57:49 pm

Yeah, why don't you guys just vote on Sunday?

Well, Sunday would never work because it's the Lord's day, and half the country would have a cow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 05, 2012, 01:59:28 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 05, 2012, 01:47:50 pm

The Russia invasion gag was too good to pass on, I could easily put Napoleon in there instead, if it makes any difference.

Is it still a Godwin if you invoke Stalin / Mao / Napoleon etc?

BTW: I'm mystified why you guys don't just pick the first Saturday in November as the official date. Voting on a workday is just insanity.

Actually, it's only a Godwin if you invoke it without reason. For example, the previous comment would not be a Godwin if Romney's plans were similair to those of Hitler. (So if Romney's plan for economic revival is attacking Russia, or something else.)

Belgium's not a good example either, with voting being mandatory.  Prevents all that idiotism with states deliberately sabotaging people from voting(early) and such.

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:57:49 pm

Yeah, why don't you guys just vote on Sunday?

Need to apply for extra forms and such, or so I understand. It's apparently a republican ploy to prevent Early voting as much as possible (Because Obama gets his votes from the working class, amongst others.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 05, 2012, 02:07:00 pm

I was reading somewhere that the US was the only major nation who's Election day was not a national holiday or weekend. Can't remember where I read it, though.

In any case, I'm all for it being a National Holiday. Because...day off, if nothing else! And it would get at least some more people to vote, which is a good thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 02:09:15 pm

I actually don't trust the early voting/absentee ballot/vote by mail thing. The less time that Florida has to interfere with my vote, the better. A vote done in person is at least marginally more likely to be counted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 02:11:46 pm

If I lived in Florida, I wouldn't trust mailing them in anyways.

Because... well, you really just need to read the news. Ohio, either, for that matter. Both states are chucking out boatloads of early votes, from what I understand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 05, 2012, 02:49:14 pm

Did you guys hear that Romney got charged with tax fraud and ethics violations?

http://newsone.com/2074449/mitt-romney-ethic-charges/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 02:53:49 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 05, 2012, 02:49:14 pm

Did you guys hear that Romney got charged with tax fraud and ethics violations?

http://newsone.com/2074449/mitt-romney-ethic-charges/

When will he be joining Jill Stein in jail?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 02:55:48 pm

The uninformed, snarky cynist in me says never.


The slightly more informed, more sincere (but no more serious) realist in me agrees with him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlbread on November 05, 2012, 03:02:42 pm

What's your predictions for tomorrow? From me, Obama will win without question, but by a small margin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on November 05, 2012, 03:06:57 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 05, 2012, 03:02:42 pm

What's your predictions for tomorrow? From me, Obama will win without question, but by a small margin.

I predict much whining, crying and excuses from the loser's side.  A double down on masturbatory legislation while still refusing to compromise, but blaming the other side for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 03:07:45 pm

The likelihood that the someone will attempt every legal and illegal trick that they can in order to get Obama out of office is high enough I won't hazard a guess on the outcome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 03:08:39 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 05, 2012, 03:02:42 pm

What's your predictions for tomorrow? From me, Obama will win without question, but by a small margin.

That's what I predict too. Of course, being an Obama supporter who gets most of my news from liberal-oriented sites as well as an optimist in situations like these means my judgement definitely has a good percent error.

Right now it's tilted toward Obama, but you can never be too sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 03:20:29 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 05, 2012, 01:58:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:57:49 pm

Yeah, why don't you guys just vote on Sunday?

Well, Sunday would never work because it's the Lord's day, and half the country would have a cow.

But then we'd get that half the country out of the political process, and without "that demographic" we could finally move on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 05, 2012, 03:22:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 03:20:29 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 05, 2012, 01:58:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:57:49 pm

Yeah, why don't you guys just vote on Sunday?

Well, Sunday would never work because it's the Lord's day, and half the country would have a cow.

But then we'd get that half the country out of the political process, and without "that demographic" we could finally move on.

Bad Sealy. Deliberately excluding demographics from the voting process is for the other side.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 03:33:46 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 05, 2012, 03:22:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 03:20:29 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 05, 2012, 01:58:25 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:57:49 pm

Yeah, why don't you guys just vote on Sunday?

Well, Sunday would never work because it's the Lord's day, and half the country would have a cow.

But then we'd get that half the country out of the political process, and without "that demographic" we could finally move on.

Bad Sealy. Deliberately excluding demographics from the voting process is for the other side.  ::)

I guess... but it'd still be their choice, so it's not a perfect comparison.

Quote from: sluissa on November 05, 2012, 11:56:33 am

Herman Cain is on The Daily Show semi-occasionally playing the part of hypothetical President Cain. They give him various situations and have him speech it up for them. And generally it's hilarious. I'm not sure about him as president... but seriously, someone give that man a tv show.

Hahahaha! Baller Friday, baby! Herman "Sugar" Cain.

I'm sorry, I love Jon Stewart, but I doubt this'll match up with the "unintentionally" [i.e. completely intentionally] funny Herman Cain period on TCR.

"What is this crap, engineer? God dammit!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 05, 2012, 03:36:22 pm

It totally is, even as a joke.  Putting the election on Sunday morning would totally be seen as deliberately trying to disenfranchise Christians.

Although, don't a lot of churches end up as polling stations?  I know I'm going to a fire station tomorrow.

Anyway, I predict that Romney takes popular vote by a very small margin, and loses in the college.  Republicans conveniently forget 2000 and get mad, calling for electoral reform.  Birthers might get another couple minutes on the stage.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 05, 2012, 04:01:13 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 03:20:29 pm

But then we'd get that half the country out of the political process, and without "that demographic" we could finally move on.

move on from what

to where

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 05, 2012, 04:04:24 pm

You could make a similar argument for Saturday and Jewish people.  So a holiday then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 04:08:12 pm

Can't do Friday either, since Muslims.

Damn, we really do not have a lot of days for this once we cut out all the holy days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 04:09:00 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 05, 2012, 04:08:12 pm

Can't do Friday either, since Muslims.

Pastafari too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 05, 2012, 04:12:38 pm

Monday. I don't know of any religions who's holy day is Monday. Plus, works well for a holiday since that gives us a three-day weekend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 04:13:16 pm

But cats hate mondays!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 05, 2012, 04:14:45 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 04:13:16 pm

But cats hate mondays!

All the more reason to make it a Holiday. That way their owners have more time to serve them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 05, 2012, 04:19:32 pm

Man, I can't wait until all the political ads stop. Seriously, we need to put limits on them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 04:21:14 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 05, 2012, 04:12:38 pm

Monday. I don't know of any religions who's holy day is Monday. Plus, works well for a holiday since that gives us a three-day weekend.

The monday following or part of every 3 day weekend is hangover day. The most nauseating and head-achy of all blasphemydays. This will disenfranchise the hedonist and heavy drinking demographics as they struggle to make it to the polls in their pajama's after visiting waffle house.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 05, 2012, 04:28:04 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 05, 2012, 04:24:23 pm

the second was some thing about a chameleon that changed colours and sounded more like a little kid's story.

You have ads about Mitt Romney?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 04:28:58 pm

We get lots of ads around every other corner during voting seasons. However they're never attack ads and they're only posted on specific billboards, one next to another, always at the same place every time.

I think I like it that way because I know where not to look.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 05, 2012, 04:32:24 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 05, 2012, 04:14:45 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 05, 2012, 04:13:16 pm

But cats hate mondays!

All the more reason to make it a Holiday. That way their owners have more time to serve them.

But then how can our cat overlords make decisions? They need peace and quiet.

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 05, 2012, 04:19:32 pm

Man, I can't wait until all the political ads stop. Seriously, we need to put limits on them.

I have seen maybe 8 political ads total, 5 in the last 3 days. NYC is sadly lacking political ads. Worse part is they aren't even for us, they're for out-of staters who work in the city.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 04:33:13 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 05, 2012, 04:19:32 pm

Man, I can't wait until all the political ads stop. Seriously, we need to put limits on them.

Here in Michigan we only got ads for local ballot measures and the current Senate race, since the House ones were so lopsided it didn't matter and the state was too Democrat to bother "swinging".

That changed about a week ago, and now not a day goes by without a barrage of Obama or Romney ones. Is Michigan a swing state again now, or are the candidates just making sure they're covering their bases?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Wrex on November 05, 2012, 04:34:51 pm

Tons of adds, mostly for the position of Attourney General around here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 05, 2012, 05:27:57 pm

Being in Washington, I only see senate/gubernatorial/local DA and county prosecutor commercials, with the fun fear-mongering [about nothing relevant] ones mixed in like I've mentioned before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 05, 2012, 05:31:35 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 04:33:13 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 05, 2012, 04:19:32 pm

Man, I can't wait until all the political ads stop. Seriously, we need to put limits on them.

Here in Michigan we only got ads for local ballot measures and the current Senate race, since the House ones were so lopsided it didn't matter and the state was too Democrat to bother "swinging".

That changed about a week ago, and now not a day goes by without a barrage of Obama or Romney ones. Is Michigan a swing state again now, or are the candidates just making sure they're covering their bases?

A new poll out has Obama and Romney tied in Michigan, but Real Clear Politics has Obama up by 4. The Obama campaign probably wouldn't have increased spending there unless there was some concern.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 05, 2012, 05:59:19 pm

TV ads have seemed to slacked off a bit where I'm at... some. Some. And tomorrow's the sixth. There's plenty of billboards and shit along the side of the roads.

We still got three or so robocalls today. Which was fairly standard volume for, like, the last month. Or two. At this point, I'd vote counter to republican just because they wouldn't stop fucking calling. If I hadn't voted some time last week, anyway. Dems had a bit of it too, but at least where I'm at the RNC or some shit had their machines running hard. Never people. Just automatic, canned calls. From morning into the night.

Frankly, political phone calls (advertising calls in general, really) should be fucking illegal. We've missed a few important calls this year because those asshats were on the line :-\

E: Oh, and mailboxes full of junk. Don't forget the mailbox full of political junk. That's been more equitable across party lines, but gods know there's a few forests no longer existing because of that stuff. I'd swear we've trashed probably a good hundred pounds of politically charged cardboard and paper this year, and that's with absolutely zero exaggeration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PyroDesu on November 05, 2012, 06:49:51 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 05, 2012, 05:59:19 pm

TV ads have seemed to slacked off a bit where I'm at... some. Some. And tomorrow's the sixth. There's plenty of billboards and shit along the side of the roads.

We still got three or so robocalls today. Which was fairly standard volume for, like, the last month. Or two. At this point, I'd vote counter to republican just because they wouldn't stop fucking calling. If I hadn't voted some time last week, anyway. Dems had a bit of it too, but at least where I'm at the RNC or some shit had their machines running hard. Never people. Just automatic, canned calls. From morning into the night.

Frankly, political phone calls (advertising calls in general, really) should be fucking illegal. We've missed a few important calls this year because those asshats were on the line :-\

Such a thing as a do not call list exists. At my place, we have not once received any kind of political, or advertising in general, call.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 05, 2012, 06:53:37 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on November 05, 2012, 06:49:51 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 05, 2012, 05:59:19 pm

TV ads have seemed to slacked off a bit where I'm at... some. Some. And tomorrow's the sixth. There's plenty of billboards and shit along the side of the roads.

We still got three or so robocalls today. Which was fairly standard volume for, like, the last month. Or two. At this point, I'd vote counter to republican just because they wouldn't stop fucking calling. If I hadn't voted some time last week, anyway. Dems had a bit of it too, but at least where I'm at the RNC or some shit had their machines running hard. Never people. Just automatic, canned calls. From morning into the night.

Frankly, political phone calls (advertising calls in general, really) should be fucking illegal. We've missed a few important calls this year because those asshats were on the line :-\

Such a thing as a do not call list exists. At my place, we have not once received any kind of political, or advertising in general, call.

I've never gotten a spam call, political or otherwise. Do they only strike landlines or something, since I only have a cell phone?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 05, 2012, 06:55:15 pm

Yeah, since cell phones often charge per usage, I think they're not allowed to target those. They do get exemption from the National Do Not Call list, though. Bastards. I don't get telemarketers anymore on my land line, but I sure get plenty of political messages on it!

Good thing I only use it for junk like that. I use my cell phone number for anything actually important.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Euld on November 05, 2012, 07:17:34 pm

I'm on the national "do not call" list and I get spammed with calls anyway :/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 05, 2012, 07:21:37 pm

Tell them you'll vote for whichever side gives you fewer calls.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 05, 2012, 07:30:48 pm

Political and Religious calls are allowed under the do-not-call list. It only restricts commercial calls.

Just thank god that religious phone spam isn't a big thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: nenjin on November 05, 2012, 07:46:42 pm

I don't get the exception for political phone calls to the DNC list. Politics is just another form of commercialism anyways, and it's not like we have 3000 choices to make when it comes to voting as it is. We have two. Really, political call centers just strike me as another way to justify spending millions on campaigns. They simply wear the mantle of elections to give them legitimacy.  And as such, to me they should be banned under the DNC just like every other money making scheme. Would the US honestly be worse off if there were less incentive to blow millions on giving these people jobs? I don't think so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 07:49:07 pm

UGH.

I hate this stupid election stuff.

I've been looking and looking and can't find anything out about anybody. Not that anyone is even RUNNING against the incumbent for most of these positions. Seriously, how am I supposed to make an informed decision in this sort of situation? And how the hell are these elections not just random chance? How do these people actually campaign/get elected? How do people even find out about them?

Actually I don't even think my vote counts for all these people, these positions are all in neighbouring towns.

Which means I have one (just one) non-national election with more than one candidate to vote in. Sheriff.

Well, whatever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 05, 2012, 07:55:06 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 07:49:07 pm

I've been looking and looking and can't find anything out about anybody. Not that anyone is even RUNNING against the incumbent for most of these positions. Seriously, how am I supposed to make an informed decision in this sort of situation? And how the hell are these elections not just random chance? How do these people actually campaign/get elected? How do people even find out about them?

I've wondered about that many times myself.  I had a professor of election history who freely admitted that when he goes to vote, he has absolutely no damn idea who half to two-thirds of the people on the ballot are.  There was a guy I knew who ran for Justice of the Peace in 2002, no primary no campaign bought one sign to put in front of his own polling place, and lost by sixty votes.  The honest answer is, they really don't campaign, basically nobody outside of their own personal life knows them, and they typically either think that's just fine or that they're the most important person on the face of the earth and they don't need to campaign.  Judging by the personalities I've met.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 05, 2012, 07:57:45 pm

So, guess who's already making calls for change in the Electoral College? And saying a president who wins the electoral college [and not the popular vote] is "Illegitimate"?

You guessed it; Fox.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 05, 2012, 07:58:30 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 07:49:07 pm

UGH. [snip]

Internet provides a lot of info, once you filter through the bullshit ad stuff. Incumbents have a voting record, which is public, if occasionally hard to actually get at, and related political history. If challengers don't have previous political positions, you can look at job history and organizational affiliations (and occasionally campaign contributions), which is again usually public if hard to find. There's a paper trail, basically -- 'net makes it a bit easier to get at these days, but there's physical records laying around... somewhere. Newspapers, court rooms, city hall etc., so forth, so on. You can put your feet on the pavement and find out yourself if you've got the time (and occasionally cash) for it. Generally you base what you can off that; see what they've done, extrapolate into the future based on it.

As for the random chance bit... yeah, more than a little, really. And campaign/get elected, well. Someone with money decides they either want a political position or want a friend (/person somewhat indebted to them) in a place of power, and then throws cash at advertising until they get enough name awareness people will vote for them. That's basically how it operates on any level besides the very, very small (and usually even then, the process is the same just on a smaller relative scale.).

Of course, that's if you're actually trying to be informed. Most folks, it's more or less like Aqi said :-\

Though I'm not really sure what happens in situations where there's only one person running, other than victory by default barring write-ins or something. Doesn't happen very often where I'm at, at least since I've able to vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 08:08:37 pm

Sheriff. That's the only position I've got to vote for now, essentially.

I was, at one point, considering running myself - it can't be too hard to take some of these positions, I imagine. The problem, of course, is that a surprising number of them (like school board) are not only completely unpaid, but involve significant responsibilities that can, apparently, only occur during work hours during the work week.

THIS is where I want to see people from third parties running. I want to see them getting in on government at the ground level. I want to see them across the ballot. Building up support. And what do I have?

Nothing. Democrats, more democrats, and democrats. And one, single, "unenrolled", as the opposition for sheriff.

ARGH.

Also, I'm thinking I might start a website that's something like "WhoShouldIVoteFor.org" just to help people with these local decisions... Hmm...

Would anyone here be interested in something like that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 05, 2012, 08:13:54 pm

Probably. You've already got stuff like ballotpedia and votesmart (and probably more besides), so it's not like it's not a desire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 08:16:09 pm

For those local positions, look up their name in the phone book, give em a call and ask them about their political positions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 05, 2012, 08:17:53 pm

In my home city, the local paper tends to run a fairly large column with candidate political profiles for most of the local positions. It isn't enough, but it gives most people a decent idea of what they're voting for. Something like that, except online, would be a good resource for people during local elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 05, 2012, 08:22:55 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 05, 2012, 07:57:45 pm

So, guess who's already making calls for change in the Electoral College? And saying a president who wins the electoral college [and not the popular vote] is "Illegitimate"?

You guessed it; Fox.

Quote from: Cthulhu on November 05, 2012, 03:36:22 pm

Republicans conveniently forget 2000 and get mad, calling for electoral reform.  Birthers might get another couple minutes on the stage.

Called it. 

Pseudo-edit:  It could be cool.  I have in total seen two ads for a local something-or-other, Winkler is her name.  One is at the courthouse in Cincinnati and one is in a yard near my house, I assume that's her home.  No idea who she is, but I'll vote for her just because I like the cut of her jib.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 08:26:25 pm

Hmm... votesmart actually does local candidates. Interesting. Doesn't have any of mine, but I'll honestly have to remember them for next time around, I'll do my best to contribute information.

Ballotpedia is 100% down, so apparently there IS demand. :P

Also, I suddenly remember stories of people changing their last name so they appear first on the ballot... and winning, because of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 05, 2012, 08:27:58 pm

In my town we got a guy who just walks around and knocks on everyone's door, and when he gets here my dad ends up sitting on the porch talking about politics.

In non-presidential election years though I see a lot more low level campaigning. Seems to me everything just gets overshadowed by the obscenely huge campaigns of the presidency now, so if you ever wanted to just slip in under the radar you could probably do it then.

EDIT: Oh man if republicans get on board with dropping the electorate system it might actually happen. Turns out if you want something done these days you just have to get those guys to blame their own failures on it.

Awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 08:35:30 pm

Alright folks. There is one more final (and I really mean it this time) debate for 3rd party candidates.

Attending will be Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, this is a followup to the oct 13 debate and unrelated to last sundays debate hosted by Ralph Nader.

I am managing to post it early, so yall can watch live this time!

9pm US Eastern

http://freeandequal.org/live/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 09:27:17 pm

Listening to Stein talk is just so incredibly painful. :/ Those loud, piercings "UGH" between every sentence, and often several times in the middle.

Though I notice she seems to do it much worse on some topics. Johnson is also ugh. Last debate has convinced me to vote for neither of them.


Justice Party it is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kon on November 05, 2012, 10:19:15 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 05, 2012, 07:55:06 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 05, 2012, 07:49:07 pm

I've been looking and looking and can't find anything out about anybody. Not that anyone is even RUNNING against the incumbent for most of these positions. Seriously, how am I supposed to make an informed decision in this sort of situation? And how the hell are these elections not just random chance? How do these people actually campaign/get elected? How do people even find out about them?

I've wondered about that many times myself.  I had a professor of election history who freely admitted that when he goes to vote, he has absolutely no damn idea who half to two-thirds of the people on the ballot are.  There was a guy I knew who ran for Justice of the Peace in 2002, no primary no campaign bought one sign to put in front of his own polling place, and lost by sixty votes.  The honest answer is, they really don't campaign, basically nobody outside of their own personal life knows them, and they typically either think that's just fine or that they're the most important person on the face of the earth and they don't need to campaign.  Judging by the personalities I've met.

What bothers me somewhat is people saying whatever you do just vote. Doesn't matter who you vote for -- just vote. My belief is that if you are not familiar with either candidate or not familiar with a particular issue being voted on, then don't vote. Better than saying just vote would be saying become familiar with the candidates and issues, then vote. One reason we have such a crappy Congress is that people vote based on whether the candidate has a D or an R after his name. If you don't know shit about the candidates, then do the rest of the country a favor and don't vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 05, 2012, 10:23:10 pm

My view is typically that if you don't know anything about the candidates, you should vote for the one that I support.

I am not particularly idealistic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 05, 2012, 10:31:40 pm

That's the point though, it's almost humanly impossible to know who all of the people on your local ballot are, once you get down past State House and Railroad Commissioner.  There's such a shitload of offices that nobody even knows about, let alone who competes for them, that being fully informed just isn't realistic.

Knowing your Congressman is kinda requisite to call yourself "informed enough" though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 10:33:13 pm

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 05, 2012, 10:33:26 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 05, 2012, 10:23:10 pm

My view is typically that if you don't know anything about the candidates, you should vote for the one that I support.

I am not particularly idealistic.

I endorse this.

Whatdo you guys think of California's new non-partisan election laws? It seems to address these concerns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 05, 2012, 11:11:30 pm

Obama is currently in Des Moines, speaking for his last time on campaign ever. He's crying right now, and it made me cry...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 05, 2012, 11:45:58 pm

I made a Facebook note about the whole thing, and I thought I might share it with y'all.

Quote

I have written a distinct paucity of politically-oriented statuses over this election cycle, for several reasons. Firstly, I find that too loudly tooting one's own political horn has a tendency to make more enemies than it makes friends, on either side (and I try not to encourage spectacular flamewars, at least not with close acquaintances); most points that need to be made, someone else will make; and my political views are occasionally a little bit off-kilter (my distaste for democracy is well-known to some of you).

Still, on the eve of a day where many of those of you who can vote will be gritting your teeth while doing it, I thought I might share a few thoughts.

No matter who wins tomorrow evening, I think we'll be looking back on this year's election for decades afterwards in a way we won't be looking back at, say, '96 or '04; I don't claim to know whether we'll be asking ourselves what went wrong or how on earth we ever saved our skins and pulled it off.

Firstly, if the current election is historic, the next few will be even more so. 2008 represented the first real inklings of the demographic transition that the United States is currently going through; it won't be complete for decades, and while it happens there will be political division on a scale we probably won't have seen since the '60s. In 2008 we made the decision to put a black man in the White House; we're now going to decide whether we're going to stick to him, or declare that we're not ready for what he stands for. Politically, we're suddenly looking at a landscape where LGBT rights are an issue in a way they weren't even four years ago, where the Southern Strategy is clearly on its way out (and doing its best to scorch the earth behind it), and where money is greasing the works in a way it hasn't been since the Gilded Age. To make things worse, we're being asked to make decisions on these issues when a good portion of the country can't be blamed for not worrying about much beyond next month's paycheck.

It would be naïve to think that we're not going to be revisiting all this in '16, '20 or '24. It would also be naïve to think that biding our time until things work themselves out will work. Like most big turning points in the public sphere, things will have to get worse on some level before they get better. True, the Republican Party is being childish, obstructionist and denialist in the extreme; however, as with all official oppositions in democracies, they also must play- however poor their own costumes- the sacred part of pointing out when the Emperor has no clothes. Loathe as I am to admit it, they may not finish digging their own graves- either to obscurity or to a radical restructuring like the Democrats underwent in the '60s- unless, for a time, they are handed a few more shovels and have only themselves to blame when they screw something up.

That is not to say that we should all vote for the Rs tomorrow; nothing could be further from my intentions. Nor should we give up on Obama; disillusioned as many of us are with the man, Romney will resolve few of his flaws and introduce many worse ones. I am simply stating the facts- this is how things have been before, and it is likely how they will have to be again. The good fight is still there to be fought.

Go vote!

If there's anything to add to that, I'd just like to note that there seems to be this conviction among many of my acquaintances that Romney is some sort of semi-Antichrist. He isn't. He is an out-of-touch, smarmy, spineless, reckless pawn of the corporate community and his own party- there is no denying that. But he lacks true malice. This, I think, has been the saving grace of American democracy. As much as I like to complain about it, a truly evil man has never actually sat in the Oval Office. To be sure, the White House has held bigots, bribetakers, cowards and Presidents who simply weren't equipped to deal with crises they couldn't have foreseen; it's been home to Fillmore, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Hoover and Nixon. But it has also held Washington, Jefferson, Polk, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Wilson and Lyndon Johnson.

And one of these days, I think- Obama is not that man, though we all thought he would be in '08- someone will pop out of the woodwork with the courage, foresight, conviction, and fortitude to get the system fixed. But it may take a crisis before they appear.

It could happen as early as this December, if Congress bails on the debt ceiling and Romney is elected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 05, 2012, 11:51:35 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 05, 2012, 11:11:30 pm

He's crying right now, and it made me cry...

:D wut

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on November 06, 2012, 02:36:04 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 05, 2012, 10:33:13 pm

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

Thats a shitty website layout... and yea...  I will not be surprised if voter fraud does happen.

If only Justice could be as swift as the Chinese if it actually does happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 04:02:25 am

Whelp, as it's too late to really bother with politicking or stats... have some comedy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX_1B0w7Hzc).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 04:27:00 am

If Ohio does turn up in Romney's column, and a lot of other states don't also go the opposite of what Intrade and FiveThirtyEight are both predicting, it might be an indication that something fishy did happen.

Intrade and FiveThirtyEight are largely in agreement at the moment, except that the odds on different states are different, either more conservative on Intrade or more exaggerated on FiveThirtyEight, and Florida shows up as 53% chance of an Obama win in FiveThirtyEight's prediction, whereas Intrade shows a 65% chance of a Romney win in Florida (35% Obama).

(Note that Intrade's predictions come solely from market-based betting, and assume that people will research the subject and be smart about what they're putting their money on, taking more than just poll numbers into account, etc. Also that Intrade's numbers can and probably will change after I post this.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 08:14:33 am

Im off to vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 09:20:47 am

Well, that was the most unsatisfying experience I've had in months. I screwed up my absentee ballot (and was actually around to vote), as per usual for me and any vaguely government document on the first attempt, so I figured I'd go in and vote in person (bringing my absentee ballot just in case they wouldn't accept that and there was a way to fix it).

they tossed it in the machine, but overall... bleugh. I don't feel like I managed anything other than wasting my time and feeling sick to my stomache in the process.

I don't even think I managed to finish voting - I may have skipped the referendum questions. They took it from me too quickly for me to remember, and honestly I don't even care anymore. I'm just glad it's over.

I was kind of hoping I'd feel proud or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2012, 09:32:34 am

It's a rather old piece, dating back from march, but I realloy laughed out loud reading this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:36:14 am

You guys are doing that thing that you do tomorrow, right?
Quick summary: Who is most likely to win and how should I feel about that as somebody that believes in funding education, supports gay marriage, and thinks we need to cut carbon emissions drastically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 06, 2012, 09:41:00 am

Obama, and tentatively happy considering the likely alternative, but a little unhappy considering Jill Stein is a candidate with no chance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 09:42:14 am

Just got back from voting. Jill Stein for president, straight democrat for pretty much everything else (except names I didn't recognize; null vote on those).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 09:42:26 am

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:36:14 am

You guys are doing that thing that you do tomorrow, right?
Quick summary: Who is most likely to win and how should I feel about that as somebody that believes in funding education, supports gay marriage, and thinks we need to cut carbon emissions drastically.

Obama is most likely to retain his office. However Romney winning would not be an unprecedented statistical anomaly.

Obama is less bad on gay marriage, education and environment than Romney. But he isn't all that great either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:44:17 am

Well better no change at all than a step backwards...

Get it, because Obamas thing was change? And reelecting him is no change? Its irony? No..? I will show myself out...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 09:45:04 am

Bronco Bama will probably defeat Mittens, and your emotions should run neutral on him, since he's basically got a weak opinion on all those.

There's a small chance that Mittens beats Bronco, in which case your emotions should be negative since he is opposed to all of those things.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:51:23 am

See this is why you guys need compulsory voting, it makes everybody who really doesn't care vote for the most middle of the road candidate, and their massive wave of apathy drowns out the cries for attention coming from extreme fringe views. It is second only to having the winner be drawn from a hat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 09:53:23 am

Preeeeeetty damn sure any compulsory voting would have a null vote option :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 06, 2012, 09:57:31 am

I have completed my civic pacification exercise.  Wrote in Jill Stein.  Also wrote in Pikachu, Cthlulhu, and Nyarlathotep.  Whichever party gets the presidency, lets see them accomplish anything with an abomination controlled legislature.  Left everything else blank, because my vote for any other positions would be a roll of a die.

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:51:23 am

See this is why you guys need compulsory voting, it makes everybody who really doesn't care vote for the most middle of the road candidate, and their massive wave of apathy drowns out the cries for attention coming from extreme fringe views. It is second only to having the winner be drawn from a hat.

This assumes that someone who is being forced to vote would also be aware of which candidates are middle-of-the-road.  In America, there are rarely more than two options (D/R) for any position anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 06, 2012, 09:59:04 am

You had to write in Jill Stein? She was one of the options here (top one, in fact), and Utah isn't known for caring much about any party but Republicans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 06, 2012, 09:59:59 am

Yeah, she's a write-in in Indiana.

Edit:

Didn't take long for little gems like these to start popping up today. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 06, 2012, 11:07:15 am

Apparently it wasn't a calibration issue, as clicking below Obama voted for Jill Stein perfectly.

The ideal outcome would be if every machine in the USA was rigged like this and every single Obama voter said "screw Romney, I'm voting Jill Stein if there's not other choice", and she was elected President.

Anyway I'm suspicious that there's any tampering with the machines. After all, only one party is claiming that the machine was rigged. Republicans 100% reported the machine as "fine". Clearly it's liberal bias at work, an Democrat envy at Republican's ease at using the machine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 11:17:27 am

Confirmed that the people at the polling center were, in fact, wrong, and my ballot will not be counted.

Joy. :/

I hope it's only spoiled for that one section and not the whole thing.

Blugh, this is why I went in, because I screwed up, and they just put it in the machine. I didn't know what to do. :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:37:40 am

Sad bro, that happened to me once when I lived in mississippi, my whole ballot was rejected on some technicality when they told me it would be fine.

http://www.facebookstories.com/vote

About a million people so far have told facebook that they voted. Seems like a fairly high turnout for this early if we assume that most people are not telling facebook they voted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on November 06, 2012, 11:38:24 am

I voted. Yay Democracy!

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 06, 2012, 09:59:59 am

Didn't take long for little gems like these to start popping up today. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM)

Even I'm skeptical that Republicans would be that dumb about it. If more cases come out of Pennsylvania voting machines then I guess somebody was way too confident.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 11:40:57 am

How many people bring a camera into the booth with them?

Just one machine out of a hundred, and you'd get a whole TON of votes with a whole lot of totally nonsensical "plausible deniability". Do half that in favour for the other guy and suddenly you've got near total deniability - after all, the "bug" is effecting people in both ways!

And individual Republicans, like individual democrats, can be pretty dumb. If this is the case, it's probably one programmers initiative - the only involvement of the Republican party was making things like this easily possible (which they have tried incredibly hard to make the case, that much is undeniable).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:42:08 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 11:40:57 am

How many people bring a camera into the booth with them?

Just one machine out of a hundred, and you'd get a whole TON of votes...

You are technically not allowed to bring a camera into the voting booth. At the polling station I was at, we were instructed to turn off our cell phones as well.

Edit: Rather I should say it is illegal in many states, probably not all though.

In any case, I will never use an electronic voting machine. Paper Ballots are more likely to be counted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 11:53:32 am

Cell phones weren't even allowed in my polling place, though they didn't check and didn't bother anyone I saw with them out. And we were also using all paper ballots. So. There's that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2012, 12:46:24 pm

Why on earth do they forbid cellphones from polling places?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 12:47:32 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 06, 2012, 12:46:24 pm

Why on earth do they forbid cellphones from polling places?

Terrorism, of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zangi on November 06, 2012, 12:48:08 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 06, 2012, 12:46:24 pm

Why on earth do they forbid cellphones from polling places?

So people can't take pictures of/record shenanigans?   8)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 12:52:32 pm

I'd guess the official reason is to prevent the things from becoming a disturbance. Some people can't quite get a handle on how to turn the goddamn ringtone off. I'd imagine there's some kind of similar limitation on, like, bringing a boom box into the polling booth or somethin'.

Now, if that's the de facto reason instead of just the de jure one... who knows.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Grek on November 06, 2012, 12:52:33 pm

Just voted. I would also like to lol at our voting registrar, Sharon Long, being the only person on the ballot for her office. And at Texas in general for electing voting registrars.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 01:06:34 pm

I feel weird for posting this, but oh well.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/judge-issuing-order-to-reinstate-booted-philadelphia-election-officials/

Are there any references for this from an actual news site?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 01:10:26 pm

Who The Hell Is Joe Biden wants to run in 2016. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/06/biden-hints-he-may-be-on-future-ballots/?hpt=hp_t2_6)

CNN captures Empire State Building, NYC routs. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/06/cnn-takes-over-the-empire-state-building-for-election-night-results/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Sheb on November 06, 2012, 01:10:49 pm

They really should have covered that mural...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 01:43:30 pm

NAACP voting drive in hinds county registers 10thousand new voters, and it appears that they have been "misplaced" by the county clerk who has been repeatedly fined and censured for failure to file documents in a timely manner, yet keeps getting repeatedly reelected.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/06/naacp-accuses-mississippi-country-clerk-of-failing-to-process-thousands-of-voter-registrations/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 01:44:22 pm

Are there any Neo-Nazis or similarly lunatic candidates that people not living in swing states can vote for, just out of curiosity?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 01:49:08 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:44:22 pm

Are there any Neo-Nazis or similarly lunatic candidates that people not living in swing states can vote for, just out of curiosity?

Ron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 01:52:11 pm

Come on, you can get WAY nuttier than Ron Paul! (Especially since he's not running anyway)

Remember, in the US, you can vote for ANYONE.

But more seriously, Virgil Goode

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

If I weren't 17 and didn't live in Pennsylvania, I'd probably do a write-in for...oh, I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Or maybe Andrew Schafly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 01:56:02 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

If I weren't 17 and didn't live in Pennsylvania, I'd probably do a write-in for...oh, I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Or maybe Andrew Schafly.

You can always vote for Vermin Supreme.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 01:56:34 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Andrew Jackson 2012, The Lunatic America Needs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 01:56:54 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

If I weren't 17 and didn't live in Pennsylvania, I'd probably do a write-in for...oh, I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Or maybe Andrew Schafly.

I wouldn't dare to imagine what he would do as the president of the USA.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 02:01:30 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 01:56:54 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

If I weren't 17 and didn't live in Pennsylvania, I'd probably do a write-in for...oh, I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Or maybe Andrew Schafly.

I wouldn't dare to imagine what he would do as the president of the USA.

Probably arrest astrophysicists on charges of liberal deceit for promoting black holes and turning people away from the Bible.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 01:56:34 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Andrew Jackson 2012, The Lunatic America Needs.

(http://i.imgur.com/87hlF.jpg)

Anyone care to photoshop this into a campaign poster?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 02:04:42 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 02:01:30 pm

Probably arrest astrophysicists on charges of liberal deceit for promoting black holes and turning people away from the Bible.

Knowing his MO he'd probably start pushing for an amendment that would allow him to order an arrest on and exile anybody who'd disagree with him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 06, 2012, 02:04:54 pm

I dislike Andrew Jackson, but that's pretty damn awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rockphed on November 06, 2012, 02:05:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 01:56:34 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Andrew Jackson 2012, The Lunatic America Needs.

My day is made by this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 02:08:01 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 06, 2012, 02:04:54 pm

I dislike Andrew Jackson, but that's pretty damn awesome.

There's more where that came from, from a DeviantArt user we can all thank named Sharpwriter. Even being the hopeless leftie I am, I found the following image so awesome I decided I needed to make it my desktop background:

(http://i.imgur.com/B0zOWh.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 02:09:10 pm

Is that Richard Nixon on a raptor?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rockphed on November 06, 2012, 02:09:35 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 01:49:08 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:44:22 pm

Are there any Neo-Nazis or similarly lunatic candidates that people not living in swing states can vote for, just out of curiosity?

Ron Paul.

You can vote for Gary Jonson.  There were 3 other 3rd party people on my ballot too, but I cannot remember their names.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 02:09:56 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 02:09:10 pm

Is that Richard Nixon on a raptor?

Reagan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 02:10:38 pm

A flag-raptor, no less.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 02:11:17 pm

Eh, off by four years. On a universal scale, that's dead on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 02:16:43 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 02:01:30 pm

(http://i.imgur.com/87hlF.jpg)

what the fuck...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 06, 2012, 02:25:20 pm

Hmm. Now I want to have a squad in X-Com of various presidents. That sounds like fun!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 03:07:30 pm

Not to detract from the awesomeness or gunslinging Reagan on a Raptor, but...

http://www.facebook.com/mittromney

So I took a peek at little Mittens facebook page...

The majority of comments on each posted "motivational image" are negative towards Mittens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 03:18:05 pm

So we voted here. Many minor positions were solely democratic, not a single opponent. The funniest was one of the "pick 3" ones, where a democratic candidate had been endorsed by the republicans (more on this later). The single positions were given a variety of options.

In New Yprk, we have "Election Fusion" Laws, where you can support a candidate fir a different party if they are endorsed by them. Ergo, Obama was Democrat, and Working Families (for which my mom voted), while Mittens was Republican and Conservative.

I heard in the NY Times thay a recount in Ohio might push rexults back to December, god help us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 03:22:02 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 02:01:30 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 01:56:54 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

If I weren't 17 and didn't live in Pennsylvania, I'd probably do a write-in for...oh, I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Or maybe Andrew Schafly.

I wouldn't dare to imagine what he would do as the president of the USA.

Probably arrest astrophysicists on charges of liberal deceit for promoting black holes and turning people away from the Bible.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 01:56:34 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:55:14 pm

I don't know, some obscure historical madman.

Andrew Jackson 2012, The Lunatic America Needs.

(http://i.imgur.com/87hlF.jpg)

Anyone care to photoshop this into a campaign poster?

That's just badass.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 03:41:15 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:44:22 pm

Are there any Neo-Nazis or similarly lunatic candidates that people not living in swing states can vote for, just out of curiosity?

Mitt Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 03:48:28 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 03:41:15 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 01:44:22 pm

Are there any Neo-Nazis or similarly lunatic candidates that people not living in swing states can vote for, just out of curiosity?

Mitt Romney.

gud one

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 03:51:35 pm

TripJack, you are rapidly approaching the honored title of most posts with the least content in a thread renowned for stupid arguments, pointless asides, and expressions of empty wit.

Please alter your course. At the very least, insure your "no content" has SOME sort of... SOMETHING it wants to communicate.

To make this more clear:

I don't know what any of your posts mean! T_T Or if they are supposed to hold any meaning at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Owlga on November 06, 2012, 03:54:13 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 03:51:35 pm

TripJack, you are rapidly approaching the honored title of most posts with the least content in a thread renowned for stupid arguments, pointless asides, and expressions of empty wit.

Try the whole board and not just this topic. I've seen greatorder and loudwhispers contribute more to a topic. That's saying something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 04:06:12 pm

aaaaaaargh why can't tonight come already

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: cerapa on November 06, 2012, 04:10:12 pm

Let us all go to the Romney Death Rally! (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23romneydeathrally&src=typd)

Highlights include:

Quote

"Life begins at implantation!" the mob shrieks as Romney extrudes another pulsing egg into a voter's chest cavity. #RomneyDeathRally

Quote

Romney laughs off the idea of global warming. "There will be no warmth on this planet ever again." #RomneyDeathRally

Quote

Mitt cracks off his human carapace as the giant, eyeless Reagan head emits an unearthly moan. The moon is bleeding. #RomneyDeathRally

Not like theres anything better to talk about right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 04:12:09 pm

Greatorder, I originally read that as you preferring it if "a goth was president".

It was a better image than the more realistic ones I'm represented with...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 06, 2012, 04:12:26 pm

Whats this I am hearing about Romney and his magic underpants?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 04:12:44 pm

Wow that's almost as good as Muslim rage.

I'm not even sure if I'm joking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 04:14:26 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 03:51:35 pm

I don't know what any of your posts mean!

point one out that you don't understand, and i will explain the meaning to you

possibly with helpful diagrams

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on November 06, 2012, 04:15:45 pm

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/11/201211617032532829.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 04:17:07 pm

Quote from: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 04:14:26 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 03:51:35 pm

I don't know what any of your posts mean!

point one out that you don't understand, and i will explain it to you

Quote from: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 03:48:28 pm

gud one

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 04:25:46 pm

RealClearPolitics final spread. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups_race_changes.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 04:26:36 pm

Voting Machine Altering Vote to MITT ROMNEY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM)

Welcome to America, now with obvious election fraud.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 04:27:49 pm

I'm also curious to see what the % turnout will be this year.  U.S. Election Project (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm) has links back to 2000 for percentage.

2008 (last Presidential Election) was 61.6% Nationwide (Highest was Minnesota at 77.8% and lowest was Hawaii at 48.8%)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 04:28:10 pm

I woudln't worry aboutelection fraud. The Obama capmaign has mobilized a army of Lawyers. If there's something fishy, They'll be on it like rats ins a cat pound.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 04:28:22 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 04:26:36 pm

Voting Machine Altering Vote to MITT ROMNEY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM)

Welcome to America, now with obvious election fraud.

I already posted this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 04:31:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 04:28:22 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 04:26:36 pm

Voting Machine Altering Vote to MITT ROMNEY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM)

Welcome to America, now with obvious election fraud.

I already posted this.

Hey, well.. Shutup. ;p

I'm very, very worried about this year's election.

Actually, here's a comprehensive examination of this election's tampering; brought to you by Al Jazeera. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/11/201211617032532829.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 06, 2012, 04:32:40 pm

Dropped my ballot off. :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 04:35:15 pm

well you see dear glyphgryph, comrade bohandas attempted to make a funny by suggesting that mitt romney is a lunatic (or possibly a neo-nazi, it isn't quite clear)

now as i am sure you can well imagine, this rather old and tired joke left me feeling unamused

so i figured i would express my unamusement and displeasure by using the magickal powers of sarcasm and refering to the joke as a 'gud one' when, in fact, i did not find the joke to be a good one at all

and thusly another gem of a post by tripjack was born

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 04:37:15 pm

It's funny because Mitt Romney sure does have alot of neocon support!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 04:37:37 pm

So what time do the polls close?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 04:38:43 pm

If the previous post was correct, 7:30 local.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 04:39:21 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 06, 2012, 04:37:20 pm

There was something you forgot: without a :P or [/sarcasm] or something similar, sarcasm doesn't transmit over the internet.

i imagined that the intentional misspelling of 'good' as 'gud' would make my sarcastic intentions clear

alas it seems, as it so often does, that i was mistaken

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 04:37:37 pm

So what time do the polls close?

the last one (alaska) closes at 1am eastern

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mephansteras on November 06, 2012, 04:42:42 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 04:38:43 pm

If the previous post was correct, 7:30 local.

My Ballot said 8pm (California)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 04:44:38 pm

Most states are 8pm local, however Kentucky and Indiana close at 6pm EST, so starting from there is when we'll start seeing results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on November 06, 2012, 04:45:14 pm

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/dont-pass-it-voting-booth-hoax-spreads-facebook-1C6884772
Got another one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 04:48:47 pm

CNN will have its results here: Election Results (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 06, 2012, 04:52:37 pm

The BBC has a pretty good online section here, with live text and video updates, analysis and nice and complex results tracker. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009190)

YMMV with getting on the site though from outside the UK, but at least it has none of that political bias you guys seem so hot on cramming into your media.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 06, 2012, 05:13:59 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 06, 2012, 04:52:37 pm

But at least it has none of that political bias you guys seem so hot on cramming into your media.

BY MANDATE OF HER MAJESTY THE SPACE QUEEN

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rockphed on November 06, 2012, 05:26:44 pm

On the whole "Voting machine changes votes to the person I did not want to vote for" thing, I have heard it both ways, so I suspect there are just a few bad voting machines.  Personally, I think that voting should be done on a ballot and a machine should be allowed to do the counting, nothing more.  But then you get a Florida in 2000.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 06, 2012, 05:31:30 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 06, 2012, 04:52:37 pm

The BBC has a pretty good online section here, with live text and video updates, analysis and nice and complex results tracker. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009190)

YMMV with getting on the site though from outside the UK, but at least it has none of that political bias you guys seem so hot on cramming into your media.

BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM IS A SOCIALIST HELLHOLE.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED GRANNY KILLINGS MUYST STOP. BOMB BRITAIN!_{Cause that worked well for the Nazi's.}

Yeah, I'll see if I can get BBC around here. I'll ask my dad too. He's normally liberal biased on most issues, even though he watches Fox like a paranoid watches CCTV cameras in walmart.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 06, 2012, 05:35:47 pm

Figures that I'd come  down with a hellacious chest cold on the Big Day. I at least did manage to crawl out the door and go vote. But I'm probably taking heap big medicine and conking out during the returns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 05:38:32 pm

All of NC has hellacious chest colds right now, apparently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 05:56:24 pm

The most important state in this cycle might be Florida, not Ohio. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?ref=politics)

This is a fun one, especially since it makes it clear just what the odds are at the eleventh hour. Thankfully, Romney doesn't have much of a shot, but he could if he's lucky enough.

In a worst-case most plausible scenario, Romney takes NC, plus the two closest swing states (Colorado and Florida). Here, actually, he has an advantage in number of possible paths. If in addition he has Virginia, he will probably have it in the bag; he would have to win in addition only Ohio, or Wisconsin+[Iowa/NH/Nevada]; or, he takes all three of Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire while losing Ohio. But I find that unlikely. Wisconsin is probably a safe Obama bet by now, and Nevada certainly is. Pretending that Mittens has North Carolina while Obama has Nevada and Wisconsin in the bag, Romney will have to win both Ohio and Florida to pull off a win; then he has to either win Virginia and something else or everything that isn't.

It will be interesting, but my money's on Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Willfor on November 06, 2012, 05:58:01 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 06, 2012, 04:52:37 pm

The BBC has a pretty good online section here, with live text and video updates, analysis and nice and complex results tracker. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009190)

YMMV with getting on the site though from outside the UK, but at least it has none of that political bias you guys seem so hot on cramming into your media.

Finally, a site that's not actively trying to destroy my browser!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 05:59:27 pm

My mom is under the impression if romney wins our food stamps are automatically cut.

Also, In the subway I over heard a few people, one of them said shes going to call up her republican friends and relatives and say "I heard your polling place is out of power, better npt vote. Too bad too". :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 06:02:24 pm

Quote from: Rockphed on November 06, 2012, 05:26:44 pm

On the whole "Voting machine changes votes to the person I did not want to vote for" thing, I have heard it both ways, so I suspect there are just a few bad voting machines.  Personally, I think that voting should be done on a ballot and a machine should be allowed to do the counting, nothing more.  But then you get a Florida in 2000.

This is from 2008, but the message works. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ)

And I can't find the clip, but as for the Florida 2k thing there's a bit in Futurama where Bender causes Bush to win by shooting a box full of Gore ballots.

Just thought I'd bring it up.

As for Al-Jazeera, I find it hard to believe any news station can really be unbiased. Al Jazeera's okay, but I want to rip my brain out when someone refers to RT as unbiased. RT is about as blatantly anti-American as you can get without saying "invade the US".

And that NYT "Paths to the WH" was rather striking. I doubt Obama will get Florida... but if he does, he only needs one more state to win. I think it's kind of funny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: PTTG?? on November 06, 2012, 06:03:16 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 05:59:27 pm

My mom is under the impression if romney wins our food stamps are automatically cut.

Also, In the subway I over heard a few people, one of them said shes going to call up her republican friends and relatives and say "I heard your polling place is out of power, better npt vote. Too bad too". :P

I hate republicans who try to keep people from voting, and I hate democrats who try to keep people from voting.

Perhaps you should tell your friends to grow up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Descan on November 06, 2012, 06:07:32 pm

What's RT?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 06:09:30 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 06, 2012, 06:07:32 pm

What's RT?

Russia Today. The English edition of the Russian state-run newspaper. As you can expect from a state-run paper from Russia, it's not so friendly to the Western world.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 06:09:52 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on November 06, 2012, 06:03:16 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 05:59:27 pm

My mom is under the impression if romney wins our food stamps are automatically cut.

Also, In the subway I over heard a few people, one of them said shes going to call up her republican friends and relatives and say "I heard your polling place is out of power, better npt vote. Too bad too". -

I hate republicans who try to keep people from voting, and I hate democrats who try to keep people from voting.

Perhaps you should tell your friends to grow up.

Again, random Obama supporters on the subway. I'm not allowed to around like a vigilante and punch people being dishonest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 06:12:07 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 06:09:52 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on November 06, 2012, 06:03:16 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 05:59:27 pm

My mom is under the impression if romney wins our food stamps are automatically cut.

Also, In the subway I over heard a few people, one of them said shes going to call up her republican friends and relatives and say "I heard your polling place is out of power, better npt vote. Too bad too". -

I hate republicans who try to keep people from voting, and I hate democrats who try to keep people from voting.

Perhaps you should tell your friends to grow up.

Again, random Obama supporters on the subway. I'm not allowed to around like a vigilante and punch people being dishonest.

That's just because you aren't MZ's timeclone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 06:12:15 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 05:56:24 pm

The most important state in this cycle might be Florida, not Ohio. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?ref=politics)

It's worth more votes than Ohio, but I think the idea is that if Romney managed to win Ohio he'd probably manage to win some of the other swing states too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 06:14:45 pm

It is the beginning...of the end (of the campaign).

Results are starting to trickle in from Kentucky and Indiana.

BBC results for those who missed the link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 06:17:56 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:41:06 pm

Trollheiming, let's make a bet. If Romney win, I'll sport a pro-romney avatar for the next year, if Obama win, I4ll choose a pro-Obama avatar for ya. How does it sound?

Kon, the offer is open to you too.

The early voting reports from Ohio were good. Obama has been berating his supporters to vote early and the percentages of early votes from Dem and Rep counties are tied, as of their release this morning. When Obama won in 2008, there was already an early voting lead that McCain steadily chipped away at on election day itself.

None of the assumptions based on 2008 are going to stand up in 2012. This is a tight race based on all those assumptions. In reality, I'm calling it a big surge to Romney, and avatars fall where they may. See, one offer and two takers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:21:14 pm

Sure, let's throw this in the ring. Trollheiming, you and Sheb can do your bet... Where's our Kon? I'll make the same sort of bet with you, Kon.

If Romney wins, I'll wear a Romney avatar for a month, (no way I'm switching my face to ANYTHING for longer than that), and if Obama wins you'll do the same with an Obama avatar - where it one month, this board, as your only avatar.

Trollheiming, does that mean you accepted the bet, btw? This is going to be fun. ^_^

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 06:25:24 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 06:12:07 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 06:09:52 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on November 06, 2012, 06:03:16 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 05:59:27 pm

My mom is under the impression if romney wins our food stamps are automatically cut.

Also, In the subway I over heard a few people, one of them said shes going to call up her republican friends and relatives and say "I heard your polling place is out of power, better npt vote. Too bad too".

I hate republicans who try to keep people from voting, and I hate democrats who try to keep people from voting.

Perhaps you should tell your friends to grow up.

Again, random Obama supporters on the subway. I'm not allowed to around like a vigilante and punch people being dishonest.

That's just because you aren't MZ's timeclone.

I'm am Loud Wispers though, but he's Not capable of punching people in NYC.

I'll throw my hat in the ring. Romney avatar for a month. Get quotes to make sure there isn't any shenanigans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 06:26:18 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 06:25:24 pm

I'll throw my hat in the ring. Romney avatar for a month. Get quotes to make sure there isn't any shenanigans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 06:26:23 pm

Obama might actually win Florida.

I live in the conservative panhandle, and locally Obama is ahead 49.5% to 49.1% so far.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 06:28:48 pm

$50 says this is a pretty solid Obama victory, but not as solid as 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 06:29:27 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:21:14 pm

Trollheiming, does that mean you accepted the bet, btw? This is going to be fun. ^_^

Sure thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Grek on November 06, 2012, 06:29:39 pm

I'll throw my hat into the ring. My avatar from November 7 to December 7 will depict the winner of the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:29:44 pm

Damn it, Great Justice, you're supposed to be on the other side so you can take Misko's bet! :P

Quote from: Grek on November 06, 2012, 06:29:39 pm

I'll throw my hat into the ring. My avatar from November 7 to December 7 will depict the winner of the election.

Betting against yourself DOES practically guarantee victory...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:31:06 pm

For posterity! Since misko requested quotes. Unedited in a new post!

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 06:29:27 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:21:14 pm

Trollheiming, does that mean you accepted the bet, btw? This is going to be fun. ^_^

Sure thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 06:32:37 pm

Dear BBC, do you have to use a time format which looks identical to years? Sure, Bob Dylan was clearly not alive in 1802, but honestly...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 06:33:36 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:29:44 pm

Damn it, Great Justice, you're supposed to be on the other side so you can take Misko's bet! :P

Quote from: Grek on November 06, 2012, 06:29:39 pm

I'll throw my hat into the ring. My avatar from November 7 to December 7 will depict the winner of the election.

Betting against yourself DOES practically guarantee victory...

I detest Romney and Obama about equally, but Romney winning sends the wrong message to the Republican party, and he cancels out the chance of them improving significantly in 2016 (whereas the only "good" result of him winning for the Democrats would be if Dennis Kucinich won the nomination or something).

On the other hand, I'm suspecting rather heavily that the Republicans will do better on the downballot races. Just call it a gut feeling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 06, 2012, 06:36:34 pm

Would you vote for this man:

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2012/newsspec_4287/img/calc_promo_624.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 06, 2012, 06:37:25 pm

I think if we should fuse them together if there's a tie.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 06, 2012, 06:39:29 pm

Reminds me of this guy:

(http://www.firstshowing.net/img/harvey-dent-believe-350w.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:41:33 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 06:33:36 pm

On the other hand, I'm suspecting rather heavily that the Republicans will do better on the downballot races. Just call it a gut feeling.

Oooh, you wan't to do Warren/Brown, then?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 06, 2012, 06:42:45 pm

I'm now not sure which is a better fiction setting: a sci-fi nation where the candidates are fused in the case of a tie, or a nation where a tie results in the candidates sharing a term and flipping a coin whenever a decision needs to be made.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 06, 2012, 06:44:18 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 06, 2012, 06:42:45 pm

I'm now not sure which is a better fiction setting: a sci-fi nation where the candidates are fused in the case of a tie, or a nation where a tie results in the candidates sharing a term and flipping a coin whenever a decision needs to be made.

We could just fuse them in such a way where they both maintain separate consciousness, then they can flip a coin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 06:45:23 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 06, 2012, 06:42:45 pm

I'm now not sure which is a better fiction setting: a sci-fi nation where the candidates are fused in the case of a tie, or a nation where a tie results in the candidates sharing a term and flipping a coin whenever a decision needs to be made.

I would prefer the latter cause funny thought. "You made the LAST decision" "That was about statues in parks, doesn't count"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 06:45:35 pm

... Two-Face for president, huh? I could dig it.

Also, sudden realization that's what that harvey dent thing was about. It'd forgotten that name...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 06:46:04 pm

I'm calling it for the big O. If I'm wrong, Romney avatar for a month.

No, until 2013 starts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 06:48:21 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:41:33 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 06:33:36 pm

On the other hand, I'm suspecting rather heavily that the Republicans will do better on the downballot races. Just call it a gut feeling.

Oooh, you wan't to do Warren/Brown, then?

How about Rehberg/Tester?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 06:49:13 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 06:46:04 pm

I'm calling it for the big O. If I'm wrong, Romney avatar for a month.

No, until 2013 starts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 06:50:46 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 06:29:27 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:21:14 pm

Trollheiming, does that mean you accepted the bet, btw? This is going to be fun. ^_^

Sure thing.

Btw, Kon already took on Sheb pages back, so I guess that leaves me and you, GlyphGryph. I was willing to pile onto the previous bet, but this arrangement evens it out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 06:51:30 pm

Calling Obama, will do Romney avatar. Anyone wanna piece of me?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 06:52:51 pm

There was a primate intelligence study done years ago where they would place two plates full of candy in front of a chimpanzee. One plate would have obviously more candy than the other. The chimps were trained to choose a plate, and would get to keep the plate that they didn't pick. Despite multiple trials in which the chimps came to fully understand the rules of the exercise, they couldn't stop themselves from choosing the plate with the most candy.

This is not off topic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:54:20 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 06:50:46 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 06:29:27 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:21:14 pm

Trollheiming, does that mean you accepted the bet, btw? This is going to be fun. ^_^

Sure thing.

Btw, Kon already took on Sheb pages back, so I guess that leaves me and you, GlyphGryph. I was willing to pile onto the previous bet, but this arrangement evens it out.

Did he? Okay, if so, sure, I'll balance that out for the month bet.

GreatJustice, I don't who they are, but it seems pretty close. If Trollheim would rather put himself opposite someone else, I'll pick up that one with you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 06:58:42 pm

I'm hearing the number 80% turnout in Richmond tossed around.  If this is true then Obama's turnout is amazing.  We might expect to see North Carolina go Obama again with that kind of GOTV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 07:00:44 pm

I'm having such a hard time picking which channel to watch

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 07:03:20 pm

Whoever wins (my money's on Obama), I know the first thing that will happen:

Everyone who supported the loser will wake up in the middle of the night, run out, and rip off all stickers, signs, etc. that they have in order to not look stupid.

Everyone who supported the winner will wake up in the middle of the night, run out, and slather on all their remaining stickers and wall in their yard with signs in order to say "I told you so".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 07:03:36 pm

http://youtu.be/QdpGd74DrBM

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 07:05:27 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 07:00:44 pm

I'm having such a hard time picking which channel to watch

Im going with cnn for now, what other options to consider?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 07:11:28 pm

So on TV, I've been seeing ads for Macy's "Election Day Sale".

For shame, turning the political process into an excuse for a sale. What's next? 9/11 Sales?

"We're blowing up high prices! They're crashing to the ground! It's plane and simple! Never forget... to check out the Macy's 9/11 sale!"

And if you want unbiasedness, CNN is probably the best mainstream network. [MS]NBC is rather liberal, and we all know about Faux.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 07:11:31 pm

The avatar results of this contest should really be better than just boring pictures of Rombama, though. They should be something crazy or interesting or photoshopped, like Obamney riding into the sun on the state of Vermont.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 07:13:59 pm

Compromise: Everybody gets an Obama/Romney slash fanpic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 07:16:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 07:11:31 pm

The avatar results of this contest should really be better than just boring pictures of Rombama, though. They should be something crazy or interesting or photoshopped, like Obamney riding into the sun on the state of Vermont.

Romney laying on a binder full of women?

Romney beating off sinners with magic underwear?

Romney falling over because he has no spine?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 07:21:37 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:54:20 pm

Did he? Okay, if so, sure, I'll balance that out for the month bet.

GreatJustice, I don't who they are, but it seems pretty close. If Trollheim would rather put himself opposite someone else, I'll pick up that one with you.

Quote from: Kon on November 05, 2012, 01:50:20 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:41:06 pm

Kon, the offer is open to you too.

That's a bet

Yeah, Kon is taken. If you are wanting to do someone else on Senate races--not my cup of tea--I guess I can do the deal with Zrk2 to spread things out as evenly as possibly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 07:22:45 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 06:26:23 pm

Obama might actually win Florida.

I live in the conservative panhandle, and locally Obama is ahead 49.5% to 49.1% so far.

Hey nadaka which county in the panhandle do you live?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 07:24:10 pm

Maybe a little too close, that.

Frumple actually knows, though. Nad's like a 45 minute drive from me :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 07:25:07 pm

If Romney wins, I'll eat all my pot.

And I'll sport this for the rest of this forum's existence, if he does win:
(http://files.myfrogbag.com/gaynkp/r-money.jpg)

Mostly because it seems like he's mocking me, and if he becomes president I want to be reminded of it every single time I come here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 07:26:46 pm

I'd like in on this bet. If Romney wins, my avatar will be Romney's head shopped onto this picture (http://anthonygeorge.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/burt_reynolds_cosmo3.jpg) (almost certainly NSFW).

EDIT: My reasoning:

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 07:11:31 pm

The avatar results of this contest should really be better than just boring pictures of Rombama, though. They should be something crazy or interesting or photoshopped, like Obamney riding into the sun on the state of Vermont.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 07:26:46 pm

Oh God.  It's coming.

Just a couple more hours.

Finally.  No more speculation.  No more suspicion.  No more arguing.

Can you feel it people?

It's almost here.

Finally we'll know.

We'll know at last!




We'll know who's running in 2016!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 07:31:49 pm

Who are you yelling at?

Why are you yelling?

Why do you think whoever you're yelling at can influence the outcome?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 07:33:35 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 06, 2012, 07:28:57 pm

PLEASEDON'TLETROMNEYWIN!

Amen, brother.

I can't influence the outcome- just hope.

At this rate, probability is on our side. The most optimistic (for Romney, I mean... pessimistic for me) report of Romney's chances is about 20%... more than I wish, but still not much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 07:41:12 pm

Dear The Media, do you really have to give us the projected results from the states that everyone already knows the outcome of first, and what makes these projected results any better than the projected results from before the election, eh?

I'd be in favor of having no results until there are actual tabulated results to report.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 07:46:06 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 06, 2012, 07:21:37 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 06:54:20 pm

Did he? Okay, if so, sure, I'll balance that out for the month bet.

GreatJustice, I don't who they are, but it seems pretty close. If Trollheim would rather put himself opposite someone else, I'll pick up that one with you.

Quote from: Kon on November 05, 2012, 01:50:20 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 05, 2012, 01:41:06 pm

Kon, the offer is open to you too.

That's a bet

Yeah, Kon is taken. If you are wanting to do someone else on Senate races--not my cup of tea--I guess I can do the deal with Zrk2 to spread things out as evenly as possibly.

I know nothing about Senate races, but I'd consider it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rockphed on November 06, 2012, 07:47:34 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 07:41:12 pm

Dear The Media, do you really have to give us the projected results from the states that everyone already knows the outcome of first, and what makes these projected results any better than the projected results from before the election, eh?

I'd be in favor of having no results until there are actual tabulated results to report.

Amen Brother!  I can see calling a state after 50% of the results are in.  I can see calling after even only 25.  But when no votes have been counted, it gets a bit ridiculous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 07:48:25 pm

Sooo... Four more years then?
Well look on the bright side, you can only go twice in the USA, right? So after that, there will be nobody to stop the Romney rein of terror! Unless Gore wants to give it another shot...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 07:54:33 pm

It looks like NC is going to be close. 15% counted and Obama is winning, 53-47.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 06, 2012, 07:56:27 pm

Kentucky is basically confirmed for Romney, though by significantly less of a margin than McCain won by.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 07:56:52 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 07:54:33 pm

It looks like NC is going to be close. 15% counted and Obama is winning, 53-47.

Wut.

But VA is 8% in and Romney is winning there by 20 percentage points...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Itnetlolor on November 06, 2012, 07:57:50 pm

I'm going to miss all the political ads that took up 75% of the commercial slots.

...Screw that. Good riddance. Furthermore, it'll be nice to see people eventually regain their minds and rationality again; or at least enough of it that remains, for what that's worth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mikefictiti0us on November 06, 2012, 07:58:50 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 07:11:28 pm

So on TV, I've been seeing ads for Macy's "Election Day Sale".

For shame, turning the political process into an excuse for a sale. What's next? 9/11 Sales?

"We're blowing up high prices! They're crashing to the ground! It's plane and simple! Never forget... to check out the Macy's 9/11 sale!"

A few corporate entities actually did make 9/11 anniversary advertisements, under the guise of paying homage to the victims. Anheuser-Busch (Budweiser) was one of them. What beer has to do with 9/11 is beyond my understanding, but I came out of the ad with "9/11 was a tragic event in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives. Now go drink up some Bud to remember them, bitches!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 08:00:04 pm

Florida 51-48 Obama with 41% reporting in.

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 07:56:52 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 07:54:33 pm

It looks like NC is going to be close. 15% counted and Obama is winning, 53-47.

Wut.

But VA is 8% in and Romney is winning there by 20 percentage points...

Eh. It's only worth worrying if the reported number gets to 20-30% with those kind of results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 08:01:58 pm

I may take an Obama avatar if he wins anyway, just to.

I am contemplating using the following, just for lulz:

(http://democrap.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/hitler-obama.jpg?w=450)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 08:02:45 pm

Give him Masonic earrings.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:02:56 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 08:00:04 pm

Florida 51-48 Obama with 41% reporting in.

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 07:56:52 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 07:54:33 pm

It looks like NC is going to be close. 15% counted and Obama is winning, 53-47.

Wut.

But VA is 8% in and Romney is winning there by 20 percentage points...

Eh. It's only worth worrying if the reported number gets to 20-30% with those kind of results.

If Obama wins Florida, he's basically the de facto winner already. Hopefully that holds up.

A lot of really-close races here in the initial count. Be interesting to see how many stay that close, regardless of who actually wins there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 08:04:44 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:02:56 pm

If Obama wins Florida, he's basically the de facto winner already. Hopefully that holds up.

We'll see. Virginia and Ohio are the real bell-weathers for if Obama is going to perform or outperform his polling results from before. Florida is always a damn tossup, but if Romney wins Ohio/Virginia it's a different story completely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:05:48 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 08:04:44 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:02:56 pm

If Obama wins Florida, he's basically the de facto winner already. Hopefully that holds up.

We'll see. Virginia and Ohio are the real bell-weathers for if Obama is going to perform or outperform his polling results from before. Florida is always a damn tossup, but if Romney wins Ohio/Virginia it's a different story completely.

If Obama gets Florida, he can win any one other tossup and still win the EC vote. Of course it's important!

Now, I'd be all for Obama getting a really significant win... but what I'm saying is that Florida is crucial here. If Romney wins, the competition shifts to OH, PA, NH, IA, CO, and the like. But if Obama wins he basically has the race tied up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 08:06:30 pm

Quote

Virginia and Ohio are the real bell-weathers for if Obama is going to perform or outperform his polling results from before.

And: No republican has ever gotten into office without Ohio, so it's a bit more of an indicator of how everything else is going to be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 08:11:53 pm

NC's margin has shrunk from 45,000 to 15,000, Romney currently ahead, 26% counted. Holy fuck. This is going to be razor close.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 08:12:10 pm

Troll, I'll do the presidential AND that senate race - if I lose both, I'll put the avatars on rotation.

And remember folks, we're supposed to be letting the /winner/ pick the photo!

(Those doing it for kicks or betting against themselves, obviously, get to pick for themselves) :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:13:45 pm

AAAND Romney's way ahead again in Florida... okay, two percent lead.

Incumbent's still leading in NC at 31%... big lead in crucial OH but this is with 9% counted, so it's bound to change.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 08:15:49 pm

Guys, the polls come in from different parts of the state at different times.  You don't look at the results until it gets to the last few percent.  It's number like turnout that you can interpret as they go along, or looking at the individual counties compared to expectations or previous years.  Saying X is ahead with so much of the vote cast is meaningless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 08:17:42 pm

and since the panhandle just closed, florida results will likely get all kinds of screwy until the end(don't you hate a state in 2 different time zones?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 08:21:31 pm

Yeah. A few minutes ago the BBC declared that South Carolina had been called for Romney. Their vote tracker showed 75% of the votes reported for that state by that point were for Obama. Probably just because they've only gotten a small amount of the actual returns in so far, and are showing them as they come in, but that isn't what they're using to project the winner of each state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:22:51 pm

Quote from: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 08:17:42 pm

and since the panhandle just closed, florida results will likely get all kinds of screwy until the end(don't you hate a state in 2 different time zones?

There are actually thirteen split states. ID, OR, KS, NE, ND, SD, TX, FL, IN, MI, KY, and TN... and theoretically AK, but like five people actually live in the Aleutians.

I'm gonna bet ten fake internet bucks that at least one newspaper Deweys this tomorrow. Five says at least five do. One buck on ten.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 08:23:41 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 08:21:31 pm

Yeah. A few minutes ago the BBC declared that South Carolina had been called for Romney. Their vote tracker showed 75% of the votes reported for that state by that point were for Obama. Probably just because they've only gotten a small amount of the actual returns in so far, and are showing them as they come in, but that isn't what they're using to project the winner of each state.

I believe they are using the exit polls in that particular case.  Generally they try to use turnout numbers which come out sooner then results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 08:26:37 pm

half the votes are here in florida and HOLY SHIT its close!(only 3000 votes apart!)



....PLEASE lets not have another 2000. PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on November 06, 2012, 08:27:08 pm

I shall make a bet with myself where I will, for an undetermined length of time, make a robot my avatar if Mitt wins and a jellyfish my avatar if Obama wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 08:28:10 pm

Quote from: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 08:26:37 pm

half the votes are here in florida and HOLY SHIT its close!(only 3000 votes apart!)



....PLEASE lets not have another 2000. PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 08:15:49 pm

Guys, the polls come in from different parts of the state at different times.  You don't look at the results until it gets to the last few percent.  It's number like turnout that you can interpret as they go along, or looking at the individual counties compared to expectations or previous years.  Saying X is ahead with so much of the vote cast is meaningless.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 08:28:35 pm

Cbs is saying Ohio is leaning Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: olemars on November 06, 2012, 08:30:12 pm

The reported votes from Florida actually dropped by about 250k suddenly. Maybe Diebold had to change seed on the RNG and rerun the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:30:24 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 08:28:35 pm

Cbs is saying Ohio is leaning Obama.

Probably. It's too early to call conclusively, but the first numbers are fairly telling, and most people imagined this for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:30:48 pm

Quote from: olemars on November 06, 2012, 08:30:12 pm

The reported votes from Florida actually dropped by about 250k suddenly. Maybe Diebold had to change seed on the RNG and rerun the election.

That is totally bizarre... smells funny. Smells like meddling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 08:31:30 pm

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results)

Helps follow it down to the wire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 06, 2012, 08:33:06 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:30:24 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 08:28:35 pm

Cbs is saying Ohio is leaning Obama.

Probably. It's too early to call conclusively, but the first numbers are fairly telling, and most people imagined this for a while.

More to the point, most of the counties that are in are rural, with the bigger cities not yet counted. Romney's not made good inroads in the cities here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 08:34:38 pm

Linda McMahon is down for the count! Murphey wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:36:16 pm

According to HuffPost, my beloved Michigan is 54-45 for Romney... wait, that's with >1% counted.

Nothing I can find on the other races... but I assume Stabenow will curbstomp Hoekstra for the Senate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 08:37:48 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:36:16 pm

According to HuffPost, my beloved Michigan is 54-45 for Romney... wait, that's with >1% counted.

I know, I've dont that myself. "Woah Ohio is going for obama easy! 58%! Wait, only 1% counted."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 08:38:09 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:36:16 pm

According to HuffPost, my beloved Michigan is 54-45 for Romney... wait, that's with >1% counted.

... um. Yeah, >1% is probably a good indicator, depending on how far over. It'd be considerably stranger if they were declaring that with <1% :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 08:40:05 pm

Romney leading Maine with 27 votes. :V

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 08:42:18 pm

It's too late, but here's some people you COULD have voted. (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5-crazy-people-who-you-can-elect-president-tomorrow/)

Also, Obama appears to be doing better in Ohio then in 2008. For 1% reporting, of course.

Obama overtakes mittens in florida with 35 reporting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 08:43:20 pm

Quote from: XxoriginxX on November 06, 2012, 08:38:37 pm

Am I the only one hoping that this goes to the House, just for the chaos and hilarity?

If this goes to Congress we're getting Romney-Biden, which would be...insane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 08:43:43 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

I can't either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 06, 2012, 08:45:27 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 08:43:43 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

I can't either.

I'm not surprised at all.  Given how tight this election is it's completely in character.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:45:29 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 08:40:05 pm

Romney leading Maine with 27 votes. :V

Right now it's back to Obama, 58-40.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:46:35 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 08:43:20 pm

Quote from: XxoriginxX on November 06, 2012, 08:38:37 pm

Am I the only one hoping that this goes to the House, just for the chaos and hilarity?

If this goes to Congress we're getting Romney-Biden, which would be...insane.

It's a lesser evil... Romney's not my cup of tea, but Biden is better than Ryan... even if their position is almost ceremonial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 08:48:06 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 06, 2012, 08:45:27 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 08:43:43 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

I can't either.

I'm not surprised at all.  Given how tight this election is it's completely in character.

Of course he'd start in on that now, of all times.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 08:48:56 pm

You are posting too  fast. Slow down, dammit.

Also Obama wins. 100 internat dollars on it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 08:48:56 pm

The odds of that happening are extremely small.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:49:34 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 08:48:56 pm

The odds of that happening are extremely small.

The odds of Obama winning? No, they're much higher than Romney's.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on November 06, 2012, 08:49:55 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 08:48:06 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 06, 2012, 08:45:27 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 08:43:43 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

I can't either.

I'm not surprised at all.  Given how tight this election is it's completely in character.

Of course he'd start in on that now, of all times.  ::)

Why the surprise? He's never going to give it up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 08:52:48 pm

meh, I've seen worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 08:53:12 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

Sorry, but that's totally faked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 08:53:13 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 06, 2012, 08:49:55 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 08:48:06 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 06, 2012, 08:45:27 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 08:43:43 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

I can't either.

I'm not surprised at all.  Given how tight this election is it's completely in character.

Of course he'd start in on that now, of all times.  ::)

Why the surprise? He's never going to give it up.

Was kind of a let down though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 08:55:26 pm

Obama is leading in both Florida and Ohio. Eeee I'm so excited!

Quote from: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 08:53:13 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 06, 2012, 08:49:55 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 08:48:06 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 06, 2012, 08:45:27 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 08:43:43 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

I can't either.

I'm not surprised at all.  Given how tight this election is it's completely in character.

Of course he'd start in on that now, of all times.  ::)

Why the surprise? He's never going to give it up.

Was kind of a let down though.

Calling Bullshit here. Just look at the frame skips!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 06, 2012, 08:59:32 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 08:49:34 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 06, 2012, 08:48:56 pm

The odds of that happening are extremely small.

The odds of Obama winning? No, they're much higher than Romney's.

I think it was the odds of us slowing down posting.

Chill out. Not everything is a political attack.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 08:59:45 pm

Okay yeah, drawing the line at that shit.  Thanks for the memories, now that's enough.

So, Ohio and Florida still wicked close to call, although anecdotal reports of very high turnout in Florida.  Also, worth remembering that, unlike the usual sort of last minute hushhush liar robocalls telling people they can vote on Wednesday, certain parts of the Northeast really have been declared disaster areas of such magnitude that, for instance, people in parts of New Jersey will still be able to cast a legal until Friday.

Not that it'll probably matter, but it is interesting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 09:00:06 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 08:53:13 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 06, 2012, 08:49:55 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 08:48:06 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 06, 2012, 08:45:27 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 08:43:43 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 08:42:45 pm

I can't believe someone would do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

I can't either.

I'm not surprised at all.  Given how tight this election is it's completely in character.

Of course he'd start in on that now, of all times.  ::)

Why the surprise? He's never going to give it up.

Was kind of a let down though.

Did he hurt you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 09:02:05 pm

Ballots coming in all sorts of places! Texas and New york, who will ever win those :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: olemars on November 06, 2012, 09:02:24 pm

Less than 5k diff in FL now with 70% in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 09:05:55 pm

Well, my state just closed, so time to open another tab to monitor those results...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 09:06:52 pm

CNN has the fastest numbers but their site is bollucks and keeps breaking on me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 09:09:04 pm

CNN has Obama slightly ahead with most of the remaining votes in Miami.  Calling it now, Obama wins Florida=game already over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on November 06, 2012, 09:12:31 pm

Also, latest results have Romney up by ~3k in FL now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 09:12:50 pm

If Romney loses the electoral college but wins the popular vote, I'd go to sleep with smile on faces

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 09:13:31 pm

Quote from: alway on November 06, 2012, 09:12:31 pm

Also, latest results have Romney up by ~3k in FL now.

If Miama has only turned in 15% and the rest of the state averages 80%, 3k isn't nearly enough banked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:15:28 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 09:12:50 pm

If Romney loses the electoral college but wins the popular vote, I'd go to sleep with smile on faces

Remember, same thing happened with Bush's second term.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:15:39 pm

I'm looking at a map right now, and there is a lot more red on it than blue. There are several numbers above it, and the red ones tend to be bigger than the blue ones. Is this worrying?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:16:39 pm

A lot of the liberal, Western States aren't in, yet. Don't get your hopes up/be disappointed quite yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 09:17:00 pm

Quote from: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:15:28 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 09:12:50 pm

If Romney loses the electoral college but wins the popular vote, I'd go to sleep with smile on faces

Remember, same thing happened with Bush's second term.

And that is why the electoral college, as it is, is a Bad Thing(c).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on November 06, 2012, 09:17:23 pm

This is an American election, silly. Aside from the battleground states, nowhere else matters because of our terrible electoral college system rendering the rest of the country non-competitive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 09:17:51 pm

NBC is calling Pennsylvania for Obama, and while the Presidential ballot in New Hampshire is not officially called, the governor race there looks to be a lock for the Democrat.

North Dakota Senate seat possibly going to the Republican challenger.

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:15:39 pm

I'm looking at a map right now, and there is a lot more red on it than blue. There are several numbers above it, and the red ones tend to be bigger than the blue ones. Is this worrying?

Note that the states have wildly different populations.  Half of the states account for about a sixth of the people.  Coincidentally, most of them lean heavily Republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 06, 2012, 09:18:18 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:15:39 pm

I'm looking at a map right now, and there is a lot more red on it than blue. There are several numbers above it, and the red ones tend to be bigger than the blue ones. Is this worrying?

Most of the Bible belt has reported in but the blue states aren't done yet. Romney's going to be ahead until they do.

Also, if lots of red states have big numbers then those aren't really big numbers. Republicans tend to be rural so most of the small states vote republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 09:19:09 pm

Pennsylvania surprises no-one except massively over-optimistic Romney fans (IE Fox News).  Hey, he was campaigning there, it must be in play!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:19:26 pm

Quote from: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:16:39 pm

A lot of the liberal, Western States aren't in, yet. Don't get your hopes up/be disappointed quite yet.

So Washington, Oregon and California tend to go left? Well they do have big numbers on them, so hopefully those numbers go into the blue numbers and the blue numbers get bigger than the red numbers.


Now reread that, but replace 'numbers' with 'dicks'

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 09:20:04 pm

Quote from: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:16:39 pm

A lot of the liberal, Western States aren't in, yet. Don't get your hopes up/be disappointed quite yet.

A lot of the conservative, Western States aren't in yet either. Really, either this is obviously over in half an hour (Obama wins Florida), or this goes on until we know how Iowa went.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 09:21:42 pm

Mitt Romney could edge into the lead on Florida, but the fact that he has to fight a close race there implies he isn't going to win the tougher swing states he needs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:22:23 pm

Yeah.

I kinda wish we could do popular votes. The whole electoral college thing is... Wonky.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 06, 2012, 09:22:33 pm

Quite. Even his prelocked states show much smaller margins than I expected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:25:44 pm

Just to make sure, you need 270 points to win this game, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 06, 2012, 09:26:15 pm

Yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:27:33 pm

And here I was thinking the Australian election ritual was cryptic and archaic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 06, 2012, 09:28:44 pm

I voted earlier in the day. Took me (and my bro) an hour to get through line. Parents voted a couple hours after that. Took them two hours.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 09:29:14 pm

Was North Carolina expected to be so close? 51/49 with 50% reporting or so

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 09:30:29 pm

Im not really sure how close florida is really, several of the big southern tip counties have low % counted that could swing it towards big O.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 09:31:01 pm

Notable: The Senate has gained another "Independent" member, in the form of Angus King (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-06/independent-king-wins-maine-u-dot-s-dot-senate-seat), replacing moderate Republican Olympia Snowe.  He clings pretty strongly to his Independent title, although on margin he hews closer to Democrat on most issues, including abortion.  Interesting that the one instance of a theoretically more-liberal change in the Senate was for arguably the least conservative Republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 09:31:50 pm

A lot of maps showed us (NC) as red, we apparently don't count as a battleground state, but I'm holding out hope!

Quote from: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:15:28 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 09:12:50 pm

If Romney loses the electoral college but wins the popular vote, I'd go to sleep with smile on faces

Remember, same thing happened with Bush's second term.

And that's why it would be so hilarious.  Also terrible and have terrible consequences.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 09:32:41 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 09:29:14 pm

Was North Carolina expected to be so close? 51/49 with 50% reporting or so

This is meaningless unless you say which precincts have reported.  If it's tied with Romney friendly in first then Obama wins, if it's tied with Obama friendly in first, Romney wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 09:33:39 pm

NBC just called Wisconsin for obama

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 09:34:19 pm

Is anyone here actually hoping on Romney winning this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 06, 2012, 09:34:38 pm

Florida's swinging ObadO.  Exciting stuff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 09:35:07 pm

With that bad a loss in WI Romney's chances are looking bad.  Florida is absolute must win for him and that's really close.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 06, 2012, 09:35:46 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 06, 2012, 09:20:04 pm

Quote from: Knight of Fools on November 06, 2012, 09:16:39 pm

A lot of the liberal, Western States aren't in, yet. Don't get your hopes up/be disappointed quite yet.

A lot of the conservative, Western States aren't in yet either. Really, either this is obviously over in half an hour (Obama wins Florida), or this goes on until we know how Iowa went.

But all those add up to less than just California. Obama's already picked up a couple of battleground states, I see.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:35:59 pm

I really wish I knew my US geography right now, it would make finding all these places easier.
Do you guys really need all those states? We get by with only 5, and a bit...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 06, 2012, 09:36:14 pm

Quote from: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 09:34:19 pm

Is anyone here actually hoping on Romney winning this?

There are a couple, but their answers as to why are usually pretty flimsy or contradictory. :P

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:35:59 pm

I really wish I knew my US geography right now, it would make finding all these places easier.
Do you guys really need all those states? We get by with only 5, and a bit...

The only thing you need to know is that I live in the place that looks like a mitten, and is close to Canada. If anyone says Wisconsin, I will maul them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 09:36:19 pm

actually NBC is saying the president just needs ohio at this point and hes a lock

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 09:37:36 pm

If Obama wins Florida as I have already said, it doesn't even matter if he wins Ohio: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=byxU

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on November 06, 2012, 09:37:40 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 09:29:14 pm

Was North Carolina expected to be so close? 51/49 with 50% reporting or so

I have hears that there has been a much larger push this election in NC to get college students to vote, so that is probably effecting it some. (I am a college student in NC, but I have not seen the previous elections for comparison.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 09:38:26 pm

270 to win picked a great time to go down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 09:39:00 pm

If we tally up the current scores and add the west coast (all shoe-ins for Obama), Obama's already got 232 squared away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 09:39:18 pm

Wooo this is kind of fun to watch. With my election, I'm always either bored to death by election day, or getting too worked up about how my own shire/city/state is voting to really enjoy it. However, with the US, I don't really care. I mean, sure, I want 'Bamallamadingdong to win, but it isn't personal!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 09:39:31 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 06, 2012, 09:36:14 pm

Quote from: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 09:34:19 pm

Is anyone here actually hoping on Romney winning this?

There are a couple, but their answers as to why are usually pretty flimsy or contradictory. :P

Now now MZ, let's not be a political snooty pie. :P

Sounds like Dr. Barack is heading in for a second term then? (This is the sort of sentence that will sound hilarious in a few hours if Mitt wins)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 09:40:15 pm

My trackers just decided to reverse the call on WI for some reason.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on November 06, 2012, 09:40:37 pm

NC was a dead heat last election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_North_Carolina,_2008

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:40:46 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 09:39:18 pm

Wooo this is kind of fun to watch. With my election, I'm always either bored to death by election day, or getting too worked up about how my own shire/city/state is voting to really enjoy it. However, with the US, I don't really care. I mean, sure, I want 'Bamallamadingdong to win, but it isn't personal!

I know right! Those Americans treat it more like a sport than choosing a head of state...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MaximumZero on November 06, 2012, 09:41:09 pm

Quote from: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 09:39:31 pm

Now now MZ, let's not be a political snooty pie. :P

I thought that was the whole point of this thread? :3

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 09:42:48 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 06, 2012, 09:41:09 pm

Quote from: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 09:39:31 pm

Now now MZ, let's not be a political snooty pie. :P

I thought that was the whole point of this thread? :3

GG wp, you told me! XD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 09:42:54 pm

Quote from: EveryZig on November 06, 2012, 09:37:40 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 09:29:14 pm

Was North Carolina expected to be so close? 51/49 with 50% reporting or so

I have hears that there has been a much larger push this election in NC to get college students to vote, so that is probably effecting it some. (I am a college student in NC, but I have not seen the previous elections for comparison.)

As another NC college student, I can say that there was heavy campaigning by the Campus Democrats at App State because the Republican candidate for County Commissioner stated he was going to end on-campus voting. Nothing makes for better rhetoric than being able to truthfully say that the opposition is planning to disenfranchise you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Leafsnail on November 06, 2012, 09:46:50 pm

Akin and Mourdock both look set to lose, turns out the rapist vote isn't as strong as they might have hoped

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 09:47:08 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:40:46 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 09:39:18 pm

Wooo this is kind of fun to watch. With my election, I'm always either bored to death by election day, or getting too worked up about how my own shire/city/state is voting to really enjoy it. However, with the US, I don't really care. I mean, sure, I want 'Bamallamadingdong to win, but it isn't personal!

I know right! Those Americans treat it more like a sport than choosing a head of state...

Speaking of sports 'n games, is anyone doing a drinking game to this? A shot every time a state swings from one to the other, chug everytime a state is declared, finish the bottle of spirits when the election is over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:47:28 pm

Looking at these numbers, there is a very, very low rate of votes for third parties...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 09:48:12 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:47:28 pm

Looking at these numbers, there is a very, very low rate of votes for third parties...

I see you've met the two party system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 09:49:00 pm

And Elizabeth Warren is projected to win Massachusetts.  So long Scott Brown and his truck!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 09:49:15 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:47:28 pm

Looking at these numbers, there is a very, very low rate of votes for third parties...

That's because in the U.S. the chances of a third party candidate winning the presidency are next to none. They don't have the money to get people to vote for them.

>>Ninja'd

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 09:51:03 pm

Sounds like Richard Moudock is out. Todd akin is losing, but only 9% have been reported.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:52:04 pm

I knew that the US had a bit of a two party problem, heck people are saying the same thing about Aus, but at least here the Greens party is big enough to get the balance of power, I didn't realize just how small the other parties must be over there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 09:53:03 pm

Third parties don't even win local elections in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 06, 2012, 09:53:49 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:52:04 pm

I knew that the US had a bit of a two party problem, heck people are saying the same thing about Aus, but at least here the Greens party is big enough to get the balance of power, I didn't realize just how small the other parties must be over there.

And this is why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 09:55:03 pm

Well we know the Big O will have his way with California, so if the huffpo realtime info doesn't have any thing flop to Mittens, then the dude is retaining the oval office even if he does not pick up any more states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:55:46 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 09:53:03 pm

Third parties don't even win local elections in the US.

Wow, that is kind of depressing. There are a few local elections here where Greens or Independents are a sure thing... What did you guys do to polarize politics so much?

Ninja edit: Thanks Darvi...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 09:55:59 pm

Does anyone know offhand what the results look like so far? Is there a chance that Shit Romney could actually win?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 09:56:58 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 09:53:03 pm

Third parties don't even win local elections in the US.

A little extreme. There was once a communist mayor, if I recall. I think their next targt should be governer of a small state, move from there.

Quote from: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 09:55:59 pm

Does anyone know offhand what the results look like so far? Is there a chance that Shit Romney could actually win?

To quote everyone IT'S TOO CLOSE TO CALL. But Obama is leading.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 09:58:06 pm

3rd parties aren't all that uncommon taking positions in Maine. The Green part is big there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 09:58:12 pm

How long until the Ohio polls close?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 06, 2012, 09:58:18 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:52:04 pm

I knew that the US had a bit of a two party problem, heck people are saying the same thing about Aus, but at least here the Greens party is big enough to get the balance of power, I didn't realize just how small the other parties must be over there.

Max, US elections have a "winner takes all" system as opposed to the preferential system in Australia. That means the US Greens get accused by Democrats of "Splitting the vote", hence making the Republicans more likely to get elected, something which wouldn't make sense in the Australian system as an accusation.

The same with more right-wing parties like the Libertarians, they get accused by Republicans of splitting the right-wing vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 09:59:43 pm

Quote from: XxoriginxX on November 06, 2012, 09:57:38 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 09:55:59 pm

Does anyone know offhand what the results look like so far? Is there a chance that Shit Romney could actually win?

As of right now, it depends on Ohio. Romney gets Ohio, he can win. If Obama gets Ohio, he can tie it if he gets EVERYTHING else, swing-state wise.

Actually, Obama is leading in Florida by .9 with 85% in, and if he wins there it's almost impossible for him to lose.

Quote from: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 09:58:12 pm

How long until the Ohio polls close?

Already closed. Counting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:00:42 pm

My gf just sent me an awesome electoral collage: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3f26PE611qbgmyg.jpg

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 10:02:39 pm

Florida's reaching 2k-level closeness here... HuffPost has a .2 percent difference...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 10:04:17 pm

I'm gonna go watch the world end on Fox news now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:05:02 pm

My magical map says Barry is pulling ahead of Mittens in Florida by .2% with 85% reporting. Sucks to be Mittens?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 06, 2012, 10:06:01 pm

SHUT IT DOWN, SHUT IT DOWN, THE PRESSURE IS TOO DAMN HIGH.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 10:06:36 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 06, 2012, 10:04:17 pm

I'm gonna go watch the world end on Fox news now.

This. I'm trying to time my channel changing to minimize before it's obvious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 06, 2012, 10:06:39 pm

Quote from: XxoriginxX on November 06, 2012, 09:52:44 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 09:52:04 pm

I knew that the US had a bit of a two party problem, heck people are saying the same thing about Aus, but at least here the Greens party is big enough to get the balance of power, I didn't realize just how small the other parties must be over there.

They don't even get get arrested if attempting to debate with the big 2.

FTFY

Catching up a bit.  It took me around 45 minutes to vote.

This is significant, because of the 6 am to 6 pm polling times in Indiana.  This leaves most people working your standard 9-5 job very little space in their schedule to vote.  They have to get out early (when the crowd are worst, I've noticed) or rush out to the polls just before they're closing.  Anybody who has to work overtime or multiple jobs is just fucked.  Coincidentally a right-to-work state, so you can't piss off your employer for the sake of voting because you have no employment rights.  No class warfare here.  My state is more like an all-you-can-vampire buffet.

Like others, I'm also coming down with some kind of cold-like thing today.  Sitting here at work trying weakly to keep up with the thread while feeling myself getting worse.  I gave up a couple hours of sleep to the election today, and I'm thinking at this point that it was completely not worth it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 10:07:23 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:05:02 pm

My magical map says Barry is pulling ahead of Mittens in Florida by .2% with 85% reporting. Sucks to be Mittens?

It's incredibly close, all I can say... Florida is, as I said, approaching 2k-level closeness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 06, 2012, 10:07:55 pm

And there's about a million or so people waiting to vote in Florida, still. Mostly in Democratic-voting counties. ;]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:08:33 pm

Okay, I am very sad that I never heard of new Senator-Elect Angus King, because he is suddenly the most important guy in the Senate.  The principle leg of his campaign was filibuster reform.

I'm going to say that again, to make sure it sinks in.  A guy just won an election to the US Senate, an Independent unseating a relatively popular moderate Republican, by first and foremost promising parliamentary reform of the government process.

My fellow Americanos, we live in a fucked up age.  I can't wait to see where this guy goes in office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Angle on November 06, 2012, 10:09:57 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:08:33 pm

Okay, I am very sad that I never heard of new Senator-Elect Angus King, because he is suddenly the most important guy in the Senate.  The principle leg of his campaign was filibuster reform.

I'm going to say that again, to make sure it sinks in.  A guy just won an election to the US Senate, an Independent unseating a relatively popular moderate Republican, by first and foremost promising parliamentary reform of the government process.

My fellow Americanos, we live in a fucked up age.  I can't wait to see where this guy goes in office.

If I live where I could vote for him, he would have my vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Angle on November 06, 2012, 10:11:23 pm

Damnit, you beat me to it. I said Florida cause I saw Florida in the comment above

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 10:11:47 pm

Quote from: XxoriginxX on November 06, 2012, 10:10:23 pm

Quote from: Angle on November 06, 2012, 10:09:57 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:08:33 pm

Okay, I am very sad that I never heard of new Senator-Elect Angus King, because he is suddenly the most important guy in the Senate.  The principle leg of his campaign was filibuster reform.

I'm going to say that again, to make sure it sinks in.  A guy just won an election to the US Senate, an Independent unseating a relatively popular moderate Republican, by first and foremost promising parliamentary reform of the government process.

My fellow Americanos, we live in a fucked up age.  I can't wait to see where this guy goes in office.

If I live in Florida, he would have my vote.

He's in Maine, I think.

He's more likely to caucus with the Dems though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 10:12:00 pm

Results from Iowa are beginning to come in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 10:12:11 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:08:33 pm

Okay, I am very sad that I never heard of new Senator-Elect Angus King, because he is suddenly the most important guy in the Senate.  The principle leg of his campaign was filibuster reform.

I'm going to say that again, to make sure it sinks in.  A guy just won an election to the US Senate, an Independent unseating a relatively popular moderate Republican, by first and foremost promising parliamentary reform of the government process.

My fellow Americanos, we live in a fucked up age.  I can't wait to see where this guy goes in office.

He didn't unseat a moderate Republican, Snowe retired and she was the only R with a reasonable chance of holding the seat.

EDIT: Oh, and my state was called for Obama awhile ago, continuing our streak of voting Democratic since 1976.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:13:17 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:00:42 pm

My gf just sent me an awesome electoral collage: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3f26PE611qbgmyg.jpg

Needs more biker chick.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 10:14:22 pm

Obama's lead in FL is up to .5%...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 10:14:34 pm

Woah, holy shit. If I'm reading this (http://enight.elections.myflorida.com/Constitutional/Amendment.aspx) right, it looks like the particularly nasty amendments (Six and eight) on the Florida ballot will be rejected. If that's still accurate tomorrow, I will be surprised and somewhat enthused!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 10:14:51 pm

Quote from: XxoriginxX on November 06, 2012, 10:10:23 pm

Quote from: Angle on November 06, 2012, 10:09:57 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:08:33 pm

Okay, I am very sad that I never heard of new Senator-Elect Angus King, because he is suddenly the most important guy in the Senate.  The principle leg of his campaign was filibuster reform.

I'm going to say that again, to make sure it sinks in.  A guy just won an election to the US Senate, an Independent unseating a relatively popular moderate Republican, by first and foremost promising parliamentary reform of the government process.

My fellow Americanos, we live in a fucked up age.  I can't wait to see where this guy goes in office.

If I live in Florida, he would have my vote.

He's in Maine, I think.

I love Maine and New Hampshire.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:16:11 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 10:12:11 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:08:33 pm

Okay, I am very sad that I never heard of new Senator-Elect Angus King, because he is suddenly the most important guy in the Senate.  The principle leg of his campaign was filibuster reform.

I'm going to say that again, to make sure it sinks in.  A guy just won an election to the US Senate, an Independent unseating a relatively popular moderate Republican, by first and foremost promising parliamentary reform of the government process.

He didn't unseat a moderate Republican, Snowe retired and she was the only R with a reasonable chance of holding the seat.

Oh yeah, I forgot all about that.  Okay, I really gotta look into that race.

Hmm, I was about to say they're calling Virginia for Romney, but that was just playing around with the hypotheticals.

Meanwhile, a Nebraska Senate seat just went from a retiring Democrat to a Republican, same story in North Carolina.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:17:43 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 10:14:51 pm

I love Maine and New Hampshire.

Map seems to indicate decent people live in those areas, not sure about population density though. Do they have some nice cities?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:19:07 pm

For all of you inflicted with the election day sniffles from rubbing elboes with the filthy masses...

If it makes you feel better, I am inflicting upon myself an inebriation, so that I may suffer along side you.

Why does democracy do this to me? I may never know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on November 06, 2012, 10:20:03 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:08:33 pm

I'm going to say that again, to make sure it sinks in.  A guy just won an election to the US Senate, an Independent unseating a relatively popular moderate Republican, by first and foremost promising parliamentary reform of the government process.

It is sad that it is surprising that something actually happened from congress's absurdly low approval rating (~10% at one point this year).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 10:21:02 pm

Maine is a pretty cool place - as I mentioned before, only state with real third party presence, and lots of independents. Basically what the rest of the country SHOULD be like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 06, 2012, 10:21:54 pm

My district is very rural (Morrow, Ohio is the northernmost city in Alabama) so my polling station was chill as hell.  Took like 30 seconds to get my ballot, no wait in line, friendly people, easy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:24:17 pm

Just to sure, popular vote is just a meaningless figure, right? It is electoral votes that we care about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:25:01 pm

I think the signs are pointing towards republicans losing the popular vote but hanging onto the house quite comfortably.  The way the founders intended.  We no longer live in a country where you vote for congressional candidates.  Instead you vote for state house reps and senators who support the gerrymander you prefer.  The Senate changes every 6 years but redistricting only every 10.  Gonna be a frustrating decade.

edit: Oh hey, my teams gerrymander captured us a seat in western maryland.  Yay.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:26:22 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:24:17 pm

Just to sure, popular vote is just a meaningless figure, right? It is electoral votes that we care about.

The republicans will raise an epic shitstorm if they win the popular vote, but legally the electoral count is all that matters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 10:26:30 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:17:43 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 10:14:51 pm

I love Maine and New Hampshire.

Map seems to indicate decent people live in those areas, not sure about population density though. Do they have some nice cities?

They have a very permissive attitude, and generally pull cool shit like this far more regularly than anywhere else.

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:24:17 pm

Just to sure, popular vote is just a meaningless figure, right? It is electoral votes that we care about.

True. Unless Romney wins it, and then we get months of bitching about the unfairness of the Electoral College.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 10:26:37 pm

I'm amazed no one has brought up how Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist (watch yo mouth, pinko), won by a landslide in the Vermont Senate elections.

Maybe the US has hope yet.

And Barry's FL lead is up to .6%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 06, 2012, 10:26:58 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:24:17 pm

Just to sure, popular vote is just a meaningless figure, right? It is electoral votes that we care about.

Pretty much, yeah.

Ohio had an issue on the ballot to create a separate group of officials for redistricting.

Up to .6 in Florida.  Not looking good for Romney, and looking really bad for us regular citizens who are going to have to listen to the shitstorm on the news when we 2000 again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:28:22 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:26:22 pm

The republicans will raise an epic shitstorm if they win the popular vote, but legally the electoral count is all that matters.

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 10:26:30 pm

True. Unless Romney wins it, and then we get months of bitching about the unfairness of the Electoral College.

Sooo... I'm going to assume I'm not the only one who wants Mitty to win popular vote, and nothing else, just for the laughs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 10:28:57 pm

I never quite understood why the Roman emperor Caligula was considered mad for making a horse a senator. A horse would be better than most of my country's senators.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 10:29:25 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:28:22 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:26:22 pm

The republicans will raise an epic shitstorm if they win the popular vote, but legally the electoral count is all that matters.

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 10:26:30 pm

True. Unless Romney wins it, and then we get months of bitching about the unfairness of the Electoral College.

Sooo... I'm going to assume I'm not the only one who wants Mitty to win popular vote, and nothing else, just for the laughs.

My schadenfreude would block out the sun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:29:37 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 10:28:57 pm

I never quite understood why the Roman emperor Caligula was considered mad for making a horse a senator. A horse would be better than most of my country's senators.

No, Todd Akin was a pretty horrible senator.

Oh, wait, you mean the entire horse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 10:29:55 pm

The republicans will raise an epic shitstorm if they win the popular vote, but legally the electoral count is all that matters.
[/quote]Apparently it's 162 to 162 now, though as analysis goes most of you seem to have a much better understanding than I  ;)
Urgh, I'm too congested for this crap.  I voted, and I hope we get a good government... That's all I got right now.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:26:22 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:24:17 pm

Just to sure, popular vote is just a meaningless figure, right? It is electoral votes that we care about.

And yeah Max, popular vote is meaningless.  I think even if the electoral college ties it goes to Congress.
The electoral college system is pretty bad.  A straight popular vote would be pretty bad too, though... ugh.

If it does happen it would be very amusing because the same thing happened to Al Gore, the democrat in 2000.  (if he really did lose florida...)  That led Bush lead us into this state of perpetual war, and we complained, but respected the vote.  I really don't expect the republicans to respect the vote if the same happens to their candidate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:30:49 pm

Fuckin-a' man.

the only Florida constitutional measures passing are 9 and 11.

9 allows the state property tax exemption for retired veterans to apply to immigrant veterans from out of state.

11 allows a  state property tax exemption for low income seniors.

Maybe people are actually kinda ok after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 10:32:31 pm

We've still got a few million that could potentially vote (E: Or have their votes counted or whatever)... but yeah, that's what it's looking like. It'll be a cheerful note to me regardless as to the rest of it if that actually pans out that way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 10:32:40 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:29:37 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 10:28:57 pm

I never quite understood why the Roman emperor Caligula was considered mad for making a horse a senator. A horse would be better than most of my country's senators.

No, Todd Akin was a pretty horrible senator.

Oh, wait, you mean the entire horse.

Nitpick: Akin was never a senator; he was a representative running for Senate as a challenger.

And is losing it!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 10:33:27 pm

BLUE ALART BLUE ALART

Elizabeth Warren has unseated Scott Brown. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/elizabeth-warren-wins-massachusetts-senate-race/story?id=17654166)  Batten down the hatches folks, it's gonna be quite a gale.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 06, 2012, 10:33:36 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 10:26:37 pm

I'm amazed no one has brought up how Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist (watch yo mouth, pinko), won by a landslide in the Vermont Senate elections.

Maybe the US has hope yet.

And Barry's FL lead is up to .6%.

Right... I'd prefer if it was a libertarian, but eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:34:31 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 10:29:55 pm

If it does happen it would be very amusing because the same thing happened to Al Gore, the democrat in 2000.  (if he really did lose florida...)  That led Bush lead us into this state of perpetual war, and we complained, but respected the vote.  I really don't expect the republicans to respect the vote if the same happens to their candidate.

Butthurt and hypocrisy? It would be too wonderful to ever happen in real life... Isn't it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 10:37:28 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:30:49 pm

Fuckin-a' man.

the only Florida constitutional measures passing are 9 and 11.

9 allows the state property tax exemption for retired veterans to apply to immigrant veterans from out of state.

11 allows a  state property tax exemption for low income seniors.

Maybe people are actually kinda ok after all.

...I'm pretty surprised too. When I Saw the utterly ridiculous ballot measures that I had to vote for, I kinda groaned and shook my head. Good to see other people did the same thing as I did!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alway on November 06, 2012, 10:42:52 pm

O's FL lead just dropped to 16k votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on November 06, 2012, 10:45:48 pm

aaaagh I have an exam tomorrow and I desperately need to study. stop being interesting

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on November 06, 2012, 10:47:16 pm

Why have all the networks called Wisconsin for Obama while showing Romney ahead in the vote?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:48:48 pm

Quote from: alway on November 06, 2012, 10:42:52 pm

O's FL lead just dropped to 16k votes.

Interesting, it seems to have mostly come out of Miami, shrinking his lead there to under 100k.

Given how Obama has held up in the state as a whole and the reports of high turnout that we've heard in Miami, I think he'll probably finish with more then a 16k lead though.  He won with Miami by nearly 150k in 2008 so it's hard to see him winning by less then 100k this time unless he was doing substantially worse statewide which we are not seeing.

Quote from: Karlito on November 06, 2012, 10:47:16 pm

Why have all the networks called Wisconsin for Obama while showing Romney ahead in the vote?

The republican precincts reported first and he didn't bank enough votes to have a chance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 10:49:23 pm

Quote from: alway on November 06, 2012, 10:42:52 pm

O's FL lead just dropped to 16k votes.

Its ok, thats just because santa rosa went from 0 to 60% in 4.2 seconds. Miami-Dade still has 30% to go and that will be about 100k for obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:54:03 pm

I misread CNNs website and thought Romney had 360k in Miami-Dade not 260k.  Looks like the tightening came from the rest of the rural areas coming in, not right districts in Miami-Dade.  So Obama doesn't have as much low hanging fruit in Miami left as I thought.  This could actually be closer then I predicted.  I'd still give the edge to Obama though, but should be interesting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 10:55:16 pm

Todd Akin really shot himself in the foot, man... he's getting legitimately raped at the polls.

I was kind of hoping Lamar Smith would have too with SOPA, but alas he hasn't been censored out yet... in fact, hes' blacking out poor Candace Duval. Of course, this is Texas... they'd vote for the Republican candidate if he was literally brain-dead.

(Speaking of which, I heard this rap/R&B song at the store, and the scat singing in it sounded like "sopa". I said that it was "Sopa", by Lamar Smith feat. RIAA... then realized that both "Lamar Smith" and "RIAA" sound like artist names for those genres...)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on November 06, 2012, 10:57:34 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 10:55:16 pm

Todd Akin really shot himself in the foot, man... he's getting legitimately raped at the polls.

Hehehe, good one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:57:49 pm

Looks like Obama sprung back up to 40k lead in Florida.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Angle on November 06, 2012, 10:58:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 10:57:49 pm

Looks like Obama sprung back up to 40k lead in Florida.

36k, but yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:00:27 pm

Why the hell is Huffpost's map showing that Obama won Wisconsin when it says Romney is creaming him there? And why is MSNBC's map saying Obama's got the majority in that state?

Is WI always this fucked up?

And Florida's driving up the suspense here... if Romney wins there, the election will drag on... but if Obama is the final victor, he's already won.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 06, 2012, 11:02:03 pm

The Democratic-heavy precincts of Wisconsin (Madison, Milwaukee) don't report until much later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 11:02:16 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:00:27 pm

Why the hell is Huffpost's map showing that Obama won Wisconsin when it says Romney is creaming him there? And why is MSNBC's map saying Obama's got the majority in that state?

Is WI always this fucked up?

Apparently, the most conservative precincts reported first, and even there the vote margin wasn't enough that Romney could win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 11:02:30 pm

Huffpost's map just added California to Obama, so now it looks like Obama has a massive lead over Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:03:03 pm

Ooh, polls just closed in Hawaii, Washington, and California (!).
Presumably the Democrats will have a field day in the EC and popular vote now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:03:52 pm

238 to 191 in favour of Obama according to CNN right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:04:01 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 11:02:30 pm

Huffpost's map just added California to Obama, so now it looks like Obama has a massive lead over Romney.

Of course Obama gets California!
"California is so liberal it resists your liberal" - that's someone's signature on this very forum. We knew that already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Grek on November 06, 2012, 11:05:59 pm

Someone find me the very finest robo-Obama avatar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 11:06:10 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:04:01 pm

Quote from: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 11:02:30 pm

Huffpost's map just added California to Obama, so now it looks like Obama has a massive lead over Romney.

Of course Obama gets California!
"California is so liberal it resists your liberal" - that's someone's signature on this very forum. We knew that already.

Well of course, I was just saying that in case anyone wasn't sure how Obama had gained so many all of a sudden.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:06:27 pm

Projected Democratic majority in the Senate, also from CNN.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 11:10:18 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 10:29:55 pm

I really don't expect the republicans to respect the vote if the same happens to their candidate.

uh.. how would they not 'respect' it exactly?

they have no recourse

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: rutsber on November 06, 2012, 11:10:51 pm

It looks as though Massachusetts might legalize medical Marijuana, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalization-results_n_2074168.html) if I'm reading this right that is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:12:12 pm

249-191 Obama-Romney. It's all over but the bitchin' folks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:13:40 pm

North Carolina (and Nevada and Alaska) going to Romney, Iowa (and Oregon) to Obama.  Obama ahead in Colorado, Romney slightly ahead in Virginia, still dead heat in Ohio and Florida.  In other words-

Hang on, NBC calling Ohio for Obama, according to analysis of polling in and polling yet to return.  If true, that would make the election, even if Romney wins Florida.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 06, 2012, 11:13:45 pm

NBC JUSTY CALLED OHIO FOR OBAMA

edit: Ninja'd

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:14:08 pm

I've said it before many times, and I'm not afraid to repeat myself:

Disregard every other state. Florida's the decider, the nailbiter- if Obama wins there, every other remaining swing state is icing on the cake.

And the difference has hovered near .2% for most of the election...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:15:23 pm

TO FOX!

YES WINNING! HORRAY!

EDIT: FOX CALLED OHIO FOR OBAMA, BUT SAY HE DIDN'T WIN YET.

BULLSHIT

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 11:15:45 pm

Quote from: TripJack on November 06, 2012, 11:10:18 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 10:29:55 pm

I really don't expect the republicans to respect the vote if the same happens to their candidate.

uh.. how would they not 'respect' it exactly?

they have no recourse

Redneck insurrection maybe? "The South will rise again", and all that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:16:39 pm

Give me link to the Obama victory speech!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 11:17:44 pm

Obama just won. Wow. I thought it would be a bit closer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:19:07 pm

Somewhere, Nate Silver is going "suck it bitches".

Y'know, Fox News is actually kinda interesting to watch.  Anchor seems to be at a loss for words.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:19:37 pm

We have to make it official...

CNN projects Obama as president.

Did we really need to take a WHOLE MOTHERFUCKIGN YEAR AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FUCKING DOLLARS TO PROVE THIS SHIT??? WAS IT EVER REALLY IN DOUBT??? FUCK YOU, AMERICAN ELECTION CYCLE.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:19:59 pm

CNN just called it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 11:20:38 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:19:07 pm

Y'know, Fox News is actually kinda interesting to watch.  Anchor seems to be at a loss for words.

Please tell me someone, somewhere is saving that for youtube?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 11:21:14 pm

Can I just have it official on here? Everyone agrees Obama is prez? :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 06, 2012, 11:21:18 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:19:07 pm

Anchor seems to be at a loss for words.

"What?... I... but... we had the callous uber-wealthy snob vote in the bag.  I thought they were the majority?..."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:21:30 pm

Oh my...

Four more years already...

I thought it'd be very close - I expected Obama to win, but not by this sort of margin. Assuming all remaining swing states went to Romney (unlikely), Obama still would win.

Good. Good.

I'm looking forward to a good rest of the week... a lot of good things happening for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:21:56 pm

Quote from: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 11:21:14 pm

Can I just have it official on here? Everyone agrees Obama is prez? :)

I called it more then two hours ago : ).  The mere fact that Florida was competitive was enough to seal the race.  Romney's only hope was the polls were way off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:22:13 pm

FOX CALLED, NO DOUBT NOW.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:22:21 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:19:37 pm

Did we really need to take a WHOLE MOTHERFUCKIGN YEAR AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FUCKING DOLLARS TO PROVE THIS SHIT??? WAS IT EVER REALLY IN DOUBT??? FUCK YOU, AMERICAN ELECTION CYCLE.

Hahaha, hundreds of millions. Technically correct! But try over two billion USD. Iirc, that's the advertising price tag on this election cycle ♫

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 06, 2012, 11:23:03 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:21:56 pm

I called it more then two hours ago : )

Don't be shy.  We all called it halfway into the republican primaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:23:15 pm

Fox has called but not BBC.  WTF brits?  They're still talking like Obama might lose the popular vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 11:23:24 pm

Time for the inevitable shitstorm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ShoesandHats on November 06, 2012, 11:23:48 pm

Thank god for Ohio. Mwah. That is my kiss for Ohio.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/aKXgr.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Grek on November 06, 2012, 11:24:33 pm

Quote from: Korbac on November 06, 2012, 11:21:14 pm

Can I just have it official on here? Everyone agrees Obama is prez? :)

Obama is currently at 269 out of the 270 needed according to BBC. So unless absolutely every single other state goes Romney, Obama is reelected.

E: Obama just took Iowa, it is offically over for realz.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:25:02 pm

BBC is doing split screen of cheers and tears at the respective HQs.  Literally.  Really killing my chill man.  And they finally call it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:25:31 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 11:23:24 pm

Time for the inevitable shitstorm.

Seitch to Fox for FireWorks! Watch dejected Anchors!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:25:45 pm

I see projections that Obama will win the popular vote too once all the Californians and the like have rung in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:26:15 pm

After california reports its numbers, romney may not even have the popular vote. california is huge ass.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:27:08 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:26:15 pm

After california reports its numbers, romney may not even have the popular vote. california is huge ass.

Indeed.

Damn, am I glad that's over. My right-wing grandfather is gonna be soooo pissed...

No more political ads... no more anxiety... no more stupid memes like "fired Big Bird"... yay...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:27:16 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 06, 2012, 11:25:45 pm

I see projections that Obama will win the popular vote too once all the Californians and the like have rung in.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:26:15 pm

After california reports its numbers, romney may not even have the popular vote. california is huge ass.

Oh thank God, I did not want to hear that shit all over again.  Mind, I'm still the country's biggest fan of a straight-popular vote, but damn was that I fight I was not looking forward to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 11:27:54 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:22:21 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:19:37 pm

Did we really need to take a WHOLE MOTHERFUCKIGN YEAR AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FUCKING DOLLARS TO PROVE THIS SHIT??? WAS IT EVER REALLY IN DOUBT??? FUCK YOU, AMERICAN ELECTION CYCLE.

Hahaha, hundreds of millions. Technically correct! But try over two billion USD. Iirc, that's the advertising price tag on this election cycle ♫

The news program I'm watching said SIX billion (IIRC)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on November 06, 2012, 11:28:03 pm

Quote from: Grek on November 06, 2012, 11:05:59 pm

Someone find me the very finest robo-Obama avatar.

From the last election but here you go:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs38/i/2008/315/8/a/Robama_by_natebarnes.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 11:28:59 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 10:34:31 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 10:29:55 pm

If it does happen it would be very amusing because the same thing happened to Al Gore, the democrat in 2000.  (if he really did lose florida...)  That led Bush lead us into this state of perpetual war, and we complained, but respected the vote.  I really don't expect the republicans to respect the vote if the same happens to their candidate.

Butthurt and hypocrisy? It would be too wonderful to ever happen in real life... Isn't it?

Haha, okay I see what I did there.  Stupid stupid dumb XD

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 11:15:45 pm

Redneck insurrection maybe? "The South will rise again", and all that.

This is what I meant, but I shouldn't have said anything here.  I'm being dumb and sick, sorry, I don't want a derail.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:29:14 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 11:27:54 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:22:21 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:19:37 pm

Did we really need to take a WHOLE MOTHERFUCKIGN YEAR AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FUCKING DOLLARS TO PROVE THIS SHIT??? WAS IT EVER REALLY IN DOUBT??? FUCK YOU, AMERICAN ELECTION CYCLE.

Hahaha, hundreds of millions. Technically correct! But try over two billion USD. Iirc, that's the advertising price tag on this election cycle ♫

The news program I'm watching said SIX billion (IIRC)

Yeah, initial search said about two billion from the actual parties and then whothefuckknows more from the PACs. Mind you, the states also apparently spent more on halloween than we did on the whole flipping election but whatev'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 11:29:36 pm

It's not over yet. If Romney gets the popular vote, you can bet your ass the Republicans will go- if possible- even more insane.

Everything that they've been doing since '08, they'll be doing twice over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on November 06, 2012, 11:31:12 pm

Quote from: XxoriginxX on November 06, 2012, 11:28:18 pm

Does anyone know how much Johnson got for the popular vote?

Most outlets aren't even reporting the independents separately yet. I'm guessing less than 1%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 06, 2012, 11:31:12 pm

Guys it's not over yet, we still need to figure out if I'm gonna wear the face of that guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:31:13 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 11:29:36 pm

It's not over yet. If Romney gets the popular vote, you can bet your ass the Republicans will go- if possible- even more insane.

Everything that they've been doing since '08, they'll be doing twice over.

We've seen nothing so far to indicate the polls were off and the polls showed Obama ahead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Cthulhu on November 06, 2012, 11:32:11 pm

I'm watching Fox online, I think.  They're talking about twitter and shit.  Nobody cares, Fox.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 06, 2012, 11:34:04 pm

Obama 275 votes! It's official. No recount needed thank god.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 11:34:14 pm

So, I'm not going to have to use this? (http://i.imgur.com/JL099.png)

I'm not sure whether I'm relieved or not. Happy about the election results thus far, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 06, 2012, 11:35:15 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 11:34:14 pm

So, I'm not going to have to use this? (http://i.imgur.com/JL099.png)

I'm not sure whether I'm relieved or not. Happy about the election results thus far, though.

Did not need to see that. xD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rolan7 on November 06, 2012, 11:36:07 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 11:34:14 pm

So, I'm not going to have to use this? (http://i.imgur.com/JL099.png)

I'm not sure whether I'm relieved or not. Happy about the election results thus far, though.

Is it too late to change my vote?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Greiger on November 06, 2012, 11:37:44 pm

Meh another 4 years in the 2 party system.

Oh well, Obama at least looks honest.  Romney looks like a sleazy used car salesman.

P.S. Yes I'm aware that basing my election hopes on what a candidate looks like is wrong.  But I didn't vote for either of those guys, so I still get to complain.  ^{_{Rosanne Barr woulda put this country straight.}}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:37:57 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 11:34:14 pm

So, I'm not going to have to use this? (http://i.imgur.com/JL099.png)

That's kinda' disturbingly well done.

Anyway, Aqi, m'good fellow! You've been a host. I'd even say maybe a good one (especially considering the shit the thread's been dealt, all things considered)! And I'm just going to go ahead and say, "Thanks."

So now you can't say the effort you put into this, however much that was, was thankless :P

How long do you intend to let this thing stay open? Inauguration? Until recount foofala settles down? Official numbers released? What's our ETA for going back to making individual threads for American political nonsense?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:38:44 pm

Is this the bit where we all put on our shocked faces and proclaim 'Oh my, a black president? I never thought I would see the day! What an age of equity we live in!!!!'

Or am I late to the party?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:39:40 pm

So what do people think about 2016?  I think Biden and O'Malley are democrats to watch not to mention Clinton while Ryan will probably be the standard bearer on the right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 11:40:44 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:38:44 pm

Is this the bit where we all put on our shocked faces and proclaim 'Oh my, a black president? I never thought I would see the day! What an age of equity we live in!!!!'

Or am I late to the party?

If you want something to act shocked about... Obama is the first president who's been elected after openly supporting gay marriage :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:41:06 pm

Well folks, we've cryed, we've laughed, we've cried because the candidates made us laugh, have we laughed because the candidates made us cry? Anyway, it's been fuun. Let's never do it again.

My thanks to you, gracious OP. You were everything we could have wanted. Or close enough. Rather like the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:41:46 pm

Romney campaign director in Ohio is disputing the result, insisting Ohio is still in play.

Awwww fuck, here we go.

Quote from: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:37:57 pm

Anyway, Aqi, m'good fellow! You've been a host. I'd even say maybe a good one (especially considering the shit the thread's been dealt, all things considered)! And I'm just going to go ahead and say, "Thanks."

So now you can't say the effort you put into this, however much that was, was thankless :P

How long do you intend to let this thing stay open? Inauguration? Until recount foofala settles down? Official numbers released? What's our ETA for going back to making individual threads for American political nonsense?

Thankya kinda broseph.  I have no intention of closing the thread unless some asswipe decides to bump it a year later or start some flamewar.  Let it preserve for all time.  Maybe I'll even update the OP, now that no one will ever have a reason to look at it again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:42:17 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 11:40:44 pm

If you wan't something to act shocked about... Obama is the first president who's been elected after openly supporting gay marriage :P

And with that, hope is restored to my dark, cynical heart for US politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:43:03 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:41:46 pm

Romney campaign director in Ohio is disputing the result, insisting Ohio is still in play.

Awwww fuck, here we go.

Fuck me. Just take this and shut the fuck up GOP. You need to restructure. Get over it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:43:09 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 06, 2012, 11:41:46 pm

Romney campaign director in Ohio is disputing the result, insisting Ohio is still in play.

Awwww fuck, here we go.

Let's get this party started! *cues space jam music*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on November 06, 2012, 11:43:18 pm

excuse me.

OMG Obama Won, Fuck Yeah.

Also, Hot Damn, Thank the Lord, Look at those senaate races.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 11:44:04 pm

Fox is so much fun to watch right now

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:44:23 pm

and the winner, weighing in at 300  metric tons!

Big O!

 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2682ZMo7N04/SwyGA17o1TI/AAAAAAAAAJU/Kcu9b4IhTsg/S1600-R/revolution.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:44:41 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 11:44:04 pm

Fox is so much fun to watch right now

Damn lucky Americans! I wanna see the loonies!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:45:02 pm

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/ (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/)

This will be fun to watch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 06, 2012, 11:46:02 pm

So, to those guys that had bets with Kon and GreatJustice... mind giving us a peek at those lovely avatars you have ready to dish out?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:46:22 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:45:02 pm

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/ (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/)

This will be fun to watch.

Please tell me Romney was trolling us. This guy can't be real.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 11:46:32 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 06, 2012, 11:37:57 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 11:34:14 pm

So, I'm not going to have to use this? (http://i.imgur.com/JL099.png)

That's kinda' disturbingly well done.

You're fucking welcome. I might not be obligated to use it here, but I'm damn well going to set a coworker's desktop to have that tiled across it, because that's just the sort of tame prank we play on each other.

And, yes, lest I forget, I have to thank Aqizzar for hosting this thread and keeping it civil during the brief windows of time I've actually checked up on it. Every time I have, I've been pleasantly surprised, having expected the entire thing to have transmogrified into pure, steaming excrement. So, you know, kudos on having a political thread more tolerable than 99.9% of the Internet.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

P.S. Apparently Mr. Reynolds was oiled up far more than Mr. Romney. The glare on the face was kind of annoying to insert.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 11:46:59 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:44:41 pm

Quote from: Andrew425 on November 06, 2012, 11:44:04 pm

Fox is so much fun to watch right now

Damn lucky Americans! I wanna see the loonies!

I'm somehow in Canada and watching. The lady was close to crying during that last bit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:47:03 pm

So my magical map says less then .1% difference in Ohio and .6% in Florida.
Funny if this turned around somehow...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 06, 2012, 11:47:32 pm

Quote from: Mr. Palau on November 06, 2012, 11:43:18 pm

excuse me.

OMG Obama Won, Fuck Yeah.

Also, Hot Damn, Thank the Lord, Look at those senaate races.

Thank the Lord indeed. In this great moment I am reminded of James 5:1, "Come now ye rich men. Weep and wail for the miseries that are to come upon you"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lemon10 on November 06, 2012, 11:49:00 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on November 06, 2012, 11:34:14 pm

So, I'm not going to have to use this? (http://i.imgur.com/JL099.png)

I'm not sure whether I'm relieved or not. Happy about the election results thus far, though.

Would you have any problem with me using it instead?
I am not really a Romney man, but damn is that a awesome picture.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:49:34 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:47:03 pm

So my magical map says less then .1% difference in Ohio and .6% in Florida.
Funny if this turned around somehow...

Wouldn't matter.  Obama could lose both and Virginia and still win based on the other states he's won: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bzOG

Where's the damn victory speech?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:51:20 pm

Like I said, it's all over but the bitching.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:53:18 pm

Oh, and by the way. I would like to be the first one here to welcome the 51st state to the Union. Hello Puerto Rico!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:53:38 pm

So now we pray that the popular vote favors Romney and the world implodes with the rage of a million republicans?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:54:56 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:53:38 pm

So now we pray that the popular vote favors Romney and the world implodes with the rage of a million republicans?

I doubt it, Romney is only ahead a couple hundred thousand and Obama is gonna rack up at least a couple million more in California.

I don't hope for it.  That would be horrific.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Greiger on November 06, 2012, 11:56:58 pm

Personally now I say that we pray people realize how screwy this system is and the folks in charge get rid of the electoral college and ditch pass the post for alternative vote.  But that's just me... and as likely as getting hit by a meteor at the same time I'm struck by lightning in a basement.

Watch republicans start talking about a recount anyway though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:57:40 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:54:56 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:53:38 pm

So now we pray that the popular vote favors Romney and the world implodes with the rage of a million republicans?

I doubt it, Romney is only ahead a couple hundred thousand and Obama is gonna rack up at least a couple million more in California.

I don't hope for it.  That would be horrific.

The butthurt would be delicious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:58:44 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 06, 2012, 11:57:40 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:54:56 pm

Quote from: Max White on November 06, 2012, 11:53:38 pm

So now we pray that the popular vote favors Romney and the world implodes with the rage of a million republicans?

I doubt it, Romney is only ahead a couple hundred thousand and Obama is gonna rack up at least a couple million more in California.

I don't hope for it.  That would be horrific.

The butthurt would be delicious.

Oh no, he's winning alot. I understand you so much though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:59:33 pm

Quote from: Greiger on November 06, 2012, 11:56:58 pm

Personally now I say that we pray people realize how screwy this system is and the folks in charge get rid of the electoral college and ditch pass the post for alternative vote.  But that's just me... and as likely as getting hit by a meteor at the same time I'm struck by lightning in a basement.

Watch republicans start talking about a recount anyway though.

I think moving to a parliamentary system would be more likely.  If you are reforming the system you don't do a half assed job, it's easier to sell a fully proportionally representative system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 06, 2012, 11:59:48 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:53:18 pm

Oh, and by the way. I would like to be the first one here to welcome the 51st state to the Union. Hello Puerto Rico!

WHAT?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:00:34 am

http://www.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 12:00:50 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:45:02 pm

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/ (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/)

This will be fun to watch.

.............

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 12:01:03 am

Really? Awesome!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on November 07, 2012, 12:01:46 am

Oh, cool.

Quote from: misko27 on November 06, 2012, 11:45:02 pm

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/ (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/06/obama-writes-concession-speech-romney-does-not/)

This will be fun to watch.

"Um... er, I didn't think I would be having to do this... so um... yeah."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:02:04 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:00:34 am

http://www.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml

Awesome!  Senate needs to approve it though.  Need to look up the margin needed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:02:32 am

Now, granted... It still has to pass the senate and house. But Puerto Rico has begun the process.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 12:02:45 am

There are 113 House seats that still haven't been called, and 5 senate seats. The democrats have at least 52 seats in the Senate, so they've got the majority, but there's no way they could get a supermajority to defeat the Republican filibuster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 12:03:19 am

Isn't the Republican party platform to allow Puerto Rico statehood if it wants it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mr. Palau on November 07, 2012, 12:03:55 am

Guys, this is the first time we have had three consecutive two term presidents since 1801-1825

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GreatJustice on November 07, 2012, 12:04:35 am

Oh wow, this is almost perfect.

-Romney is apparently winning Ohio now, so it may lose its "national bellweather" status

-Romney has a decent chance of winning the PV while being creamed in the EV

-The house is pretty safely Republican, so Obama won't be able to ram through everything he wants

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:05:51 am

Democrats will probably relish having republicans piss off hispanics by voting against Puerto Rican statehood.  Even if some republicans defect the optics will be horrible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:06:20 am

Happy 51! The Democrats will win 2016 at this rate. I'm always up for more states.

*cries* I'm just so happy. The people out my window are cheering. I wish I was at obama headquaters, I could use a hug.

Mitten hasn't left his suite since the vote. Fox news is now denouncing him as not conservative enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:07:00 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 07, 2012, 12:04:35 am

-Romney is apparently winning Ohio now, so it may lose its "national bellweather" status

Map says Obama by 1,100 votes with 80% reporting.

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:06:20 am

Fox news is now denouncing him as not conservative enough.

Do they mean to imply that Obama won because it is more conservative?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:07:43 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 07, 2012, 12:04:35 am

Oh wow, this is almost perfect.
-Romney has a decent chance of winning the PV while being creamed in the EV

Not remotely.  The California vote has barely been counted.  That's 1/5th the country and they're liberal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: werty892 on November 07, 2012, 12:07:53 am

Maps are lies

All you need to know

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:09:30 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:07:00 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:06:20 am

Fox news is now denouncing him as not conservative enough.

Do they mean to imply that Obama won because it is more conservative?

No, he was too liberal, and looked too much like obama. If he was super conservative, then he would have won. Silly Liberal!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 07, 2012, 12:09:47 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:06:20 am

Mitten hasn't left his suite since the vote. Fox news is now denouncing him as not conservative enough.

Oh sweet Schadenfreude.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:09:58 am

It's surprising how well the polls predicted everything.  Obama is slightly underperforming in Ohio and Virginia but other then that everything went the way you'd expect at the presidential level, in the congressional and senate races and even the ballot initiatives.  Puerto Rico is the only real surprise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:10:42 am

I feel sorry for poor Alaska right now... They only have 3 electorate votes, any by the time they are counted the game is over. Voter apathy must be at an all time high there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Rolan7 on November 07, 2012, 12:13:01 am

What is that, 1 electoral vote per person?  All three of them are electors?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: werty892 on November 07, 2012, 12:14:05 am

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 07, 2012, 12:13:01 am

What is that, 1 electoral vote per person?  All three of them are electors?

Nah, its 1 guy, a moose and a bear.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Moghjubar on November 07, 2012, 12:14:31 am

Mmmmm, election results.....
More mmmmm.... election coverage finally ending!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2012, 12:14:36 am

Hey now, there's more than three people in alaska. _{There's five, but two are currently underaged so yeah. They're going to have to import a senator eventually.}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 12:15:16 am

Apparently, same sex marriage is looking likely to be legalized in Maryland. :D

Now to wait for the Maine and Washington state results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 07, 2012, 12:15:54 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 12:03:19 am

Isn't the Republican party platform to allow Puerto Rico statehood if it wants it?

Wow.

That's actually good.



AHH SUPERNINJAS

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: werty892 on November 07, 2012, 12:16:48 am

Its now 290-203. Romney getting stomped more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:17:27 am

Quote from: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 12:15:16 am

Apparently, same sex marriage is looking likely to be legalized in Maryland. :D

Awesome news!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:19:59 am

Democrats won 3 seats in senate. Maybe 1 in House. Life is good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 12:20:15 am

I want Obama to win with exactly 47% of the popular vote, for the sake of sweet, delicious irony.

Also:

(WA) I-502 Recreational Marijuana
APPROVE    839,120    56%
REJECT    660,455    44%

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:22:18 am

Is WA Washington?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 12:22:24 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:17:27 am

Quote from: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 12:15:16 am

Apparently, same sex marriage is looking likely to be legalized in Maryland. :D

Awesome news!

Not legalized, to stay legal.  In that it technically already is, the ballot measure confirms it.

I can't wait to hear about the Puerto Rico thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:22:38 am

On the news program that I'm watching they just had a small report about Donald Trump calling the election a sham. But the great thing is the hilarious way the news anchor reported it; he introduced the topic with "Donald Trump, who is now well on the way on the road to irrelevancy, had this to say..." and ended with "..so yeah. that happened." :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:23:06 am

Quote from: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 12:20:15 am

I want Romney to win with exactly 47% of the popular vote, for the sake of sweet, delicious irony.

Fix'd

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 12:23:49 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:22:18 am

Is WA Washington?

Washington State, yes. home of Starbucks, Microsoft, etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:24:10 am

So there are 5 or 6 states where democrats are going to win the popular vote but have fewer house seats due to gerrymandering.  PA, WI, OH, FL, VA and likely MI.  There are 0 states where republicans will win the popular vote but have fewer house seats.  So in a close election the house isn't really competitive.  Like I said before, you don't vote for congressmen, you vote for a gerrymander.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:24:26 am

Also

Colorado Amendment 64 (Marijuana Legalization for Recreational Use)

For - 52.7%
Against - 47.3%

I for one welcome our new drug-addled overlords.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:25:16 am

I am one of the most partisan democrats you will ever meet, and yet I'm arguing on Facebook against blind partisanship.

I like to think that I critically examine my beliefs constantly, at least, instead of going "Oh yeah, if the democrats win in 2006, gas will hit $5." "Oh yeah, if the democrats win in 2008, gas will hit $5." "Oh yeah, if the democrats win in 2012, gas will hit $5." Eventually this will be true, but I think it's been false enough times to discredit it, not that anyone who argues that will care.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:25:24 am

I've heard theories that Romney is stalling so he has time to write a concession speech from scratch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ShoesandHats on November 07, 2012, 12:25:53 am

Quote from: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 12:23:49 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:22:18 am

Is WA Washington?

Washington State, yes. home of Starbucks, Microsoft, etc.

Also home of a vote on legalizing same sex marriage.  :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:26:55 am

I think I like Washington.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:27:28 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:24:26 am

Also

Colorado Amendment 64 (Marijuana Legalization for Recreational Use)

For - 52.7%
Against - 47.3%

I for one welcome our new drug-addled overlords.

How many states were voting for total legalization? I think it was just two or three, and then there were two or three more that were voting for medical legalization.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:27:35 am

I think I like colorado

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 07, 2012, 12:28:01 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:25:24 am

I've heard theories that Romney is stalling so he has time to write a concession speech from scratch.

It can't take that long to scribble out vaguely congratulatory BS loaded with implications, can it?

Also, cheers for the step towards #51.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 07, 2012, 12:28:25 am

Whoah... the HuffPost map has gone all bizarre; a whole heap of states have lost huge chunks of of votes (Florida's back down to 40% reported, from 96% before, for example), but they're still calling it an Obama victory, so it's not a straight rollback. Anyone have any idea?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: zombie urist on November 07, 2012, 12:29:13 am

Anyone seen this? Pretty funny stuff.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/president-obama-mitt-romney-face-382128

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:29:23 am

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 07, 2012, 12:28:25 am

Whoah... the HuffPost map has gone all bizarre; a whole heap of states have lost huge chunks of of votes (Florida's back down to 40% reported, from 96% before, for example), but they're still calling it an Obama victory, so it's not a straight rollback. Anyone have any idea?

Recounts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:30:39 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:25:24 am

I've heard theories that Romney is stalling so he has time to write a concession speech from scratch.

God I hope it's filled with mistakes and errors.

Fox says Romney is trying to call on Obama to issue a concession speech. Appearantly Obama can't do his speech till Romney goes out with the concession.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 12:31:05 am

Shine on, you crazy arrogant diamond... (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20121106mitt_ann_romney_to_vote_in_mass_hometown/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 12:31:30 am

So, just to be clear: At Romney headquarters in Boston, the campaign is refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Ohio call (so far), and there is no word on when (or if) Romney will give a speech.  Methinks the delay might just be to cover writing it.  Also, Karl Rove and a few other Fox News personalities are refusing to announce the result.

Meanwhile, the Ohio Secretary of State, a heavily invested Romney supporter, publicly declared that the vote could be confirmed for Obama and that he would not be returning to the podium.  So, there you go.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:31:48 am

the huffpo map looks like it hit a temporary glitch, seems to be back now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 12:31:51 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:27:35 am

I think I like colorado

I'm sure it's great if you never plan on any form of protest or other resistance to state/corporate power ever.  If you do, be prepared to face police kitted out in full military war gear with AR-15s against your head.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: TripJack on November 07, 2012, 12:31:58 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:39:40 pm

So what do people think about 2016?  I think Biden and O'Malley are democrats to watch not to mention Clinton while Ryan will probably be the standard bearer on the right.

terrifying thoughts all of them

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 07, 2012, 12:32:54 am

Wait... and now Huff is back to where it was before, plus now the big O is only 0.1% of the PV behind Romney.

ANNNDD Ninja'd by Nadaka.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:33:27 am

My local marijuana legalization interests (read: pothead friends on Facebook) are claiming the marijuana legalization vote succeeded in Colorado.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 12:35:24 am

I was thinking that the last shred of respect I might have for Romney depends on how graciously he concedes.

I was also thinking, maybe Romney didn't so much care about winning, as for burning up all the Democrats campaign resources on the presidential election, so nothing was left for the congressional races.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:35:38 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:33:27 am

My local marijuana legalization interests (read: pothead friends on Facebook) are claiming the marijuana legalization vote succeeded in Colorado.

I heard that too. Along with their subsequent plants to travel to that state...

did I make a typo?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 12:35:55 am

I know people don't like looking like idiots, but given the current trends in florida why don't they go ahead and call it for obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Grek on November 07, 2012, 12:36:18 am

Hello, Puerto Rico!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Scelly9 on November 07, 2012, 12:36:40 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:35:38 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:33:27 am

My local marijuana legalization interests (read: pothead friends on Facebook) are claiming the marijuana legalization vote succeeded in Colorado.

I heard that too. Along with their subsequent plants to travel to that state...

did I make a typo?

Yes, but they typo is also valid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:37:13 am

Quote from: TripJack on November 07, 2012, 12:31:58 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:39:40 pm

So what do people think about 2016?  I think Biden and O'Malley are democrats to watch not to mention Clinton while Ryan will probably be the standard bearer on the right.

terrifying thoughts all of them

Clinton is flawed, she wanted to ban/censor violent/mature video games.

Paul Ryan would make a terrible terrible republican candidate.

Biden? He has the experience, and I cant think of any royal assfaced political moments, but he isn't particularly charismatic and tends to ramble.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:38:15 am

Quote from: Scelly9 on November 07, 2012, 12:36:40 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:35:38 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:33:27 am

My local marijuana legalization interests (read: pothead friends on Facebook) are claiming the marijuana legalization vote succeeded in Colorado.

I heard that too. Along with their subsequent plants to travel to that state...

did I make a typo?

Yes, but they typo is also valid.

As a Coloradoan, I can assure you that it passed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:38:56 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:37:13 am

Quote from: TripJack on November 07, 2012, 12:31:58 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:39:40 pm

So what do people think about 2016?  I think Biden and O'Malley are democrats to watch not to mention Clinton while Ryan will probably be the standard bearer on the right.

terrifying thoughts all of them

Clinton is flawed, she wanted to ban/censor violent/mature video games.

Indeed. Censorship is among the most unforgivable flaws out there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:39:26 am

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 12:35:55 am

I know people don't like looking like idiots, but given the current trends in florida why don't they go ahead and call it for obama?

I think they are concerned about the possibility of an upset in the absentee ballots.

The media keeps talking about the popular vote being split without accounting for the fact that it won't be close after California get's counted.  Geez, can't they do their jobs?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:39:50 am

I think obama is now leading PV. Hehe, I find this impressive. Think about it, The republicans are under the impression this is BLACK ISLAMIC SATAN, turning out FULLY in red states, and are STILL losing. They really need the redructuring, even Fox news admits it (Though they say go to the left, shocking).

Quote from: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:39:26 am

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 12:35:55 am

I know people don't like looking like idiots, but given the current trends in florida why don't they go ahead and call it for obama?

I think they are concerned about the possibility of an upset in the absentee ballots.

The media keeps talking about the popular vote being split without accounting for the fact that it won't be close after California get's counted.  Geez, can't they do their jobs?

And New yorks isn't done yet either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:41:09 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:38:15 am

Quote from: Scelly9 on November 07, 2012, 12:36:40 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:35:38 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:33:27 am

My local marijuana legalization interests (read: pothead friends on Facebook) are claiming the marijuana legalization vote succeeded in Colorado.

I heard that too. Along with their subsequent plants to travel to that state...

did I make a typo?

Yes, but they typo is also valid.

As a Coloradoan, I can assure you that it passed.

So are you now legally allowed to admit how you're celebrating?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:42:03 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:41:09 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:38:15 am

Quote from: Scelly9 on November 07, 2012, 12:36:40 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:35:38 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:33:27 am

My local marijuana legalization interests (read: pothead friends on Facebook) are claiming the marijuana legalization vote succeeded in Colorado.

I heard that too. Along with their subsequent plants to travel to that state...

did I make a typo?

Yes, but they typo is also valid.

As a Coloradoan, I can assure you that it passed.

So are you now legally allowed to admit how you're celebrating?

Nope, I'm under 21, so it's still banned for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:42:16 am

I wanted to celebrate but my friends on this floor don't seem to have any booze. WHY.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:45:19 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:42:16 am

I wanted to celebrate but my friends on this floor don't seem to have any booze. WHY.

I too appear to be lacking champagne.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Flying Dice on November 07, 2012, 12:46:01 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:37:13 am

Quote from: TripJack on November 07, 2012, 12:31:58 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 06, 2012, 11:39:40 pm

So what do people think about 2016?  I think Biden and O'Malley are democrats to watch not to mention Clinton while Ryan will probably be the standard bearer on the right.

terrifying thoughts all of them

Clinton is flawed, she wanted to ban/censor violent/mature video games.

Paul Ryan would make a terrible terrible republican candidate.

Biden? He has the experience, and I cant think of any royal assfaced political moments, but he isn't particularly charismatic and tends to ramble.

He also personally chases down purse-snatchers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 12:46:15 am

not that it matters at this pint, but CNN just put VA for obama

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:28 am

Oh, is weed in Colorado a 21 thing? That makes sense. For some reason nobody ever seems to mention the age restrictions in their legalization frenzy. I guess it'll be as hard to get as liquor now, i.e. not hard at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ShoesandHats on November 07, 2012, 12:48:13 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:45:19 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 12:42:16 am

I wanted to celebrate but my friends on this floor don't seem to have any booze. WHY.

I too appear to be lacking champagne.

Well, at my household, we had South African wine, Hawaiian beer, and Chicago style hot dogs. And apple pie for good measure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:48:44 am

We just had a lot of vodka.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: EveryZig on November 07, 2012, 12:49:00 am

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 12:46:15 am

not that it matters at this pint

Been doing an election drinking game?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 12:49:26 am

Dear Obama,

<3

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: sluissa on November 07, 2012, 12:49:32 am

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 12:35:55 am

I know people don't like looking like idiots, but given the current trends in florida why don't they go ahead and call it for obama?

Everyone is still gun-shy after 2000... Florida has since been viewed with severe skepticism as if the numbers they get from there are just completely made up until a few days later. I can understand, somewhat. 2000 WAS a huge embarrassment for everyone involved... media-wise. But calling Ohio while not calling Florida when Florida has a wider margin, well, that is somewhat silly.

Also the Florida absentee ballots should all be counted in already. They were supposed to have ARRIVED by today... not simply mailed. If they haven't arrived yet, then they're too late. They're also done on the same computer read ballots as the early voting was done on so it should simply be a matter of running stacks of them through the computer ballot counters. Those aren't the quickest things in the world, but noting that they've been trickling in over the past few weeks, it's not like they have to count them all tonight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:49:39 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:28 am

Oh, is weed in Colorado a 21 thing? That makes sense. For some reason nobody ever seems to mention the age restrictions in their legalization frenzy. I guess it'll be as hard to get as liquor now, i.e. not hard at all.

Colorado now treats Marijuana like alcohol. It is Illegal to be caught driving under the influence (though they haven't really set a standard for that yet) and plans are to tax it as much as possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:49:44 am

BBC says Romney to speak shortly, I hope so, I wanna hear Obama already!

I'm thinking that a lot of old people will be home depressed instead of coming in to their appointments at my job tomorrow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 12:50:23 am

meh, i don't drink(much)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:50:51 am

I've spent more time waiting for the speeches then following the election at this point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ShoesandHats on November 07, 2012, 12:52:34 am

Yeah, MSNBC says Romney's conceding in about 4 minutes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Zrk2 on November 07, 2012, 12:53:01 am

Am I the only one that failed to have a solid election day drunk going?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:53:46 am

Quote from: ShoesandHats on November 07, 2012, 12:52:34 am

Yeah, MSNBC says Romney's conceding in about 4 minutes.

Who wants to bet he's actually doubling down?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 07, 2012, 12:54:20 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:49:39 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:28 am

Oh, is weed in Colorado a 21 thing? That makes sense. For some reason nobody ever seems to mention the age restrictions in their legalization frenzy. I guess it'll be as hard to get as liquor now, i.e. not hard at all.

Colorado now treats Marijuana like alcohol. It is Illegal to be caught driving under the influence (though they haven't really set a standard for that yet) and plans are to tax it as much as possible.

I wish I could see the faces of every drug dealer who gets their face smashed into the asphalt for selling weed illegally. Now that the state can make money on it, they are going to take such things mighty seriously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:49:39 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:28 am

Oh, is weed in Colorado a 21 thing? That makes sense. For some reason nobody ever seems to mention the age restrictions in their legalization frenzy. I guess it'll be as hard to get as liquor now, i.e. not hard at all.

Colorado now treats Marijuana like alcohol. It is Illegal to be caught driving under the influence (though they haven't really set a standard for that yet) and plans are to tax it as much as possible.

I've heard it's a lot more difficult to test whether someone's high right that moment since blood tests vary due to THC staying in your system for so long, and everything else is way less reliable. It's going to be interesting to see how they solve that.

Personally, if a police officer thinks I'm high and asks me for a blood test I'm just going to concede on the spot even if I'm not high. I hope they find a way that doesn't provoke such a common phobia. It'd be like testing someone's intoxication with spiders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:55:58 am

Romneys up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:56:05 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on November 07, 2012, 12:54:20 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:49:39 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:28 am

Oh, is weed in Colorado a 21 thing? That makes sense. For some reason nobody ever seems to mention the age restrictions in their legalization frenzy. I guess it'll be as hard to get as liquor now, i.e. not hard at all.

Colorado now treats Marijuana like alcohol. It is Illegal to be caught driving under the influence (though they haven't really set a standard for that yet) and plans are to tax it as much as possible.

I wish I could see the faces of every drug dealer who gets their face smashed into the asphalt for selling weed illegally. Now that the state can make money on it, they are going to take such things mighty seriously.

Yes, and It will be gloriously earning money for education and other social projects.

You can see why it was controversial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:56:15 am

Romney is speaking!

Big cheers for Paul Ryan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:56:40 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:55:58 am

Romneys up.

Quote from: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:56:15 am

Romney is speaking!

FIRST.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:57:13 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:56:40 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 12:55:58 am

Romneys up.

Quote from: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 12:56:15 am

Romney is speaking!

FIRST.

Ok, but let me wait three hours before PMing you congrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 07, 2012, 12:58:11 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am

I've heard it's a lot more difficult to test whether someone's high right that moment since blood tests vary due to THC staying in your system for so long, and everything else is way less reliable. It's going to be interesting to see how they solve that.

Personally, if a police officer thinks I'm high and asks me for a blood test I'm just going to concede on the spot even if I'm not high. I hope they find a way that doesn't provoke such a common phobia. It'd be like testing someone's intoxication with spiders.

Maybe do a saliva test first; if that comes back positive, then give the suspect the option of conceding then and there, or taking the blood test?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:59:28 am

I've heard a mouth swab turns up positive if they've smoked within the past 8 hours or so, which is definitely long enough to not be high anymore.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:59:38 am

Anybody got a link?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 07, 2012, 01:00:18 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:49:39 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:28 am

Oh, is weed in Colorado a 21 thing? That makes sense. For some reason nobody ever seems to mention the age restrictions in their legalization frenzy. I guess it'll be as hard to get as liquor now, i.e. not hard at all.

Colorado now treats Marijuana like alcohol. It is Illegal to be caught driving under the influence (though they haven't really set a standard for that yet) and plans are to tax it as much as possible.

I've heard it's a lot more difficult to test whether someone's high right that moment since blood tests vary due to THC staying in your system for so long, and everything else is way less reliable. It's going to be interesting to see how they solve that.

Personally, if a police officer thinks I'm high and asks me for a blood test I'm just going to concede on the spot even if I'm not high. I hope they find a way that doesn't provoke such a common phobia. It'd be like testing someone's intoxication with spiders.

It's simple, if you have THC in your blood you are under the influence. Simple, cold, logical, and doesn't play favorites, just what the law should be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 01:01:02 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 07, 2012, 12:53:01 am

Am I the only one that failed to have a solid election day drunk going?

yes, though my drank stopped at about 5 drinks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 01:01:36 am

Well that was... brief.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 01:02:11 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on November 07, 2012, 01:00:18 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am

Quote from: bulborbish on November 07, 2012, 12:49:39 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:46:28 am

Oh, is weed in Colorado a 21 thing? That makes sense. For some reason nobody ever seems to mention the age restrictions in their legalization frenzy. I guess it'll be as hard to get as liquor now, i.e. not hard at all.

Colorado now treats Marijuana like alcohol. It is Illegal to be caught driving under the influence (though they haven't really set a standard for that yet) and plans are to tax it as much as possible.

I've heard it's a lot more difficult to test whether someone's high right that moment since blood tests vary due to THC staying in your system for so long, and everything else is way less reliable. It's going to be interesting to see how they solve that.

Personally, if a police officer thinks I'm high and asks me for a blood test I'm just going to concede on the spot even if I'm not high. I hope they find a way that doesn't provoke such a common phobia. It'd be like testing someone's intoxication with spiders.

It's simple, if you have THC in your blood you are under the influence. Simple, cold, logical, and doesn't play favorites, just what the law should be.

With alcohol it only counts if it is more than a certain amount in the blood.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:02:42 am

So is it over? Now I just need to wait the 30 seconds for it to show up on youtube...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:03:44 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on November 07, 2012, 01:00:18 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am

I've heard it's a lot more difficult to test whether someone's high right that moment since blood tests vary due to THC staying in your system for so long, and everything else is way less reliable. It's going to be interesting to see how they solve that.

Personally, if a police officer thinks I'm high and asks me for a blood test I'm just going to concede on the spot even if I'm not high. I hope they find a way that doesn't provoke such a common phobia. It'd be like testing someone's intoxication with spiders.

It's simple, if you have THC in your blood you are under the influence. Simple, cold, logical, and doesn't play favorites, just what the law should be.

THC can remain in your blood for up to a couple weeks after you smoke. I don't know about you, but I'm definitely not under the influence a week after I smoke. It's the fat solubility that screws it up.

Also there's still this deal with field blood tests. I think those are a little too invasive to be routine tests. I'm fine with taking a breathalyzer if I'm sober but seem drunk, but not giving blood if I'm sober but seem high.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 01:06:01 am

Based on other people's personal accounts, it doesn't even seem like driving while high on marijuana is that much of a problem.  The people I know who admit to having done it say it made them drive really slow and paranoid.  So at worst, they become a nuisance on the road, but not a danger?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 01:07:23 am

Any impairment's a danger, considering. I dunno if it's worse or better than alcohol, but neither really should be allowed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 01:07:47 am

Dammit, from what I hear, everyone in florida's gone home and no more votes will be counted tonight  >:(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 01:09:05 am

Am I the only one who doesn't carea bout marijuana?

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 01:07:47 am

Dammit, from what I hear, everyone in florida's gone home and no more votes will be counted tonight  >:(

It goes Obama, against everyon's early belief.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 07, 2012, 01:09:16 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:03:44 am

Quote from: Kilroy the Grand on November 07, 2012, 01:00:18 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 12:55:01 am

I've heard it's a lot more difficult to test whether someone's high right that moment since blood tests vary due to THC staying in your system for so long, and everything else is way less reliable. It's going to be interesting to see how they solve that.

Personally, if a police officer thinks I'm high and asks me for a blood test I'm just going to concede on the spot even if I'm not high. I hope they find a way that doesn't provoke such a common phobia. It'd be like testing someone's intoxication with spiders.

It's simple, if you have THC in your blood you are under the influence. Simple, cold, logical, and doesn't play favorites, just what the law should be.

THC can remain in your blood for up to a couple weeks after you smoke. I don't know about you, but I'm definitely not under the influence a week after I smoke. It's the fat solubility that screws it up.

Also there's still this deal with field blood tests. I think those are a little too invasive to be routine tests. I'm fine with taking a breathalyzer if I'm sober but seem drunk, but not giving blood if I'm sober but seem high.

You gave up your rights as a free citizen the moment you failed to vote libertarian. Have fun with your communist, pinko socialist, mad maxesque hellscape of overly sensitive chapped butts and health food stores. I'll be in my osmium lined fallout shelter until Gary Johnson has a chance. See you all at the end of the universe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ShoesandHats on November 07, 2012, 01:09:48 am

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 01:07:47 am

Dammit, from what I hear, everyone in florida's gone home and no more votes will be counted tonight  >:(

Either way, it won't matter. If the count in the rest of the states are right, then there is literally no possible way Romney could win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:10:57 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 01:06:01 am

Based on other people's personal accounts, it doesn't even seem like driving while high on marijuana is that much of a problem.  The people I know who admit to having done it say it made them drive really slow and paranoid.  So at worst, they become a nuisance on the road, but not a danger?

I don't think it should be legal, and I've done it. Probably not as serious a charge as a DUI but still something that should be discouraged. The worst I've done is forgotten to turn on my lights at night because of it, but that's still potentially dangerous.

Also apparently Puerto Rico's statehood vote might have passed? I've heard sources saying it has and sources saying it's too close to call.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Karlito on November 07, 2012, 01:14:35 am

Well, with no real change in Congress, I guess we can look forward to a government just as effective as the one we've had the last two years. I wonder if the Republicans will be more cooperative now that their one-term President agenda has been defeated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 01:18:59 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:10:57 am

Also apparently Puerto Rico's statehood vote might have passed? I've heard sources saying it has and sources saying it's too close to call.

My sources say over 62%.

Quote from: Karlito on November 07, 2012, 01:14:35 am

Well, with no real change in Congress, I guess we can look forward to a government just as effective as the one we've had the last two years. I wonder if the Republicans will be more cooperative now that their one-term President agenda has been defeated.

A few victories for Dems, 3 precious senate wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:21:56 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 07, 2012, 12:53:01 am

Am I the only one that failed to have a solid election day drunk going?

Solid, maybe.  I am tipping back a cold one, for the Hell of it.

I have to say, that was definitely a concession speech with the ring of "written in the hotel room".  One for the history books it is not, and I can't wait to count how many Republican talking heads are crowing tomorrow about having the wrong candidate.

By the way, there's a picture going around of Barack and Joe having been informed of their victory.  They look like they're about to french.  Need to find a link.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 01:22:48 am

Quote from: Karlito on November 07, 2012, 01:14:35 am

Well, with no real change in Congress, I guess we can look forward to a government just as effective as the one we've had the last two years. I wonder if the Republicans will be more cooperative now that their one-term President agenda has been defeated.

This is probably going to sound sarcastic but this result will have huge implications in the 2014 midterms.  The economy is expected to recover more quickly couple years and the democrats will go into the midterms with a win at their back.  So the liberal agenda will probably be delayed until then but I'd expect a democratic majority in 2014.  US economy will be doing better and Obama will have the bully pulpit to say "Look at Europe, that's what austerity will do!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on November 07, 2012, 01:25:12 am

No drinking for me, but I'm drinking plenty of caffiene as I sort through a couple month worth of disorganization.


Yay Obama. Lesser of two evils, I spose.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:26:55 am

So it is my understanding that US presidents have a two term limit, correct?
Meaning that the liberals will need to find a new guy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Strife26 on November 07, 2012, 01:29:41 am

Two and a half, to be exact, but yeah. Obama won't be able to run in 16.


I'm going to start my predictions early and put forward Huntsman/Colbert as the winner in 2016 right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:30:41 am

I want Yarmuth to have a shot. He's my house representative and he's basically a badass.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 01:32:11 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:21:56 am

By the way, there's a picture going around of Barack and Joe having been informed of their victory.  They look like they're about to french.  Need to find a link.

Please do.

Obamas winning PV. Hell, It looks like he's going for 332! Awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 01:36:13 am

obama's up

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:36:22 am

Huh, so nationally this isn't going to be as much of a landslide as 2008 was, electorally or by popular vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:36:46 am

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 01:36:13 am

obama's up

Seriously, somebody must have links to some site streaming this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 01:37:41 am

http://ufreetv.com/nbc.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 01:38:18 am

Quote from: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 01:36:13 am

obama's up

ninja.

Well he looks happy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 01:38:47 am

Finally!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on November 07, 2012, 01:39:04 am

Congrats 'Merica.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:39:58 am

While the total numbers in Congress won't be too different, the makeup will.  The Senate in particular replaced a few conservative Democrats with moderate Republicans, while replacing a few conservative Republicans with some of the first genuinely liberal Democrats elected since the 90s.  Meanwhile, even though I'm sure John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will wake up tomorrow as exactly the same people.  They'll have some crow to eat, since they're stuck the rock of the Tea Party blaming them for not being conservative enough to defeat Obama, and the hard place of their party establishment blaming the Tea Party for squandering a possible victory.

Quote from: Strife26 on November 07, 2012, 01:29:41 am

I'm going to start my predictions early and put forward Huntsman/Colbert as the winner in 2016 right now.

But for the grace of God.  C'mon guys, you know you can make it happen.  Then appoint Secretary of State Cain and make a presidency we'll remember for a thousand years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 01:40:57 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:21:56 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 07, 2012, 12:53:01 am

Am I the only one that failed to have a solid election day drunk going?

Solid, maybe.  I am tipping back a cold one, for the Hell of it.

I shouldn't get too drunk because its really late in my part of the country plus I took the max dose of my antianxiety meds back when it wasn't certain that Obama was going to win and I'm not supposed to drink when I've taken them.

Also I'm out of champagne.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 01:41:58 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:39:58 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 07, 2012, 01:29:41 am

I'm going to start my predictions early and put forward Huntsman/Colbert as the winner in 2016 right now.

But for the grace of God.  C'mon guys, you know you can make it happen.  Then appoint Secretary of State Cain and make a presidency we'll remember for a thousand years.

Joe Biden must be Spokesmen, and the onion editorial staff should be in the cabinet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:42:04 am

It's nearing 2AM. Wake me up if Romney wins, otherwise I've got to go pass out so I can sleep through the hangover.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: inteuniso on November 07, 2012, 01:42:39 am

I saw John Huntsman having a nice family lunch in Annapolis once. He seems like an extremely normal person. Would love for him to be our next president. Chris Christie as vice president, just to balance it out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2012, 01:44:19 am

Welp, I think I'm done for the night. It's been... roughly six hundred-ish posts since about 24 hours ago. I wonder if that makes this the busiest day this thread's had? It'd be pretty fitting if it was, heh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure and we could make more jokes about him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:46:27 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure and we could make more jokes about him.

Oh I'm sure he won't just vanish completely.  We'll always have the memories, and I'm sure this campaign isn't the last ill-advised thing he'll ever get a billion dollars spent on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 01:49:14 am

Quote from: inteuniso on November 07, 2012, 01:42:39 am

I saw John Huntsman having a nice family lunch in Annapolis once. He seems like an extremely normal person. Would love for him to be our next president. Chris Christie as vice president, just to balance it out.

No, Colbert is perfect counter. Chris Christie however would be great in military.

So, should I start on my homework now? I should get on that. :P

http://didmittromneywin.com/ (http://didmittromneywin.com/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 01:49:27 am

Oh hay, Obama just remembered what global warming is!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 01:49:41 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 01:36:22 am

Huh, so nationally this isn't going to be as much of a landslide as 2008 was, electorally or by popular vote.

Obama is probably going to get Florida and end up with a 332-206 victory, so he's crushed Romney in the electoral college.

As for the popular vote, to quote Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live-blog-the-2012-presidential-election/#math-favors-obama-in-popular-vote):

Quote from: Nate Silver

Some networks have called the Electoral College for Barack Obama, but it will take longer before the popular vote can officially be called.

That’s because the three Pacific Coast states — California, Oregon and Washington — conduct much of their voting by mail, yielding a lag of several days to a week before all ballots are counted.

As of 11:45 p.m., however, Mr. Obama trailed Mitt Romney by only about 150,000 votes nationally, a margin he should be able to make up on the West Coast.

— Nate Silver

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:51:01 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 01:49:27 am

Oh hay, Obama just remembered what global warming is!

Well he has four years to do something to solve a problem that we have known about since what, the 20's?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 01:51:17 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:46:27 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure and we could make more jokes about him.

Oh I'm sure he won't just vanish completely.  We'll always have the memories, and I'm sure this campaign isn't the last ill-advised thing he'll ever get a billion dollars spent on.

Someone has to carry on the Trump legacy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:56:03 am

Quote from: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 01:51:17 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:46:27 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure and we could make more jokes about him.

Oh I'm sure he won't just vanish completely.  We'll always have the memories, and I'm sure this campaign isn't the last ill-advised thing he'll ever get a billion dollars spent on.

Someone has to carry on the Trump legacy.

Judging my his twitter account, Trump intends for that someone to be himself, preferably with sword and pistol.  I can't wait for his next TV show.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:01:41 am

I'm still awake, waiting for Puerto Rico to finish up.

It's kind of funny how anticlimactic tonight was. After six months of the Republican primary insanity, followed by the conventions, the debates, and the final scramble to get those last few voters, we watched for three hours to confirm what Nate Silver had already been telling us. And that was it- considering what hell could have happened- voter fraud (but probably not), recounts, an electoral/popular mismatch, it went through remarkably quickly, and it feels, now, like not much has happened. (That is, of course, because nothing much has happened; we've had almost no change in the makeup of Congress, either). 2008 felt historic and pompous. 2012 is historic- having once decided we want to put an African-American behind the highest desk in the land, we've decided we're gonna stick with him. That's as historic as putting him there in the first place. But it doesn't feel it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 02:03:40 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:46:27 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure Andy we could make more jokes about him.

Oh I'm sure he won't just vanish completely.  We'll always have the memories, and I'm sure this campaign isn't the last ill-advised thing he'll ever get a billion dollars spent on.

I don't know, McCain and Kerry have pretty much vanished completely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 02:04:07 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:01:41 am

I'm still awake, waiting for Puerto Rico to finish up.

It's kind of funny how anticlimactic tonight was. After six months of the Republican primary insanity, followed by the conventions, the debates, and the final scramble to get those last few voters, we watched for three hours to confirm what Nate Silver had already been telling us. And that was it- considering what hell could have happened- voter fraud (but probably not), recounts, an electoral/popular mismatch, it went through remarkably quickly, and it feels, now, like not much has happened. (That is, of course, because nothing much has happened; we've had almost no change in the makeup of Congress, either). 2008 felt historic and pompous. 2012 is historic- having once decided we want to put an African-American behind the highest desk in the land, we've decided we're gonna stick with him. That's as historic as putting him there in the first place. But it doesn't feel it.

It shows you didn't watch Obama's speech. That was awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:04:20 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 02:03:40 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:46:27 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure Andy we could make more jokes about him.

Oh I'm sure he won't just vanish completely.  We'll always have the memories, and I'm sure this campaign isn't the last ill-advised thing he'll ever get a billion dollars spent on.

I don't know, McCain and Kerry have pretty much vanished completely.

Yeah, but they lacked cults of personality (well, beyond the cult you need to enter politics anyways).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 02:06:33 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 02:03:40 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:46:27 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure Andy we could make more jokes about him.

Oh I'm sure he won't just vanish completely.  We'll always have the memories, and I'm sure this campaign isn't the last ill-advised thing he'll ever get a billion dollars spent on.

I don't know, McCain and Kerry have pretty much vanished completely.

Mccain is still often cited as a military-centered republican. But that may just be me.

so, Who knows any Arch-Conservative websites for me to watch frothing angry people?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 02:06:47 am

Decent speech, guess it's time to hit the hay.  Should be interesting to see if the democrats pull an upset in any of the three senate seats still in the air.  We could end up with democrats actually gaining in the Senate while republicans gain in the house despite the democrats being far weaker then 6 years ago and the republicans being far weaker then 2 years ago.  Madness.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:07:02 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:04:20 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 02:03:40 am

I don't know, McCain and Kerry have pretty much vanished completely.

Yeah, but they lacked cults of personality (well, beyond the cult you need to enter politics anyways).

I was about to respond when it hit me like a sack of doorknobs that somebody just described Mitt Fucking Romney as having a cult of personality.

Yeah, he's gonna disappear like a fart in the wind by the end of the year, never to be seen or heard from or spoken of again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: lordcooper on November 07, 2012, 02:07:20 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:04:20 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 02:03:40 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 01:46:27 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 01:45:18 am

Suddenly I wish Mitteh Kitteh had won, just so that he stayed a significant figure Andy we could make more jokes about him.

Oh I'm sure he won't just vanish completely.  We'll always have the memories, and I'm sure this campaign isn't the last ill-advised thing he'll ever get a billion dollars spent on.

I don't know, McCain and Kerry have pretty much vanished completely.

Yeah, but they lacked cults of personality (well, beyond the cult you need to enter politics anyways).

Since when did Romney have a personality?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 02:11:21 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:07:02 am

Yeah, he's gonna disappear like a fart in the wind by the end of the year, never to be seen or heard from or spoken of again.

See, now nobody will ever make the joke about the Republicans having their hand so far up his ass they called him 'Mit' ever again! The world is truly at a loss!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 02:11:41 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:07:02 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:04:20 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 02:03:40 am

I don't know, McCain and Kerry have pretty much vanished completely.

Yeah, but they lacked cults of personality (well, beyond the cult you need to enter politics anyways).

I was about to respond when it hit me like a sack of doorknobs that somebody just described Mitt Fucking Romney as having a cult of personality.

Yeah, he's gonna disappear like a fart in the wind by the end of the year, never to be seen or heard from or spoken of again.

I can sort of see Romney having a cult of personality... relatively speaking at any rate. With John McCain I could barely even remember the man's name even during the height of his campaign.

(On a related note, I think it was a mistake for so many of the anti-Republican attack ads to refer to Mitt Romney by name. You don't want the people to know the Republican candidate's name)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:12:35 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:07:02 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:04:20 am

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2012, 02:03:40 am

I don't know, McCain and Kerry have pretty much vanished completely.

Yeah, but they lacked cults of personality (well, beyond the cult you need to enter politics anyways).

I was about to respond when it hit me like a sack of doorknobs that somebody just described Mitt Fucking Romney as having a cult of personality.

Yeah, he's gonna disappear like a fart in the wind by the end of the year, never to be seen or heard from or spoken of again.

I misread the quotes above me and thought Donald Trump.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 02:14:24 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 02:06:33 am

So, Who knows any Arch-Conservative websites for me to watch frothing angry people?

Plllleeeeeaaaaseee?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 02:14:55 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 02:14:24 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 02:06:33 am

So, Who knows any Arch-Conservative websites for me to watch frothing angry people?

Plllleeeeeaaaaseee?

Oh god please yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 02:16:26 am

have you guys checked conservopedia? (I would, but I have an allergy to rampant stupidity)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 02:19:13 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 06, 2012, 11:59:48 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 06, 2012, 11:53:18 pm

Oh, and by the way. I would like to be the first one here to welcome the 51st state to the Union. Hello Puerto Rico!

WHAT?!

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:00:34 am

http://www.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 23, 2012, 07:53:04 am

From 2012-2015:

-Puerto Rico, having voted by referendum to petition for statehood, but only just barely, is at some point from 2012-2015 accepted by Congress as the 51st state. The US has to change the flag again.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 23, 2012, 11:16:16 am

Quote from: RedKing on August 23, 2012, 11:12:30 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on August 23, 2012, 10:04:39 am

Quote from: RedKing on August 23, 2012, 09:58:44 am

I don't know if I see Puerto Rico ever becoming a US state. The majority still oppose statehood by about a 60/40 margin

Uh, no they don't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico#Plebiscites) It hasn't been 60/40 for almost half a century, and last time, in 1998, it just barely avoided getting a majority for statehood.

O RLY? (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/15/1090521/-Puerto-Rico-new-political-status-poll-May-2012) (or should I say ¿O RLMENTE?)

It is genuinely odd how much that doesn't match the election trends. I guess we'll see for sure come November.

OH

OH

WHO FUCKING CALLED IT?

I FUCKING CALLED IT!

SUCK IT REDKING, I BEAT YOU AT GEOPOLITICS!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 02:23:14 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/the-strategy-that-paved-a-winning-path/2012/11/07/0a1201c8-2769-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:24:37 am

Conservapedia has decided to go for the following explanation: The Republican Party: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, with a link to World Nut Daily.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:27:07 am

So, I really want to post one last synopsis before I close out for the night, but Florida hasn't been called yet.  Don't worry, I'm not going to lock the thread or anything, but a close-down would be very fulfilling.

I want to thank everyone for sticking around, even the unpopular folks, because it's just great to see people interested.  Likewise, my apology for launching a thread and then kinda abandoning it towards the end of the primaries, but I've had quite a year myself that got in the way of pseudo-blogging.  But yeah, I'm glad to see people having a great time, so thanks for being around folks.

And now, to come up with some appropriately smarmy close out to put the OP to bed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 02:29:27 am

Conservapedia. This site makes me want to do a repeat of Sherman's March to the Sea. >:(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:30:18 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:27:07 am

So, I really want to post one last synopsis before I close out for the night, but Florida hasn't been called yet.  Don't worry, I'm not going to lock the thread or anything, but a close-down would be very fulfilling.

I want to thank everyone for sticking around, even the unpopular folks, because it's just great to see people interested.  Likewise, my apology for launching a thread and then kinda abandoning it towards the end of the primaries, but I've had quite a year myself that got in the way of pseudo-blogging.  But yeah, I'm glad to see people having a great time, so thanks for being around folks.

And now, to come up with some appropriately smarmy close out to put the OP to bed.

You gonna run the 2016 thread, guv?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:32:50 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:30:18 am

You gonna run the 2016 thread, guv?

Well, if any of us are still here in three years, you know who to call.

I probably would have said something like that in 2008, so who knows.  Christ I feel old all of a sudden.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 02:36:36 am

Welp, this was a fun thread to watch.

No rep's calling voting shenanigans?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 02:37:38 am

There's no point. Even if they could turn one, Obama won by a huge margin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:37:42 am

I vote we have this stickied for posterity. It was gold.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on November 07, 2012, 02:37:56 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G-Q6Z8lcL8

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 02:39:08 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:27:07 am

So, I really want to post one last synopsis before I close out for the night, but Florida hasn't been called yet.  Don't worry, I'm not going to lock the thread or anything, but a close-down would be very fulfilling.

I want to thank everyone for sticking around, even the unpopular folks, because it's just great to see people interested.  Likewise, my apology for launching a thread and then kinda abandoning it towards the end of the primaries, but I've had quite a year myself that got in the way of pseudo-blogging.  But yeah, I'm glad to see people having a great time, so thanks for being around folks.

And now, to come up with some appropriately smarmy close out to put the OP to bed.

I think this calls for a quote from the Good Book:

"1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter." -James 5:1

I don't think St.James intended this passage as a roadmap for the ideal tax-plan, but that's what I like to think of it as; That's what I think it should be used for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 02:39:30 am

Quote from: Capntastic on November 07, 2012, 02:37:56 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G-Q6Z8lcL8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G-Q6Z8lcL8)

Damn did the guy fail at harvesting space drugs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 02:42:55 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 02:39:30 am

Quote from: Capntastic on November 07, 2012, 02:37:56 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G-Q6Z8lcL8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G-Q6Z8lcL8)

Damn did the guy fail at harvesting space drugs.

Yeah, but House Atreides wants to terraform Arrakis anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 02:47:55 am

I think they've stopped vote-counting in Florida until morning anyhow.

Edit: I'm looking forward to seeing the final count of senators and representatives, the popular vote results, and finding out how many people voted for which third party candidates, if that information gets released at some point. I'll be annoyed if it doesn't. Right now it only shows up as "other" and only in particular states on most of these (rather than as a total)...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 03:02:25 am

Yeah, I'll just update the OP in the morning, so I don't have to worry about Florida and I can have a clean picture.  Good night and good luck Americanos.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 02:42:55 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 02:39:30 am

Quote from: Capntastic on November 07, 2012, 02:37:56 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G-Q6Z8lcL8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G-Q6Z8lcL8)

Damn did the guy fail at harvesting space drugs.

Yeah, but House Atreides wants to terraform Arrakis anyway.

And the Harkonnen ending was the best, so screw them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 03:19:39 am

Lol. Send me the avatar pic by PM. I don't visit this forum much. Usually Other Games. I'll wear it for a whole year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 03:26:45 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 03:19:39 am

Lol. Send me the avatar pic by PM. I don't visit this forum much. Usually Other Games. I'll wear it for a whole year.

Hey, at least you're being a good sport about it. There are plenty of whiners around the net right now who swear up and down "Obama stole the election! BRAGLESDFSDFE!!!!!!!!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Capntastic on November 07, 2012, 03:28:29 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 03:02:25 am

And the Harkonnen ending was the best, so screw them.

There used to be a good video of the mission screen that had the red pieces of the map falling into the void that I enjoyed during the 2008 cycle, but it's deleted now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Duuvian on November 07, 2012, 03:31:39 am

(http://www.englishwithjo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/w_104_lg.gif)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0trLzebwYnA/TO33eZZhkAI/AAAAAAAAA_I/B62dC_Xxwgk/s1600/o.gif)
(http://www.needlenthread.com/Images/patterns/Monograms/monogram_1_o.gif)
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16081/16081-h/images/o.jpg)
(http://fromoldbooks.org/r/d/375-initial-letter-t-with-dragons-q90-500x495.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 03:40:34 am

"Wooot"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 04:04:55 am

My manager called me in to ask a non-work-related favor.  It evolved quickly into a political discussion.  He described to me how the last four years have transformed him from a staunch republican to a libertarian.  How the Occupy movement needs to merge with the Tea Party.  I told him there are serious problems with that, given that even if the two movements can agree on problems, they have exactly opposite ideas about solutions.  He went on to describe libertarian solutions as tautological.  Also global warming is because of solar cycles and has little to do with man-made influence.  I'm proud of how tactful I was.  He deserves some credit, too, for not being the type of conservative who can't ever concede a point or agree to set another aside. 

Anyway... libertarianism in America is really frightening me.  It's steadily expanding, and it seems to me like its approach to any problem is to amplify the source of the problem until it reaches critical mass and the ensuing explosion shifts us into an alternate dimension.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 04:09:47 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 04:04:55 am

Also global warming is because of solar cycles and has little to do with man-made influence.

Tell him it's called summer.

Shit, just tell him it's called day and night.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Meansdarling on November 07, 2012, 04:12:41 am

Here is that image of Biden and Obama celebrating.

My Sister looked at this and said, "Oh, a same sex slow dance." lol

They are gazing at one another rather intently.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/5099f9b969bedd4d20000003-1024-695/obama-biden-celebrate.jpg?maxX=620&maxY=420)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 04:15:04 am

Well, the last 4 years of Republican screaming, agitating and terror-stirring certainly paid off, didn't it?

I mean, I was expecting at least for it to be a near-tie, but Obama appears to have gotten a full two-thirds of the vote. So just like that, he's still president and the Republicans have exhausted god knows how much money and political capital on a complete failure of a candidate. Bet they kinda wish they hadn't tried to pin everything onto this election and build it up to be some sort of 'once-in-a-generation' deciding moment. Little bit of a backfire there, guys.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 04:15:10 am

Well there goes my OTP

 :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:17:13 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 04:04:55 am

Anyway... libertarianism in America is really frightening me.  It's steadily expanding, and it seems to me like its approach to any problem is to amplify the source of the problem until it reaches critical mass and the ensuing explosion shifts us into an alternate dimension.

To be fair, that HAS worked before.

Quote from: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 04:15:04 am

Well, the last 4 years of Republican screaming, agitating and terror-stirring certainly paid off, didn't it?

I mean, I was expecting at least for it to be a near-tie, but Obama appears to have gotten a full two-thirds of the vote. So just like that, he's still president and the Republicans have exhausted god knows how much money and political capital on a complete failure of a candidate. Bet they kinda wish they hadn't tried to pin everything onto this election and build it up to be some sort of 'one-in-a-generation' deciding moment.

Yep. This is it. They spent the entirety of the last 4 years complaining, and failed. Miserably. There is no "stall till Romney's in", tactic left. If economys picking up in 2016, Dems will make gains. The Reps have only now to show themselves off to america.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 04:18:10 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:17:13 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 04:04:55 am

Anyway... libertarianism in America is really frightening me.  It's steadily expanding, and it seems to me like its approach to any problem is to amplify the source of the problem until it reaches critical mass and the ensuing explosion shifts us into an alternate dimension.

To be fair, that HAS worked before.

Most people don't consider collateral damage to be an acceptable strategy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on November 07, 2012, 04:18:24 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 02:32:50 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:30:18 am

You gonna run the 2016 thread, guv?

Well, if any of us are still here in three years, you know who to call.

I probably would have said something like that in 2008, so who knows.  Christ I feel old all of a sudden.

I hope I'm around here for the next one. My 3rd election cycle while on Bay12. Goodness, that would be grand

My Elite Liberal college erupted in cheers as soon as Obama reached 270 electoral votes on the Huffington Post map. There was dancing in the woods, singing, and few explosions. Good result in my opinion, though I expected his re-election from the time this thread began.

Is there a source for Puerto Rico becoming a state? I've been googling around and have only found articles about how they're going to have a vote soon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:19:15 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:00:34 am

http://www.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Meansdarling on November 07, 2012, 04:21:34 am

Michelle and Biden's wife look good together too. haha

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 04:23:00 am

Not gonna lie, I would Dr. Biden.

Oh, and Fox is having infighting already.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 04:33:17 am

I'm surprised people ever doubted that this would go to Obama.  I remember most people here laughing at how ridiculous the republican primaries were and deciding before they were halfway over that none of their candidates stood a chance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Meansdarling on November 07, 2012, 04:35:25 am

Is FOX united in their infighting? lol

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Heron TSG on November 07, 2012, 04:38:10 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:19:15 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:00:34 am

http://www.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml

Yes, but I saw that that's only ~61% of the people who voted for 'change' rather than 'status quo', which was itself about 60-40. Which does that result count as, 60% or 36%?

I would think this would be bigger news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Glowcat on November 07, 2012, 04:45:47 am

Anyone remember Allen West (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M)?

It looks like he might have narrowly lost his seat, maybe. MSNBC's election coverage is showing 100% of votes accounted for and Murphy ahead.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

    Patrick Murphy 50% 160,328
    Allen West 50% 157,872

Michelle Bachmann's race is also close but she's got a lead and counted votes are at 98%

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

    Michele Bachmann 51% 170,688
    Jim Graves 49% 167,041

Source: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/all/house/#.UJosKIYuOUl (http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/all/house/#.UJosKIYuOUl) (11/7/2012 4:43 AM ET)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:33:59 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 04:04:55 am

Anyway... libertarianism in America is really frightening me.  It's steadily expanding, and it seems to me like its approach to any problem is to amplify the source of the problem until it reaches critical mass and the ensuing explosion shifts us into an alternate dimension.

Tough luck. Piggy bank is going bust. Liberalism is dying out, but it's going out on a binge like there's no tomorrow. Next up, the Fiscal Cliff. You've got nothing to celebrate today. The fact is, all your goodies are about to end. Forget the government helping you with student loans. $16 trillion debt.

Take what money you probably make each year. Now you're making that much money each second of your life. Now live until age 70. That's what $16 trillion looks like, and it's going to increase dramatically in four years. America has succumbed to the parasites that only wanted goodies and hated productive people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 05:36:22 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:33:59 am

America has succumbed to the parasites that only wanted goodies and hated productive people.

Are you serious kid?

No, really, are you serious or really that much of a moron?

Tell me how you aren't a parasite like the people you claim are, and make your case, because as far as I am aware you're part of the problem in our country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 05:37:23 am

I dunno, how else would you describe the DoD?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:38:29 am

Quote

Are you serious kid?

Get you dat EBT and dat free contraceptives, kid. I'm 30 years old and employed in a multinational in China. You need to graduate college and get a real job.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 05:41:27 am

I'm 41 years old and an ex civil engineer, so you can go fuck yourself my friend. I'm tired of trash like you spewing vitriol and thinking you're right. I'm a conservative and I vehemently disagree with everything you have to say, so I think that means you should take a look at how ideologically insane and out of touch you are with, well, anything.

Show me that you're not a parasite like

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:33:59 am

the parasites that only wanted goodies and hated productive people.

And I'll take back what i've said, but get a goddamn grip.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:47:06 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 05:41:27 am

I'm 41 years old and an ex civil engineer, so you can go fuck yourself my friend. I'm tired of trash like you spewing vitriol and thinking you're right. I'm a conservative and I vehemently disagree with everything you have to say, so I think that means you should take a look at how ideologically insane and out of touch you are with, well, anything.

You disagree that the debt is $16 trillion and there's a breaking point somewhere when the interest keeps mounting? That's insightful. Do continue.

Let me clue you right now, the end of the war in Iraq did nothing to help the deficit and the end of the war in Afghanistan won't, either. It's not the DoD growing larger, which is just 19% of the budget. It's the entitlements and goodies that are about 60% of the budget and growing.

And why do I have to personally account for myself when there are facts, not a personal issue, to be discussed? I live in China. I use Chinese services. How could I get anything from the American government here? I mean, theoretically, I could collect Social Security, if you really believe that it will exist in 40 years. Hahah!

The goodies are going bye bye. Have one last round on the house.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 05:52:31 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:47:06 am

You disagree that the debt is $16 trillion and there's a breaking point somewhere when the interest keeps mounting? That's insightful. Do continue.

You'd think someone college educated wouldn't instantly pull a strawman out of his ass to start an arguement with a fiscal conservative.

Quote

Let me clue you right now, the end of the war in Iraq did nothing to help the deficit and the end of the war in Afghanistan won't, either. It's not the DoD growing larger, which is just 19% of the budget. It's the entitlements and goodies that are about 60% of the budget and growing.

Cute. And what is your plan to cut entitlements and goodies without effecting the poor and the elderly who do rely on those things, after they pay into them via taxes? And when you reform these programs so that people cannot get access to Medicare/Medicaid/Food Stamps more readily [lowering the costs due to less people being helped], will you lower their taxes across the board to compensate for less services? And social security taxes, too. Because they would otherwise be paying into a system that does nothing for them.

How do you think a modern society exists? Through throwing the weak and the less of luck under the bus? No, it's a social contract between all of us, especially here in a country that call itself a democracy, to atleast not look the other way while others suffer.

I've seen a massive increase in people with a 'throw them away' attide akin to yours in the Republican world, and it scares me. We used to call people like you selfish pricks, but I guess that ran out of style long ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:59:52 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 05:52:31 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:47:06 am

You disagree that the debt is $16 trillion and there's a breaking point somewhere when the interest keeps mounting? That's insightful. Do continue.

You'd think someone college educated wouldn't instantly pull a strawman out of his ass to start an arguement with a fiscal conservative.

You'd think an engineer could run a MATLAB simulation of an exponential curve.

Quote

Quote

Let me clue you right now, the end of the war in Iraq did nothing to help the deficit and the end of the war in Afghanistan won't, either. It's not the DoD growing larger, which is just 19% of the budget. It's the entitlements and goodies that are about 60% of the budget and growing.

Cute. And what is your plan to cut entitlements and goodies without effecting the poor and the elderly who do rely on those things, after they pay into them via taxes?

How do you think a modern society exists? Through throwing the weak and the less of luck under the bus?

Lol. Fuzzy thinking. All those appeals to social justice don't matter when the bill comes due. It can't be financed. No one will continue buying bonds. The well dries up. This has nothing to do with what you think is socially just. $16 trillion. Are you going to come to grips with the hard facts of that number or waste my time?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:02:10 am

Holy hell, you're a waste of time. Enjoy your bubble world.

It pisses me off how punks like you seem to think the world revolves around one person.

If you can look me in the face and say China [and the rest of the world] will stop buying the US's bonds simply because of a measly 16 trillion in debt [in a country that is the wealthiest since the existence of mankind] I can solidly say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 06:06:12 am

Wait, who are the parasites?  Is it the people that created circumstances under which the government felt it necessary to go $16 trillion into debt?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:07:05 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:02:10 am

Holy hell, you're a waste of time. Enjoy your bubble world.

$16 trillion. That's your bubble. And it will burst.

Take note, everyone. He made appeals to emotion, and I just kept asking him to confront a single number. He couldn't do it.

Quote

Wait, who are the parasites?  Is it the people that created circumstances under which the government felt it necessary to go $16 trillion into debt?

The thing is, if you kept a restrained safety net for people who temporarily needed it, it could have been maintained. But too many people are availing themselves of too generous a pay out. That's the undeniable truth behind $16 trillion in debt. Even now, I hear people talking about this election meaning students get more free education. It's not there in the piggy bank. The piggy bank is gone bust.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:08:27 am

It's hard for some children to get reading comprehension, I understand young one, it's not everyone's strong suit.

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:02:10 am

If you can look me in the face and say China [and the rest of the world] will stop buying the US's bonds simply because of a measly 16 trillion in debt [in a country that is the wealthiest since the existence of mankind] I can solidly say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

"Bonds!" "16 trillion!" "Rehashed talking point!" Is not a position.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: The Scout on November 07, 2012, 06:10:54 am

As soon as Obama was elected, my entire house went awwwww. Life just got a bit weirder for us.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 06:14:12 am

Meh... another favorite pastime of internet libertarians.  Automatically assuming the position of anybody who disagrees with you, and launching a rant against that position.  Thankfully the ones I know in real life aren't like you.

I'm not a democrat.  I'm an anarchist (social libertarian).  I think all this crap about the deficit is a meaningless abstract number game that represents practically nothing in reality.  I think our entire economic system needs to be fundamentally redesigned, including the ways in which we measure value and ownership.  Your arguments only describe to me how broken capitalism is.

I'm also not an Obama fan.  My top political priorities are information freedom and the environment, and I believe Obama was actively counter-productive on both points.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:16:48 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:08:27 am

It's hard for some children to get reading comprehension, I understand young one, it's not everyone's strong suit.

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:02:10 am

If you can look me in the face and say China [and the rest of the world] will stop buying the US's bonds simply because of a measly 16 trillion in debt [in a country that is the wealthiest since the existence of mankind] I can solidly say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

"Bonds!" "16 trillion!" "Rehashed talking point!" Is not a position.

I can look you right in your textual correspondence and say that China has started selling US bonds this past year. You can't sell them all at once without panicking the market and devaluing your own assets. But the buying has stopped and the selling began.

All this has happened before in places like Agentina. The debt bubble and the eventual bankruptcy. There's nothing to do but open your eyes. America is not uniquely special in overcoming the laws of macroeconomics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:18:58 am

Wanna know how to nearly completely fix the deficit, and do nothing?

Let the sequester go through. Other countries know our economy is strong and the deficits are so negligible as to be fixed by one round of targeted defense cuts, so Argentina is... not a valid comparison.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:19:31 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 06:14:12 am

I'm not a democrat.  I'm an anarchist (social libertarian).  I think all this crap about the deficit is a meaningless abstract number game that represents practically nothing in reality.  I think our entire economic system needs to be fundamentally redesigned, including the ways in which we measure value and ownership.  Your arguments only describe to me how broken capitalism is.

Lol. A guy who thinks debts don't matter and people will continue paying for America to live beyond its means indefinitely. You really believe in a money tree, eh? You guys are hilarious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 06:19:52 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:07:05 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:02:10 am

Holy hell, you're a waste of time. Enjoy your bubble world.

$16 trillion. That's your bubble. And it will burst.

Take note, everyone. He made appeals to emotion, and I just kept asking him to confront a single number. He couldn't do it.

Quote

Wait, who are the parasites?  Is it the people that created circumstances under which the government felt it necessary to go $16 trillion into debt?

The thing is, if you kept a restrained safety net for people who temporarily needed it, it could have been maintained. But too many people are availing themselves of too generous a pay out. That's the undeniable truth behind $16 trillion in debt. Even now, I hear people talking about this election meaning students get more free education. It's not there in the piggy bank. The piggy bank is gone bust.

Big bank bail-outs not a factor? x3

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 06:21:41 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:18:58 am

Wanna know how to nearly completely fix the deficit, and do nothing?

Technically, unless the answer is "nothing", then you're not exactly doing nothing. Minor nitpick.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:26:48 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:19:31 am

Lol. A guy who thinks debts don't matter and people will continue paying for America to live beyond its means indefinitely. You really believe in a money tree, eh? You guys are hilarious.

It's cute because I just told you how to nearly fix the deficit with an action. If I were your boss you'd be fired for lacking simple economic understanding of America and the world, to be honest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alexandertnt on November 07, 2012, 06:27:50 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:33:59 am

Tough luck. Piggy bank is going bust. Liberalism is dying out, but it's going out on a binge like there's no tomorrow. Next up, the Fiscal Cliff. You've got nothing to celebrate today. The fact is, all your goodies are about to end. Forget the government helping you with student loans. $16 trillion debt.

Take what money you probably make each year. Now you're making that much money each second of your life. Now live until age 70. That's what $16 trillion looks like, and it's going to increase dramatically in four years. America has succumbed to the parasites that only wanted goodies and hated productive people.

Buuut I want more free health care/education, and I have not finished hating productive people yet!

But seriously, meaningless straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is meaningless.

Also you state "and it's going to increase dramatically in four years" as if its a fact, rather than speculation (unless you can predict the futute/have a time machine, which you can't do/don't have, right?).

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:47:06 am

You disagree that the debt is $16 trillion and there's a breaking point somewhere when the interest keeps mounting? That's insightful. Do continue.

Let me clue you right now, the end of the war in Iraq did nothing to help the deficit and the end of the war in Afghanistan won't, either. It's not the DoD growing larger, which is just 19% of the budget. It's the entitlements and goodies that are about 60% of the budget and growing.

And why do I have to personally account for myself when there are facts, not a personal issue, to be discussed? I live in China. I use Chinese services. How could I get anything from the American government here? I mean, theoretically, I could collect Social Security, if you really believe that it will exist in 40 years. Hahah!

The goodies are going bye bye. Have one last round on the house.

Meaningless straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is meaningless.

The only definite "facts" you have presented has been stating the deficit, and that you live in china.

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:07:05 am

$16 trillion. That's your bubble. And it will burst.
Take note, everyone. He made appeals to emotion, and I just kept asking him to confront a single number. He couldn't do it.

You continue to state the deficit without explaining how "liberalism" is causing it. Just that it "is" $16 Trillion. Also, given your constant use of straw men, accusing someone of using an emotional fallacy is ironic.

I live in Australia. We have a significantly larger public health system, interest free student loans, and numerous things that would be considered "liberal" in America. Our debt is considerably smaller than America's (And is apparently expected to disappear in a year or 2 (how successful that will be is another question)). I have never quite understood why some people view things like Universal health care as the end of the economy.

The advantage of having Obama re-elected is the reduced chance of America going to war with another random middle-east country, dragging Australia along with them (both our major parties always seem to fall head-over-heals to follow, unfortunetely).

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 06:14:12 am

I'm not a democrat.  I'm an anarchist (social libertarian).  I think all this crap about the deficit is a meaningless abstract number game that represents practically nothing in reality.  I think our entire economic system needs to be fundamentally redesigned, including the ways in which we measure value and ownership.  Your arguments only describe to me how broken capitalism is.

I agree that Capitalism, at least pure Capitalism is pretty broken. Bor for the deficit... you could simply pretent it does not exist, and that would eliminate the deficit.

China might be pretty pissed though. That tends to be the meaning behind the number.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:32:12 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:18:58 am

Wanna know how to nearly completely fix the deficit, and do nothing?

Let the sequester go through. Other countries know our economy is strong and the deficits are so negligible as to be fixed by one round of targeted defense cuts, so Argentina is... not a valid comparison.

$1 trillion a year is negligible. That's funny. The sequester is $1.2 trillion over years 2013 and 2021. Spending cuts over eight years are not going to really solve $1 trillion each year.

And Defense alone is not going to be hit. Sequestration hits many departments. But that's what I was saying. The piggy bank is broken. You can't do the sequestration and talk of more goodies. It's dried up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tryrar on November 07, 2012, 06:34:12 am

guys, can we calm down before toady has to level all around banhammers please?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:39:44 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:32:12 am

$1 trillion a year is negligible. That's funny. The sequester is $1.2 trillion over years 2013 and 2021. Spending cuts over eight years are not going to really solve $1 trillion each year.

And Defense alone is not going to be hit. Sequestration hits many departments. But that's what I was saying. The piggy bank is broken. You can't do the sequestration and talk of more goodies. It's dried up.

Not cutting the hell out of medicare and medicaid and food stamps is not "talking of more goodies."

The low hanging fruit is military spending, followed by the massive amounts of waste and overinflated costs involved in healthcare spending. Fixing those issues has nothing to do with cutting entitlements to normal people who pay into the programs, and advocating cutting those services from people [The parasites, in your words] is the exact opposite of American.

You seem to believe governing and financials [especially taxes] are an either/or proposition of hardline ideological stances, when it's not. Go one way too hard in either direction and you get a fucked up government for everyone involved.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:41:43 am

Quote

You continue to state the deficit without explaining how "liberalism" is causing it. Just that it "is" $16 Trillion. Also, given your constant use of straw men, accusing someone of using an emotional fallacy is ironic.

Entitlement spending is 60% of the total. That's New Deal liberalism. How can this be a strawman? You aren't using these terms in good faith.

Quote

I live in Australia. We have a significantly larger public health system, interest free student loans, and numerous things that would be considered "liberal" in America. Our debt is considerably smaller than America's (And is apparently expected to disappear in a year or 2 (how successful that will be is another question)). I have never quite understood why some people view things like Universal health care as the end of the economy.

Australia was riding a wave. Don't play dumb with me. I live in China and see Australian steel getting put up by cranes; I go to the store and buy Australian oats and Devondale milk. Iron ore has plunged. Australian mining companies are getting hit hard. Chinese are tightening their belts and buying fewer imported goods.The economic boom in China is going through an adjustment that has made the prices for your commodities return to normal levels.

I know why Australia, a small country, was able to finance its social model, but it can't be done here on a scale for 300 million the way you rode commodity highs to finance that lifestyle for 30 million.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:46:54 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:39:44 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:32:12 am

$1 trillion a year is negligible. That's funny. The sequester is $1.2 trillion over years 2013 and 2021. Spending cuts over eight years are not going to really solve $1 trillion each year.

And Defense alone is not going to be hit. Sequestration hits many departments. But that's what I was saying. The piggy bank is broken. You can't do the sequestration and talk of more goodies. It's dried up.

Not cutting the hell out of medicare and medicaid and food stamps is not "talking of more goodies."

The low hanging fruit is military spending, followed by the massive amounts of waste and overinflated costs involved in healthcare spending. Fixing those issues has nothing to do with cutting entitlements to normal people who pay into the programs, and advocating cutting those services from people [The parasites, in your words] is the exact opposite of American.

The yearly defense budget is not enough to solve the deficit, even if you totally dismantled the US Armed Forces root and branch. And then you're left with merely a deficit at zero. What I began by saying is that people wanted more goodies, like free education and free contraceptives. Can a narrowly-defined safety net for temporary assistance be sustained? Sure. But that's not what I'm hearing from victorious liberals. I'm hearing: more, more, more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:47:34 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:46:54 am

But that's not what I'm hearing from victorious liberals. I'm hearing: more, more, more.

Prove your claim. I've yet to see anyone extolling the virtue of expanding the coverage of entitlement programs as haphazardly as you suggest [for little reason other than 'More'] so you've just gone and made another strawman to fight against.

And, tell me, what is bad about free education?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 06:52:14 am

@Trollheiming: The 'free' contraceptives issue wasn't even paid for by government, it was about private insurance bought by a company not being able to excluded paid for medicine to their employees, because they're your boss, not your dad or your owner.

In fact if you followed the story, it was mentioned that students turned to "free clinics" because their Catholic colleges refused to fund female reproductive medicine. And those "free clinics" are definitely paid for by the taxpayer. The idea behind this, and the private insurance mandate, is to leave less people slipping between the cracks and ending up being paid for by the government.

As for free education, you're a fool if you think not educating children is the road to economic prosperity, and college education is definitely NOT "free" in USA, and there are no plans by either party to make it free. And Romney supports private colleges which make 86% of their revenues from tax-payer funded student grants.

Since there just ain't no free college in USA, are you saying to abolish public schooling for under 18's? Public schooling is hardly an invention of the Obama administration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:59:59 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:47:34 am

And, tell me, what is bad about free education?

Free education means more people take advantage of it. Well and good, eh?

That means more teachers. Teachers need pay, and if the education is to be meaningful, it has to be at a high price to recruit  dedicated and skilled teachers. In fact, if you want more of something at the same quality, it costs more per a unit. That's called the supply curve, which slopes upward as quantity increases. The more you want of something, the more you have to pay.

So now everyone is a trained lawyer. That's awesome. But wait, we only need so many lawyers! Oh, dear! We've got people with $100k sheepskins and no degree-specific jobs to give them. But we need buildings cleaned. Voila. Those free degrees all become $100k "janitorial engineering" degrees.

And the cost is picked up by the government. And the deficits grow. Free education destroys the value of the product, but not the costs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 07:01:06 am

Yeah but you're not making sense since there are no free lawyer courses in America. Students end up $100'000s in debt. It couldn't be more of a strawman if you tried, because those free lawyer courses don't exist, and nobody is proposing them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:01:15 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:59:59 am

Free education destroys the value of the product, but not the costs.

I would like to see your citations for these claims.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 07:06:21 am

Yeah.  This doesn't even have anything to do with anything anymore.  It's just the guy living up to his name.  Insulting everyone based on his imaginary conceptions of what they believe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:06:41 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:01:15 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:59:59 am

Free education destroys the value of the product, but not the costs.

I would like to see your citations for these claims.

On a board moving this fast, I'm not hunting citations. You can look at the easy money of the housing bubble, or the easy money in any irrational stock market boom. Wherever people get to buy things for free or with easy loans that they may or may not default upon, value is destroyed.

Know anyone who lost 40% of the value in his home after the easy money destroyed home values? That's your citation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 07:08:43 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:06:41 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:01:15 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:59:59 am

Free education destroys the value of the product, but not the costs.

I would like to see your citations for these claims.

On a board moving this fast, I'm not hunting citations. You can look at the easy money of the housing bubble, or the easy money in any irrational stock market boom. Wherever people get to buy things for free or with easy loans that they may or may not default upon, value is destroyed.

Know anyone who lost 40% of the value in his home after the easy money destroyed home values? That's your citation.

Yeah.  People lost their homes.  Now we have 4x as many empty homes as homeless people for no practical reason beyond "the number game says so".  This is why everything you're saying just demonstrates to me how ridiculous our economic systems are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 07:10:06 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 07:06:21 am

Yeah.  This doesn't even have anything to do with anything anymore.  It's just the guy living up to his name.  Insulting everyone based on his imaginary conceptions of what they believe.

I'm surprised you even bothered to get involved.  I thought this was fake from the start.  x3

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:11:23 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 07:06:21 am

Yeah.  This doesn't even have anything to do with anything anymore.  It's just the guy living up to his name.  Insulting everyone based on his imaginary conceptions of what they believe.

I got people asking me for citations. Nary a citation from them.

I got people telling me I'm insulting them, while calling me "kid" and "deluded" and "imaginary" over a simple stark number like $16 trillion, that will still be there when you close your eyes and plug you ears and scream you aren't hearing this.

I got people accusing me of strawman to evade posting something on-point.

Good show, chaps. This is over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:12:33 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:06:41 am

On a board moving this fast, I'm not hunting citations. You can look at the easy money of the housing bubble, or the easy money in any irrational stock market boom. Wherever people get to buy things for free or with easy loans that they may or may not default upon, value is destroyed.

Know anyone who lost 40% of the value in his home after the easy money destroyed home values? That's your citation.

You do understand that there is a difference between buying a home and studying for a certification, right? The trade of goods isn't comparable with personal training. You can just buy a house if you have the money, but you can't just buy a degree, you need to be able to pass the tests. Further more, a house maintains value if you don't use it, a degree does not. A house can be resold, a degree can not.
They are conceptually very different things, and not economically interchangeable any way!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 07:17:49 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:11:23 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 07:06:21 am

Yeah.  This doesn't even have anything to do with anything anymore.  It's just the guy living up to his name.  Insulting everyone based on his imaginary conceptions of what they believe.

I got people asking me for citations. Nary a citation from them.

I got people telling me I'm insulting them, while calling me "kid" and "deluded" and "imaginary" over a simple stark number like $16 trillion, that will still be there when you close your eyes and plug you ears and scream you aren't hearing this.

I got people accusing me of strawman to evade posting something on-point.

Good show, chaps. This is over.

It was the "parasites" comment, not the statistic.  You struck a nerve with a lot of people.  It's also why you've been accused of living in a bubble.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 07:22:14 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:11:23 am

I got people telling me I'm insulting them, while calling me "kid" and "deluded" and "imaginary" over a simple stark number like $16 trillion, that will still be there when you close your eyes and plug you ears and scream you aren't hearing this.

I got people accusing me of strawman to evade posting something on-point.

No, you're a child and a moron because you believe people who get help from a government they pay taxes to are parasites [though I argue strongly that you're the exact parasite you refer to]. Then you make up silly positions to argue with to make your positions seem less stupid, or to veil your trolling as debate when in fact you are showing you know nothing about what you drag up in conversation. See: Previous education statements and your follow-up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:24:10 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:12:33 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:06:41 am

On a board moving this fast, I'm not hunting citations. You can look at the easy money of the housing bubble, or the easy money in any irrational stock market boom. Wherever people get to buy things for free or with easy loans that they may or may not default upon, value is destroyed.

Know anyone who lost 40% of the value in his home after the easy money destroyed home values? That's your citation.

You do understand that there is a difference between buying a home and studying for a certification, right? The trade of goods isn't comparable with personal training. You can just buy a house if you have the money, but you can't just buy a degree, you need to be able to pass the tests. Further more, a house maintains value if you don't use it, a degree does not. A house can be resold, a degree can not.
They are conceptually very different things, and not economically interchangeable any way!

A house is a good. Education is a service. Goods and services can be analysed with the same theories. Don't pretend otherwise. It's been real, guys, but I got to go the sleep.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 07:24:19 am

Quote

The view that higher education is a bubble is controversial. Most economists do not think the returns to college education are falling. In a financial bubble, assets like houses are sometimes purchased with a view to reselling at a higher price, and this can produce rapidly escalating prices as people speculate on future prices. An end to the spiral can provoke abrupt selling of the assets, resulting in an abrupt collapse in price — the bursting of the bubble. Because the asset acquired through college attendance — a higher education — cannot be sold (only rented through wages), there is no similar mechanism that would cause an abrupt collapse in the value of existing degrees. For this reason, many people find this analogy misleading.

the "higher education bubble" is controversial and has been rejected by some economists. Data shows that the wage premium—the difference between what those with a four year college degree earn and what those with only a high school education earn—has increased dramatically since the 1970s, but so has the 'debt load' incurred by students due to the tuition inflation. The data also suggests that, notwithstanding a slight increase in 2008–2009, student loan default rates have declined since the mid 1980s and 1990s. Those with college degrees are much less likely than those without to be unemployed, even though they are more expensive to employ (they earn higher wages). The global management consulting firm McKinsey and Company projects a shortage of college trained workers, and an excess supply of workers without college degrees, which would cause the wage premium to increase, and cause differences in unemployment rates to become even more dramatic.

The problem with "too many lawyers" isn't that there are too many, it's that greedy private tuition colleges don't want to fail anyone, even if they're lousy at the course. Not for some "liberal bleeding heart" reason, but because those students are a cash-cow. So they pat them on the head and dumb down the course to inflate numbers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 07:25:08 am

16 trillion.  Yup.  It's a number.  It also means absolutely nothing to me.  I went straight to from high school to college.  Paid my own way through most of it, with some parental assistance.  Still holding down a job and raising a family while edging my way into a better career.  That really big number?  As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with me.  I've given no support to any of the politics that generated it, and I'm not one of the parasites you describe.  Should that number pose any threat to me, I see it as nothing more than an invading force on my life.  Powerful people have their number games, while I'm just living the best that I can.  As far as I'm concerned, the influence of the former on the latter is illegitimate and a form of violence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 07:25:42 am

Right, education lowers economic development, because it dilutes the labor market with an overabundance of skills, basically. That's why Africa is a Shangri-la of economic prosperity; no lousy free education mooching off the system! Yeah, go free enterprise! The fewer skills there are avaliable to a market, the better off that market is! We should totally revert to a guild system, because LOOK AT THE PROFITS GUYS, THERE ARE TOTALLY NO DRAWBACKS TO THIS!

Your arguments are so well thought out and based on such sound principles. It's almost like Abe Lincoln has risen from the dead and signed up to these forums. Why, I'd wager you could get giftbaskets if you just went and posted your home address along with your brilliant ideas on /b/! Honest, give it a try! Write us a novel on your ideas, for they are GOLDEN!

(PS; I'm really impressed that at the mere age of 30 you managed to get a job in China. I might not have noticed, but you brought it up almost half a dozen times, so it's evidently quite an achievement. Good job, sunshine! We'll write you a card for christmas, okay? We'll send it to 'china', so no doubt it'll arrive no problems)

...C'mon guys, don't buy into the amateur troll.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alexandertnt on November 07, 2012, 07:26:56 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:41:43 am

Quote

You continue to state the deficit without explaining how "liberalism" is causing it. Just that it "is" $16 Trillion. Also, given your constant use of straw men, accusing someone of using an emotional fallacy is ironic.

Entitlement spending is 60% of the total. That's New Deal liberalism. How can this be a strawman? You aren't using these terms in good faith.

Quote from: Wikipedia's article on Straw Man

"5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Quote

America has succumbed to the parasites that only wanted goodies and hated productive people.

Quote

4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Quote

I got people telling me I'm insulting them, while calling me "kid" and "deluded" and "imaginary" over a simple stark number like $16 trillion, that will still be there when you close your eyes and plug you ears and scream you aren't hearing this.

Quote

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

As if they are calling you names over that figure. They are not.

Quote

I got people accusing me of strawman to evade posting something on-point.

I would consider pointing out the flaws in your arguments and refuting them to be in-point.

Free education is the corner-stone of modern society. How would someone born to poor parents get anywhere if they could bearly read.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Blargityblarg on November 07, 2012, 07:27:44 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:59:59 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 06:47:34 am

And, tell me, what is bad about free education?

Free education means more people take advantage of it. Well and good, eh?

That means more teachers. Teachers need pay, and if the education is to be meaningful, it has to be at a high price to recruit  dedicated and skilled teachers. In fact, if you want more of something at the same quality, it costs more per a unit. That's called the supply curve, which slopes upward as quantity increases. The more you want of something, the more you have to pay.

So now everyone is a trained lawyer. That's awesome. But wait, we only need so many lawyers! Oh, dear! We've got people with $100k sheepskins and no degree-specific jobs to give them. But we need buildings cleaned. Voila. Those free degrees all become $100k "janitorial engineering" degrees.

And the cost is picked up by the government. And the deficits grow. Free education destroys the value of the product, but not the costs.

I'd like to see the intermediate steps between 'more people are being educated' and 'now everybody is a lawyer, nobody did anything but study law'

This is one solution the free market actually does provide. As an Australian, I see plenty of people ignoring university altogether and going into trades jobs. You are, quite simply, drawing a conclusion that does not follow the premise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:29:19 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:24:10 am

A house is a good. Education is a service. Goods and services can be analysed with the same theories. Don't pretend otherwise. It's been real, guys, but I got to go the sleep.

Umm, no, not exactly. You don't study economics, do you?
While on a business level they are pretty identical, were not doing business studies any more, we are talking economics. On an economic level, the ability to resell an object, and other, non-financial limitations on a product both change how it acts within an economy. They are not interchangeable.

Still, shame I missed the fun, but good night, see you some other time!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:30:39 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 07:22:14 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:11:23 am

I got people telling me I'm insulting them, while calling me "kid" and "deluded" and "imaginary" over a simple stark number like $16 trillion, that will still be there when you close your eyes and plug you ears and scream you aren't hearing this.

I got people accusing me of strawman to evade posting something on-point.

No, you're a child and a moron because you believe people who get help from a government they pay taxes to are parasites [though I argue strongly that you're the exact parasite you refer to]. Then you make up silly positions to argue with to make your positions seem less stupid, or to veil your trolling as debate when in fact you are showing you know nothing about what you drag up in conversation. See: Previous education statements and your follow-up.

Yup. I'm a parasite. Because I'm obviously a drag on the society that I don't even live in. How astute of you.

That part where you ripped into the substance of my arguments by calling me a moron was an exhilaratingly virtuoso display of debating talent. Bravo.

You are not being childish and not resorting to inarticulate name-calling that cheapens anything worthwhile you might have said. You look every bit as dignified as when you began. And even if you were childish, you doubtless would be rubber, and I'd be glue. I concede!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 07:33:34 am

Quote from: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 07:25:42 am

Right, education lowers economic development, because it dilutes the labor market with an overabundance of skills, basically. That's why Africa is a Shangri-la of economic prosperity; no lousy free education mooching off the system! Yeah, go free enterprise! The fewer skills there are avaliable to a market, the better off that market is! We should totally revert to a guild system, because LOOK AT THE PROFITS GUYS, THERE ARE TOTALLY NO DRAWBACKS TO THIS!

Your arguments are so well thought out and based on such sound principles. It's almost like Abe Lincoln has risen from the dead and signed up to these forums. Why, I'd wager you could get giftbaskets if you just went and posted your home address along with your brilliant ideas on /b/! Honest, give it a try! Write us a novel on your ideas, for they are GOLDEN!

(PS; I'm really impressed that at the mere age of 30 you managed to get a job in China. I might not have noticed, but you brought it up almost half a dozen times, so it's evidently quite an achievement. Good job, sunshine! We'll write you a card for christmas, okay? We'll send it to 'china', so no doubt it'll arrive no problems)

...C'mon guys, don't buy into the amateur troll.

Eight or nine thirty is pretty early to go to sleep for a thirty year old, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 07:37:26 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:30:39 am

Yup. I'm a parasite. Because I'm obviously a drag on the society that I don't even live in. How astute of you.

That part where you ripped into the substance of my arguments by calling me a moron was an exhilaratingly virtuoso display of debating talent. Bravo.

You are not being childish and not resorting to inarticulate name-calling that cheapens anything worthwhile you might have said. You look every bit as dignified as when you began. And even if you were childish, you doubtless would be rubber, and I'd be glue. I concede!

Hey look, more of you doing more nonsensical talking and proving you don't know anything about what you talk about. It must be easy to get a job in your multinational if they hire such fools. Are you the janitor, perhaps?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 07:39:22 am

Well, he needs to rest from all the China work he does in his important job in China where he's a big success. He has no time for defending his strawmen! He has WORK to do man!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:40:27 am

Trollheiming, Mictlantecuhtli, you know I hate being a mod, right? I'm as likely to shitpost as anybody here, if not more so, but I feel bad. You guys are getting personal grievance all over Aqizzars thread that he put so much into, and he is a pretty cool guy.
The idea was to laugh at Obama and Mittens doing this stuff, not getting into it ourselves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 07:42:24 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:40:27 am

Trollheiming, Mictlantecuhtli, you know I hate being a mod, right? I'm as likely to shitpost as anybody here, if not more so, but I feel bad. You guys are getting personal grievance all over Aqizzars thread that he put so much into, and he is a pretty cool guy.
The idea was to laugh at Obama and Mittens doing this stuff, not getting into it ourselves.

He's come into this topic to spew out trash plenty of times before. Coming in to say that Americans who get benefits are parasites was the last straw, sorry. The kid's a damn joke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:43:29 am

Well he does have Troll in his name, maybe he is a damn joke?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 07:45:58 am

Well after you see that the alternative universe you lived in doesn't exist the only thing to do is attack the denzians of the real universe.

In other news, Randal Monroe wins in Randal Monroe fashion: "As of this writing the only thing 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result." I for one welcome our new algorithmic masters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 07:46:18 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:43:29 am

Well he does have Troll in his name, maybe he is a damn joke?

Jokes are funny, hell, Louis C.K is the funniest man in the universe, but calling my parents, your parents, a child on food assistance, and a military veteran all parasites in the same statement goes beyond hilarity and into the personally upsetting department. I'm tired of conservatism being annihilated by reactionaries with backwards logic.

*and* I missed 4:20 rageposting. Damnit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 07:48:31 am

Yeah, the guy even has "I'm hungry" as his little phrase there. Kinda obvious link to baiting for troll-feed. Still, it's important to call the obvious bullshitter out on obvious bullshit - you never know who's actually going to buy into it and genuinely agree with the rediculous statements, then go on to spread them around. That's how you get shit like this slowly becoming the norm. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/) Someone's gotta point out that it's actually complete crap, or else people start believing it. Also, regular trollers are fucking retards, to put it mildly. They deserve the scorn, and much more. Not many things piss me off (christ, I've worked with fucking paedophiles and rapists without problems), but regular trollers are the ones who get my hatred. Little shits. Grrr. They undermine fucking everything.

Also, this is the first time I've EVER looked at Fox news. I would actually think it was the Onion if I didn't specifically search for it. Wow, you guys are in trouble, aren't you?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:51:12 am

Quote from: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 07:39:22 am

Well, he needs to rest from all the China work he does in his important job in China where he's a big success. He has no time for defending his strawmen! He has WORK to do man!

When a guy accuses me of being a parasite in a country that I don't live in, I should just nod and pretend I live in America? I've got an IP Address and mods have tracert so do it. How insane that you've made my location into a big deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 07:59:04 am

Quote from: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 07:33:34 am

Eight or nine thirty is pretty early to go to sleep for a thirty year old, too.

Actually, I'm just tired of being shouted down rather than anyone reasonably agreeing that new spending ought to be frozen when you've got a $16 trillion debt. It's late, and I'll go to bed in due course, but I'm leaving earlier than I strictly have to, if I were strapped to this chair. You got me there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:00:16 am

I keep hearing that the US is in massive debt. Anybody know who your in debt to?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 08:02:03 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 07:40:27 am

Trollheiming, Mictlantecuhtli, you know I hate being a mod, right? I'm as likely to shitpost as anybody here, if not more so, but I feel bad. You guys are getting personal grievance all over Aqizzars thread that he put so much into, and he is a pretty cool guy.
The idea was to laugh at Obama and Mittens doing this stuff, not getting into it ourselves.

The early part of this mess did actually get me thinking, again, that Republicans and Conservatives each need their own party.  More, and more, I see them compromising each others' ideals for the sake of defeating Democrats.  Liberals are, likewise, stuck with Democrats.  I don't even know what the Democratic Ideals currently are.  It gets drowned out by everything else.  I suspect they are, perhaps, not ideological at all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 08:07:05 am

Quote

When a guy accuses me of being a parasite in a country that I don't live in, I should just nod and pretend I live in America? I've got an IP Address and mods have tracert so do it. How insane that you've made my location into a big deal.

I'm not the one who used it what, 3-4 times without anyone asking? You act as if you're the only one who knows anything about the world, because, why, you lives in the chinas and is practically the CEO of the chinas! Hurp-dee-doo! Strawman strawman, indignance, derision!

Of course, the irony of living in one of the last remaining communist states (if you actually do, don't really care either way) and saying that the USA should fix its problems by dragging its bloated, heaving carcass further to the right and replicating nothing of the incredible economic success of said communist country is a brilliant arguing position. I bet you know all the science, why, you even have the IPs to prove it! Wow computers! You has all the solutions, just look at your china career!

Quote

Actually, I'm just tired of being shouted down rather than anyone reasonably agreeing that new spending ought to be frozen when you've got a $16 trillion debt. It's late, and I'll go to bed in due course, but I'm leaving earlier than I strictly have to, if I were strapped to this chair. You got me there.

Such a pity. The quality of discussion certainly flew skywards with each of your contributions, well thought out and reasonably presented as they were ('parasites' being, y'know, the most reasonable and sensible term you could possibly have used, for example). Oh if only the silly lefties on the forums were smart enough to take insults, derisive terminology and completely unwarranted arrogance without personal offense! When will they learn?! It's almost completely surely their fault that you got 'shouted down', not because you were baiting for said abuse from the outset.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alexandertnt on November 07, 2012, 08:13:26 am

I am suspecting troll more and more. Most arguments are fallacies, and most fallacies are Straw Men.

Plus

Quote

How insane that you've made my location into a big deal.

When it is clear that Agdune was actually pointing out that you (Trollheiming) have attempted to do exactly what you are accusing him (Agdune) of doing already.

Plus

Quote

Actually, I'm just tired of being shouted down rather than anyone reasonably agreeing that new spending ought to be frozen when you've got a $16 trillion debt

"Rather then"? As if the only other choice to shouting you down is to agree with you. When someone says something like this, it raises suspicions that they believe they are just right. No one can argue agains't your points apparently, since there is only agreeing with you, or shouting you down.

Also, playing the victim.

Quote

Republicans and Conservatives each need their own party

I agree. It is clear there is a divide between the two. However, the US system is a virtual 2 party system. Any attempt to split in half would most likely result in one half sliding into obscurity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:16:41 am

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 07, 2012, 08:13:26 am

I agree. It is clear there is a divide between the two. However, the US system is a virtual 2 party system. Any attempt to split in half would most likely result in one half sliding into obscurity.

Can it be republicans? From what I can gather, they are more evil right wing, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 08:18:22 am

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 07, 2012, 08:13:26 am

Quote

Republicans and Conservatives each need their own party

I agree. It is clear there is a divide between the two.

See: Me & Troll.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:19:12 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 08:18:22 am

See: Me & Troll.

Who is conservative and who is republican? I came in a little late...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 08:24:48 am

Actually, that's something I hadn't really realised until lately; you guys primarily use a FPTP system, don't you? Is it like that across the board? Because I'm starting to suspect that's pretty much why you're so completely saddled with a two-party system; 3rd or 4th tier parties just can't exist in a FPTP system. Like in Australia; we effectively have 3 major parties (technically 4) to pick from, and even if one's a complete minority in the parliament, they still have some voice in parliament or the senate at least.

...Actually, wait, do we use a FPTP system? Shit, I have to figure that out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 08:25:40 am

I think you use MMP.

In the US, it's FPTP all the way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 08:28:21 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:19:12 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 08:18:22 am

See: Me & Troll.

Who is conservative and who is republican? I came in a little late...

Liberal in everything but fiscal and governmental matters. SalmonGod can tell you I believe in rule of law first and foremost; the Constitution especially. Working for the government and being an ex-Jew can do that. It's not as easy to pin down as you'd think, I've voted Bush-Clinton-Gore-Obama since I've been voting; mostly because Republicanism in the US now is a hodgepodge of the worst the right has to offer [especially legislator-wise, dear god ugh] and we have no other options to pick from for someone with views like mine. Democratic party may not be perfect, but they're not so anti-American. I'd appreciate a moderate social Liberal Repulicrat Unity-party.

But, I just violently disagree with this hands-off 'let the trash be trash' attitude towards our fellow humans, let alone as Americans. There was a time when we'd call someone who advocates Randian positions greedy and selfish, but those people call themselves Republicans now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Dragor23 on November 07, 2012, 08:30:00 am

I want to know what Romney told his three wives after he conceded.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That was a bad joke. Sorry.

But I'm glad that Obama is president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:32:19 am

Yea, US is first past the post.
Australia has Labor (Kinda not bad) and Liberal + Nationals (Evil) as the big two, then Greens as balance of power (Good guys) and Katter as his own party (Nutter)
Then we have a massive shitton of parties for state and local government, including The Shooters and Fishers Party, Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party, and The Australian Sex Party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: ISP on November 07, 2012, 08:32:50 am

Neither is evil, but neither is good, noone likes the 2 party system, but noone votes for the 3rd party lobbyists in any amount that matters.

I personally dont like either party, but knowing a 3rd party will never win in this enviroment means I'd rather not vote then vote for the people I dislike less.

Either way your left with the same people running the government and having no strong influence one way or the other, its only considered better then a monarcy or dictatorship because the guys in charge cannot agree enough to do very much harm, and we can civilly remove them from control if they fuck up (nixon)... otherwise its captalism and who can make the most money and not look like a rich asshole, while actually wanting to be in a position that is more or less USA's personal representation to the rest of the world... because beside the president and diplomats who else do foreigners know from the United States Government? Senators? bah Americans dont even know the senators unless its from their own state.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:35:12 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:00:16 am

I keep hearing that the US is in massive debt. Anybody know who your in debt to?

I'll see if I can dig up a chart or something, but as far as I can remember it's mostly fellow Americans and some financial institutions. Maybe a department of the US government owns part of the debt for some economic reason.

Spoiler: Fake-Edit (click to show/hide)

(http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/saupload_who_owns_us_national_debt_30_sept_2010.png)

The chart seems reasonably accurate for something that I pulled off the internet. So the US is mostly in debt to itself and its government (especially social security), along with a few other countries that it decided to borrow from.

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 08:28:21 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:19:12 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 08:18:22 am

See: Me & Troll.

Who is conservative and who is republican? I came in a little late...

Liberal in everything but fiscal and governmental matters. SalmonGod can tell you I believe in rule of law first and foremost; the Constitution especially. Working for the government and being an ex-Jew can do that. It's not as easy to pin down as you'd think, I've voted Bush-Clinton-Gore-Obama since I've been voting; mostly because Republicanism in the US now is a hodgepodge of the worst the right has to offer [especially legislator-wise, dear god ugh].

But, I just violently disagree with this hands-off 'let the trash be trash' attitude towards our fellow humans, let alone as Americans. There was a time when we'd call someone who advocates Randian positions greedy and selfish, but those people call themselves Republicans now.

Is... is there even an opposing side to fiscal conservatism? I can't imagine somebody who would want to willingly increase the deficit spending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:35:39 am

Quote from: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 08:07:05 am

Quote

When a guy accuses me of being a parasite in a country that I don't live in, I should just nod and pretend I live in America? I've got an IP Address and mods have tracert so do it. How insane that you've made my location into a big deal.

I'm not the one who used it what, 3-4 times without anyone asking? You act as if you're the only one who knows anything about the world, because, why, you lives in the chinas and is practically the CEO of the chinas! Hurp-dee-doo! Strawman strawman, indignance, derision!

Of course, the irony of living in one of the last remaining communist states (if you actually do, don't really care either way) and saying that the USA should fix its problems by dragging its bloated, heaving carcass further to the right and replicating nothing of the incredible economic success of said communist country is a brilliant arguing position.

You don't understand much about China, bud. China has no social welfare model to speak of. If you're poor, the government gives you just enough to buy rice for a month. About 50 yuan for a month, and a good professional makes 6000-12000 a month. So yeah, once you know China, it is a good point that China has avoided the trap that America and Europe are in right now. But if you don't know China, but want to appear undeservingly derisive of people that do know more than you, then you snark and sneer without facts.

While you're just plain ignorant about China, on rereading my posts, I think "parasites" was an emotional mistake at the tail-end of a decent point. The point is that too much is going out of the social funds. We can't pay for more outflows, but people have been promised things like help with education expenses to get more youth votes. It gets people to the polls, but any system that has more outflow than inflow is being fed off by people that aren't adequately putting in. By necessity. Calling these people parasites obscured the overall point with heated emotion. They're free-riders, though. It was just after the election and I'm exhausted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 08:43:07 am

Yeah, China really avoided that trap of having a decent society.

Troll, do you by any chance live in Shanghai or Hong Kong?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 08:45:19 am

I suppose it was too much to hope for that nobody would get banned over the whole life of the thread, but at least it's after the election.

And lest anyone forget to bring it up, a slight reduction in military spending and raising most tax rates back to where they were in the economically roaring 1990s would mathematically all but eliminate the deficit.  Given the changes in Congress, I wouldn't be surprised to see a platform like this becoming the center of the debate very quickly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: SalmonGod on November 07, 2012, 08:46:47 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:35:39 am

If you're poor, the government gives you just enough to buy rice for a month. About 50 yuan for a month, and a good professional makes 6000-12000 a month.

Welfare in America is hardly more than this, and qualifying is notorious for being difficult and designed to humiliate.  I also don't know anyone who is getting a free education.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:46:58 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:35:39 am

\While you're just plain ignorant about China, on rereading my posts, I think "parasites" was an emotional mistake at the tail-end of a decent point. The point is that too much is going out of the social funds. We can't pay for more outflows, but people have been promised things like help with education expenses to get more youth votes. It gets people to the polls, but any system that has more outflow than inflow is being fed off by people that aren't adequately putting in.  By necessity. Calling these people parasites obscured the overall point with heated emotion. They're free-riders, though. It was just after the election and I'm exhausted.

I don't see how those people are parasites. Well, I kinda do, but they're just acting like human beings and want nice/free things. To me it seems like the problem is with the politicians and people in power promising more social services than they can reasonably pay, but nobody really cares about politics anymore so the politicians get away with it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:47:27 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 08:43:07 am

Yeah, China really avoided that trap of having a decent society.

Troll, do you by any chance live in Shanghai or Hong Kong?

I have lived in Shanghai. Xi'an right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 08:48:19 am

Or we could just raise more money - it's not like we are anywhere near the laffer curve, after all. I think we could pretty safely raise taxes back to the rate Reagen wanted (roughly twice what they are now for those who have the money we need) without issue.

I also wouldn't really call Social Security parasitism - would you? I mean, that's one of those things we are all supposed to pay into. And veteran benefits are kind of perks?

And the DoD at 20% is kind of a big deal, especially since that's not the total amount of military spending (a decent chunk of the remaining mandatory spending that isn't medicare/medicaid and social security is still military, just not DoD)

I mean, your big things seems to be with welfare, medicaid, and medicare, right?

But cutting the DoD is nothing to scoff at - there's no real cost to many of those cuts, and every cut gets us closer to a balanced deficit. I actually think some benefits should be cut as well, but I'm not foolish enough to think our government would be able to handle it's money just because it stopped paying out entitlements.

Come on, you KNOW they would find something to spend it on, or cut taxes, and we'd be back in the same place within a decade.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 08:48:42 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:35:12 am

Is... is there even an opposing side to fiscal conservatism? I can't imagine somebody who would want to willingly increase the deficit spending.

See: Modern Republican party.

Cut taxes [mostly for the rich], raise spending [mostly on the military-industrial complex], if there's a chance cut a good 9% or 10% from those pesky New Deal programs. Leading to more hardship, to lead to more excuses to cut into the programs.

They have no plan, no tactic for the future. It's blind greed and posteuring [I'd call it plain stupid] in the face of the contrary, their policies since the Reagan years have always been disastrous.

Hey, Troll, about that inflow v outflow problem, it'd be fixed in one year by allowing sequestration to kick in and barely changing the overall tax rate on upper income earners; even IF you add in a nice 250+ billion dollar pot of money to entice repatriation of foreign-shipped factories, which would start a trend of moving the jobs back instead of enticing them to leave like we do now [see: You in China right now!].

I'd even argue for more tariffs. Even an entire shakeup of the payroll taxes and overlapping taxes to make it simpler and also get more out of it.

There's lots of ways for America to get out of the minor deficit she's in. None of them require cutting money to people who are taking it right now, and anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda against the program or is simply uninformed on how those programs to affect the country as a whole and blah blah blah zzz. I shouldn't even have to explain a simple goddamn thing like this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: majikero on November 07, 2012, 08:51:18 am

So it's going to be down hill within the next few decades then.

Well, time to earn as much money as I can and ship back to my homeland.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 08:53:25 am

Quote

But if you don't know China, but want to appear undeservingly derisive of people that do know more than you, then you snark and sneer without facts.

Of course, this statement is basically exactly my point; you're obviously the leading expert of all things, both China and otherwise, because you've said so (of course, your say-so being ALL THE PROOF NEEDED), so you're acting like an arrogant, naive, trolling asshole who obviously knows how to solve all the problems of the world if only the damn whiners would stop whining when you insult them. Y'know, because evidently you've got a doctorate in awesomeology, and we should accept your unsubstantiated crap.

(edit: cut things down a bit. No point dragging out the argument. Also kinda hypocritical for lambasting someone for insulting someone while in a bad mood when I'm essentially doing the same :p)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:54:52 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:46:58 am

I don't see how those people are parasites. Well, I kinda do, but they're just acting like human beings and want nice/free things. To me it seems like the problem is with the politicians and people in power promising more social services than they can reasonably pay, but nobody really cares about politics anymore so the politicians get away with it.

That's why I re-read the whole exchange and changed my mind about that particular choice of verbiage. Frankly, most of the exchange afterward consisted of Mich calling me a parasite, and my replying that I didn't even live in the country. If I had been asked more directly why they were worthy of being called parasites, I'd have had to think about it, rather than defending myself from being a parasite.

All that what not my main point. The fact that $16 trillion in debt means we can't expand liberal social systems. Obama wins, but he has to reduce government. The piggy bank is broken. This is now near the sane limit of debt-to-GDP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 08:57:19 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:35:12 am

Is... is there even an opposing side to fiscal conservatism? I can't imagine somebody who would want to willingly increase the deficit spending.

It's supposed to be investment in public works and services, the idea being that they facilitate productivity with things like infrastructure for logistics, energy distribution, and a healthy, dedicated work force.  Fiscal conservatism isn't so much opposed, as it is intended to keep these investments practical and affordable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: mainiac on November 07, 2012, 08:59:37 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:47:27 am

I have lived in Shanghai. Xi'an right now.

Yeah I figured.  Let me spell this out for you.  A typical westerner in Shanghai has about as much understanding of China as a typical airline passenger laying over in Atlanta has of the deep south.  Xi'an is a bit better but it doesn't outweigh the negative knowledge accrued by living in Shanghai.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 08:59:59 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:32:19 am

Yea, US is first past the post.
Australia has Labor (Kinda not bad) and Liberal + Nationals (Evil) as the big two, then Greens as balance of power (Good guys) and Katter as his own party (Nutter)
Then we have a massive shitton of parties for state and local government, including The Shooters and Fishers Party, Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party, and The Australian Sex Party.

Australian Sex Party? Oh yea!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 09:00:55 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 08:45:19 am

And lest anyone forget to bring it up, a slight reduction in military spending and raising most tax rates back to where they were in the economically roaring 1990s would mathematically all but eliminate the deficit.

Dammit man, were in a war! A war on witches/communism/terror! Cutting military spending is the last thing we should do!

Anyway, how much do you guys spend on new uniforms? $1.030–$1.415 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012)? Ok, so a little more than the cost of the Starwars franchise. Let's put that in context! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
So while the US accounts for 41% of the worlds total accounted for military spending, the second place China manages an impressive 8%, followed by 4.1, 3.6 and 3.6. So a good lead over competitors! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI)

But the US is a big place with a large population, so these numbers could be distorted! Lets look at the GDP to get a better idea of what is going on. Well here the US isn't winning the race, only coming in second behind the peaceful nation of Saudi Arabia. But it is still a hard hitter with, spending about three times that of pussy siblings Canada and Australia, and let's face it, they are both mommys boys, never left the commonwealth!

So, should the US cut military spending? Not until we are sure that should anything provoke any sort of attack, they can nuke all life on earth, take out the international space station, and put out the sun, ensuring no life can ever persist in this solar system. Rock on US!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 07, 2012, 09:02:54 am

Quote

There's lots of ways for America to get out of the minor deficit she's in. None of them require cutting money to people who are taking it right now, and anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda against the program or is simply uninformed on how those programs to affect the country as a whole and blah blah blah zzz. I shouldn't even have to explain a simple goddamn thing like this.

I wouldn't call a 8% GDP deficit minor. I mean it's worse than Greece(Procentually). Other fun numbers is that the deficit is 3 times larger than the entire GDP of Belgium.
((Not counting social revunues and expenses, which would add another 1.3 trillion dollars deficit))

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:54:52 am

All that what not my main point. The fact that $16 trillion in debt means we can't expand liberal social systems. Obama wins, but he has to reduce government. The piggy bank is broken. This is now near the sane limit of debt-to-GDP.

Or Obama could always raise taxes on the rich back to normal levels and put that extra money into reducing the deficit without cutting any programs. Or he could raise taxes a little, cut into the military and reduce the deficit that way. Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards. The piggy bank isn't broken, it's just wedged shut by Congress's inability to compromise.

Quote from: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 08:57:19 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:35:12 am

Is... is there even an opposing side to fiscal conservatism? I can't imagine somebody who would want to willingly increase the deficit spending.

It's supposed to be investment in public works and services, the idea being that they facilitate productivity with things like infrastructure for logistics, energy distribution, and a healthy, dedicated work force.  Fiscal conservatism isn't so much opposed, as it is intended to keep these investments practical and affordable.

So it's not really an opposition then, it's just people with different ideas about how much the government should spend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 09:04:58 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 08:59:59 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 08:32:19 am

Yea, US is first past the post.
Australia has Labor (Kinda not bad) and Liberal + Nationals (Evil) as the big two, then Greens as balance of power (Good guys) and Katter as his own party (Nutter)
Then we have a massive shitton of parties for state and local government, including The Shooters and Fishers Party, Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party, and The Australian Sex Party.

Australian Sex Party? Oh yea!

The only problem is that it's the Australian Sex Party. Which involves a whole lot of drunken groping after a big night on the grog.

Note that Iran doesn't even come on the top 15 of Max White's military spending. Going by spending, Canada could whup Iran's ass.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 09:08:00 am

The Sex party is actually pretty good. It stands mostly for a more secular nation and removing religious codes of conduct from law. It is sort of the anti-family first party. Not to mention is against internet censorship and a strong supporter of an R rating for video games here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 09:09:09 am

ERMAGEHRD

MERKS WHERT!!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 09:09:19 am

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 07, 2012, 09:02:54 am

I wouldn't call a 8% GDP deficit minor. I mean it's worse than Greece(Procentually). Other fun numbers is that the deficit is 3 times larger than the entire GDP of Belgium.
((Not counting social revunues and expenses, which would add another 1.3 trillion dollars deficit))

Yes, it's a minor deficit for a country with a 15 trillion+ a year GDP. Sequestration would cut the deficit to manageable levels almost immediately; the next spending bills would patch up any critical failings in the systems we have in place, and we'd be on a good path to a balanced budget in 2014. Then we'd need more permanent reforms to how we deal with health care and the inflated illusionary costs rigged into the system.

Like I've said, we can fix the ship without throwing anyone overboard; it just takes some effort and compromise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: majikero on November 07, 2012, 09:17:39 am

Compromise does not exist within the American Political Dictionary. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 07, 2012, 09:18:25 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 09:09:19 am

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 07, 2012, 09:02:54 am

I wouldn't call a 8% GDP deficit minor. I mean it's worse than Greece(Procentually). Other fun numbers is that the deficit is 3 times larger than the entire GDP of Belgium.
((Not counting social revunues and expenses, which would add another 1.3 trillion dollars deficit))

Yes, it's a minor deficit for a country with a 15 trillion+ a year GDP. Sequestration would cut the deficit to manageable levels almost immediately; the next spending bills would patch up any critical failings in the systems we have in place, and we'd be on a good path to a balanced budget in 2014. Then we'd need more permanent reforms to how we deal with health care and the inflated illusionary costs rigged into the system.

Like I've said, we can fix the ship without throwing anyone overboard; it just takes some effort and compromise.

Procentual deficit means that the size of the GDP doesn't really matter. The larger the GDP, the larger the actual deficit.

But yeah, the US doesn't have such large problems. Plenty of space to cut/ raise taxes and suchlike. Provided nobody blocks the system, everything will work out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 09:21:09 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 07, 2012, 09:22:52 am

Quote from: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 09:21:09 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

Except if they are for the rich, of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 09:23:30 am

Yeah, as anyone who's picked up a history book can tell you, America has done almost nothing but cut taxes for the last seventy years.  The top marginal income tax was 92% in Eisenhower's day, it's 35% now and hasn't been increased but a couple of times by a couple of points.  And certainly not in the last dozen years.

So yeah, OP finally updated.

Also, please don't get my thread locked.  I mean, you could if you wanted, it's done now.  But I don't really need that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 09:24:14 am

Quote from: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 09:21:09 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

...

Are you even remotely aware that history exists?

Pretty much the entire history of the US tax code proves you wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 09:25:12 am

Quote from: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 09:21:09 am

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

(http://files.myfrogbag.com/gaynkp/tax-rates-in-us.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:27:57 am

(http://taxprof.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4eab53ef01348992e7dd970c-500wi)

Higher taxes don't mean more tax revenue.  After going from 90% to 28% and to 35% nothing has changed.

American taxes are always a little below 20% of the total GDP, and you can't increase that by crudely raising rates. It's using a bludgeon on a very delicate machine.

The people who say the answer is sequestration and tax raises are only half right. Tax increases won't do anything. That fact is staring you in the face above, but spending cuts do get at the problem directly. If taxes go to 60 top rate, no impact in the revenues. That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 09:31:26 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Quote from: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 08:57:19 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:35:12 am

Is... is there even an opposing side to fiscal conservatism? I can't imagine somebody who would want to willingly increase the deficit spending.

It's supposed to be investment in public works and services, the idea being that they facilitate productivity with things like infrastructure for logistics, energy distribution, and a healthy, dedicated work force.  Fiscal conservatism isn't so much opposed, as it is intended to keep these investments practical and affordable.

So it's not really an opposition then, it's just people with different ideas about how much the government should spend.

As far as I know, yes.  The current extreme circumstances are the reason that some Fiscal Conservatives have extreme proposals.  Some also advocate lowering revenue at the same time, possibly for, uh... other reasons.

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:27:57 am

Higher taxes don't mean more tax revenue.  After going from 90% to 28% and to 35% nothing has changed.

American taxes are always a little below 20% of the total GDP, and you can't increase that by crudely raising rates. It's using a bludgeon on a very delicate machine.

The people who say the answer is sequestration and tax raises are only half right. Tax increases won't do anything. That fact is staring you in the face above, but spending cuts do get at the problem directly. If taxes go to 60 top rate, no impact in the revenues. That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 09:37:57 am

Quote

The Sex party is actually pretty good. It stands mostly for a more secular nation and removing religious codes of conduct from law.

Actually, to be more accurate, Fiona Patten (leader) describes it as a social-rights oriented progressive party. Its anti-religious stuff sortof more comes from Family First (for non-Aussies, basically, family first is/was the extreme right christian reactionary party who managed to even alienate the majority of far-right christian extremists and have made themselves almost completely irrelevant) basically declaring them to be deviant freaks and waging war on them. It's just a natural reaction for the sexual liberation, socially progressive party to also have some beef with the religious zealots group. The sex party's main focus is on opening up public awareness of and legal dialogue regarding both private sexual practices (e.g. gay marriage, obscenity laws) and public laws regarding the sex industry (prostitution, pornography, etc). The pornography and sex industry are the current main focuses, as Queensland are going batshit insane with the new conservative government basically burning anything that wasn't made in the 50ies and doing things like banning prostitutes from entering hotels and such.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 09:38:12 am

There's also little statistical proof that tax cuts boosted growth. Look up GDP growth in the 2nd half of the 1980's (http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=342450000000&tend=1320670800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false), when taxes were cut significantly. It ended with a recession.

If anything, there's a clear downward GDP growth trend since at least the 1960's. The question would be what spurs growth more, no-tax undirected capitalism, or taxation and directed spending / investment?

China certainly is a good example of centrally-planned capitalist expansion, for example. The difference is they don't have an ideological aversion to the government having shares in productive companies. The privatization mantra in the West means that the government are only left holding assets nobody wants to purchase, i.e. those services which can't be abolished, but don't make a direct profit for the holders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 07, 2012, 09:41:06 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:54:52 am

All that what not my main point. The fact that $16 trillion in debt means we can't expand liberal social systems. Obama wins, but he has to reduce government. The piggy bank is broken. This is now near the sane limit of debt-to-GDP.

Or Obama could always raise taxes on the rich back to normal levels and put that extra money into reducing the deficit without cutting any programs. Or he could raise taxes a little, cut into the military and reduce the deficit that way. Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards. The piggy bank isn't broken, it's just wedged shut by Congress's inability to compromise.

This is something that for some reason Americans in general are quite against. The general assumption is that increases to taxes are just bad, and will, unconditionally, spell the downfall of the economy. I believe it may be related to a tactic known as "starve the beast", where you cut taxes for the purpose of justifying cutting public spending. Since cutting public spending is generally unpupular, being broke due lower taxes means it "has" to be done.

Also, I am not entirely sure why anyone would use China as a role model for the US. Their lower social security programs are obviously doing wonders for their HDI (it's not).


Also, Trollheiming, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 09:43:07 am

Quote from: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 09:37:57 am

Actually, to be more accurate, Fiona Patten (leader) describes it as a social-rights oriented progressive party. Its anti-religious stuff sortof more comes from Family First basically declaring them to be deviant freaks and waging war on them. It's just a natural reaction for the sexual liberation, socially progressive party to also have some beef with the religious zealots group. The sex party's main focus is on opening up public awareness of and legal dialogue regarding both private sexual practices (e.g. gay marriage, obscenity laws) and public laws regarding the sex industry (prostitution, pornography, etc). The pornography and sex industry are the current main focuses, as Queensland are going batshit insane with the new conservative government basically burning anything that wasn't made in the 50ies and doing things like banning prostitutes from entering hotels and such.

Well if they rile up family first by supporting gay marriage, they are onto a good thing in my books!
Heck I don't even really look at porn, especially anything that would become a target in politics, but I feel obliged to fight for other rights to... Assuming we are talking over age and consensual.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:51:55 am

Quote from: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 09:31:26 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:27:57 am

That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

So when FDR had taxes at 80%, he was allowing tax loopholes? That doesn't sound like FDR. Then when taxes were lowered, people stopped using those loopholes to a magically coordinated level of 20% of GDP? Doesn't sound likely.

If the graph were going the other way, upward and not changing, then maybe that would make sense due to the creation of loopholes. But people have a loophole and then voluntarily give it up as the rate lowers? Nah. There's more to it. Much more.

I won't opine on why, because it's truly time for bed. But everything that you think you know about raising taxes is wrong. After the taxes raises, there will be no new revenues. 80 years of data during the most populists and the most plutocratic administrations. No change.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 07, 2012, 09:53:46 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:51:55 am

Quote from: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 09:31:26 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:27:57 am

That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

So when FDR had taxes at 80%, he was allowing tax loopholes? That doesn't sound like FDR. Then when taxes were lowered, people stopped using those loopholes to a magically coordinated level of 20% of GDP? Doesn't sound likely.

If the graph were going the other way, upward and not changing, then maybe that would make sense due to the creation of loopholes. But people have a loophole and then voluntarily give it up as the rate lowers? Nah. There's more to it. Much more.

I won't opine on why, because it's truly time for bed. But everything that you think you know about raising taxes is wrong. After the taxes raises, there will be no new revenues. 80 years of data during the most populists and the most plutocratic administrations. No change.

Note that the numbers you gave only included taxes on people, and no other sources of revenue. While this won't explain this completely, it might give an answer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:55:10 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:51:55 am

Quote from: Ogdibus on November 07, 2012, 09:31:26 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 09:27:57 am

That's 80 years of history you've got to beat.

Tax loopholes

So when FDR had taxes at 80%, he was allowing tax loopholes? That doesn't sound like FDR. Then when taxes were lowered, people stopped using those loopholes to a magically coordinated level of 20% of GDP? Doesn't sound likely.

If the graph were going the other way, upward and not changing, then maybe that would make sense due to the creation of loopholes. But people have a loophole and then voluntarily give it up as the rate lowers? Nah. There's more to it. Much more.

I won't opine on why, because it's truly time for bed. But everything that you think you know about raising taxes is wrong. After the taxes raises, there will be no new revenues. 80 years of data during the most populists and the most plutocratic administrations. No change.

You really need to explain why raising taxes doesn't raise revenue, because right now you're implying that no matter how much money is taken from people, the government will end up with the same amount, which is completely bonkers.

EDIT: It's as if Jimmy had 100 apples and the government is currently taking 10. But if the government decided to take 20 instead, the extra 10 would fall into a dimensional vortex and the government still ended up with 10. Taking 30 apples? 20 to the void. 50? The void takes 40. All of Jimmy's apples? Well then the vortex gets greedy and eats 90 apples, and that's a lot of apples.

So in conclusion, the government can control inflation by increasing taxes so that the dimensional vortex eats the extra money and therefore reducing the total amount of money available in the system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:07:03 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:55:10 am

EDIT: It's as if Jimmy had 100 apples and the government is currently taking 10. But if the government decided to take 20 instead, the extra 10 would fall into a dimensional vortex and the government still ended up with 10. Taking 30 apples? 20 to the void. 50? The void takes 40. All of Jimmy's apples? Well then the vortex gets greedy and eats 90 apples, and that's a lot of apples.

So in conclusion, the government can control inflation by increasing taxes so that the dimensional vortex eats the extra money and therefore reducing the total amount of money available in the system.

More like they tax Jimmy 10 apples, and they end up with 20% of all the apples in the market. Then they tax him 15 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market, then drop down to 5 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market.
Seems impossible, but you forget the bit where Freddie also has apples, and his rate has been from 10 to 5 to 15 per hundred apples.

You need all tax sources if you are doing total income for GDP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 10:07:54 am

What he's missing is that over the years more people get pushed onto higher and higher tax rates due to inflation, so they've been able to afford to drop the top tax rate for the richest and not lose as much as you'd think in the process. The tax burden has been shifted onto the middle-class through bracket creep, inflation and cutting the top rate.

The higher tax brackets DID NOT dissuade middle class people from earning more money. There is no reason setting the top tax rate to 40% as it was in the 1990s will stop people wanting to become rich.

The best idea in my mind, is close meaningless tax-loopholes but provide tax-avoidance for R&D, and new technology investments. Encourage the rich to gainfully invest their money rather than leave it in a bank account. That would stimulate the economy without so much direct costs to taxpayers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 10:15:18 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:07:03 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:55:10 am

EDIT: It's as if Jimmy had 100 apples and the government is currently taking 10. But if the government decided to take 20 instead, the extra 10 would fall into a dimensional vortex and the government still ended up with 10. Taking 30 apples? 20 to the void. 50? The void takes 40. All of Jimmy's apples? Well then the vortex gets greedy and eats 90 apples, and that's a lot of apples.

So in conclusion, the government can control inflation by increasing taxes so that the dimensional vortex eats the extra money and therefore reducing the total amount of money available in the system.

More like they tax Jimmy 10 apples, and they end up with 20% of all the apples in the market. Then they tax him 15 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market, then drop down to 5 apples, and end up with 20% of all apples in the market.
Seems impossible, but you forget the bit where Freddie also has apples, and his rate has been from 10 to 5 to 15 per hundred apples.

While Freddie does exist, Trollheiming is obviously assuming that Freddie's tax rate hasn't changed, or that Freddie isn't producing more apples, or that Freddie's kids haven't gone into the apple business, all of which would explain the difference in total apples. Rather Freddie's contribution to the apple market is static, while amount of apples taken from Jimmy changes. So obviously if Jimmy's tax rate is the only thing changing yet the total amount of apples owned by the government stays the same, then the extras must go into the dimensional vortex.

EDIT: Are we really developing the Bay12 Apple theory of taxation here?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:18:28 am

No, we are analyzing the plot of Spice and Wolf.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:18:34 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:55:10 am

You really need to explain why raising taxes doesn't raise revenue, because right now you're implying that no matter how much money is taken from people, the government will end up with the same amount, which is completely bonkers.

EDIT: It's as if Jimmy had 100 apples and the government is currently taking 10. But if the government decided to take 20 instead, the extra 10 would fall into a dimensional vortex and the government still ended up with 10. Taking 30 apples? 20 to the void. 50? The void takes 40. All of Jimmy's apples? Well then the vortex gets greedy and eats 90 apples, and that's a lot of apples.

Having apples is wealth. If you have a million apples, you give none of them to the government.

Picking apples is income. That is taxed. Picking them takes time and effort, and the tax rate is graduated; so if you pick 30 apples you keep them all, and if you pick 100 apples then you give 50 to the government. More and more people decide they're happy with 30 apples instead of picking 70 more to get only 20 more for their own purposes, and the government gets the same amount of apples because that proportion of apple-pickers scaled back on their ambitions.

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:07:03 am

You need all tax sources if you are doing total income for GDP.

No. Not necessary. The capital gains tax also varies and also... has no effect on total revenues! You could argue that they're always--over the course of 80 frigging years of data--without fail in various administrations with various ideologies prompting the changes, always adjusted in opposite directions. But that's actually not how it usually plays out. The fact is, revenue stays in a predictable band from 18% to 20% of GDP in many different administrations with many different policies.

There's a certain amount of total apples being picked that people on average are willing to give up to the government, and that's where is stays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:20:50 am

Look, both Freddie and Jimmys rates have varied, with no change to total apple income! Clearly the tax rates have no effect! Right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 07, 2012, 10:25:08 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:18:34 am

Picking apples is income. That is taxed. Picking them takes time and effort, and the tax rate is graduated; so if you pick 30 apples you keep them all, and if you pick 100 apples then you give 50 to the government. More and more people decide they're happy with 30 apples instead of picking 70 more to get only 20 more for their own purposes, and the government gets the same amount of apples because that proportion of apple-pickers scaled back on their ambitions.

lolwut? Citation needed, badly. If i was making a million dollars, there's no way I'd scale down just because the government was taking more of it than if I was making a hundred thousand. That's crazy talk.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:26:08 am

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:20:50 am

Look, both Freddie and Jimmys rates have varied, with no change to total apple income! Clearly the tax rates have no effect! Right?

Actually, I'm just humoring the crazy idea that apples are comparable to taxes. Oranges, on the other hand...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:31:21 am

See the bit that you missed is that the total number of apples picked? That is your GDP. If people are obliged to pick less apples, then smaller GDP, and even if the flat rate of tax income for the government stays the same, the percent of total GDP will rise.
The fact that GDP (Apples picked) has continued to rise renders your theory a sunder.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Cthulhu on November 07, 2012, 10:35:29 am

We're all adults here, there's no need for ridiculous analogies.

Also, incentive traps in progressive taxation are a myth.  The tax for each bracket is assessed separately, if up to $50,000 is 20% tax and past that is 50%, and you earn $50,001, only that dollar is taxed at 50%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:39:16 am

Quote from: Angle on November 07, 2012, 10:25:08 am

lolwut? Citation needed, badly. If i was making a million dollars, there's no way I'd scale down just because the government was taking more of it than if I was making a hundred thousand. That's crazy talk.

Yeah, you would scale back. Opportunity costs. Work is time; and time is money. If you use more precious irrecoverable time to make easily replaceable money than the pay-off in green is actually worth, you scale back, if you are a rational being.

This is especially true of small business owners. They don't have hundreds of assistants. They often run their own show and put in their own hard hours.

Quote from: Max White on November 07, 2012, 10:31:21 am

See the bit that you missed is that the total number of apples picked? That is your GDP. If people are obliged to pick less apples, then smaller GDP, and even if the flat rate of tax income for the government stays the same, the percent of total GDP will rise.
The fact that GDP (Apples picked) has continued to rise renders your theory a sunder.

See the mini-crash of 1937, when FDR raised taxes and sent the economy into a double-dip depression. What you described does happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 07, 2012, 10:47:21 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:39:16 am

Quote from: Angle on November 07, 2012, 10:25:08 am

lolwut? Citation needed, badly. If i was making a million dollars, there's no way I'd scale down just because the government was taking more of it than if I was making a hundred thousand. That's crazy talk.

Yeah, you would scale back. Opportunity costs. Work is time; and time is money. If you use more precious irrecoverable time to make easily replaceable money than the pay-off in green is actually worth, you scale back, if you are a rational being.

What? When did time spent come in to it? I was talking about quitting a higher paying job for a lower paying one, at the same hours. And even when you factor time spent in, that extra 30 apple tax would not change the equation - either id still work as much, or I would never have worked that much in the first place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:47:56 am

Quote from: Cthulhu on November 07, 2012, 10:35:29 am

We're all adults here, there's no need for ridiculous analogies.

Also, incentive traps in progressive taxation are a myth.  The tax for each bracket is assessed separately, if up to $50,000 is 20% tax and past that is 50%, and you earn $50,001, only that dollar is taxed at 50%.

Thats where you stop putting in so much effort. We all know how taxes work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 07, 2012, 10:53:55 am

You also seem to think that work correlates to income in much to simple a way - work spent immediately and directly effects how much money you make. In actuality, work effects income rather differently - you put in lots of work going to school and climbing corporate ladders and all that, and then you can enjoy increased income with only minor changes (sometimes negative ones) to the amount of work required.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:55:32 am

Quote from: Angle on November 07, 2012, 10:47:21 am

What? When did time spent come in to it? I was talking about quitting a higher paying job for a lower paying one, at the same hours. And even when you factor time spent in, that extra 30 apple tax would not change the equation - either id still work as much, or I would never have worked that much in the first place.

Generally, we're talking top rate. This consists largely of business owners who have scalable businesses. It's not that they go into work for someone else and get the same amount regardless how hard they work. They put in extra hours, they earn more. They can work hard and expand if they think the return is worth their time, or relax a bit and maintain, maybe even go into retirement.

You see, you're also considering the effect on one person, but these are millions of people. Maybe some continue working just as hard, but others see the increased effort after a tax raise as a good time to cash it all in and retire. Average these together and you have an adjustment proportional to the tax increase.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 10:58:25 am

Quote from: Angle on November 07, 2012, 10:53:55 am

You also seem to think that work correlates to income in much to simple a way - work spent immediately and directly effects how much money you make. In actuality, work effects income rather differently - you put in lots of work going to school and climbing corporate ladders and all that, and then you can enjoy increased income with only minor changes (sometimes negative ones) to the amount of work required.

The real face of American business is not a CEO. It's a small business owner with a scalable business and only a few assistants. He works hard, dude.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 10:58:25 am

Individuals do not operate in a vacuum. If Mr Lazy McMoneybags decides that the extra effort spent swindling his indentured servants isn't worthwhile, there will always be another Mr Lazy McMoneybags the 2nd esquire willing to exploit his slaves in order to fill the market niche left by the inaction of the first Lazy McMoneybags.

In the real world, capital does not create wealth, labor creates wealth, and the leaching class are the exploitative fucks who have rigged the system to their advantage. Taxing those fucks more does nothing to change the productive capacity of the workforce, and when those taxes are reinvested in the market through government jobs and assistance to people barely making it, the productive capacity of that labor actually does increase because the number of people capable of participating in the market as both laborers and consumers is increased.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jerick on November 07, 2012, 11:01:56 am

Quote

We all know how taxes work.

Yes.
However you don't seem to know how people work.
More is always better, even in the face of diminishing returns.
This is the idea that drives many MMO players and buisness men.
We humans are natural horders and will general go for more if ever given the opertunity regardless if it has a higher effort/profit ratio.
If you believe otherwise I must question the amount of contact you have had with the rest of the human race.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 11:02:10 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 10:58:25 am

Individuals do not operate in a vacuum. If Mr Lazy McMoneybags decides that the extra effort spent swindling his indentured servants isn't worthwhile, there will always be another Mr Lazy McMoneybags the 2nd esquire willing to exploit his slaves in order to fill the market niche left by the inaction of the first Lazy McMoneybags.

In the real world, capital does not create wealth, labor creates wealth, and the leaching class are the exploitative fucks who have rigged the system to their advantage. Taxing those fucks more does nothing to change the productive capacity of the workforce, and when those taxes are reinvested in the market through government jobs and assistance to people barely making it, the productive capacity of that labor actually does increase because the number of people capable of participating in the market as both laborers and consumers is increased.

So in apple logic?
Mr. McAppleseed is getting such a profit from Jimmy and Freddy that if the tax rate goes up for his bracket, he is still making a pretty good income, and doing no work at all. He owns the fucking orchid! He never has to put in a single hours work, and even if the tac rate goes to 90 apples per hundred, it is worth it, if he can find somebody who will work cheap enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 11:02:57 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 10:58:25 am

In the real world, capital does not create wealth, labor creates wealth, and the leaching class are the exploitative fucks

Build a chair with your labour and no capital. You can't do it.

You have no capital. A hammer and nails are capital. A saw is capital. You labor produces nothing without the right capital expenses. See?

Now let's say I make a machine that makes chairs... Wow, cool, a capital investment that creates wealth without labor!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on November 07, 2012, 11:05:50 am

Your machine is hypothetical, however, as I can think of no machine yet devised that doesn't need some human labor- an operator, or at least someone to dump raw materials in. Your chair machine would need to collect trees, collect fuel, and maintain itself.

So in practical terms, both labor and capital are essential. I would extend this to say that more capital investment requires less labor, and more labor can compensate for less capital.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jerick on November 07, 2012, 11:08:27 am

Quote

I make a machine

*cough*labour*cough*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 11:11:42 am

Now I know what you guys are all thinking, if Jimmy and Freddy are getting ripped off for their work, why don't they be their own boss and start their own apple business? Well because they can't afford to buy their own farm!
In an ideal, magical world, farms would be given out for free, thus anybody could picks apples, and they would still have value because of the man hours put in picking them. If the value of the apple got too high for consumers, more people would become apple pickers and competition would rise, leading to a drop in prices. If they dropped too low, the opposite effect, meaning a nice self regulated appleconomy.

Saddly, this wouldn't work in the real world, because land is finite. We would run out of good farming land too quickly, thus we don't just give out land at all. This means that those with a monopoly on the farms that do exist tend to make all the money for no work.

Now if only there were resources that weren't finite... Like oh I don't know... Education. Then giving that out for free would be a real plus!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 11:19:40 am

Is it bad that now the election's over, I'm looking forward to PVI calculation time? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 11:20:22 am

My biggest disappointment is that jackasses like UnSkewedPolls.com and Dick Morris aren't showing up this morning to take their lumps. Joe Scarborough hasn't tweeted since about midnight. Maybe the Republican Kool-Aid had a Jonestown kick to it...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 11:23:47 am

The reality benders don't know how it works. Putting out fake polls to say your guys are a "dead certainty" to win doesn't encourage your voters to get out the vote.

But i guess they're in a hard place. If they say an Obama victory is looming, they might encourage more of their guys to vote, but they're also legitimizing that Obama is popular.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 11:24:03 am

Quote from: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 11:19:40 am

Is it bad that now the election's over, I'm looking forward to PVI calculation time? :P

PVI?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: pisskop on November 07, 2012, 11:24:33 am

I called every winner in my state, as well as the president.  Not that I voted for them all, but I publicly called them at one point yesterday afternoon.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 11:32:26 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 11:24:03 am

Quote from: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 11:19:40 am

Is it bad that now the election's over, I'm looking forward to PVI calculation time? :P

PVI?

Cook PVI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_PVI) which measures how much a state is either more D-leaning or R-leaning than the country as a whole based on the previous two presidential elections.  Although I'm more interested in basing county or house district results, getting the PVI for each state is a good starting point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 11:44:40 am

I'm just now looking at the state results for North Carolina. Meh...could have been worse. Governor's House changed to (R), but we've known that was coming for some time. The Dems ran an utterly uninspiring conservative DINO. I actually voted Libertarian as a protest.

My Democratic rep won his umpteenth term handily.

And two of the Republicans that came out of the fiasco that was the Wake County school board (the ones that made national news by basically looking to re-segregate school based on neighborhood) got shot down in their bids for higher office.  Sadly though, the state legislature basically stayed status quo, which is to say in the hands of wack-ass Tea Party Republicans -- the same ones who legislated that the Coastal Resources commission must ignore scientific sea level rise projections. Looks like about half the races were unopposed. That's either two lazy-ass political parties, or a sign of some serious damn gerrymandering.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 11:45:50 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 08:35:39 am

Quote from: Agdune on November 07, 2012, 08:07:05 am

Quote

When a guy accuses me of being a parasite in a country that I don't live in, I should just nod and pretend I live in America? I've got an IP Address and mods have tracert so do it. How insane that you've made my location into a big deal.

I'm not the one who used it what, 3-4 times without anyone asking? You act as if you're the only one who knows anything about the world, because, why, you lives in the chinas and is practically the CEO of the chinas! Hurp-dee-doo! Strawman strawman, indignance, derision!

Of course, the irony of living in one of the last remaining communist states (if you actually do, don't really care either way) and saying that the USA should fix its problems by dragging its bloated, heaving carcass further to the right and replicating nothing of the incredible economic success of said communist country is a brilliant arguing position.

You don't understand much about China, bud. China has no social welfare model to speak of. If you're poor, the government gives you just enough to buy rice for a month. About 50 yuan for a month, and a good professional makes 6000-12000 a month. So yeah, once you know China, it is a good point that China has avoided the trap that America and Europe are in right now. But if you don't know China, but want to appear undeservingly derisive of people that do know more than you, then you snark and sneer without facts

You need yo wake up and stop unquestioningly believing the propaganda that your government feeds you. If you are in china it surprises me that you even got onto this site, what with the way your government proactively blocks people from viewing anything that even begins to question their positions (BTW, watch your back)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 11:46:28 am

So here's the question: what now?

Well, in the short term, we have the fiscal cliff to deal with. Here's the problem with it: it is no coincidence that it is as far from an election as possible. Voters will remember the consequences of whatever deal is brokered or not when they go to the polls in 2014, but they likely won't remember who made the final stretch across the aisle to make that deal. That may be bad news for the Democrats, because they might make some concessions that they would rather not make, get a deal passed at the bottom of the ninth, and then lose to Republicans in the midterm because voters thought that a compromise in the House was the result of the Republicans running it. But that's a hell of a lot better than not making a decision; going over the edge of the cliff I don't even want to think about.

But more importantly, we may actually see the Republicans compromise a little bit; they've won the battle in the House but lost the war. Recall that the past four years' obstructionism has been, in large part, a function of the McConnell plan: on the (quite reasonable; Romney did more for the Obama campaign through his ineptitude than any staffer ever did) assumption that a do-nothing black president in a bad economy couldn't get elected, we're going to do everything it takes to make Barack Obama a one-term president, and we're going to do that by not letting him get anything done. Now that's gone down the tubes: Obama has won, the Democrats have kept their control of the Senate (though not enough to prevent filibusters), and suddenly the raison d'être of the Republicans for the past two years is gone. Further attempts to be obstructionist and not get anything done will have no higher purpose than being obstructionist and not getting anything done, and in the face of a crisis an inability to compromise can only hurt. (Not that the Democrats aren't being bullheaded and immature, because they are. But not to the extent their colleagues have been.)

Indeed, I have some hope that we might get something done this term. Recall that John Boehner had a budget deal with Obama all packed up and ready to go before Eric Cantor took him aside and told him no, this is not acceptable. With Obama not facing reelection, that could change. Boehner, we forget, is still an old-school Republican; unlike certain of his colleagues, he does understand that when you gotta cut a deal, you cut a deal. And I'd gain a lot of respect for the man if, when it comes time to get something done, he basically stands up and said "I am the head of this Congress and this party, and we are putting aside the bickering for a few minutes to get this passed for the sake of the country."

What about 2016? Well, on the Republican side, forget the current batch. Mittens will probably go back to a fulfilling life as a member of the idle rich. Newt Gingrich will be too old to run and be taken even less seriously than he was this go-round. Rick Santorum will be perceived as even more laughably bigoted in four years' time, as more states legalize gay marriage and public opposition to it weakens even more. He could make an appearance, of course- lord knows everyone thought he was done for four or five years ago- and it's not inconceivable that he might win the primary, as he almost did this year (and what fun that would have been, though less thrilling), but his opponent would win by a landslide in the general. Paul the elder may have passed on to the great gold mine in the sky.

So who does that leave? From this season: Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, and Tim Pawlenty. Perry will have to look extra-competent as governor, and in the general he would likely suffer from the same problems as Santorum. Herman Cain would be hilarious but, alas, unlikely. As for Huntsman- I like Huntsman a lot and may well be inclined to vote for him if he won the primary, but I don't think he would win it. Which is sad, because he's exactly the sort of guy the Republicans need to stave off their demographic decline. Pawlenty could be resurrected, but it seems very unlikely. Oh, and there's also Paul Ryan. Disturbingly, I think he might win the primary if he ran; fortunately, however, he'd never win in the general.

But don't count on all these showing. Paul probably will and Perry is plausible. Luckily for the Republicans, not being in power gives you a lot of time to develop fresh faces.

However, in the end I think they'd probably lose if they put in someone conventional. They are losing their base, they can't get Hispanics (Rubio would be a very, very canny choice; but he will only be a temporary fix unless the Republicans start changing their stances on immigration and social services), and there's something else that will happen between now and 2016, too: Obamacare will go into effect with full force in 2014, and people will see that it is not, in fact, the end times.

The Republicans are going to come away from this and tell their constituents that they weren't conservative enough- because being insane has let them keep the House. But they're fools if they think it'll win them the Presidency from here on out. And here is the sad truth: they are fools. Romney might have moved more to the center, picked Christie or Rubio or someone else for veep pick, and be celebrating victory right now. But instead, he caved to the party groupthink and lost for it. And, unfortunately for his successors, his partymates are taking away exactly the wrong conclusion from it.

What about the Democrats? Biden is a possibility, of course, and if Obama comes out the other end as a popular, likable president who got some shit done he might be able to ride that wave to the Presidency, especially if the Republicans can't get their act together and make a bad nomination choice. Hillary might well make an appearance; but by that time she may be perceived as too old, at least for a woman. (Another presidential sex scandal with Bill would be hilarious). About the only people I can think of at the moment are Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both of Virginia. Kaine would actually be a great choice, I think; like Biden, he's a Catholic Democrat (used to be a missionary, actually) who would make inroads in the religious vote, but like Biden is pro-choice in the public view. And there might be other people, you never know.

It'll be interesting!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 11:53:32 am

http://www.wmctv.com/story/20025451/riots-brew-on-ole-miss-campus

There are "riots" protesting the Obama victory in Mississippi. Maybe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 07, 2012, 11:54:23 am

Local Minnesota results:
Obama wins 53-45, pretty much what everyone was expecting.
Klobuchar obliterates no-name Kurt Bills 65-30, while only losing two (of 87) counties on the South Dakota border.
The amendment to ban same sex marriage failed, and so did the amendment to force Voter ID.
The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party took the State House 73-61 (net pick up of 11 seats), and took the State Senate 39-28 (net pick up of 9 seats).
For congressional races, Rick Nolan (D) unseated freshman Chip Cravaack (R) in the rural MN-08 in the Northeastern section of the state.
Also, my preferred candidate in my county commissioner seat won. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 11:56:01 am

Yeah, the thing I'm hoping for the most is that the republicans will stop their obstructionist policies from the last four years which were basically "We're going to stop the government from doing anything useful so that it will make those guys look bad", cause that totally worked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 11:56:24 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 09:24:14 am

Quote from: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 09:21:09 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

...

Are you even remotely aware that history exists?

Pretty much the entire history of the US tax code proves you wrong.

The income tax rate is 55% if you count everything, not just the given number.
In 2007 it was 40%, in 2003 it was 34.4%, and in 1993 it was 21.5.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 11:57:18 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 11:56:01 am

Yeah, the thing I'm hoping for the most is that the republicans will stop their obstructionist policies from the last four years which were basically "We're going to stop the government from doing anything useful so that it will make those guys look bad", cause that totally worked.

It was more, "We're going to keep these guys from passing their socialist, unconstitutional infringements on the people."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 11:58:05 am

Quote

The income tax rate is 55% if you count everything, not just the given number.

This... is not a meaningful statement. Can you give this some context and describe what you mean here?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 11:59:36 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 11:58:05 am

Quote

The income tax rate is 55% if you count everything, not just the given number.

This... is not a meaningful statement. Can you give this some context and describe what you mean here?

That's just a prediction based on past data, but the tax rate in 2007 worked out to Federal Income Tax Rate 22% + FICA 7% + State Income Tax 7% + Medicare 1%

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 11:59:54 am

Quote from: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 11:57:18 am

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 11:56:01 am

Yeah, the thing I'm hoping for the most is that the republicans will stop their obstructionist policies from the last four years which were basically "We're going to stop the government from doing anything useful so that it will make those guys look bad", cause that totally worked.

It was more, "We're going to keep these guys from passing their socialist, unconstitutional infringements on the people."

Totally, they had to make room for their own unconstitutional infringements on the people.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:02:07 pm

I don't think you'll see or hear much from Herman Cain again. He was just in it to sell his book.

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 11:56:01 am

Yeah, the thing I'm hoping for the most is that the republicans will stop their obstructionist policies from the last four years which were basically "We're going to stop the government from doing anything useful so that it will make those guys look bad", cause that totally worked.

No, if history teaches us anything it's that when Republicans lose, the lesson they draw from it is, "We didn't lose because we're too conservative, we lost because we weren't too conservative ENOUGH!"

I wouldn't be surprised to see them literally lining up to take a shit on every piece of Democratic-sponsored legislation that comes their way for the next four years. That is, when the House isn't busy proposing things that will never pass, like H.R. 3156 - The Decapitate Anyone Who Bespoils An American Flag Act, or H.R. 812 - Kill All F*gs Act

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 12:02:45 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 11:59:36 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 11:58:05 am

Quote

The income tax rate is 55% if you count everything, not just the given number.

This... is not a meaningful statement. Can you give this some context and describe what you mean here?

That's just a prediction based on past data, but the tax rate in 2007 worked out to Federal Income Tax Rate 22% + FICA 7% + State Income Tax 7% + Medicare 1%

What do you mean by "tax rate" though - the mean tax rate? The mode tax rate? The max tax rate? Where are you getting your numbers for these percentages (state and national) over time, btw - I wouldn't mind seeing the breakdown.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 12:03:39 pm

Y'know, with the new thread title I can't help but thinking Teen Girl Squad!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 07, 2012, 12:04:35 pm

Quote

No, if history teaches us anything it's that when Republicans lose, the lesson they draw from it is, "We didn't lose because we're too conservative, we lost because we weren't too conservative ENOUGH!"

Does this mean we can expect to see Zombie Reagan next time around in some dance-off against Hilary Clinton?

Quote

Y'know, with the new thread title I can't help but thinking Teen Girl Squad!

ARROWED! Glad I am not the only one who read it in a StrongBad voice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:07:09 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 07, 2012, 12:04:35 pm

Does this mean we can expect to see Zombie Reagan next time around

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hE77pbEF9g

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:09:51 pm

Aaaaaand...

Trump is saying that we don't live in a democracy and is advocating for people to march on washington and stop this travesty.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-election-meltdown-twitter-obama-march-washington-054449245--election.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:10:42 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:09:51 pm

Aaaaaand...

Trump is saying that we don't live in a democracy and is advocating for people to march on washington and stop this travesty.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-election-meltdown-twitter-obama-march-washington-054449245--election.html

I love how they handled this story on NBC News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9QSAOi6YW4

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 12:11:45 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:09:51 pm

Aaaaaand...

Trump is saying that we don't live in a democracy and is advocating for people to march on washington and stop this travesty.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-election-meltdown-twitter-obama-march-washington-054449245--election.html

Do you mean to tell me he is still alive?
Nope, still don't care about his opinions...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 12:13:02 pm

Quote from: Cthulhu on November 07, 2012, 10:35:29 am

We're all adults here, there's no need for ridiculous analogies.

Yeah.  Imagine that the point you're trying to make is a screw, and effectively articulating your point is a screwdriver (for the sake of argument we'll say that the power-drill of open debate has already made the hole).  The screwdriver takes care to operate effectively, but ultimately gets the screw in.

Making a ridiculous analogy is like smacking that screw with a hammer.  It may be easier, but you will likely cause damage to the structure of the debate, and could even get your point lodged irretrievably in the wall of confusion.

fakeedit: I wrote this before seeing Trollheiming's analogy, but it's weirdly similar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:13:17 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 07, 2012, 12:04:35 pm

Quote

No, if history teaches us anything it's that when Republicans lose, the lesson they draw from it is, "We didn't lose because we're too conservative, we lost because we weren't too conservative ENOUGH!"

Does this mean we can expect to see Zombie Reagan next time around in some dance-off against Hilary Clinton?

Pfft....Reagan was a liberal wuss. We got bombed in Lebanon and he pulled out our troops. A *real* modern-day conservative would have flattened Beirut, landed half a million troops and made Lebanon an American protectorate.

Nah, my money's on another primary split between the Big Money candidate and the Big Crazy candidate. Only Big Crazy might be a strong force in the GOP over the next 4 years, so we could get a Santorum candidacy, or Bachmann or even Palin again. The establishment guys like Christie, Pawlenty and Huntsman may take a shot, but they'll have to dial up the crazy a bit if they want that golden ring.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:14:48 pm

God, I hope Santorum wins the 2016 nomination. He would be so beautifully crushed I would have no choice but to render it in song.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 12:15:33 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:10:42 pm

I love how they handled this story on NBC News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9QSAOi6YW4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9QSAOi6YW4)

Well... that happened.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 07, 2012, 12:16:14 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:14:48 pm

God, I hope Santorum wins the 2016 nomination. He would be so beautifully crushed I would have no choice but to render it in song.

Aaannnndddd now I'm hoping that happens, too. And that you make a recording and publicly release it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2012, 12:20:33 pm

Well, look like a won my bet. Anybody got a good avatar for Kon?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:22:57 pm

I'm holding my tongue in the interests of good forum manners. Plus, I doubt you'll see him darken this thread again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 07, 2012, 12:23:23 pm

This one: (http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lltzgnHi5F1qzib3wo1_400.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2012, 12:23:35 pm

And for Trollheimig?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 12:24:38 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 07, 2012, 12:23:35 pm

And for Trollheimig?

I think the Chinese government found out he was on this site and had him summarily executed.

I warned him to watch his back, but did he listen?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 12:26:51 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:02:07 pm

I don't think you'll see or hear much from Herman Cain again. He was just in it to sell his book.

Man, that's kind of depressing.

As much as the new fad of using a run for public office as a vehicle for self-promotion and profit disturbs me, it sure makes things more fun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 12:27:52 pm

Some variant on smug telephone Obama would be my vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:28:58 pm

You can always hold out hope he'll write another book.

Also, I've been defriended by half a dozen folks on Facebook. Feels good man. Save me the trouble of having to using my fuckstick dowsing rod to figure out who to remove.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:32:54 pm

All my Facebook friends are already either filthy liberals or apolitical, so no issue there. You people really should watch all that fast and loose friending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 12:34:01 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:28:58 pm

You can always hold out hope he'll write another book.

Also, I've been defriended by half a dozen folks on Facebook. Feels good man. Save me the trouble of having to using my fuckstick dowsing rod to figure out who to remove.

I just checked Amazon for used copies of This is Herman Cain!

Methinks it might be time to start collecting books from failed presidential candidates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:37:32 pm

My facebook policy is to remain mostly apolitical. Stick to just the facts. I've tangled with my hippy relatives on gun control, vaccines and faith healing, and tangled with a few conservative friends on taxes and economic issues. But I only had to outright drop one friend, because she wouldn't stop quoting bible verses at me.

Though I did raeg when the traitorous tea party fad hit in 2010.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:41:02 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:32:54 pm

All my Facebook friends are already either filthy liberals or apolitical, so no issue there. You people really should watch all that fast and loose friending.

Mostly ex-coworkers or old schoolmates (like, HS). I can tolerate the occasional derp, but their walls were dripping with derp this morning. I am unable to resist drinking in the schadenfreude of millions of herpaderps wailing that the end is near.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 12:45:57 pm

Avatar changed. Strangely, "Now there is another one. There are two of them." is surprisingly relevant...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 12:46:40 pm

Here's a good one someone on my facebook posted:

(http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/58837_4520770333289_440880881_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/602324_10151302741592990_1627228818_n.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:47:30 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 12:45:57 pm

Avatar changed. Strangely, "Now there is another one. There are two of them." is surprisingly relevant...

He still needs masonic earrings, I say.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:48:06 pm

Oh heys, Limbaugh is on. And you guessed it, he's saying that the party needs to become MORE conservative. Because that's working out so well for you guys, isn't it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 12:48:45 pm

I hate not having a radio right now, I want to hear Limbaugh cry so badly. I hope it gets recorded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2012, 12:50:22 pm

RedKing, the GOP did well in 2010 with the Tea Partier. Limbaugh's reasoning ain't totally baseless.


Also:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/math.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 12:52:34 pm

I think the Tea Party was defunded after the Koch brothers realised it was causing long term damage to the party by trying to kick out any Republican with remotely nuanced views.  It gave a nice temporary surge in support but that really wasn't sustainable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 07, 2012, 12:53:16 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 12:46:40 pm

(http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/602324_10151302741592990_1627228818_n.jpg)

The real question is: Where does North Korea stand? (I mean, obviously, they'd want us to elect the ghost of Kim Jong Il, but he didn't file in time.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 12:54:06 pm

It'll be interesting to see in 2016 how much racism influenced this year's race. I'd be willing to bet the Democrats will return to a white guy, and he'll probably have an easier time of it.

Now if only people would be as sane about their House races as they were about the presidency...

Also: why do Pakistanis want Romney over Obama?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 07, 2012, 12:54:32 pm

I wonder how come Obama is polling so low in Kenya. Wasn't he a Kenyan communisto-nazi?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 07, 2012, 12:55:10 pm

We know what must be done: Ship Romney to Pakistan; they want him there!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 12:56:34 pm

They did well, only because the Tea Party was initially billed as being a "Third Way" and non-partisan, and that it was totally focused on fiscal conservatism. Which is to say they lied through their teeth, because as soon as they got into power, they began offering reams of social conservative legislation.

Hell, I was moderately interested in the Tea Party for a few weeks till I saw the kind of racist and homophobic rhetoric leaking out of it. I dunno, maybe it legitimately started out as advertised but somewhere along the line it became distinctly partisan and distinctly hyperconservative.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaenneth on November 07, 2012, 12:59:18 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 07, 2012, 12:55:10 pm

We know what must be done: Ship Romney to Pakistan; they want him there!

They just are still pissed off at Obama for sending in SEAL team 6, and embarrasing their military.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 01:00:15 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 07, 2012, 12:54:32 pm

I wonder how come Obama is polling so low in Kenya. Wasn't he a Kenyan communisto-nazi?

I would speculate that the backlash from that assertion is why he polled lower.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 01:09:55 pm

Oh, in case you hadn't seen the derp that is the New York Post (a trashy tabloid rag which is pro-Republican):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/11/07/8b1a43a028b011e2b9a51231381f2581-7-jpg_132504.jpg)

Riiiiight. Because he's been so imperial the last four years. That's why his mighty legions of same-sex stormtroopers have been bashing down our doors, taking our guns, and sending resisters to FEMA death camps.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 01:12:03 pm

Also, these historically ignorant morons don't realize that Caesar was the last name of all the emperors. He should be Barrack Hussein Caesar there.

Nothing makes me discredit a journalistic source more than historically inaccurate insults.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on November 07, 2012, 01:12:40 pm

New Avatar is in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 01:14:19 pm

Nice...I might have to borrow that for FB, just to help clear out the remaining nuts in my list.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 07, 2012, 01:15:05 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 01:09:55 pm

Oh, in case you hadn't seen the derp that is the New York Post (a trashy tabloid rag which is pro-Republican):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/11/07/8b1a43a028b011e2b9a51231381f2581-7-jpg_132504.jpg)

Riiiiight. Because he's been so imperial the last four years. That's why his mighty legions of same-sex stormtroopers have been bashing down our doors, taking our guns, and sending resisters to FEMA death camps.  ::)

Hey, don't knock the FEMA death camps. Those actually exist.

...wait. Those say PETA. Nevermind.

Anyway, is there any news on Puerto Rico?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:19:40 pm

WOW. 20+ pages in the past 12 hours or so, half of them filled with trolling and responses to. Great work, guys :P

Anyway, WOOT Obama! I wasn't able to keep up on the coverage (family emergency), but it sounds like my state pulled through on both the EV and PV. And it sounds like we might need a new flag design soon!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 07, 2012, 01:20:13 pm

Oh, FEMA death camps exist. You just don't hear about them much because they're not efficient enough to actually imprison or kill anyone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 01:21:36 pm

You got it wrong. You don't hear about them because no witnesses!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 01:22:39 pm

New avatar, but I'm having some trouble resizing it correctly. It was too big to fit the first time, now the stars are blurry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 01:24:10 pm

They don't look blurry to me. Do you have your browser enforcing additional anti-aliasing or something?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 01:25:13 pm

Not sure. I think I might be using a little more zoom than most, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 01:25:38 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 07, 2012, 01:24:10 pm

They don't look blurry to me. Do you have your browser enforcing additional anti-aliasing or something?

You might have a different zoom.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on November 07, 2012, 01:29:40 pm

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 07, 2012, 01:15:05 pm

Anyway, is there any news on Puerto Rico?

Haven't seen much on it. You'd think the possibility of us getting a 51st State would be bigger news.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 01:31:14 pm

When has it been the last time you got a new state anyway?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:32:06 pm

Back in the late 50's, I think, when Hawaii joined.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 01:32:52 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 01:31:14 pm

When has it been the last time you got a new state anyway?

August 21st, 1959, the day Hawaii joined the Union.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 01:34:13 pm

My first reaction was thinking "Welp, time to look through WWI+II pictures with US flags and see if they're shopped".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rolan7 on November 07, 2012, 01:37:14 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:09:51 pm

Aaaaaand...

Trump is saying that we don't live in a democracy and is advocating for people to march on washington and stop this travesty.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-election-meltdown-twitter-obama-march-washington-054449245--election.html

This is the sort of thing I was worrying about last night, though I didn't communicate it very well.  I wonder if people are really marching on Washington like he suggests.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 01:37:55 pm

If they are, then it isn't because of him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:39:30 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 07, 2012, 01:37:14 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:09:51 pm

Aaaaaand...

Trump is saying that we don't live in a democracy and is advocating for people to march on washington and stop this travesty.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-election-meltdown-twitter-obama-march-washington-054449245--election.html

This is the sort of thing I was worrying about last night, though I didn't communicate it very well.  I wonder if people are really marching on Washington like he suggests.

As long as they don't start an insurrection or whatever, that's their right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 01:43:40 pm

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." - Donald Trump.

Did he miss that Obama won the popular vote, too?

I'm actually not surprised that it happened like that. Since the Electoral College is biased against large cities, where Democrats do best, then if Obama won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote that would be highly unlikely.

Has there ever been a case where the big-city liberal won the EC vote, but lost popular vote?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 01:45:43 pm

Yeah, the 48-star flag went for a long time without being changed (1912-1959).

(http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-1912.gif)

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:39:30 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 07, 2012, 01:37:14 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 12:09:51 pm

Aaaaaand...

Trump is saying that we don't live in a democracy and is advocating for people to march on washington and stop this travesty.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/trump-election-meltdown-twitter-obama-march-washington-054449245--election.html

This is the sort of thing I was worrying about last night, though I didn't communicate it very well.  I wonder if people are really marching on Washington like he suggests.

As long as they don't start an insurrection or whatever, that's their right.

And if they do...well, the gene pool will be the cleaner for it after all is said and done. Really, what's he gonna do? Stand there and look more constipated? Wave his hairpiece menacingly? His comments are utterly baseless. Obama won the electoral vote (pretty soundly) *and* the popular vote. He's got nothing to get outraged about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:48:34 pm

Well, clearly Romney was supposed to win. Since Obama won, there must have been a massive world-wide conspiracy to deny Romney his rightful position.

I guess. _{I dunno, I can't parody ultra-conservatives very well...}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karlito on November 07, 2012, 01:49:16 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 01:43:40 pm

Has there ever been a case where the big-city liberal won the EC vote, but lost popular vote?

There several elections with discrepancies between the Electoral College and the Popular vote in the 19th century, but the only one within living memory was in 2000, where Bush won the EC, but Gore won the popular vote (though it was so close that you might consider the popular vote a statistical tie).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 01:50:17 pm

Conservapedia links to this (http://www.westernjournalism.com/why-romney-lost/) article on why Romney lost. Highlights: Romney failed to call out Obama on death panels, socialism, or his false birth stories. Also, Americans are tired of spilling blood in "Islamistan" (not sure if tongue-in-cheek or not), and...

...the Republicans are too corporatist.

Stopped clock much?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 01:53:42 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 01:43:40 pm

Has there ever been a case where the big-city liberal won the EC vote, but lost popular vote?

Depends on what you see as liberal.

Decide for yourself:

1824 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824) (The only case where a candidate won BOTH the EC and the popular vote, only to have Congress award the victory to somebody else. And the guy who they screwed here? Andrew Jackson. No wonder he killed so many when he won the Presidency later.)
1876 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876)
1888 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1888)
2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:55:01 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 01:50:17 pm

Conservapedia links to this (http://www.westernjournalism.com/why-romney-lost/) article on why Romney lost. Highlights: Romney failed to call out Obama on death panels, socialism, or his false birth stories.

Hahahaha.

Quote

Republicans are too nice. In contrast, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, Obama set out to destroy the character of Mitt Romney.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 01:55:44 pm

So pretty much on par for Schlandy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: lemon10 on November 07, 2012, 01:57:10 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 01:50:17 pm

Conservapedia links to this (http://www.westernjournalism.com/why-romney-lost/) article on why Romney lost. Highlights: Romney failed to call out Obama on death panels, socialism, or his false birth stories. Also, Americans are tired of spilling blood in "Islamistan" (not sure if tongue-in-cheek or not), and...

...the Republicans are too corporatist.

Stopped clock much?

Quote from: article

Republicans are too nice.

Wha... Blaha? Huhaha?

NINJAD, DAMN YOU NINJA SIRUS!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:58:30 pm

/me requires a ninja emote

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 02:00:50 pm

Yeah, that was my reaction too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 02:41:45 pm

Another epic first for US politics, we have our first candidate from the Orcish Hoard. Santiaga, level 85 Female Orcish Assassin Rogue!

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/11/07/1740212/world-of-warcraft-candidate-for-maine-state-senate-wins-election

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scelly9 on November 07, 2012, 02:49:02 pm

Quote from: Trump's twitter

It's freezing and snowing in New York--we need global warming!

This man is an idiot. Not that it's a surprise or anything, but wow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:49:23 pm

In the glorious future, one of our number will run for office, their opponent will use Dwarf Fortress as a talking point against them, and we will come full circle as all challengers to the office will suffer unfortunate accidents.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 02:50:05 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 02:41:45 pm

Another epic first for US politics, we have our first candidate from the Orcish Hoard. Santiaga, level 85 Female Orcish Assassin Rogue!

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/11/07/1740212/world-of-warcraft-candidate-for-maine-state-senate-wins-election

woot! (Although, you misspelled Horde. Prepare to die, Alliance infiltrator!)

EDIT: In before "State Senator OP!!!! Legislate skill needs 2 b nerfed!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 07, 2012, 02:55:36 pm

So, when do we want to start the 2016 thread? We didn't start this one until New Year's Eve before the election, and therefore missed- except in condensed form- the wacky and lovable antics of Herman Cain and the start of the primaries.

Here's to hoping next time will be even more fun, since we'll have double the primaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:56:54 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 02:41:45 pm

Another epic first for US politics, we have our first candidate from the Orcish Hoard. Santiaga, level 85 Female Orcish Assassin Rogue!

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/11/07/1740212/world-of-warcraft-candidate-for-maine-state-senate-wins-election

She's not level 90 yet? Sheesh, the expansion came out months ago!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 02:58:08 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:56:54 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 02:41:45 pm

Another epic first for US politics, we have our first candidate from the Orcish Hoard. Santiaga, level 85 Female Orcish Assassin Rogue!

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/11/07/1740212/world-of-warcraft-candidate-for-maine-state-senate-wins-election

She's not level 90 yet? Sheesh, the expansion came out months ago!

Probably been too busy campaigning to raid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 07, 2012, 02:59:34 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 01:48:34 pm

Well, clearly Romney was supposed to win. Since Obama won, there must have been a massive world-wide conspiracy to deny Romney his rightful position.

I guess. _{I dunno, I can't parody ultra-conservatives very well...}

Looks spot-on to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 07, 2012, 03:46:27 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 02:58:08 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:56:54 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 02:41:45 pm

Another epic first for US politics, we have our first candidate from the Orcish Hoard. Santiaga, level 85 Female Orcish Assassin Rogue!

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/11/07/1740212/world-of-warcraft-candidate-for-maine-state-senate-wins-election

She's not level 90 yet? Sheesh, the expansion came out months ago!

Probably been too busy campaigning to raid.

I see what you did there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 03:52:49 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 07, 2012, 02:55:36 pm

So, when do we want to start the 2016 thread? We didn't start this one until New Year's Eve before the election, and therefore missed- except in condensed form- the wacky and lovable antics of Herman Cain and the start of the primaries.

Here's to hoping next time will be even more fun, since we'll have double the primaries.

Yeah, I'm kind of sad the election's over, since following it got to be pretty hilarious at points.

And, yes, it's too bad this thread never covered the antics of good ol' "Herman 'Sugar' Cain"! He's so bad, they call him boss...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:53:03 pm

Quote from: Mego on November 07, 2012, 03:46:27 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 02:58:08 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 02:56:54 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 02:41:45 pm

Another epic first for US politics, we have our first candidate from the Orcish Hoard. Santiaga, level 85 Female Orcish Assassin Rogue!

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/11/07/1740212/world-of-warcraft-candidate-for-maine-state-senate-wins-election

She's not level 90 yet? Sheesh, the expansion came out months ago!

Probably been too busy campaigning to raid.

I see what you did there.

Yes. Of course you did.

_{What did I do?}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 03:55:08 pm

Campainging. As in, progressing in the game's story.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:56:29 pm

I didn't realize that that was the term used in the MMORPG community. I thought that was more of an RTS/TBS thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 03:59:53 pm

/me has never heard that term used in WoW.

A close term would be "camping," but I doubt she was repeatedly killing her opponent. Except maybe metaphorically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Squanto on November 07, 2012, 04:09:47 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:56:29 pm

I didn't realize that that was the term used in the MMORPG community. I thought that was more of an RTS/TBS thing.

The Ten Commandments of Games
Commandment number nine: thou shalt not use the word "campaign" or variations of its form unless the game's terminology calls the main plotline a campaign.

So yes, you are correct, because WoW never called it's story (not that it had anything I would call a storyline to begin with, more a loose puddling leading you to endgame with little/no explanation other than historical backstory, but that doesn't count) a campaign.  But enough on that, this is the election thread.  I say we go back in time and elect Al Gore so global wariming climate change is pre-emptively-ish fixed

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 07, 2012, 04:12:34 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:56:29 pm

I didn't realize that that was the term used in the MMORPG community. I thought that was more of an RTS/TBS thing.

Yeah I never heard it be used in this context either. Basically he thought there was a joke where there isn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 04:13:16 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 03:56:29 pm

I didn't realize that that was the term used in the MMORPG community. I thought that was more of an RTS/TBS thing.

It started way back with pen-and-paper RPGs

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:16:36 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 03:59:53 pm

/me has never heard that term used in WoW.

A close term would be "camping," but I doubt she was repeatedly killing her opponent. Except maybe metaphorically.

She's a rogue. OF COURSE she was repeatedly killing her opponent. That's what rogues do. I'm just curious if anyone ever snapped a pic of her squatting over a downed opponent (the infamous "Stormwind Steamer")

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: nenjin on November 07, 2012, 04:31:34 pm

The best part of this election, for me, was the end.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on November 07, 2012, 04:32:08 pm

I've had a euphoric high since waking up despite the Prop 34 and 35 results in California. Obama needs to find a way to win more elections.

I also laugh maniacally at all the money Republican donors threw at Romney's efforts this year and how it all went down the drain. The tears of plutocrats are delicious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 04:32:57 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 07, 2012, 04:32:08 pm

I've had a euphoric high since waking up despite the Prop 34 and 35 results in California. Obama needs to find a way to win more elections.

I also laugh maniacally at all the money Republican donors threw at Romney's efforts this year and how it all went down the drain. The tears of plutocrats are delicious.

Indeed. I totally agree!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:35:17 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 07, 2012, 04:32:08 pm

I also laugh maniacally at all the money Republican donors threw at Romney's efforts this year and how it all went down the drain. The tears of plutocrats are delicious.

Forget just this year, the entire GOP and all their backers spent the past four years doing everything in their power to make Obama a one-term President, and they didn't even get close. This is the most exquisite schadenfreude, to look upon your enemies and see that they know their works have all been for naught.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:41:27 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:35:17 pm

Quote from: Glowcat on November 07, 2012, 04:32:08 pm

I also laugh maniacally at all the money Republican donors threw at Romney's efforts this year and how it all went down the drain. The tears of plutocrats are delicious.

Forget just this year, the entire GOP and all their backers spent the past four years doing everything in their power to make Obama a one-term President, and they didn't even get close. This is the most exquisite schadenfreude, to look upon your enemies and see that they know their works have all been for naught.

Damn right. This is total renouncement. Mitch McConnell said in 2010 "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president". So, as they said, it was never about the deficet, or taxes or abortion or china. It was always about beating Obama. Always. And they failed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 04:43:14 pm

Their next goal is making sure we get a Republican president next time. So... I don't see much of an improvement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 04:45:19 pm

It won't be Obama running next time though, so constantly attacking him wouldn't help hugely with the next election.  They might have to resort to acting in the country's interests.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 07, 2012, 04:47:26 pm

For me, I have a nice warm fuzzy feeling that citizens of the US appear to be moving away from the right wing "greed is good" thinking of the past. Granted, large numbers of people voted for Romney, but the demographic breakdowns I have seen via the BBC give me hope for the future in terms of a more open and inclusive US which is less likley to throw its weight in where it isnt needed or wanted, and that will do a better job of providing for its citizens rather than being all out for big business (for example, 95% or so of "minorities", meaning non-white, voting for Obama. 75% of people with an income of $60000 or less voting for Obama. Romneys votes being mainly from +40 year old men. Growing proportions of Latino Democrat voters in Republican heartlands that apparently stand a good chance of challenging the status quo of Republican thinking through weight of numbers).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:48:03 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 04:45:19 pm

It won't be Obama running next time though, so constantly attacking him wouldn't help hugely with the next election.  They might have to resort to acting in the country's interests.

I don't think they're going to be able to get over their hate-crush on Obama that quickly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 04:50:38 pm

Yea, at this point it would be blasphemy to work in the country's interest after the dedicated investment they made in opposing the African American socialist Islamic agenda of that foreign communist atheist Nazi.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 04:51:23 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:48:03 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 04:45:19 pm

It won't be Obama running next time though, so constantly attacking him wouldn't help hugely with the next election.  They might have to resort to acting in the country's interests.

I don't think they're going to be able to get over their hate-crush on Obama that quickly.

Ahh yes. I went to a conservative site hopeful to see some rage. I was not disappointed.

Still though, hard to demonize the many, and Obama is, coming to what the reps think of him, scot-free.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: sluissa on November 07, 2012, 04:53:26 pm

Canada: No longer America's hat. Now, America's life boat.

Also, Redking, your avatar isn't loading for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 04:53:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Unless they go to Quebec and start to complain about "All the damn Frenchie-speak"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:54:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Deal. The Democrats will have a fundraiser so the Republicans can all move to Nunavut at live out their rugged individualist dream on the edge of human civilization just like they've always wanted to. It's just like the Wild West, except with ice and polar bears.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 04:55:26 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 07, 2012, 04:53:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Unless they go to Quebec and start to complain about "All the damn Frenchie-speak"

You mean "freedom-speak". Remember that whole kerfuffle back in Bush's day?

And yeah RedKing, your avatar is gone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:59:08 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:54:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Deal. The Democrats will have a fundraiser so the Republicans can all move to Nunavut at live out their rugged individualist dream on the edge of human civilization just like they've always wanted to. It's just like the Wild West, except with ice and polar bears.

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY

Also, crap. I'll have to move Tae-goo to another host. Or maybe it's time for an avatar change.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 05:00:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:54:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Deal. The Democrats will have a fundraiser so the Republicans can all move to Nunavut at live out their rugged individualist dream on the edge of human civilization just like they've always wanted to. It's just like the Wild West, except with ice and polar bears.

Why not ship them to Alaska? They'd still get to call themselves "real Americans" AND get all the stuff you mentioned!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 05:01:35 pm

And if we're lucky, they'll secede and we can stop paying them for living there. Filthy government handout freeloaders!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 05:02:41 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 05:00:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 04:54:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Deal. The Democrats will have a fundraiser so the Republicans can all move to Nunavut at live out their rugged individualist dream on the edge of human civilization just like they've always wanted to. It's just like the Wild West, except with ice and polar bears.

Why not ship them to Alaska? They'd still get to call themselves "real Americans" AND get all the stuff you mentioned!

Yeah why don't we just annex Peurto Rico and then the newly formed conservative nation of Alaska can secede so we'd be back to fifty states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:03:49 pm

Ohh god. I just realized this is republican end of days. The Anti-Christ was re-elected. time for 1000 years of Darkness. I'm serious, the good old states re-elected what is Satan in their eyes. Jesus Christ this will be fun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 05:05:10 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:03:49 pm

Ohh god. I just realized this is republican end of days. The Anti-Christ was re-elected. time for 1000 years of Darkness. I'm serious, the good old states re-elected what is Satan in their eyes. Jesus Christ this will be fun.

There's always the end of the world to look forward to next month. Perhaps we'll have people claiming that the Mayans actually practiced Christianity and predicted the Rapture.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 05:05:31 pm

Where did all these posts come from! I'm going to just respond to three four. I assume Trollheiming is sleeping now, since I didn't see any MODERATOR ACTIONS posted in the thread (and I read all the posts I had missed, which took... almost an hour, way more time than I should have wasted).

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 05:47:06 am

You disagree that the debt is $16 trillion and there's a breaking point somewhere when the interest keeps mounting? That's insightful. Do continue.

The US has been borrowing at negative real interest rates since 2010. That means they're effectively gaining money, not losing money, from interest on their debt, as a result of the interest rates being below inflation. There is no reason not to continue borrowing in order to rebuild the economy, and use increased tax revenues from the rebuilt economy to pay it off later.

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 07, 2012, 06:59:59 am

Free education destroys the value of the product, but not the costs.

... So you want people to keep their value?

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 08:35:12 am

Is... is there even an opposing side to fiscal conservatism? I can't imagine somebody who would want to willingly increase the deficit spending.

Yes, but politicians have been too scared to say it because current propaganda has been "teaching" people that deficits are "a threat to your children."
For the counter-argument, see: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&print=1

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 07, 2012, 04:47:26 pm

For me, I have a nice warm fuzzy feeling that citizens of the US appear to be moving away from the right wing "greed is good" thinking of the past.

Fox's election coverage people last night more or less went "We spent all this money on the election and what did we get? Nothing! Damnit!" One of their panelists (some of whom were democrats, and some of whom were republicans), I think, commented on how much good they could have done if it had been spent rebuilding New Jersey instead of wasting it on ads and the like.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 05:07:23 pm

Also, we finally have an answer to an important question: Is Nate Silver A Witch? (http://isnatesilverawitch.com/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: darkrider2 on November 07, 2012, 05:08:17 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 05:05:31 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 07, 2012, 04:47:26 pm

For me, I have a nice warm fuzzy feeling that citizens of the US appear to be moving away from the right wing "greed is good" thinking of the past.

Fox's election coverage people last night more or less went "We spent all this money on the election and what did we get? Nothing! Damnit!" One of their panelists (some of whom were democrats, and some of whom were republicans), I think, commented on how much good they could have done if it had been spent rebuilding New Jersey instead of wasting it on ads and the like.

Wait wait wait... weren't they calling christie a traitor to the party just a week or two ago for wanting assistance from the government to rebuild?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 05:10:09 pm

@ Shadowlord: Aw dammit, quit responding to troll posts. Now he's just gonna come back and we'll have ANOTHER 20 pages D:

_{Talking about Trollheiming there, not necessarily the others}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 05:11:23 pm

For wanting assistance from the federal government. In Randian objectivism, charity from the rich and corporations is good, but government is bad.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 05:07:23 pm

Also, we finally have an answer to an important question: Is Nate Silver A Witch? (http://isnatesilverawitch.com/)

Yes, but he's our witch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 07, 2012, 05:15:38 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 05:07:23 pm

Also, we finally have an answer to an important question: Is Nate Silver A Witch? (http://isnatesilverawitch.com/)

Nate Silver made a great Tweet in response to right-wing pundits insisting that the election was too close to call.
http://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/status/264472108732665856

I wonder if they'll still be arguing that the polls are skewed and that his numbers are meaningless in 2016, in spite of his 99% correct record.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:20:46 pm

Quote from: Shadowlord on November 07, 2012, 05:05:31 pm

Where did all these posts come from! I'm going to just respond to three four. I assume Trollheiming is sleeping now, since I didn't see any MODERATOR ACTIONS posted in the thread (and I read all the posts I had missed, which took... almost an hour, way more time than I should have wasted).

I think Trollheiming is dead. The Chinese government probably found out that he was corresponding on a website with an anarchist bent and had him whacked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Your right wing simulation mode is either inaccurate or made a spelling error.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:33:36 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Your right wing simulation mode is either inaccurate or made a spelling error.

I went for the much less offensive of two offensive options.
I'm afraid that I would get warned if I posted the full-strength "n-word".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 05:34:38 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Your right wing simulation mode is either inaccurate or made a spelling error.

Fixed. (http://static.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OBAMA_FRIES.mp3)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 05:40:12 pm

Pretty sure Toady only cares about "bad words" like nigger if there's actual malice attached.

Words are just words, you know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 05:41:31 pm

Yes, but the old playground rhyme is false. They do have the power to hurt if used carelessly or maliciously.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zrk2 on November 07, 2012, 05:41:49 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 05:34:38 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Your right wing simulation mode is either inaccurate or made a spelling error.

Fixed. (http://static.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OBAMA_FRIES.mp3)

Sounds like Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 05:44:42 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 05:41:31 pm

Yes, but the old playground rhyme is false. They do have the power to hurt if used carelessly or maliciously.

'Course :)

I reference that rhyme as an example of bullshit all the time, heh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:46:59 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 05:40:12 pm

Pretty sure Toady only cares about "bad words" like nigger if there's actual malice attached.

Words are just words, you know.

Words are powerful. Words can do what a man alone cannot. Words have the power to command armies, inspire peoples, save refugees, execute rebels, genocide races, end nations. Words are the power of the many, and spread knowlede of you, your intentions, and other things you wish to convey. Therefore your words must be chosen with care.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:47:19 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 05:34:38 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Your right wing simulation mode is either inaccurate or made a spelling error.

Fixed. (http://static.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OBAMA_FRIES.mp3)

This is relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-5lpCRxgiA)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 05:53:58 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:46:59 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 05:40:12 pm

Pretty sure Toady only cares about "bad words" like nigger if there's actual malice attached.

Words are just words, you know.

Words are powerful. Words can do what a man alone cannot. Words have the power to command armies, inspire peoples, save refugees, execute rebels, genocide races, end nations. Words are the power of the many, and spread knowlede of you, your intentions, and other things you wish to convey. Therefore your words must be chosen with care.

Splitting hairs perhaps, but IMO it's the meaning behind those words that have the power you speak of. Words themselves are just arrangements of symbols, be they letters or syllables. But the meaning we give to them, the concepts we define them to convey... that has power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:59:54 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 05:53:58 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:46:59 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 05:40:12 pm

Pretty sure Toady only cares about "bad words" like nigger if there's actual malice attached.

Words are just words, you know.

Words are powerful. Words can do what a man alone cannot. Words have the power to command armies, inspire peoples, save refugees, execute rebels, genocide races, end nations. Words are the power of the many, and spread knowlede of you, your intentions, and other things you wish to convey. Therefore your words must be chosen with care.

Splitting hairs perhaps, but IMO it's the meaning behind those words that have the power you speak of. Words themselves are just arrangements of symbols, be they letters or syllables. But the meaning we give to them, the concepts we define them to convey... that has power.

If you want to get specific, you are nothing but a interesting collection of organic compounds, pressing molded plastic sending electric signals aross the planet to me to read in various colors decoded by the eye. Happy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 06:01:43 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:59:54 pm

If you want to get specific, you are nothing but a interesting collection of organic compounds, pressing molded plastic sending electric signals aross the planet to me to read in various colors decoded by the eye. Happy?

Indeed. Because since I am "happy", I transcend those things and become something greater than the sum of my parts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on November 07, 2012, 06:02:53 pm

Yep!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 06:03:57 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 07, 2012, 06:01:43 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:59:54 pm

If you want to get specific, you are nothing but a interesting collection of organic compounds, pressing molded plastic sending electric signals aross the planet to me to read in various colors decoded by the eye. Happy?

Indeed. Because since I am "happy", I transcend those things and become something greater than the sum of my parts.

No, it is Dopamine. Feel the Dopamine. Enjoy it. No that there are poor republicans, out there right now!, who have none.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 06:17:12 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 07, 2012, 05:41:49 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 05:34:38 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Your right wing simulation mode is either inaccurate or made a spelling error.

Fixed. (http://static.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OBAMA_FRIES.mp3)

Sounds like Obama.

That's because it is Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 06:26:47 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 06:17:12 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 07, 2012, 05:41:49 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 07, 2012, 05:34:38 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 07, 2012, 05:28:54 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:27:30 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 05:23:27 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 05:22:08 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 07, 2012, 04:51:55 pm

Heh...CNN has an article about Republicans wanting to move to Canada. I think they'd be in for a rude awakening. (Well, okay...it's Canada, so maybe a polite awakening) :P

Okay, that's just stupid.

I heard Democrats threatening to flee to Canada if Romney was elected. I actually considered the idea.

If the Republicans want to flee to any place where their kind still reigns supreme, they'll have to tolerate a pretty dismal standard of living. I almost feel bad for them - what can you do when you're a conservative in the most conservative country in the first world and you want to leave? You go to the second world, of course. Russia must be nice...

Russia has the highest number of Robber-barons Billionaires of any country. They'd probably enjoy it if not for the Russians.

The ones who hate gays could move to anywhere in Africa (or Jamaica)... if they're willing to settle for living with [entering right-winger simulation mode] NEGROES!

Your right wing simulation mode is either inaccurate or made a spelling error.

Fixed. (http://static.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OBAMA_FRIES.mp3)

Sounds like Obama.

That's because it is Obama.

An out-of-context soundbite from "Dreams from My Father", apparently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 07, 2012, 06:47:19 pm

That is a great audiobook right there, especially out of context.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 07, 2012, 07:12:16 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 07, 2012, 06:47:19 pm

That is a great audiobook right there, especially out of context.

Yeah... any book with the incumbent president dropping racial slurs on a regular (but sparse) basis is naturally going to be abused.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 07:15:52 pm

Apparently, Gary Johnson's run was one of the libertarian parties most successful in history.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gary-johnson-ran-most-successful-libertarian-campaign-party-193500973--politics.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 07, 2012, 07:18:12 pm

Quote

He may have received only about 1 percent of the national vote,

That's...special.

Coincidentally, I wonder what percentage that Vermin Supreme time-waster earned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Squanto on November 07, 2012, 07:33:42 pm

So, I think we should all write in someone unexpected for next election.  Say, Nate Silver maybe?  Just for funsies?  It would be really funny if A: it got media attention and B: if he somehow actually won.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 07:35:06 pm

Quote from: Squanto on November 07, 2012, 07:33:42 pm

So, I think we should all write in someone unexpected for next election.  Say, Nate Silver maybe?  Just for funsies?  It would be really funny if A: it got media attention and B: if he somehow actually won.

No. Vote for me. Everyone vote for me. Nate Silver will just point he can't win florida and we'll forget about him. I don't need logic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 07, 2012, 08:21:59 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 07, 2012, 07:15:52 pm

Apparently, Gary Johnson's run was one of the libertarian parties most successful in history.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gary-johnson-ran-most-successful-libertarian-campaign-party-193500973--politics.html

Jill Stein was voted for by quite a few people at my college, but then my college is almost ludicrously left-leaning, and I have no idea what her national numbers were.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread
Post by: alexandertnt on November 07, 2012, 09:18:29 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on November 07, 2012, 09:21:09 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

Honestly I don't see why the Americans are so against raising taxes. Given how the deficit is almost a national crisis you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

you'd think everybody would be fine with increased taxes, especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 07, 2012, 09:03:17 am

especially since you could always lower taxes afterwards.

Are you insane? Maybe it's a bit different wherever you come from, but the US Government, once it raises taxes, never cuts them again!

Whaaat? If that were the case, the total sum of the tax increases since the formation of the US Government ("never" is a word with meaning) would be above 100%, an impossibility. Some people seem to think that taxs have been going up forever, despite the evidence to the contrary. In actual reality, the opposite is true. Graphs:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg)

Quote

It was more, "We're going to keep these guys from passing their socialist, unconstitutional infringements on the people."

Yay, more Straw Men. Using loaded words such as socialist (to invoke their loaded meaning, not ther real meaning) pretty much invalidates a point straight out. Thankfully we have the Republicans to pass such wonderful things as the PATRIOT act to save us from the evil socialist communist's. I thought the red scare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare) was over now.

Most people from outside of America go ??? when anyone gets accused of being a socialist/communist, considering the people usually accused are more right-wing than the average politician in many other countries. Something like "Obamacare" for example, where almost every other first world country has a significantly larger public care system, is a considerably watered down universal health care "system" that for difficult to understand reasons is apparently socialist (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Cthulhu on November 07, 2012, 09:27:23 pm

"Socialist" is barely a word anymore.  Eisenhower, a Republican, had the top bracket tax rates at like 90%, and also was the first to warn against the military-industrial complex, pretty prophetic.  By modern Republican standards he'd be a pinko but you know, if the Republicans were worshiping Saint Ike instead of Saint Ronnie, I might've voted for them.  Wouldn't have been Romney though.

In other news, I just realized obama_fries.mp3 has been playing on repeat for the last like ten minutes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GoombaGeek on November 07, 2012, 09:29:18 pm

137,000th view.

aww yeah

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 07, 2012, 10:56:22 pm

(http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/643917_493635383990970_909604635_n.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 07, 2012, 10:59:32 pm

http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-camp-retooling-campaign-after-latest-setbac,30282/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-camp-retooling-campaign-after-latest-setbac,30282/)

The ultimate nightmare. A never ending campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karlito on November 07, 2012, 11:02:03 pm

Isn't that the same joke that was in Monday's xkcd?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 07, 2012, 11:05:04 pm

Pretty much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 11:18:56 pm

There is a minor error in my addition to the OP from this morning.  I'm debating whether to change it.

Meanwhile, I'm making obama_fries my new ringtone.  If you don't hear from me again, know that I died for the most noble cause.  Irony.


EDIT: There was a typo in my post about a typo.  I am on a goddamn roll today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karlito on November 07, 2012, 11:24:20 pm

And here I was wondering which of the Presidential candidates was under 21.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 07, 2012, 11:26:59 pm

The typo concerning the typo has been spell checked and confirmed to not contain a typo. Please do not contact us over any spelling errors you may encounter, as we assume you, this is due to user error.
Fank yoo fer you're tiem.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zrk2 on November 08, 2012, 12:00:50 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on November 07, 2012, 11:18:56 pm

There is a minor error in my addition to the OP from this morning.  I'm debating whether to change it.

Meanwhile, I'm making obama_fries my new ringtone.  If you don't hear from me again, know that I died for the most noble cause.  Irony.


EDIT: There was a typo in my post about a typo.  I am on a goddamn roll today.

Aw yiss. Mutha fuckin' irony! It's my favourite.

Isn't that ironic?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:28:11 am

The real irony of this election won't hit until Bush will be still to blame for the economy in 2016. Meanwhile, loving my avatar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 08, 2012, 04:31:52 am

How long does it take for US economic policy to fix the worlds economy anyway? I mean seriously, you would expect a man to be able to have a tangible effect within four years, right? And it isn't like there are outside factors messing things up in a global economy, let alone years upon years of bad banking practice.
Fuck Obama had a sweet run, didn't even have a messy war to try and fund.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:41:30 am

Quote from: Max White on November 08, 2012, 04:31:52 am

How long does it take for US economic policy to fix the worlds economy anyway? I mean seriously, you would expect a man to be able to have a tangible effect within four years, right? And it isn't like there are outside factors messing things up in a global economy, let alone years upon years of bad banking practice.
Fuck Obama had a sweet run, didn't even have a messy war to try and fund.

Most recoveries throughout history take only a year from the start of the recession and feature growth of 4-6%. Our 4th quarter GDP growth projections were revised down to 1.3% the day after the election. We're not really even in a classical recovery period. In fact, it's as easy to speculate that we're going in for a double-dip. When you're really hurting, remember that you own this moment.

The reason that other economies are underperforming? High debt loads are interfering with their ability to access the bond markets and borrow. Our policy now? Access the bond markets for $1 trillion a year. Yep. Clearly it's the fault of the rest of the world, because they should not be doing what we're doing even more egregiously.

The iraq war cost about $100 billion a year. That's small potatoes compared to social spending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 08, 2012, 05:01:55 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:28:11 am

The real irony of this election won't hit until Bush will be still to blame for the economy in 2016. Meanwhile, loving my avatar.

Well, if the Democrats could get some tax reforms past (instead of having the Rebublicans block them because they tax the rich more (oh no). Interestingly they are generally OK with taxing the poor) then perhaps we won't have to, as the economy might start to improve. All the silly "reforms" that Bush passed will still be there in 2016...

You are making the assumption that the debt will not change, without backing it up.

Also, what is the purpose of the avatar? My assumption (as is usually the case with things like this) would be an attempt to (through mockery) claim that all the people who disagree with you must "love" Obama, or blindly follow him in some way. It suits your name.

Quote

The iraq war cost about $100 billion a year. That's small potatoes compared to social spending.

Some people, myself included, am baffled as to how someone could dismiss spending money on what is effectively a massacre (was the death toll near 100,000 now?) so casually and instead focus on that thing which helps people avoid the poverty cycle.

Stop killing people seems like a better place to start than taking away medical treatment from the old and the poor.

You continue to assume, without reasoning, that cutting social spending is the only option. It is not. People have already given alternatives (some of which you have addressed with fallacies).

Quote from: Max White on November 08, 2012, 04:31:52 am

How long does it take for US economic policy to fix the worlds economy anyway? I mean seriously, you would expect a man to be able to have a tangible effect within four years, right? And it isn't like there are outside factors messing things up in a global economy, let alone years upon years of bad banking practice.
Fuck Obama had a sweet run, didn't even have a messy war to try and fund.

debt problems are very complex and can take some time to fix. The main thing that is stopping progress is the fact that neither the Democrats, or Republicans can really pass anything. Since 2010 reforms either way have basically been stalled.

Also, I wouldn't call inheriting two wars plus a broken economy a "sweet run".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 05:04:06 am

Actually he's wearing that avatar because he lost a bet. At least that I can respect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 08, 2012, 05:06:07 am

I'm also 86% sure MW's post was a sarcastic response to Troll's post.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 08, 2012, 05:14:25 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 05:04:06 am

Actually he's wearing that avatar because he lost a bet. At least that I can respect.

Oh. Fair enough.

Quote from: Dutchling on November 08, 2012, 05:06:07 am

I'm also 86% sure MW's post was a sarcastic response to Troll's post.

Poe's law strikes again. Although what I said is still valid, though not as a response.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 08, 2012, 05:59:47 am

Quote from: Dutchling on November 08, 2012, 05:06:07 am

I'm also 86% sure MW's post was a sarcastic response to Troll's post.

86%?
I must try harder next time to mask my blatant sarcasm to a level where even I can't tell who I am making fun of anymore!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 06:03:19 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation

Use it. Love it. Live it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 08, 2012, 06:06:42 am

Like that is ever going to come in handy⸮

Ok, that felt a little strange... Not sure, might have to get used to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on November 08, 2012, 06:14:43 am

So...

What's the deal with florida?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 08, 2012, 06:27:44 am

Quote from: Max White on November 08, 2012, 06:06:42 am

Like that is ever going to come in handy⸮

Odd, it does not appear for me. It is just a box with 2E2E in it.

Initial googling seems to place the blame on Windows. Windows apparently has no sence of ironly whatsoever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 08, 2012, 06:29:46 am

I can't see it either, it's just a box for me.
I prefer boxes to those weird reverse question marks though. They're quite the abomination.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 06:31:09 am

Quote

CARACAS, Venezuela — From Caracas to Havana to La Paz, President Barack Obama's re-election victory was welcomed with a sigh of relief by many on Latin America's left, though others cautioned that the U.S. leader had not made the region a priority during his crisis-buffeted first term and was unlikely to do so in a second.

... Except that to Latin America, the U.S.A. "making the [latin American] region a priority" usually means funding covert civil wars to overthrow elected governments. They probably like the fact that Obama pretty much ignores the region. In fact, since U.S.A. started to ignore South America there have been markedly less dictators, militarism, and general hostility there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2012, 07:36:26 am

Quote from: Japa on November 08, 2012, 06:14:43 am

So...

What's the deal with florida?

Damnit all, has something happened again? I've paid zero flipping attention since tuesday night.

Also, Georgia is the sarcasm font. Spread the word, people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on November 08, 2012, 07:39:13 am

Quote from: Frumple on November 08, 2012, 07:36:26 am

Quote from: Japa on November 08, 2012, 06:14:43 am

So...

What's the deal with florida?

Damnit all, has something happened again? I've paid zero flipping attention since tuesday night.

Currently Obama's in the lead, at 4,143,362 to 4,096,346, but no winner has been declared.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 08, 2012, 07:41:07 am

Quote from: Frumple on November 08, 2012, 07:36:26 am

Also, Georgia is the sarcasm font. Spread the word, people.

We can font? Holy crap, I never even knew!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 08, 2012, 07:44:34 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:41:30 am

Most recoveries throughout history take only a year from the start of the recession and feature growth of 4-6%.

Once again you show that you can hide an enormous amount of deceit into a tiny amount of words.  In this case you use the word "Most" to conceal a huge amount of deception.

Most recoveries are through garden variety recessions, not financial crises combined with severe demand side slumps.  They can be solved if the Fed sets the effective fund rate to a low enough rate to increase growth.  Well the Fed had already lowered the rate to 0% before Obama was even in office and we weren't back to growing.  The problem was too deep for conventional policy.  We had to use unconventional policies that are unconventional for good reasons.  Among other reasons it's because they are slower.

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:41:30 am

The reason that other economies are underperforming? High debt loads are interfering with their ability to access the bond markets and borrow. Our policy now? Access the bond markets for $1 trillion a year. Yep. Clearly it's the fault of the rest of the world, because they should not be doing what we're doing even more egregiously.

And then you give us this, showing that not only do you not know history but you don't know present day world affairs either.  Japan went into this with far and away the highest debt load among major economies.  Spain went into this with a tiny debt load and a surplus.  You have a perception that in no way resembles the real world.  I'm not going to try to explain the economics to you because I have already tried and you ignored it.  So please leave.  People explain things to you and you ignore them and then post the same ignorance again in a few weeks.  If you don't want to talk and don't want to learn then please leave.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 08, 2012, 07:47:00 am

Quote from: Japa on November 08, 2012, 07:39:13 am

Currently Obama's in the lead, at 4,143,362 to 4,096,346, but no winner has been declared.

Oh. No clue, then. Haven't heard anything. Guess they're still counting and want to be thorough. E: It's 4,161,864 to 4,110,272 by the florida unofficial count thingy (http://enight.elections.myflorida.com/FederalOffices/), though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 08:36:49 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 07, 2012, 05:07:23 pm

Also, we finally have an answer to an important question: Is Nate Silver A Witch? (http://isnatesilverawitch.com/)

Spoiler: Right idea, wrong class. (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/zP2nd.jpg)

Also, this just made me laugh. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/ron-paul-elected-ruler-of-planet-inhabited-by-1-bi,30286/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 08, 2012, 10:46:15 am

Do you guys think Ron Paul will run again in 2016?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 10:48:30 am

He's to old to "run". He risks breaking a hip.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 08, 2012, 10:55:17 am

His spawn might, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 08, 2012, 11:34:41 am

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 08, 2012, 10:55:17 am

His spawn might, though.

Paul Paul?

Phil Paul?

Adrianna Paul? (nah.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 11:36:17 am

Tron Paul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 08, 2012, 11:37:28 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 11:36:17 am

Tron Paul.

Someone photoshop this please.

Don't make me go to /r/ there's dirty things there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 11:38:15 am

(http://sourbrains.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wpid-00106532.0001.jpg)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxxa22eAMo1qft9mpo1_400.jpg)
Turns out this has been 'shopped to hell.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 11:47:48 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 08, 2012, 11:37:28 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 11:36:17 am

Tron Paul.

Someone photoshop this please.

Don't make me go to /r/ there's dirty things there.

Google image search is your friend.

(http://sourbrains.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wpid-00106532.0001.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbchw2ppvk1rn4ruyo1_500.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq5etlgQK71qetucvo1_500.jpg)




Interesting article (http://news.yahoo.com/republican-strategist-karl-roves-very-bad-night-002109469.html) indicating that American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove's two big SuperPACs) failed miserably in the races they poured their money into. A number of people within the party are basically saying no one should ever give him the time of day again. If true, this is the purest, most delicious drop of distilled schadenfruede yet.

Quote

According to calculations made by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group that seeks more transparency in campaign finance, Rove's outfits provided dismal returns to investors.

By the group's measure, 1 percent of the more than $100 million spent by American Crossroads achieved its desired results. Thirteen percent of the more than $70 million spent by Crossroads GPS did the same, the Sunlight Foundation said.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 08, 2012, 11:50:46 am

I smell an xkcd reference.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 11:51:07 am

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on November 08, 2012, 11:50:46 am

I smell an xkcd reference.

Internet cookie for you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 08, 2012, 12:58:47 pm

Voter turnout was down from 2008, as expected; nationally the number was 57.5% of eligible voters.

Minnesota (http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2826023.shtml), once again led the nation in turnout, with 76% (down from 78% in 2008).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:00:17 pm

I blame Garrison Keillor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: lordcooper on November 08, 2012, 01:00:25 pm

(http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509bedacdc6e5.jpeg)

So do more liberals pursue education, or does education make people more liberal?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 01:03:55 pm

Or are both things entirely unrelated.

Correlation doesn't imply causality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on November 08, 2012, 01:07:58 pm

Generally going to college opens you up to new ideas, making you question things like church and the firery pits of hell and whatnot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:09:46 pm

Well, no. But it's no great leap of logic to think that a proper college education, with exposure to history, art, science, (i.e. the liberal arts) as well as being in close contact and forming friendships with a variety of people from different backgrounds, does have an effect of broadening one's outlook. At least, until they move back home. I've seen a fair number of folks from my high school who got college edumacated, but once they moved back to Podunkville, turned right back into closed-minded bigots. Lot easier to do that when the people around you agree.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:10:36 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on November 08, 2012, 01:00:25 pm

(http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509bedacdc6e5.jpeg)

So do more liberals pursue education, or does education make people more liberal?

The education system makes them more liberal, because the professors are overwhelmingly liberal. You get taught what to think.

I totally get that you're masturbating over the idea that you're smarter than a faceless Other because you belong to a group that's more trendy among educated people. But the reality is that you're probably of average intelligence. Emphasis on group identification is not intellect. It's tribalism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: lordcooper on November 08, 2012, 01:15:00 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:10:36 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on November 08, 2012, 01:00:25 pm

(http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509bedacdc6e5.jpeg)

So do more liberals pursue education, or does education make people more liberal?

The education system makes them more liberal, because the professors are overwhelmingly liberal. You get taught what to think.

I totally get that you're masturbating over the idea that you're smarter than a faceless Other because you belong to a group that's more trendy among educated people. But the reality is that you're probably of average intelligence. Emphasis on group identification is not intellect. It's tribalism.

Serves me right for asking an honest question :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: andrea on November 08, 2012, 01:15:24 pm

I don't see what intelligence has to do with this.
the argument was about education. they are 2 different and mostly unrelated things. education may train intelligence, sure. but many things do.
what education does is teaching you stuff.

( just saying this because I am annoyed by people who say " oh, he knows so many things, he is smart!". no, just remembering stuff doesn't mean you are smart. it means, at most, that you have good memory)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:16:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:09:46 pm

Well, no. But it's no great leap of logic to think that a proper college education, with exposure to history, art, science, (i.e. the liberal arts) as well as being in close contact and forming friendships with a variety of people from different backgrounds, does have an effect of broadening one's outlook. At least, until they move back home. I've seen a fair number of folks from my high school who got college edumacated, but once they moved back to Podunkville, turned right back into closed-minded bigots. Lot easier to do that when the people around you agree.

So they abruptly forgot their edumacation when they moved back? Lol. Either it's the education or it's the social environment. And you just said that it wasn't the education. What you mean is that people conform to their peer groups. Roundabout way of confirming that it has nothing to do with education proper and more to do with seeking approval of peer groups, but yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GoombaGeek on November 08, 2012, 01:17:28 pm

what is going on now

if you all voted for the same guy why is there arguments

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on November 08, 2012, 01:19:47 pm

It is plausible that one option is better than the other, and that education makes you better able to collect data, filter out inaccurate information, and make decisions based off of that.

To clarify here, I voted for Jill Stein, so I'm not exactly Obama-biased, so I say this in the broader defense of liberalism; if you look at at the consequences of what conservatives propose, such as the austerity of Greece or the free-market of Somalia, or the environmental "regulation" of China, or the "respect" for religion of Russia... and compare that to countries and policies of a remarkably liberal outlook, such as Iceland's banking regulations, Britain's health care, Denmark's education system... you see a strong correlation between liberal politics and, to put it in the most generic terms, good things.

So perhaps there is a reason that better-educated people prefer liberalism, beyond a sad-sounding and obvious cry of conspiracy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:20:08 pm

Quote from: lordcooper on November 08, 2012, 01:15:00 pm

Serves me right for asking an honest question :-\

Sorry, but it's the kind of thing that misguided elitists smugly do ask rhetorically to pleasure themselves. I didn't realize you were actually being earnest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: nenjin on November 08, 2012, 01:22:44 pm

I question why this thread is still open. Post-elections, the arguments are going to be even less meaningful than they were before the elections.

Case in point, above.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 01:23:35 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:16:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:09:46 pm

Well, no. But it's no great leap of logic to think that a proper college education, with exposure to history, art, science, (i.e. the liberal arts) as well as being in close contact and forming friendships with a variety of people from different backgrounds, does have an effect of broadening one's outlook. At least, until they move back home. I've seen a fair number of folks from my high school who got college edumacated, but once they moved back to Podunkville, turned right back into closed-minded bigots. Lot easier to do that when the people around you agree.

So they abruptly forgot their edumacation when they moved back? Lol. Either it's the education or it's the social environment. And you just said that it wasn't the education. What you mean is that people conform to their peer groups. Roundabout way of confirming that it has nothing to do with education proper and more to do with seeking approval of peer groups, but yeah.

Mostly they don't move back, because the Red States are hillbilly hell-holes. Those with potential move out of the backwards places, like Alabama, or India, to the places that offer education, then they get jobs THERE. Few people from Alabama who go to Harvard would move BACK to Alabama. A Harvard degree just wouldn't earn you the same money in Alabama as it would in, I don't know, a place that has money.

But there's a definite peer-pressure effect, even if you might know better, it's easier to go along with what everyone around you is saying. e.g. if you're surrounded by Klan members, are you going to stick up for civil rights? Uneducated peer group. I came from a country town and have a college education, but I wouldn't bother having an in-depth intellectual discussion with anyone from my hometown because frankly most of them are pig-ignorant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:25:28 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:16:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:09:46 pm

Well, no. But it's no great leap of logic to think that a proper college education, with exposure to history, art, science, (i.e. the liberal arts) as well as being in close contact and forming friendships with a variety of people from different backgrounds, does have an effect of broadening one's outlook. At least, until they move back home. I've seen a fair number of folks from my high school who got college edumacated, but once they moved back to Podunkville, turned right back into closed-minded bigots. Lot easier to do that when the people around you agree.

So they abruptly forgot their edumacation when they moved back? Lol. Either it's the education or it's the social environment. And you just said that it wasn't the education. What you mean is that people conform to their peer groups. Roundabout way of confirming that it has nothing to do with education proper and more to do with seeking approval of peer groups, but yeah.

A fair point. So then liberal peer groups encourage seeking more education? While conservative peer groups encourage....what, more Biblefication? Or maybe they shun education because they "know with their gut"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 01:27:31 pm

Quote from: nenjin on November 08, 2012, 01:22:44 pm

I question why this thread is still open. Post-elections, the arguments are going to be even less meaningful than they were before the elections.

Case in point, above.

Oi, that's it.

Also, a Hyptothetical question. What would have happened if the the economical crisis had never been. Were would we be know. What would the impact of [Insert name here]'s death have been...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 08, 2012, 01:29:13 pm

Quote from: GoombaGeek on November 08, 2012, 01:17:28 pm

what is going on now

if you all voted for the same guy why is there arguments

I'm pretty sure most of us voted for different people, actually. I don't think any candidate got a majority of the bay12 election thread vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 01:30:09 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 08, 2012, 01:29:13 pm

I don't think any candidate got a majority of the bay12 election thread vote.

Even though I keep telling people to vote Cfoofoo. Tututut...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on November 08, 2012, 01:31:10 pm

Honestly I would have voted for King Radical if my ballot had that option.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 01:31:42 pm

No "insert name here" option?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on November 08, 2012, 01:32:29 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 01:31:42 pm

No "insert name here" option?

I voted early and I didn't see one on the ballot (Ohio).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 01:32:59 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:25:28 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:16:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:09:46 pm

Well, no. But it's no great leap of logic to think that a proper college education, with exposure to history, art, science, (i.e. the liberal arts) as well as being in close contact and forming friendships with a variety of people from different backgrounds, does have an effect of broadening one's outlook. At least, until they move back home. I've seen a fair number of folks from my high school who got college edumacated, but once they moved back to Podunkville, turned right back into closed-minded bigots. Lot easier to do that when the people around you agree.

So they abruptly forgot their edumacation when they moved back? Lol. Either it's the education or it's the social environment. And you just said that it wasn't the education. What you mean is that people conform to their peer groups. Roundabout way of confirming that it has nothing to do with education proper and more to do with seeking approval of peer groups, but yeah.

A fair point. So then liberal peer groups encourage seeking more education? While conservative peer groups encourage....what, more Biblefication? Or maybe they shun education because they "know with their gut"?

((Turning the thing around. The education is quite clearly skewed to the liberals, meaning that anyone who goes there (and because those things are college graduations, are often temporaly torn out of their normal environement.) gets seriously influenced. ))

That's a secondary problem the politics of the United states is that they are strongly interwoven with religion, at least in some states. The uneducated and poor vote mostly for the Republicans, because their local priest says so*. Meanwhile, Obama's policies would clearly be better for them. Same happens in the other direction too.

* This by no means implies that religious people are uneducated, or that uneducated people are more religious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 01:33:40 pm

Well that's rubbish. How are the Dems and Reps supposed to deny each other votes if people can't whimsically vote whoever they want to?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 08, 2012, 01:39:52 pm

Yeah, kind of odd how the best educated are 90% democrat. Especially since the republicans are the adherents to Free Market systems, a intellectual invention from the enlightenment!

I'm guessing that at least right now it's because the Reps are so conflated with religion and educated people have a much higher tendancy to be athiest, I'm guessing because of Empiricism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 01:42:53 pm

Yea, I doubt most of us voted Obama. Obama just isn't liberal enough. I've already heard other people mention they voted for Stein or Johnson.

The only reason I voted for Obama was that I live in Florida and the idea of Romney in the whitehouse is horrific.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2012, 01:45:54 pm

Even eldritch Kithulhu is afraid. It's never been as official, the American voting system is a horror beyond our imagination's imagination.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:45:54 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 01:32:59 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:25:28 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:16:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:09:46 pm

Well, no. But it's no great leap of logic to think that a proper college education, with exposure to history, art, science, (i.e. the liberal arts) as well as being in close contact and forming friendships with a variety of people from different backgrounds, does have an effect of broadening one's outlook. At least, until they move back home. I've seen a fair number of folks from my high school who got college edumacated, but once they moved back to Podunkville, turned right back into closed-minded bigots. Lot easier to do that when the people around you agree.

So they abruptly forgot their edumacation when they moved back? Lol. Either it's the education or it's the social environment. And you just said that it wasn't the education. What you mean is that people conform to their peer groups. Roundabout way of confirming that it has nothing to do with education proper and more to do with seeking approval of peer groups, but yeah.

A fair point. So then liberal peer groups encourage seeking more education? While conservative peer groups encourage....what, more Biblefication? Or maybe they shun education because they "know with their gut"?

The uneducated and poor vote mostly for the Republicans, because their local priest says so*.

Interesting take, considering the Republican standard talking point is that most of Obama's supporters are the lazy, uneducated poor. They're only *led* by us America-hating, college-educated effete liberal scum.


FWIW, I voted Obama on the off-chance he could pull out North Carolina. I'm not as disappointed with him as I was say, a year ago. He's liberal enough for me (especially since I'm not a Democrat or a granola liberal)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 01:49:03 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 08, 2012, 01:39:52 pm

Yeah, kind of odd how the best educated are 90% democrat. Especially since the republicans are the adherents to Free Market systems, a intellectual invention from the enlightenment!

I'm guessing that at least right now it's because the Reps are so conflated with religion and educated people have a much higher tendency to be athiest, I'm guessing because of Empiricism.

It might have something to do with the history of those states too. Don't know my US history well enough to make any conclusions, but I expect that this has some serious influences.

I won't be saying entirely atheist, but there's a far lower percentage of evangelists/ fundies/ fundamentalists among the higher educated classes. Mostly because of an often antireligious environement, but also because education indeeds learns reasoning, which prevents you from failing in the (false) logic traps that those types of religion rely on.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 01:42:53 pm

Yea, I doubt most of us voted Obama. Obama just isn't liberal enough. I've already heard other people mention they voted for Stein or Johnson.

The only reason I voted for Obama was that I live in Florida and the idea of Romney in the whitehouse is horrific.

Well, the far right parties in Belgium are probably more liberal than Obama.

On a side note, how comes the Republicans control the House of whatever it's called anyway.

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:45:54 pm

Mostly's probably a misnomer, but you'd probably have at least some effects.

Also, can someone procure some demographic statistics and voting tendencies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 08, 2012, 01:55:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:45:54 pm

FWIW, I voted Obama on the off-chance he could pull out North Carolina. I'm not as disappointed with him as I was say, a year ago. He's liberal enough for me (especially since I'm not a Democrat or a granola liberal)

I voted Obama for the same reason, though he isn't liberal enough for me. His Supreme Court appointees will probably be, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on November 08, 2012, 01:56:18 pm

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 01:59:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 01:25:28 pm

A fair point. So then liberal peer groups encourage seeking more education? While conservative peer groups encourage....what, more Biblefication? Or maybe they shun education because they "know with their gut"?

It's not that they're seeking education more. Your friends apparently were "bigots" before, then became so again. That also must imply that they wanted and found value in education before being liberal, right?

I'd say liberal peer groups form during and after the education, because that's where a lot of conservatives are converted by peer and authority pressure alike. Have you ever had to write a conservative-sounding paper because you knew your teacher was a fire-breathing ideologue who'd mark down a reasoned liberal-sounding paper? Conservatives have this all the time. I had two professor where I just didn't feel comfortable writing my own opinions, so I had to think like a liberal. Some bend and snap back into place, some bend and never snap back, and some break and get the bad mark. That's how it goes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 08, 2012, 02:05:13 pm

I can't relate. I never had to write a politically-influenced paper for any of my classes. I assume this is a "classes outside of STEM" thing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:07:45 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 08, 2012, 01:39:52 pm

I'm guessing that at least right now it's because the Reps are so conflated with religion and educated people have a much higher tendancy to be athiest, I'm guessing because of Empiricism.

I'm atheist, but it has no reflection on education levels in general. There was a Pew poll about this in 2005 or so, and atheists were no more likely to be educated than religious people.

And want to be super well-educated? Stop being such an atheist, and get right with the Lord. Or more accurately, the Lords. Ganesha, for example, and Vishnu and Shiva. According to American demographics, the way to instantly become a post-grad in your field is to convert to Hinduism.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:08:50 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 08, 2012, 02:05:13 pm

I can't relate. I never had to write a politically-influenced paper for any of my classes. I assume this is a "classes outside of STEM" thing?

Yeah. It was during my general eds.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 02:12:41 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 08, 2012, 01:56:18 pm

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

The Republican Party lives on the idea of the American dream. (Everyone can become succesfull and rich if they just try hard enough).  Hence why it stands for tax cuts for the rich, and less social welfare and stuff.

The poor stods are just not working hard enough, and the rich have made it an deserve to be rewarded. Therefore, the governement should also avoid meddling with stuff, because they will interfere with the economy and in such a way will push down the very people they try to help.

*_{This caricutarized and probably politcally incorrect view of the GOP was brought to you by...}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

But it's cool, I realize that there's a certain level of "persecution complex" that comes with the territory. Christians are persecuted (despite being the majority), heterosexuals are persecuted (despite being the majority), whites are persecuted (despite being the majority), males are persecuted (despite being the majority)...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:13:57 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 08, 2012, 01:56:18 pm

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

Like Soros, Buffet, Gates, the founder of Google? Bloomberg?

The funny thing is, taxes don't even hurt the super wealthy. They already made their bones. Taxes stop anyone from following them up the ladder, because we tax various forms of income rather than the absolute amounts of wealth already possessed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 08, 2012, 02:15:47 pm

We're talking about wanting to become educated, not wanting to become slave labour!

(That's what "post-grad" means, right? ;))

One of the benefits of starting in Engineering is that I got to skip a surprising amount of "mandatory gen-eds" - they figured engineers had better things to do. While I did have a hard-core conservative teacher or two, neither them (nor my super-liberal teachers) seem to have any interest in bringing politics into our class work.

Teachers who do so just to push their own view suck, that's for sure. (Though I know some people who got in trouble in economics for clinging to stupid beliefs instead of bothering to learn the material - but most of them weren't actually conservative beliefs, just idiotic ones, I'm assuming this is more than 'I don't care if you're conservative as long as your facts are good and you understand the system' and more along the lines of 'validate me and my opinions if you want a good grade... something which, again, sucks)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:19:06 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:13:57 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 08, 2012, 01:56:18 pm

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

Like Soros, Buffet, Gates, the founder of Google? Bloomberg?

The funny thing is, taxes don't even hurt the super wealthy. They already made their bones. Taxes stop anyone from following them up the ladder, because we tax various forms of income rather than the absolute amounts of wealth already possessed.

Err, Bloomberg actually *is* a Republican.

And you're absolutely right....income tax doesn't hurt the uberwealthy, it's things like inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes that do. Which is why the Republican Party considers them an abhorrence unto God and will never, never, NEVER increase them. Or why Paul Ryan's tax plan called for eliminating capital gains taxes altogether, which would have put Mitt Romney's effective tax bracket at 0.85%.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:25:05 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:33:46 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:19:06 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:13:57 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 08, 2012, 01:56:18 pm

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

Like Soros, Buffet, Gates, the founder of Google? Bloomberg?

The funny thing is, taxes don't even hurt the super wealthy. They already made their bones. Taxes stop anyone from following them up the ladder, because we tax various forms of income rather than the absolute amounts of wealth already possessed.

Err, Bloomberg actually *is* a Republican.

And you're absolutely right....income tax doesn't hurt the uberwealthy, it's things like inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes that do. Which is why the Republican Party considers them an abhorrence unto God and will never, never, NEVER increase them. Or why Paul Ryan's tax plan called for eliminating capital gains taxes altogether, which would have put Mitt Romney's effective tax bracket at 0.85%.

Capital gains tax increases wouldn't hurt Mitt. He already has $250 million. Capital gains come from gains in that wealth. Income. Not salaried income, true, but cap-gains is still not a wealth tax. No gains that year? No gains taxes. A few nations like France have a true wealth tax of a measly 1% or so, but the fact is, all the class-warriors are being sold a bill of goods. Most of their measures merely stop new billionaires from arising, not knocking down those already minted.

Estate taxes in a true wealth tax, of course, but it's not really the sort of thing that frightens types like Soros and Buffett, who plan to master the universe before they die. The wealthy easily escape that by setting up their heirs comfortably before they die, anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:36:04 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:25:05 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Actually, I was referencing Colbert's well-known "Truth has a well-known liberal bias" quote. But thanks for following that up by being condescending and implying that I was a "confused young initiate" at the age of 31 in a Master's program! You've almost gotten the Triple Crown of Douchebaggery, keep going for the gold!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:39:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:36:04 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:25:05 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Actually, I was referencing Colbert's well-known "Truth has a well-known liberal bias" quote. But thanks for following that up by being condescending and implying that I was a "confused young initiate" at the age of 31 in a Master's program! You've almost gotten the Triple Crown of Douchebaggery, keep going for the gold!

I was using the indeterminate pronoun "you" akin to "one" but less pretentious, so take one of my crowns of douchebaggery as a consolation. I only have one head to rest them on, anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 02:40:48 pm

The purpose is not stop people from getting wealthy, and in fact it does not. It marginally slows the growth of wealth, though the things it is spent on will as often as not contribute to the rate of growth in wealth as well, so it should more or less be a wash.

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on November 08, 2012, 02:41:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:36:04 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:25:05 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Actually, I was referencing Colbert's well-known "Truth has a well-known liberal bias" quote. But thanks for following that up by being condescending and implying that I was a "confused young initiate" at the age of 31 in a Master's program! You've almost gotten the Triple Crown of Douchebaggery, keep going for the gold!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.sideshowsito.com/wp-content/themes/aperture/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mpad.jpg&w=220&h=150&zc=1&q=90)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 02:43:28 pm

Quote from: darkrider2 on November 08, 2012, 02:41:58 pm

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.sideshowsito.com/wp-content/themes/aperture/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mpad.jpg&w=220&h=150&zc=1&q=90)

Ka-pow right back at him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 08, 2012, 02:44:34 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

But it's cool, I realize that there's a certain level of "persecution complex" that comes with the territory. Christians are persecuted (despite being the majority), heterosexuals are persecuted (despite being the majority), whites are persecuted (despite being the majority), males are persecuted (despite being the majority)...

Prejudice can be directed at majorities, you know :P Though persecution will generally only be on a small scale (like being kicked out of bars or something) with few exceptions (like the screwed up child custody laws being biased against men).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:46:48 pm

Prejudice, yes. But systematic, widescale persecution? (y'know, the kind we're secretly organizing at our gay Communist flag-burning orgies)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on November 08, 2012, 02:47:17 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 08, 2012, 02:44:34 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 02:13:25 pm

But it's cool, I realize that there's a certain level of "persecution complex" that comes with the territory. Christians are persecuted (despite being the majority), heterosexuals are persecuted (despite being the majority), whites are persecuted (despite being the majority), males are persecuted (despite being the majority)...

Prejudice can be directed at majorities, you know :P Though persecution will generally only be on a small scale (like being kicked out of bars or something) with few exceptions (like the screwed up child custody laws being biased against men).

I swear we had a convo about that in life advice. It was awesome but I'm not sure I'm too fond of bringing it back in the election thread (not that I'm accusing you of trying to bring it back, derailing tends to happen quickly) since I don't think its even on the political radar anywhere right now, though I wish it was.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 08, 2012, 02:47:37 pm

Why is Trollheiming so insistent on conflating the increased income tax rates in the '30s with the Great Depression? I don't recall (and wikipedia appears to support that) there being a single economic theory, widely accepted or otherwise, which considers that to be one of the causes of the GD.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 02:50:15 pm

And taxes went even higher during WWII according to the graphs, and didn't come down again until the mid-60's. The obvious point being that 1941 - 1965 was a mega-boom period. It wasn't tax cuts that gave America that boom, or ended the depression.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote

(http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/blogpix/teaparty1.gif)

Note there was also a recession / big spike in unemployment AFTER Reagan massively dropped taxes in 1981 and 1982. And there was also the early 90's recession, after yet another round of tax cuts.

The moral is that you can't take an isolated data point and say it proves a theory, and conveniently ignore all other data points which contradict that theory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 02:56:42 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 08, 2012, 02:47:37 pm

Why is Trollheiming so insistent on conflating the increased income tax rates in the '30s with the Great Depression? I don't recall (and wikipedia appears to support that) there being a single economic theory, widely accepted or otherwise, which considers that to be one of the causes of the GD.

He is talking about when the great depressions recovery slowed as the world built up to WW 2. There is so much shit that happened in 36 that it is impossible to draw a causal relationship between the change in tax rate and the rate of recovery from the great depression.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 03:10:24 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 08, 2012, 02:47:37 pm

Why is Trollheiming so insistent on conflating the increased income tax rates in the '30s with the Great Depression? I don't recall (and wikipedia appears to support that) there being a single economic theory, widely accepted or otherwise, which considers that to be one of the causes of the GD.

Read it again. The crash in 1937 that lead to a double-dip was immediately preceeded by tax raises.

It does not offer any speculation that a depression beginning seven years before 1936 was caused by a time-spatial anomaly. But the Depression was long and encompassed various plunges that separately would have been bad news. One of these was identifiably due to bad recovery policy by FDR.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 02:56:42 pm

He is talking about when the great depressions recovery slowed as the world built up to WW 2. There is so much shit that happened in 36 that it is impossible to draw a causal relationship between the change in tax rate and the rate of recovery from the great depression.

A short crash of a year's length is not due to the abiding pressures of looming war, however much you wish to conveniently explain it that way. You ought to readily find sources attributing the crash to the tax raises preceeding it. And anyway, war preparation causes GDP increases, as another person pointed out in remarking that 1941-1965 was a "boom" era, although I'd argue that the GDP growth is purely malinvestment in the case of war preparations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 03:11:19 pm

Correlation doesn't imply causality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 08, 2012, 03:14:38 pm

It does waggle its eyes and wink suggestively :P


'Tis a weak argument, to be sure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 03:20:44 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 08, 2012, 03:14:38 pm

It does waggle its eyes and wink suggestively :P


'Tis a weak argument, to be sure.

An incredibly weak argument, again considering everything that was happening in 36. 36 was one of the worst dust bowl years that caused massive economic devastation to agriculture in the us. There was also disturbance to global trade as the powers become more militarized. Etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 08, 2012, 03:22:51 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 02:40:48 pm

The purpose is not stop people from getting wealthy, and in fact it does not. It marginally slows the growth of wealth, though the things it is spent on will as often as not contribute to the rate of growth in wealth as well, so it should more or less be a wash.

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

^ This.

I saw a little discussion politically biased teachers/professors - I'm still in High School (haven't gotten "college liberal" status yet), but I've seen plenty. Like the hilariously right-wing APUSH teacher who rails against Obama the minute he steps out of the classroom... and even a little within it.

It should also be noted that he believes that Kennedy was a corrupt dictator, that he was assassinated by CIA agents in a great conspiracy, and that Nixon was like the second incarnation of Jesus or something... not literally, but he really almost worships the guy. But unusually for a conservative, he thinks Reagan was an opportunistic poser - which is largely correct.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 03:27:24 pm

There were also big federal spending cuts in 1936, and a Federal Reserve tightening of the money supply. I'd say both of those played more of a part than the tax increases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 03:31:31 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 03:10:24 pm

And anyway, war preparation causes GDP increases, as another person pointed out in remarking that 1941-1965 was a "boom" era, although I'd argue that the GDP growth is purely malinvestment in the case of war preparations.

I'd have to differ on the malinvestment point. Prior to WWII, the United States was an agrarian second-tier power with a few manufacturing hubs, notably Pittsburgh.

The infrastructure improvements, industrial imporvements, standardizations and mass influx of rural population to urban centers were HUGE in making the US come out of World War II as a roaring industrial power (not getting bombed to hell and back certainly helped too).

I'd think that, being in China, you'd see the parallel. Mass influx of rural population to the cities = cheap labor = industrial boom. That influx doesn't happen without jobs to lure them, and those jobs don't arise out of the dust without something to make. GM didn't start employing hundreds of thousands of people because the owners had been cut fat tax breaks, they employed them because they had orders for a shitload of armored vehicles, P-51s, and other military hardware. Orders from the Federal Government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 03:35:42 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 02:50:15 pm

Note there was also a recession / big spike in unemployment AFTER Reagan massively dropped taxes in 1981 and 1982. And there was also the early 90's recession, after yet another round of tax cuts.

The moral is that you can't take an isolated data point and say it proves a theory, and conveniently ignore all other data points which contradict that theory.

The entire economy throughout the 1970s and early 1980s was jittering in a malaise. To argue that the 1981 tax cuts were responsible for recession afterward, you'd have to find a different reason why there was a recession immediately before in 1980, too. Probably a combination of bad factors, like gas prices and the growing trade deficits that Japan and Germany that had just begun to open up. Incidentally, rising gas prices are not entirely separate from the increased demand in those countries, so you could put all the problems of 1970s and 1980s on an American economy that had yet to adapt to other countries recovered enough from WWII to compete with it. Our labor force was unchallenged for a long time, and grew inefficient and uncompetitive. That's the context.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 03:20:44 pm

An incredibly weak argument, again considering everything that was happening in 36. 36 was one of the worst dust bowl years that caused massive economic devastation to agriculture in the us. There was also disturbance to global trade as the powers become more militarized. Etc.

Fair point, but we're talking perfect storms. Naturally, there are multiple downward pressures converging.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 03:41:00 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 03:35:42 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 02:50:15 pm

Note there was also a recession / big spike in unemployment AFTER Reagan massively dropped taxes in 1981 and 1982. And there was also the early 90's recession, after yet another round of tax cuts.

The moral is that you can't take an isolated data point and say it proves a theory, and conveniently ignore all other data points which contradict that theory.

The entire economy throughout the 1970s and early 1980s was jittering in a malaise. To argue that the 1981 tax cuts were responsible for recession afterward, you'd have to find a different reason why there was a recession immediately before in 1980, too. Probably a combination of bad factors, like gas prices and the growing trade deficits that Japan and Germany that had just begun to open up. Incidentally, rising gas prices are not entirely separate from the increased demand in those countries, so you could put all the problems of 1970s and 1980s on an American economy that had yet to adapt to other countries recovered enough from WWII to compete with it. Our labor force was unchallenged for a long time, and grew inefficient and uncompetitive. That's the context.

To recap:

Depression *during* a capital-D Depression: FDR WAS A DUMBASS, NO OTHER EXPLANATION NEEDED
Depression during Reagan's term: It's complicated.  ::)

Let's just admit that there are very, very few instances where a single policy or event is responsible for swinging an entire economic cycle, shall we?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:05:20 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 03:31:31 pm

I'd have to differ on the malinvestment point. Prior to WWII, the United States was an agrarian second-tier power with a few manufacturing hubs, notably Pittsburgh.

Detroit was already big, too, making 2 million cars a year before the war, and was geared to produce useful things to ordinary people. Tanks are cool, but ordinary people don't want them. I'm not sure how much of the Sherman assembly line was able to be repurposed to make useful products after the war. There's a certain amount of broken window fallacy going into an assumption that the war years were a boom time. There were rations for everything.

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 03:41:00 pm

Let's just admit that there are very, very few instances where a single policy or event is responsible for swinging an entire economic cycle, shall we?

Lol. Fine, you got me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 08, 2012, 04:06:32 pm

Local politics follow:

I am quite pleased that many of the anti-public transportation politicians lost their re-election bids, which will mean having a majority that will most likely be more friendly (http://www.minnpost.com/political-agenda/2012/11/supporters-say-transit-efforts-minnesota-boosted-election-results) to rail and other public works proposals.  Specifically expanding the Light-Rail system towards the Southwest suburbs.

I would prefer interstate high speed rail, but that would require federal funding, and it would have to go through Wisconsin which is controlled by Republicans who will fight tooth and nail to stop expansion/upgrading of anything with "rail" in it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 08, 2012, 04:12:51 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:05:20 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 03:31:31 pm

I'd have to differ on the malinvestment point. Prior to WWII, the United States was an agrarian second-tier power with a few manufacturing hubs, notably Pittsburgh.

Detroit was already big, too, making 2 million cars a year before the war, and was geared to produce useful things to ordinary people. Tanks are cool, but ordinary people don't want them. I'm not sure how much of the Sherman assembly line was able to be repurposed to make useful products after the war. There's a certain amount of broken window fallacy going into an assumption that the war years were a boom time. There were rations for everything. 

Of course there were. Rationing doesn't mean that the economy isn't doing well, it just means that it hasn't been geared for civilian production (which was a major problem with the USSR for example). War useally results in an overstimulation of the economy, which if managed badly can result in an economical implosion. Also reason for rations was that from the early years of the war, the US was practically supplying the entire European continent on it's own.

Hell, before the world wars Europe used to control more than 75% of the globe.

Quote from: Trollheiming on November 08, 2012, 04:05:20 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 08, 2012, 03:41:00 pm

Let's just admit that there are very, very few instances where a single policy or event is responsible for swinging an entire economic cycle, shall we?

Lol. Fine, you got me.

Nothing is with just a single cause (except maybe the universe, but then only maybe). If you're looking back far enough you'll probably find a butterfly somewhere down the chain of events.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 08, 2012, 04:33:18 pm

Comparing the Great Depression with the late 70s-early 80s recession is a bit odd, since they were of completely different natures altogether.

The Great Depression was characterized by (mostly) deflation alongside a massive economic downturn, whereas the 70s recession was characterized by stagflation and something of a collapse in the dominant economic views of the past thirty years. The roots of both had more to do with monetary policy and government spending than taxes, really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 08, 2012, 04:56:58 pm

FDR's New Deal plan was so bad it caused the economy to crash years before it was even thought up.  You see the same thing with some gun legislation

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 08, 2012, 05:04:30 pm

Waitwaitwait - the New Deal and other Keynesian policies actually helped the economy - the downturn came after deficit spending was reduced because it was thought that the economy woud recover on its own!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 08, 2012, 08:22:31 pm

Relatively rushed response: May have missed something/misinterpreted something

Quote

The education system makes them more liberal, because the professors are overwhelmingly liberal. You get taught what to think.

Yay, conspiracy theories. Those damn professors.

Quote

I'd say liberal peer groups form during and after the education, because that's where a lot of conservatives are converted by peer and authority pressure alike. Have you ever had to write a conservative-sounding paper because you knew your teacher was a fire-breathing ideologue who'd mark down a reasoned liberal-sounding paper? Conservatives have this all the time. I had two professor where I just didn't feel comfortable writing my own opinions, so I had to think like a liberal. Some bend and snap back into place, some bend and never snap back, and some break and get the bad mark. That's how it goes.

Do you have any evidence to say that self-identified conservatives are converted to liberalism (like they are religions or something)? How did you know they would mark it down? You are making the assumption that writing a "conservative" paper would definetely get the bad mark (for being conservative), without pondering the other reasons for why that might happen (apparently a conservative paper WILL get an unfair mark)? If they did, perhaps it was for other reasons (such as containing massive ammounts of fallacies that most of your arguments seem to be composed of)? You make the assumption that your conservative-sounding paper would be (despite not even having come into existance) reasoned.

If they are "converted" (as you misleadingly put it), perhaps it's because education makes them see the world clearer or some such? Perhaps they legitimetely changed the way they think, rather than it being a conspiracy theory to liberalise everyone. Have you thought that perhaps if what you claim to be happening is true, it is not due to evil professor's and their pressure, but some other cause?

Are professors liberal "fire-breathing idealogue's"? Would this not be painting the wrong impression of them, since im sure any biologist would be fully aware they are incapable of breathing fire. This languages demonises your opponents, it is a straw man.

"Some bend and snap back into place" Because conservatism is "in place" (No explanation given as to why). All you are showing is a clear emotional bias for conservatism, still without backing it up. You are assuming it is correct.

Your argument is nothing but Professor Values (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Professor_values), it sounds like something straight off Conservapedia.

Anyway, long live education. It helps you see and understand the world for what it is. Understanding how it works, and furthermore being able to apply this knowledge in a meaningful way. Without it, we would be limited to seeing the world throught the foggy glasses of idealology. Accepting what is what without being able to think about it.

Without reasonable education, people would only have enough knowledge to labour towards ipads/whatever, never knowing anymore than what they need. The thought of this world makes me very sad.

Quote

History is not liberal

Of course not. It is not conservative either. Both of these concepts as they are now known are relatively modern idea's. Most of history was either in anarchy, or totalitarianism. The definitions for liberal and conservative change all the time. If you look at the history through a modern interpetation of these concepts, you will get a warped view of history.

Besides, considering the average life span, the poor living/working conditions of the past...

Quote

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Argh, more unfounded conspiracy's. Proof. Or is it just so?

"digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind" Again, straw man. All "liberal" minds (please define) cannot digest the same information? Are all liberals think-alikes? If conservatism is the oppisite of liberalism does this make conservatism think-alikes too (could they digest what the liberal minds could not, and reject what they could?)

It seems like the only way you can justify having an opposing view-point to these professors is to claim conspiracy. What you have said on the subject of professors, and the reasoning as to why they have opposing view points seems to be an inverse Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Quote

Read it again. The crash in 1937 that lead to a double-dip was immediately preceeded by tax raises.

Coorelation does not necessarily equal causation. Yet you insist on acting as if it does. Why? Please back up your point with something that would actually be an argument in your favour, this is not.

Let me give you some examples:

Spoiler: Declining Union membership is causing the economic problems (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Union_membership_in_us_1930-2010.png)

This one in particular would seem to support doing something to reduce inequality (for example taxing the rich):

Spoiler: Occupy's favourite graph (click to show/hide)

Can't embed svg's apparently. Here it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_%281913-2008%29.svg)

Quote

To argue that the 1981 tax cuts were responsible for recession afterward, you'd have to find a different reason why there was a recession immediately before in 1980, too. Probably a combination of bad factors, like gas prices...

And this! You are now suddenly understanding that coorelation does not imply causation, only for an opposing argument, not for your own though. Dare I say this is a good show of bias, particularly Confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)?



As for WWII, most other countries had their industly leveled (considering the big producer was Britian). So America did not have much problem selling machinery considering they were basically the only ones that could produce it in any meaningful quantity. It was pretty much an American monopoly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 08, 2012, 08:26:10 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 08, 2012, 04:56:58 pm

FDR's New Deal plan was so bad it caused the economy to crash years before it was even thought up.  You see the same thing with some gun legislation

I suppose Hoover's free market, low spending policy was the cause then. After all, we all know Hoover promptly cut taxes, cut spending, and waited for the recession to end (as was the case in several significantly shortly recessions previously).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://images.mises.org/4350/Figure1.png)

Oh wait, Hoover engaged in the biggest stimulus spending of any United States President ever, created many of the programs that FDR used to fuel the New Deal, and had jack all to show for it.

Quote from: Helgoland on November 08, 2012, 05:04:30 pm

Waitwaitwait - the New Deal and other Keynesian policies actually helped the economy - the downturn came after deficit spending was reduced because it was thought that the economy woud recover on its own!

The New Deal did a hell of a job if you consider unemployment above 15% to be a successful recovery, not to mention that despite the "successful New Deal", the US was still mired in depression when basically the rest of the world had recovered.

The 1937 "mini-depression" was hardly related to deficit spending reductions, not in the least because government outlays actually increased compared to previous years, the deficit just shrank due to an increase of revenues from taxes. It had more to do with labour relations changes brought on by the Wagner Act, the NLRA, etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 08, 2012, 08:40:11 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 08, 2012, 08:26:10 pm

Oh wait, Hoover engaged in the biggest stimulus spending of any United States President ever, created many of the programs that FDR used to fuel the New Deal, and had jack all to show for it.

Ok, I'll amend my previous statement.

Hoover's stimulus plan was so bad it caused the economy to crash a year before he started doing it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 08, 2012, 09:04:33 pm

Quote from: Wikipedia

The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan. The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929–31. Japan's Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo was the first to implement what have come to be identified as Keynesian economic policies: first, by large fiscal stimulus involving deficit spending; and second, by devaluing the currency. Takahashi used the Bank of Japan to sterilize the deficit spending and minimize resulting inflationary pressures. Econometric studies have identified the fiscal stimulus as especially effective.[67]
 
The devaluation of the currency had an immediate effect. Japanese textiles began to displace British textiles in export markets. The deficit spending proved to be most profound. The deficit spending went into the purchase of munitions for the armed forces. By 1933, Japan was already out of the depression. By 1934, Takahashi realized that the economy was in danger of overheating, and to avoid inflation, moved to reduce the deficit spending that went towards armaments and munitions.

Sounds effective to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 08, 2012, 09:07:07 pm

Wasn't their annexing of Chinese land also partially responsible?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Shadowlord on November 08, 2012, 09:08:22 pm

Here, just go look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

There are all kinds of theories!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 08, 2012, 09:08:58 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 08, 2012, 09:07:07 pm

Wasn't their annexing of Chinese land also partially responsible?

Comes later. Teh Civilian Leader responsible was assasinated in 1934. Plenty of time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 08, 2012, 09:12:13 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 08, 2012, 09:08:58 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 08, 2012, 09:07:07 pm

Wasn't their annexing of Chinese land also partially responsible?

Comes later. Teh Civilian Leader responsible was assasinated in 1934. Plenty of time.

And the Japanese didn't pacify Manchuria until 1941 or something like that. So it definitively helped with Japan's recovery but wasn't primarily responsible for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 09:19:46 pm

Rush Limbaugh: Slutty single women tipped the balance towards Obama (http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11/07/limbaugh-obama-treats-women-like-vaginas-and-th/191219)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Korbac on November 08, 2012, 09:22:18 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 08, 2012, 09:19:46 pm

Rush Limbaugh: Slutty single women tipped the balance towards Obama (http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11/07/limbaugh-obama-treats-women-like-vaginas-and-th/191219)

I'm not even going to watch that, but ROFLMAO XD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 08, 2012, 09:24:18 pm

I really do love Rush. Not because of his opinions of course, since we disagree on almost anything, but I love listening to him in a "morbid fascination with the utterly insane" way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 08, 2012, 09:30:00 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 08, 2012, 09:24:18 pm

I really do love Rush. Not because of his opinions of course, since we disagree on almost anything, but I love listening to him in a "morbid fascination with the utterly insane" way.

Same.

I sorta thought it might be similar to Stephen Colbert's "Good job america, you choose the cool black guy over the nice rich guy I picked out for you. You slut.".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: majikero on November 08, 2012, 10:27:14 pm

I can't load the video. Can someone explain?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 08, 2012, 10:44:59 pm

Quote from: majikero on November 08, 2012, 10:27:14 pm

I can't load the video. Can someone explain?

Rush:
-Blame the hispanics
-Sexism
-Blame the unmarried women (who obviously all want Obama's dick and don't want Romney to take away birth control)
-Blame the kids
-Blame the hispanics again

So just about what you'd expect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 08, 2012, 11:13:52 pm

I really, really need to meet that man.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: ed boy on November 09, 2012, 12:38:56 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 08, 2012, 03:22:51 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 02:40:48 pm

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

^ This.

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 09, 2012, 01:26:42 am

Quote from: ed boy on November 09, 2012, 12:38:56 am

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

I never thought of it like that, but that makes alot of sense. Get someone to agree with your points by saying something else they couldn't disagree on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 09, 2012, 07:41:47 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 08, 2012, 09:04:33 pm

Quote from: Wikipedia

The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan. The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929–31. Japan's Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo was the first to implement what have come to be identified as Keynesian economic policies: first, by large fiscal stimulus involving deficit spending; and second, by devaluing the currency. Takahashi used the Bank of Japan to sterilize the deficit spending and minimize resulting inflationary pressures. Econometric studies have identified the fiscal stimulus as especially effective.[67]
 
The devaluation of the currency had an immediate effect. Japanese textiles began to displace British textiles in export markets. The deficit spending proved to be most profound. The deficit spending went into the purchase of munitions for the armed forces. By 1933, Japan was already out of the depression. By 1934, Takahashi realized that the economy was in danger of overheating, and to avoid inflation, moved to reduce the deficit spending that went towards armaments and munitions.

Sounds effective to me.

They also tried those methods in 1920, which resulted in a prolonged period of economic downturn that lasted until around 1927, whereas the American equivalent only lasted two years and was followed by a strong economic boom.

Furthermore, Japan was able to sustain such growth largely through imperialistic ventures as opposed to sustainable economic development. The Soviets experienced fairly massive economic growth (if you could call it that) immediately after WW2 as well, but it less to do with enlightened policy and more to do with new client states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: olemars on November 09, 2012, 07:57:08 am

http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3822861 (http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3822861)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tryrar on November 09, 2012, 08:06:25 am

Thanks, I needed a good laugh in the morning.   :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 09, 2012, 08:08:33 am

Which imperialistic ventures are you talking about? I thought that we had already established that the Japanese had invaded Manchuria after their economy had already recovered/began to recover. And besides some pre-invasion economic concessions in Manchuria, I can't find any other imperialistic ventures at the appropriate time.

Quote from: olemars on November 09, 2012, 07:57:08 am

http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3822861 (http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3822861)

Silly Americans, wanting to get into Manitoba.

...

I would make a joke deriding Manitoba here, but I quite honestly can't think of one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lysabild on November 09, 2012, 08:36:44 am

Quote from: ed boy on November 09, 2012, 12:38:56 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 08, 2012, 03:22:51 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 08, 2012, 02:40:48 pm

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

^ This.

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

I'm not sure I agree, since some people do not agree that anyone wealthy does need to pay a 'fair share' back to his society.


Anyway, since a lot of smart people in here, could somebody tell my why rich people are scared of paying more in tax, so that the middle class can grow, so that more people can buy their products, rather than them just getting more money, and the poor being unable to buy anything? Maybe it's just me, but this economic crash seems to come from exactly that. People can't spend any money, because the rich have gotten them all in tax cuts for them.

But I'm probably just an evil communist worshipping the devil with my gay ass in my communist country cursing at Jesus because we're jealous of America's eternal glory.

Or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: majikero on November 09, 2012, 09:30:00 am

Isn't there a different tax rate for what goes into your personal bank and what goes to your business's bank?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 09, 2012, 09:58:10 am

Quote from: ed boy on November 09, 2012, 12:38:56 am

That's a bit of a peeve of mine. Saying that everybody should pay their fair share is tautological. The defition of 'paying a fair share' is (or is close enough to) 'what people should be be paying'. Nobody's going to come out and say 'I think that people should not pay a fair share'. The actualy debate is what a fair share is, and having people clutter up discussion with tautologies like that just gets in the way. Saying that people should pay their fair share without defining what it is just a way of trying to get people to agree with you without saying or contributing anything.

This is true in most cases, but not when talking to the Ron Paul "0% tax rate for all" crowd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 10:15:44 am

Quote from: Lysabild on November 09, 2012, 08:36:44 am

Anyway, since a lot of smart people in here, could somebody tell my why rich people are scared of paying more in tax, so that the middle class can grow, so that more people can buy their products, rather than them just getting more money, and the poor being unable to buy anything?

There are a couple of reasons:

A. Blind Greed: The rich, rather ironically, often do not understand how the principle of spending money to make money applies to taxes. They react badly to any attempt to drain their money through taxes because they see themselves as not in control of the investment. This is despite the fact that many investments are not controlled by the investors, such as everyone who plays the stock market.

B. Ideology: Rich people are still people and thus vulnerable to fallacious beliefs. It is entirely possible for the rich to also believe that capitalism is a meritocracy and that they deserve to have 100% of their money because the poor are lazy.

C. Inertia: All people are resistant to change in general, and the rich have the most resources to keep things how they are of everybody.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 10:19:59 am

On "fair".

Fair is: people who do not earn enough to meet their basic needs should not be taxed, because they are already not meeting their basic needs. Income beyond that may be taxed. On average, the more you earn beyond that point, the more you owe your success to the existing public infrastructure and the higher percentage of that income you should pay. There should never be a point where earning more means paying less. And this is also important, there should never be a point where earning more means receiving less.

Quote from: majikero on November 09, 2012, 09:30:00 am

Isn't there a different tax rate for what goes into your personal bank and what goes to your business's bank?

Corporations have different tax rates than people, but its more complicated than which bank account the money goes into.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Cthulhu on November 09, 2012, 10:22:56 am

I can't remember where I got this, so unfortunately there's no source here, but I remember reading a report that a pretty good number of one-percenters aren't actually against raising taxes on the wealthy.  It feels like a lot of the "Don't tax the rich" sentiment is coming from the people who would benefit the most from taxes on the wealthy, who've somehow been duped into protesting their own interests.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Willfor on November 09, 2012, 10:23:16 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 09, 2012, 08:08:33 am

Silly Americans, wanting to get into Manitoba.

...

I would make a joke deriding Manitoba here, but I quite honestly can't think of one.

There is nothing there to deride besides stupidly long and cold winters. Think of North Dakota jokes, and then shift those to a site even further north. Anyone moving to Manitoba right now is in for a very long season...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 09, 2012, 10:33:11 am

Quote from: Cthulhu on November 09, 2012, 10:22:56 am

I can't remember where I got this, so unfortunately there's no source here, but I remember reading a report that a pretty good number of one-percenters aren't actually against raising taxes on the wealthy.  It feels like a lot of the "Don't tax the rich" sentiment is coming from the people who would benefit the most from taxes on the wealthy, who've somehow been duped into protesting their own interests.

Warren Buffet has been very vocal about this point, but he takes a lot of shit from other rich people for it, or so he says.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 11:11:45 am

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/upside-down-flag-west-virginia-mcdonald-raises-questions-154746450.html

McDonalds in west virginia flies their flag at half mast and upside down the day after the election... and blames it on faulty equipment.


http://news.yahoo.com/darwin-gets-4-000-write-votes-against-ga-232412954--election.html

Charles Darwin, the long dead biologist, won over 4000 write in votes in the the uncontested election of Paul Broun, who is notable for calling science "lies straight from the pit of hell" and for being on the House of Representatives Science Committee.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Euld on November 09, 2012, 12:29:03 pm

Wow, should NOT have read the comments on the Darwin thing.  Apparently some people are willing to believe evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell, but are quite ok with saying black people are monkeys.

._.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 01:18:39 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/murray-energy-obama-layoffs-cut-jobs_n_2100172.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2153734,b=facebook

Someone drank a little too much of the kool-aid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 09, 2012, 01:26:31 pm

Quote from: Euld on November 09, 2012, 12:29:03 pm

Wow, should NOT have read the comments on the Darwin thing.  Apparently some people are willing to believe evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell, but are quite ok with saying black people are monkeys.

._.

That says quite a lot about the sort of people that hold that point of thought really doesn't it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 09, 2012, 01:33:12 pm

Quote from: Euld on November 09, 2012, 12:29:03 pm

Wow, should NOT have read the comments on the Darwin thing.

Are you sure?

Quote from: Mark

if EVILUTION WAS CORRECT WHY HAVEN´T CHIMPS,GORRILAS ,MONKIES
"EVOVLVED"

Quote from: AcedemicBusboy

But Mark! They *have* evolved! They're on the Internet, stabbing at the keyboard with the "Caps Lock" on.....

EDIT: Okay, you are right. These people are idiots.

Quote

lets not start with monkeys - tell me how the first dinosaur evolved with it's many variations. and why didn't they keep evolvin again after they were wiped out. could it be that some being was providing for our oil needs centuries later?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 09, 2012, 01:35:34 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 01:18:39 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/murray-energy-obama-layoffs-cut-jobs_n_2100172.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2153734,b=facebook

Someone drank a little too much of the kool-aid.

Quote

Back in August, well before the election, Murray Energy closed Red Bird West coal mine near Brilliant, Ohio due to perceived regulations by the Obama Administration (EPA?) In October of this year the U.S. Department of Labor has reached a settlement with the operators of the Crandall Canyon mine and other Murray Energy Corp. subsidiaries, resolving litigation and violations cited after the mine’s 2007 collapse, which killed eight miners and an MSHA inspector. The accident investigation conducted by MSHA revealed that a grossly deficient mine design led to pillar failures. Consequently, the agency issued 20 enforcement violations to the mine’s operators and assessed penalties totaling $1,639,351 as well as an agreement to pay in total $949,351 in civil penalties for the Crandall Canyon violations. It is the third-largest penalty in the history of U.S. coal-mining disasters.
This is why Murray is laying off employees. It has NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING....to do with Obama.

Good summary, random internet commentator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 09, 2012, 02:11:05 pm

Quote from: Mark

if EVILUTION WAS CORRECT WHY HAVEN´T CHIMPS,GORRILAS ,MONKIES
"EVOVLVED"

I blame Pokémon's version of evolution

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 09, 2012, 02:12:05 pm

But Gorillas are clearly chimps that have evolved. I mean, just look at them! At least several levels hire, same types, similar moveset...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 09, 2012, 02:14:47 pm

Aipom -> Ambipom

Checkmate, creationists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 09, 2012, 02:24:13 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 09, 2012, 01:33:12 pm

Quote

lets not start with monkeys - tell me how the first dinosaur evolved with it's many variations. and why didn't they keep evolvin again after they were wiped out. could it be that some being was providing for our oil needs centuries later?

"my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 09, 2012, 03:23:57 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 09, 2012, 08:08:33 am

Which imperialistic ventures are you talking about? I thought that we had already established that the Japanese had invaded Manchuria after their economy had already recovered/began to recover. And besides some pre-invasion economic concessions in Manchuria, I can't find any other imperialistic ventures at the appropriate time.
...

The imperialistic ventures in Manchuria immediately following the "recovery", which allowed Japan to actually keep it going. Oh, and allow me to complete the quote that you didn't finish:

Quote

This resulted in a strong and swift negative reaction from nationalists, especially those in the army, culminating in his assassination in the course of the February 26 Incident. This had a chilling effect on all civilian bureaucrats in the Japanese government. From 1934, the military's dominance of the government continued to grow. Instead of reducing deficit spending, the government introduced price controls and rationing schemes that reduced, but did not eliminate inflation, which would remain a problem until the end of World War II.

So yeah, the short term recovery was followed by long term inflation.

Also, you conveniently ignored the fact that the Japanese Depression effectively began in 1920, when the economy experienced a massive downturn and Japanese intervention failed to make a significant impact. To compare, very nearly the same depression occurred in the US at the same time, was fought with massive spending/tax cuts, and was replaced by a period of massive growth in 1922. So even assuming imperialism wasn't necessary to sustain Japanese growth, the net result was seven years of depression (20-27), two years of "recovery" (28-29), three MORE years of depression (29-31), and a recovery from THAT for four years, followed by the institution of what amounted to a wartime economy. The Wiki article doesn't even mention if the "recovery" was to pre-1929 levels, when the economy was basically in a depression already, or pre-1920 levels, when the economy was actually in decent shape.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 03:29:45 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/race-city-council-tied-wife-candidate-doesn-t-161355890.html

A city council vote came down to a tie. And the wife of one of the candidates didn't vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/next-bush-makes-campaign-filing-texas-041025927.html

A new George Bush has decided to enter politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 09, 2012, 04:05:16 pm

CIA Director David Petraeus resigns, cites extramarital affair. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15054517-cia-director-david-petraeus-resigns-cites-extramarital-affair?lite)  :o

Did NOT see that coming.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 04:13:54 pm

Oh, I can't wait to see what Alex Jones says about this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 09, 2012, 04:15:45 pm

That has to be one of the most ridiculous excuses for resignation ever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 04:19:03 pm

Petraeus 2016, perhaps?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 09, 2012, 04:20:06 pm

GreatJustice I'm sure that nobody wants to hear us prattle on about economics, but if you want to take this into another thread I guess that I'll follow you. However you're not going to get a better answer for 1920-1928 besides "A huge-ass bubble burst and nothing could stop it from bursting."

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 09, 2012, 04:15:45 pm

That has to be one of the most ridiculous excuses for resignation ever.

Well, he is the director of the CIA. Who knows what juicy secrets he could give up on the pillow?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 09, 2012, 04:22:51 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 04:13:54 pm

Oh, I can't wait to see what Alex Jones says about this.

Fearmongering!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 09, 2012, 04:23:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 04:19:03 pm

Petraeus 2016, perhaps?

Possibly... although there was also speculation about him running in 2012, and furthermore I think this kind of incident would damage his chances for any future political involvement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 09, 2012, 04:23:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 04:19:03 pm

Petraeus 2016, perhaps?

Possibly... although there was also speculation about him running in 2012, and furthermore I think this kind of incident would damage his chances for any future political involvement.

After Newt Gingrich?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 09, 2012, 04:28:44 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 09, 2012, 04:15:45 pm

That has to be one of the most ridiculous excuses for resignation ever.

Not really. Having an affair (and being found out) can pretty much destroy your intelligence clearance, because of the potential for blackmail. You don't get much higher clearance than the director of the CIA. Plus, from what I know of him (secondhand from a few friends/colleagues that have met the man), Petraeus is a good guy. If anything, he was probably holding this until after the election to keep it from becoming a problem for the administration before the election.

As much as I'd kind of hope for a Petraeus run in 2016, I don't see it. Everything I've ever read about the man says he has no aspirations to political office.

It's a damn shame. I thought he was our brightest general in the field in Iraq, and then in Afghanistan, and I liked him a hell of a lot better as CIA Director than I did Leon Panetta. I was hoping maybe Petraeus would become SecDef second term, but I guess not.  :(


EDIT: Gaaaah, and already hundreds of dumbasses all over the Internet are screaming "It's all about Benghazi!". As if the Director of the fucking CIA is going to make up having an affair in his resignation, to "cover-up" a relatively minor event. If this was a forced resignation (or even a voluntary one over some internal political conflict), it'd have been the standard "spend more time with the wife and kids".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 09, 2012, 05:53:54 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 09, 2012, 04:20:06 pm

Well, he is the director of the CIA. Who knows what juicy secrets he could give up on the pillow?

*Unf* We *unf* killed *whispers gently*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Tupac

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 09, 2012, 06:07:33 pm

The best part is that the CIA having killed Tupac would be way more of a controversy than if the Benghazi conspiracy theory was true.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 09, 2012, 06:16:13 pm

I support Petraeus for everything. That is one awesome name.

Unfortunately, it's also a villain's name. So I also asupport him for everything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 09, 2012, 06:28:02 pm

Hey, just look what else the general public doesn't care about - planning for the war in Iraq having begun in 2000 (!), all that jazz in southern America, politicians calling science "lies straight from the pits of hell" (only in Texas :D ) , ...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 09, 2012, 07:09:08 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 09, 2012, 06:16:13 pm

I support Petraeus for everything. That is one awesome name.

Unfortunately, it's also a villain's name. So I also asupport him for everything.

No, no, you're thinking of General Betrayus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 09, 2012, 07:09:26 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 11:11:45 am

http://news.yahoo.com/darwin-gets-4-000-write-votes-against-ga-232412954--election.html

Charles Darwin, the long dead biologist, won over 4000 write in votes in the the uncontested election of Paul Broun, who is notable for calling science "lies straight from the pit of hell" and for being on the House of Representatives Science Committee.

That thing is an idiot, plain and simple. How on earth does something like that get a position on the Science Committee?

Quote from: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 03:29:45 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/next-bush-makes-campaign-filing-texas-041025927.html

A new George Bush has decided to enter politics.

George Bush V3? Where are they all comming from?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 09, 2012, 07:25:03 pm

So, Future King George III?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 09, 2012, 07:30:44 pm

Nah, I'm pretty sure most folks on the ground here in the US don't really think there's enough Middle East left to invade to fill up another Bush administration. Mind you, plenty of them probably aren't really strong on exactly what or where the Middle East is to begin with, but that's neither here nor there. Another GB would be spurious at this point, insofar as they're concerned, y'know?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 09, 2012, 07:35:18 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 09, 2012, 07:30:44 pm

Nah, I'm pretty sure most folks on the ground here in the US don't really think there's enough Middle East left to invade to fill up another Bush administration. Mind you, plenty of them probably aren't really strong on exactly what or where the Middle East is to begin with, but that's neither here nor there. Another GB would be spurious at this point, insofar as they're concerned, y'know?

Just wait for the next Korean war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 09, 2012, 07:40:00 pm

[channeling]What's Korea got to do with th'middle east? S'too wet over there to be something a Bush would be helpful for invading.[/channeling]

Though I'm not sure if any the presidents still alive or their progeny would give a +1 bonus to East Asia Invasions. Or was Bush actually a penalty to Middle East Invasions? Ah, who knows.

Ah, unless you're talking about the evasion thing. Yeah, maybe a Bush would help in avoiding involvement.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 09, 2012, 07:42:44 pm

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 09, 2012, 07:09:26 pm

George Bush V3

Now that would have made a useful Wunderwaffe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 09, 2012, 07:52:59 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 09, 2012, 05:53:54 pm

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 09, 2012, 04:20:06 pm

Well, he is the director of the CIA. Who knows what juicy secrets he could give up on the pillow?

*Unf* We *unf* killed *whispers gently*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Tupac

*unf* and *unf* staged the *whispers gently*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2009 MTV VMAS

*unf* in Nevada

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 09, 2012, 11:46:27 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/dead-candidates-win-elections-florida-alabama-202607386.html

"It is a touchy situation. When you are running against a dead man, you are limited as to what you can say," Sansing told Reuters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Solifuge on November 10, 2012, 12:44:32 am

Spoiler: Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States: (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/xZqJz.jpg)

Lets see the GOP block that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 12:49:05 am

He's quite agile for his age.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 12:50:18 am

He's left handed? I didn't know that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 01:17:48 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 12:50:18 am

He's left handed? I didn't know that.

He is? SATAN!
 
Well, he keeps fit. You can afford to when president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 10, 2012, 01:26:07 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 12:50:18 am

He's left handed? I didn't know that.

Most presidents are. Go figure. (http://www.cracked.com/article_20024_5-creepy-coincidences-you-wont-believe-actually-happened.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 01:33:36 am

I'm not sure about how heredity affects handedness (my father is left-handed, but I'm not), but most presidents are distantly related, so it isn't all that strange. Even without that, handedness is 69.5/29.5/1 for Right/Left/Ambidextrous, so the odds aren't as huge as you'd think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 10, 2012, 09:36:20 am

I'm dyspraxic so I sometimes change. That said, I always eat left handed but write with my right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 10:44:02 am

Well, I forsee a republican civil war coming. I can already see the sides bein drawn.
 
In one corner, "we were not conservative enough, it's mitt Romney's fault we lost" disputing every single piece of knowledge known about the elections
 
In this Corner: "The republican party alienated centerists. Our turnout wasn't the problem, that was great. Our problem was extremists beliefs alienating Hispanics, Women, the young, and the atheist."
 
Who will win?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 10, 2012, 10:55:49 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 10:44:02 am

Well, I forsee a republican civil war coming. I can already see the sides bein drawn.
 
In one corner, "we were not conservative enough, it's mitt Romney's fault we lost" disputing every single piece of knowledge known about the elections
 
In this Corner: "The republican party alienated centerists. Our turnout wasn't the problem, that was great. Our problem was extremists beliefs alienating Hispanics, Women, the young, and the atheist."
 
Who will win?

The third party that rises from the ashes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 11:06:05 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 10, 2012, 10:55:49 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 10:44:02 am

Well, I forsee a republican civil war coming. I can already see the sides bein drawn.
 
In one corner, "we were not conservative enough, it's mitt Romney's fault we lost" disputing every single piece of knowledge known about the elections
 
In this Corner: "The republican party alienated centerists. Our turnout wasn't the problem, that was great. Our problem was extremists beliefs alienating Hispanics, Women, the young, and the atheist."
 
Who will win?

The third party that rises from the ashes.

I wish.

My guess is that probably by 2016 and definitely by 2020, the Republican party will be more extreme on some issues (Fiscal policy, economic views, etc) but have switched views on others (foreign policy, the drug war, immigration, etc). Demographically speaking, they can't exist the way they do presently and have any realistic chance of winning elections.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 11:17:32 am

Honestly, I think the GOP might be dying because of their current attitude, and the party leadership is too extreme to let it go or realize it. They seriously thought that Romney lost by not being conservative enough. Barry Goldwater seems to have had a prophetic view on this:

Quote from: Barry Goldwater

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Goldwater was also the kind of Republican who could have given Obama a run for his money, but these days he'd be derided as a radical socialist or whatever for not hating homosexuals or trying to bring Jesus into politics. That lack of party flexibility, more than perhaps anything else, is why the GOP is dying. Hell, we've gotten to the point where they're so conservative that they look back at Bush and call him a liberal agitator pretending to be a Republican. It is a total rejection of reality.


I foresee the Libertarians making major gains once everyone who is not delusional and insane in the GOP realizes that the party line isn't going to change. I can't speak to how economic issues will go, but what we are witnessing now is the effective end of social conservatism. Too many people find it too repulsive, and dare I say even...un-American! *gasp*

If anything is going to make the GOP realize that they are driving full speed ahead into an incinerator, it will be Texas. The way the politics are going, Texas could become a battleground state before the next presidential election. A blue Texas might be the only thing shocking enough to knock the GOP leadership out of their fantasy. It also pretty much ensures that they won't win anything, what with Texas being the electoral backbone of the GOP much like California is to the Democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 11:24:49 am

GOP party split/fracture/destruction in the near future? Would be neat.

I'd hope the right gets taken up by the libertarians. Not that I like libertarianism, but at least they're logically consistent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 10, 2012, 11:33:05 am

I don't think we're gonna see a bunch of Texan seats picked up by the Democrats in 2014, because the state's gerrymandered to heck. Though maybe not- the current delegation is 12 Democrats, 24 Republicans.

2016, though...See, the thing is, the Republicans have been very, very lucky. The combination of a recession, looking like you have all the answers even when you are talking out of your ass, and a not insignificant amount of bloody-minded racism, fundamentalism and vitriol in the base has bought them some time. Had there been no recession, and had the Democrats nominated a white guy in '08, they would be further into the hole they've currently dug themselves into. As it is, they're currently profiting from a combination of factors that are making the Democrats look terrible- it's just that the Republicans look terrible by comparison. If Texas becomes a swing state in 2016- and that won't happen without a number of other states becoming swing states, too- Arizona, probably, and maybe Georgia or Tennessee (though I wouldn't put my hopes on Georgia too highly. Despite Atlanta, it was one of just seven or eight states where had the election been decided just by 18-29 year-olds in '08, McCain would have won, which I found surprising. (For the record, those states didn't include Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas)). It may take a while for the other current Republican strongholds to go, but when that happens it'll start to happen all at once. If the Republicans don't clean up their act now, they'll be facing landslide after landslide for the Democrats in the White House, at least. I could see them winning 2016 if they picked Huntsman or maybe Christie and unemployment was still high. But I think the unemployment picture is going to improve- slowly, to be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were around 5% in 2016- and winning the House has afforded them the opportunity not to pay attention to the demographics. Gerrymandering can buy you a lot of time, and even if they lose the House in 2014 without getting the Senate, two years is just not enough time for the party bigwigs to decide "You know, let's take a few baby steps to remaining relevant and cut down on the rhetoric on, say, birth control and immigration this election..." What the Republicans got this year and last year, plus their majority in the nation's state legislatures (allowing them to gerrymander as they please), has masked what's really going on. And that's too bad- by the time they wake up and smell the Kool-Aid, it may be too late.

I'd really like to see the Republicans go back to being the party of the Rotary Club sorts of people who built it-in other words, actually promoting small business over corporations, not being overly interventionist in international affairs, and just generally being rational conservatives who simply want to make sure that any change that happens is change that's truly needed and that the country can handle- and who don't think that extends to people's private lives. Do you know how thrilled I'd be in 2016 to be able to vote for a resurrected version of Eisenhower or Rockefeller? Hell, even Gerald Ford would have a shot at my vote. But it's not gonna happen. 2020 may not be quite enough time, either.

In 2022 and 2024, however, I suspect that discontentment with the Republicans will grow enough that a majority of the nation's state legislatures are filled with Democrats, and when the census calls for redistricting, that will make its presence felt. In other words, the Republicans are screwed. But it'll take at least eight years for that to be obvious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:46:13 am

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 10, 2012, 11:51:48 am

Gallup polls on ideology show that the Republicans are far more of a monoculture (71% identify as conservatives to 24% moderates) than the Democrats (about 40% liberal, 40% moderates).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

I'm assuming this plays along with their "conservative-only" rhetoric, since they don't have to encompass as broad a set of views as the Democrats. It kind of explains why they're comfortable in their own bubble speaking to each other, but can't see how this doesn't always communicate to  the broader society.

This, at least, shows an asymmetry. Republicans have become a conservative monoculture, whereas Democrats are a liberal/moderate alliance.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:46:13 am

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

The Australian Sex Party has policies I can get behind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 10, 2012, 11:55:37 am

Interestingly, there is actually one policy where the Republicans have a policy that I'd be able to get behind if it were done well- charter schools in opposition to public schools. As liberal as I am, I recognize what a mess the teachers' union system has become, and if the government can't get its act together in regular public schools because of the unions, why not let someone else have a go?

Problem is, you then have to fund these babies and regulate them so they're not spouting young-earth creationism. And that's something I don't trust the Republicans to do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:46:13 am

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Please, some one explain to me, what is so appealing about chaos and anarchy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 10, 2012, 11:59:52 am

I think you just answered your own question.

Actually no, I don't trust humanity with absolute anarchy, even less so than I trust people to rule them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 10, 2012, 12:00:07 pm

The ASP actually has a pretty decent policy platform, imo.

As for charter schools, I'unno. They seem to be fucking up pretty hard down here in Florida, in a lot of cases. Mind you, so's the public system, but at least they're a bit more accessible and (somewhat) less profit minded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 10, 2012, 12:01:10 pm

The teacher's union isn't the cause of the problems in public schools. The biggest problems are parental indulgence (many schools make such an effort to include the parents that the school is run as much by the parents as it is by the school officials), zero tolerance policies that take too many decisions away from teachers and school staff, and the obsession with standardized testing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 10, 2012, 12:01:28 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 10, 2012, 12:00:07 pm

The ASP actually has a pretty decent policy platform, imo.

As for charter schools, I'unno. They seem to be fucking up pretty hard down here in Florida, in a lot of cases. Mind you, so's the public system, but at least they're a bit more accessible and (somewhat) less profit minded.

What are the problems with them, exactly?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 10, 2012, 12:03:11 pm

The "unskewed polls" phenomenon was interesting because it arose from Republicans refusing to believe that their party was shrinking in size.  The actual electorate did contain only 32% Republicans.  This is partly because the Old White Guys demographic is shrinking, and the demographics the Republicans have alienated are growing.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-qstarnews-poll-turns-out-to-have-been-skewed

This is a response from the guy who did it.  Not a complete confession of error but at least he seems to have realised that Nate Silver was right and he wasn't.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:46:13 am

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

This stopped clock displays times I can get behind

That said what I think the Republicans need is a relatively young candidate who's prepared to genuinely apologize to alienated constituencies (eg Hispanics, women, black people) and move them in a less bigoted direction.  The Tea Party and the like seems set on moving them in the exact opposite direction though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 10, 2012, 12:04:04 pm

"if the government can't get its act together in regular public schools because of the unions"

Sounds like complete buck-passing. The government dictates what is taught, how it is taught and how much funding you get. Unions don't write curriculum or set classroom rules. I might be missing something but blaming teacher's unions for the state of education is almost always right-wing propaganda. Teachers are 100% unionized in Australia and New Zealand and we kick your asses in literacy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

If kids in public schools are crackheads, getting rid of teachers unions ain't gonna fix a thing. It's a societal problem and teachers can only do so much about that, but get 100% blame for the kid's behavior, and they're banned from handing out discipline. The rules against disciplining children were handed down by government, not unions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 10, 2012, 12:04:56 pm

Or determine how much funding is passed down to the schools from the top.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 10, 2012, 12:06:33 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 10, 2012, 12:01:28 pm

What are the problems with them, exactly?

Shifty as hell tuition and funding shit, not notably improved performance (without functionally doing an educational equivalent of cooking the books, anyway), number of nasty employment decisions and overall corruption, pretty messed up environmental conditions re: student treatment... they're not universal problems with 'em, but it seems pretty bloody common. I'd have to spend some time hunting down articles and crap again to give examples, but suffice it to say I'm a bit leery of the things at the moment. Especially in regards to some of the larger areas down south I've been reading pretty bad things about them over the last couple years.

And again, mind, I'm not saying the public system is puppies crapping rainbows or whatever, but its problems are ones that don't trouble me quite as much. Maybe there's better implementation in other states, I'unno.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 10, 2012, 12:26:41 pm

I suspect once the economy improves education will once again become a political issue.

It is true, however, that the public school system seems to be decentralized in all the wrong places. I'd favor replacing the standardized testings system with a national curriculum, possibly with some local flavor (when I lived in rural Virginia, an Agriculture elective made sense; it doesn't in urban Boston), a graduation exam, and getting rid of dropouts.

We also need to institute tracking. I'll post something in fuller detail later today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 12:38:12 pm

American public schools have a rather big problem largely stemming from unnecessary centralization. Also, the more money they get, generally speaking, the worse of a job they do.

Besides that, it wouldn't be really fair to say just the Republicans are in demographic trouble. True, they have far fewer bases of support than the Democrats and are going to shrink if they continue the way they do, but the Democratic "coalition" is incredibly tenuous and largely dependent on the Republican party views remaining constant. Midwestern union workers, Hispanics/other minorities, women, the youth, and intellectuals really are only all on the same side because the Republicans in power right now have an uncanny tendency to alienate everyone except those with their very narrow subset of views. Obama, at least to some extent, tried to appease all of the wings of his party by not going too far in one direction (for example, pushing gun control or environmentalism as issues), and held the coalition together for the election. Romney, meanwhile, basically took the wholesale "Mainstream Republican" views on every topic and didn't even try to please the different wings or consider what was worth saying and what wasn't. He also had the Paul supporters unceremoniously chucked out of the convention and managed to alienate one of the few "independent" groups that might have ended up supporting him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on November 10, 2012, 12:39:11 pm

@dhokarena:
I loved your avatar, but I suppose Toady made you take it down.
Not that I'm comparing Obama and Hitler, there are countless differences. For example, Hitler was a lot more popular.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 12:38:12 pm

American public schools have a rather big problem largely stemming from unnecessary centralization. Also, the more money they get, generally speaking, the worse of a job they do.

That is it exactly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 01:00:14 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 12:38:12 pm

Besides that, it wouldn't be really fair to say just the Republicans are in demographic trouble. True, they have far fewer bases of support than the Democrats and are going to shrink if they continue the way they do, but the Democratic "coalition" is incredibly tenuous and largely dependent on the Republican party views remaining constant. Midwestern union workers, Hispanics/other minorities, women, the youth, and intellectuals really are only all on the same side because the Republicans in power right now have an uncanny tendency to alienate everyone except those with their very narrow subset of views. Obama, at least to some extent, tried to appease all of the wings of his party by not going too far in one direction (for example, pushing gun control or environmentalism as issues), and held the coalition together for the election. Romney, meanwhile, basically took the wholesale "Mainstream Republican" views on every topic and didn't even try to please the different wings or consider what was worth saying and what wasn't. He also had the Paul supporters unceremoniously chucked out of the convention and managed to alienate one of the few "independent" groups that might have ended up supporting him.

Yes, but the Republican party views are remaining constant. We're talking about people who call George W. Bush a liberal. The party leadership has already issued their response to Romney's loss: they say he wasn't conservative enough. They aren't even staying in a bad position, they're heading towards a worse one constantly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 10, 2012, 03:02:15 pm

So, did you see where Florida has finally been called for Obama by a .9% margin?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 03:04:20 pm

No one is ever going to trust Florida again, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 03:07:13 pm

About freaking time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 10, 2012, 03:13:05 pm

Nate Silver, you magnificent bastard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 10, 2012, 03:38:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 03:04:20 pm

No one is ever going to trust Florida again, I think.

It's by more than 100 times the margin of 2k, so I think there's some veracity there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 10, 2012, 04:08:40 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 10, 2012, 12:01:10 pm

The teacher's union isn't the cause of the problems in public schools. The biggest problems are parental indulgence (many schools make such an effort to include the parents that the school is run as much by the parents as it is by the school officials), zero tolerance policies that take too many decisions away from teachers and school staff, and the obsession with standardized testing.

All of these statements are absolutely correct.

Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:46:13 am

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Please, some one explain to me, what is so appealing about chaos and anarchy?

Personally, I like the the Libertarian party because it is in favor of greater legalization and societal acceptance of drugs, pornography, and sexual deviancy. (Although I have been led to understand {and bear in mind that I'm not sure that this is true} that they have sold out and are focusing less on personal rights and more on the spurious and fallacious idea of corporate rights)

As for chaos in general, I have some literature that you could take a look at:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/5.php
http://www.subgenius.com/slaq.htm
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/starbucks_pebbles.html
http://discordia.loveshade.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/hyperdiscordia_map.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zrk2 on November 10, 2012, 04:18:11 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 10, 2012, 11:24:49 am

GOP party split/fracture/destruction in the near future? Would be neat.

I'd hope the right gets taken up by the libertarians. Not that I like libertarianism, but at least they're logically consistent.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:46:13 am

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Aww shucks, you guys. You warm my crazy libertarian heart.

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 10, 2012, 03:13:05 pm

Nate Silver, you magnificent bastard.

I READ YOUR BLOG! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXKVOxqkWM)

But yeah, the Republicans really need to rebrand, or they'll collapse. Personally I hope they collapse. It'd be interesting to watch the political landscape realign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 04:36:19 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 11:57:44 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 11:46:13 am

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Please, some one explain to me, what is so appealing about chaos and anarchy?

I dont support the whole agenda.

What I like? Legalization of sex drugs and rock and roll. Shutting down the TSA and police state. The re-ndorsement of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc ammendments.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 04:44:30 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 10, 2012, 04:36:19 pm

Legalization of sex drugs and rock and roll.

All of those things are already legal*!

*^{To various degrees and conditions relating to your location within the United States of America.**}

**_{^{Though as far as I'm aware Rock and Roll is totally legal everywhere.}}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 04:53:59 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 10, 2012, 04:18:11 pm

But yeah, the Republicans really need to rebrand, or they'll collapse. Personally I hope they collapse. It'd be interesting to watch the political landscape realign.

As much as I dislike both parties, I suspect that the wholesale collapse of one of the parties would be a disaster in the present political landscape. For all their problems, at least they are sufficiently evenly balanced to keep their opposite number from going too far in pushing it's agenda ahead. If either collapsed and the electoral system remained as it stands right now, it would be trivial for the remaining "big party" to ram through whatever it felt like ramming through.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 04:56:06 pm

The Democrats are capable of some stupidity, but nothing like what the Republicans try to do constantly, even when they're out of power. I would accept a Democrat supermajority for an election cycle or two if it meant being rid of our current breed of Republican.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 10, 2012, 05:03:52 pm

Besides which, the Democrats are a coalition. Even if the GOP collapsed, it would be very difficult for the Dems to push any one agenda, as their support base is widely divided on almost all issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 10, 2012, 05:05:34 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 04:44:30 pm

**Though as far as I'm aware Rock and Roll is totally legal everywhere.

Not on broadcast/non-satellite radio. Not the good heavy metal songs at any rate; the ones with the swearing and the disturbing imagery.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 10, 2012, 05:05:57 pm

Besides which, if the republicans collapse, the democrats will probably follow suit as the various factions within start peeling off and looking for better alliances.

ninja-d! I totally wrote this post before Lord Shonus, if that means anything.

damnit, stop that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:06:09 pm

Finally, someone is getting ppunished for the republicans ridiculously high pre-election polls. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83658.html?hp=t1)

I mean, they were predicting Romney would win 325 electoral votes. Think about how wrong that is. It is the exact opposite of reality.
 
 

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 10, 2012, 05:03:52 pm

Besides which, the Democrats are a coalition. Even if the GOP collapsed, it would be very difficult for the Dems to push any one agenda, as their support base is widely divided on almost all issues.

My favorite Political Joke: "Democrats are the party of no ideas, and republicans are the party of bad ideas."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 10, 2012, 05:07:16 pm

You parsed the quote tree wrong!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 10, 2012, 05:09:44 pm

Quote from: Angle on November 10, 2012, 05:05:57 pm

ninja-d! I totally wrote this post before Lord Shonus, if that means anything.
damnit, stop that.

I think that's worth a signature.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:12:43 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 10, 2012, 05:07:16 pm

You parsed the quote tree wrong!

Alright fixed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 05:17:44 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 10, 2012, 05:03:52 pm

Besides which, the Democrats are a coalition. Even if the GOP collapsed, it would be very difficult for the Dems to push any one agenda, as their support base is widely divided on almost all issues.

That would probably be the ideal result, but partisanship is quite high these days, and I can't help but think of examples where the modestly Democratic district votes straight party Democrat even when the candidate is clearly a gigantic crook/sellout/etc.

Actually, that's a huge problem in states overwhelmingly controlled by one party or the other. Take Texas, for instance. It's pretty well owned by the Republicans right now, and voters almost always vote on party lines, not ideology. So what keeps happening there is that the Democratic districts vote in Democrats and then a lot of the safely Republican districts vote in oddly moderate Republicans solely because they're incumbents running as Republicans. The opposite is the case in states like, say, Oregon or even Vermont.

Inversely, sometimes the "swing" states have far more ideologically pure candidates despite nominally being moderate. New Hampshire in particular has a legislature filled with alternating right wing and left wing radicals depending on election season. Incumbents are regularly kicked out, and neither party is capable of completely pushing its own agenda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: OREOSOME on November 10, 2012, 05:21:07 pm

I have to say, it seems that the majority of my schoolmates in our mock election who voted for Mitt Romney, simply on the basis that he was planning on Legalizing Marijuana.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 10, 2012, 05:22:38 pm

It's disappointing how many people would vote somebody on the basis of agreeing on a single issue regardless of their other policies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 10, 2012, 05:22:45 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 10, 2012, 05:06:09 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 10, 2012, 05:03:52 pm

Besides which, the Democrats are a coalition. Even if the GOP collapsed, it would be very difficult for the Dems to push any one agenda, as their support base is widely divided on almost all issues.

My favorite Political Joke: "Democrats are the party of no ideas, and republicans are the party of bad ideas."

This is one of my favorite quotes too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

When I was in Kindergarten I voted for Gore in the mock election based off of the criteria that I thought he had better hair than Bush.

But then, when I was older, I went back and looked at the election, and I was right, he did have better hair than Bush!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 10, 2012, 05:25:29 pm

The reason I added that was because our posts were very similar, even featuring the same language.

as for quotes, I gotta go with "I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 05:32:08 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

When I was in Kindergarten I voted for Gore in the mock election based off of the criteria that I thought he had better hair than Bush.

But then, when I was older, I went back and looked at the election, and I was right, he did have better hair than Bush!

Oh hey, I remember the last mock election.

I was gonna vote NDP because none of the cool little parties were running, but then a girl I knew tried to make me vote Conservative so I flipped a coin and went Conservative. The NDP won anyway and the Liberals got creamed in my "district". Oh, and the provincial Objectivist party did absurdly well for some reason.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 10, 2012, 08:12:32 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on November 10, 2012, 12:39:11 pm

@dhokarena:
I loved your avatar, but I suppose Toady made you take it down.
Not that I'm comparing Obama and Hitler, there are countless differences. For example, Hitler was a lot more popular.

Im pretty sure that dhokarena's avatar was tongue-in-cheak, to parody exactly what you just did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bauglir on November 10, 2012, 10:55:24 pm

It was related to the avatar bet, I do believe, and I also think that is exactly the joke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PyroDesu on November 11, 2012, 12:32:50 am

My High School in Solid-Red Tennessee went for Obama in our mock election.

Then again, only about 50% of the students actually voted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 11, 2012, 12:38:06 am

 Huh... do we actually have any good voter turnout numbers/comparisons yet?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 11, 2012, 12:38:32 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

When I was in Kindergarten I voted for Gore in the mock election based off of the criteria that I thought he had better hair than Bush.

But then, when I was older, I went back and looked at the election, and I was right, he did have better hair than Bush!

I...I was 17 when that election took place. WTF, man? Y U SO YOUNG!?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 11, 2012, 12:42:50 am

Earliest election I really remember was the 2004 one. Prior to that I didn't really pay attention at all and had no opinion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:55:25 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 11, 2012, 12:38:32 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

When I was in Kindergarten I voted for Gore in the mock election based off of the criteria that I thought he had better hair than Bush.

But then, when I was older, I went back and looked at the election, and I was right, he did have better hair than Bush!

I...I was 17 when that election took place. WTF, man? Y U SO YOUNG!?

Both on and offline, everyone thinks I'm so much older than I am. I got mistaken for a college graduate the day I graduated high school when I went to get a haircut.

I guess I can see it offline, what with the premature grey, being six feet tall, having permanent 5 o'clock shadow, the extensive and esoteric vocabulary, the super baritone, and my fucking awesome heavy coat, but I don't know why everyone online thinks I'm older.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zrk2 on November 11, 2012, 01:01:08 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 10, 2012, 05:17:44 pm

Inversely, sometimes the "swing" states have far more ideologically pure candidates despite nominally being moderate. New Hampshire in particular has a legislature filled with alternating right wing and left wing radicals depending on election season. Incumbents are regularly kicked out, and neither party is capable of completely pushing its own agenda.

Have I mentioned New Hampshire is pretty much my favourite state ever?

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:55:25 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 11, 2012, 12:38:32 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

When I was in Kindergarten I voted for Gore in the mock election based off of the criteria that I thought he had better hair than Bush.

But then, when I was older, I went back and looked at the election, and I was right, he did have better hair than Bush!

I...I was 17 when that election took place. WTF, man? Y U SO YOUNG!?

Both on and offline, everyone thinks I'm so much older than I am. I got mistaken for a college graduate the day I graduated high school when I went to get a haircut.

I guess I can see it offline, what with the premature grey, being six feet tall, having permanent 5 o'clock shadow, the extensive and esoteric vocabulary, the super baritone, and my fucking awesome heavy coat, but I don't know why everyone online thinks I'm older.

I get that too. I mentioned I can't buy booze the other day and someone's jaw almost fell off. They thought I was somewhere in my early-mid 20s, not 18. IIRC they said 23.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 11, 2012, 01:03:42 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:55:25 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 11, 2012, 12:38:32 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

When I was in Kindergarten I voted for Gore in the mock election based off of the criteria that I thought he had better hair than Bush.

But then, when I was older, I went back and looked at the election, and I was right, he did have better hair than Bush!

I...I was 17 when that election took place. WTF, man? Y U SO YOUNG!?

Both on and offline, everyone thinks I'm so much older than I am. I got mistaken for a college graduate the day I graduated high school when I went to get a haircut.

I guess I can see it offline, what with the premature grey, being six feet tall, having permanent 5 o'clock shadow, the extensive and esoteric vocabulary, the super baritone, and my fucking awesome heavy coat, but I don't know why everyone online thinks I'm older.

Opposite problem, despite premature grey, perma-5-o-clock shadow, spectacular vernacular (I know that that isn't quite right, but I'm willing to forsake a little bit of meaning for an awesome rhyme,)  nicely deep voice, and obviously expensive eyewear. Thanks a lot, being fucking five feet tall.

The other day, I got asked what High School I attend. I graduated High School 12 years ago. FFFFFFFFFFF...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 01:10:31 am

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 11, 2012, 01:01:08 am

I get that too. I mentioned I can't buy booze the other day and someone's jaw almost fell off. They thought I was somewhere in my early-mid 20s, not 18. IIRC they said 23.

Yeah, I've been accidentally offered alcohol at a sports bar before. What irony that I don't drink and yet have the ability to not set off the carding instincts of other people. I'm pretty sure my roommate would kill for my appearance. I've never seen even five o'clock shadow on him, and while he owns a razor I've never seen him use it. He's 18 going on 16, I'm apparently 18 going on 25.

The effect is even more magnified when its just my audio, I have been told many times over the internet that I sound like a 40 year old smoker. I do inexplicably have a gritty cough for no reason, so I guess I can see why.

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 11, 2012, 01:03:42 am

Opposite problem, despite premature grey, perma-5-o-clock shadow, spectacular vernacular (I know that that isn't quite right, but I'm willing to forsake a little bit of meaning for an awesome rhyme,)  nicely deep voice, and obviously expensive eyewear. Thanks a lot, being fucking five feet tall.

And so the similarities continue to pile up...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 11, 2012, 03:31:13 am

Quote from: MaximumZero on November 11, 2012, 12:38:32 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 10, 2012, 05:23:56 pm

When I was in Kindergarten I voted for Gore in the mock election based off of the criteria that I thought he had better hair than Bush.

But then, when I was older, I went back and looked at the election, and I was right, he did have better hair than Bush!

I...I was 17 when that election took place. WTF, man? Y U SO YOUNG!?

I was also 17, and taking government class in my senior year of high school.  It fucking horrified me.  The teacher asked people who they were going to vote for and why (most of the class was 18+).  I think about 3/4 of the class responded that they would vote for Bush because "He seems like your average guy that you'd meet at a bar and have a drink with."  Back then, this kind of stupidity was surprising to me.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 12:55:25 am

Both on and offline, everyone thinks I'm so much older than I am. I got mistaken for a college graduate the day I graduated high school when I went to get a haircut.

I guess I can see it offline, what with the premature grey, being six feet tall, having permanent 5 o'clock shadow, the extensive and esoteric vocabulary, the super baritone, and my fucking awesome heavy coat, but I don't know why everyone online thinks I'm older.

Speaking properly, even in text, goes a loooong way.  Majority of kids that I encounter these days don't even bother to use complete words, whether speaking or writing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 11, 2012, 05:42:48 am

Quote from: Frumple on November 11, 2012, 12:38:06 am

Huh... do we actually have any good voter turnout numbers/comparisons yet?

The BBC has a decent analysis of Exit polls that arent very suprising. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20240375)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 11, 2012, 05:47:29 am

So apparently Romney's voters are mostly old, rich, white males who practice Mormonism? Seems about right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FritzPL on November 11, 2012, 07:26:50 am

Yeah, I was kinda wondering who voted Romney, since even tho Obama is a shadow of himself from 4 years ago, he was getting most of the votes from Latin Americans and black people, and overally from most of all social groups.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 11, 2012, 11:24:50 am

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 11, 2012, 05:42:48 am

Quote from: Frumple on November 11, 2012, 12:38:06 am

Huh... do we actually have any good voter turnout numbers/comparisons yet?

The BBC has a decent analysis of Exit polls that arent very suprising. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20240375)

It's good, but it doesn't break it down by state.  Here's some exit polls (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls) from the New York Times, but it also only has 18 states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 11, 2012, 03:21:45 pm

One of the funniest things I've heard from exit poll reports is that despite all the conservative rants about Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq and Romney's plans to increase defense spending, only 5% of those polled said they were most concerned about foreign policy... and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 11, 2012, 03:23:14 pm

Nobody was buying that "Benghazi-gate" crap except a small echo-chamber crowd.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226160/Benghazi-Murdered-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-warned-Consulate-withstand-coordinated-attack.html

"Also last week, ex-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, part of a small team at the CIA annex about a mile from the consulate, claimed he twice asked his superiors if he could go and assist the consular staff during the attack but was denied."

Who can spot the error in this Daily Mail quote? Maybe the fact that Tyrone Woods was the guy who died in Benghazi. I really wish this was the first time I came across dead people being cited as having opinions in the "daily fail" -_- but it isn't.

BTW there are also Daily Mail articles listing his father as "Chris Woods" when it's actually "Charlie Woods"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 11, 2012, 03:44:29 pm

But the Daily Mail's on staff psychics interviewed his ghost through an entirely legitimate seance!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 11, 2012, 03:54:48 pm

They turned comments off on the article [After they got enough right wing morons to spew hate all over it] and haven't bothered to even fix the citing-a-dead-guy-as-a-source thing. Fucking pathetic.

I'd being suing their balls off.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 11, 2012, 04:18:25 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 11, 2012, 04:13:29 pm

daily mail...

well, I don't tend to trust most newspapers, since they seem to make up bullshit left, right and centre, have some sort of hate towards a certain group of people, or have some really large left/right bias.

There should be a service that finds articles about the same thing from a [ideological] range of sites, and merges them into one cohesive story. It'd be like mad-libs except appalling and horrifying in the case of, well, anything, since everyone uses hyperbole to make arguements now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 11, 2012, 04:44:02 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 11, 2012, 04:18:25 pm

There should be a service that finds articles about the same thing from a [ideological] range of sites, and merges them into one cohesive story. It'd be like mad-libs except appalling and horrifying in the case of, well, anything, since everyone uses hyperbole to make arguements now.

I see what you did there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 11, 2012, 05:10:22 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 11, 2012, 04:18:25 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 11, 2012, 04:13:29 pm

daily mail...

well, I don't tend to trust most newspapers, since they seem to make up bullshit left, right and centre, have some sort of hate towards a certain group of people, or have some really large left/right bias.

There should be a service that finds articles about the same thing from a [ideological] range of sites, and merges them into one cohesive story. It'd be like mad-libs except appalling and horrifying in the case of, well, anything, since everyone uses hyperbole to make arguements now.

The solution is find 3 sites that lean slightly to the left and right and deduce from there. Being aware of the true nature of things isn't easy, It requires work to be learned.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 11, 2012, 05:43:00 pm

There actually are news aggregators that give you only news that fits your requested bias, and others that use your reading habits to focus your news results to fit what it deduces your bias to be. I don't have any references at the moment but I read articles about them from slashdot, which itself has an arch libertarian/arch liberal technologist/luddite co bias.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 11, 2012, 06:09:55 pm

There's telling the news with a bias and then there's making shit up.  The Daily Mail is definitely in the latter camp.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 11, 2012, 06:35:28 pm

Every right-winger I know seems to be having a fit of insanity over some kind of "UN Tax" Obama is supposedly going to impose.

This, along with all the recent conspiracy theories about the UN invading the US and the Texas government getting pissed off at UN voting observers, leads me to believe that the American Right is increasingly anti-UN, and more so right now than at any point in history.

Of course, they're just getting more right-wing in general, and paranoid nationalism is an important part of that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 11, 2012, 06:46:33 pm

Generally, the right sees the UN as a step toward a World Government that will consume all existing nations (the EU is viewed similarly). Besides the theological connotations of that, the UN is seen as a leftist organization, and thus a huge threat. Little facts such as the UN being a bloated, mostly powerless noise factory don't prevent them from interpreting initiatives to crack down on illegal arms smuggling as attempts to force gun bans on all nations and sieze all privately owned weapons, among other issues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 11, 2012, 06:53:48 pm

Why, why do I still get mad that people are willing to post right-wing conspiracy theories online [surprisingly on all sorts of news articles mainly] as if they are backed-up fact? I feel like me getting pissed off at those types is a bad thing, but I can't help it since I'm so sick of seeing them playing the boy who cried wolf over everything.

And no, not you silly ;p

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 11, 2012, 06:54:45 pm

Are you referring to me?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: EveryZig on November 11, 2012, 07:00:49 pm

America: the land of the imprisoned and the home of the paranoid. (Relative to other developed countries at least.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: vadia on November 11, 2012, 07:17:14 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 11, 2012, 05:10:22 pm

The solution is find 3 sites that lean slightly to the left and right and deduce from there. Being aware of the true nature of things isn't easy, It requires work to be learned.

How do you know where "slightly to the left and right" are.

Perhaps (for example) NPR is actually slightly to the right.  And Mother Jones slightly to the right. 
Fox (via it's tagline) claims to be centrist.

Additionally, as the daily show has indicated many a time; the news media tends to have a herd mentality and they keep stampeding after idiocracy -- such as in the Trayvon Maartin case when the POLICE asked about Travon's race, and the NEWS just reported about how he was said to be black.  It made Zimmerman look like a raving racist (without any proof) and the story kept there for months until NBC confessed to cutting that part of the tape.  [I am not excusing Zimmerman's actions or anything, just saying that when he called Trayvon black, it was a response to the police questions.]
So, whether or not you go left or right has nothing to do with reality.

Finally the right has a strong tendancy to be anti-science *(ot that the Left neccesarily is as pro science as they may think).  But if 99% (or more) of climate experts believe that pollution has a negative effect on the environment including hurricane production, averaging the position on the Right of "NANANA NOT LISTENING" does not make one informed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 11, 2012, 08:27:30 pm

I believe the average rightwing position on the environment is more like "You mean all that is happening because of us? That does sound serio-wait, what's that glittering over there? Money? Oh, I have never seen such a wonderful thing! How can I have more of it?" or thereabouts.

The above statement is not at all shaped by bias or cynicism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 11, 2012, 08:47:14 pm

Quote from: vadia on November 11, 2012, 07:17:14 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 11, 2012, 05:10:22 pm

The solution is find 3 sites that lean slightly to the left and right and deduce from there. Being aware of the true nature of things isn't easy, It requires work to be learned.

How do you know where "slightly to the left and right" are.

Perhaps (for example) NPR is actually slightly to the right.  And Mother Jones slightly to the right. 
Fox (via it's tagline) claims to be centrist.

Additionally, as the daily show has indicated many a time; the news media tends to have a herd mentality and they keep stampeding after idiocracy -- such as in the Trayvon Maartin case when the POLICE asked about Travon's race, and the NEWS just reported about how he was said to be black.  It made Zimmerman look like a raving racist (without any proof) and the story kept there for months until NBC confessed to cutting that part of the tape.  [I am not excusing Zimmerman's actions or anything, just saying that when he called Trayvon black, it was a response to the police questions.]
So, whether or not you go left or right has nothing to do with reality.

Finally the right has a strong tendancy to be anti-science *(ot that the Left neccesarily is as pro science as they may think).  But if 99% (or more) of climate experts believe that pollution has a negative effect on the environment including hurricane production, averaging the position on the Right of "NANANA NOT LISTENING" does not make one informed.

[unbiased] It means sampling alot. The things I read state that the vast majority of scientists believe in Global warming, ergo it is more likely to be true.

I generally never read a single source for news, (although I do commonly read the New york times for foreign policy, which there is little of elsewhere, and the New York times is thought to have a slight liberal Bias so. I also read Politico alot, but that is of course limited solely to politics) One must be constantly on the look out ad seraching in various sources for such things. Example: Most republican and right-leaning works believed republican polling that Romney and Obama were tied, if not Romney being far ahead, While moderate and left-leaning news pointed out mostpublic surveys and democratic models saying Obama had a slight lead, which turned out to be the case. Ergo, in this situation the right was wrong.[/unbiased]

[biased] I must say I am enjoying watching confused repulicans attempt to explain away the ridiculously wrong polling. All of a sudden Mitt dragged down everyone by "collapsing into the last week" when republican pieces of the time extolled his momentum.[/biased]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 09:55:05 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 11, 2012, 08:27:30 pm

I believe the average rightwing position on the environment is more like "You mean all that is happening because of us? That does sound serio-wait, what's that glittering over there? Money? Oh, I have never seen such a wonderful thing! How can I have more of it?" or thereabouts.

The above statement is not at all shaped by bias or cynicism.

Don't forget "We'll be fine, the Bible says humanity is supposed to exploit Earth, don't you know? If anything goes wrong Jesus will save us."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 11, 2012, 10:06:44 pm

Has there ever been a case of someone actually expressing that view? I've never seen one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 11, 2012, 10:10:54 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 11, 2012, 10:06:44 pm

Has there ever been a case of someone actually expressing that view? I've never seen one.

I've seen it a LOT. I've even heard people say that it is best to use up the earth as fast as possible, because when it is all used up, BAM! rapture.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 11, 2012, 10:17:02 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 11, 2012, 10:10:54 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 11, 2012, 10:06:44 pm

Has there ever been a case of someone actually expressing that view? I've never seen one.

I've seen it a LOT. I've even heard people say that it is best to use up the earth as fast as possible, because when it is all used up, BAM! rapture.

Yes, no one seems to think "Wait, what about Greed? Gluttony? Envy?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 11, 2012, 10:46:00 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 11, 2012, 08:27:30 pm

I believe the average rightwing position on the environment is more like "You mean all that is happening because of us? That does sound serio-wait, what's that glittering over there? Money? Oh, I have never seen such a wonderful thing! How can I have more of it?" or thereabouts.

Some of the positions I have seen some people give:

* Climate Change scientists are evil.
* Science is evil.
* God will fix it/Won't let it happen/It can't happen (because God).
* Communists/UN/NWO/Illuminati/Freemasons, or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 11, 2012, 10:47:54 pm

The two semi-rational right wing positions:

1: the economic cost of the measures to stop/prevent global warming isn't worth it.
2: Global warming is good because Canada and Siberia will become habitable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 11, 2012, 10:51:06 pm

Those aren't rational at all.  The economic cost is nothing compared to the collapse we will suffer if action is not taken. Canada and Siberia might become swimming pool country, but their ecosystems will have collapsed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 11, 2012, 10:52:51 pm

That is why I said semi-rational. It isn't an appeal to an article of faith or grandstanding opposition to anything remotely liberal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 12:01:52 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 11, 2012, 10:10:54 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 11, 2012, 10:06:44 pm

Has there ever been a case of someone actually expressing that view? I've never seen one.

I've seen it a LOT. I've even heard people say that it is best to use up the earth as fast as possible, because when it is all used up, BAM! rapture.

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 11, 2012, 10:46:00 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 11, 2012, 08:27:30 pm

I believe the average rightwing position on the environment is more like "You mean all that is happening because of us? That does sound serio-wait, what's that glittering over there? Money? Oh, I have never seen such a wonderful thing! How can I have more of it?" or thereabouts.

Some of the positions I have seen some people give:
...
* Science is evil.
...

[supervillain rant]
It occurs to me that if science is going to be tarred as evil whether it is on not (and on top of that the people who insist that science is "just another belief system") then somebody should just take that and run with it. Someone needs to show them that we can be just as petty as they are.

Several years ago, while listening to a news report about controversy surrounding removing the life support from some person or another it occurred to me that we now have the technology to build our own place of eternal punishment.; Right here; On Earth; a place where we could incarcerate all who believe that they will be rewarded in the next world for their petty and small-minded actions. They won't be conscious to experience the majority of this punishment, but that isn't important, what's important is precluding the reward they believe that they will receive in the next world (whether of not that next world exists {although putting this system in place becomes especially important if the next world does exist; As the right is so fond of pointing out, we should not be beholden to the judgement and sovereignty of a foreign power})
[/supervillain rant]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:02:57 am

No, the first one can be a perfectly rational argument.


The economic cost for the United States to take environmentally sound position X is not worth it, primarily because (fill in your blank here)

A) No one's actually sure what the best solution is, investing in current solar technology on a large scale is a bit of a fools errand
B) The rest of the world (*cough* exempt developing countries *cough*) isn't going to make these kinda limitations, nor follow them
C) Helping the environment in the long term by a few fractions of a percent isn't worth the short term negatives on people.



I mean, anti-science is a pretty crappy mindset, but that doesn't mean that forging ahead with whatever Popular Mechanic's last cover story is a good idea either, you know? (Here's to you E coli produced gas)





Also, I know that this got passed up a full page ago, but I'd like to note that there's perfectly good a reasonable reasonings to not like the UN, namely that it's a toothless, spineless, bloated bureaucracy with a proven record being pretty bad at almost everything, as well as having a proven track record of trying to hold the 1st world, especially the US, to a different standard of everyone else.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 12:22:16 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:02:57 am

No, the first one can be a perfectly rational argument.


The economic cost for the United States to take environmentally sound position X is not worth it, primarily because (fill in your blank here)

A) No one's actually sure what the best solution is, investing in current solar technology on a large scale is a bit of a fools errand.

We know exactly what we need to do, Strife. The problem is flooding the atmosphere with C02, destabilizing Earth's climate. The solution is replacing major C02 sources with non-C02 sources and reversing the deprivation of Earth's plant life.

Solar is most definitely not a fools errand, and neither is wind. Replacing existing sources with them is a process, but it is a necessary process that we must take. Now. We must take it now because taking it later will do us little good. Even if C02 emissions were reduced to zero right now, on November 12th, 2012, we will still have accumulated two degrees of warming by 2050. Prevention is easier and better than curing the disasters we will face if nothing is done.

Quote

B) The rest of the world (*cough* exempt developing countries *cough*) isn't going to make these kinda limitations, nor follow them.

Very soon, it will be the more economical choice to protect the environment. We are not divorced from Earth's ecosystem, and its collapse will not benefit our civilization. Right now, coal and oil are only so cheap because the the government is propping them up. Without these mass subsidies we would all see just how "economical" this stuff is. The rest of the world will fall in line, one way or another.

Quote

C) Helping the environment in the long term by a few fractions of a percent isn't worth the short term negatives on people.

Right now, due to unregulated hydraulic fracturing and fractional distillation operations in the United States, there are entire towns of people slowly accumulating permanent brain damage and living with poisonous, explosive tap water. There are toxic lakes of runoff where not even bacteria can live and mountains blown in half. In places where there are nearby coal plants the asthma rate for schoolchildren goes from 1 in 30 to as high as 1 in 2. And I think I need not remind you of how well our deepwater drilling has gone.

The idea that we'll have to suffer to make some minimal gains for the environment is fiction, disseminated by those who built their fortunes exploiting Earth. Protecting the environment protects us, because we life off of it and inside of it.

We aren't talking about just saving a couple of species, Strife. When one part of our ecosystem goes, the rest has to adapt in unexpected ways or also die. If we don't do anything to mitigate this projections indicate seven degrees of warming and over three meters of sea level rise. New York City and most of the state of Florida will be permanently underwater under those conditions, and most life on Earth will go extinct. Humanity is unlikely to fare well in such a state. In the best case scenario in which we do nothing, Earth's population will be reduced to about one billion as modern agriculture fails. This is of course assuming that no one picks up guns and starts shooting at people to protect/acquire food supplies, which we both know isn't going to be the case.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 12:31:17 am

I'd just like to butt in as a member of the city hit by the largest (In size), lowest pressure, and second costlest atlantic hurricane EVER, if you don't pay for it now, you will later.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 12:35:11 am

What we need to do is find out just how high the water will come if the ice caps melt and buy up everything that will become beachfront property after all the current beachfront property is underwater.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 12:35:54 am

http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/election/general/general2012

umm.... really?.... no write-in candidates in my country received votes?.... Jill Stein didn't receive a single vote?.... bullshit.  I know for a fact she received at least two.  I think I'll be making a phone call tomorrow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 12, 2012, 12:37:48 am

Huh. It says that she got 181 votes for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 12:38:32 am

*Looks at map*

Stuff on west coast is owned entirely by feds. East coast, even inland is still to highly populated.

Damn Feds ruining small buisiness men who just want to profit in the upcoming post-apocayptic hellscape.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 12:39:02 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 12, 2012, 12:37:48 am

Huh. It says that she got 181 votes for me.

That's statewide.  The link must default to that.  Look at Hendricks County.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 12, 2012, 12:40:27 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 12:39:02 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 12, 2012, 12:37:48 am

Huh. It says that she got 181 votes for me.

That's statewide.  The link must default to that.  Look at Hendricks County.

Ah. I hope that your phone call is usually productive then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 12, 2012, 12:41:39 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 12:39:02 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 12, 2012, 12:37:48 am

Huh. It says that she got 181 votes for me.

That's statewide.  The link must default to that.  Look at Hendricks County.

Ah. I hope that your phone call is usually productive then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

Sure, but I'd like to note that all three of those points were perfectly rational and reasonable things to debate against.

A) On a large scale, I would certainly stand behind the claim that solar is not a large scale solution. I mean, even assuming massive gains in solar efficiency, life-span of panels, price, ect. it's gonna be a long, hard fought argument to convince me that the amount of land and management it'd take would be worth it. Now, nuclear, geothermal, and a nice, healthy chunk of coal gasification, that's a whole
'nother ball game.

However, the overall point to take from that is that we *don't* know what the best course of action to take is. Now, if I, Strife26 of Bay12 made policy, pouring money into figuring our what course of action we should take would be what I'd do. (or it'd be on the list, honestly. I'd imagine I'd burn through whatever political capital I had before then, most likely)

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower. Who knows how long that'll lost? I'd also strongly contend that coal and oil are so cheap largely because that's what we're tooled to use and because coal's domestic (and our domestic oil reserves aren't anything to sneeze at either) while surpluses are a secondary factor.

And no, I'd very much guess that the rest of the world will very politely tell us and the UN to fuck off until everything's gone completely to shit. Not that it's not worthwhile for us to do these things, but I don't think that the US completely greenificating it's self would push back the clock all that much.

C) Yeah, that's bad. However, that's clearly within what should be regulated by our own system without another iota of effort to environmental causes. That's a problem with agency capture mostly, I'd say, a pretty tangental issue.

I'd always take projections like the sinking of Florida with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's perfectly possible, but how much can we affect it? Moreover, is it worth tanking the US's remaining economic and therefore overall power on it? Is it worth dropping another one percent of people below the poverty line? Not being as competitive? Reducing people's freedoms?

And no, I don't believe your worse case scenario. We can always get better at using the resources we've got, and in any case, if stuff comes down to shooting, I'm confident in the United States remaining strong (and getting stronger, in fact) as a psuedo-nation-state.

I mean, understand that the bulk of this is devil advocating on my part, but these are certainly good points to be made against willy-nilly environmentalism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: jester on November 12, 2012, 12:53:24 am

If the US was dumb enough to bring it to a world war over energy, it would come down to nukes, strength wont mean diddly squat, you will all just be glass, lotta the rest of the world probably, but that isnt really going to make anybody feel better.  As for taking the nonrenewables now, I think iraq is proving how un economical trying to hold the worlds energy hotspots would be. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 12:55:16 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower.

What about China?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 12:56:10 am

http://www.examiner.com/article/15-states-including-texas-have-filed-a-petition-to-secede-from-the-united-states-1

15 states petition the obama administration to allow them to peacefully secede from the union in the wake of the reelection of a Obama.

Yea. That is actually happening.

Strife:

A square of solar thermal plants 100 miles on a side in the southwest desert could produce enough energy to meet all our industrial, electrical and transportation needs*. Photovoltaic isn't taken seriously as a bulk power production system by anyone who has researched it, solar thermal is the way to go. It is more efficient, it requires no research, it requires no rare materials, it can produce power 24 hours a day without needing chemical batteries.

*Aircraft transport will require research in the generation of synthetic fossil fuels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 12, 2012, 12:58:35 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 12:56:10 am

http://www.examiner.com/article/15-states-including-texas-have-filed-a-petition-to-secede-from-the-united-states-1

15 states petition the obama administration to allow them to peacefully secede from the union in the wake of the reelection of a Obama.

Yea. That is actually happening.

Strife:

A square of solar thermal plants 100 miles on a side in the southwest desert could produce enough energy to meet all our industrial, electrical and transportation needs*. Photovoltaic isn't taken seriously as a bulk power production system by anyone who has researched it, solar thermal is the way to go. It is more efficient, it requires no research, it requires no rare materials, it can produce power 24 hours a day without needing chemical batteries.

*Aircraft transport will require research in the generation of synthetic fossil fuels.

You know, I'm not sure we shouldn't let them secede. Consider: the remaining United States will get rid of its crazies, and the seceding states will soon learn that they've basically been living on transfer payments from blue states via Uncle Sam. Might create a bit more levelheadedness all around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 01:04:18 am

I would have to flee.  My state is one of those with a petition to secede.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 01:04:56 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

A) On a large scale, I would certainly stand behind the claim that solar is not a large scale solution. I mean, even assuming massive gains in solar efficiency, life-span of panels, price, ect. it's gonna be a long, hard fought argument to convince me that the amount of land and management it'd take would be worth it. Now, nuclear, geothermal, and a nice, healthy chunk of coal gasification, that's a whole
'nother ball game.

Solar is more than PV, Strife. PV wouldn't be good for heavy industry, but there are other types of solar power. PV is excellent for residential power, however. There is also the added bonus that it gives us a robust and decentralized power grid that cannot be attacked effectively, unlike centralized powerplants.

Geothermal is the real fools errand, I'm afraid. There are few locations in which we can implement it and geothermal vents have not proven to be as renewable as previously thought. Geothermal is going to have to be shelved until we can tap the mantel.

Coal has currently unacceptable environmental consequences. Improvements such as CCS and location restrictions are needed, unfortunately the industry fights hard against them and has plenty of money to bribe the legislature.

Nuclear is....okay. Still way more fickle and dangerous than renewables, and also has the centralization problem. I won't state active opposition, but we have better options available to us.

Quote

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower. Who knows how long that'll lost?

We can't expend them without serious consequences. Fossil fuels are a Faustian bargain, Strife. A double-edged sword, a treacherous ally, whatever. Renewables, as the name suggests, last. We are only better off with fossil fuels in the extreme short term. Everything else goes to the renewables.

Quote

And no, I'd very much guess that the rest of the world will very politely tell us and the UN to fuck off until everything's gone completely to shit. Not that it's not worthwhile for us to do these things, but I don't think that the US completely greenificating it's self would push back the clock all that much.

The US, EU, and PRC are responsible for the vast majority of C02 emissions. We don't need to worry overmuch about African dictatorships adopting green energy. The three most important areas for C02 reduction are luckily also the ones that understand the need for it. Say what you will about the PRC, their leadership isn't stupid. They'll exploit while they can grow from it, but that age is quickly coming to and end.

Quote

C) Yeah, that's bad. However, that's clearly within what should be regulated by our own system without another iota of effort to environmental causes. That's a problem with agency capture mostly, I'd say, a pretty tangental issue.

It is not a tangental issue. The same forces hindering environmental protection are the same ones that throw their money at Congress to be able to do this sort of stuff.

Quote

I'd always take projections like the sinking of Florida with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's perfectly possible, but how much can we affect it?

Consider:
Point A. Florida is not underwater.

Point B. Florida is going to be underwater due to sea rise.

Point C. Sea rise is due to our C02 emissions.

Therefore: We can prevent Florida from being underwater by lessening C02 emissions.

Quote

Moreover, is it worth tanking the US's remaining economic and therefore overall power on it?

If we do this we might lose some power. If we don't do this we will lose our power. Societal collapse does not a strong nation make.

Quote

Is it worth dropping another one percent of people below the poverty line?

This is not why people are impoverished, but not acting will lead to more impoverished people as our civilization stops functioning.

Quote

Not being as competitive?

Competitiveness is a result of economic prosperity, which we will not have if we can't feed our people or protect them from storms and flooding.

Quote

Reducing people's freedoms?

What are you even talking about?

Quote

And no, I don't believe your worse case scenario. We can always get better at using the resources we've got, and in any case, if stuff comes down to shooting, I'm confident in the United States remaining strong (and getting stronger, in fact) as a psuedo-nation-state.

Oh, well then, by all means, I'm glad you've got it figured out that we can just magic up more resources and institute martial law when things go to shit. Man, that is so much better than just keeping this all from happening in the first place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:08:22 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 12:55:16 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower.

What about China?

Old equipment mostly, trying to get newer stuff as fast as they can, generally without the doctrine to employ it properly. Giant army that hasn't fought a real war since the bamboo curtain fell down, complete disparity in air and sea. I mean, we're talking the hypothetical, totally not what I'd say is moral, but the US would totally kick China's ass back and forth in any kind of traditional war.



Actual quote from the article
"These citizen generated petitions were filed just days after the 2012 presidential election."

Sorry, but the whitehouse.gov open petition drive isn't exactly real information. I mean, I'm pretty sure that there's at least a couple of "The US needs to stop believing the Zionist World Illuminati conspiracy that the Holocaust happened" on there, if they haven't haven't gotten cleared out.

Now, if Texas elected a governor running on a "seriously, we need to secede right the hell now" platform, and I got my happy ass kicked off of Ft. Hood because the State was ejecting federal personal and taking all the materiel, then I'd raise an eyebrow.


Gah, ninjas. Gimee a second to respond as I keep digging myself deeper into my own advocating here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 12, 2012, 01:09:55 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 01:04:18 am

I would have to flee.  My state is one of those with a petition to secede.

Snickersnort. At noon today, that set of petitions (via the numbers in the link provided) had a number of signatories... well, being fair, a bit less than three times the population of the county I'm in. Which is one of the ten or so least populated ones in Florida.

S'gone up a bit since then, though. There's something like 14k sigs on the Texas petition. Which is so far below a percent of Texas's population the default windows calculator went into exponential trying to divide the 14 thousand by 25 million or so. Working it out a bit better, it's something like .056% of the population. Not exactly a majority.

I don't think you have anything to worry about, SG.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 01:12:38 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 01:04:18 am

I would have to flee.  My state is one of those with a petition to secede.

Mine too.

BTW: the governor of Texas DID start this petition drive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scelly9 on November 12, 2012, 01:13:52 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 01:12:38 am

The governor of Texas DID start this petition drive.

That's actually a bit worrying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 12, 2012, 01:14:07 am

Note that those aren't anything approaching real political talks. They're those 25k-signature whitehouse.gov internet petitions; only two states have more than 1000 signatures, and the Texas one is only at around 10k signatures. They mean absolutely nothing and represent the tiny fraction of the population that we already knew was crazy. Even if there were one hundred thousand signatures on one of them, it would still be meaningless. Those petitions have no legal weight and the number of people represented are a very, very small minority.

Re: Gov. of Texas: Sounds like more rhetoric and political grandstanding, which is the height of originality around here.  ::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 01:14:33 am

Hasn't Texas been wanting to secede for quite some time now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 01:15:02 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 12:56:10 am

http://www.examiner.com/article/15-states-including-texas-have-filed-a-petition-to-secede-from-the-united-states-1

15 states petition the obama administration to allow them to peacefully secede from the union in the wake of the reelection of a Obama.

Yea. That is actually happening.

Sherman will march to the sea again!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 01:16:03 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 01:14:33 am

Hasn't Texas been wanting to secede for quite some time now?

Texas likes to talk, but I doubt they have any serious will to secede.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 01:17:46 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:08:22 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 12:55:16 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower.

What about China?

Old equipment mostly, trying to get newer stuff as fast as they can, generally without the doctrine to employ it properly. Giant army that hasn't fought a real war since the bamboo curtain fell down,....

They don't need an army. They have the bomb, the means to deliver it, and a completely morally bankrupt government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 01:20:00 am

Quote from: Frumple on November 12, 2012, 01:09:55 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 01:04:18 am

I would have to flee.  My state is one of those with a petition to secede.

Snickersnort. At noon today, that set of petitions (via the numbers in the link provided) had a number of signatories... well, being fair, a bit less than three times the population of the county I'm in. Which is one of the ten or so least populated ones in Florida.

S'gone up a bit since then, though. There's something like 14k sigs on the Texas petition. Which is so far below a percent of Texas's population the default windows calculator went into exponential trying to divide the 14 thousand by 25 million or so. Working it out a bit better, it's something like .056% of the population. Not exactly a majority.

I don't think you have anything to worry about, SG.

Yeah, I was never actually worried about it.

If it did happen, I would absolutely GTFO.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on November 12, 2012, 01:21:47 am

I recall secession talks happening the last time Obama won too. It's more grandstanding by the Tea Party types.

Not that I would mind it if Texas seceded on the condition that its government would always support the emigration of anyone who wanted to leave that wasn't convicted of a violent felony, immediately and permanently disarm any WMDs, and never bothered the rest of us again.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:24:31 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 01:04:56 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

A) On a large scale, I would certainly stand behind the claim that solar is not a large scale solution. I mean, even assuming massive gains in solar efficiency, life-span of panels, price, ect. it's gonna be a long, hard fought argument to convince me that the amount of land and management it'd take would be worth it. Now, nuclear, geothermal, and a nice, healthy chunk of coal gasification, that's a whole
'nother ball game.

Solar is more than PV, Strife. PV wouldn't be good for heavy industry, but there are other types of solar power. PV is excellent for residential power, however. There is also the added bonus that it gives us a robust and decentralized power grid that cannot be attacked effectively, unlike centralized powerplants.

Geothermal is the real fools errand, I'm afraid. There are few locations in which we can implement it and geothermal vents have not proven to be as renewable as previously thought. Geothermal is going to have to be shelved until we can tap the mantel.

Coal has currently unacceptable environmental consequences. Improvements such as CCS and location restrictions are needed, unfortunately the industry fights hard against them and has plenty of money to bribe the legislature.

Nuclear is....okay. Still way more fickle and dangerous than renewables, and also has the centralization problem. I won't state active opposition, but we have better options available to us.

I'd say that Nuclear's better than you give it credit for, being that it's a helluva lot closer to being a good idea *right now* than any other option. Coal's got the pretty major advantage of being domestic and a not inconsiderable chunk of blue collar work, besides the political capital factor. And geothermal's iffy, sure, but I see no reason not to push on ahead full steam trying to figure out how to tap the mantel, or at the least make those cool zero-input house-temperature moderators more economical.

Quote

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower. Who knows how long that'll lost?

We can't expend them without serious consequences. Fossil fuels are a Faustian bargain, Strife. A double-edged sword, a treacherous ally, whatever. Renewables, as the name suggests, last. We are only better off with fossil fuels in the extreme short term. Everything else goes to the renewables.

Quote

And no, I'd very much guess that the rest of the world will very politely tell us and the UN to fuck off until everything's gone completely to shit. Not that it's not worthwhile for us to do these things, but I don't think that the US completely greenificating it's self would push back the clock all that much.

The US, EU, and PRC are responsible for the vast majority of C02 emissions. We don't need to worry overmuch about African dictatorships adopting green energy. The three most important areas for C02 reduction are luckily also the ones that understand the need for it. Say what you will about the PRC, their leadership isn't stupid. They'll exploit while they can grow from it, but that age is quickly coming to and end. [/quote]

I dunno, that'd depend on how you define stupid. Let's say that the big three cut our emissions to hell and back. How long until the rest of the second and third and first world work themselves right up to where we left off, pushed by the exact same economic pressures to make the most of what people want at the best prices? Fifteen years? Twenty-five? Not much from where I stand, you know?

Quote

C) Yeah, that's bad. However, that's clearly within what should be regulated by our own system without another iota of effort to environmental causes. That's a problem with agency capture mostly, I'd say, a pretty tangental issue.

It is not a tangental issue. The same forces hindering environmental protection are the same ones that throw their money at Congress to be able to do this sort of stuff.

Quote

I'd always take projections like the sinking of Florida with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's perfectly possible, but how much can we affect it?

Consider:
Point A. Florida is not underwater.

Point B. Florida is going to be underwater due to sea rise.

Point C. Sea rise is due to our C02 emissions.

Therefore: We can prevent Florida from being underwater by lessening C02 emissions.
[/quote]

Yes, maybe, maybe. Now, I'm not willing to go through the source hunting to properly argue this, but how much damage have we already done irreparably? How much would the sea levels rise in next twenty years even without a CO2 overabundance?

Quote

Moreover, is it worth tanking the US's remaining economic and therefore overall power on it?

If we do this we might lose some power. If we don't do this we will lose our power. Societal collapse does not a strong nation make.

Quote

Is it worth dropping another one percent of people below the poverty line?

This is not why people are impoverished, but not acting will lead to more impoverished people as our civilization stops functioning.

Quote

Not being as competitive?

Competitiveness is a result of economic prosperity, which we will not have if we can't feed our people or protect them from storms and flooding.
[/quote]
Yeah, but we can't have economic prosperity now if we're going to hobble ourselves in hopes that the future won't suck. And, I'd argue that if need be, we can certainly find a way to do all three.

Quote

Quote

Reducing people's freedoms?

What are you even talking about?

Eh, I was almost drifting into a tangent there, honestly. Weak point that I didn't fully excise. How much of my personal freedom should we restrict for the cause of environmentalism? Should I still be able to take the two hour drive I did tonight? Should I still be able to conduct training in my tank? I mean, both of those things burn fuel, doncha know. There was also something about incandescent light bulbs, but it looked super weak even for this argument.

Quote

Quote

And no, I don't believe your worse case scenario. We can always get better at using the resources we've got, and in any case, if stuff comes down to shooting, I'm confident in the United States remaining strong (and getting stronger, in fact) as a psuedo-nation-state.

Oh, well then, by all means, I'm glad you've got it figured out that we can just magic up more resources and institute martial law when things go to shit. Man, that is so much better than just keeping this all from happening in the first place.

[/quote]
Yeah, it is. Much rather have a US lead martial law in a world gone to shit, than a Chinese one ten years later. Give me a little credit here, okay, this is a stretchy, unprepared argument path I'm treading. The core point that the United States shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot over the environment is a perfectly valid one, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mech#4 on November 12, 2012, 01:25:45 am

Quote from: Glowcat on November 12, 2012, 01:21:47 am

I recall secession talks happening the last time Obama won too. It's more grandstanding by the Tea Party types.

Not that I would mind it if Texas seceded on the condition that its government would always support the emigration of anyone who wanted to leave that wasn't convicted of a violent felony, immediately and permanently disarm any WMDs, and never bothered the rest of us again.

Hm, if Texas left and Puerto Rico joined, it would save you from having to update your flag. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:29:47 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 01:17:46 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:08:22 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 12:55:16 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower.

What about China?

Old equipment mostly, trying to get newer stuff as fast as they can, generally without the doctrine to employ it properly. Giant army that hasn't fought a real war since the bamboo curtain fell down,....

They don't need an army. They have the bomb, the means to deliver it, and a completely morally bankrupt government.

Hey, we're already looking at environmental apocalypse, right? Why sweat a little fallout here and there with the utterly terrifying wild card that China's nukes present.

I mean, really, when you think about it properly, if we're forced to learn how to survive in an irradiated wasteland, how much more can Mother Earth throw at us, no matter how much CO2 we reasonably pump into the air, especially considering that when we were done, a lot of the world certainly wouldn't be doing it any more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 12, 2012, 01:30:22 am

It'll never happen. If Texas left, the Republicans can kiss goodbye to winning the presidency ever again. Of course, that's starting to happen with demographics, too, and they don't seem to care that much...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 12, 2012, 01:30:50 am

Quote from: Strife26

-snip-

Wait, so as long as the 'States is okay, the rest of the world can go hang? Well screw you too.   :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 01:31:34 am

"Clean coal" is such a funny idea.

Hard nosed serious minded men want none of that hippie crap about solar power or wind turbines.  You don't assume that these are profitable just because there are people making a profit from it right here and now.  No, you want to put your money on a sure thing: a speculative bet on a technology still in the brainstorming phase but which the laws of thermodynamics tell us will necessarily be significantly more expensive then coal and thus more expensive then what solar costs today.  Because that's practical, unlike those silly hippies.

But this is hardly a rare phenomena.  The politics of ideology makes us tend to assume that conservatives ideas are practical even when they are laughably poorly thought out.  When Clinton bombed Yugoslavia everyone worried about it being a quagmire because we didn't have a serious minded conservative running the show.  When Bush went into Iraq everyone assumed he knew what he was doing.  Everyone is so worried about the deficit over here in America and calls Obama spendthrift.  Meanwhile over in Europe the economic illiteracy of people like Cameron, Merkel and Draghi are whistling as Rome burns but everyone assumes they are on it because they are willing to make "tough" (i.e. stupid) choices.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:36:36 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 12, 2012, 01:30:22 am

It'll never happen. If Texas left, the Republicans can kiss goodbye to winning the presidency ever again. Of course, that's starting to happen with demographics, too, and they don't seem to care that much...

Well, not necessarily. I mean, as soon as everything got reapportioned again they'd be competitive assuming roughly equal gerrymandering and the current electorate. The Republican's aren't *that* far behind in the popular vote.

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 12, 2012, 01:30:50 am

Quote from: Strife26

-snip-

Wait, so as long as the 'States is okay, the rest of the world can go hang? Well screw you too.   :-\

Yeah, sorry about that. Talking from pure, national interest and stuff, you know? If it helps, I'd like the Commonwealth to do well as well, and everyone else too.

Quote from: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 01:31:34 am

"Clean coal" is such a funny idea.

Hard nosed serious minded men want none of that hippie crap about solar power or wind turbines.  You don't assume that these are profitable just because there are people making a profit from it right here and now.  No, you want to put your money on a sure thing: a speculative bet on a technology still in the brainstorming phase but which the laws of thermodynamics tell us will necessarily be significantly more expensive then coal and thus more expensive then what solar costs today.  Because that's practical, unlike those silly hippies.

But this is hardly a rare phenomena.  The politics of ideology makes us tend to assume that conservatives ideas are practical even when they are laughably poorly thought out.  When Clinton bombed Yugoslavia everyone worried about it being a quagmire because we didn't have a serious minded conservative running the show.  When Bush went into Iraq everyone assumed he knew what he was doing.  Everyone is so worried about the deficit over here in America and calls Obama spendthrift.  Meanwhile over in Europe the economic illiteracy of people like Cameron, Merkel and Draghi are whistling as Rome burns but everyone assumes they are on it because they are willing to make "tough" (i.e. stupid) choices.

Was there an underlying point there, other than cynicism? Forgive me for being brusque, but that's all I got out of. Yeah, clean coal's kinda a weird idea, but it's certainly got possibilities and advantages. While Solar is certainly helped out by the government just the same.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 12, 2012, 01:38:39 am

I must admit Strife, I'm actually curious; do you personally advocate these views, or is this an idle thought exercise?  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:43:09 am

It's mostly idle thought exercise, I mean "yeah, but I'm a little more to the right, but I think that enough credence isn't given to the other side" gets so boring, you know? Doesn't lead the thread anywhere.




But on the personal, occasionally ashamed, but probably true, note, I'd get on a plane in two hours to whatever warzone the US was embroiled in with a smile in my heart and a song on my lips. Well, not now that I've posted it, I'd feel responsible and probably assume that I was in a thought experiment, but in general. Or in general, specific to me personally.

Eh, that wasn't remotely coherent, was it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 01:45:23 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:43:09 am

But on the personal, occasionally ashamed, but probably true, note, I'd get on a plane in two hours to whatever warzone the US was embroiled in with a smile in my heart and a song on my lips. Well, not now that I've posted it, I'd feel responsible and probably assume that I was in a thought experiment, but in general. Or in general, specific to me personally.

Eh, that wasn't remotely coherent, was it?

What I took away from it was that you're a patriot who'd fight for the country, regardless of what the country was fighting for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:50:59 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 01:45:23 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:43:09 am

But on the personal, occasionally ashamed, but probably true, note, I'd get on a plane in two hours to whatever warzone the US was embroiled in with a smile in my heart and a song on my lips. Well, not now that I've posted it, I'd feel responsible and probably assume that I was in a thought experiment, but in general. Or in general, specific to me personally.

Eh, that wasn't remotely coherent, was it?

What I took away from it was that you're a patriot who'd fight for the country, regardless of what the country was fighting for.

Yeah, I think that that's about right. Although, I know that I've got lines where I'd draw it. Really, someone who's looking for something to fight for, I guess. But yeah, I'd guess that it makes me a little more willing to argue for violent solutions, even when they're obviously a bad idea, and much more willing to honestly fall on the side of shedding blood.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 12, 2012, 02:03:58 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

Sure, but I'd like to note that all three of those points were perfectly rational and reasonable things to debate against.

A) On a large scale, I would certainly stand behind the claim that solar is not a large scale solution. I mean, even assuming massive gains in solar efficiency, life-span of panels, price, ect. it's gonna be a long, hard fought argument to convince me that the amount of land and management it'd take would be worth it. Now, nuclear, geothermal, and a nice, healthy chunk of coal gasification, that's a whole
'nother ball game.

I agree that solar panels are not a good long term solution, however modern solar power plants do not use Solar Panels, they use arrays of mirrors to heat up fluids. You build them and leave them there to generate energy, requiring very little maintenance. More money needs to be invested in finding efficient renewable resources.

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 12:43:04 am

B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower. Who knows how long that'll lost? I'd also strongly contend that coal and oil are so cheap largely because that's what we're tooled to use and because coal's domestic (and our domestic oil reserves aren't anything to sneeze at either) while surpluses are a secondary factor.

Short term economy, perhaps. We are very much tooled to using oil and coal, since we have been using it for so long. Once you take all that non-renewable resources, then you will have to move on to renewable resources.

If if nothing happens, the oil/coal will run out/become uneconomical to aquire. One way or another the US will be forced to greenify. Most arguments are for gradually doing so now is so the US doesn't get hit in the face with the sudden need to.

Quote

I'd always take projections like the sinking of Florida with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's perfectly possible, but how much can we affect it?

Its more like sinking Florida by rising the the ocean leves. Actually that is exactly what it is, no salt metaphor necessary (disclaimer: I don't actually know of the elevation of Florida and if it would even be affected, but that does not invalidate my point).

But your metaphor may be correct if the assumption that the large-scale pollution was nothing more than a "grain of salt" and/or the enviroment could be considered as large as Florida. But this is not the case. The earth exists in a very delicate equilibrium, a few grains of salt is all that is needed to change something until it finds a new equilibrium. This new equilibrium will most likely not end life on earth, but it may make life hard. In sort: You can affect it quite alot.

Quote

Reducing people's freedoms?

In what way? If you are referring to restrictions to avoid screwing up the enviroment (eg pollution limitation), than yes. People should not have the freedom to screw up the enviroment affects other people negatively and in a way they have no freedom to prevent.

Most of your arguments are in regards to extreme, sudden "greenification" of the US, instead of the gradual easing that is generally advocated. If the US does nothing, then they will be forced the sudden "greenification" in the future.

Moving onto renewables is an inevidability, this fact is completely unaffected by any state any economy might be in. It will either happen with a responsible gradual transition, a slap-in-the-face spontaneous event, or the deindustrialisation of society.

Quote

Yeah, I think that that's about right. Although, I know that I've got lines where I'd draw it. Really, someone who's looking for something to fight for, I guess. But yeah, I'd guess that it makes me a little more willing to argue for violent solutions, even when they're obviously a bad idea, and much more willing to honestly fall on the side of shedding blood.

This is a bad thing. If they are obviously a bad idea, how could argue for them, knowing they are a bad idea? It boggles my brain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:08:17 am

Because playing devil's advocate's generally fun and useful to these threads, and because, in general, there's a lot of problems that can get solved with blood and iron or can simmer until they boil over.


Yeah, I'll accept everything you just said, with the caveat of "sure, greenification has to happen, but whatever the other side's arguing for is too much in the damaging crash course camp"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 02:11:23 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:36:36 am

Was there an underlying point there, other than cynicism? Forgive me for being brusque, but that's all I got out of. Yeah, clean coal's kinda a weird idea, but it's certainly got possibilities and advantages. While Solar is certainly helped out by the government just the same.

The physics and chemistry of "clean coal" make it an impossible supposition.

There is no way to safely sequester that much carbon.  The current plan is to pump it underground. With that much gas at that high of a pressure, natural bedrock is an insufficient pressure vessel. It will stress the rock, break it, cause earthquakes, it isn't mechanically different than "fraking" once the gas pressure gets high enough. It will leak, and when it does it can cause a catastrophic loss of life if there is a rapid out gassing in a populated area. When that happens, everything dies.

And when all is said and done, its still more expensive to sequester that carbon from coal in that horribly dangerous way than either nuclear power or solar thermal power are today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:13:51 am

Alright, we'll find a better thing to do with it. Turn it into something useful or neutral, or store it safely, or shoot it into the sun. Just a matter of figuring out how. Or until we find something else that works as a solution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:19:44 am

But we have alternate solutions now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 12, 2012, 02:20:45 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:13:51 am

Alright, we'll find a better thing to do with it. Turn it into something useful or neutral, or store it safely, or shoot it into the sun. Just a matter of figuring out how. Or until we find something else that works as a solution.

Epic handwave.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: jester on November 12, 2012, 02:21:33 am

To use a military metaphor strife, we know the war is coming, isnt it better to work on our defense now rather than waiting for the enemy to be at our shores?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:26:25 am

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.


And to continue that military metaphor, Jester. If we know that war is coming at some indeterminate future, and that mobilization will hurt our economy if war doesn't come immediately, when do you start to mobilize? Answer's indeterminate, of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: jester on November 12, 2012, 02:37:58 am

Coal is a whole lot less useful than you are making it out to be, your tank and pretty much anything but powerplants will never run on coal, it has its uses, but the idea that coal is a short term fix is really about as serious as the clean coal idea, they are both political, not reality based solutions.

  And I gotta say, hoping the enemy is just going to sit on their hands doesnt sound like sound military doctrine.  The enemy is coming, better to build serious stuff now than handing out pointy sticks and saying we will just build the big stuff when SHTF.  And the potential payoff off clean renewable energy would be huge, like total world gamechange huge.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 02:39:32 am

Chemistry and physics does not work that way.

Liquify the co2? coal does not produce enough energy to cover that without a net energy loss.
Combine it into a hydrocarbon? You just cracked a hydrocarbon, coal does not produce enough energy to cover that without a net energy loss.
Shoot it into the sun? coal does not provide enough energy to cover that without a net energy loss.


Store it safely? The volume if gas involved is so massive it would be a herculean engineering project to even attempt to store a single years worth of production.

Coal produces about 2000 lbs  CO2 for every megawatt hour.
Coal in the us produces about 1,847,000,000 megawatt hours per year.
That is 3,694,000,000,000 lbs of CO2 gas.

If you compressed that to 2000 lbs per cubic meter, you would need a spherical storage reservoir more than 1.5 kilometers tall.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 02:45:05 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:26:25 am

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Well it might seem like the height of folly to you but there is a huge volume of research that speaks the other way.  The economic costs of using coal are higher then the economic costs of using completely sustainable energy sources like wind or solar.  So the thing that is actually the height of folly would be to cling to an outdated power source.  We didn't reject trains because we had such an abundance of horses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 12, 2012, 02:46:49 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:08:17 am

Because playing devil's advocate's generally fun and useful to these threads, and because, in general, there's a lot of problems that can get solved with blood and iron or can simmer until they boil over.

Yeah, I'll accept everything you just said, with the caveat of "sure, greenification has to happen, but whatever the other side's arguing for is too much in the damaging crash course camp"

Playing devil's advocate may be fun, and there are alot of problems that could be solved with blood. But (disregarding any "side"', and any particular issue) as to why you would claim to be more likely to support an action knowing it is a bad action is beyond all common sense and logic. It is insanity.

"The other side" not something you can just dump together and dismiss en masse. There are alot of different ideas and thoughts, they are all not all the "damaging crash course camp" strawman.

Quote

Alright, we'll find a better thing to do with it. Turn it into something useful or neutral, or store it safely, or shoot it into the sun. Just a matter of figuring out how. Or until we find something else that works as a solution.

What is wrong with not using it in the first place? Your solution seems to be specifically designed to require the use of coal for the hell of using coal.

Quote

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Of course that seems folly, you are considering a non-existant strawman you fabricated up for the purpose of seeming folly to you. What you were expecting? Not a single person has ever referred to coal as "useless", you completely made that up.

Quote from: What is a silver bullet (quote from RationalWiki)

"[silver bullet] is a favorite device of the intellectually lazy who do not want to deal with your petty complications and nuance"

There is no, and will never be a silver bullet ("silver bullet" is the de facto metaphor usually used to refer to a non-existant, magical solution). Its terrable practice to rely on a silver bullet by definition. If you are waiting on this non-existant solution, you will be forced greenification by time.

Quote

The enemy is coming, better to build serious stuff now than handing out pointy sticks and saying we will just build the big stuff when SHTF.

Quote

To use a military metaphor strife, we know the war is coming, isnt it better to work on our defense now rather than waiting for the enemy to be at our shores?

The flaw is with your assumption that the enemy is comming. Were the Iraqi's comming with their non-existant WMD's? I would agree with you if the enemy is comming, but you cannot just assume the enemy is comming to justify war when there are better solutions available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy) that have not been exausted yet.

This quote is often used in events to support millitary action, regardless of weather there is any need for said military action (the condition "the war is comming" is often completely ignored).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: jester on November 12, 2012, 02:56:58 am

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of what I said alex, the enemy is an end to useful non renewables and global warming, the intention of the metaphor is to show that its better to do something now, than sit on your hands

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. However, that still doesn't change the fact that coal's a bloody nice chunk of energy sitting there. Just because we haven't figured out a good way to store it or ditch it.


Now, if we really want to keep up with metaphors, trying to sharpen a blade too much, or even keeping one sharp leads to a broken edge. Likewise, keeping a military mobilized in peacetime is damaging and expensive.



Cutting off our hand because replacing it with a bionic claw to fight the enemy in twenty years is cool and all, but we kinda need both hand to keep ourselves floating right now, you know?

Quote from: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 02:45:05 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:26:25 am

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Well it might seem like the height of folly to you but there is a huge volume of research that speaks the other way.  The economic costs of using coal are higher then the economic costs of using completely sustainable energy sources like wind or solar.  So the thing that is actually the height of folly would be to cling to an outdated power source.  We didn't reject trains because we had such an abundance of horses.

Great. If we had completely sustainable energy sources in place that I could pull a big switch and my lappy'd be run from solar I'd happily break into the power box and flip it myself.

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 12, 2012, 02:46:49 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:08:17 am

Because playing devil's advocate's generally fun and useful to these threads, and because, in general, there's a lot of problems that can get solved with blood and iron or can simmer until they boil over.

Yeah, I'll accept everything you just said, with the caveat of "sure, greenification has to happen, but whatever the other side's arguing for is too much in the damaging crash course camp"

Playing devil's advocate may be fun, and there are alot of problems that could be solved with blood. But (disregarding any "side"', and any particular issue) as to why you would claim to be more likely to support an action knowing it is a bad action is beyond all common sense and logic. It is insanity.

"The other side" not something you can just dump together and dismiss en masse. There are alot of different ideas and thoughts, they are all not all the "damaging crash course camp" strawman.

I'm only going to support a genuinely bad side (and just a minor bad one at that) for the sake of discussion, and with the reasoning that furthering information might lend it credence. I mean, my actual ability to affect policy is pretty much zero. What I'm admitting is my bias, especially the fact that in a real draw of a question, I'm going to tend tp lean towards rolling in the tanks, or more likely "watch closely, with the tanks sitting on the nearest border, and a finger on the button to give the first wave of air strikes the go-ahead"

Quote

Quote

Alright, we'll find a better thing to do with it. Turn it into something useful or neutral, or store it safely, or shoot it into the sun. Just a matter of figuring out how. Or until we find something else that works as a solution.

What is wrong with not using it in the first place? Your solution seems to be specifically designed to require the use of coal for the hell of using coal.

Because it's something we've got in country, that a not-inconsiderable segment of the country works with, and that can certainly provide power.

Quote

Quote

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Of course that seems folly, you are considering a non-existant strawman you fabricated up for the purpose of seeming folly to you. What you were expecting? Not a single person has ever referred to coal as "useless", you completely made that up.

Quote from: What is a silver bullet (quote from RationalWiki)

"[silver bullet] is a favorite device of the intellectually lazy who do not want to deal with your petty complications and nuance"

There is no, and will never be a silver bullet ("silver bullet" is the de facto metaphor usually used to refer to a non-existant, magical solution). Its terrable practice to rely on a silver bullet by definition. If you are waiting on this non-existant solution, you will be forced greenification by time.

"Focus on options that aren't coal" has *certainly* been addressed as a point. What I'm saying is that until someone's got a solution that looks like it's best, discounting research into dealing with coal's downsides is a bad idea.

Quote

Quote

The enemy is coming, better to build serious stuff now than handing out pointy sticks and saying we will just build the big stuff when SHTF.

Quote

To use a military metaphor strife, we know the war is coming, isnt it better to work on our defense now rather than waiting for the enemy to be at our shores?

The flaw is with your assumption that the enemy is comming. Were the Iraqi's comming with their non-existant WMD's? I would agree with you if the enemy is comming, but you cannot just assume the enemy is comming to justify war when there are better solutions available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy) that have not been exausted yet.

This quote is often used in events to support millitary action, regardless of weather there is any need for said military action (the condition "the war is comming" is often completely ignored).

[/quote]

Call me old fashioned, but yeah, I do think war's coming. Or at least greater competition between the nations/blocs of the world. And, quite frankly, the idea of America not being the strongest kid on the block any more terrifies the *shit* out of me. If we're not the principle country in the world, than everything we do matters a helluva lot less, and there's no guarantee that whomever becomes the biggest kid (China, the EU, maybe Russia even) isn't going to be willing to back burner greenification to ensure that he keeps his place?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 03:10:18 am

http://climatecommercial.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/us-coal-subsidy-345-billion-harvard-study/

Quote

US Coal Subsidy $345 billion: Harvard Study
February 22, 2011

Through incorporating externalities into their lifecycle analysis, Harvard researchers have discovered the true extent of subsidies to coal in the United States:  $345 billion.

This implies a real cost of electricity production by coal-fired power plants of $0.178 per kwh – several times the accepted and oft-quoted cost of electricity, thereby significantly eroding the coal industry argument that coal is the cheap baseload power option.

That's a pretty hefty chunk of change, and a lot more than combined investment in alternative energy technology. But that takes into account "externalities", so lets look at direct budget costs to the taxpayer:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies

Quote

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.[2]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: jester on November 12, 2012, 03:59:13 am

Big issue with the US being the biggest kid on the block is that only matters till you actually get in a real fight, which again, will come down to nukes, your tank is great in the iraq type deal but against china/russia/nuke armed country of your choice, 90% of the military are just expensive toys.  Its sad, but if it ever comes down to a serious war, the tech has kind of killed the 'fighting' part.

  That and when oil et al are expected to end their serious useful amounts within the next 40 years or so, if its not delt with now, the next top dog is going to have to deal with it or they will just be the proud owners of a world full of useless crap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 12, 2012, 04:30:57 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. However, that still doesn't change the fact that coal's a bloody nice chunk of energy sitting there. Just because we haven't figured out a good way to store it or ditch it.

Look up, there is considerably more energy raining from the sky freely every day. We have no problem storing coal, its the coal emmisions and waste products that we can't store. Not being able to store this is reason not to use it. You are grasping at straws.

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

Great. If we had completely sustainable energy sources in place that I could pull a big switch and my lappy'd be run from solar I'd happily break into the power box and flip it myself.

Are you saying that if the problem was already solved, than everything would be good? What you say, everyone will agree with. This point has no meaning. The argument is to put that sustainable energy source in place, it has not happened yet. And it will not happen while people continue give vague and ambiguous reasons as to why we should not focus on it.

It (in reference to what that quote was a respone to) is more closer to not wanting to build trains in the first place because we have plenty of horses around. Difference is all the horses are gradually disappearing. But as long as we have horses now why worry?

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

I'm only going to support a genuinely bad side (and just a minor bad one at that) for the sake of discussion, and with the reasoning that furthering information might lend it credence. I mean, my actual ability to affect policy is pretty much zero. What I'm admitting is my bias, especially the fact that in a real draw of a question, I'm going to tend tp lean towards rolling in the tanks, or more likely "watch closely, with the tanks sitting on the nearest border, and a finger on the button to give the first wave of air strikes the go-ahead"

Quote

genuinely bad side

Quote

information might lend it credence

If information might lend it credence, it would not be a genuinely bad side. You would call it a genuinely bad side after it has become evident that the side has been speaking crap. Once this has happened, you do not give them credit. We would never get anywhere if we spent the whole time considering every single side related to a situation, for the hell of considering every single side.

How can you lean towards a solution due to bias, with full knowledge you are leaning towards that solution due to bias?

Quote

Quote

What is wrong with not using it in the first place? Your solution seems to be specifically designed to require the use of coal for the hell of using coal.

Because it's something we've got in country, that a not-inconsiderable segment of the country works with, and that can certainly provide power.

This is just lazyness, while completely ignoring the points against continuing the use of coal. It is basically "Well, meh. We have coal, so meh. Yeah, climate change, but meh". It is nothing more than buying your head in the sand.

The entire point of renewables is to stop using non-renewables, so im not entirely sure what (correctly) pointing out that the country already works with coal is supposed to mean. Part of the argument is to change what the country works with.

You do not just use something because its there.

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

"Focus on options that aren't coal" has *certainly* been addressed as a point. What I'm saying is that until someone's got a solution that looks like it's best, discounting research into dealing with coal's downsides is a bad idea.

You are assuming that there will be a solution, "so just wait". What people are saying is it is best to focus resources on a long term solution, rather than a cheap hack to patch up coal for however long it would last (which is not that long). People are discouning recearch into coal's downside because one of its biggest downside is an unstoppable inevidability. It will run out. There is nothing you can do about that. We already have alternative solutions, how do you determine that a new solution is "best"? The only way to definetely know is to consider every single possible solution that could come into existance (an impossibility).

Quote

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of what I said alex, the enemy is an end to useful non renewables and global warming, the intention of the metaphor is to show that its better to do something now, than sit on your hands

Ok, I see now, I take back what I said.

Quote

Call me old fashioned, but yeah, I do think war's coming. Or at least greater competition between the nations/blocs of the world. And, quite frankly, the idea of America not being the strongest kid on the block any more terrifies the *shit* out of me. If we're not the principle country in the world, than everything we do matters a helluva lot less, and there's no guarantee that whomever becomes the biggest kid (China, the EU, maybe Russia even) isn't going to be willing to back burner greenification to ensure that he keeps his place?

As I have said, whoever is the biggest kid at some point will have to greenify. It is an inevitability. What you are saying is basically milking what you can now out of fear, rather than a rational analysis of the situation. It is also "Well, they probably won't do it, so why should we"? All the while the problem continues to grow, regardless.

Wouldn't getting a renewable resource to replace oil help America retain power, instead of relying of middle eastern countries who are making large wads of cash from it? Most solutions would replace coal as well as oil. A sustainable America is an independent America, and will never have to rely on other countries (such as what has happened with oil) for energy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 12, 2012, 07:59:37 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. 

You're grasping at straws because you're wrong. You fail to make rational points not because you are unprepared but because there are no rational points to make for your position. The line of reasoning you're following is that of a spoiled child who doesn't want to realise he can't have the cake and eat it. No logic. No thought. No basis in reality.

Oh, and seriously, you need to get help for that disgusting war boner you have. Maybe spending some time outside that glass bubble you live in would be a good idea. Especially, you know, if you still want to become a professional writer. That usually takes having some experience and knowledge of the world beyond "I sit in my mobile bunker and press buttons to make people go BOOM lol".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 12, 2012, 08:03:35 am

Especially since war is damn innefective at making a lot of stuff happens. Having a large stick is good, using it is not. (And I should point out that the US is so hegemonic military wise it can totallyafford to shrink its military to half its size and still outperform the rest of the world combined.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on November 12, 2012, 08:16:06 am

Quote from: scriver on November 12, 2012, 07:59:37 am

Oh, and seriously, you need to get help for that disgusting war boner you have. Maybe spending some time outside that glass bubble you live in would be a good idea. Especially, you know, if you still want to become a professional writer. That usually takes having some experience and knowledge of the world beyond "I sit in my mobile bunker and press buttons to make people go BOOM lol".

I think there is a part of the human mind that just likes the idea of killing the rival tribe. It makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary point of view that the guys who spend all day sharpening spears and talking about how they are going to kick the asses of the guys on the other side of the hill are going to have a better survival rate than the guys on the other side of the hill painting on walls and dancing for the sun god.
You just have to look at how sports are presented. It isn't just a matter of watching people play a game, people instead feel invested enough to belong to one team, and want the total defeat of all others. The need for tribal superiority is deep rooted into our minds. Makes sense that it is going to express itself in the glorification of war and patriotism.

Not saying that justifies anything. After all, we get all sort of primitive urges that we shrug off casually as civilized human beings. Just an observation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 10:12:39 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. However, that still doesn't change the fact that coal's a bloody nice chunk of energy sitting there. Just because we haven't figured out a good way to store it or ditch it.

...

Great. If we had completely sustainable energy sources in place that I could pull a big switch and my lappy'd be run from solar I'd happily break into the power box and flip it myself.

...

I'm only going to support a genuinely bad side (and just a minor bad one at that) for the sake of discussion, and with the reasoning that furthering information might lend it credence.

...

Because it's something we've got in country, that a not-inconsiderable segment of the country works with, and that can certainly provide power.

...

"Focus on options that aren't coal" has *certainly* been addressed as a point. What I'm saying is that until someone's got a solution that looks like it's best, discounting research into dealing with coal's downsides is a bad idea.

Once again. The chemistry and physics does not work that way. There is no such thing as clean, there can  be no such thing. The amount of energy gained from burning coal is so small, and the amount of pollution it creates is so large that any sustainable way of dealing that pollution is going to use more energy than you get out of the coal. Subterranean sequestration is the only alternative, and it isn't a permanent solution.

To give you a military analogy. Using coal because some day, maybe, it will be clean is like continuing to shoot at an main battle tank with a .32 revolver because one day they might invent a nuclear handgun capable of cutting through a foot of composite armor like butter. The .32 worked ok against unarmored people with improvised weapons, but it is completely outclassed by the threat we are now facing.

You can't flip a switch and have clean coal either. However, one can flip a switch to begin using clean solar thermal power. Replacing all of coal will take years of effort, and on the plus side it will create a lot of construction and plant maintenance jobs. It is a change in the workforce, not necessarily an elimination of jobs in the coal industry.

Quote

Call me old fashioned, but yeah, I do think war's coming. Or at least greater competition between the nations/blocs of the world. And, quite frankly, the idea of America not being the strongest kid on the block any more terrifies the *shit* out of me. If we're not the principle country in the world, than everything we do matters a helluva lot less, and there's no guarantee that whomever becomes the biggest kid (China, the EU, maybe Russia even) isn't going to be willing to back burner greenification to ensure that he keeps his place?

"Greenification" does not mean losing our place. It means retaining it. It makes us stronger, not weaker.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 10:24:02 am

The "anti-waste" argument can be made more effective to support solar/wind.

Coal is in the ground now, it'll still be in the ground later if we DELAY using it, it's finite and LATER we'll be able to utilize it cleaner and more efficiently.

Solar energy is all around us, in greater amounts than coal. It's infinite And if we don't harness today, that amount of energy that we COULD have harnessed is lost forever. Harnessing solar NOW gets us more energy in the long run.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on November 12, 2012, 11:22:25 am

Wut... New York and New Jersey are petitioning to secede?  Who the hell is trying to push this?  Some slack-jawed yokals in some backwater towns signing some petition or some of its elected representatives being right wing douchebags?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 12, 2012, 11:42:48 am

Quote from: Zangi on November 12, 2012, 11:22:25 am

Wut... New York and New Jersey are petitioning to secede?  Who the hell is trying to push this?  Some slack-jawed yokals in some backwater towns signing some petition or some of its elected representatives being right wing douchebags?

Boston Legal, anyone?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2012, 11:47:51 am

It looks like some kind of right wing group flooding them with dozens of near identical petitions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 11:48:34 am

As others have mentioned, whitehouse.org petitions are pretty useless.


we didn't even get a proper response to this petition:

Quote

We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.

Since these petitions are ignored apart from an occasional patronizing and inane political statement amounting to nothing more than a condescending pat on the head, we the signers would enjoy having the illusion of success. Since no other outcome to this process seems possible, we demand that the White House immediately assign a junior staffer to compose a tame and vapid response to this petition, and never attempt to take any meaningful action on this or any other issue. We would also like a cookie.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 11:55:32 am

Not necessarily that silly, the blue states pay quite a bit more in taxes than they receive in federal assistance.

What's far more loony is the Red States are even keener on secession even though they get massive federal subsidies (with the exception of a couple of places like Texas and maybe Utah).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 12:24:00 pm

Quote from: Zangi on November 12, 2012, 11:22:25 am

Wut... New York and New Jersey are petitioning to secede?  Who the hell is trying to push this?  Some slack-jawed yokals in some backwater towns signing some petition or some of its elected representatives being right wing douchebags?

This is a good thing. Like misko27 (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3766778;topicseen#msg3766778) I too would like to see a repeat of Sherman's March to the Sea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 01:42:32 pm

Can we not be *quite* so fucking hostile towards me, considering I am mostly arguing for the sake of argument here?

Quote from: scriver on November 12, 2012, 07:59:37 am

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:00:07 am

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. 

You're grasping at straws because you're wrong. You fail to make rational points not because you are unprepared but because there are no rational points to make for your position. The line of reasoning you're following is that of a spoiled child who doesn't want to realise he can't have the cake and eat it. No logic. No thought. No basis in reality.

Oh, and seriously, you need to get help for that disgusting war boner you have. Maybe spending some time outside that glass bubble you live in would be a good idea. Especially, you know, if you still want to become a professional writer. That usually takes having some experience and knowledge of the world beyond "I sit in my mobile bunker and press buttons to make people go BOOM lol".

Really man?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 12, 2012, 01:47:26 pm

I think scriver didn't get the memo about you playing the devil's advocate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 01:49:21 pm

Though your love of war is still disturbing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 02:01:34 pm

This is the election thread, man! Dogpiling on people and being hostile to people with contrary positions, no matter how sincerely they are held, is simply the thing to do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:02:10 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 01:49:21 pm

Though your love of war is still disturbing.

Yeah, it is. That's why I go to all high hell to admit it, and why I'm not in a position of power. Also, why civilian control of the military is such an inviolable, important thing. However, just because I'm a dog of war who'd like to hear someone say Havoc, doesn't mean that there aren't times where that kind of dog is what the world needs.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 02:03:10 pm

http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/what-luck-obama-won-dozens-of-cleveland.html

Evidence of fraud:

Quote

In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout. What a coincidence!

...except that I went over the linked data:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/11062012UnofficialResultsbyPrecinct.HTM

Do you know how many people voted in the district which had 100% turnout: TWO WHOLE PEOPLE. My god! And both of them voted for Obama.

It's a CONSPIRACY

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2012, 02:04:43 pm

TBH the idea of having our war fighters such as Strife keen on the art of war isnt really a bad thing. I would much rather let someone at it who has enthusiasm than a half assed goon.

Its a bit like having a grudge against me for loving academic physics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2012, 02:08:00 pm

Academic physics doesn't tend to involve mass civilian casualties though.  At least, I'd hope not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2012, 02:09:27 pm

Not unless things go horribly wrong. I am sure generals probably say the same thing all the time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:11:19 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2012, 02:04:43 pm

TBH the idea of having our war fighters such as Strife keen on the art of war isnt really a bad thing. I would much rather let someone at it who has enthusiasm than a half assed goon.

Its a bit like having a grudge against me for loving academic physics.

Academic physics doesn't cause millions of deaths.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 02:13:21 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:11:19 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2012, 02:04:43 pm

TBH the idea of having our war fighters such as Strife keen on the art of war isnt really a bad thing. I would much rather let someone at it who has enthusiasm than a half assed goon.

Its a bit like having a grudge against me for loving academic physics.

Academic physics doesn't cause millions of deaths.

Not until world war 3 at least.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:14:01 pm

And soldier's take their order from politicians, who are accountable to the will of the people, who are accountable to their own free will.

Do you blame the sword for the hand that wields it, or just want that damn sword to be the most efficient killing machine available?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2012, 02:15:12 pm

Heh, dont blame the sword for its sharpness. Blame the person who holds it.

Damn, ninja'ed

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on November 12, 2012, 02:18:26 pm

Also academic physics ended WWII

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 12, 2012, 02:20:06 pm

Quote from: Japa on November 12, 2012, 02:18:26 pm

Also academic physics ended WWII

OK, fine, its a deal. I shall make the doomsday device, and Strife can wield it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2012, 02:21:49 pm

Must've missed that new rule about only arguing with confused metaphors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:23:52 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:14:01 pm

And soldier's take their order from politicians, who are accountable to the will of the people, who are accountable to their own free will.

Do you blame the sword for the hand that wields it, or just want that damn sword to be the most efficient killing machine available?

That's irrelevant. By being part of the military, you are complicit in what it does. If everyone refused to join or be drafted, there would be no war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 02:29:43 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:11:19 pm

Academic physics doesn't cause millions of deaths.

Don't say that he's hypocritical
 Rather say that he's apolitical
 "Vunce ze rockets are up, who cares vere zey come down
 "Zats not mein department!" says Werner von Braun

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:31:10 pm

It's perfectly relevant, Eagle.

I damn straight complicit in what my country does and tells me to do. The point is that I'd happily drive shooting over a fair number of moral event horizons if that's what I was told to do (now, to be honest, there's obviously limits to what I'd consider a legal order, but for the purposes of this discussion, we can ignore these extreme cases because I'm, without a doubt, going to lean on the side of "shoot it to make sure," and therefore on the wrong end of morality), that's why there's civilians at the top of the chain of command. 


There exists times where naked military force is necessary
It is better for this force to be overwhelming
Overwhelming force requires the best soldiers and doctrine possible
It's impossible to be a truly good soldier without aggression and understanding
--> Effectively, loving war to some extent
Soldier's can *not* have an unbiased view, so we need to take orders from someone


So yeah, I'm complicit, and I'm perfectly okay with that. I swore to follow my lawful orders and to protect my scrap of paper. However, all that I care about is that my orders come from higher up. If I'm dammed, I dammed for it, but that's life. 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 12, 2012, 02:33:52 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:23:52 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:14:01 pm

And soldier's take their order from politicians, who are accountable to the will of the people, who are accountable to their own free will.

Do you blame the sword for the hand that wields it, or just want that damn sword to be the most efficient killing machine available?

That's irrelevant. By being part of the military, you are complicit in what it does. If everyone refused to join or be drafted, there would be no war.

Well, that's the - quite frankly naive - pacifist argument: If nobody did it, there would be no problem. It's the fault that is present in Kant's ethics: Deontological ethics is fine as an approximation, but morality ultimately has to be teleological - in a widened sense, that is; if needed, I can go into more detail. The only limit to a soldier's willingness to carry out orders must be the most basic moral principle: The regard for human dignity that sometimes makes war necessary.
So yeah, we want as sharp as possible swords, we want someone sensible to have control over them, and we do not want to use them - they have to be (and are) a last resort. And, thanks to MAD, academic physics has given us a sword that is near perfect for most of the really dangerous situations.
All that's not to say that one should not care about war and peace; but one should care on the political and not on the military level.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 12, 2012, 02:34:14 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 02:03:10 pm

Evidence of fraud:

It's not exactly unheard of for Mittens to get 0% in a vote. Remember this  (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html)poll?

Note that your second link says...

05 = Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM)             420,953   68.74
06 = Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (REP)              184,475   30.12

...for the state. That's not exactly 100%. There were quite a few area where Romney only got a handful of votes (541 to 4 in one such area) but also quite a few areas where they only differed by a hundred votes or so. I don't know about Cleveland, but here's how my college voted, according to student polling:

(D) Barack Obama: 90%
(R) Mitt Romney: 4%
(G) Jill Stein: 4%
Other: 2%

Cleveland probably isn't as liberal in its entirety, but some districts might be.

I'm sure Pundit Press is wholly unbiased anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 02:34:40 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:23:52 pm

That's irrelevant. By being part of the military, you are complicit in what it does. If everyone refused to join or be drafted, there would be no war.

War is not the worst outcome though. In fact, sometimes war is preferable.

To paraphrase RvB
"I don't kill people for fun, it's my job."
"But you like killing people!"
"Well, I think it's important to enjoy what you do."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:38:17 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 12, 2012, 02:31:51 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:23:52 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:14:01 pm

And soldier's take their order from politicians, who are accountable to the will of the people, who are accountable to their own free will.

Do you blame the sword for the hand that wields it, or just want that damn sword to be the most efficient killing machine available?

That's irrelevant. By being part of the military, you are complicit in what it does. If everyone refused to join or be drafted, there would be no war.

Thing is, what if you are deceived, or believe so much in something, you believe it's worth killing for?

Well, that's a religious question, isn't it? I put my trust in the United States, and until I find reason to change it, that's where it is.

Myself, I'd fully expect to be giving a reckoning for those sins at the pearly gates, assuming that I don't end up in Fiddler's Green.

Quote from: Helgoland on November 12, 2012, 02:33:52 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:23:52 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:14:01 pm

And soldier's take their order from politicians, who are accountable to the will of the people, who are accountable to their own free will.

Do you blame the sword for the hand that wields it, or just want that damn sword to be the most efficient killing machine available?

That's irrelevant. By being part of the military, you are complicit in what it does. If everyone refused to join or be drafted, there would be no war.

Well, that's the - quite frankly naive - pacifist argument: If nobody did it, there would be no problem. It's the fault that is present in Kant's ethics: Deontological ethics is fine as an approximation, but morality ultimately has to be teleological - in a widened sense, that is; if needed, I can go into more detail. The only limit to a soldier's willingness to carry out orders must be the most basic moral principle: The regard for human dignity that sometimes makes war necessary.
So yeah, we want as sharp as possible swords, we want someone sensible to have control over them, and we do not want to use them - they have to be (and are) a last resort. And, thanks to MAD, academic physics has given us a sword that is near perfect for most of the really dangerous situations.
All that's not to say that one should not care about war and peace; but one should care on the political and not on the military level.

Yeah, that's putting it pretty elegantly. Of course, I don't really know if I can buy it completely, considering how much fucked up shit happens all over the world by poorly led, poorly trained, generally evil, types being the preeminent military force, but my judgement's certainly flawed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 02:42:52 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 12, 2012, 02:34:14 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 02:03:10 pm

Evidence of fraud:

It's not exactly unheard of for Mittens to get 0% in a vote. Remember this  (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html)poll?

Note that your second link says...

05 = Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM)             420,953   68.74
06 = Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (REP)              184,475   30.12

...for the state. That's not exactly 100%. There were quite a few area where Romney only got a handful of votes (541 to 4 in one such area) but also quite a few areas where they only differed by a hundred votes or so. I don't know about Cleveland, but here's how my college voted, according to student polling:

(D) Barack Obama: 90%
(R) Mitt Romney: 4%
(G) Jill Stein: 4%
Other: 2%

Cleveland probably isn't as liberal in its entirety, but some districts might be.

I'm sure Pundit Press is wholly unbiased anyway.

I was mocking them actually, for highlighting the "precinct" where Obama got 100% of the votes with 100% turnout, and neglecting to mention that only 2 people voted there. So their bias is pretty clear. One "precinct" had zero voters. I'm guessing it actually is a table of voting places?

Both the cities they're claiming fraud in (Cleveland and Philadelphia) have an exceptionally high black population, so is it that hard to believe? XD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:52:29 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2012, 02:21:49 pm

Must've missed that new rule about only arguing with confused metaphors.

Well yeah, let's be honest here, I doubt more than one or two of us has done the kind of research necessary to debate anything we've said as an expert party. Everything else is just word games, fun, and philosophy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 03:09:29 pm

/me Raises hand.

Degree in computer science with a heavy emphasis on chemistry and geology.

Petrochem industry was a backup plan considering how big it is in southern Louisiana/Mississippi.

Right now I write software managing hazmat and hazwaste along with reports, forecasts, and such for the USAF.

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I can and have done the basic math on the energy issues we were discussing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 12, 2012, 03:11:08 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 12, 2012, 02:34:14 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 02:03:10 pm

Evidence of fraud:

It's not exactly unheard of for Mittens to get 0% in a vote. Remember this  (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html)poll?

Note that your second link says...

05 = Barack Obama/Joe Biden (DEM)             420,953   68.74
06 = Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan (REP)              184,475   30.12

...for the state. That's not exactly 100%. There were quite a few area where Romney only got a handful of votes (541 to 4 in one such area) but also quite a few areas where they only differed by a hundred votes or so. I don't know about Cleveland, but here's how my college voted, according to student polling:

(D) Barack Obama: 90%
(R) Mitt Romney: 4%
(G) Jill Stein: 4%
Other: 2%

Cleveland probably isn't as liberal in its entirety, but some districts might be.

I'm sure Pundit Press is wholly unbiased anyway.

Wow. Even by college standards that's unnervingly liberal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 03:14:21 pm

My school voted for Obama 74%, Romney like 7%, Gary johnson half that, and Jill Stein the rest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 12, 2012, 03:17:09 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 02:34:40 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:23:52 pm

That's irrelevant. By being part of the military, you are complicit in what it does. If everyone refused to join or be drafted, there would be no war.

War is not the worst outcome though. In fact, sometimes war is preferable.

To paraphrase RvB
"I don't kill people for fun, it's my job."
"But you like killing people!"
"Well, I think it's important to enjoy what you do."

RvB just got quoted in a serious context. Shit just got real.

Anyway, I think Strife has a serious misunderstanding about the purpose of war. The goal in a war is not to kill all of the bad guys (for whatever definition of bad you choose). The goal is to convince whoever you are fighting against that it would be better for them to let you have your way, in a more offensive manner than treaty negotiations over tea. Sometimes it boils down to killing every last person on their side, but not usually. The American rebels didn't kill every single British soldier that stepped foot on the continent from 1775-1783. The Confederate army during the American Civil War was attempting to implement this strategy: their goal was to demoralize the Union into letting them have their way with states' rights and slavery (whichever you choose to believe was the main focus of the war), instead of fighting a long and drawn-out war. It's not necessary for an army to be the most efficient killing machine in existence. They just have to be able to pose enough of a threat that the enemy would rather surrender than have to deal with them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 03:19:29 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:52:29 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 12, 2012, 02:21:49 pm

Must've missed that new rule about only arguing with confused metaphors.

Well yeah, let's be honest here, I doubt more than one or two of us has done the kind of research necessary to debate anything we've said as an expert party. Everything else is just word games, fun, and philosophy.

I don't need to be an astronomer to tell you that we don't live in a geocentric universe.  Nor do I need to be a climatologist or economist to tell you that coal power plants are a very expensive form of energy production once you account for emissions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 03:22:06 pm

Quote from: Mego on November 12, 2012, 03:17:09 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 02:34:40 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 02:23:52 pm

That's irrelevant. By being part of the military, you are complicit in what it does. If everyone refused to join or be drafted, there would be no war.

War is not the worst outcome though. In fact, sometimes war is preferable.

To paraphrase RvB
"I don't kill people for fun, it's my job."
"But you like killing people!"
"Well, I think it's important to enjoy what you do."

RvB just got quoted in a serious context. Shit just got real.

Anyway, I think Strife has a serious misunderstanding about the purpose of war. The goal in a war is not to kill all of the bad guys (for whatever definition of bad you choose). The goal is to convince whoever you are fighting against that it would be better for them to let you have your way, in a more offensive manner than treaty negotiations over tea. Sometimes it boils down to killing every last person on their side, but not usually. The American rebels didn't kill every single British soldier that stepped foot on the continent from 1775-1783. The Confederate army during the American Civil War was attempting to implement this strategy: their goal was to demoralize the Union into letting them have their way with states' rights and slavery (whichever you choose to believe was the main focus of the war), instead of fighting a long and drawn-out war. It's not necessary for an army to be the most efficient killing machine in existence. They just have to be able to pose enough of a threat that the enemy would rather surrender than have to deal with them.

Yeah, but you pose a threat by being capable of doing something. I mean, don't get me wrong, inflatable tanks and the like are very powerful things, but at the end of the day, they're just deception that can be seen through with the wrong bit of knowledge.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 12, 2012, 03:45:22 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 12, 2012, 03:11:08 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 12, 2012, 02:34:14 pm

here's how my college voted, according to student polling:

(D) Barack Obama: 90%
(R) Mitt Romney: 4%
(G) Jill Stein: 4%
Other: 2%

Wow. Even by college standards that's unnervingly liberal.

More than a hundred people were up until 3 AM dancing in the streets after Obama won. So uh, yeah.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on November 12, 2012, 04:03:37 pm

We should rename the Democrats to Bidenocrats or something, so we can have proper RGB displays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 04:07:33 pm

Red, Green and Blue are illusions.

There is only cyan, magenta, yellow and black.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 04:11:33 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 04:07:33 pm

Red, Green and Blue are illusions.

There is only cyan, magenta, yellow and black.

On a computer screen, maybe. On a surface that reflects light rather than emitting it, red blue and green are the true colors, and cyan magenta and yellow are the lies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karlito on November 12, 2012, 05:16:50 pm

Uhh, your computer screen is made of a bunch of tiny red, blue, and green pixels.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 05:18:27 pm

Wait yeah, I got that backwards. Oopsies.

RGB = emitting light.
CMY = reflecting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 05:18:32 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 04:11:33 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 04:07:33 pm

Red, Green and Blue are illusions.

There is only cyan, magenta, yellow and black.

On a computer screen, maybe. On a surface that reflects light rather than emitting it, red blue and green are the true colors, and cyan magenta and yellow are the lies.

(other way around, mate)

Edit: My correction was ninja-ed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 05:30:14 pm

Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow are the primary colours.

Red and Blue are just nice-looking close approximations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 12, 2012, 05:36:24 pm

But more seriously, I think any three colours are primary colours, so long as they are opposite on the color wheel and there are three of them (plus black/white), essentially. Orange/Green/Violet also work. Which ones you choose are arbitrary.

And it only works if your a trichromat, too. Those humans who are one-level colourblind, or the lucky few with an an extra receptor, get 2 or 4, respectively.

And what is this, this isn't politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 12, 2012, 05:42:38 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 05:18:27 pm

Wait yeah, I got that backwards. Oopsies.

RGB = emitting light.
CMY = reflecting.

RGB is computers [additive]
RYB is classic art [subtractive]
CMY is printing.

In reality, all colors are light. Light is just light. Color is just how our eyes "divide" light.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 12, 2012, 05:59:16 pm

Well light is actually just shades between red and violet, so it really should be RV.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 12, 2012, 06:04:54 pm

Actually since we have only RGB receptors in the eye, there are two ways to see e.g. "yellow".

Either clear yellow wavelength light, which stimulates the R and G receptors (wavelengths in between the receptor "core" values stimulate both types of cell proportionally to the wavelength), or a mix of R and G light, which stimulates each of the same cells.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 12, 2012, 05:59:16 pm

Well light is actually just shades between red and violet, so it really should be RV.

Wavelengths too far from the core values which stimulate each type of rod/cone don't seem to work for additive color. RGB works because those values stimulate the cells the most. RV would not stimulate the Green receptor, so cannot create the full spectrum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 12, 2012, 07:08:26 pm

On paper, we use CMY because we want to only absorb particular colors. With light, you can make green light with only green light. But we usually have a mix of all the colors in ambient light, so that's impractical for artistry. When you use green paint, you're applying a coat that absorbs all the blue and red that together make magenta, the opposite of the light you want to see. But with green paint, you're blocking out two whole colors. Instead, you could use yellow paint (blocks all blue) and cyan paint (blocks all red) together. That way you can use each individually, and when you stack them on top of each other, you absorb everything but green, which is reflected.

For printers, CMY works. (Drawing uses subtractive coloring.) For computer screens and other lights, RGB is the only way to do things. Those new TVs that use yellow lights have great yellows... but in exchange, they make all the other primary colors look worse.

Politics as usual.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 12, 2012, 07:27:43 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 02:31:10 pm

It's perfectly relevant, Eagle.

I damn straight complicit in what my country does and tells me to do. The point is that I'd happily drive shooting over a fair number of moral event horizons if that's what I was told to do (now, to be honest, there's obviously limits to what I'd consider a legal order, but for the purposes of this discussion, we can ignore these extreme cases because I'm, without a doubt, going to lean on the side of "shoot it to make sure," and therefore on the wrong end of morality), that's why there's civilians at the top of the chain of command. 


There exists times where naked military force is necessary
It is better for this force to be overwhelming
Overwhelming force requires the best soldiers and doctrine possible
It's impossible to be a truly good soldier without aggression and understanding
--> Effectively, loving war to some extent
Soldier's can *not* have an unbiased view, so we need to take orders from someone


So yeah, I'm complicit, and I'm perfectly okay with that. I swore to follow my lawful orders and to protect my scrap of paper. However, all that I care about is that my orders come from higher up. If I'm dammed, I dammed for it, but that's life.

Being blindly obedient is not a good thing. This is especially ironic in the "land of the free". You have the freedom (which, incidently many people in millitary battles died for) but you are choosing to ignore that freedom. It is important that you question everything and apply logic to any given situation, including accepting the fact that the person that ordered you to do whatever may have not.

The only thing that seems to act as a roof of what you would do is the legality of the orders. Do you have no compassion?

There may exist times where naked military force is necessary, but that does not mean that any order that is given to you implies that it is this time. After stating that your limits are legal, this statement has no meaning, since you would follow orders regardless wheather it was actually necessary or not. It is important to apply critical thinking here to work out wheather it is necessary, rather than just use this as an excuse to justify blind obedience.

Quote

It's impossible to be a truly good soldier without aggression and understanding

You have the aggression but lack understanding. Furthermore you have implied before that you don't want understanding, just shoot what is scary while following orderes.

How can you "love war"? I understand it as a necessary evil sometimes, but love? peoples families are destroyed, it causes misery. Any reasonable human being should feel some compassion for the people who suffer in the horrors of war.

In the later posts you stated something about evil. There is no such thing as absolute evil. Bad people are doing what they do for some reason, however twisted it may be. If you view the enemy as 'evil' you will never make progress.

Everything you have stated are the exact things that leads to war. they are the things that leads to bloody conflicts, to misery and destruction. The soldiers on both sides shutting off their rational minds and following blindly is exactly what leads to war, to enemies forming and fighting.

It is a very good thing that you are not giving orders. You would be responsible for causing misery "to be safe rather than sorry".

My mind is boggled trying to understand how anyone could completely ignore any rationale behind what they are doing, do it, and love it. My mind is boggled as to how you can identify this flaw, and just can't be bothered to think anymore about this, just go on ignoring issues you have correctly identified for no good reason.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 07:42:46 pm

Because questioning gets people killed. The phrase "Mine is not to reason why" is a necessary piece of thinking towards effective militaries. I put my trust in the rest of the system that my orders are going to be good ones.


And yes, I have compassion, but in a combat zone, it ends very very firmly at the laws of war, and not a step further.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 08:04:16 pm

And following your orders gets people killed as well. Probably more people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 12, 2012, 08:06:40 pm

Yeah, but they're not my people.


Sorry if that sounds cold, but at the end of the day it is, and I put my trust that serving the interests of my country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on November 12, 2012, 08:10:30 pm

Oh, hey nationalism! Nice to see you again.

Oh hey judging peoples worth based on their birth! Nice to see you again!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 08:16:24 pm

Yeah, nationalism ain't a good thing. "Your people" are on both sides of the fight; thinking otherwise makes you pretty damn inhuman.


Anyway, I'll accept violence helps solves things in some situations, but very few. Especially on the scale we're talking about here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:18:56 pm

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 08:20:54 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:18:56 pm

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Minor difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism is my country right or wrong.

Patriotism is my country because it is right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 08:21:41 pm

Uniting to fight "that other guy" is pretty much never a good thing, at least when it comes to stuff like this. That sort of unity is fragile and based upon hatred.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:26:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 08:21:41 pm

Uniting to fight "that other guy" is pretty much never a good thing, at least when it comes to stuff like this. That sort of unity is fragile and based upon hatred.

No, No. Did I mention it was that nationalism that united Italy from fragmented city-states? Because it was. And germany, in that same time period, went from 36 various kingdoms to 1.
 

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 08:20:54 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:18:56 pm

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Minor difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism is my country right or wrong.

Patriotism is my country because it is right.

No. No. No. Those are the same things. I could easily use either to start a war, or a revolution. the american revolution was nationalistic, despite what they say. In fact, I find it a piece of unbeilevable hypocrasy that the US has no "nationalism", that scary word, only patriotism. Nationalism, ended the empires which oppresed most of europe. It was Nationalistic sentiment that helped end communist Rule is various parts of the Former Soviet union. Nationalism is not all evil.
 
 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 12, 2012, 08:38:33 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:18:56 pm

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

And city states uniting is good because? And empires deuniting is good because?

And no, the American revolution was not nationalistic. They still considered themselves British back then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 08:41:11 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:26:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 08:21:41 pm

Uniting to fight "that other guy" is pretty much never a good thing, at least when it comes to stuff like this. That sort of unity is fragile and based upon hatred.

No, No. Did I mention it was that nationalism that united Italy from fragmented city-states? Because it was. And germany, in that same time period, went from 36 various kingdoms to 1.
 

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 08:20:54 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:18:56 pm

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Minor difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism is my country right or wrong.

Patriotism is my country because it is right.

No. No. No. Those are the same things. I could easily use either to start a war, or a revolution. the american revolution was nationalistic, despite what they say. In fact, I find it a piece of unbeilevable hypocrasy that the US has no "nationalism", that scary word, only patriotism. Nationalism, ended the empires which oppresed most of europe. It was Nationalistic sentiment that helped end communist Rule is various parts of the Former Soviet union. Nationalism is not all evil.

No. Really. Different.

If my government takes an action not fitting the principals of my country, as a patriot I condemn that. As a nationalist I would endorse it.

Nationalism is an article of faith that excuses immoral action and injustice. Patriotism demands moral action and justice in order to live up to the principals your nation is supposed to embody.

There are plenty of American nationalists, though most of them call themselves patriots.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 08:52:45 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:26:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 12, 2012, 08:21:41 pm

Uniting to fight "that other guy" is pretty much never a good thing, at least when it comes to stuff like this. That sort of unity is fragile and based upon hatred.

No, No. Did I mention it was that nationalism that united Italy from fragmented city-states? Because it was. And germany, in that same time period, went from 36 various kingdoms to 1.
 

Quote from: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 08:20:54 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 08:18:56 pm

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Minor difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism is my country right or wrong.

Patriotism is my country because it is right.

No. No. No. Those are the same things. I could easily use either to start a war, or a revolution. the american revolution was nationalistic, despite what they say. In fact, I find it a piece of unbeilevable hypocrasy that the US has no "nationalism", that scary word, only patriotism. Nationalism, ended the empires which oppresed most of europe. It was Nationalistic sentiment that helped end communist Rule is various parts of the Former Soviet union. Nationalism is not all evil.

The american revolution was a rich person's tax revolt that got carried away. Nationalism didn't end imperialism in Europe, it strengthened it. You're right in that nationalism united germany. This is the same Germany that had a temper tantrum every 20 years or so until the end of WWII. Italy after unification was a near-absolute monarchy as well.  Nationalism prolonged the existence of the British Empire by providing a constant influx of fresh recruits for occupation. The end of "communist"(Thinly veiled fascism) rule in eastern europe was not nationalist in origin. The people behind Solidarity and the reunification of germany weren't motivated by hatred of russians, but by dislike of the oppressive soviet government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 09:05:51 pm

None of you have ever met a real nationalist have you? Only heard what you remember of Hitler's rise to power. He corrupted alot of pre-exising things. Like the swastika. Thousands of years old, no you can never use it. Hell, I have long-dead ancestors with Swastikas on their headstones.
 
Nationalism is not hating someone else. No. it is not. That is a different breed altogether. Nationalism is your country for your people. That is all. It's homogeny. It's the basic idea that a government should reflect it's people. It's the foundation of Democracy. Can you disagree with that? Can you disagree that a seperate group of people should have their own nation apart from you? Free to choose for themselves how to rule?Does it lead to unecessary conflict? Yes, it has. Does it often lead to countires factionalizing? Yes, it does. Is there something inheritly wrong in it? No more so then democracy gives power to morons, or that aristocracy leads to stagnation. It's a very large piece of human nature.
 
Also, I must wonder how you people have wrangled me onto the same sides as nationalism. I don't even support it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 12, 2012, 09:09:52 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 09:05:51 pm

Also, I must wonder how you people have wrangled me onto the same sides as nationalism. I don't even support it.

Probably something to do with you talking about all of the wonderful things that nationalism has done, like the unifications of Germany/Italy and the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: vadia on November 12, 2012, 09:31:06 pm

I know that in a argument it's illegal to bring facts but
Merriam Webster
Nationalism
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Patriotism
love for or devotion to one's country

The problem with nationalism is bold underlined.

Given the definitions
All nationalists are patriots.  Not all patriots are nationalists.

Now would you stop arguing against facts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 12, 2012, 09:31:56 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 09:05:51 pm

None of you have ever met a real nationalist have you? Only heard what you remember of Hitler's rise to power. He corrupted alot of pre-exising things. Like the swastika. Thousands of years old, no you can never use it. Hell, I have long-dead ancestors with Swastikas on their headstones.

"The swastika was a thousand-year-old symbol of peace and prosperity that the Nazis ruined forever"

-Earth: The Book

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 10:01:24 pm

They also ruined that cool salute, black boots, trenchcoats, and the whole notion of eugenics. Seriously, what was their problem?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 10:05:21 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 12, 2012, 08:38:33 pm

And no, the American revolution was not nationalistic. They still considered themselves British back then.

The American Revolution was not nationalistic at the start. After the empire rejected the Olive Branch Treaty and it became clear there was no reunification, the revolution turned nationalist and created the American identity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 12, 2012, 10:10:30 pm

I think some of the "Germans" of the 1800s might disagree with you, considering the fact that the unification of Germany by the Prussians led to the squashing of liberal ideals and the imposition of a fairly brutal and aggressive state in the middle of Europe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 12, 2012, 10:29:56 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 10:01:24 pm

They also ruined that cool salute, black boots, trenchcoats, and the whole notion of eugenics. Seriously, what was their problem?

Actually, the '70s ruined trenchcoats. The Nazis just gave them "badass antihero" connotations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Agdune on November 12, 2012, 10:39:27 pm

Yeah, living under the Prussian Kingdom/early German Empire actually wasn't that awesome, by most accounts, if you chanced to have any issues with living in what was essentially a stratocratic kingdom. In practice, the military was the state, and even though the first world war was triggered by serbian nationalists, the German Empire quite gleefully jumped in and started breaking all sorts of unwritten laws about warfare, such as not using smaller, neutral countries as battlefields and not conducting terror bombings of civilian populations (the German empire pioneered the terror bombings that became commonplace in the second world war. They used awesome Zeppelins! Which unfortunately helped ruin their image aswell...)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 12, 2012, 10:50:59 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 10:01:24 pm

They also ruined that cool salute, black boots, trenchcoats, and the whole notion of eugenics. Seriously, what was their problem?

They can keep that moustache though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 10:52:35 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 12, 2012, 10:50:59 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 10:01:24 pm

They also ruined that cool salute, black boots, trenchcoats, and the whole notion of eugenics. Seriously, what was their problem?

They can keep that moustache though.

I know you ain't dissin' the Chaplin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 10:53:38 pm

So then, since this is now derailed, it is my duty to re-rail it:

Quote

"A mathematical analysis (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/exclusive-analysis-if-trends-hold-texas-will-be-a-toss-up-state-by-2024/) of demographic trends and voting results by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News finds that Texas Democrats will reach parity with Republicans at the presidential election level by 2024 if current population and electoral participation trends continue."

Wow. The republicans have really got to get on this. If they move to the right on immigration, they will cease to exist. Hell, I might even see a 3rd party candidate who the media care about in my lifetime. :o

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:01:37 pm

Yeah, we touched on that a little earlier. The GOP has thus far not indicated that they understand the reality of the situation. Their reaction to Romney's loss is that he should have been more right-wing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 11:05:26 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:01:37 pm

Yeah, we touched on that a little earlier. The GOP has thus far not indicated that they understand the reality of the situation. Their reaction to Romney's loss is that he should have been more right-wing.

I know, but it is so very, jarring, to see straight numbers.
 
Well, As things move to the left, we are likely to see more factionalism. There are many forms of liberalism, but they are pressed by the party system into a cohesive body. When democrats begin to gain consisten control of both houses, such issues will come to a head.
 
I wonder along what lines they will break?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 11:07:01 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 10:01:24 pm

They also ruined that cool salute, black boots, trenchcoats, and the whole notion of eugenics. Seriously, what was their problem?

Eugenics was already a bad idea, the violent excesses of the Nazis were simply what it took to get people to realize it.
Whether it is done violently or peaceably doesn't change the fact that the concept of eugenics is constructed of equal parts hubris and misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scelly9 on November 12, 2012, 11:07:57 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 11:05:26 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:01:37 pm

Yeah, we touched on that a little earlier. The GOP has thus far not indicated that they understand the reality of the situation. Their reaction to Romney's loss is that he should have been more right-wing.

I know, but it is so very, jarring, to see straight numbers.
 
Well, As things move to the left, we are likely to see more factionalism. There are many forms of liberalism, but they are pressed by the party system into a cohesive body. When democrats begin to gain consisten control of both houses, such issues will come to a head.
 
I wonder along what lines they will break?

It's going to be an interesting century.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 11:08:47 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 10:53:38 pm

Wow. The republicans have really got to get on this. If they move to the right on immigration, they will cease to exist. Hell, I might even see a 3rd party candidate who the media care about in my lifetime. :o

Well the history of the FPTP voting system says that if there aren't competitive elections there will be a realignment until elections become competitive again.  So if the GOP doesn't change we should expect them to disappear and be replaced.  But does it seem realistic to think that they will cling to these ideas for the 15 years or so that it would take them to become obsolete?  That's a long time and the GOP is a party that's survived for going on a century and a half now.  My guess is that the GOP will change itself enough to survive sometime in the next decade.

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 11:05:26 pm

When democrats begin to gain consisten control of both houses, such issues will come to a head.

I doubt that's gonna happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 11:10:51 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 11:08:47 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 11:05:26 pm

When democrats begin to gain consisten control of both houses, such issues will come to a head.

I doubt that's gonna happen.

Why? This more then anything I don't understand. It's a very logical assumption. Much like how, in Australia, where The parties are both considered tp be to the left of the american center, not everyone agrees all the time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:14:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 11:08:47 pm

Well the history of the FPTP voting system says that if there aren't competitive elections there will be a realignment until elections become competitive again.  So if the GOP doesn't change we should expect them to disappear and be replaced.  But does it seem realistic to think that they will cling to these ideas for the 15 years or so that it would take them to become obsolete?  That's a long time and the GOP is a party that's survived for going on a century and a half now.  My guess is that the GOP will change itself enough to survive sometime in the next decade.

The issue is that you are assuming the GOP is a rational actor. It isn't. The party leadership is filled with extremists, and so all else follows. We've seen this election that they are willing to deny reality in favor of their ideology. The GOP has only become more extreme in the past 15 years, and the trend does not shows signs of reversal yet.

The GOP might change, but its not impossible that they'll jump straight off the acceptable ideological spectrum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 12, 2012, 11:16:42 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 11:07:01 pm

Eugenics was already a bad idea, the violent excesses of the Nazis were simply what it took to get people to realize it.
Whether it is done violently or peaceably doesn't change the fact that the concept of eugenics is constructed of equal parts hubris and misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

It was always a nice concept, though. Removing all the flaws inherent in the evolutionary process that our species has been saddled with? I could do without SIDS and crap, y'know? Maybe little boosts here and there to the beneficial bits would be nice, too. I wouldn't mind a more efficient digestive system or somethin'.

We aren't nearly at the level of technical capability we'd need to really pull anything good off, though (caveat being we're close to maybe a few small things, here and there), and definitely our understanding of things at the time eugenics was less demonized rendered any attempt at it firmly in the realm of "bad idea". Trying to work humans like humans worked dogs would almost certainly end up with humans ending up like dogs -- purebreed dogs, especially the more extreme variations, are pretty notorious for genetic defects, yeah. We got (/might get, with human implementation) superficial results, but the subject in general goes a lot deeper than the surface.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 12, 2012, 11:25:32 pm

Well, I think we could probably get rid of things like hemophilia and tay sachs without downsides, since such a small portion of the population carries the genes

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 12, 2012, 11:26:19 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 10:52:35 pm

I know you ain't dissin' the Chaplin.

I'm sorry, but while Chaplin himself was epic, the only good thing about that 'stache was the +10 to disguise when imitating a certain grumpy german dictator.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 11:28:34 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 12, 2012, 11:26:19 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 10:52:35 pm

I know you ain't dissin' the Chaplin.

I'm sorry, but while Chaplin himself was epic, the only good thing about that 'stache was the +10 to disguise when imitating a certain grumpy german dictator.

Hynkel?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 11:36:50 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:14:57 pm

The issue is that you are assuming the GOP is a rational actor. It isn't.

No I'm not.  I'm just pointing out that the GOP is a party that has survived demographic shifts in the past.  The GOP hated the idea of voting for that commie new dealer Eisenhower.  But they hated the idea of losing another election even more so they gave him the nomination in 1952.  You really think that you can predict every one of the next 8 elections and say that the GOP doesn't tack to the center in any of them?  If so, I'm going to ask where you got your crystal ball.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:14:57 pm

The GOP might change, but its not impossible that they'll jump straight off the acceptable ideological spectrum.

Sure it's possible.  But don't start writing the eulogy yet.  It's only been two years since they won a national election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 12, 2012, 11:40:25 pm

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=BSQAjBD_DI4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBSQAjBD_DI4

obama won because romney was a poopy head!

yea. that happened.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 12, 2012, 11:42:01 pm

To be fair, he is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Ogdibus on November 12, 2012, 11:43:45 pm

Quote from: Urist Imiknorris on November 12, 2012, 11:42:01 pm

To be fair, he is.

I thought the same thing when I heard Grover say that. x3

Edit:  added the word "heard"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:46:10 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 11:36:50 pm

You really think that you can predict every one of the next 8 elections and say that the GOP doesn't tack to the center in any of them?  If so, I'm going to ask where you got your crystal ball.

A prediction is by definition capable of being wrong, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make it.

The GOP is different now than it has ever been before, because the GOP has become the party of Jesus and the Free Market God. You would not see this kind of theocratic rhetoric they've been pushing more and more ever since Reagan took office at any other point in their history, relative to the religiosity of the public. They've gone beyond compromise and moderation because they think, they honestly and truly think that the omnipotent creator of our universe is on their side and they must enact what they see as his will at all cost. They won't endorse anyone who doesn't fit that mold.

That is why I think the GOP is dying. They could tack to center if they had a different motivation, and hell, they probably could have won this election had they done so. But their primary motivation doesn't allow for change or compromise these days. At this point it is clear that the GOP is going to have to undergo a paradigm shift if they want to survive, but I don't think they will. Conservatives don't lend themselves to rapid changes like that.

They've stopped playing to the moderate and they are going to pay for it, because not playing to the moderate is the mortal sin of American politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 12, 2012, 11:50:47 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:46:10 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 11:36:50 pm

You really think that you can predict every one of the next 8 elections and say that the GOP doesn't tack to the center in any of them?  If so, I'm going to ask where you got your crystal ball.

A prediction is by definition capable of being wrong, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make it.

The GOP is different now than it has ever been before, because the GOP has become the party of Jesus and the Free Market God. You would not see this kind of theocratic rhetoric they've been pushing more and more ever since Reagan took office at any other point in their history, relative to the religiosity of the public. They've gone beyond compromise and moderation because they think, they honestly and truly think that the omnipotent creator of our universe is on their side and they must enact what they see as his will at all cost. They won't endorse anyone who doesn't fit that mold.

That is why I think the GOP is dying. They could tack to center if they had a different motivation, and hell, they probably could have won this election had they done so. But their primary motivation doesn't allow for change or compromise these days. At this point it is clear that the GOP is going to have to undergo a paradigm shift if they want to survive, but I don't think they will. Conservatives don't lend themselves to rapid changes like that.

They've stopped playing to the moderate and they are going to pay for it, because not playing to the moderate is the mortal sin of American politics.

Right here, there is a fundamental truth.

Quote

they probably could have won this election had they done so

Exactly. Hell, Incumbents should do bady in this climate! They should do terribly. All over The first-world, incumbents left office. But no. Instead, Mitt romney had fewer votes then John Mccain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 12, 2012, 11:52:04 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 12, 2012, 11:46:10 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 12, 2012, 11:36:50 pm

You really think that you can predict every one of the next 8 elections and say that the GOP doesn't tack to the center in any of them?  If so, I'm going to ask where you got your crystal ball.

A prediction is by definition capable of being wrong, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make it.

The GOP is different now than it has ever been before, because the GOP has become the party of Jesus and the Free Market God. You would not see this kind of theocratic rhetoric they've been pushing more and more ever since Reagan took office at any other point in their history, relative to the religiosity of the public. They've gone beyond compromise and moderation because they think, they honestly and truly think that the omnipotent creator of our universe is on their side and they must enact what they see as his will at all cost. They won't endorse anyone who doesn't fit that mold.

That is why I think the GOP is dying. They could tack to center if they had a different motivation, and hell, they probably could have won this election had they done so. But their primary motivation doesn't allow for change or compromise these days. At this point it is clear that the GOP is going to have to undergo a paradigm shift if they want to survive, but I don't think they will. Conservatives don't lend themselves to rapid changes like that.

They've stopped playing to the moderate and they are going to pay for it, because not playing to the moderate is the mortal sin of American politics.

They're the American Taliban.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 12:07:44 am

Everyone always feels like the other side is beyond the pale.  Right now I guarantee you there are conservatives on some board posting how the democratic party won't exist in 10 years.

You say that the GOP doesn't reach out to moderates but the GOP in the days before the election was obsessed about the idea of appealing to swing voters.  They repeated endlessly that they were winning self identified independents and that was important.  Turns out they did win self identified independents but that group was not the same thing as swing voters.  Conservative pundits spent a lot of time after the election lamenting how they weren't appealing to Hispanics and women.

And I'm sorry but you are wrong to think that parties can't make about faces over the objections of the base.  The GOP has done it not once but three times in the past 100 years alone.  In 1936 they tacked sharply to the left and nominated a new dealer.  In 1968 they rejected the Goldwater conservatives from the previous election.  In 1952 they went with Eisenhower even though he was a godless new dealer who supported integration.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on November 13, 2012, 12:12:39 am

Wow, this thread is getting a little uncomfortable.  I was going to deliver some diatribe about what this election proved about some things, but eh.  Effort.

Something interesting that I just stumbled across while checking my email.  Up in Alaska (http://www.mail.com/scitech/news/1693256-alaska-ice-tested-energy-source.html#.23140-stage-mostviewed1-8) they just tapped into a unique form of methane crystals with some high energy density.  Nothing particularly interesting about it, except for these lines near the top:

Quote

With the boom in production from hydraulic fracturing, the United States is awash in natural gas for the near future and is considering exporting it, but the DOE wants to be ready with methane if there's a need.

"If you wait until you need it, and then you have 20 years of research to do, that's not a good plan," said Ray Boswell, technology manager for methane hydrates within the DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Huh, check out the big brain on Boswell.  Forethought in energy production, what an obviously good idea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 13, 2012, 12:26:56 am

That's one thing I dislike about American interviews: the journalist re-write everything instead of posting a clean question-and-answer list. In this case, I'm pretty sure the guy was asked "Why do you do that thing if we got fracking?"

Also, methane hydrates gives me the creep. There's tons of that stuff all over the sea, and it's sensitive enough that a change in ocean temperature could trigger a mass release of methane. It's like a friggin' sword of Damocles. And I'm glad the DOE is researching them, if only so that we know if/when it's going to fall down on our head.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on November 13, 2012, 12:32:01 am

Quote from: Sheb on November 13, 2012, 12:26:56 am

That's one thing I dislike about American interviews: the journalist re-write everything instead of posting a clean question-and-answer list. In this case, I'm pretty sure the guy was asked "Why do you do that thing if we got fracking?"

Uh... What?  I was just pointing out the irony of a methane hydrates scientist saying exactly what you'd expect from a green energy scientist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 13, 2012, 12:32:21 am

Strange crystals, which hold huge potential promise for the human race both economically, but which likewise may cause irrepairable damage to the biosphere...

Okay, who spilt Command & Conquer in my reality >:/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 13, 2012, 12:35:10 am

Methane hydrates are not self-propagating possibly-sentient alien bioweapons.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on November 13, 2012, 12:35:50 am

Man, crazy ass sci-fi stuff has been popping out of the woodwork in the last 3 months. FTL, crystal energy (of a sort), practical synthetic hydrocarbons.

Christ, what's next? Cracking immortality by 2013?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 13, 2012, 12:53:21 am

Okay, Aquizzar. but you won't blunt my deep, cold, seething hatred for US interviews so easily! :p

Still, I don't really see it as ironic. What was the guy supposed to say? "Yeah, it' actually useless. But hey, your tax dollars fund research on electroejaculation in the giant panda (http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/67/1/9.long), so let me have my fun with methane hydrates." ?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 12:58:41 am

Quote from: Descan on November 13, 2012, 12:35:50 am

Man, crazy ass sci-fi stuff has been popping out of the woodwork in the last 3 months. FTL, crystal energy (of a sort), practical synthetic hydrocarbons.

Christ, what's next? Cracking immortality by 2013?

Well, they DID reverse aging in Mice, so, Within, say, 20 years, it could be possible. Not immortality mind you. That is completly impossible. Just long lasting. You'd have to exercise alot more to stay in shape. No more "Well, who cares when I'm 50?" because it will be one of the things that ACTUALLY kill you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 13, 2012, 12:58:56 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 13, 2012, 12:35:10 am

Methane hydrates are not self-propagating possibly-sentient alien bioweapons.

Sure, and next you'll say Elvis actually died, and we really landed on the moon. Bah, you crazy conspiracy theorists!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rolan7 on November 13, 2012, 01:10:42 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 12:07:44 am

Everyone always feels like the other side is beyond the pale.  Right now I guarantee you there are conservatives on some board posting how the democratic party won't exist in 10 years.

Specifically they're submitting petitions for state secession.  I have a pastor in my family who is legitimately hoping Texas secedes so that he can move there.  Browsing the news, it seems mostly to be empty blustering, but still.  I'm a poor judge but maybe in Texas's case it's an actual threat?

"Petitions have been filed for Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas."

Remember how they chanted "USA USA USA" over any opposition in 2000 and 2004?  Whether one agrees with the Democrat platform or not, there is a real difference in how the two parties react when threatened.  Democrats hedge, Republicans get angry.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 01:22:40 am

It's a joke. The moment I read New York in that article I went ballistic. WHO THE HELL CARES IF 5 PEOPLE LIVING IN A HOVEL UPSTATE THINK SO?
 
Besides, A friend of mine just posted a 4chan thread about how they are all voting for all of them. Your point is still valid, but just keep in mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 13, 2012, 03:04:34 am

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 13, 2012, 01:10:42 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 12:07:44 am

Everyone always feels like the other side is beyond the pale.  Right now I guarantee you there are conservatives on some board posting how the democratic party won't exist in 10 years.

Specifically they're submitting petitions for state secession.  I have a pastor in my family who is legitimately hoping Texas secedes so that he can move there.  Browsing the news, it seems mostly to be empty blustering, but still.  I'm a poor judge but maybe in Texas's case it's an actual threat?

"Petitions have been filed for Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas."

Remember how they chanted "USA USA USA" over any opposition in 2000 and 2004?  Whether one agrees with the Democrat platform or not, there is a real difference in how the two parties react when threatened.  Democrats hedge, Republicans get angry.

And here I am again, responding to a post about the secession movements.

This is a very interesting read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States)

Those petitions are interesting, but they won't get anywhere. Secession is not a legal right of the states. The Supreme Court made it clear in Texas v. White that it wasn't. A whole war was fought over the concept, and those in favor of it lost. If this continues, then they will be unequivocally rejected by the federal government. Either we'll get another civil war (unlikely, given how the last one turned out and what we're capable of now), or the GOP will get laughed out of existence for trying to organize a mass-secession. Either way, as was said before in this thread, the next century or so will be a very interesting time for American politics. We're about due for a party fracture/realignment.

Also, there's that episode of Boston Legal that I mentioned earlier. Patriot Acts, S4E20. It's relevant, entertaining, and informational.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dragor23 on November 13, 2012, 03:09:19 am

Boston Legal is in general entertaining and informational.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on November 13, 2012, 04:35:23 am

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/12/first-hindu-elected-to-congress/

This news is relevant to me, personally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 13, 2012, 04:44:36 am

Quote from: Mego on November 13, 2012, 03:04:34 am

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 13, 2012, 01:10:42 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 12:07:44 am

Everyone always feels like the other side is beyond the pale.  Right now I guarantee you there are conservatives on some board posting how the democratic party won't exist in 10 years.

Specifically they're submitting petitions for state secession.  I have a pastor in my family who is legitimately hoping Texas secedes so that he can move there.  Browsing the news, it seems mostly to be empty blustering, but still.  I'm a poor judge but maybe in Texas's case it's an actual threat?

"Petitions have been filed for Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas."

Remember how they chanted "USA USA USA" over any opposition in 2000 and 2004?  Whether one agrees with the Democrat platform or not, there is a real difference in how the two parties react when threatened.  Democrats hedge, Republicans get angry.

And here I am again, responding to a post about the secession movements.

This is a very interesting read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States)

Those petitions are interesting, but they won't get anywhere. Secession is not a legal right of the states. The Supreme Court made it clear in Texas v. White that it wasn't. A whole war was fought over the concept, and those in favor of it lost. If this continues, then they will be unequivocally rejected by the federal government. Either we'll get another civil war (unlikely, given how the last one turned out and what we're capable of now), or the GOP will get laughed out of existence for trying to organize a mass-secession. Either way, as was said before in this thread, the next century or so will be a very interesting time for American politics. We're about due for a party fracture/realignment.

Also, there's that episode of Boston Legal that I mentioned earlier. Patriot Acts, S4E20. It's relevant, entertaining, and informational.

It's for this very reason that I think Puerto Rico is making a big mistake in joining an "unbreakable union of unbreakable states". There's no way back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 13, 2012, 08:13:13 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 13, 2012, 12:35:10 am

Methane hydrates are not self-propagating possibly-sentient alien bioweapons.

Yeah, but just to be safe, I think that starting development on the mammoth tank is prudent anyway.






I still find the whole secession issue to be kinda ridiculous, considering the utterly small number of people involved in it. However, it's pretty easy to see why it's being reported on. I wonder what kind of political change it'll beget, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 13, 2012, 08:38:34 am

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to recede (you know, if we pretend for a second that the separatists are a vast majority rather than a few crazies). This isn't the 19th century any more. It's not like it's unrealistic, either. Peaceful secessions have been done before. Czekoslovakia, for example, or the Norwegian split from Sweden of 1905, despite the Swedish conservatives and even the king himself calling for war against them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 13, 2012, 08:48:43 am

Yeah, just because there is no legal framework for a secession doesn't mean it can't be done. Look at Scotland for exemple.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 13, 2012, 09:59:38 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 12:07:44 am

And I'm sorry but you are wrong to think that parties can't make about faces over the objections of the base.  The GOP has done it not once but three times in the past 100 years alone.

Plus, if you backtrack further, all the way to the time of Lincoln both parties roles were reversed and it was the Democrats who hated minorities and loved states' rights and the Republicans who were sane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 13, 2012, 10:02:32 am

Quote from: Japa on November 13, 2012, 04:35:23 am

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/12/first-hindu-elected-to-congress/

This news is relevant to me, personally.

Personally? Does that mean you know why Hindu men have a bit of hair at the back longer than the rest?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on November 13, 2012, 10:07:45 am

Quote from: Dutchling on November 13, 2012, 10:02:32 am

Quote from: Japa on November 13, 2012, 04:35:23 am

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/12/first-hindu-elected-to-congress/

This news is relevant to me, personally.

Personally? Does that mean you know why Hindu men have a bit of hair at the back longer than the rest?

It means I have a bit of hair on the back of my head that's longer than the rest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 13, 2012, 10:20:10 am

Quote from: Sheb on November 13, 2012, 08:48:43 am

Yeah, just because there is no legal framework for a secession doesn't mean it can't be done. Look at Scotland for exemple.

We had to make up our own legal framework though this year before we could do anything. The British government is also very cooperative, probably because they know they'll win anyway. If you look at Spain, the Catalans would win a referendum tomorrow on Catalan independence but the Spanish government is completely refusing to allow them to vote on the matter. It's going to be ugly over the next year or so. The Catalan seperatists will come out best of course, provided there isn't a bombshell about the EU or something, but it'll be hard going. Legal framework isn't 100% necessary but it's so, so helpful. The seperatists in the USA should thank god they're not Malians - look at what happened in Azawad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 10:27:16 am

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html

Woman runs over her husband because he didn't vote, citing fears that Obama's reelection might lead to personal financial hardships... such has having a husband who was run over by a car.

You know what? it might be time for this thread to end. All we have left to do is (complain about|make fun of) the fallout from the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 13, 2012, 10:28:14 am

Quote from: Descan on November 13, 2012, 12:35:50 am

Man, crazy ass sci-fi stuff has been popping out of the woodwork in the last 3 months. FTL, crystal energy (of a sort), practical synthetic hydrocarbons.

Christ, what's next? Cracking immortality by 2013?

Well, they've recently come out with some REALLY high quality cloaking devices that not only cover the full visual spectrum but avoid the nasty "reflections" problem that was causing trouble with the previous ones.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 13, 2012, 10:42:53 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 13, 2012, 10:28:14 am

Quote from: Descan on November 13, 2012, 12:35:50 am

Man, crazy ass sci-fi stuff has been popping out of the woodwork in the last 3 months. FTL, crystal energy (of a sort), practical synthetic hydrocarbons.

Christ, what's next? Cracking immortality by 2013?

Well, they've recently come out with some REALLY high quality cloaking devices that not only cover the full visual spectrum but avoid the nasty "reflections" problem that was causing trouble with the previous ones.

Is this the one that heats up to thousands of degrees fahrenheit and only works underwater?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 13, 2012, 10:57:07 am

Nah, this is the one they are having problems scaling. It's unidirectional and only works on relatively small objects, but it does work.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Soralin on November 13, 2012, 11:58:11 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 13, 2012, 09:59:38 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 12:07:44 am

And I'm sorry but you are wrong to think that parties can't make about faces over the objections of the base.  The GOP has done it not once but three times in the past 100 years alone.

Plus, if you backtrack further, all the way to the time of Lincoln both parties roles were reversed and it was the Democrats who hated minorities and loved states' rights and the Republicans who were sane.

That's not really backtracking further, that's going back to about 60 years ago or so.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy for how it happened.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 13, 2012, 02:09:35 pm

Whoever made up the list of states to file petitions was a Romney Pollster.
Colorado is not a state that would abandon the Union. EVEN IF IT WERE, it would not do so with Texas.
Montana is a better choice.
Play any game of creating a "new civil war" with someone from Colorado. They always lump it with the Union. Contrast that with Texans, who almost always go with the seperatists.

On to military nessessity...
I've stated before that I served in the US Marines. I enjoyed it and would do anything for my fellow Marines, EXCEPT violate my Honor. While it is sad that there are individuals that serve in our Armed Forces that lack Honor and require civilian Oversight to do the right thing, it isn't true for all of the Military. My oath wasn't to a "scrap of paper", but to a constitution. A constitution is a codified system of government, which can be written on paper, but also passed orally. I won't defend a piece of paper, instead I would, did, and will defend a system of government founded on the Rule of Law and certain principles of universal rights. I have no problem agrreeing to risk my life for them. It's easy to follow through when I am also supporting my brothers in battle, but the initial agreement was for the principle, and the principle is how I continue to look back and judge that I made the right choice. I did not violate my Honor, and as such joined a large group of men throughout history that can show that you can be a warrior without being a monster. It's sad that fewer people are "coming back with their shields", but that doesn't mean someone who has lost theirs or can percieve themselves without it has any right to speak for those who retain theirs.

Probably a damn POGie too...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 13, 2012, 02:31:03 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 13, 2012, 02:09:35 pm

Whoever made up the list of states to file petitions was a Romney Pollster.
Colorado is not a state that would abandon the Union. EVEN IF IT WERE, it would not do so with Texas.
Montana is a better choice.
Play any game of creating a "new civil war" with someone from Colorado. They always lump it with the Union. Contrast that with Texans, who almost always go with the seperatists.

On to military nessessity...
I've stated before that I served in the US Marines. I enjoyed it and would do anything for my fellow Marines, EXCEPT violate my Honor. While it is sad that there are individuals that serve in our Armed Forces that lack Honor and require civilian Oversight to do the right thing, it isn't true for all of the Military. My oath wasn't to a "scrap of paper", but to a constitution. A constitution is a codified system of government, which can be written on paper, but also passed orally. I won't defend a piece of paper, instead I would, did, and will defend a system of government founded on the Rule of Law and certain principles of universal rights. I have no problem agrreeing to risk my life for them. It's easy to follow through when I am also supporting my brothers in battle, but the initial agreement was for the principle, and the principle is how I continue to look back and judge that I made the right choice. I did not violate my Honor, and as such joined a large group of men throughout history that can show that you can be a warrior without being a monster. It's sad that fewer people are "coming back with their shields", but that doesn't mean someone who has lost theirs or can percieve themselves without it has any right to speak for those who retain theirs.

Probably a damn POGie too...

It worries me when soldiers make no reference to the people in the country that they were actually defending and how that made them feel good, rather they seem to believe that their only activity during their period in the army was "defending our constitution and our country". More often than not they're defending someone else's country. How often do you hear soldiers coming back from Afghanistan saying how proud they were to have protected the ethnic minorities and secularists and women in Afghanistan from Pashtun Taliban oppression? You'll be far more likely to hear "I defended/served my country". I'm not necessarily disagreeing with them being there, just the general attitude.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 13, 2012, 03:16:21 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 13, 2012, 12:35:50 am

Man, crazy ass sci-fi stuff has been popping out of the woodwork in the last 3 months. FTL, crystal energy (of a sort), practical synthetic hydrocarbons.

Christ, what's next? Cracking immortality by 2013?

You forgot the possible discovery of the Higgs boson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 13, 2012, 03:22:33 pm

The Pluto Express mission is due to get there in the near future, and The James Webb telescope is bound to find some pretty awesome things. The future being now is cool.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 13, 2012, 03:25:28 pm

And the future will be better tomorrow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Euld on November 13, 2012, 03:26:21 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 10:27:16 am

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html

Woman runs over her husband because he didn't vote, citing fears that Obama's reelection might lead to personal financial hardships... such has having a husband who was run over by a car.

You know what? it might be time for this thread to end. All we have left to do is (complain about|make fun of) the fallout from the election.

Quote

Obama won the national election with 332 electoral votes compared with 206 for Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Arizona's 11 electoral votes were won by Romney.

::)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:27:39 pm

Not seeing why secession is necessarily viewed as a bad thing. Put it to a referendum and see how it goes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 03:29:21 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:27:39 pm

Not seeing why secession is necessarily viewed as a bad thing. Put it to a referendum and see how it goes.

Imagine what would happen to Texas's minorities if they seceded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 03:30:36 pm

It's mainly just pretty hilarious to react to losing an election that way.  Kindof like the guy who takes his ball home after a goal is scored against him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 13, 2012, 03:32:30 pm

Isn't there always one group/state or another going on about secession? This is nothing new.

@ GreatJustice: In other words, "Screw you guys, I'm going home!", eh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:33:36 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 03:29:21 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:27:39 pm

Not seeing why secession is necessarily viewed as a bad thing. Put it to a referendum and see how it goes.

Imagine what would happen to Texas's minorities if they seceded.

What happens to them as things stand right now, I'd imagine. The US has committed plenty of humans rights violations across the world already, I'd be surprised to see Texas one up that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 03:43:25 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:33:36 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 03:29:21 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:27:39 pm

Not seeing why secession is necessarily viewed as a bad thing. Put it to a referendum and see how it goes.

Imagine what would happen to Texas's minorities if they seceded.

What happens to them as things stand right now, I'd imagine. The US has committed plenty of humans rights violations across the world already, I'd be surprised to see Texas one up that.

They already do. A black man in texas is many times more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime compared to a white man. There are the "stop and demand papers on suspicion of brown skin" laws that are already in arizona and florida that are being strongly pushed for. High rates of gay bashing. etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:50:00 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 03:43:25 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:33:36 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 03:29:21 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:27:39 pm

Not seeing why secession is necessarily viewed as a bad thing. Put it to a referendum and see how it goes.

Imagine what would happen to Texas's minorities if they seceded.

What happens to them as things stand right now, I'd imagine. The US has committed plenty of humans rights violations across the world already, I'd be surprised to see Texas one up that.

They already do. A black man in texas is many times more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime compared to a white man. There are the "stop and demand papers on suspicion of brown skin" laws that are already in arizona and florida that are being strongly pushed for. High rates of gay bashing. etc.

Okay. So as a part of the United States, Texas discriminates against blacks, Mexicans, etc. This also occurs in California and New Mexico, so it's hardly unique to Texas. It's also largely irrelevant to the question of whether the people of the states should be allowed to vote on whether they want to secede or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 03:52:03 pm

And without outside pressure, I can only see such things getting worse.

Quote

It's also largely irrelevant to the question of whether the people of the states should be allowed to vote on whether they want to secede or not.

Human rights issues are not irrelevant to questions of secession. Someone who lives in the United States should understand that, given our history.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 03:52:35 pm

If they are allowed to secede, then with the caveat that individual people can migrate back into the States at a later point. Just because a theoretical majority would leave the country doesn't mean that the rest has to be affected too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 03:54:48 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 03:52:35 pm

If they are allowed to secede, then with the caveat that individual people can migrate back into the States at a later point. Just because a theoretical majority would leave the country doesn't mean that the rest has to be affected too.

Because migrating people out is easy, effective, AND doesn't harm those who are displaced, right?

*cough* trail of tears *cough*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:55:21 pm

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of) is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 03:57:29 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 03:54:48 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 03:52:35 pm

If they are allowed to secede, then with the caveat that individual people can migrate back into the States at a later point. Just because a theoretical majority would leave the country doesn't mean that the rest has to be affected too.

Because migrating people out is easy, effective, AND doesn't harm those who are displaced, right?

*cough* trail of tears *cough*

Well yeah, but no worse than living in a place with a new government that is much less inclined to work in their interests. I'd pick the lesser evil.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 04:00:17 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:55:21 pm

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of)

Quick question: You talking abroad, limited to within our borders, or both?

Quote

is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

It's the responsibility of the United States to protect the human rights of the people within its borders (and that includes Texas). That's the moral justification. I don't need a legal one, except to say I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 04:01:02 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:55:21 pm

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of) is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

Texas is a "pioneer" in civil rights violations. They routinely violate civil rights more often than most of the rest of the country. And yes, the US also violates civil rights, in no small part because we have places like texas and arizona leading the way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 04:12:32 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 04:01:02 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 03:55:21 pm

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of) is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

Texas is a "pioneer" in civil rights violations. They routinely violate civil rights more often than most of the rest of the country. And yes, the US also violates civil rights, in no small part because we have places like texas and arizona leading the way.

Then by that definition, the rest of the US would improve by having Texas leave.

Quote

Quick question: You talking abroad, limited to within our borders, or both?

Both. Though in particular, Texas would have a hard time engaging in external aggression compared to the US.

Quote

It's the responsibility of the United States to protect the human rights of the people within its borders (and that includes Texas). That's the moral justification. I don't need a legal one, except to say I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

Which human rights? Certainly doesn't seem like the US is very good at upholding human rights, what with drone bombing civilians, torture, racial profiling, the PATRIOT act, the NDAA, the NHS, the DHS, etc etc etc. It would be incredibly hypocritical for the US to claim to be preventing Texas from leaving because of "human rights".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 04:16:58 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

You pointing out other human rights violations just points out that there are more than one front for us to fight on. It doesn't discredit this particular one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 04:25:20 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 04:16:58 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

You pointing out other human rights violations just points out that there are more than one front for us to fight on. It doesn't discredit this particular one.

Tu quoque would be correct if I was personally accusing YOU of violating human rights (seeing as how it's basically an extension of an ad hominem). Your argument seems to be that the US can't let Texas leave because it would violate human rights. However, if Texas isn't really capable of being any worse than the US as is, then the US is in no moral position to prevent them from leaving and the argument is invalid. Not to mention, what constitutes "human rights" is, presently, completely up to the people who live in a given area. The overwhelming majority of countries in the UN don't really follow the UN Charter of Rights, and most countries have issues that others could claim constitute "human rights violations".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 13, 2012, 04:27:23 pm

Clearly, Texas should not only secede, but we should institute some sort of federally funded national relocation organization, whose sole purpose is to help US Citizens relocate to the state of their choice. Not just ones from states that want to secede, either, but in general!

Really bring market economics into the matter and make states compete for citizens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on November 13, 2012, 04:29:39 pm

I assure you, as a Texan, if Texas left the Union, the number of human rights violations in Texas would go up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 04:30:18 pm

The US would be violating human rights less without texas. Texas would also no longer have to US supreme court to act on its citizens behalf, and they would be worse off. Those people are US citizens and abandoning them to Texas would violate their rights.

A torture program began under Bush (Texan).
The patriot act, began under Bush (Texan).
The DHS began under Bush (Texan).
Racial profiling pioneered in Texas (and Arizona and Florida).
Drone bombings began under Bush (Texan).
NDAA codifying the defacto indefinite detainment policy that began under Bush (Texan).

So really, yes a fair bit of the US civil rights violations directly or indirectly came out of Texas.

But that isn't the reason why secession will not happen. "I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." Abraham Lincoln.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 13, 2012, 04:34:59 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 04:00:17 pm

I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

Nope. The Constitution says nothing about secession. The result of the Civil War made it de facto illegal, and Texas v. White clarified that. Though Texas v. White cites the "more perfect Union" phrase in the Constitution, the Constitution never explicitly allows or forbids secession.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:35:13 pm

Now to be fair, you can't exactly blame everything that Bush did on Texas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 04:38:09 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:35:13 pm

Now to be fair, you can't exactly blame everything that Bush did on Texas.

I'm not actually blaming Texas. Though Bush and his policies are are influenced by the politics of the state and have influenced Texas politics in return.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:39:48 pm

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 04:45:57 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:39:48 pm

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

So you're saying they engaged in group polarization? Less politely known as circle jerk? I am now imaginaing A giant Bush and the entire Texas legislature engaged in a massive circle-jerk, and it is not pretty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 04:46:12 pm

Quote from: Mego on November 13, 2012, 04:34:59 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 04:00:17 pm

I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

Nope. The Constitution says nothing about secession. The result of the Civil War made it de facto illegal, and Texas v. White clarified that. Though Texas v. White cites the "more perfect Union" phrase in the Constitution, the Constitution never explicitly allows or forbids secession.

/me is slightly more educated today.

Quote

Tu quoque would be correct if I was personally accusing YOU of violating human rights (seeing as how it's basically an extension of an ad hominem). Your argument seems to be that the US can't let Texas leave because it would violate human rights. However, if Texas isn't really capable of being any worse than the US as is, then the US is in no moral position to prevent them from leaving and the argument is invalid. Not to mention, what constitutes "human rights" is, presently, completely up to the people who live in a given area. The overwhelming majority of countries in the UN don't really follow the UN Charter of Rights, and most countries have issues that others could claim constitute "human rights violations".

And YOUR argument is the US doesn't have the responsibility because... hypocrisy? Tu Quoque is more than just ad hominem, it's a non sequitor because it points out something irrelevant (hypocrisy) as an attempt to discredit an argument. If your health teacher is a smoker, it doesn't mean you can say him telling you not to smoke is invalid.

There are several ways you can attack my position.
- You can say the US is incapable of doing so due to incompetence or something. You'd have to prove that Texas/etc would do better (or at least the same) on their own, in that case, and I severely doubt you'd be able to do that.
- You can argue that it isn't the responsibility of the US to protect human rights in such a fashion. That would require "protecting rights" to not be one of the responsibilities of a government, though.
- You can argue that the rights I'm talking about aren't actually human rights (as you implied previously by pointing out that these things are subjective), even if just in your own view.

Which is it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:47:10 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 04:45:57 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:39:48 pm

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

So you're saying they engaged in group polarization? Less politely known as circle jerk? I am now imaginaing A giant Bush and the entire Texas legislature engaged in a massive circle-jerk, and it is not pretty.

Wait what how do you come to that conclusion?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 04:59:29 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:47:10 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 04:45:57 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 13, 2012, 04:39:48 pm

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

So you're saying they engaged in group polarization? Less politely known as circle jerk? I am now imaginaing A giant Bush and the entire Texas legislature engaged in a massive circle-jerk, and it is not pretty.

Wait what how do you come to that conclusion?

Explaining how my mind took the conept that bush made Texas more bush-like, and that Texas made Bush more Texas-like, and following to what in my mind was the logical conclusion of a massive mutual masturbation exercise between a giant representation of a former US president and the whole legislative body of Texas is to complicated for me to deal with right now. besides, my cat is attempting to steal my chicken.
 
Regardless of  whether the Texans would be better off, the question of whether enough texans support it, the legal question of Texas's right to do so, whether the US would be within their rights to reject it, and if the Texans would be able to do anything about it is far more concrete. It is not going to happen, therefore the point is moot. I believe I am more likely to see a lunar base then Texas Seccesion. Hell, by that time it is a question of whther or not the democrats have recieved parity with the Texans.
 
So, how did Texas Seccesion come up?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 05:30:00 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 04:46:12 pm

Quote

Tu quoque would be correct if I was personally accusing YOU of violating human rights (seeing as how it's basically an extension of an ad hominem). Your argument seems to be that the US can't let Texas leave because it would violate human rights. However, if Texas isn't really capable of being any worse than the US as is, then the US is in no moral position to prevent them from leaving and the argument is invalid. Not to mention, what constitutes "human rights" is, presently, completely up to the people who live in a given area. The overwhelming majority of countries in the UN don't really follow the UN Charter of Rights, and most countries have issues that others could claim constitute "human rights violations".

And YOUR argument is the US doesn't have the responsibility because... hypocrisy? Tu Quoque is more than just ad hominem, it's a non sequitor because it points out something irrelevant (hypocrisy) as an attempt to discredit an argument. If your health teacher is a smoker, it doesn't mean you can say him telling you not to smoke is invalid.

There are several ways you can attack my position.
- You can say the US is incapable of doing so due to incompetence or something. You'd have to prove that Texas/etc would do better (or at least the same) on their own, in that case, and I severely doubt you'd be able to do that.
- You can argue that it isn't the responsibility of the US to protect human rights in such a fashion. That would require "protecting rights" to not be one of the responsibilities of a government, though.
- You can argue that the rights I'm talking about aren't actually human rights (as you implied previously by pointing out that these things are subjective), even if just in your own view.

Which is it?

You generally believe in the concept of democracy, right? Then if the people of a given area decide to secede peacefully via referendum, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove why they can't exercise their democratic right in this way. You seem to be under the assumption that I need to prove a negative, that Texas DOESN'T violate human rights more than the US Federal govt does, to be able to argue that they cannot secede for that reason.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 04:30:18 pm

A torture program began under Bush (Texan).
The patriot act, began under Bush (Texan).
The DHS began under Bush (Texan).
Racial profiling pioneered in Texas (and Arizona and Florida and California).
Drone bombings began under Bush (Texan).
NDAA codifying the defacto indefinite detainment policy that began under Bush (Texan).

All of which where not only continued by Obama (Illinois), but most of which were expanded vastly under Obama (drone bombings and the NDAA especially). This isn't exactly a bulletproof argument.

Also, it looks a bit like a circular argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 05:35:31 pm

Drone Bombings expanded, granted.

NDAA expanded? no. That is wrong. It expands no preexisting power. It codifies what the government was already secretly doing and even added some (admittedly trivial) restrictions on its abuse.

The circular argument is yours.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 05:45:26 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-leaders-reject-secession-talk-wake-obamas-election-210744874--politics.html

well. The person who mentioned that Rick Perry kicked it off in texas? (that was me) My source was apparently referencing something from 2009. Rick Perry and Eric Erickson of RedState are calling for an end to the secession talk.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 06:04:23 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 13, 2012, 05:35:31 pm

NDAA expanded? no. That is wrong. It expands no preexisting power. It codifies what the government was already secretly doing and even added some (admittedly trivial) restrictions on its abuse.

So making immoral, unethical, and previously illegal activities legal doesn't constitute "expanding"? Officially allowing the president to assassinate US citizens without trial is a bit of an expansion.

Quote

The circular argument is yours.

Which one? I can't find one more circular than "Texas made Bush bad, but Bush made Texas bad"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 06:06:13 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html

Quote

PHOENIX (Reuters) - An Arizona woman, in despair at the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, ran down her husband with the family car in suburban Phoenix on Saturday because he failed to vote in the election, police said on Monday.

Yeah, but his vote wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway because Arizona already voted for Romney ...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 13, 2012, 06:08:40 pm

Bit late there. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=98262.msg3787612#msg3787612) And it's the same website too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 13, 2012, 06:09:49 pm

I approve of Texas seceding. I think most people there would love their new independence, and the Democrats would be able to win every presidential election (and House majority) hands-down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 06:12:46 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 05:30:00 pm

You generally believe in the concept of democracy, right? Then if the people of a given area decide to secede peacefully via referendum, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove why they can't exercise their democratic right in this way.

The burden of proof sure as hell is not the way you say it is.  Democracy does not equal having a majority gets whatever the heck you want.  It is rule of laws, both written and unwritten.

A secession, even one endorsed by a majority of the seceding area, would be a flagrant violation of many agreements and obligations entered into in good faith.  For starters the substantial unionist minority would be grossly infringed upon, being deprived the right to maintain their citizenship in the status quo, the most fundamental right we have.  It's not incumbent on us to say why the majority can't do whatever they want, it's incumbent on you to say why the minority should be made to suffer so greatly.  Add onto that the massive breach of faith with the rest of the country which has faithfully honored the rights of the area that now wants out.

There would be nothing democratic about such an action.  Democracy empowers the citizens, not makes them victims to extralegal processes that overturn the civil order on the flimsiest of grounds.  If you want a democratic secession then it needs to be built on democratic grounds.  Show systematic disenfranchisement.  Show there is not fair recourse through the existing channels.  Show that the breach of good faith lies not with those seceding.  If you can not show these things then what you are proposing is not democracy, it's a power grab.

The classical liberals who you libertarians claim to love all wrote about how you don't go rewriting the social contract on a whim.  Even the downright anarchistic Rousseau, who said that people have the right to leave the state, said that they can not desert their obligations when you do so.  A liberal society is not a society where laws don't constrain our actions.  It's a society where bad laws don't constrain our actions.  So if you claim you should be able to ignore the law without first showing that the law is unjust then you are rejecting the fundamental principles of democratic government.

tl;rd Read any political philosophy from the past 400 years and get back to us, thx.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 06:14:42 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 06:06:13 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html (http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html)

Quote

PHOENIX (Reuters) - An Arizona woman, in despair at the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, ran down her husband with the family car in suburban Phoenix on Saturday because he failed to vote in the election, police said on Monday.

Yeah, but his vote wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway because Arizona already voted for Romney ...

That is, slightly, extreme.  I mean what the ever-loving hell. Do not even have the decency to go to a swing-state. And no, it's not even Obama's fault, it's her husband's fault.
 
That Poor motherfucker. Well, he's alive, so I reccomend he go get married to a woman who will at least not sluaghter him for having a diference of opinion. God forbid he voted for Obama, he would have lost his testicles.

EDIT: Also, since no one is seriously considering seccesion but a few loony texans, 4chan and donald Trump, why does anyone care anyway??

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 06:20:30 pm

I thought Donald Trump wanted to march on Washington.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 06:24:43 pm

Apparently they're up to ~36 states "wanting" to secede. Let's make that 50. And they can all form a NEW nation and have new elections ;D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 06:29:35 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 06:20:30 pm

I thought Donald Trump wanted to march on Washington.

More like a general Revolution. He doesn't need to stand for something coherent though.
 
On that note: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/13/half-a-million-sign-petition-demanding-macys-drop-donald-trump/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/13/half-a-million-sign-petition-demanding-macys-drop-donald-trump/) more then a few petitioners on whitehouse.org/

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 06:37:43 pm

It might be a white nationalist thing, incidentally.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/12/the_awakening

It's sketchy but they're definitely having some kind of "push" to unite with regular wingnuts (the less racist kind) and break away.  This whole "spam change.org with lots of near identical petitions" could be part of the campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 13, 2012, 06:39:28 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 06:24:43 pm

Apparently they're up to ~36 states "wanting" to secede. Let's make that 50. And they can all form a NEW nation and have new elections ;D

This.

Quote from: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 06:29:35 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 06:20:30 pm

I thought Donald Trump wanted to march on Washington.

More like a general Revolution. He doesn't need to stand for something coherent though.
 
On that note: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/13/half-a-million-sign-petition-demanding-macys-drop-donald-trump/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/13/half-a-million-sign-petition-demanding-macys-drop-donald-trump/) more then a few petitioners on whitehouse.org/

Saying that things are wrong and he can make them better, but not specifying details? Why does that sound familiar?

Oh, right, a dude just lost the presidential election with that platform.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 07:01:54 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 06:12:46 pm

The burden of proof sure as hell is not the way you say it is.  Democracy does not equal having a majority gets whatever the heck you want.  It is rule of laws, both written and unwritten.

"Democracy is what I say it is!"

Quote from: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 06:12:46 pm

A secession, even one endorsed by a majority of the seceding area, would be a flagrant violation of many agreements and obligations entered into in good faith.  For starters the substantial unionist minority would be grossly infringed upon, being deprived the right to maintain their citizenship in the status quo, the most fundamental right we have.

Yet the substantial separatist majority is grossly infringed upon by not being allowed to secede.

One could just as easily say the substantial upper to upper-middle class minority is grossly infringed upon when they get taxed at the whims of the poor, or the substantial lumberjack/industry related minorities are grossly infringed upon when environmental standards are brought into being.

Certainly, they could maintain their citizenship. Ever heard of dual citizenship?

Quote

It's not incumbent on us to say why the majority can't do whatever they want, it's incumbent on you to say why the minority should be made to suffer so greatly.

Uh, what?

Quote

Add onto that the massive breach of faith with the rest of the country which has faithfully honored the rights of the area that now wants out.

Yeah, those dirty secessionists! The rest of the Union faithfully didn't enslave, pillage, or otherwise harm them! How dare they try to leave!

Quote

There would be nothing democratic about such an action.  Democracy empowers the citizens, not makes them victims to extralegal processes that overturn the civil order on the flimsiest of grounds.  If you want a democratic secession then it needs to be built on democratic grounds.  Show systematic disenfranchisement.  Show there is not fair recourse through the existing channels.  Show that the breach of good faith lies not with those seceding.  If you can not show these things then what you are proposing is not democracy, it's a power grab.

What you're describing is not democracy. Allow me:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Quote

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

Democracy is not necessarily moral, correct, or ethical. The majority is not always right. Whether they want to secede because they have a deep seated distrust of the federal government, because they were victimized by the federal government, or because they think the flag is ugly is utterly irrelevant. Certainly, the separation of powers exists to prevent mob rule, but that is hardly a bulletproof method of ensuring no minorities are harmed if the past two centuries are anything to go by.

Seems to me like you're just assigning positive values to Democracy and arbitrarily deciding what is or isn't democratic (when it's fairly clear cut generally).

Quote

The classical liberals who you libertarians claim to love all wrote about how you don't go rewriting the social contract on a whim.  Even the downright anarchistic Rousseau, who said that people have the right to leave the state, said that they can not desert their obligations when you do so.  A liberal society is not a society where laws don't constrain our actions.  It's a society where bad laws don't constrain our actions.  So if you claim you should be able to ignore the law without first showing that the law is unjust then you are rejecting the fundamental principles of democratic government.

Rousseau was not a classical liberal. Try again. Under both classical liberal and libertarian views, there is no such thing as a social contract.

Besides that, there are classical liberals that actually did support infinite secession on the principle of self-ownership, making your point invalid.

Quote

tl;rd Read any political philosophy from the past 400 years and get back to us, thx.

tl;dr Read the dictionary and find out what "Democracy" means

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 07:05:15 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 07:01:54 pm

"Democracy is what I say it is!"

No, democracy is what centuries of political philosophers say it is.  But hey, nice job structuring your central argument in the form of puerile parody.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 07:01:54 pm

Besides that, there are classical liberals that actually did support infinite secession on the principle of self-ownership, making your point invalid.

Well Locke did not.  Rousseau did not.  Madison did not.  Adam Smith did not.  J.S. Mill did not.  This is off the top of my head.  So who is it that you think is a better standard bearer for classical liberalism then these guys?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 07:25:23 pm

You're talking to him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 13, 2012, 07:25:55 pm

I'm not sure Mill is really a classical liberal. Didn't he advocate for animal rights and labor laws?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 07:30:18 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 07:25:23 pm

You're talking to him.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we'd agreed to stop?

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 13, 2012, 07:25:55 pm

I'm not sure Mill is really a classical liberal. Didn't he advocate for animal rights and labor laws?

Yeah, that's the funny thing about classical liberals people don't realize.  They weren't 'guvmint sux, liberty rules!', they advocated for a sensible new order.

It's important to understand the context they were coming from to see why they came off that way.  In their day all the public works and education and aid for the sick and poor and support of commerce that classical liberal advocated were a tiny part of government (not that they all advocated for all these things, just listing all the biggest stuff various ones advocated for).  Most of what government did was a bloated military establishment, goodies for the nobles and screwing over minorities.  So the classical liberals were very much against government, as it existed in their time.  (Well Mill was towards the end so less so as it existed in his time.)  They wanted a smaller government because if you got rid of the stuff they didn't want and added in the stuff they did the result would be a smaller government.  But they usually wanted the government to be doing other stuff, not just no stuff.  Exceptions did exist of course, such as Jefferson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 08:03:48 pm

Quote

Well Locke did not.  Rousseau did not.  Madison did not.  Adam Smith did not.  J.S. Mill did not.  This is off the top of my head.  So who is it that you think is a better standard bearer for classical liberalism then these guys?

Bastiat did. De Molinari did. Spooner did.

I'm still puzzled as to why you consider Rousseau to be a classical liberal. Locke most certainly was in support of secession, while Mill wasn't exactly a classical liberal either (though certainly he is moreso than Rousseau).

Quote

No, democracy is what centuries of political philosophers say it is.  But hey, nice job structuring your central argument in the form of puerile parody.

Having trouble with that dictionary?

You still haven't defined it, I notice. Perhaps because just about every political philosopher has at least a marginally different definition of what "democracy" is. It's come to be a bit of a meaningless word when not used literally.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on November 13, 2012, 08:10:51 pm

Nope nope nope, nope nope nope nope.

There will be no Dictionary Arguments in this thread.  As a matter of fact, looking back over the last few crapload of pages, I'm starting to think this thread really is past its prime and time to bow out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 13, 2012, 08:22:35 pm

If you lock it, tell me in advance so I can post that gif of a dancing lock.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 13, 2012, 08:25:33 pm

I want Texas to secede.

ANYWAY... Here's my response to the Colorado Secession petition:

Petition something something Go Away damn dirty texans! (http://wh.gov/XiMz)
Send it to your Colorado friends or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 13, 2012, 08:26:08 pm

The Many would know your will, Aqizzar. What say you of the rise of the Texas Democrats?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on November 13, 2012, 09:10:43 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 13, 2012, 08:26:08 pm

The Many would know your will, Aqizzar. What say you of the rise of the Texas Democrats?

After devoting my personal time and energy to trying to get a few of them elected (mind you, not much of either), let me just say that I'll believe it when I see it.

I will add that the whole "gerrymandering" aspect probably isn't as important as it seems.  Namely because Texas, and most other Republican states, couldn't possibly be more gerrymandered than they already are, since every decade-opening year going back to 1970 has been a Republican sweep year.  And yeah, the Hispanic population is growing.  So are a lot of other populations, including conservative ones.  Texas' relatively decent economy has attracted upper-middle income people from all over the country to its suburbs for a few years, even as Texas' urban centers have swung increasingly Democratic.

Of course, part of the reason why the Texas Democratic party is the ineffective mess that it is stems from being being essentially abandoned by the national party since... well, since it became the modern Democratic party.  If ever there was a time that the national guys might see a crack to widen it would be now, when they're flush with victory and just had the power of changing demographics slapped in their faces.  Still, I wouldn't bet money on Texas sending a Democrat to the Senate or White House for another ten years at least.

The electoral fate of His Imperious Majesty Richard the First however, I'd like to think is in serious doubt.  Not that I wouldn't miss him when he's gone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 09:23:21 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 13, 2012, 08:03:48 pm

Quote

Well Locke did not.  Rousseau did not.  Madison did not.  Adam Smith did not.  J.S. Mill did not.  This is off the top of my head.  So who is it that you think is a better standard bearer for classical liberalism then these guys?

Bastiat did. De Molinari did. Spooner did.

Well I think that's a pretty good stopping place right there.  Two different world views pretty clearly defined by disagreement over who's notions of liberty to look to.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 13, 2012, 09:27:14 pm

Wouldn't it be worth a major push in Texas from the national Democrat party, considering part of the problem is low Latino turnout?  It'd probably take a while for the tactic to work, but if Texas flipped that's surely the Republican party's electoral chances almost completely ruined.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karlito on November 13, 2012, 09:28:40 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 13, 2012, 08:22:35 pm

If you lock it, tell me in advance so I can post that gif of a dancing lock.

Someone needs to write a eulogy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PyroDesu on November 13, 2012, 09:47:01 pm

(Wrong thread, disregard.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 13, 2012, 09:57:20 pm

Oh boy, a funeral for this thread?

Quote

AMAAAAAZIIING GRAAAAACE HOW SWEEEEET THE SOOOUUUND
THAT SAAAAAVD A WREEETCH LIKE MEEEEE
I OOOOONCE WAS LOOOST BUT NOOOW AM FOOOUUUND
WAS BLIIIIIND BUUUT NOOOW I SEEEEE

...

Yeah, I think this post just killed any hope it might have had for revival.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scelly9 on November 13, 2012, 09:58:23 pm

Can we have a pyre?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 13, 2012, 10:00:26 pm

BUUUUUURN

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: jester on November 13, 2012, 10:03:46 pm

Cant you just lock the thread for 6 months till the next round of presidential campaigns starts?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 10:04:49 pm

Actually, http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/hillary-gets-her-first-endorsement-149417.html?hp=r17 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/hillary-gets-her-first-endorsement-149417.html?hp=r17)
 
IT HAS BEGUN. AGAIN.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 10:18:55 pm

Quote from: Scelly9 on November 13, 2012, 09:58:23 pm

Can we have a pyre?

If this thread could be destroyed by flames it would have disappeared a long time ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rolan7 on November 13, 2012, 11:06:15 pm

It's incredibly encouraging that a thread on such a hot subject managed to run its course without lock.  I stand impressed.
(Mainly of the bay12 community in general, which continues to be the nicest damn community I've ever seen)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 13, 2012, 11:13:41 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 13, 2012, 11:06:15 pm

It's incredibly encouraging that a thread on such a hot subject managed to run its course without lock.  I stand impressed.
(Mainly of the bay12 community in general, which continues to be the nicest damn community I've ever seen)

The whole forum is democratic so it was mostly us raging against Romney.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 13, 2012, 11:13:59 pm

1) When it most deserved a lock, the moderator of the forum was too busy to lock it before the discussion took it away from lockable offenses, making it somewhat innocent again.

2) This discussion of the death of this topic is off-topic, and what with people deliberately firing groups of people for whom they voted, talk of secession, and early endorsements for 2016, the subject matter for the topic isn't quite gone yet.

3) I just violated 2. HYPOCRITE! GTFO! And there goes 1...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 13, 2012, 11:16:32 pm

Quote from: Rolan7 on November 13, 2012, 11:06:15 pm

It's incredibly encouraging that a thread on such a hot subject managed to run its course without lock.  I stand impressed.
(Mainly of the bay12 community in general, which continues to be the nicest damn community I've ever seen)

I think it helps that the moderation is solely in the hands of Toady and Threetoe (who are both very reasonable, level headed and, above all, well respected). As they don't have to answer to anyone, they tend to be fairly lenient in the moderation, and everyone likes Toady enough to drop the argument when he strolls by.

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 13, 2012, 11:13:41 pm

The whole forum is democratic so it was mostly us raging against Romney.

Except Kon, Greatjustice, Strife, and the large number of greens/libertarians (at least judging by their stated voting preferences).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 13, 2012, 11:18:30 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 13, 2012, 11:16:32 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 13, 2012, 11:13:41 pm

The whole forum is democratic so it was mostly us raging against Romney.

Except Kon, Greatjustice, Strife, and the large number of greens/libertarians (at least judging by their stated voting preferences).

Well, if I remember correctly, they didn't exactly love Romney either. They just hated Obama and the Democratics more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 11:19:13 pm

Anyway, The far-right continues to blame Romney for their loss. They are saying alot of things the democrats were saying. My favorite is someone who quoted Groucho. "These, are my principles! And if you don't like'em, well I have other ones..." Alot of people saying the problem was too much compromise. Others are following the path of moderacy. Either way things are getting splintered.
 
FORTHENINJAS: Try this website then http://www.isidewith.com/ (http://www.isidewith.com/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 11:26:44 pm

I just had a theory that you can judge how interesting a potential President by how well their last name forms a portmanteu with "economics".

Reaganomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics) (the only one the spellcheck likes btw)
Nixonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixonomics)
Clintonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clintonomics)
Obamanomics  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamanomics)

...all sound ok, and all were linkable on wikipedia.

Carternomics - not even in wikipedia
Bushonomics - not even in wikipedia
Romneynomics or Romnomics - not even in wikipedia

...all sound crap, and none had a wiki page.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 13, 2012, 11:28:54 pm

I got Jill Stein, but only because they didn't have sufficiently left wing options.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 13, 2012, 11:29:25 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 11:19:13 pm

FORTHENINJAS: Try this website then http://www.isidewith.com/ (http://www.isidewith.com/)

They don't have a listing for Vermin Supreme...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 13, 2012, 11:43:22 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 13, 2012, 11:29:25 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 11:19:13 pm

FORTHENINJAS: Try this website then http://www.isidewith.com/ (http://www.isidewith.com/)

They don't have a listing for Vermin Supreme...

I'm personally in support of Stephen Colbert for president. I'm only partially joking. He is incredibly knowledgeable about politics, which allows him to make fun of politics so much. It'd be an interesting ride, at least.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 13, 2012, 11:44:32 pm

Well this is sort of related to the OP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XFNE6lbD_b4

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 13, 2012, 11:46:57 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 13, 2012, 11:26:44 pm

Romneynomics or Romnomics - not even in wikipedia

...all sound crap, and none had a wiki page.

Romnomics sounds alright, honestly, though it'd sound better with an extra nom. Romnomnomics. Reminds me of the Hamburgler for some ungodly reason, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 13, 2012, 11:48:40 pm

Romonomnomics, for when eating the poor is no longer a metaphor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nilik on November 14, 2012, 01:22:13 am

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 13, 2012, 11:28:54 pm

I got Jill Stein, but only because they didn't have sufficiently left wing options.

Me too, with Obama a close second. Hi5.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 14, 2012, 10:01:42 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 13, 2012, 11:19:13 pm

Anyway, The far-right continues to blame Romney for their loss. They are saying alot of things the democrats were saying. My favorite is someone who quoted Groucho. "These, are my principles! And if you don't like'em, well I have other ones..." Alot of people saying the problem was too much compromise. Others are following the path of moderacy. Either way things are getting splintered.
 
FORTHENINJAS: Try this website then http://www.isidewith.com/ (http://www.isidewith.com/)

Predictably I side with Romney the least and Obama second from least.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 14, 2012, 10:27:46 am

I get 94% for Jailbird. Interestingly enough, Obama's second-to-last with 71%. and 42% of 'murrica disagrees with me.



I went ahead and actually did the economy part because I don't really have much of a clue about it. Now I have 95% and Mittens went down from 20 to 12% Apparently people with no clue about the economy agree the most with him because that's what I got on my first run.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 14, 2012, 11:33:07 am

I did it for the second time in a few months and I've gotten 84% Gary Johnson, 75% Jill Stein, 44% Rocky Anderson, 34% Obama, 12% Virgil Goode and 9% Romney. I agree with 55% of American voters.

Party-wise I side with the greens at 69%, 60% libertarian, 55% democrat and 11% republican.

I am disappointed because last time I did this I had a decent percentage for the socialist party.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 14, 2012, 11:46:42 am

Super duper liberal here.

96% Jailbird
83% Previous Mayor of Salt Lake City
81% Mr. Johnson
74% Bronco Bama
9% for Dante's nemesis, Virgil
1% for Mittens


Honestly I'd probably side closer toward the conservative side (slightly) if the questionnaire had an option for my opinion on abortion (absolute neutrality). I had to do the write in option and set the importance of that question to minimum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 11:49:28 am

For the last week since the election, the overarching message to the Republican Party has been: "ADAPT OR DIE". There have been numerous articles and essays showing how demographic trends are going to make it more and more difficult for the party of old, white, Christian men to be relevant in 21st-century America. Already, you're seeing a partial understanding of this as the Establishment faction of the party pivots on immigration reform. But you're also seeing a retrenchment among the most hardcore social conservatives, invoking the tried-and-true(-and-failed) refrain of "We lost because we weren't conservative enough!"

So...grab some popcorn and stay tuned in for the next couple of years because you're in for some fireworks as the GOP gears up for a civil war in its ranks between the small but still extant Moderate Wing, the Establishment Wing and the God Wing.

If the Moderates win, the GOP could be back as a relevant challenger and peel off support among conservative and pragmatic Dems, even as the centerpoint of the mainstream skews left.

If the Establishment wins, the GOP will still be a rump party for a while but I think will try to become broadly pro-Hispanic and rely on the strong correlation between Hispanics and Catholicism to bolster support for some social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage. They'll lose a lot of the nativists, old-school racists and rabid Protestant Bible-beaters, but then there's not much of a place for those folks to go--might jump to a further-right party like the Constitution Party.

If the God wing wins....the GOP could be headed to the political dustbin within a couple of decades, to join the Whigs, Prohibitionists and Free Soilers.

My personal hope is either for the 1st or 3rd outcome. The former because a balanced, rational party of fiscal conservatism and socially laissez-faire would be a welcome thing in the US political system and a good counterbalance to the inevitable excesses of a long period of Democratic dominance. The latter because nature abhors a vacuum -- if the GOP closed up shop (or withered to the point of irrelevance), the Dems would eventually splinter (hopefully into more than a two-party paradigm).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 14, 2012, 03:55:57 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 11:49:28 am

For the last week since the election, the overarching message to the Republican Party has been: "ADAPT OR DIE". There have been numerous articles and essays showing how demographic trends are going to make it more and more difficult for the party of old, white, Christian men to be relevant in 21st-century America. Already, you're seeing a partial understanding of this as the Establishment faction of the party pivots on immigration reform. But you're also seeing a retrenchment among the most hardcore social conservatives, invoking the tried-and-true(-and-failed) refrain of "We lost because we weren't conservative enough!"

To be more specific, they said that Mitt Romney sucks, and if they had nominated, say, Santorum, they would have won, which of course is absolutely insane, but there's no reality-check saying otherwise. They've proved they don't have to care about polls, so it's almost as if all they know from this is that Obama won.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 04:06:38 pm

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Here's hoping for Santorum 2016. It will be a political bloodbath. Come on you crazy theocrats, I know you have it in you to screw yourselves over!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 14, 2012, 04:08:27 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 04:06:38 pm

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Here's hoping for Santorum 2016. It will be a political bloodbath. Come on you crazy theocrats, I know you have it in you to screw yourselves over!

It would be good to see the nail go in that coffin. People like Santorum are actually very useful because sometimes you need a crazy theocrat or real right-winger just to provide an independent view. Similarly, we need extreme lefties too like the communists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on November 14, 2012, 04:16:11 pm

Republican leaders still believe they can earn black or latino voters by inserting token candidates rather than shifting their policies and rhetoric. While it's true that Republican voters can hold their nose if agitated against Democrats enough, I'm not sure that it'll be as easy as previous shifts the Republican party made after around 30 years of cracking that whip against the issues they now need their voters to accept. That Tea Party movement might just end up biting them in the ass.

Quote from: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 11:49:28 am

If the Establishment wins, the GOP will still be a rump party for a while but I think will try to become broadly pro-Hispanic and rely on the strong correlation between Hispanics and Catholicism to bolster support for some social conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage. They'll lose a lot of the nativists, old-school racists and rabid Protestant Bible-beaters, but then there's not much of a place for those folks to go--might jump to a further-right party like the Constitution Party.

As I brought up in the Puerto Rico thread, this assumption about Latino Catholics may need to be challenged (much to my surprise as well). Exit polling has shown that Latino voters are far more liberal than we give them credit for.

Quote from: Glowcat on November 10, 2012, 01:55:22 pm

Not (http://latinainstitute.org/es/node/884) really (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/october/segura-latino-vote-102612.html)

I'm not sure about the same-sex marriage issue either. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/majority-of-latinos-support-state-recognition-of-gay-marriage/)

Quote Source (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-09/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-poll-roundupbre8a905p-20121109_1_obama-vote-exit-poll-hispanic-voters)

Quote from: Chicago Tribune

More than two-thirds of Hispanics voted for Obama, who is thought to have cemented Latino support with his executive action this year on deportation exemptions for many undocumented youths. But among Hispanic voters, immigration ranked behind the economy, unemployment, healthcare and "issues like abortion and same-sex marriage" as a motivating issue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on November 14, 2012, 04:17:44 pm

I don't think Hill should run. She's got a lot of hate baggage, and anyway I really don't want to have the 80's-90's Grudge Match: BUSH V. CLINTON: THIS TIME IT'S PRESIDENTIAL.

That said, if there's a democrat out there who's going to win in 2016, he's going to need to appear in the next year, and strongly distance himself from Obama. That way, if the economy is still flumping along in 2016, he can be a democratic maveric; if the economy is great, his previous criticisms are going to be forgotten in overwhelming love of Democrats.

Now, if I could have my way, Obama 2 would be more outspokenly liberal, and while I'm wishing, he'd have a democratic legislative branch too, so he isn't crippled by internal conflicts.

More likely, we'll probably see a friendly, sane-seeming Republican with absurd amounts of wealth behind even more secretive superpacs than we had this year. I'm not convinced that'll happen, but for now it's what I'm leaning towards.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 14, 2012, 04:19:28 pm

Any chance Romney will come back for a rematch?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 14, 2012, 04:20:09 pm

Considering that he gets all the blame for not getting voted, I doubt it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 04:22:04 pm

Worth a read:

Quote

Observers in the media are declaring that Fox News' political activism has damaged the Republican Party in light of its losses in the 2012 elections. Fox figures have actively campaigned for Republican candidates over the past four years and instructed GOP officials on how to behave once they're elected:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/10/fox-news-relationship-with-the-gop-is-under-fir/191329

Quote

Telegraph's Hodges: "Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party." Dan Hodges wrote a November 8 article for The Telegraph titled "Fox News Is Killing the Republican Party." He stated that "Fox News, widely perceived to be one of the Republican party's greatest assets, has actually become a liability to it." Fox News, he wrote, was "an albatross around the neck of Mitt Romney." Hodges also wrote that Fox's misinformation "provides a false comfort zone for conservative politicians and their supporters." [The Telegraph, 11/8/12]

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 14, 2012, 04:25:47 pm

Murdoch - the ultimate troll?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 04:27:38 pm

Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he started making critical errors due to senility.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 04:34:29 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 14, 2012, 04:19:28 pm

Any chance Romney will come back for a rematch?

About the same that John Kerry will run again. So, no.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 14, 2012, 04:42:12 pm

Quote from: PTTG?? on November 14, 2012, 04:17:44 pm

That said, if there's a democrat out there who's going to win in 2016, he's going to need to appear in the next year, and strongly distance himself from Obama. That way, if the economy is still flumping along in 2016, he can be a democratic maveric; if the economy is great, his previous criticisms are going to be forgotten in overwhelming love of Democrats.

Now, if I could have my way, Obama 2 would be more outspokenly liberal, and while I'm wishing, he'd have a democratic legislative branch too, so he isn't crippled by internal conflicts.

Hmm. Perhaps a certain popular ambitious Democratic Governor, who is known for force-feeding republican legislatures his agenda? One who has stayed out of National Politics? *Ahem* (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/andrew-cuomo-2016_n_1886727.html)

It sounds a awful lot like the start of a new era. Just keep our eyes out for the CCS, and we'll be golden.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 04:55:08 pm

New York Dems don't tend to play well in Peoria. JFK was the last Northeastern Democrat to get elected President.
Hell, up until Obama, he was the last Democrat from outside the South to get elected.

I think Elliott Spitzer could have had a shot, what with his populist cred for going after Wall Street cheats. At least, until he caught with his pants down and a high-priced madam on his speed dial.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 04:59:41 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 04:55:08 pm

New York Dems don't tend to play well in Peoria. JFK was the last Northeastern Democrat to get elected President.
Hell, up until Obama, he was the last Democrat from outside the South to get elected.

Yeah, but black Democrats from everywhere didn't get elected President until Obama either.

JFK was a long time ago, and if we're going to have an era of progress and political change, it might as well start now. No need to worry about predictions when we've got Nate Silver and his otherworldly powers on our side.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 14, 2012, 05:00:16 pm

RedKing, JFK wasn't THAT many elections ago. I mean, statistically, that's not much to base anything on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 05:04:11 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 04:59:41 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 14, 2012, 04:55:08 pm

New York Dems don't tend to play well in Peoria. JFK was the last Northeastern Democrat to get elected President.
Hell, up until Obama, he was the last Democrat from outside the South to get elected.

Yeah, but black Democrats from everywhere didn't get elected President until Obama either.

JFK was a long time ago, and if we're going to have an era of progress and political change, it might as well start now. No need to worry about predictions when we've got Nate Silver and his otherworldly powers on our side.

I'm just saying, there's still a strong perception of Northeastern (and California) Democrats as archliberals, and thus too liberal for Main Street, USA. Now if you can find a guy/gal from those areas who has some populist credentials, and doesn't support gay flag-burning abortion parades (I jest, but you get my drift), then there's a shot.

I mean, look at Pelosi. The #1 criticism of her on the Right is "OMG She's from San Francisco! Ergo, she's a tofu-eating pansexual Communist."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 14, 2012, 05:16:24 pm

Those are the best kind of communists.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 14, 2012, 05:17:02 pm

Agreed :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 05:18:52 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2012, 05:16:24 pm

Those are the best kind of communists.

No they aren't, tofu is awful.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 14, 2012, 05:19:46 pm

Ironically enough the only tofu eating pansexual communist* ever elected to office in America is from Texas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/mary-gonzalez-texas-state-representative-pansexual-_n_1764824.html?fb_action_ids=4479133389187&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

*not really a communist.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 14, 2012, 05:20:10 pm

Meat-eating pansexual communists then?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 14, 2012, 05:20:33 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 05:18:52 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2012, 05:16:24 pm

Those are the best kind of communists.

No they aren't, tofu is awful.

It's great when properly seasoned. Horrid alone, I'll admit... but who bites into a tofu block?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 14, 2012, 05:21:18 pm

Anyone decrying tofu will have to be served my Mango Chutney & Mayonnaise Tofu. As delicious as it sounds gross.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 14, 2012, 05:22:55 pm

As a general rule, I refuse to consume anything that looks strongly like something a young puppy vomits.

Chocolate milk is the only milk. Mayonnaise is right out. Etc., so forth, so on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 14, 2012, 05:24:20 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 14, 2012, 05:22:55 pm

As a general rule, I refuse to consume anything that looks strongly like something a young puppy vomits.

Chocolate milk is the only milk. Mayonnaise is right out. Etc., so forth, so on.

Agreed.
 
Umm...
 
So. Anyway, he's considered to be quite popular for managing to make Albany successful. Hell, he pushed through Gay Marriage with a republican legislature. That takes skills.
 
 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 14, 2012, 05:25:01 pm

Anyway, I wonder how much being strongly pro-gay would hurt a democrat's chance. Bringing the GOP out of the economy and into issues such a gay right and abortions seems the best way to make it look abhorrent to swing voters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Levi on November 14, 2012, 05:25:49 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2012, 05:21:18 pm

Anyone decrying tofu will have to be served my Mango Chutney & Mayonnaise Tofu. As delicious as it sounds gross.

Ew, Mango.

Tofu is pretty delicious chopped into cubes and fried I find.

On topic, I kind of enjoyed this:  http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/warren-ellis-on-the-dismal-ame.html

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 05:29:31 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 14, 2012, 05:25:01 pm

Anyway, I wonder how much being strongly pro-gay would hurt a democrat's chance. Bringing the GOP out of the economy and into issues such a gay right and abortions seems the best way to make it look abhorrent to swing voters.

Yes, Obama realized what the entire left is now realizing: Supporting gay rights is now a political benefit, not a drawback.

Two reasons for this:

A. The majority of Americans are now in support and rising.

B. The Republicans can't help screwing themselves whenever they talk about social issues anymore. They tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but as it turns out the truth is horrifying and alienating to mainstream America. And the best part is that the GOP just does not get the message and continues on its doomed path with total confidence that their skewed vision of America will back them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 14, 2012, 05:33:43 pm

I've always thought Brian Schweitzer, the current Governor of Montana would be a good pick for 2016.  And if we're going to have a New Yorker, it had better be Kirsten Gillibrand, not Andrew Cuomo, who is merely a byproduct of machine politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 14, 2012, 05:39:32 pm

I'd like to see Sanders/Warren

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 14, 2012, 05:41:29 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secession-petitions-now-filed-50-states-183500440.html

All 50 states now have petitions for secession on whitehouse.gov.

Puerty Rico shows up at the party and wonders where everyone went.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 05:44:13 pm

If all 50 states secede to form a new Union, then it isn't a fucking secession!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 14, 2012, 05:45:17 pm

Well... do we just change the country's name then? That would be fun.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 05:45:57 pm

Us Territories can't legally secede, and they'd be left holding the $16 trillion debt. But luckily, they'd also have control of the printing presses.

"The United States Of America".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 14, 2012, 05:46:36 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on November 14, 2012, 05:45:17 pm

Well... do we just change the country's name then? That would be fun.

The states of Secession?

Quote from: Jervill on November 14, 2012, 05:33:43 pm

I've always thought Brian Schweitzer, the current Governor of Montana would be a good pick for 2016.  And if we're going to have a New Yorker, it had better be Kirsten Gillibrand, not Andrew Cuomo, who is merely a byproduct of machine politics.

The People of New York don't seem to think so, and neither do I.
 
 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 14, 2012, 05:46:42 pm

Well, if all the conservatives who sign those petitions are no longer citizens of the country (and therefore cannot vote, among other rights granted to U.S. citizens)...well, let's just say it will be much easier to get Progressive legislators elected. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 14, 2012, 05:47:06 pm

In more irrelevant and questionably funny election fallout news:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bronco-bama-girl-relieved-election-day-is-over

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: ShoesandHats on November 14, 2012, 05:53:25 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 14, 2012, 05:47:06 pm

In more irrelevant and questionably funny election fallout news:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bronco-bama-girl-relieved-election-day-is-over

I can see how you'd be tired of Mitt Romney, but I'll never get over Bronco Bama.

Hang on a second, I'm going to edit Barack Obama's face onto a feral horse. Bronco Bama? Get it? Because otherwise this is going to look really racist. Or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 14, 2012, 05:59:01 pm

Newt Gingrich returns from the dead, again, only to be laughed off, again. (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/267981-texas-republican-nominates-newt-gingrich-for-speaker)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 14, 2012, 06:07:45 pm

I always figured Bronco Bama sounded like a porn star's name :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: ShoesandHats on November 14, 2012, 06:14:29 pm

Spoiler: Bronco Bama (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/GpaGf.png)

I'm not sure how to feel right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on November 14, 2012, 06:35:12 pm

Quote from: ShoesandHats on November 14, 2012, 06:14:29 pm

Spoiler: Bronco Bama (click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/GpaGf.png)

I'm not sure how to feel right now.

If the horse's head was Mitch Mcconnell you'd have an almost salient political cartoon making commentary on the election results.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 14, 2012, 06:41:41 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 05:45:57 pm

"The United States Of America".

The Unstates Of America.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 14, 2012, 07:08:08 pm

Damn...

I'd heard people bandy about "Nate Silver"... I just found out who he is.

Wow... that's really something, innit? 100% accurate EC and close popular predictions?
Nerd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 14, 2012, 07:30:33 pm

Not a nerd, a witch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 07:34:32 pm

We already had a witch, she didn't get elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell). i blame the mouse people. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvV11-Xwpw)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 14, 2012, 07:38:45 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 14, 2012, 07:08:08 pm

Damn...

I'd heard people bandy about "Nate Silver"... I just found out who he is.

Wow... that's really something, innit? 100% accurate EC and close popular predictions?
Nerd.

I don't think Nate Silver isn't particularly proud of getting every state right.  He said about the 2008 elections that it's easy to know who will win on the day before election day, there is an abundance of polling at that point.  I imagine he'd feel the same way about these elections   Just going with a simple average of mainstream pollsters would give you every state but Florida and an even chance to get Florida depending on which pollsters you included.  Nate's real work was much more impressive:

-He successfully predicted the variance of the results compared to his predictions.  He had not just predictions for every states vote but accurate margins of error.  And these margins of error seem to be pretty close.  For instance I've seen it reported that if you look at his 80% confidence interval, 84% of the state results were in this interval.  A good model would have those numbers close together, if too many states were in then it means the margin of error is too large, if too few then the margin of error is too small.  This margin of error is useful because it not just tells us who's more likely to win but how much more likely to win they are.

-He was accurately depicting the election months in advance.  Nate used race "fundamentals" in addition to the polls to predict the election way in advance.  These fundamentals were calibrated off historical data and seemed to predict the future changes in the race very accurately.  He was able to use data back when it was still scarce to give good estimates going forward.  And these estimates seem accurate, there is no jarring change in his predictions when the more plentiful data came pouring in.  This tells us that he not only had a good estimate of the margin of error at the end but had a good estimate all along, which is freaking amazing.

-His model also did a good job ignoring the short term swings of the race.  After the democratic debate everyone said it was over but Nate Silver said Romney still had a shot.  After Denver everyone said Romney was ahead but Silver said Obama was still the favorite.  His model understood in both cases that a short term surge is usually followed by a candidates numbers falling back to earth.  The million campaign events that the media fed to us were ignored by Nate's model, only getting the stuff that really mattered.

Being impressed that Nate Silver went 50/50 is like being impressed because Steven Hawking predicted a coin flip (and after having guessed wrong on the coin flip 4 years ago, which is when Indiana was the 50-50 tossup but Silver incorrectly had it leaning just barely towards McCain.).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 14, 2012, 07:55:34 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 07:34:32 pm

We already had a witch, she didn't get elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell). i blame the mouse people. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvV11-Xwpw)

She's not a witch. She's nothing you've heard.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Herman Cain was the best part of the race. I mean, we're talking about a guy whose leadership experience came from being CEO of a pizza chain, stole his tax plan from SimCity, and quoted Pokemon in a campaign speech. And he's a black Republican, which is already a million-to-one chance.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And then there was the little gig on TCR... WHAT IS THIS CRAP, ENGINEER?!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Solifuge on November 14, 2012, 08:03:32 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 07:34:32 pm

We already had a witch, she didn't get elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell). i blame the mouse people. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvV11-Xwpw)

My god... in that interview, she just repeated 3 rehearsed lines... "If we approach this with our heads in the sand, the other end is in the air!" "They admitted that they're only cloning Monkeys so they can clone Humans" and "It's about Dignity versus Commodity." When confronted with a question that these lines couldn't answer, she froze, and just went back to repeating them. And the fact that a woman who thought herself fit to be president was convinced that Evil Scientists were crossing animals and people in their secret genetic labs just... I would trade brains with her for a second, just so she could understand how crazy-stupid her reasoning was.

In other post-election news, Obama supporters hate white people. (http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-supporters-respond-to-win-by-tweeting-f-k-white-people?CID=obinsite)

HOW TO NEWS:
~ by The Examiner

Step 1: Pay someone to browse Twitter for a handful of inflammatory posts saying "Fuck White People".
Step 2: Assert that it's the duty of the president, for the sake of our union, to condemn that handful of twitter users, or he must support them.
Step 3: Find angriest-looking picture of Obama, and use it for your headline.

Just add in a subtle implication that Abraham Lincoln's fight to end slavery was misguided, since this was the unforseen result. It's that easy!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 09:21:21 pm

Actually she was only running for Congress, not president, so it's all good.

Btw i came across a video titled "Mitt Romney & Barack Obama Talk Dirty" i won't link it, it's very NSFW language, but extremely funny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alway on November 14, 2012, 10:10:32 pm

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/reports-romney-says-obama-won-by-offering-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/?hpt=hp_t1
Heh. Mittens is, in essence, stating 'Obama won by offering policies which appealed to the majority,' while simultaneously spinning it as a bad thing. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 14, 2012, 10:12:52 pm

Well Mr Small Government is now saying people don't know what's in their own best interest.

The Laissez-faire magic of people's greedy self-interest always giving the optimal result only holds for the wealthy and the white apparently.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Cthulhu on November 15, 2012, 08:32:59 pm

How has nobody discussed the secession petition manufactroversy?

Long story short, several (As in, all of them) states have filed petitions to secede from the Union.  Except, oh wait, no, that's not it.  Several individuals have filed petitions for their states to secede from the Union.  Non-binding, legally worthless cries of "I'm buttmad that ObadO won the election"

Honestly, I say let them go.  As of yesterday, seven states (Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana) have successfully gotten the 25% votes required for the government to respond.  Of those, two (Texas and Georgia) are net contributors to federal tax revenue.  Over the course of 19 years (1990-2009), the other five outweighed their contributions by 400 billion dollars.

Seriously.  Let them go, cut military spending (Easy with a smaller country and fewer red states), and maybe with some work we can wrangle a budget surplus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 15, 2012, 08:37:04 pm

We already discussed that a day or two ago, and that was essentially what it came down to. Pointing out that they were entirely meaningless whitehouse.gov petitions, and making snarky comments about letting them go.  :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 15, 2012, 08:43:52 pm

Oh no you don't, you aren't cutting out my part of the country. I have no intention of being burned as a witch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 15, 2012, 08:46:45 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 15, 2012, 08:43:52 pm

Oh no you don't, you aren't cutting out my part of the country. I have no intention of being burned as a witch.

This is a good reason for not letting them secede. Well sorta; there are less facetious and more valid examples, like criminalizing homosexuality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Cthulhu on November 15, 2012, 08:49:28 pm

You can move before they break away.

Quote from: Cthulhu on November 15, 2012, 08:32:59 pm

How has nobody discussed the secession petition manufactroversy?

Long story short, several (As in, all of them) states have filed petitions to secede from the Union.  Except, oh wait, no, that's not it.  Several individuals have filed petitions for their states to secede from the Union.  Non-binding, legally worthless cries of "I'm buttmad that ObadO won the election"

Honestly, I say let them go.  As of yesterday, seven states (Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana) have successfully gotten the 25000 votes required for the government to respond.  Of those, two (Texas and Georgia) are net contributors to federal tax revenue.  Over the course of 19 years (1990-2009), the other five outweighed their contributions by 400 billion dollars.

Seriously.  Let them go, cut military spending (Easy with a smaller country and fewer red states), and maybe with some work we can wrangle a budget surplus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 15, 2012, 08:55:14 pm

Warren Buffet endorsed Hilliary Clinton 2016.
 
Damnit guys.we just finished. have you not had enough?!? Although I guess I can't blame them. The Fact is all of a sudden the Democrats are looking at the future happily, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. But seriously guys, hold off on the endorsements.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 15, 2012, 09:41:45 pm

I endorse Clinton as well. I know you've told me about her stupid video games censure (or was it ban?) in the nineties, but I still have a good impression of her. She seems to be a somewhat good diplomat, has lots of experience in the field and now experience if the international power game as well, has a good repuatation abroad as far as I know, and seems like a sensible person over all. I know she's worked with gun laws as well, but I'm not particularly clear on how heavy a degree of restriction she prefers. She may be a bitch, as so many like to say, but seriously, what female politician (or wielder of any power) does not have to be a "bitch" to get anywhere in our world. Gotta be a tough bastard to play at that level, regardless of gender, anyway. Of all my (admittedly limited) knowledge of American politicians, she certainly seems like one of the best candidates. And it would be cool to see her butt heads with Palin if she gets Republican support.

Lastly, also importantly. Old Billy as America's first First Gentleman. Come on. You know you want it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2012, 09:45:48 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 15, 2012, 09:41:45 pm

I endorse Clinton as well. I know you've told me about her stupid video games censure (or was it ban?) in the nineties, but I still have a good impression of her. She seems to be a somewhat good diplomat, has lots of experience in the field and now experience if the international power game as well, has a good repuatation abroad as far as I know, and seems like a sensible person over all. I know she's worked with gun laws as well, but I'm not particularly clear on how heavy a degree of restriction she prefers. She may be a bitch, as so many like to say, but seriously, what female politician (or wielder of any power) does not have to be a "bitch" to get anywhere in our world. Gotta be a tough bastard to play at that level, regardless of gender, anyway. Of all my (admittedly limited) knowledge of American politicians, she certainly seems like one of the best candidates. And it would be cool to see her butt heads with Palin if she gets Republican support.

Lastly, also importantly. Old Billy as America's first First Gentleman. Come on. You know you want it.

Censorship is an unpardonable sin

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 15, 2012, 10:00:06 pm

To an moral absolutist, yes.  Someone who sees in shades of grey might say "wow, BFD".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zrk2 on November 15, 2012, 10:03:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 15, 2012, 10:00:06 pm

To an moral absolutist, yes.  Someone who sees in shades of grey might say "wow, BFD".

Actually, I'd say it is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 15, 2012, 10:05:08 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 15, 2012, 10:03:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 15, 2012, 10:00:06 pm

To an moral absolutist, yes.  Someone who sees in shades of grey might say "wow, BFD".

Actually, I'd say it is.

I see in shades of grey and I also see it as a big fucking deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 15, 2012, 10:10:28 pm

She'll probably drop it once she realizes it's not a good way to attract the youth vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 15, 2012, 10:13:12 pm

Political censorship, sure. Censoring violent games? No. Have some perspective, please. It's not at all the same thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 15, 2012, 10:19:45 pm

Can we please not endorse Sen. Clinton? I lived in NY State when she ran the show, and the taxes, fines and fees there were brutal. I had to register my hands with the state department, at a cost of $150 that I didn't have, or face a $1000 fine and possible jail time. (This is what I get for having a bar brawl broken up by a cop.) They fined me for taking a license plate out of the state and not returning it. The first thing you see when travelling into NY (as of roughly 2001, when she took over,) is a toll booth. She blathered on and on about raising taxes on the wealthy and dropping taxes for the poor, and then raised taxes on everyone.

There's got to be someone who's not going to try to squeeze blood from a stone that we can elect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2012, 10:21:18 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 15, 2012, 10:13:12 pm

Political censorship, sure. Censoring violent games? No. Have some perspective, please. It's not at all the same thing.

It's an inroad, though, which does make it pretty close to as dangerous. That said, it's not as an immediate threat as a lot of other BFDs in the great web of american cockups, so if that was her worst screwup on the BFD side... that'd be pretty damned impressive. I haven't actually paid enough attention to that clinton to say if it is, but while censorship's definitely high up on m'personal list of political concerns, there's other ones that are even higher, especially in relation to less direct things like video game censorship (ACTA-esq shit would be a different kettle of fish, though.).

Don't mistake it, though. That "have some perspective" bit on censorship is exactly what some of the fuckwads trying to push shit through are after. Little inroads, here and there and there and there, until they've got what they're after.

And apparently the kind ninja MZ has noted some of Sen. Clinton's other BFDs that are considerably more immediate issues. So, yeah.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 15, 2012, 11:48:04 pm

Information freedom is my #1 political priority, because people are powerless to act on any other political priority without it.  It's no coincidence that social revolution has always followed revolutions in communication (printing press/rennaissance, anyone?), and people taking advantage of those changes to say things that they couldn't have got away with before to audiences that they couldn't have reached before. 

I don't just mean freedom of speech, either.  I mean availability of information across all spectrums.

We're in the midst of one of those revolutions right now, which is why fighting for information freedom is more important than ever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2012, 11:53:09 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 15, 2012, 10:13:12 pm

Political censorship, sure. Censoring violent games? No. Have some perspective, please. It's not at all the same thing.

Censoring violent videogames is just as bad.
(Also, censoring porn is worse)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 15, 2012, 11:56:01 pm

Yeah, it's definitely high up there for me, too. S'one of those things, though... I could stand a minor setback there if it meant major inroads elsewhere, especially in areas that'd leave people in a better situation to fix the setback later (economic/education improvements, ferex), especially if the setback is something, well, like video game censorship. It's a risk, and it's more than a little dangerous to give any ground on the subject, but if the benefit for doing so was large enough and the cost small enough... I could see myself saying okay, at least for the short term, and on fairly trivial issues.

That's kinda' exactly how the buggers trying to push this crap get'cha, but... yeah. I've got my lines in the sand but it's a little further away than commercial gaming, y'know? Providing the payoff for letting it slide for a few years or whathaveyou was sufficient.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 16, 2012, 12:03:28 am

She voted for the Patriot act. And then voted against for the sole (publicly stated) reason that her state wasn't getting paid enough for it. Then she voted for it when they made the changes she wanted.

She wants to make flag-burning illegal. She introduced legislation to make flag burning punishable with a year of jailtime and enormous fines.

She has publicly states she believes in a stronger executive branch.

She is opposed to same-sex marriage. She favours keeping marijuana illegal.

The main problem with her video game censorship isn't even that she wants to censor video games, but that reading her arguments on it makes it clear she's a moron who is unfit to govern. (Not that this is out of the ordinary for politicians)

She also supports the death penalty for violent criminals and wants more federal executions.

Suffice to say, I don't think I'd be happy with her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 16, 2012, 12:05:44 am

Wow! I never realized Hilary was such enormous douchebag.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 16, 2012, 12:09:47 am

She does have some good things going for her as well - she supports net neutrality and is a decent promoter of environmentalism. She's pro-choice and is generally a competent negotiator (she DID get her state a ton more money via the Patriot Act) and, at least verbally, she's big on transparency.

Overall, though, I'm not a fan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 12:39:11 am

I'm fine with video games having an enforced ratings system.  Anything beyond that starts to set off massive alarms for me, because it's getting into familiar repression territory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Moghjubar on November 16, 2012, 12:52:30 am

I would imagine on a subforum of a sort of 'gaming' community that the video censorship thing would be a big deal to most people.  It is to me.

Of course, if we are talking 2016 we really need some real people to compare against, in order to get the full scale of neutral to evil politicians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 16, 2012, 02:04:49 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 12:39:11 am

I'm fine with video games having an enforced ratings system.  Anything beyond that starts to set off massive alarms for me, because it's getting into familiar repression territory.

She didn't want to enforce the already nearly universal rating system. She wanted to outright ban games with "mature content", even if that mature content is not accessible playing the game but merely exists as left over unused data.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 02:12:41 am

Quote from: Nadaka on November 16, 2012, 02:04:49 am

even if that mature content is not accessible playing the game but merely exists as left over unused data.

I'm guessing this was fallout from the "Hot Coffee" controversy...

Yeah... that's where you start running into blatant "you're not allowed to express these thoughts" territory, which leads to bad stuff no matter what the subject matter is, but even worse if it can be successfully applied to one thing, it can then spread to others.  It doesn't matter that it's just video games.

As for how that reflects on Hillary... I have mixed feelings.  It's the kind of situation where everyone goes temporarily insane and says a bunch of stupid shit, and most of them try to act like it never happened not too long afterwards.  I'm willing to let it go if she repents profusely enough on the subject.

Not that I see myself ever voting for a candidate from the two major parties anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 16, 2012, 02:14:32 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 12:39:11 am

I'm fine with video games having an enforced ratings system.  Anything beyond that starts to set off massive alarms for me, because it's getting into familiar repression territory.

Agreed. I have no problems with knowing what I'm getting into when I'm checking out a new game. I'm even fine with letting stores choose not to sell adult games (after all, there's always digital distribution). I have real problems when random talking heads want to outright ban stuff, because I know that they're not all as incompetent as Jack Thompson.

_{was gonna TvTrope link here, but apparently Jack's page got removed :(}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 16, 2012, 04:40:35 am

But there's still quite a bit of difference between banning video games and restricting actual (as in "in the original 1774 sense") freedom of speech. Not that I support this kind of censorship, mind you - I simply see no reason to ban that stuff, but a ban wouldn't be the worst thing in recent political history: There's more important issues.

It kinda reminds me of the "Volksverhetzung" laws here in Germany. Literally translated, it means "incitement of popular hatred"; you are not allowed to publically express yourself in a way that is likely or meant to lead to widespread violence in the population. This is basically a reaction to the 1933-1945 era - until a few years ago it was forbidden to wear or show swastikas and so on even if they were placed in a clearly anti.fascist context (e.g. crossed-out).

I'm very reluctant to quote Dubya, but: "There ought to be limits to freedom."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flare on November 16, 2012, 04:59:54 am

Was that law a result from the Streicher conviction during Nuremberg? I think he began Der Sturmer or something? I remember readings something about him being hanged for more or less making thinly veiled encouragements for people to attack jews and such.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 05:11:45 am

Quote from: Helgoland on November 16, 2012, 04:40:35 am

It kinda reminds me of the "Volksverhetzung" laws here in Germany. Literally translated, it means "incitement of popular hatred"; you are not allowed to publically express yourself in a way that is likely or meant to lead to widespread violence in the population. This is basically a reaction to the 1933-1945 era - until a few years ago it was forbidden to wear or show swastikas and so on even if they were placed in a clearly anti.fascist context (e.g. crossed-out).

I actually agree with this to a limited extent, but I don't think it's the same.  These are extremes of social irresponsibility for which there would naturally be extreme repercussions anyway.  There are always limits to any type of freedom for society to function at all.  The very basis of social organization is agreement, which amounts to limitations.

I imagine those laws apply mainly to public space, though, right?  I know very little about it, but I imagine you can bathe in swastikas in the privacy of your own home if you wish.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  This is the most important thing, I think.  In public space, you need to be respectful of the diversity of complete strangers around you, which means taking reasonable precaution against doing things that offend any common demographic.  But in private, you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause problems beyond your private space.  When the law starts regulating what thoughts and images you can be exposed to even in your home, there's something else going on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:00:56 am

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 16, 2012, 07:18:41 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDxOSjgl5Z4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDxOSjgl5Z4)'
 
Wish I'd seen this before the election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 16, 2012, 07:43:47 am

My quickly-written take on censorship:

Spoiler: Quite long (click to show/hide)

The reason for censorship is almost always because it is harmful in society. How do you define what could and could not cause problems beyond your private space? How do you define what these problems would include? Censorship is quite a complex issue mostly due to the fact that one generally does not consider censorship they agree with as censorship. This allows people to define it as an absolute evil despite (almost always) supporting some measure of censorship. It is a morally grey area.

Take something extreme, like certain-inappropriate-images-of-children, which is quite understandably illegal. Its distribution and ownership is illegal even in the space of one's own home. The reason for this is it can cause harm for the child, and that the child is not capable of making any decisions for itself. I don't think there are many people that would question this form of censorship, but most people do not regard this as a form of censorship, as it is generally regarded as a "special case".

In Germany, there are numerous restrictions against hate crimes, Nazi related things etc. The reason for this is the precieved potential to cause harm to the general populace. This is an example of generally accepted political censorship.

The problem with censorship, however is how easy it is to twist certain things into acceptable censorship. A totalitarian dictatorship might ban anti-dictatorship material because it could bring an uprising/revolution/etc. Dictators will usually give the reason as to maintain the public order etc. Even having this material in one's home could cause evil and disruptive influences.

Then there is self-censorship, or de facto censorship not written into law. For example a company might not want you to express certain viewpoints, or else they will fire you. Some countries forbid this (but then it is a different argument of corporate freedom etc etc). While you may be free in theory (law) you may be less free in practice. While most people are against this, it then opens the question up of when an employer can fire employee's. If it is illegal to do this, any legal action could cause the closure of the business (if it is small) and cause loss of job anyway. This form of censorship is generally regarded as being bad, but it is suprising how many people do not see it as censorship.

So most people support some form of censorship. Generally, when people clain to be 100% against it accomplish this by putting some forms of censorship into "special" categories.

For this reason, I am supportive of a limited form of censorship, and I don't see it as the absolute-evil but rather as a necessary tool that can be very easily abused. My general rule-of-thumb is to look at who is gaining the most through the censorship, and if the censorship extends to discussion about the subject. Is it a despotic dictator using it as an excuse to hold onto power? Or is it actually intended to do something which benefits the most people (ie society). Im assuming that while one cannot openly promote Nazi related things in Germany, one can still discuss about Nazi Germany, and about the censorship being applied.

tl;dr: Allowing for the existance of a censorship-that-is-not-censorship category gives a place-of-refuge for corrupt forms of censorship to take shelter in.

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:00:56 am

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:47:14 am

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 16, 2012, 07:43:47 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:00:56 am

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

No, I don't have a problem with them being in it. I just wouldn't buy the game.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 07:50:50 am

I only accept censorship if a victim can be established. And I do mean actual harm, not the bullshit "think of the children" some people throw around.

Child pornography (as in, with real people depicted) and harassment are the two most obvious examples.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:52:38 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 07:50:50 am

I only accept censorship if a victim can be established. And I do mean actual harm, not the bullshit "think of the children" some people throw around.

Child pornography (as in, with real people depicted) and harassment are the two most obvious examples.

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 16, 2012, 07:55:35 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:00:56 am

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

This, though I would say there is a "limit" in that your freedom of speech ends once you enter the property of someone else.

For example, I can't just stroll into McDonalds and loudly talk about how terrible their food is to the people in line, I can't insult you and disrespect you in your own house, and I can't obnoxiously yell at the theatre in the middle of a movie.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:56:44 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 16, 2012, 07:55:35 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:00:56 am

I don't think there should be a limit to your freedom. People should be able to use racial, national, religious and whatever slurs in public (not that I ever would) and say whatever they damned well want, or put whatever they want in a book, film or game. To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it. I take an extreme view on this. Expression of thoughts should not be a crime. When you act on these thoughts, then it becomes a crime.

This, though I would say there is a "limit" in that your freedom of speech ends once you enter the property of someone else.

For example, I can't just stroll into McDonalds and loudly talk about how terrible their food is to the people in line, I can't insult you and disrespect you in your own house, and I can't obnoxiously yell at the theatre in the middle of a movie.

There are problems with this though. You would have to be very clear about where that limit lies because what's to stop McDonalds from seeing your legitimate complaints as a breach of that law?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 08:02:33 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:52:38 am

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 07:50:50 am

I only accept censorship if a victim can be established. And I do mean actual harm, not the bullshit "think of the children" some people throw around.

Child pornography (as in, with real people depicted) and harassment are the two most obvious examples.

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

Agreed.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 16, 2012, 07:55:35 am

This, though I would say there is a "limit" in that your freedom of speech ends once you enter the property of someone else.

For example, I can't just stroll into McDonalds and loudly talk about how terrible their food is to the people in line, I can't insult you and disrespect you in your own house, and I can't obnoxiously yell at the theatre in the middle of a movie.

My understanding is McDonalds can throw you out for any reason or no reason. Right to refuse service, and all that. So that's not so much "censorship" specifically, though it can be used for such.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 16, 2012, 08:16:51 am

Quote from: Bohandas on November 15, 2012, 11:53:09 pm

Quote from: scriver on November 15, 2012, 10:13:12 pm

Political censorship, sure. Censoring violent games? No. Have some perspective, please. It's not at all the same thing.

Censoring violent videogames is just as bad.
(Also, censoring porn is worse)

That mere thought is a grave insult to anyone who's ever been imprisoned, tortured, or killed for their attempts to rightfully criticise their regime, Bohandas.

Also, do note that you just called censoring porn, of all things, worse than censoring political opinion. That is the most tucked up priorities.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 16, 2012, 12:03:28 am

She voted for the Patriot act. And then voted against for the sole (publicly stated) reason that her state wasn't getting paid enough for it. Then she voted for it when they made the changes she wanted.

She wants to make flag-burning illegal. She introduced legislation to make flag burning punishable with a year of jailtime and enormous fines.

She has publicly states she believes in a stronger executive branch.

She is opposed to same-sex marriage. She favours keeping marijuana illegal.

The main problem with her video game censorship isn't even that she wants to censor video games, but that reading her arguments on it makes it clear she's a moron who is unfit to govern. (Not that this is out of the ordinary for politicians)

She also supports the death penalty for violent criminals and wants more federal executions.

Suffice to say, I don't think I'd be happy with her.

These are all much more concerning topics, none of which I knew about. I'll have to retract my endorsement, it seems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 16, 2012, 08:26:57 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 05:11:45 am

I imagine those laws apply mainly to public space, though, right?  I know very little about it, but I imagine you can bathe in swastikas in the privacy of your own home if you wish.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  This is the most important thing, I think.  In public space, you need to be respectful of the diversity of complete strangers around you, which means taking reasonable precaution against doing things that offend any common demographic.  But in private, you should be able to do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause problems beyond your private space.  When the law starts regulating what thoughts and images you can be exposed to even in your home, there's something else going on.

If I remember correctly, in Germany you can get charged for having Nazi symbolism/memorabilia in your home if it's not a family related or something like that. So having Grampa's old WWII medal that he got from Hitler himself is perfectly fine, while buying up old WWII medals for display is not. I believe the reasoning goes that the only people who would collect such things outside of historical/family reasons are Neo-Nazis, which are also illegal in Germany.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 08:30:32 am

That sort of behavior/attitude seems like it'd only encourage Neo Nazis, to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 08:30:36 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:00:56 am

To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it.

This is your point of view.  There are other people who do not share this point of view.  You have to get along with those people in public.  Getting along with people who are different from you requires compromise.  If compromise cannot be achieved, society cannot function.  This means tolerating limited censorship, even if you don't agree with it.  It's that simple.  Being dogmatic just isn't practical.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 08:32:06 am

When it comes to fundamental human rights, I'm pretty sure being dogmatic is the correct approach. Make a practicality argument if you wish, but that only concerns implementation, not the ideas he's espousing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 08:45:25 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 16, 2012, 08:26:57 am

If I remember correctly, in Germany you can get charged for having Nazi symbolism/memorabilia in your home if it's not a family related or something like that. So having Grampa's old WWII medal that he got from Hitler himself is perfectly fine, while buying up old WWII medals for display is not. I believe the reasoning goes that the only people who would collect such things outside of historical/family reasons are Neo-Nazis, which are also illegal in Germany.

Now this is wrong to me.  As much as I disagree with neo-nazis, I disagree with thought policing more.  People can have whatever disgustingly racist thoughts in their head that they want and decorate their homes accordingly.  It's when they act on their hatred that I have a problem with it, and that includes going out and starting fights -- which is where I'd argue that going out in public and shouting racial slurs at people is wrong (because it's damaging to the function of society) and shouldn't go unanswered.  I'll agree that implementation is sticky and not something I really trust to legal enforcement.  I'd prefer that cultural stigma towards such behavior be significant and mature enough to serve instead... but that doesn't really work either.

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 08:32:06 am

When it comes to fundamental human rights, I'm pretty sure being dogmatic is the correct approach. Make a practicality argument if you wish, but that only concerns implementation, not the ideas he's espousing.

But being too stubborn on one fundamental human right can end up infringing on another.  If a bunch of hate speech results in death, I'd rather there be something preventive in place to deal with the hate speech than wait for the death and deal out retribution.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on November 16, 2012, 08:53:03 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 08:45:25 am

Quote from: USEC_OFFICER on November 16, 2012, 08:26:57 am

If I remember correctly, in Germany you can get charged for having Nazi symbolism/memorabilia in your home if it's not a family related or something like that. So having Grampa's old WWII medal that he got from Hitler himself is perfectly fine, while buying up old WWII medals for display is not. I believe the reasoning goes that the only people who would collect such things outside of historical/family reasons are Neo-Nazis, which are also illegal in Germany.

Now this is wrong to me.  As much as I disagree with neo-nazis, I disagree with thought policing more.  People can have whatever disgustingly racist thoughts in their head that they want and decorate their homes accordingly.  It's when they act on their hatred that I have a problem with it, and that includes going out and starting fights -- which is where I'd argue that going out in public and shouting racial slurs at people is wrong (because it's damaging to the function of society) and shouldn't go unanswered.  I'll agree that implementation is sticky and not something I really trust to legal enforcement.  I'd prefer that cultural stigma towards such behavior be significant and mature enough to serve instead... but that doesn't really work either.

The cultural stigma does exist against the behaviour, and the laws are kinda a codification of that, but... it's definitively a bit extreme. For a while you could be arrested for displaying anti-fascist symbols/material if they contained the swastika or other Nazi symbols. Thankfully they'e realized how stupid that is, but it does show how overzealous they are against Nazism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 08:55:53 am

It is very understandable that Germany would be harsh on the subject.

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 08:45:25 am

But being too stubborn on one fundamental human right can end up infringing on another.  If a bunch of hate speech results in death, I'd rather there be something preventive in place to deal with the hate speech than wait for the death and deal out retribution.

And mind you, I am only talking about extreme examples here -- like behavior that will obviously lead to conflict or making it unbearable for a minority to leave their home.  I think there is too much taboo in our public spaces in the U.S. as it is.  However, I can't say that I would do away with everything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 16, 2012, 09:59:37 am

Quote from: Moghjubar on November 16, 2012, 12:52:30 am

Of course, if we are talking 2016 we really need some real people to compare against, in order to get the full scale of neutral to evil politicians.

There are politicians who aren't evil?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 16, 2012, 10:09:46 am

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 16, 2012, 07:43:47 am

My quickly-written take on censorship:

Spoiler: Quite long (click to show/hide)

The reason for censorship is almost always because it is harmful in society. How do you define what could and could not cause problems beyond your private space? How do you define what these problems would include? Censorship is quite a complex issue mostly due to the fact that one generally does not consider censorship they agree with as censorship. This allows people to define it as an absolute evil despite (almost always) supporting some measure of censorship. It is a morally grey area.

Take something extreme, like certain-inappropriate-images-of-children, which is quite understandably illegal. Its distribution and ownership is illegal even in the space of one's own home. The reason for this is it can cause harm for the child, and that the child is not capable of making any decisions for itself. I don't think there are many people that would question this form of censorship, but most people do not regard this as a form of censorship, as it is generally regarded as a "special case".

Then it falls to me to question it.

I would argue that only the production of it harms the child and the distribution and possession of it should only be criminalized in cases where they directly aid the production of it, such as if it has been paid for.

Furthermore, the law and the assumption of harm makes the assumption that the child has been coerced against their will; In probably upwards 99% of cases this is true, but does that justify demonizing and persecuting the remaining fraction of a percent?

EDIT:
Also, and most importantly of all, the laws against child porn as they currently stand if an underaged person takes pornographic photos of themself, and distributes them themself,  - with no other person involved - it is still illegal. Sexting by teens is illegal. The law persecutes the very people it was supposedly intended to protect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on November 16, 2012, 10:15:57 am

Yes, because children do not have informed consent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 16, 2012, 10:18:26 am

Scriver, to be honest most of the censorship views on games/pornography seem to be the result of a rather strong schaffer fence. And to be honest, I think that's a fairly good thing, since I've never met anyone who advocates for video game censorship without also advocating for political censorship.

I'm sure they exist, but at the very least they don't seem to get into US politics much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 16, 2012, 10:21:20 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on November 16, 2012, 10:15:57 am

Yes, because children do not have informed consent.

What about this:
The laws against child porn as they currently stand if an underaged person takes pornographic photos of themself, and distributes them themself,  - with no other person involved - it is still illegal. Sexting by teens is illegal. The law persecutes the very people it was supposedly intended to protect.

EDIT:
IIRC Technically it is illegal even if they don't distribute them; There isn't even a suggestion of a victim there.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 16, 2012, 10:28:16 am

Just a note: Video games cannot be censored in the United States. In 2011 the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association) resulted in the Supreme Court affirming that video games are an artistic and communicative medium protected by the First Amendment. As they are not broadcast indecency legislation cannot be leveled against them either. The only status that could be leveled against video games under current law would be obscenity legislation, and the legal definition of obscenity is nearly impossible to meet.

Here is the current definition of obscenity:

Quote

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Furthermore, enacting and enforcing obscenity laws has been rare to nonexistent amongst the states these days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 16, 2012, 11:04:54 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 08:45:25 am

But being too stubborn on one fundamental human right can end up infringing on another.  If a bunch of hate speech results in death, I'd rather there be something preventive in place to deal with the hate speech than wait for the death and deal out retribution.

This is essentially the view I take as well: Have whatever thoughts you want, but as soon as you start acting - and talking in public is an action! - you need to consider the consequences and face sanctions if the consequences are bad, with "bad" being "a very wide consensus on what's bad".
I kinda like the way it's dealt with in the German Grundgesetz (A constitution by any other name...) :

"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar."
(The dignity of the human being may not be infringed upon.)

It's one of only two parts that cannot be changed with a large enough majority: It stands even above the principle of democracy. It is the ultimate goal of the state, and the state will do whatever is necessary to fulfill its duty of protecting it.

On the videogame part: These games should be censored if they lead to undesirable consequences, e.g. people running amok. As there is no indication of any such connection, I'm against the bann - the whole thing is obviously a "Think of the children!"-type campaign.
This has nothing to do with "expression of thoughts" - these games (I assume, although there surely are other games where this does not apply) are purely commercial, therefore without value for the public discourse and therefore should not be protected by the first amandment, but by the principle of liberalism alone.

On the child pornography part: We have to ask ourselves if allowing child pornography to circulate once it's been produced will lead to undesirable consequences. At the first glance you wouldn't think so, but think about this: If circulation is allowed, getting newly produced (and we all can imagine the sort of process) material of the type into circulation will be easier, and producction will be more likely to take place. Therefore even only allowing circulation indirectly harms children. However, I think that non-active pedophiles have it hard enough already, so persecution should focus on the people in production and distribution, similar to the approach to drugs (Although that may be different in America; at least in Europe the idea is to get the junkies into rehab instead of prison.).

And yes, I just showed sympathy for (some) pedophiles and advocated leniency against (some of) them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 11:11:29 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 08:30:36 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:00:56 am

To offend someone should never be a crime, people should learn how to deal with it.

This is your point of view.  There are other people who do not share this point of view.  You have to get along with those people in public.  Getting along with people who are different from you requires compromise.  If compromise cannot be achieved, society cannot function.  This means tolerating limited censorship, even if you don't agree with it.  It's that simple.  Being dogmatic just isn't practical.

I'm not describing how I live my life (I make a point of not offending people for the reason that there are laws against it. I also rarely need to offend anyone, you can get along just fine without doing it, and it's not a nice thing to do), I'm talking about how I think society should function. I think it should function without that limited censorship. I also wouldn't say so bluntly "you have to get along with those people in public". I actually don't. I could have an argument with someone in the street and the most I could get is a breach of the peace if I was really out of line, but broadly speaking I can argue or not get along with anyone I choose. A society isn't necessarily a place where everyone is forced to get along.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 11:56:22 am

That's not quite what I meant by "get along".  What I mean is you need to be able to tolerate them as your co-workers, neighbors, cashiers, waitresses, etc, because more than two people are likely to be effected if you cannot.  You need to be able to cooperate when necessary and resist the desire to harm each other.  You don't have to agree with each other or willingly associate when you can avoid it.  Arguments are fine.  Arguments are good, actually.  I think it's healthy for people to express disagreements with each other, so long as they can restrain themselves to verbal exchange of moderate intensity.

And most people can do this without a problem, but a problematic enough portion cannot.  I can pretty safely assume, just by your presence on this forum, that you have a good deal more patience and rationale than the average person.  Basing your stance on an issue like this on your own persona is therefore not very practical.  I also think that society should function without any censorship, but that doesn't mean I can expect it to.

I live in a state that only 40-50 years ago was the national capital of the KKK, and whose government was openly controlled by them.  There's still a lot of racism here.  Fortunately, there is now a lot of pressure to keep that racism under control in public places.  If that pressure wasn't there, I imagine it would be incredibly miserable to be a non-white hoosier.  There would be a lot more violence, and the entire state would be more dysfunctional overall.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 16, 2012, 12:52:11 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 16, 2012, 11:56:22 am

I think it's healthy for people to express disagreements with each other, so long as they can restrain themselves to verbal exchange of moderate intensity.

And that's a reason for censorship: The state has to operate under the assumption that some, if not most people behave little different than animals; that they can and will disregard the law and that therefore situations in which the law might be broken have to be avoided entirely.

Think about it this way: It's illegal to steal. Do you lock your car/house/room regardless?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 16, 2012, 09:07:50 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:47:14 am

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 16, 2012, 07:43:47 am

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

No, I don't have a problem with them being in it. I just wouldn't buy the game.

Quote

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

You said you had no problem with anything full stop, and then proceeded to give an example of what you did have a problem with, supporting a form of censorship through making actual images of certain actual deplorable events illegal.

That is censorship, and that is my point. Almost everyone will support some form of it (except mostly hardcore anarchists). But because it is a loaded word, some people may pretend that what they support is not actual censorship.

Quote

I would argue that only the production of it harms the child and the distribution and possession of it should only be criminalized in cases where they directly aid the production of it, such as if it has been paid for.

Furthermore, the law and the assumption of harm makes the assumption that the child has been coerced against their will; In probably upwards 99% of cases this is true, but does that justify demonizing and persecuting the remaining fraction of a percent?

I am pretty sure that having images of you doing very nasty things from when you were a child circulating around would continue to significantly harm you for the rest of your life. The distibution would most likely harm you. Especially if you were one of the 99% and forced agains't your will.

It is generally accepted that a child's brain is not fully developed, and is less capable of making informed decisions than an adult. A young child may be fully willing to do some nasty things in order to get that shiny something-or-other without realising how much it could affect them in the future.

Children are rarely demonized or prosecuted in these photo's, they are seen as victims usually given support etc. The 1% of children will almost certainly grow up regretting what they did later. People that may convince them to do this are generally manipulating them, as manipulating a child can be quite easy. This is why a child can not give consent to something like this, it is assumed they do not have the mental facilities required to make these decisions.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 17, 2012, 10:53:30 pm

Stop the Presses! This is why Obama Won!
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzvm7zd4Z-s&feature=g-vrec (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzvm7zd4Z-s&feature=g-vrec)
 
Or, as Letterman pointed out "So Lindsey Lohan endorsed Romney. I think this may well be the thing that pushes Obama over the edge."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 17, 2012, 11:04:29 pm

My God the glimpse into that girl's brain was scary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 17, 2012, 11:29:21 pm

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 16, 2012, 09:07:50 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 16, 2012, 07:47:14 am

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 16, 2012, 07:43:47 am

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

No, I don't have a problem with them being in it. I just wouldn't buy the game.

Quote

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

You said you had no problem with anything full stop, and then proceeded to give an example of what you did have a problem with, supporting a form of censorship through making actual images of certain actual deplorable events illegal.

That is censorship, and that is my point. Almost everyone will support some form of it (except mostly hardcore anarchists). But because it is a loaded word, some people may pretend that what they support is not actual censorship.

At the time, that didn't appear to be censorship to me because I got confused in my own judgement. Something jarred there between people acting out fantasies and having the fantasy. I think it was about production of things that did break that old rule - do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm others. But then again, that permits censorship of offensive material. Ah, damnit, I'm going to bed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 17, 2012, 11:42:14 pm

There are still two uncalled house races (AZ-02, and NC-07), but both are currently showing the Democratic candidates leading.  If those leads hold, the final tally for the house will be 234 R 201 D, an 8-seat net gain for Democrats.
House Results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012).

I really wish there was a cartogram or equal area projection of the house districts.  The geographic map is fine, but not perfect.

Spoiler: Party breakdown by region, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (click to show/hide)

Map here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg).
Wikipedia's map of the seats (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_House_2012.svg).
New England: 21 D, 0 R
Middle Atlantic: 32 D, 25 R (<-Pennyslvania gerrymander inflates Rs numbers)
South Atlantic: 32 D, 52 R
East South Central: 5 D, 21 R
West South Central: 13 D, 38 R(<-Texas has most of these seats)
East North Central: 26 D, 39 R(<-The Ohio & Michigan gerrymanders really have an effect here)
West North Central: 9 D, 20 R
Mountain: 13 D, 18 R
Pacific: 50 D, 21 R (<-California is one big state)

Independent Redistricting really needs to be implemented nationwide...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 18, 2012, 08:37:34 am

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 18, 2012, 08:37:34 am

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 18, 2012, 10:03:35 am

They say the Red Flag
They wore the blue one

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 18, 2012, 10:16:45 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 18, 2012, 08:37:34 am

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

Also, GOP = Republicans. Took me a while to figure that one out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 18, 2012, 10:21:06 am

Quote from: Dutchling on November 18, 2012, 10:16:45 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 18, 2012, 08:37:34 am

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

Also, GOP = Republicans. Took me a while to figure that one out.

Yeah, they like to call themselves the Grand Old Party because they've been around for so long. Disregard that the modern, right-wing conservative Republican party has only been around for about 80-90 years. Before the realignment during FDR's presidency, they were left-wing liberals.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 10:27:43 am

Quote from: greatorder on November 18, 2012, 08:27:44 am

So, what effect did the liberal crime squad have on the votes? :P

To be honest, I can't even remember which party is the right-wing and which one is left. All I remember is that blue is left, and red is right.

Actually, the democrats are right wing. Both parties are right wing, it's just the democrats are slightly more to the centre. The republicans are further right. It's a bit like comparing the modern British conservative party with its counterpart from the 70s, although the democrats are more prone to fits of leftism because of the large number of liberals and the like within their party. Interestingly, liberal in America means something quite different to liberal over here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 11:47:56 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 10:27:43 am

Quote from: greatorder on November 18, 2012, 08:27:44 am

So, what effect did the liberal crime squad have on the votes? :P

To be honest, I can't even remember which party is the right-wing and which one is left. All I remember is that blue is left, and red is right.

Actually, the democrats are right wing. Both parties are right wing, it's just the democrats are slightly more to the centre. The republicans are further right. It's a bit like comparing the modern British conservative party with its counterpart from the 70s, although the democrats are more prone to fits of leftism because of the large number of liberals and the like within their party. Interestingly, liberal in America means something quite different to liberal over here.

As I've said, both political parties are further right than almost any other nations', but they're only "right-wing" in the sense that socialism is centrist. By that scale, Sweden, often considered the most left-leaning country on earth, is center-right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 11:49:19 am

Quote from: Mego on November 18, 2012, 10:21:06 am

Quote from: Dutchling on November 18, 2012, 10:16:45 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 08:51:48 am

Quote from: Darvi on November 18, 2012, 08:37:34 am

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

Also, GOP = Republicans. Took me a while to figure that one out.

Yeah, they like to call themselves the Grand Old Party because they've been around for so long. Disregard that the modern, right-wing conservative Republican party has only been around for about 80-90 years. Before the realignment during FDR's presidency, they were left-wing liberals.

And the fact that the Republican party as a whole hasn't been around as long as the Democratic-Republican Party that was the direct precedent to the modern Democrats.

I think GOP is supposed to refer to their target demographic nowadays. Grumpy Old People

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 11:57:27 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 11:47:56 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 10:27:43 am

Quote from: greatorder on November 18, 2012, 08:27:44 am

So, what effect did the liberal crime squad have on the votes? :P

To be honest, I can't even remember which party is the right-wing and which one is left. All I remember is that blue is left, and red is right.

Actually, the democrats are right wing. Both parties are right wing, it's just the democrats are slightly more to the centre. The republicans are further right. It's a bit like comparing the modern British conservative party with its counterpart from the 70s, although the democrats are more prone to fits of leftism because of the large number of liberals and the like within their party. Interestingly, liberal in America means something quite different to liberal over here.

As I've said, both political parties are further right than almost any other nations', but they're only "right-wing" in the sense that socialism is centrist. By that scale, Sweden, often considered the most left-leaning country on earth, is center-right.

If we take Sweden as centre-left (because other countries did lean further left), liberalism à la the Liberal Democrat party of the UK as centre, the democrat party of the USA still falls into the right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 18, 2012, 01:07:14 pm

I think he's referring to Sweden's current government, which is centre-right. Liberals all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 18, 2012, 01:10:05 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 11:57:27 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 11:47:56 am

Quote from: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 10:27:43 am

Quote from: greatorder on November 18, 2012, 08:27:44 am

So, what effect did the liberal crime squad have on the votes? :P

To be honest, I can't even remember which party is the right-wing and which one is left. All I remember is that blue is left, and red is right.

Actually, the democrats are right wing. Both parties are right wing, it's just the democrats are slightly more to the centre. The republicans are further right. It's a bit like comparing the modern British conservative party with its counterpart from the 70s, although the democrats are more prone to fits of leftism because of the large number of liberals and the like within their party. Interestingly, liberal in America means something quite different to liberal over here.

As I've said, both political parties are further right than almost any other nations', but they're only "right-wing" in the sense that socialism is centrist. By that scale, Sweden, often considered the most left-leaning country on earth, is center-right.

If we take Sweden as centre-left (because other countries did lean further left), liberalism à la the Liberal Democrat party of the UK as centre, the democrat party of the USA still falls into the right.

But that's because the USA as a whole are pretty centre-right. And since "left" or "right" only have a relative (defined by a comparison) and not an absolute meaning, calling the democrats "centre-right" is misleading at best: The democrats are centre-left in a centre-right country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 18, 2012, 02:53:34 pm

Random question:
Could president Johnson be reelected twice, considering his first time was actually Kennedy's term?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 18, 2012, 02:58:30 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 18, 2012, 02:53:34 pm

Random question:
Could president Johnson be reelected twice, considering his first time was actually Kennedy's term?

I seem to recall that depends on how long he serves the term of president after the president dies. 1 or 2 years he can still serve 2 full terms, 3 or 4 and he can serve only 1 more term. I don't have a reference for that though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 03:03:58 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on November 18, 2012, 02:53:34 pm

Random question:
Could president Johnson be reelected twice, considering his first time was actually Kennedy's term?

Yes... he took office in November of '63, which means that he served less than half of Kennedy's term, which means it didn't count as a term for him for reelection purposes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 03:14:17 pm

Johnson actually won the New Hampshire democratic primary in 68 before deciding against running and blowing the race wide open.  Robert Kennedy only took the plunge after Johnson left the race, meaning that he became the front runner despite not even winning most of the small number of states that held primaries back then (party leadership still decided for most states.)  This lead to a very, very ugly convention in 1968 after RFK got assassinated and lead to the primary process getting reformed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 18, 2012, 03:19:11 pm

Johnson barely won the New Hampshire primary over anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy, Johnson had to quit running to try and keep the party together (it didn't work after RFK was assassinated, as you stated.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 03:23:33 pm

When considering American politics, the Republicans are center-right to far-right (with center sprinkles on top) and the Democrats are center to far-left. The descriptions of left and right are relative terms and are applied to the political situation of the entity they are within.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 03:32:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 03:23:33 pm

When considering American politics, the Republicans are center-right to far-right (with center sprinkles on top) and the Democrats are center to far-left. The descriptions of left and right are relative terms and are applied to the political situation of the entity they are within.

In American politics, Democrats range from far-left to center while Republicans range from center to far-right.
In the international scheme of things, Democrats range from center-left to middle-right while Republicans range from middle-right to far-right-wing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 18, 2012, 03:33:47 pm

One can only be president for 10 years. Which means that if you take over for someone for 3 years and get re-elected, you're up to 7. You can't fit in another 4 years, so you can't run.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 03:42:06 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 03:32:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 03:23:33 pm

When considering American politics, the Republicans are center-right to far-right (with center sprinkles on top) and the Democrats are center to far-left. The descriptions of left and right are relative terms and are applied to the political situation of the entity they are within.

In American politics, Democrats range from far-left to center while Republicans range from center to far-right.
In the international scheme of things, Democrats range from center-left to middle-right while Republicans range from middle-right to far-right-wing.

That is assuming only the Europeans. If you include, say, the middle east, russia, china, india, africa, and factor it by population, no, it's not all the rightest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 03:43:00 pm

Indeed. If we consider the mean standard of the entire world the USA is most definitely left-wing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 03:46:33 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 03:43:00 pm

Indeed. If we consider the mean standard of the entire world the USA is most definitely left-wing.

You're right. I'm being ethnically/economically discriminatory by only factoring in the "first world". If we include SA, Africa, the Middle East, and most of Asia, the US probably jumps to the top 10% of the world for progressivism/liberalism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 04:01:07 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 03:46:33 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 03:43:00 pm

Indeed. If we consider the mean standard of the entire world the USA is most definitely left-wing.

You're right. I'm being ethnically/economically discriminatory by only factoring in the "first world". If we include SA, Africa, the Middle East, and most of Asia, the US probably jumps to the top 10% of the world for progressivism/liberalism.

I think it's a bit erroneous to define right wing and left wing as "democratic" and "undemocratic", as you seem to be doing. Most of the countries in the Middle East besides the likes of Saudi Arabia or the UAE were originally, and to a certain extent are today, pretty left wing, thanks to all the Arab Nationalist/Socialist groups like the Ba'ath Party. Being right wing generally means that you either support a social hierarchy or social inequality, left wing meaning the opposite.

That said, liberalism ranks highly in the USA, but that in itself can be a bit of a centrist ideology. On one hand liberals tend to support social equality, but they sacrifice some of their options to achieve that equality (such as totalitarianism) in order to increase personal freedom and such.

If you compare the nations of Africa and their governments, you will likely find that left-wing parties have often done quite well, even if they end up being undemocratic corrupt bastards. If you look at Europe, Christian social democracy or social democracy in general is all the rage. In east Asia, generally liberal or left wing parties are doing well in Japan, China, Mongolia and Cambodia. South Korea and Taiwan both follow models of democracy which closely model the USA. The grey areas here are Myanmar and Thailand. Thailand is currently governed by a populist party (which can mean a lot, considering the Red Shirt fiasco) and Myanmar's government is currently quite conservative, although it is currently softening up.  If one looks at South America, one will again find socialism, democracy, left wing politics and liberalism flourishing in Venezuela, Brazil, Suriname (less so), French Guiana, Paraguay, Uruguay, Guyana, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina (to an extent), Colombia, Peru, Chile, all except the Falkland Islands (from what I can see) because most of their politicians are entirely non partisan, so it's quite difficult to tell.

So even if you do look across the world at the political alignments of national governments, you will mostly see left wing politics, democracy and liberalism. On paper at least, because these countries often go off the deep end.That's not to say that right wing totalitarian countries don't exist - Saudi Arabia for example, but these are, thankfully, the minority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 18, 2012, 04:02:37 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 18, 2012, 03:33:47 pm

One can only be president for 10 years. Which means that if you take over for someone for 3 years and get re-elected, you're up to 7. You can't fit in another 4 years, so you can't run.

Run for president, get assassinated after your third year. Problem solved!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 04:07:51 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 04:01:07 pm

I think it's a bit erroneous to define right wing and left wing as "democratic" and "undemocratic", as you seem to be doing. Most of the countries in the Middle East besides the likes of Saudi Arabia or the UAE were originally, and to a certain extent are today, pretty left wing, thanks to all the Arab Nationalist/Socialist groups like the Ba'ath Party. Being right wing generally means that you either support a social hierarchy or social inequality, left wing meaning the opposite.

We're not. Social inequality is extremely high in the middle east, and I can't believe you'd even entertain the idea that Saudi Arabia is left wing. It's an absolute monarchy with strong belief in Islamisim in general and Wahhabi Islam in particular. They have ultra-powerful religious police and women can't drive or be outdoors if not accompanied by an appropriate man. It's one of the most socially hierarchical places in the world.

And besides all of that, democracy is a left wing trait. Democracy, as an ideal, seeks to undo the centralized power structures the world has lived with for most of history in favor of putting it in the hands of the general public.

Quote

That said, liberalism ranks highly in the USA, but that in itself is a centrist ideology.

Again, you are being Eurocentric in your analysis of this.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 18, 2012, 04:11:31 pm

Well, they are (or rather were before devolving into kleptocracy) left-wing in the sense that the state was intervening a lot in the economy and owned large chunk of it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 04:13:57 pm

Sure, that manages to be economically left-wing, sort of, but there was never any social liberalism in Saudi Arabia. Also, at the end of the day far-left and far-right economic policies start to look similar as they grow in extremism (see Horseshoe Political Theory).

The monarchy owns most of the economy because it is an absolutist institution, not because it is left-wing in any real sense.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 18, 2012, 04:15:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 04:07:51 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 04:01:07 pm

I think it's a bit erroneous to define right wing and left wing as "democratic" and "undemocratic", as you seem to be doing. Most of the countries in the Middle East besides the likes of Saudi Arabia or the UAE were originally, and to a certain extent are today, pretty left wing, thanks to all the Arab Nationalist/Socialist groups like the Ba'ath Party. Being right wing generally means that you either support a social hierarchy or social inequality, left wing meaning the opposite.

We're not. Social inequality is extremely high in the middle east, and I can't believe you'd even entertain the idea that Saudi Arabia is left wing. It's an absolute monarchy with strong belief in Islamisim in general and Wahhabi Islam in particular. They have ultra-powerful religious police and women can't drive or be outdoors if not accompanied by an appropriate man. It's one of the most socially hierarchical places in the world.

Depends on your definition of left wing. They're an absolute monarchy, but the government basically runs the economy and everyone in the country gets a pile of cash from the country's oil revenues as welfare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 04:18:35 pm

And yet the vast majority of Saudis are in poverty. So much for that economic equality.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on November 18, 2012, 04:27:22 pm

That is a kind of economic equality, just not a good kind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 04:27:46 pm

I actually never said that Saudi Arabia was left wing. I said that the majority of countries in the middle east besides countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE were left wing in some shape or form. You have misread my post, MetalSlimeHunt.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 04:07:51 pm

Quote

That said, liberalism ranks highly in the USA, but that in itself is a centrist ideology.

Again, you are being Eurocentric in your analysis of this.

Actually, I'm trying to take the world view into account, not Europe's or America's alone.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 04:31:19 pm

Very well, but the social and economic equality of these supposedly left-wing nations in the Middle East and Africa are still low, regardless of their rhetoric.

Also, it is kind of debate ending to write the majority of your post after I have already responded to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 18, 2012, 04:33:16 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 04:31:19 pm

Very well, but the social and economic equality of these supposedly left-wing nations in the Middle East and Africa are still low, regardless of their rhetoric.

Also, it is kind of debate ending to write the majority of your post after I have already responded to it.

Good sir, when I was writing that post I had no idea people had already responded to it, otherwise I would have put it in a seperate post. People responded while I was still typing it. I felt I had to clarify myself, so I did.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 18, 2012, 04:53:49 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 18, 2012, 04:15:05 pm

Depends on your definition of left wing.

Could we just leave it at that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: EveryZig on November 18, 2012, 09:38:27 pm

Quote from: Barbarossa TSG on November 18, 2012, 03:33:47 pm

One can only be president for 10 years. Which means that if you take over for someone for 3 years and get re-elected, you're up to 7. You can't fit in another 4 years, so you can't run.

What happens if you serve two term of president (for a full 8 years), you are elected vice president, and something happens to the new president?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 09:39:44 pm

The Speaker of the House becomes President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 18, 2012, 09:41:17 pm

Unfortunately, MetalSlimeHunt speaks the truth.

(We're a heartbeat away from a Joe Biden presidency, two from a Boehner presidency.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 09:43:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 09:39:44 pm

The Speaker of the House becomes President.

Even if there is less than 2 years left on the term?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 09:45:03 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 09:43:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 09:39:44 pm

The Speaker of the House becomes President.

Even if there is less than 2 years left on the term?

Then shit will go down and the Supreme Court will likely decide if the Vice President or Speaker becomes President.

This doesn't have much chance of ever happening though. There is little reason to run for Vice President when you've already been President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 18, 2012, 10:02:46 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 09:45:03 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 09:43:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 09:39:44 pm

The Speaker of the House becomes President.

Even if there is less than 2 years left on the term?

Then shit will go down and the Supreme Court will likely decide if the Vice President or Speaker becomes President.

This doesn't have much chance of ever happening though. There is little reason to run for Vice President when you've already been President.

This is an interesting read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_United_States_presidents_who_ran_for_office_after_leaving_the_presidency) Lots of attempts to directly win the Presidency after failing to get reelected for a second term in succession, but none for Vice. It's also cool that J.Q. Adams served in the House and Johnson served in the Senate, both after being President. However, Taft is the coolest out of the list in my opinion, for becoming Chief Justice after being President. The man was the head of two of the three branches of the US government during his life.

Johnson also ran for Senate while he was President and lost. That says a lot about how people thought of him by the end of his term. J.Q. Adams ran for Governor of Massachusetts and lost while he was a US Representative. It'd be interesting to see how that would've worked out if he had won. Was he crazy enough to try to do both? Would he be allowed to?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 10:05:53 pm

Quote from: EveryZig on November 18, 2012, 09:38:27 pm

What happens if you serve two term of president (for a full 8 years), you are elected vice president, and something happens to the new president?

The 12th amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."  The 22nd amendment states that anyone who's served 6 years as president is ineligible to be president.  Therefore anyone who's served two terms as president is ineligible to be vice president and this situation could not arise.

Now you could imagine that there is a slight amount of gray area as you could imagine that the restrictions in the 22nd amendment aren't included in the 12th for reasons explained in various latin words.  But it's a longshot and nobody would be stupid enough to test that theory.  Why would a party risk running a candidate who'd be so likely to be found ineligible by the supreme court?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 10:09:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 10:05:53 pm

Why would a party risk running a candidate who'd be so likely to be found ineligible by the supreme court?

For SCIENCE?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:10:35 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 10:09:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 10:05:53 pm

Why would a party risk running a candidate who'd be so likely to be found ineligible by the supreme court?

For SCIENCE?

Politicians are rarely if ever as SCIENTIFIC as they should be.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 18, 2012, 10:10:45 pm

However, a former president could be elected to the house, and become the speaker. And then if the president and vice president die, he would be next in line to become president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 10:12:19 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:10:35 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 10:09:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 10:05:53 pm

Why would a party risk running a candidate who'd be so likely to be found ineligible by the supreme court?

For SCIENCE?

Politicians are rarely if ever as SCIENTIFIC as they should be.

Alas, poor SCIENCE! :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:16:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 18, 2012, 10:10:45 pm

However, a former president could be elected to the house, and become the speaker. And then if the president and vice president die, he would be next in line to become president.

In which case President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:20:15 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:16:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 18, 2012, 10:10:45 pm

However, a former president could be elected to the house, and become the speaker. And then if the president and vice president die, he would be next in line to become president.

In which case President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President.

What if their BOTH former presidents? No more house of Congress.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: lordcooper on November 18, 2012, 10:24:16 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:20:15 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:16:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 18, 2012, 10:10:45 pm

However, a former president could be elected to the house, and become the speaker. And then if the president and vice president die, he would be next in line to become president.

In which case President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President.

What if their BOTH former presidents? No more house of Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdDwxdqLyGg#t=2m06s

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 18, 2012, 10:25:09 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:20:15 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:16:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 18, 2012, 10:10:45 pm

However, a former president could be elected to the house, and become the speaker. And then if the president and vice president die, he would be next in line to become president.

In which case President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President.

What if their BOTH former presidents? No more house of Congress.

You keep going down the line until you find someone eligible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession) I doubt that it is physically possible to have 17 living former 2-term presidents in the 17 positions after the President in the line of succession. People don't live that long.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on November 18, 2012, 10:26:17 pm

Let's just get this over with and say that every single person in line to be president, is a former president. It's a house of presidents, too. And a senate.

Everyone is and was a president.

What now, _motherfucker?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:27:17 pm

Quote from: Flying Dice on November 18, 2012, 10:25:09 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:20:15 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:16:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 18, 2012, 10:10:45 pm

However, a former president could be elected to the house, and become the speaker. And then if the president and vice president die, he would be next in line to become president.

In which case President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President.

What if their BOTH former presidents? No more house of Congress.

You keep going down the line until you find someone eligible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession) I doubt that it is physically possible to have 17 living former 2-term presidents in the 17 positions after the President in the line of succession. People don't live that long.

Okay, what if they were all in a plane that crashed? Like with Poland?
 
Also, it could be like, the future. Where people live forever. And there are no births. Presidencies in office would acculmalate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 18, 2012, 10:28:02 pm

According to Wikipedia... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession)

If Obama dies, here is the chain of replacements. If someone's ineligible, they're skipped.

1    Vice President of the United States              Joe Biden (D)
2    Speaker of the House                             John Boehner (R)
3    President pro tempore of the Senate              Daniel Inouye (D)
4    Secretary of State                               Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
5    Secretary of the Treasury                        Timothy Geithner (I)
6    Secretary of Defense                             Leon Panetta (D)
7    Attorney General                                 Eric Holder (D)
8    Secretary of the Interior                        Ken Salazar (D)
9    Secretary of Agriculture                         Tom Vilsack (D)
--    Acting Secretary of Commerce                    Rebecca Blank (D) (It's unclear whether an acting secretary is eligible.)
10    Secretary of Labor                              Hilda Solis (D)
11    Secretary of Health and Human Services          Kathleen Sebelius (D)
12    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development      Shaun Donovan (D)
13    Secretary of Transportation                     Ray LaHood (R)
14    Secretary of Energy                             Steven Chu (D)
15    Secretary of Education                          Arne Duncan (D)
16    Secretary of Veterans Affairs                   Eric Shinseki
17    Secretary of Homeland Security                  Janet Napolitano (D)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 18, 2012, 10:31:17 pm

So that's 14 people who have to die to replicate the events of Battlestar Galactica... hmmm...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:37:43 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:27:17 pm

Okay, what if they were all in a plane that crashed?

I'm pretty sure they're never all in the same place at once. They all have very long-ranging, busy jobs all over America and in some cases the world.

Quote

Also, it could be like, the future. Where people live forever. And there are no births. Presidencies in office would acculmalate.

If we become an immortal, transhuman society the Constitution will have to be amended.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 10:45:18 pm

Fine then. I will start unleashing wijipedia's and COGs objections then.
 

Quote

In 2003 the Continuity of Government Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Government_Commission) suggested that the current law has "at least seven significant issues ... that warrant attention", including:^[17]

• The reality that all figures in the current line of succession work and reside in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. In the event of a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack, it is possible that everyone on the list would be killed or incapacitated.
• Doubt (such as those expressed above by James Madison) that congressional leaders are eligible to act as President.
• A concern about the wisdom of including the President pro tempore in the line of succession as the "largely honorific post traditionally held by the longest-serving Senator of the majority party". For example, from January 20, 2001, to June 6, 2001, the President pro tempore was then-98-year-old Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond) of South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina).
• A concern that the current line of succession can force the presidency to abruptly switch parties mid-term, as the Speaker and the President pro tempore are not necessarily of the same party as the President.
• A concern that the succession line is ordered by the dates of creation of the various executive departments, without regard to the skills or capacities of the persons serving as their Secretary.
• The fact that, should a Cabinet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet) member begin to act as President, the law allows the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) to elect a new Speaker (or the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate), a new President pro tempore), who could in effect remove the Cabinet member and assume the office themselves at any time.
• The absence of a provision where a President is disabled and the vice presidency is vacant (for example, if an assassination attempt simultaneously wounded the President and killed the Vice President).

What about them nuclear weapons?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:50:18 pm

We're screwed no matter what if D.C. gets nuked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 10:55:53 pm

We specifically have a procedure in place for whenever there are a lot of people in the presidential succession gathered together or otherwise possible to all die at once.  A random cabinet member in good healht is taken to a hidden bunker before the event and guarded by a small army of secret service people.  This happens whenever there is a state of the union address or when we get freaked out by something like 9/11.  So you'd not only need 17 people to die in an attack on the most secure location on earth, you'd also need the designated successor to die in a hidden location at the same time despite having no known medical complications.  I'm not saying it's impossible but... oh wait, yeah, it's impossible.

Nuclear weapons aren't that big a threat.  While all 19 people reside in Washington, it's very, very unusual for all of them to actually be in DC at the same time.  Outside of the State of the Union address, they are spread around the city enough that it would take more then a rogue nuke to kill em all.  We're talking either a very large ICBM or a barrage, i.e. one of the big 5 nuclear powers.  We'd have warning that the missiles were airborne and getting the president out of DC would be the least of our worries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 18, 2012, 11:42:30 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 10:55:53 pm

We specifically have a procedure in place for whenever there are a lot of people in the presidential succession gathered together or otherwise possible to all die at once.  A random cabinet member in good healht is taken to a hidden bunker before the event and guarded by a small army of secret service people.  This happens whenever there is a state of the union address or when we get freaked out by something like 9/11.  So you'd not only need 17 people to die in an attack on the most secure location on earth, you'd also need the designated successor to die in a hidden location at the same time despite having no known medical complications.  I'm not saying it's impossible but... oh wait, yeah, it's impossible.

Nuclear weapons aren't that big a threat.  While all 19 people reside in Washington, it's very, very unusual for all of them to actually be in DC at the same time.  Outside of the State of the Union address, they are spread around the city enough that it would take more then a rogue nuke to kill em all.  We're talking either a very large ICBM or a barrage, i.e. one of the big 5 nuclear powers.  We'd have warning that the missiles were airborne and getting the president out of DC would be the least of our worries.

Would we get shut down by the US government if we started brainstorming ways to circumvent this?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 18, 2012, 11:48:49 pm

Quote from: Mego on November 18, 2012, 11:42:30 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 18, 2012, 10:55:53 pm

We specifically have a procedure in place for whenever there are a lot of people in the presidential succession gathered together or otherwise possible to all die at once.  A random cabinet member in good healht is taken to a hidden bunker before the event and guarded by a small army of secret service people.  This happens whenever there is a state of the union address or when we get freaked out by something like 9/11.  So you'd not only need 17 people to die in an attack on the most secure location on earth, you'd also need the designated successor to die in a hidden location at the same time despite having no known medical complications.  I'm not saying it's impossible but... oh wait, yeah, it's impossible.

Nuclear weapons aren't that big a threat.  While all 19 people reside in Washington, it's very, very unusual for all of them to actually be in DC at the same time.  Outside of the State of the Union address, they are spread around the city enough that it would take more then a rogue nuke to kill em all.  We're talking either a very large ICBM or a barrage, i.e. one of the big 5 nuclear powers.  We'd have warning that the missiles were airborne and getting the president out of DC would be the least of our worries.

Would we get shut down by the US government if we started brainstorming ways to circumvent this?

Considering the Bay12 Space program, and the various nefarious things that occur in that thread, If we were going to be shut down they would have done it by now. Probably around the time we started thinking up ways to sell american secrets to china. Or the armed takeover of the DRC.
 
So, lets say, the best time would have to be early in a term, when the people are just getting acquainted with their jobs and such, and aren't flying around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on November 18, 2012, 11:49:05 pm

So...

"Bay 12's Plan to Completely Cripple the Line of Succession to the U.S. Presidency Thread"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 19, 2012, 09:36:44 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2012, 10:50:18 pm

We're good if D.C. gets nuked.

ftfy

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on November 19, 2012, 12:16:38 pm

One advantage of the US political system is that even if the federal government was crippled, the country as a whole would continue functioning because each state has its own government to step in and keep things going. Yes, lots of areas would have issues, but it wouldn't be the end of the country or anything. Especially since the Military would be able to continue functioning just fine even if the Pentagon was wiped out. They have lots of contingencies in place for that sort of thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 12:30:04 pm

Here in Belgium, we had no real government for over a year, and we did just fine. Of course, we don't have the kind of responsability that the US do, but still it's amazing how little input the bureaucracy doing the day-to-day running of the country need.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 19, 2012, 01:17:21 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 19, 2012, 12:16:38 pm

One advantage of the US political system is that even if the federal government was crippled, the country as a whole would continue functioning because each state has its own government to step in and keep things going. Yes, lots of areas would have issues, but it wouldn't be the end of the country or anything. Especially since the Military would be able to continue functioning just fine even if the Pentagon was wiped out. They have lots of contingencies in place for that sort of thing.

The american military is a snake with no head, just fangs, scales and assholes.

Lots and lots of assholes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bohandas on November 19, 2012, 02:38:37 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 19, 2012, 12:16:38 pm

One advantage of the US political system is that even if the federal government was crippled, the country as a whole would continue functioning because each state has its own government to step in and keep things going. Yes, lots of areas would have issues, but it wouldn't be the end of the country or anything. Especially since the Military would be able to continue functioning just fine even if the Pentagon was wiped out. They have lots of contingencies in place for that sort of thing.

You're right. They would have to nuke a lot more than just Washington before we'd be good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 19, 2012, 03:00:29 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 12:30:04 pm

Here in Belgium, we had no real government for over a year, and we did just fine. Of course, we don't have the kind of responsability that the US do, but still it's amazing how little input the bureaucracy doing the day-to-day running of the country need.

Have you ever watched Yes Minister? If not, I highly recommend it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 19, 2012, 03:11:10 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 12:30:04 pm

Here in Belgium, we had no real government for over a year, and we did just fine. Of course, we don't have the kind of responsability that the US do, but still it's amazing how little input the bureaucracy doing the day-to-day running of the country need.

The US would fall apart without the government. Ever head of the Government shutdown? It's essentially the ultimate nightmare. I don't know about you belgians, but other countries have not done so well without governments. A simlar country was Iraq, who was governmentless for about a year. I don't know about peace-loving, unarmed europeans, but damn is it all going to hell.
 
 

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 19, 2012, 12:16:38 pm

One advantage of the US political system is that even if the federal government was crippled, the country as a whole would continue functioning because each state has its own government to step in and keep things going. Yes, lots of areas would have issues, but it wouldn't be the end of the country or anything. Especially since the Military would be able to continue functioning just fine even if the Pentagon was wiped out. They have lots of contingencies in place for that sort of thing.

Plus, given the Military's still massive second-strike capability, it's entirely likely the day Washington is nuked, the US will simply surround the opposing country (say, North Korea) and obliterate it within 24 hours.

Of course there's the national anti-missile initiative, which focuses on interception of nukes from east asia, so north korea would most likley just end up failing and being invaded.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 19, 2012, 03:20:06 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 19, 2012, 03:11:10 pm

Quote from: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 12:30:04 pm

Here in Belgium, we had no real government for over a year, and we did just fine. Of course, we don't have the kind of responsability that the US do, but still it's amazing how little input the bureaucracy doing the day-to-day running of the country need.

The US would fall apart without the government. Ever head of the Government shutdown? It's essentially the ultimate nightmare. I don't know about you belgians, but other countries have not done so well without governments. A simlar country was Iraq, who was governmentless for about a year. I don't know about peace-loving, unarmed europeans, but damn is it all going to hell.

You actually don't need government for day-to-day business, you need the bureaucracy. Iraq was a country without a state, Belgium a state without a government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: vadia on November 19, 2012, 05:32:24 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 19, 2012, 03:20:06 pm

You actually don't need government for day-to-day business, you need the bureaucracy. Iraq was a country without a state, Belgium a state without a government.

without the $ how does the bureacracy work, without the govt how do you get the $?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 19, 2012, 05:35:30 pm

Tax collection is done by the bureaucracy, not the government.

Asking that is no different to asking if we had no government, how would we catch criminals or put out fires, whilst all those are "government agencies", not one of them requires the legislature or executive for day to day operations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 19, 2012, 05:46:15 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 19, 2012, 02:38:37 pm

You're right. They would have to nuke a lot more than just Washington before we'd be good.

Advocating the deaths of tens of millions of Americans is hilarious.  Please keep contributing to this conversation.

Quote from: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 12:30:04 pm

Here in Belgium, we had no real government for over a year, and we did just fine. Of course, we don't have the kind of responsability that the US do, but still it's amazing how little input the bureaucracy doing the day-to-day running of the country need.

I was under the impression that Belgium just keeps continuing with the budget course laid out by the last government majority because no one can put together a coalition.  If this is the case it's nearly the exact same thing that the US has been doing for two years with the exception that three times a year the republicans throw a tantrum until the democrats agree to screw over the poor a little more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 19, 2012, 05:54:35 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 19, 2012, 05:46:15 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 19, 2012, 02:38:37 pm

You're right. They would have to nuke a lot more than just Washington before we'd be good.

Advocating the deaths of tens of millions of Americans is hilarious.  Please keep contributing to this conversation.

Quote from: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 12:30:04 pm

Here in Belgium, we had no real government for over a year, and we did just fine. Of course, we don't have the kind of responsability that the US do, but still it's amazing how little input the bureaucracy doing the day-to-day running of the country need.

I was under the impression that Belgium just keeps continuing with the budget course laid out by the last government majority because no one can put together a coalition.  If this is the case it's nearly the exact same thing that the US has been doing for two years with the exception that three times a year the republicans throw a tantrum until the democrats agree to screw over the poor a little more.

That's certainly not the same as a government shutdown, that's when the bureaucracy can no longer afford itself. Complete and utter spiral. Only Local Governemtns exist. Wait a minute...
 
We need to stop this to defeat the libertarians. It's a fiendish plot! Think about it, who advocates the most for not rasing the debt ceiling? Libertarians! And who would get what they always wanted without a government? Libertarians! Fiends.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on November 19, 2012, 05:58:47 pm

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 19, 2012, 01:17:21 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 19, 2012, 12:16:38 pm

One advantage of the US political system is that even if the federal government was crippled, the country as a whole would continue functioning because each state has its own government to step in and keep things going. Yes, lots of areas would have issues, but it wouldn't be the end of the country or anything. Especially since the Military would be able to continue functioning just fine even if the Pentagon was wiped out. They have lots of contingencies in place for that sort of thing.

The american military is a snake with no head, just fangs, scales and assholes.

Lots and lots of assholes.

You would make a really awesome character in an apocalypse movie.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: vadia on November 19, 2012, 07:28:34 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 19, 2012, 05:35:30 pm

Tax collection is done by the bureaucracy, not the government.

Asking that is no different to asking if we had no government, how would we catch criminals or put out fires, whilst all those are "government agencies", not one of them requires the legislature or executive for day to day operations.

The collection is mandated by the government.  Otherwise it's called stealing (or bribary). 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 19, 2012, 07:57:20 pm

Quote from: vadia on November 19, 2012, 07:28:34 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 19, 2012, 05:35:30 pm

Tax collection is done by the bureaucracy, not the government.

Asking that is no different to asking if we had no government, how would we catch criminals or put out fires, whilst all those are "government agencies", not one of them requires the legislature or executive for day to day operations.

The collection is mandated by the government.  Otherwise it's called stealing (or bribary).

*puts on 18th century philosophy cap*
Well you see, It's all about legitamacy! Without a mandate of the masses, the bureaucracy is simply a organization of random people demanding money in return for unspecified services. With a mandate from the government, and by extension, the people, they cross the oborder from benevolent mafiosa to a actual governmental system. Without this, challanges in court regarding the legitamacy of the bureaucracy may actually get somewhere, as it does not represent the will of the masses.

Firthermore, in various areas in this ages of Auserity, many programs run low on cash. Without governmental intereference, these organizations, a american example being the postal service, woudl quickly cease to exist.

If you did not read this in the Voice of the Sir Bedevere of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you missed a good bet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on November 19, 2012, 08:03:07 pm

Did you forget to add something there? I didn't notice a comical fix, if that's what you were going for.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 20, 2012, 04:54:01 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 19, 2012, 05:54:35 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 19, 2012, 05:46:15 pm

Quote from: Bohandas on November 19, 2012, 02:38:37 pm

You're right. They would have to nuke a lot more than just Washington before we'd be good.

Advocating the deaths of tens of millions of Americans is hilarious.  Please keep contributing to this conversation.

Quote from: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 12:30:04 pm

Here in Belgium, we had no real government for over a year, and we did just fine. Of course, we don't have the kind of responsability that the US do, but still it's amazing how little input the bureaucracy doing the day-to-day running of the country need.

I was under the impression that Belgium just keeps continuing with the budget course laid out by the last government majority because no one can put together a coalition.  If this is the case it's nearly the exact same thing that the US has been doing for two years with the exception that three times a year the republicans throw a tantrum until the democrats agree to screw over the poor a little more.

That's certainly not the same as a government shutdown, that's when the bureaucracy can no longer afford itself. Complete and utter spiral. Only Local Governemtns exist. Wait a minute...
 
We need to stop this to defeat the libertarians. It's a fiendish plot! Think about it, who advocates the most for not rasing the debt ceiling? Libertarians! And who would get what they always wanted without a government? Libertarians! Fiends.

Unless this was purely humor, you're a bit behind on this.  "Starving the Beast" has been a known political strategy for decades, and multiple former republican insiders over the last few years have verified that these days they talk quite plainly about it in terms of deliberate sabotage in exclusive company.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 20, 2012, 07:36:06 pm

Quote from: vadia on November 19, 2012, 07:28:34 pm

The collection is mandated by the government.  Otherwise it's called stealing (or bribary).

Even with the government, it's stealing. Benevolent stealing, that is ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 20, 2012, 07:43:37 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 20, 2012, 07:36:06 pm

Quote from: vadia on November 19, 2012, 07:28:34 pm

The collection is mandated by the government.  Otherwise it's called stealing (or bribary).

Even with the government, it's stealing. Benevolent stealing, that is ;)

Technically it's blackmail.

"Oh, what's that? You want publicly-accessible roads, police and fire protection, schools for your children, and the right to a public trial? Pay up, son. Otherwise you can GTFO."

:P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 20, 2012, 08:14:53 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 20, 2012, 07:43:37 pm

Technically it's blackmail.

Whatever morality may say - at the end of the day, might makes right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Moghjubar on November 20, 2012, 08:53:18 pm

The thread, it still lives!

Also, this election sort of gave me a game idea: sort of a Heroes of Might and Magic, except with political parties as factions.
Conservatives: Hateromancy.  Gain bonuses / fear power from destroying technology.  Little to no upkeep but units get sick and die depending on conditions.  Get bonus magic if you have large hordes of units, or if enemy is higher tech.
Liberals: Democramancy (raise dead, but you gotta pay for their healthcare!).  Upkeep on units gets higher the longer they are alive, but they also gain experience slightly faster and have higher health. Large negative cash when conquering enemy cities due to having to implement healthcare, but gain recruitment after the first few turns.
Libertarians: Anarchomancy (cause CHAOS fuck yea!): No gold reservoir, there is only income and expenditure (if you don't use it the same turn, companies get the rest as bonuses).  Gain more by expansion and digging/desecrating land. Cities can randomly produce units of other sides, and even when captured can still produce goods for the chaos player for awhile (go go free market).

This would probably be horrible, but still made me wonder how far you could take the archetypes in the name of gameplay/parody.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 21, 2012, 03:00:35 am

I thought the Libertarians would be the independent AI, just sort of having stuff happen with no real centralized control. (They always get steamrolled early in the game, too  ;D)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 21, 2012, 08:35:56 am

Unless! You stab your friend in the back early because he's building a nuke farm, and your blow isn't decisive and his counter-attack is stalled by your defensive wall. The computer then has time to harvest the resources inbetween while you ground your forces into nothing because your friend fails to lay down and die for the sake of killing the computer. Then your resources are depleted and forces weak without the ability to overwhelm the disorganized AI anymore. Then attrition eats away your defenses and the Artificial takes the victory!
Disorganization can sometimes win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 21, 2012, 08:36:38 am

Unless! You stab your friend in the back early because he's building a nuke farm, and your blow isn't decisive and his counter-attack is stalled by your defensive wall. The computer then has time to harvest the resources inbetween while you ground your forces into nothing because your friend fails to lay down and die for the sake of killing the computer. Then your resources are depleted and forces weak without the ability to overwhelm the disorganized AI anymore. Then attrition eats away your defenses and the Artificial takes the victory!
Disorganization can sometimes win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 21, 2012, 10:17:33 am

They say that when two sides fight, the third side wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 21, 2012, 10:17:33 am

They say that when two sides fight, the third side wins.

And yet a third party has never won the presidency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

"Rule 33: Peace is good for business.
Rule 34: War is good for business."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 21, 2012, 11:29:29 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 21, 2012, 10:17:33 am

They say that when two sides fight, the third side wins.

And yet a third party has never won the presidency.

Sure they have. Otherwise we would still be choosing between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 21, 2012, 11:40:55 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

And yet a third party has never won the presidency.

The nifty thing about democracy is that it lets us settle our differences without killing each other.  True story!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 01:17:21 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 21, 2012, 11:29:29 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 21, 2012, 10:17:33 am

They say that when two sides fight, the third side wins.

And yet a third party has never won the presidency.

Sure they have. Otherwise we would still be choosing between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

Okay, "third parties" (and fourth, and fifth) have won if we include all the parties that ever won in 200+ years.

I mean that, at least within the last hundred years (or more), no party other than Democrats or Republicans has won. I'm referring to modern politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 21, 2012, 01:28:53 pm

Well, the socialists were on track to become a major party in the early 1900s, before the red scare really kicked in.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 01:58:25 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 21, 2012, 01:28:53 pm

Well, the socialists were on track to become a major party in the early 1900s, before the red scare really kicked in.

Now they just really need credible politicians in their ranks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: miauw62 on November 21, 2012, 01:58:57 pm

I just want to say one thing, probably a bit late.

There is something i really like about Obama. I have no idea what it is tough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 21, 2012, 02:23:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 21, 2012, 11:29:29 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 21, 2012, 10:17:33 am

They say that when two sides fight, the third side wins.

And yet a third party has never won the presidency.

Sure they have. Otherwise we would still be choosing between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

Prove to me that we're not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 21, 2012, 02:46:43 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

"Rule 33: Peace is good for business.
Rule 34: War is good for business."

RULE 34: If there is porn of it, a politician has been involved in a scandal related to it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 21, 2012, 03:15:27 pm

Quote from: miauw62 on November 21, 2012, 01:58:57 pm

I just want to say one thing, probably a bit late.

There is something i really like about Obama. I have no idea what it is tough.

He's pretty good lookin'.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 03:21:26 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 21, 2012, 03:15:27 pm

Quote from: miauw62 on November 21, 2012, 01:58:57 pm

I just want to say one thing, probably a bit late.

There is something i really like about Obama. I have no idea what it is tough.

He's pretty good lookin'.

He is charismatic, young (reasonably) and gives good speeches.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 21, 2012, 03:41:28 pm

He's not young so much as he looks young. Young for a President would be late 30's, Obama is 51.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 21, 2012, 03:49:22 pm

He looks honest.

It's the ears.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 21, 2012, 04:01:02 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 21, 2012, 02:23:50 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 21, 2012, 11:29:29 am

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 11:19:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 21, 2012, 10:17:33 am

They say that when two sides fight, the third side wins.

And yet a third party has never won the presidency.

Sure they have. Otherwise we would still be choosing between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

Prove to me that we're not.

Okay. The Whigs. existed for a while as a thirf-party till the federalist faded into irrelevancy, and they were a third party when the repubs came to town till THEY faded away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 04:43:12 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 21, 2012, 03:41:28 pm

He's not young so much as he looks young. Young for a President would be late 30's, Obama is 51.

My god, is he honestly 51? I would never have thought it. I thought he was in his mid to late 40s.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 21, 2012, 04:45:12 pm

"Late 40's" isn't much younger than 51. Maybe there's a perceptual difference, e.g. how we view someone in their "late 30's" as different to someone who's 40.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on November 21, 2012, 04:45:27 pm

He was, when he was elected in 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 04:52:21 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 21, 2012, 04:45:12 pm

"Late 40's" isn't much younger than 51. Maybe there's a perceptual difference, e.g. how we view someone in their "late 30's" as different to someone who's 40.

Mid-to-late 40s in my mind was something like 46 or 47. Of course, with 4 years he'd be 51. Still, I say that's pretty young for a president, isn't it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 21, 2012, 05:58:29 pm

According to Wikipedia the youngest at inauguration table goes Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, Clinton, Ulysses S. Grant, Barack Obama.  Quite an interesting table (Reagan was the oldest, so please keep electing younger ones, tia).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 21, 2012, 06:20:54 pm

No.

Ron Paul 2016

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:35:31 pm

Obama is almost exactly two months younger than my mother.

That's how I keep track of his age.

He does look young, yes. But he also looks a lot more than four years older than in 2008... he's got a stressful job, after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 21, 2012, 06:20:54 pm

No.

Ron Paul 2016

What do you think Ron Paul's chances are of winning the next republican nomination? What kind of opposition do you think the republicans will have up their sleeve in 2015/16

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:43:30 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 06:40:12 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 21, 2012, 06:20:54 pm

No.

Ron Paul 2016

What do you think Ron Paul's chances are of winning the next republican nomination? What kind of opposition do you think the republicans will have up their sleeve in 2015/16

You know they'll nominate Rubio for either president or VP; they've seen how screwed they are with Hispanics, and their best hope for a quick fix is to nominate one.

You'll notice how many black people voted for Obama. While most are Democrats to begin with, having a candidate of their ethnicity/race encouraged the undecided ones to split in his favor. I believe that, coupled with more-open immigration policies, the Republicans could recapture Hispanica with "one of them" running.

I don't know about the other one.

The Democrats will probably go for Clinton. A pity too, since she sucks. In fact, I should assemble a Super PAC to repeal the 22nd amendment, so Obama can be re-elected.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 21, 2012, 06:54:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:43:30 pm

The Democrats will probably go for Clinton. A pity too, since she sucks. In fact, I should assemble a Super PAC to repeal the 22nd amendment, so Obama can be re-elected.

It's funny, because before the first debate and the total acceptance of "biased polls FEVER." there were many republicans saying how the only thing keeping Obama from winning a third amendment with this weak republican ticket is that amendmant.
 
Never going to get it through considering that. You'd have to nuke half of america to get it passed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:57:18 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 21, 2012, 06:54:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:43:30 pm

The Democrats will probably go for Clinton. A pity too, since she sucks. In fact, I should assemble a Super PAC to repeal the 22nd amendment, so Obama can be re-elected.

It's funny, because before the first debate and the total acceptance of "biased polls FEVER." there were many republicans saying how the only thing keeping Obama from winning a third amendment with this weak republican ticket is that amendmant.
 
Never going to get it through considering that. You'd have to nuke half of america to get it passed.

Without that pesky amendment, Obama would basically become dictator-for-life at this rate.

On the other hand, without it, we'd have two decades of Reagan, too...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 21, 2012, 07:01:45 pm

RON PAUL 2000+4N WHERE N IS A POSITIVE INTEGER

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 07:16:58 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 21, 2012, 07:01:45 pm

RON PAUL 2000+4N WHERE N IS A POSITIVE INTEGER

+1

To make a cruel joke about the man, I made a picture of a pickup truck with a bag of gold in the back and had a series of bumper stickers plastered over one another, but crudely so the numbers were still visible.

"RON PAUL 2000"
"RON PAUL 2004"
"RON PAUL 2008"
"RON PAUL 2012"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on November 21, 2012, 08:00:53 pm

Got one that parks in my parking lot, actually. 12 sticker proudly placed underneath the 08 one, with a pro-gun sticker and a libertarian one on the other side of the tailgate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 21, 2012, 08:03:19 pm

Yeah, the Paulites view his persistence as an admirable proof of unyielding determination, not a sign of inevitable failure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 21, 2012, 08:06:38 pm

According to my dad, Ron Paul isn't a bad guy, just batshit crazy.

Considering he legit thinks that Mitt Romney and the other repub candidates were Card-Carrying Villains purposfully doing evil for lulz, that's a pretty positive review.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 21, 2012, 08:09:21 pm

Is your dad awesome crazy or scary crazy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 09:13:47 pm

I think next year Obama needs to do Movember. He's on his second term, it's not like he's going to get kicked out of office because people think he looks weird. He should break the mold and grow a glorious moustache. He probably can't do it though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 21, 2012, 09:16:11 pm

Lumberjack Obama 2013

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 09:22:31 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 21, 2012, 09:16:11 pm

Lumberjack Obama 2013

See now, a beard is more viable, but you'd hear rumblings in the moustache community.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaenneth on November 21, 2012, 10:09:07 pm

I think a 70's 'fro would be more... interesting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 10:11:56 pm

Quote from: kaenneth on November 21, 2012, 10:09:07 pm

I think a 70's 'fro would be more... interesting.

No no, you need to combine the two to be truly glorious. Can you imagine how amazing Obama would be? He could nuke Scotland, execute Sean Connery and sell our declaration of arbroath to the conservative party for a thruppeny bit and I'd still be glad he was president of the USA.

He rocked a fro at one time.

(http://frobama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/obama-afro.jpg?w=560)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 22, 2012, 01:28:48 am

That's nothing. My dad had a bigger fro than that at one point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 22, 2012, 04:12:21 am

My dad had a bigger 'stache than that at one point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 22, 2012, 07:10:14 am

Quote from: Sirus on November 22, 2012, 01:28:48 am

That's nothing. My dad had a bigger fro than that at one point.

My point is merely that Obama could rock even a small fro back then. Who knows what the future will hold?

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0wRJjXvyZ1I/SIS8iaOfdsI/AAAAAAAAByQ/YU_ntwaHPdI/s400/obamastache2.jpg)

Can you imagine

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 22, 2012, 07:36:01 am

That's just wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 22, 2012, 08:59:20 am

That's not a real 'fro.

Obama with a full disco-style 'fro... that's what I want to see.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 22, 2012, 12:49:25 pm

Somehow Obama with a Nietzschestache would be worrying yet awesome in a completely unique way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 22, 2012, 01:13:26 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 22, 2012, 12:49:25 pm

Somehow Obama with a Nietzschestache would be worrying yet awesome in a completely unique way.

(http://i513.photobucket.com/albums/t334/bewaretheloquat/obamastache.jpg)

A bit too thin to be Nietzsche, but pretty decent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: nenjin on November 22, 2012, 02:03:20 pm

It's two curls away from being a Snidely Whiplash.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:49:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:57:18 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 21, 2012, 06:54:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:43:30 pm

The Democrats will probably go for Clinton. A pity too, since she sucks. In fact, I should assemble a Super PAC to repeal the 22nd amendment, so Obama can be re-elected.

It's funny, because before the first debate and the total acceptance of "biased polls FEVER." there were many republicans saying how the only thing keeping Obama from winning a third amendment with this weak republican ticket is that amendmant.
 
Never going to get it through considering that. You'd have to nuke half of america to get it passed.

Without that pesky amendment, Obama would basically become dictator-for-life at this rate.

On the other hand, without it, we'd have two decades of Reagan, too...

One would wonder what would have happened should the economical crisis have never been.

Healthcare for a lot of poor Americans + Nr 1. Enemy killed + ... = Away with 22 amendement?

Fixed quote screwup

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 22, 2012, 02:53:28 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:49:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:57:18 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 21, 2012, 06:54:12 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on November 21, 2012, 06:43:30 pm

The Democrats will probably go for Clinton. A pity too, since she sucks. In fact, I should assemble a Super PAC to repeal the 22nd amendment, so Obama can be re-elected.

It's funny, because before the first debate and the total acceptance of "biased polls FEVER." there were many republicans saying how the only thing keeping Obama from winning a third amendment with this weak republican ticket is that amendmant.
 
Never going to get it through considering that. You'd have to nuke half of america to get it passed.

One would wonder what would have happened should the economical crisis have never been.

Healthcare for a lot of poor Americans + Nr 1. Enemy killed + ... = Away with 22 amendement?

Without that pesky amendment, Obama would basically become dictator-for-life at this rate.

On the other hand, without it, we'd have two decades of Reagan, too...

Just look at Russia's position. They're going to have Putin for a very, very long time unless people realise he's a very bad man. They're Russian though, I doubt that will happen for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 22, 2012, 02:57:13 pm

They realize it, it's just that the military and police don't care and are large and intimidating.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:58:57 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 22, 2012, 02:57:13 pm

They realize it, it's just that the military and police don't care and are large and intimidating.

Putin is an extremely popular politician in Russia, even without the repression.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 22, 2012, 03:00:15 pm

Only a few months ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/europe/anti-putin-protesters-march-in-moscow-russia.html?_r=0

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 22, 2012, 03:00:58 pm

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:58:57 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 22, 2012, 02:57:13 pm

They realize it, it's just that the military and police don't care and are large and intimidating.

Putin is an extremely popular politician in Russia, even without the repression.

Actually, he is forging a Patriotic image for him and his government right now. Abandoning the west, "Post-democracy", and all that jazz. Not in Foreign Policy, but domestically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: nenjin on November 22, 2012, 03:04:12 pm

I'd argue in Foreign Policy right now too. The Russian refusal to do anything in Syria is about protecting Russian national interests in their weapon sales to Syria, and so they can state that they haven't bowed to the pressures put on them by the US and International Community.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 22, 2012, 03:05:25 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 22, 2012, 03:00:15 pm

Only a few months ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/europe/anti-putin-protesters-march-in-moscow-russia.html?_r=0

Don't get your hopes up. They do not represent the Russian masses and I doubt they will for a long time. I love Russia but it's amazing how much the people of that nation frustrate and fascinate me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 22, 2012, 03:11:18 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 22, 2012, 03:00:15 pm

Only a few months ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/europe/anti-putin-protesters-march-in-moscow-russia.html?_r=0

So do the anti-Obama protestors mean that Obama will be overthrown soon?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 22, 2012, 03:14:33 pm

No, but they mean there's a sizable opposition movement that could turn into a rebellion in the unlikely event Obama tries to install a dictatorship.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2012, 03:19:46 pm

There's kind of an important difference in that they are irrationally accusing Obama of installing a dictatorship while Putin actually has a dictatorship.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 22, 2012, 03:25:21 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2012, 03:19:46 pm

There's kind of an important difference in that they are irrationally accusing Obama of installing a dictatorship while Putin actually has a dictatorship.

This. There's a very broad line between a country with increasingly powerful law enforcement and a full-fledged dictatorship.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 22, 2012, 04:04:13 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2012, 03:19:46 pm

There's kind of an important difference in that they are irrationally accusing Obama of installing a dictatorship while Putin actually has a dictatorship.

Rule of thumb: If you can still talk about it in public, it's not a dictatorship.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 22, 2012, 04:08:21 pm

I don't agree with that. whilst heavy censorship is normally associated with dictatorships, it's not a given, and democracies can be just as oppressive.

Dictatorship means ONLY that the people have no say whatsoever in who rules the country, it does NOT automatically imply 100% fascist control of every single aspect of your life. That's a misconception.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2012, 04:13:15 pm

A place without dissent of the dictatorship would be totalitarian, like North Korea. Many modern dictators take the practical "democracy theater" approach to their dictatorship, where they stop being over-sensitive to people talking shit about them and give everyone at least the pretense of a democratic system even though it doesn't really work. If I'm a dictator, what do I care if I let my hated enemies have seats in the legislature, so long as it is never enough to overrule my puppets? Indeed, giving them "representation" keeps them under the illusion that the system is legitimate and just hasn't favored them, instead of planning to assassinate me or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 22, 2012, 04:19:53 pm

Russia isn't a dictatorship on paper, it's a delightfully Orwellian "managed democracy".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 22, 2012, 04:21:20 pm

That's why it's a rule of thumb - of course you get Putin or Friedrich II.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 22, 2012, 04:31:59 pm

Don't blame me, I voted for the left thumb

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 22, 2012, 04:45:27 pm

Yeah, the election was rigged anyway - next time I'll vote for Third Finger, Left Hand.

THIRD FINGER, LEFT HAND 2012 + 4N WHERE N IS ANY POSITIVE NONZERO INTEGER!!!1!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 22, 2012, 05:26:05 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 22, 2012, 04:13:15 pm

A place without dissent of the dictatorship would be totalitarian, like North Korea. Many modern dictators take the practical "democracy theater" approach to their dictatorship, where they stop being over-sensitive to people talking shit about them and give everyone at least the pretense of a democratic system even though it doesn't really work. If I'm a dictator, what do I care if I let my hated enemies have seats in the legislature, so long as it is never enough to overrule my puppets? Indeed, giving them "representation" keeps them under the illusion that the system is legitimate and just hasn't favored them, instead of planning to assassinate me or something.

Funny.  This is how I feel about America, except it's not an individual that's the dictator.  It's the complete ownership of the two-party system by the upper classes.  We're free to express our dissent... to a point.  When that dissent threatens to reach too widespread an acceptance of legitimacy or too elevated a stage, we get things like third party candidates arrested for attempting to attend the debates, the brutalization of large enough peaceful protests, and discrimination against independent journalists by law enforcement.  And most forms of dissent these days will get us put on "Potential Domestic Terrorist" lists that serve as pretense for surveillance of our activities under the Patriot Act and justification for harassing or outright ruining us whenever they feel like it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 22, 2012, 08:08:06 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 22, 2012, 05:26:05 pm

Funny.  This is how I feel about America, except it's not an individual that's the dictator.  It's the complete ownership of the two-party system by the upper classes.  We're free to express our dissent... to a point.  When that dissent threatens to reach too widespread an acceptance of legitimacy or too elevated a stage, we get things like third party candidates arrested for attempting to attend the debates, the brutalization of large enough peaceful protests, and discrimination against independent journalists by law enforcement.  And most forms of dissent these days will get us put on "Potential Domestic Terrorist" lists that serve as pretense for surveillance of our activities under the Patriot Act and justification for harassing or outright ruining us whenever they feel like it.

The third party candidate got arrested because she got arrested as a publicity stunt.  It's a very old method of protest.  I applaud her for it, it's admirable that she is devoted to her cause and wants to improve things.  But her arrest doesn't make this a dictatorship.  There's absolutely nothing stopping third party candidates from getting their message out through the same channels that the main parties do.  The problem is that people don't give a shit about the message.  It's not a problem with censorship and it's not a problem with the third parties.  People just don't care enough to rock the boat.

You complain about things on the internet as if that's gonna start a third party movement.  Last time a third party got off the ground it was because large numbers of activists spent more then a decade building up support in local elections and showing people that they could get things done.  We don't have third parties in this country because there has been no comparable activist movement.  Nader might have made something but he was egotistical and self centered and pissed in the well.

I'd bet that I have single handedly put in more volunteer hours working for the democrats then every third party wannabe in this thread has put in combined working for third parties.  Politics isn't fun, it's work, slow tedious work.  I'll be the first to admit that it's not a good system.  But if you don't have people that are gonna play the game then you aren't going to win in any system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 22, 2012, 08:21:20 pm

Now it's time I think I mention Alexis de'Tocquevilles Tyranny of the majority. Maniac is right. You can't blame anyone. You must blame everyone. This is in fact, a democracy, and that's it's main problem. Every single hated politician is elected by a majority, and people enjoy bitching about everything despite it. If anyone wanted something done, do it. The thing is no one can change it but the majority, and the majority can only be moved slowly, ever so slowly, and is prone to bouts of populism, madness, fashions and fads.

if you want something done, go out and convert the masses. maniac is right. There is no tyranny. You elected those people. So go fix it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 22, 2012, 10:26:01 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 22, 2012, 08:08:06 pm

There's absolutely nothing stopping third party candidates from getting their message out through the same channels that the main parties do.  The problem is that people don't give a shit about the message...

Nothing stopping them except the massive resource disparity between the two main parties (and their relative stranglehold of major media outlets, don't forget!) and every flipping body else, and the fact that our voting system basically actively punishes the voters in most areas for not "voting for the right one" -- by giving their vote to people they didn't vote for, amongst other things.

Don't get me wrong, your last bits are absolutely accurate, that any attempt at getting a third party through will take that kind of effort, but acting like there's no other -- and no other major -- barriers between a genuine third party attempt other than the effort is a huge misrepresentation of what's actually going down these days. I'm not even a "third party wannabe" -- I live in a state where it's only a half step from literally physically impossible for them to make in-roads rights now -- but that kind of message irks me, y'know? It's not "just get enough people together and working hard" -- it's "get enough people together and working hard in the face of massive opposition to any attempts to do so by the entrenched powers and the actual system itself."

And Misk, last I checked no one's been elected by an actual majority (let's go with 2/3rds and make it easy) of the whole population, or even the total voting population, for a long, long damn time. The folks that have been getting voted in are doing so generally scraping in barely a slightly larger plurality of the voting population. And yeah, yeah, you can say "well, people don't give a shit or whatev' so they're not voting" but I'd say that does a pretty damn huge disservice to a lot of people that don't or can't vote. Not all of them, no, but a lot of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 22, 2012, 11:58:21 pm

Yeah, the American system is pretty damn biased towards the two main parties.

I mean, beside the obvious electoral bonuses like the first past the post system, there's a pile of laws that require a party to get above 5% or get lots of signatures to even get on the ballot. Smaller parties are held to different standards, and don't get certain boons that the main ones do. They aren't featured in debates unless they reach around 15% polling despite the fact that they aren't even included in most polls, and they're completely marginalized even when they do get respectable polling numbers. If they get anywhere close to a significant margin of the vote, they're demonized for "vote splitting" like Ralph Nader in 2000, Ross Perot in 1992, or the Libertarians in the last election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 12:13:13 am

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:58:57 pm

Putin is an extremely popular politician in Russia, even without the repression.

Actually... how do you know? There's no actual way to tell how popular he is, but the closest that's been done that I'm aware of seem to indicate most of the Russian populace want him gone, no?

It's just that there isn't anything they can actually do about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 23, 2012, 12:32:17 am

Quote from: Frumple on November 22, 2012, 10:26:01 pm

Nothing stopping them except the massive resource disparity between the two main parties (and their relative stranglehold of major media outlets, don't forget!)

What stranglehold?  The media gives us the two main parties because the two main parties are what people want.  When people wanted to hear Ross Perot in 1992 the media gave us three way debates.  When people were interested in what Perot had to say on NAFTA 16 million people tuned in to watch Perot debate Gore on prime time TV.  The media is not stopping voters from seeing third parties.  Voters are stopping voters.

The first past the post system isn't ideal but it doesn't make it impossible for third parties to win.  The democrats won, the republicans won, the progressives were successful enough to make the democrats change.  What does make it impossible for third parties to win is that third parties aren't seriously engaged in the political process.  People bitch about the democrats and republicans but those parties actually do a pretty darn good job catering to the american public at the end of the day.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 23, 2012, 01:24:25 am

The democrats and republicans have money, money is speech. They have major corporate sponsorship. Perot only got into the spotlight because he was willing to spend $10s of millions of his own wealth in order to get his name in the ring. Even that is unlikely to make a dent anymore. With super pac's now throwing billions of dollars around during major elections, $10s of millions will barely scratch the machine.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 23, 2012, 02:40:39 am

Running for president is expensive.  Running for a lower office is much less expensive.  I can not repeat enough that a successful third party would not start by electing a presidential candidate but would instead win lower offices first.

Even if we eliminated all 3rd party groups and stopped everybody from donating more then $20 to political causes in an election cycle Mitt Romney would have wiped the floor with Jill Stein in the fundraising department.  That's because the republican party has a track record and stands for competitive elections.  This attracts a base of supporters and some members of that base support Romney.  Our political process amplifies this advantage but you need to realize that the foundation of this advantage is that republicans are giving a large number of people what they want while greens are not.  We could pass every reform imaginable to make the system more fair but at the end of the day a 3rd party needs to be useful if it wants to be relevant.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 04:11:25 am

The Commission on Presidential Debates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates) is owned and controlled jointly by the republican and democrat parties, and it's the most important mass exposure for candidates in the entire election cycle.

Stein's arrest was a publicity stunt, yes.  Doesn't that say something to you?  That she can intentionally go and make a publicity stunt out of crossing the street towards the debate building, because she knows she will be arrested for it (or rather for blocking traffic on a street that was already blocked to traffic...). 

It's funny that you mentioned Nader, too.  He tried the same thing (in 2008?) and was threatened with arrest, when he even had a valid ticket to attend the debates.  Not participate.  He only wanted to attend.  When he questioned the officer about why this wasn't allowed, the officer produced a printout with the named and photos of every third party candidate and explained that he had specific orders to arrest any who attempted to enter the building.

Nothing about this seems wrong to you?

As for political groundwork, yes I am guilty of being an internet political whiner.  I know this and don't feel good about it, but I can barely keep my own life stable.  I don't know how anybody of lower than middle class income with a full-time job and a family can be expected to be seriously involved in politics.  I had more opportunity when I was younger (as in pre-20 years old), but didn't know what I had until it was gone.

Quote from: mainiac on November 23, 2012, 12:32:17 am

People bitch about the democrats and republicans but those parties actually do a pretty darn good job catering to the american public at the end of the day.

Catering in what sense?... They're certainly not taking care of us and I don't know anybody who is actually happy with them.  Almost everyone I've ever talked to about politics in the last 8 years admits that they only vote republican or democrat because of the vote-splitting rhetoric, and falling for that is absolutely something that is the voting population's fault.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 05:22:41 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 22, 2012, 08:21:20 pm

Now it's time I think I mention Alexis de'Tocquevilles Tyranny of the majority.

That's why most of the time when people talk about democracy they mean republicanism (in the Kantian sense, e.g. fixed laws, freedom of speech etc.). Democracy is only superior to other forms of government because it is apparently better at keeping republicanism alive. Just compare two exceptions, India and Singapore: Would you rather live in the corrupt democracy or under the regime that enforces due process?

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 04:11:25 am

Almost everyone I've ever talked to about politics in the last 8 years admits that they only vote republican or democrat because of the vote-splitting rhetoric, and falling for that is absolutely something that is the voting population's fault.

As others have said before, the vote-splitting rhetoric is right for presidential elections; third parties would first have to build up large amounts of local support to make a succesful bid for the highest office.

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 22, 2012, 11:58:21 pm

Yeah, the American system is pretty damn biased towards the two main parties.

I mean, beside the obvious electoral bonuses like the first past the post system, there's a pile of laws that require a party to get above 5% or get lots of signatures to even get on the ballot. Smaller parties are held to different standards, and don't get certain boons that the main ones do.

No hating on legisslation to keep splinter parties out of parliament! Compare the Weimar and the Bonn Republic: Weimar had no 5% clause, and as a result proper governing was impossible. In the Bonn (and today the Berlin) Republic, there are quite a few smaller parties that have popped up despite these regulations: The Green Party, the Liberals (market liberals, that is), the Leftists (GODDAMN POPULISTS I'LL HAVE EACH AND EVERY ONE SHOT AT DAWN) and today even the Pirate Party (left-leaning mixture from anarchists over left-wingers to actual classical liberals) all are in parliament (or are about to get in) and live happily along the main parties (SPD, the German democrats, and CDU, the German "Republicans" although they too are much more similar to the democrats). Each of these small parties got in beccause they had a cause or hit a nerve with the public; when a party becomes necessary, it will get more than 5%.
Of course, the German system gives a better picture of the actual election outcome than the American one, because of such mechanisms as Zweitstimmen that ensure that the popular vote will not be drowned out by the voter distribution, avoiding Electoral Colledge-style problems. Come to think of it, maybe the German system could be a model for American reform... ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 23, 2012, 06:03:11 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 12:13:13 am

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:58:57 pm

Putin is an extremely popular politician in Russia, even without the repression.

Actually... how do you know? There's no actual way to tell how popular he is, but the closest that's been done that I'm aware of seem to indicate most of the Russian populace want him gone, no?

It's just that there isn't anything they can actually do about it.

Where have you seen or heard that most of the Russian populace want him gone? If the majority wanted him gone they'd vote him out, but sadly the majority of Russians do want Putin. Look at the popular opinion over Pussy Riot. Something like 44% of the Russian population thought they should have gotten harsher setences.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 23, 2012, 06:04:45 am

Yeah, Putin is acutally winning elections, even without the cheating that happen in the caucasus republics.

Russia is a democracy in which the people are constantly brainwashed to like Putin.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 23, 2012, 06:20:08 am

Quote from: Sheb on November 23, 2012, 06:04:45 am

Yeah, Putin is acutally winning elections, even without the cheating that happen in the caucasus republics.

Russia is a democracy in which the people are constantly brainwashed to like Putin.

And sadly, he does kick ass. Have you seen his "give my my pen" antics

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 23, 2012, 06:21:28 am

Quote from: Sheb on November 23, 2012, 06:04:45 am

Yeah, Putin is acutally winning elections, even without the cheating that happen in the caucasus republics.

Russia is a democracy in which the people are constantly brainwashed to like Putin.

Knowing several russians; he isn't popular, but all the people that hate him just get the hell out of the country while they still can.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 23, 2012, 06:35:21 am

Depends on who you ask. The educated, worldy class don't like him, but he is populaor with the average Ivan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 23, 2012, 07:05:06 am

Quote from: Sheb on November 23, 2012, 06:35:21 am

Depends on who you ask. The educated, worldy class don't like him, but he is populaor with the average Ivan.

Along with the "New Russians". The worldly, educated class are small nowadays.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: ed boy on November 23, 2012, 08:14:29 am

Quote from: Frumple on November 22, 2012, 10:26:01 pm

And Misk, last I checked no one's been elected by an actual majority (let's go with 2/3rds and make it easy) of the whole population, or even the total voting population, for a long, long damn time. The folks that have been getting voted in are doing so generally scraping in barely a slightly larger plurality of the voting population. And yeah, yeah, you can say "well, people don't give a shit or whatev' so they're not voting" but I'd say that does a pretty damn huge disservice to a lot of people that don't or can't vote. Not all of them, no, but a lot of them.

I personally count that as thing in favour of the current party setup. The fact that the difference between the parties is so close means that both parties are completely viable options for someone who wants to vote, so they actually have a choice. It means that parties are listening to the voters and changing their stance to reflect the changing attitudes of the country. As much as people are talking about how romney alienated everyone, he still got 48% of the popular vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 23, 2012, 10:18:15 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 04:11:25 am

It's funny that you mentioned Nader, too.  He tried the same thing (in 2008?) and was threatened with arrest, when he even had a valid ticket to attend the debates.  Not participate.  He only wanted to attend.  When he questioned the officer about why this wasn't allowed, the officer produced a printout with the named and photos of every third party candidate and explained that he had specific orders to arrest any who attempted to enter the building.

Nothing about this seems wrong to you?

So if you are a third party candidate you can't go to private events without permission?  And security guards are smart enough to know you are likely to try?  Well one of those two things is surprising.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 10:22:00 am

Except that he had a valid ticket?

It may not be surprising, but it's still fucked up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 10:30:55 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 10:22:00 am

Except that he had a valid ticket?

It may not be surprising, but it's still fucked up.

That and the fact that the biggest event in the biggest election in the country is a "private event"...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 23, 2012, 10:47:56 am

Can I get a citation on him having a ticket?  I'm not finding anything to that effect through google.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 11:23:55 am

Nader's Ticket to the Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZRRimf3Ps)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 23, 2012, 12:14:40 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 11:23:55 am

Nader's Ticket to the Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZRRimf3Ps)

I asked for a citation on a very specific thing, not a 10 minute long video with scary music and angry narrators talking about how unfair it is that Nadar wasn't invited.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 23, 2012, 12:28:02 pm

Here's at least one source. (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html) The google search that found it was "did nadar have a ticket debate" sans quotes, and throws up a number of other sources regarding the incident.

Here's what wikipedia cites (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/05/us/2000-campaign-green-party-nader-wants-apology-debate-panel-for-turning-him-away.html) as the source for Nadar being turned away. And here's the wiki page itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Presidential_debates)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 04:58:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 23, 2012, 12:14:40 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 11:23:55 am

Nader's Ticket to the Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZRRimf3Ps)

I asked for a citation on a very specific thing, not a 10 minute long video with scary music and angry narrators talking about how unfair it is that Nadar wasn't invited.

Yeah, I know.  That video just happens to be how I learned about it, and despite its flaws, it manages to present a more coherent story than the textual sources I could find that seem to jump all over the place regarding details such as the election year when this occurred.  I got frustrated and just threw up the video because I needed to get to bed.  As far as I can tell, he's been turned away from the debates multiple times, but 2008 is when he actually had a ticket.  It also shows direct footage of the encounter between Nader and the police.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 23, 2012, 06:50:59 pm

i just met mike huckabee at the local books a million. i did not tell him what i think of the republican party. :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 23, 2012, 06:55:02 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 23, 2012, 06:50:59 pm

i just met mike huckabee at the local books a million. i did not tell him what i think of the republican party. :(

WHY DIDN'T YOU PUNCH HIM.
 
You know, my mom once met Donald Trump on the sidewalk. Not a shockeer as we live near Trump towers, but still. According to her, his wig is as ridiculous as it looks on TV. Worse, actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 08:09:05 pm

I'm usually not an advocate of political violence, but... okay, everyone where I live will tell you that I'm a frequent, enthusiastic and vocal supporter of political violence ;) Seriously though: Why don't we just start beating these people up? Nothing serious, just a few broken bones; it's not like all of them have bodyguards like Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on November 23, 2012, 08:36:37 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 08:09:05 pm

I'm usually not an advocate of political violence, but... okay, everyone where I live will tell you that I'm a frequent, enthusiastic and vocal supporter of political violence ;) Seriously though: Why don't we just start beating these people up? Nothing serious, just a few broken bones; it's not like all of them have bodyguards like Obama.

Cuz beating people up is illegal and immoral?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zrk2 on November 23, 2012, 08:55:45 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 23, 2012, 08:36:37 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 08:09:05 pm

I'm usually not an advocate of political violence, but... okay, everyone where I live will tell you that I'm a frequent, enthusiastic and vocal supporter of political violence ;) Seriously though: Why don't we just start beating these people up? Nothing serious, just a few broken bones; it's not like all of them have bodyguards like Obama.

Cuz beating people up is illegal and immoral?

That's never stopped us before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 23, 2012, 09:16:28 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 23, 2012, 08:55:45 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 23, 2012, 08:36:37 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 08:09:05 pm

I'm usually not an advocate of political violence, but... okay, everyone where I live will tell you that I'm a frequent, enthusiastic and vocal supporter of political violence ;) Seriously though: Why don't we just start beating these people up? Nothing serious, just a few broken bones; it's not like all of them have bodyguards like Obama.

Cuz beating people up is illegal and immoral?

That's never stopped us before.

I dunno, Illegality usually stops us. Unless there's something you haven't been telling me about?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scelly9 on November 23, 2012, 09:19:01 pm

You.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 09:26:03 pm

Quote from: Angle on November 23, 2012, 09:16:28 pm

Quote from: Zrk2 on November 23, 2012, 08:55:45 pm

Quote from: Sirus on November 23, 2012, 08:36:37 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 08:09:05 pm

I'm usually not an advocate of political violence, but... okay, everyone where I live will tell you that I'm a frequent, enthusiastic and vocal supporter of political violence ;) Seriously though: Why don't we just start beating these people up? Nothing serious, just a few broken bones; it's not like all of them have bodyguards like Obama.

Cuz beating people up is illegal and immoral?

That's never stopped us before.

I dunno, Illegality usually stops us. Unless there's something you haven't been telling me about?

I have seen things... terrible things... things man was not meant to do, going against all laws, common and divine. I have seen unimaginable horrors going on on these boards, horrors you would not believe if I told you about them. This place is the modern Babel.

I'm talking about copyright violations, ya know ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:31:32 pm

I thought it was all the gay orgies that go on in the secret boards.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 23, 2012, 09:36:39 pm

Outright copyright violations, on these boards? I could see people skirting the edges of legality in relation to copyrights, but actual violating them? I don't think toady allows that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 23, 2012, 09:38:56 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:31:32 pm

I thought it was all the gay orgies that go on in the secret boards.

Oh, those are only illegal in 32 states.

Quote from: Angle on November 23, 2012, 09:36:39 pm

Outright copyright violations, on these boards? I could see people skirting the edges of legality in relation to copyrights, but actual violating them? I don't think toady allows that.

One nation under copyright! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneNationUnderCopyright) Copyright is indivisible; and if one work is copied, all works are harmed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 23, 2012, 09:39:32 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:31:32 pm

I thought it was all the gay orgies that go on in the secret boards.

The first rule of orgy club is that you don't talk about orgy club.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:48:41 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 23, 2012, 09:39:32 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:31:32 pm

I thought it was all the gay orgies that go on in the secret boards.

The first rule of orgy club is that you don't talk about orgy club.

The second rule is don't forget the lube.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 24, 2012, 02:28:40 am

Quote from: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:48:41 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 23, 2012, 09:39:32 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:31:32 pm

I thought it was all the gay orgies that go on in the secret boards.

The first rule of orgy club is that you don't talk about orgy club.

The second rule is don't forget the lube.

Third Rule is Karne is not invited ever.

Third point fifth rule is Seriously, don't.



you guys can be mean sometimes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 24, 2012, 06:26:30 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 24, 2012, 02:28:40 am

Quote from: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:48:41 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 23, 2012, 09:39:32 pm

Quote from: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:31:32 pm

I thought it was all the gay orgies that go on in the secret boards.

The first rule of orgy club is that you don't talk about orgy club.

The second rule is don't forget the lube.

Third Rule is Karne is not invited ever.

I am sigging this so hard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 24, 2012, 07:54:23 am

Dictator means "one who dictates"
it's just dictate with an -or ending.
It's applied to totalitarian rulers because such people have the right by their laws to dictate anything, including execution or jail of their opponents.
Putin and Obama cannot jail people who don't break the law on their soil, so not Dictators.

On to third Parties...
Maniac, how many hours have you put in?
I've put in a few hours for third parties. I've met people who have put in 8 hour days for decades to the Green Party.
There is absolutely a barrier to entry for third parties established by the two party system. It begins at the state level. The republican and democratic parties generally have a promised slot in every race in the nation and do not face stiff criticism of weakening the vote for the "real candidate". If the third party somehow overcomes this, their next barrier is money. The big two have an established system to fund their "grass roots", this funding exists because there is a return on investment. Third parties don't have a tradition of victory, so aren't able to build this support that funds otherwise weaker candidates. This means even third party candidates that are head and shoulders above the local two still face a tougher fight than otherwise would happen. Let's just say that this theoretical candidate has both gotten on the ballot in spite of regulation that makes it hard and the outside money didn't materialize. Now we run into an apathy wall. The majority of US citizens hold some views of each party. Very few are really solidly behind one side. A lot of these people are jaded by things that make them feel their vote doesn't count, so you don't get large turnouts. Who is likely to turn out though? Those who go for one of the two, so a larger portion of people who are against the election being "spoiled" than are really represented in the population.
What does this mean? It means the entry level jobs for politicians aren't third party friendly.
Q: OH, but what about...(enter argument here)
A: There was no Law in 1890 that barred women from work in factories, discrimination doesn't need to be in law, the minds of those in charge is usually enough.
So, no entry, no dominance. More of my friends liked Jill than Mitt or Barak, yet they still didn't vote 3rd party. A lot didn't vote. I don't know how that was better than "throwing your vote away", but it was their choice.
Still, you are right in the need to change things at a local level. Encourage IRV and proportionate electorial college distribution in your local states, and you'll see larger turnouts and more third party support. To say it's not rigged is probably false though. A system that isn't rigged will usually show accurate representation accross the board. There are enough registered independant and third party that government should have more from the lowest offices to the highest. Strangely, what is true for the country isn't true for the representation. Hence third parties crying foul.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 24, 2012, 07:57:29 am

Yeah, the system needs reform. One thing though: Compared to Europe, the US have a rather high turnout; I guess it's because it's a winner-takes-all/no-coalitions deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 24, 2012, 09:54:07 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on November 23, 2012, 11:23:55 am

Nader's Ticket to the Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZRRimf3Ps)

Okay, this was very difficult to watch through the wave of bullshit that Nadar was throwing up but here is what I was able to guesstimate.  It appears to me that Nadar did not have a ticket to the debate.  He was given a ticket by a student and told by fox news to talk to them.  However the tickets are non-transferable.  Fox news doesn't have the power to give out tickets.  He therefore had no right to enter the grounds.  The big showdown was him acting like a passive aggressive twerp.  If I had been there I would have punched him in the face.  It's a good thing I'm not a cop.

Maybe you want to say that Nadar should have been given a ticket.  But it is certainly not the case that he was turned away.  Rather he tried to get on the grounds illegally and was stopped.  He was on a list because it seemed likely he would try something like this.  Seems like that list was a pretty good prediction.

Nadar is pissing in the well for real 3rd party candidates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 24, 2012, 02:31:46 pm

Nader pissing into the well doesn't change the fact that there is a well of politics that is different from "first party" candidates, and that it is underrepresented.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 25, 2012, 12:25:15 am

I'd be more sympathetic to that view if the third parties actually did grassroots organizing and ran candidates in the many state and local elections that they should theoretically be capable of winning if they do indeed represent the views of most Americans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 25, 2012, 02:16:57 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 25, 2012, 12:25:15 am

I'd be more sympathetic to that view if the third parties actually did grassroots organizing and ran candidates in the many state and local elections that they should theoretically be capable of winning if they do indeed represent the views of most Americans.

They are, and they loose all the time due to the structural inequity of the system. more than 2/3 of my local/state offices had independent candidates.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 25, 2012, 07:22:18 am

Misha Luzov
Doug Lamborn
James Pirtle
Kenneth Harvell
David Anderson
George Allen Cantrell (write-in)
2 were first party candadates. 1 was an independant. The rest were third parties.
There are more other and unaffiliated in this district than the minority first Party. In 2010, the minority first party candidate got 29.3% of the vote. 65.8% went to the majority first party. Third parties got 2.5% and 2.4%

So, what happened this time?
The Republican write-in didn't get a statistically significant amount.
The Republican Incumbant got 65.3% with 191198 votes.
The Independant got 17.4%
The Libertarian got 7.3%
Green Party 5.9%
Constitution 4.2%
I don't know where the extra 0.1% came from, but I suspect California. (or rounding)
And no, the Independant wasn't the best match for a "Democrat" platform.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 25, 2012, 01:28:22 pm

And?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 25, 2012, 02:39:13 pm

Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura 2016

(http://www.nndb.com/people/667/000022601/jvport.jpg)

Now how would that go

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on November 25, 2012, 03:18:58 pm

If you're going to upload a picture of Former Governor Ventura, use his official portrait:
(http://i.imgur.com/WshF7.jpg)
Its awesomeness has to be seen to be believed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 25, 2012, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: Jervill on November 25, 2012, 03:18:58 pm

If you're going to upload a picture of Former Governor Ventura, use his official portrait:
(http://i.imgur.com/WshF7.jpg)
Its awesomeness has to be seen to be believed.

Good christ I had no idea it was that fucking cool.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 25, 2012, 03:44:27 pm

A blog post, but a blog post with citations:

Jindal 2016. (http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2012/11/jindal-breaks-from-the-pack.html)

Seriously, if he means what he says and wins the primary, I will consider voting for the man.

In other news, Marco Rubio gets a head start on primary season. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84002.html) He claims to have been there for the governor's 66th birthday party, but really, how many of us believe that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 25, 2012, 03:45:21 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 25, 2012, 03:44:27 pm

A blog post, but a blog post with citations:

Jindal 2016. (http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2012/11/jindal-breaks-from-the-pack.html)

Seriously, if he means what he says and wins the primary, I will seriously consider voting for the man.

I'm sorry, Jindal or no Jindal, President/Vice President Blain ain't got time to bleed.

But joking aside, Jindal has a 100% pro life record (so pro-life he opposes abortion under any circumstances except when the woman's life is threatened), opposes same sex marriage and he's pretty sketchy on evolution. Are you sure about this guy?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 25, 2012, 03:54:32 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 25, 2012, 03:45:21 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 25, 2012, 03:44:27 pm

A blog post, but a blog post with citations:

Jindal 2016. (http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2012/11/jindal-breaks-from-the-pack.html)

Seriously, if he means what he says and wins the primary, I will seriously consider voting for the man.

I'm sorry, Jindal or no Jindal, President/Vice President Blain ain't got time to bleed.

But joking aside, Jindal has a 100% pro life record (so pro-life he opposes abortion under any circumstances except when the woman's life is threatened), opposes same sex marriage and he's pretty sketchy on evolution. Are you sure about this guy?

I certainly think he's worth taking a look at, though I'm not sold on him. For one thing, social issues in 2016 are going to be even more on the Democrat side than they are in 2012.

If the man is smart enough to see where the country is headed, and it looks like he is, he's not going to throw away his chance to woo young liberals on social issues to pander to the base. What matters about politicians is what they do, not what they personally believe. And if he said "I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but I consider that a personal issue and I'll go ahead with it," just as Biden is personally pro-life but does not believe in imposing Catholic morals on a religiously free nation, then I think that's good enough. And it'll be worth seeing how much of what he has been saying- because I think some of it may fall into this category- was a thrown bone to Louisianans, who are pretty ultra-conservative.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 25, 2012, 04:10:18 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 25, 2012, 03:54:32 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 25, 2012, 03:45:21 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 25, 2012, 03:44:27 pm

A blog post, but a blog post with citations:

Jindal 2016. (http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2012/11/jindal-breaks-from-the-pack.html)

Seriously, if he means what he says and wins the primary, I will seriously consider voting for the man.

I'm sorry, Jindal or no Jindal, President/Vice President Blain ain't got time to bleed.

But joking aside, Jindal has a 100% pro life record (so pro-life he opposes abortion under any circumstances except when the woman's life is threatened), opposes same sex marriage and he's pretty sketchy on evolution. Are you sure about this guy?

I certainly think he's worth taking a look at, though I'm not sold on him. For one thing, social issues in 2016 are going to be even more on the Democrat side than they are in 2012.

If the man is smart enough to see where the country is headed, and it looks like he is, he's not going to throw away his chance to woo young liberals on social issues to pander to the base. What matters about politicians is what they do, not what they personally believe. And if he said "I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but I consider that a personal issue and I'll go ahead with it," just as Biden is personally pro-life but does not believe in imposing Catholic morals on a religiously free nation, then I think that's good enough. And it'll be worth seeing how much of what he has been saying- because I think some of it may fall into this category- was a thrown bone to Louisianans, who are pretty ultra-conservative.

Thing is though, a lot of us thought that Mitt Romney would have been a decent candidate because of his moderate background and beliefs. However, he was ultimately forced to give support to quite right-wing policies to appease the real conservatives in the Republican party, which may have jeapordized his candidacy. Do you think Jindal will fare much better?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on November 25, 2012, 04:56:26 pm

Probably not. The radical conservatives have kinda taken their party hostage by dominating the primary, so unless the base comes to it's senses, the republicans are kinda screwed for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 25, 2012, 05:15:42 pm

It won't work out. For one thing, the Republicans have rarely actually nominated non-white men for much of anything, much less the presidency. Even if he runs I don't think he'll make the cut, and the GOP leadership will make the same mistake they keep making and nominate a socially reactionary, economically obstructionist, vaguely theocratic, absurdly rich, aging, white man to represent them once again. And then they'll lose, again, and declare that they needed to be more conservative to get America's vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 25, 2012, 05:27:08 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 25, 2012, 05:15:42 pm

It won't work out. For one thing, the Republicans have rarely actually nominated non-white men for much of anything, much less the presidency. Even if he runs I don't think he'll make the cut, and the GOP leadership will make the same mistake they keep making and nominate a socially reactionary, economically obstructionist, vaguely theocratic, absurdly rich, aging, white man to represent them once again. And then they'll lose, again, and declare that they needed to be more conservative to get America's vote.

And us young liberals will keep bashing our heads against our keyboards, spelling out the issues with the GOP time and time again, on various platforms. And no matter how much the people who don't vote Republican tell the Republicans why we don't vote Republican, they still won't get it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 25, 2012, 05:46:55 pm

If anybody thinks that Jindal is moderate they should watch the rebuttal to Obamas first State of the Union address.  Suffice to say that he doesn't come across as a moderate.  He also doesn't come across as competent enough to lead a middle school debate club.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 12:52:43 pm

I'm just amazed at how much you've all gotten caught up in shit over Jindal when you've just glossed over the sheer power of Jesse Ventura. If not 2016 then 2020, we will probably see Jesse Ventura riding on horseback in his shining armour, like in that absurd painting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 12:56:34 pm

Ventura has gardened a reputation as a conspiracy theorist, he's definitely not running.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 01:43:21 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 12:56:34 pm

Ventura has gardened a reputation as a conspiracy theorist, he's definitely not running.

He has said that he will consider running if people get a grassroots movement going, or if Ron Paul went independent. He's also been raising his media profile this year.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 01:58:38 pm

He's certainly not getting elected in any case.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 02:12:19 pm

Why's Ron Paul a republican, anyway? They aren't exactly close to his positions...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:15:22 pm

They used to be, and he agrees with them bigtime on the idea of states rights. That they have turned against the moderates and libertarians is a new development.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 02:17:03 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 01:58:38 pm

He's certainly not getting elected in any case.

But it'll be really exciting when he does run.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:15:22 pm

They used to be, and he agrees with them bigtime on the idea of states rights. That they have turned against the moderates and libertarians is a new development.

See now, I like the sound of State's Rights. I support autonomy and local government in a lot of ways. The problem is that the rights that are being put into question are stuff that I really think should be decided by a federal government.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:18:52 pm

Not really. The media will dismiss him as a lunatic, he'll have a strong cult following ala RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL, and then the GOP train wreck will continue onwards. At best he'll be like Herman Cain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 02:23:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:18:52 pm

Not really. The media will dismiss him as a lunatic, he'll have a strong cult following ala RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL, and then the GOP train wreck will continue onwards. At best he'll be like Herman Cain.

I found Herman Cain exciting. In a weird way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 26, 2012, 02:27:19 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 02:23:53 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:18:52 pm

Not really. The media will dismiss him as a lunatic, he'll have a strong cult following ala RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL, and then the GOP train wreck will continue onwards. At best he'll be like Herman Cain.

I found Herman Cain exciting. In a weird way.

Herman Cain was entertaining. I think he realized early on that he wasn't a serious candidate for the nomination. So, therefore, troll.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 26, 2012, 02:31:42 pm

"States rights" are usually used as an excuse to infringe on the rights of the people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 02:41:25 pm

Or a way of avoiding topics that could split your base.

"Gay marriage? States' rights!"

It's a miracle noone has suggested making the military budget a states' rights issue ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on November 26, 2012, 02:52:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

It would make secession more of a possibility... and America would have a much smaller projection power over the world... but then, it would stand to reason that if there cannot be a federal military, they'd push for more CIA/FBI/surveillance powers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 26, 2012, 02:54:44 pm

Most libertarians I know look at the military as the ONLY legitimate federal program.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 26, 2012, 02:56:05 pm

I think a rule of libertarians is that there's no position too extreme for one of them to adopt.  See:

http://www.volokh.com/2011/02/15/asteroid-defense-and-libertarianism/

Quote

I think it’s O.K. to violate people’s rights (e.g. through taxation) if the result is that you protect people’s rights to some greater extent (e.g. through police, courts, the military). But it’s not obvious to me that the Earth being hit by an asteroid (or, say, someone being hit by lightning or a falling tree) violates anyone’s rights; if that’s so, then I’m not sure I can justify preventing it through taxation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 03:03:32 pm

Pretty sure you can find extremists for every political alignment. Pick my brain and you'll find at least a dozen radical views.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 26, 2012, 03:04:54 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 03:03:32 pm

Pretty sure you can find extremists for every political alignment. Pick my brain and you'll find at least a dozen radical views.

You want to do WHAT to that platypus?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 03:05:15 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 26, 2012, 03:04:54 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 03:03:32 pm

Pretty sure you can find extremists for every political alignment. Pick my brain and you'll find at least a dozen radical views.

You want to do WHAT to that platypus?

Only if it consents.


(note: being facetious :P )

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 03:23:00 pm

Quote from: Zangi on November 26, 2012, 02:52:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

It would make secession more of a possibility... and America would have a much smaller projection power over the world... but then, it would stand to reason that if there cannot be a federal military, they'd push for more CIA/FBI/surveillance powers.

But why would America need a larger projection power over the world? Why is secession a problem

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on November 26, 2012, 03:39:09 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 03:23:00 pm

Quote from: Zangi on November 26, 2012, 02:52:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

It would make secession more of a possibility... and America would have a much smaller projection power over the world... but then, it would stand to reason that if there cannot be a federal military, they'd push for more CIA/FBI/surveillance powers.

But why would America need a larger projection power over the world? Why is secession a problem

I'm just saying the possible effects of demilitarizing the federal gov't and handing that over to the states.

To not-really-answer your questions...
Why, America has been doing so since... the 2nd World War, preemptive action to ensure that things go their way and what-not.
Secession is not really a problem, right now.  But it is a possibility in the far future where a number of states decide that they would be better off not with the US and are willing to fight for it.  Having their own militia, while the federal gov't does not have its own army, states can be emboldened by that fact.  That is if the FBI doesn't uncover and cur them before it gets traction...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 04:11:57 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 03:23:00 pm

Quote from: Zangi on November 26, 2012, 02:52:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

It would make secession more of a possibility... and America would have a much smaller projection power over the world... but then, it would stand to reason that if there cannot be a federal military, they'd push for more CIA/FBI/surveillance powers.

But why would America need a larger projection power over the world? Why is secession a problem

If you accept a certain (quite reasonable) way of viewing history: Because it's a step in the wrong direction. Since the stone age, larger administrative structures have evolved to deal with larger-scale problems; and in a time when global problems are becoming a pressing matter you wish to go back?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:34:31 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 04:11:57 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 03:23:00 pm

Quote from: Zangi on November 26, 2012, 02:52:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

It would make secession more of a possibility... and America would have a much smaller projection power over the world... but then, it would stand to reason that if there cannot be a federal military, they'd push for more CIA/FBI/surveillance powers.

But why would America need a larger projection power over the world? Why is secession a problem

If you accept a certain (quite reasonable) way of viewing history: Because it's a step in the wrong direction. Since the stone age, larger administrative structures have evolved to deal with larger-scale problems; and in a time when global problems are becoming a pressing matter you wish to go back?

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures, in my opinion. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 04:37:29 pm

Any "world police" or "world government" made to deal with these global problems should be a coalition of countries, not any singular entity. It's not the US's job to police the world; if you think there's a power vacuum and that something needs to fill it, I suggest pushing for the UN to get increased capacities and/or a new thing to take its place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2012, 04:41:49 pm

The problem with Al-Qaeda isn't really about Israel at all. The group's original goal was replacing moderate Muslim governments with Taliban-style hardliners, and elimination of "Western" influence in Islamic affairs. Hard-line American support of Israel is a fairly recent development, post-dating the terrorist group.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:43:33 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2012, 04:41:49 pm

The problem with Al-Qaeda isn't really about Israel at all. The group's original goal was replacing moderate Muslim governments with Taliban-style hardliners, and elimination of "Western" influence in Islamic affairs. Hard-line American support of Israel is a fairly recent development, post-dating the terrorist group.

But Al-Qaeda was formed in the late 1980s. America's been supporting Israel wholeheartedly since its creation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 04:47:05 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:34:31 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 04:11:57 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 03:23:00 pm

Quote from: Zangi on November 26, 2012, 02:52:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 02:43:06 pm

Some of the libertarians have. I've heard the argument that the federal military should be dissolved in favor of state militias.

It would make secession more of a possibility... and America would have a much smaller projection power over the world... but then, it would stand to reason that if there cannot be a federal military, they'd push for more CIA/FBI/surveillance powers.

But why would America need a larger projection power over the world? Why is secession a problem

If you accept a certain (quite reasonable) way of viewing history: Because it's a step in the wrong direction. Since the stone age, larger administrative structures have evolved to deal with larger-scale problems; and in a time when global problems are becoming a pressing matter you wish to go back?

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures, in my opinion. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

Ah yes, the good ol' times, when men were men, women were women and you had to pay tolls twice when going from one town to the next in some parts of Germany. Believe me, there's a reason that Europe started uniting after WWII.

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:34:31 pm

in my opinion

You may find this insulting, and that's a good thing: You're an idiot. Stuff can't get worse "in your opinion". Stuff either gets worse or it doesn't. It's a common mistake, but I RAEG every time I see it - so please, think of the children and don't use those crappy phrases.

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:34:31 pm

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures [...]. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

You actually think Al-Quaida's a serious problem? They killed, what, 10.000 people all in all. A million is a statistc, but on the grand scale, ten thousand's a joke. That's not to belittle all those that have suffered because of terrorism; but the great problems of our day are pollution, climate change, the switch to renewable energies and the negative effects of globalization - and these are not issues you can resolve on a state or even a federal level.

And just FIY the actual reason for islamic terrorism is the perceived 'cultural imperialism' of the west - rising life standards, that is ;)

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 04:37:29 pm

Any "world police" or "world government" made to deal with these global problems should be a coalition of countries, not any singular entity. It's not the US's job to police the world; if you think there's a power vacuum and that something needs to fill it, I suggest pushing for the UN to get increased capacities and/or a new thing to take its place.

The US is not a good candidate because it is the government of the USA and not the world; ultimately we do need a new global entity. A New World Order, for all you conspiracy theorists out there :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2012, 04:48:45 pm

No, we haven't. Outside of selling them obsolete military equipment, which we also sold to Iran and other countries in the region, the US tone toward Israel was lukewarm at best until Reagan. That's why so much of their equipment is based on British designs, as it was the UK that bent over backwards whenever Israel asked. Carter very nearly classified the nation as a rogue state due to their nuclear program, and one of the reasons for the support given to Iran was to provide a counterweight to the fortress-state of Israel. Regan began to throw wholesale support at them because most of the Arab states were Soviet-backed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 26, 2012, 04:51:25 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:43:33 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2012, 04:41:49 pm

The problem with Al-Qaeda isn't really about Israel at all. The group's original goal was replacing moderate Muslim governments with Taliban-style hardliners, and elimination of "Western" influence in Islamic affairs. Hard-line American support of Israel is a fairly recent development, post-dating the terrorist group.

But Al-Qaeda was formed in the late 1980s. America's been supporting Israel wholeheartedly since its creation.

During the Invasion of Afghanistan! By the Hyper-Secularist Communists. Now I wonder how they could have gotten the idea about invaders taking religion away.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 26, 2012, 04:51:42 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on November 26, 2012, 04:41:49 pm

The problem with Al-Qaeda isn't really about Israel at all. The group's original goal was replacing moderate Muslim governments with Taliban-style hardliners, and elimination of "Western" influence in Islamic affairs. Hard-line American support of Israel is a fairly recent development, post-dating the terrorist group.

On the topic of "replacing moderate Muslim governments", is anyone else worried about how Turkey seems to be turning less and less... secular? It's like the regional bastion of rational government is getting sapped from within.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 04:52:35 pm

A Turkish friend of mine complained about this some time ago - when even the Turkish themselves start worrying, we should too.

EDIT: Friend, not fiend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 26, 2012, 04:54:42 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 04:52:35 pm

A Turkish fiend of mine complained about this some time ago - when even the Turkish themselves start worrying, we should too.

The military academy's starting courses in Islamic literature or something. Thanks, Newsweek... even though you've been going downhill since 2009.

I don't want Turkey to see this fate- you made a great Star Wars ripoff, dammit!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 05:14:52 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 04:47:05 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:34:31 pm

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures, in my opinion. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

Ah yes, the good ol' times, when men were men, women were women and you had to pay tolls twice when going from one town to the next in some parts of Germany. Believe me, there's a reason that Europe started uniting after WWII.

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:34:31 pm

in my opinion

You may find this insulting, and that's a good thing: You're an idiot. Stuff can't get worse "in your opinion". Stuff either gets worse or it doesn't. It's a common mistake, but I RAEG every time I see it - so please, think of the children and don't use those crappy phrases.

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 04:34:31 pm

But problems are becoming global because of the larger administrative structures [...]. The situation with Al-Qaeda stems originally from the USA's unbending support for Israel, an example of the USA's projection of power over the world. Without that, why would Al-Qaeda bother with the USA

And, yes, I do wish to go back. We're not solving the problems, we're only making them worse. I say fuck it.

You actually think Al-Quaida's a serious problem? They killed, what, 10.000 people all in all. A million is a statistc, but on the grand scale, ten thousand's a joke. That's not to belittle all those that have suffered because of terrorism; but the great problems of our day are pollution, climate change, the switch to renewable energies and the negative effects of globalization - and these are not issues you can resolve on a state or even a federal level.

And just FIY the actual reason for islamic terrorism is the perceived 'cultural imperialism' of the west - rising life standards, that is ;)

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 04:37:29 pm

Any "world police" or "world government" made to deal with these global problems should be a coalition of countries, not any singular entity. It's not the US's job to police the world; if you think there's a power vacuum and that something needs to fill it, I suggest pushing for the UN to get increased capacities and/or a new thing to take its place.

The US is not a good candidate because it is the government of the USA and not the world; ultimately we do need a new global entity. A New World Order, for all you conspiracy theorists out there :D

Now now sir, I know you're just a bit hyped up and that so I won't take your comments too seriously, but I'm going to have to pull you up about it. I haven't insulted a single person in this thread at any point, even if I disagree with them. I don't think me expressing my opinion like everyone else required you calling me an idiot and shitting on my opinions in the way that you did, no matter how many smiley faces you send me. Hell I don't even know you. That was just nasty, and it's the kind of stuff that Toady would have to get involved in if I started flaming you back. Calm down mate.

But I do see several thousand people dying as a tragedy. It's not a joke. A million people dying on the other hand is an unthinkable horror. Al-Qaeda were also the main focus for American foreign intervention for the initial stages of the "War on Terror", and they basically embody the kind of sketchy, badly planned NATO globetrotting shennanigans that I was criticising. Along with the Taliban and Ba'ath Party-governed Iraq. I'm trying to use these conflicts as examples of why countries like the USA, Russia or China should not have larger projections of power. It would be very nice if they did deal with such important issues as climate change, globalization and so forth, but guess what - they're struggling, even with all this power, and they're not giving it their 100% for all sorts of reasons. The whole thing is rotten to the core.

If you'd given me the chance to express myself properly, instead of being like that, you would have found that I too believe in the merits of world government, like you. I advocate fracturing the superstates of the world (including the USA) into small nations with autonomous regions and no nuclear bombs, with armies only large enough to defend themselves, governed by a multinational entity like an expanded UN.

I am sorry for the huge quote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 05:38:40 pm

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 05:40:31 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 05:38:40 pm

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

What is Rick Perry's record on personal freedom?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 05:41:59 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 05:40:31 pm

What is Rick Perry's record on personal freedom?

Not good. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 05:43:07 pm

Not to mention that he wants to repeal the voting rights act, y'know that pesky thing that keeps southern governors like him from disenfranchising blacks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 05:51:27 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 05:41:59 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 05:40:31 pm

What is Rick Perry's record on personal freedom?

Not good. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo)

See now, surely a weaker federal government doesn't always mean that it would be weak in areas such as controlling gay marriage and such. Surely states can have other rights.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 26, 2012, 06:03:38 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ex-republicans-claim-fla-gop-suppressed-democratic-vote-194121956--election.html

So yea. Obviously they didn't suppress it quite enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:18:38 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 05:38:40 pm

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

Or that you trust, say, Christine Gregoire or Gary Johnson or someone over Obama.

And I could see people of that opinion.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 06:21:56 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 05:14:52 pm

Calm down mate.

Alright, sorry about that stuff - really was inappropriate; if you want to I can edit it away.

The main point, though: You can't start splitting nations without first having established the bigger entity. Once you've done that, it's not a big deal and will be done at some point if it hasn't even become unnecessary by then.
Once again Germany is a good example on a smaller scale: Lots of small entities become fewer medium-sized entities with Napoleon, then become a single nation with Bismarck. Then comes along the first half of the 20th century, and after that the states of Germany are redrawn massively baý the allies - and that was no problem, although it had been unthinkable a few decades ago.

The problems don't come from too much centralization; they come from too little. If the mightiest man in the world is elected by only about a fifteenth (is that about right?) of the global population, something's quite wrong.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:18:38 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 05:38:40 pm

Saying that a weaker federal government would result in less infringement of citizens rights is saying that you trust Rick Perry over Barack Obama when it comes to personal freedom.

Or that you trust, say, Christine Gregoire or Gary Johnson or someone over Obama.

And I could see people of that opinion.

You can't be sure which one, though. That's what subsidiarity is for: In principle the states do everything, but the federal government has a right to meddle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:24:47 pm

Of course, the federal government is just as much of a tossup, what with how often they meddle for the worse. (Federal drug laws, federal surveillance, federal gay marriage ban, education bullshit)

There's a lot of states in the US that would probably be much better off without the feds shoving things down their throat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 06:34:07 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:24:47 pm

Of course, the federal government is just as much of a tossup, what with how often they meddle for the worse. (Federal drug laws, federal surveillance, federal gay marriage ban, education bullshit)

Meh, democracy. Too sad the other systems don't work even half as well.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:35:32 pm

This is technically a discussion about federal power, not democracy. Not really related. You get the same debate even in non-democratic organizations and nations.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 26, 2012, 06:44:19 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on November 26, 2012, 06:21:56 pm

The problems don't come from too much centralization; they come from too little. If the mightiest man in the world is elected by only about a fifteenth (is that about right?) of the global population, something's quite wrong.

Heehee, no, no. Obama was voted in by ~64 million people. Out of ~7 billion total world population. Which comes out to... .0091, or about nine tenths of a percent. Fifteenth, heehee. America's total population is only about 4% of the world's, or around a twenty-fifth. Obama was voted in by less than a forth of that. You overestimated a bit ;D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 26, 2012, 06:45:13 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:35:32 pm

This is technically a discussion about federal power, not democracy. Not really related. You get the same debate even in non-democratic organizations and nations.

Does it ever happen to anyone that no matter how many times you read a post, it still comes back in your new replies? This is my that. This comment is to get rid of it.
 
 

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:24:47 pm

Of course, the federal government is just as much of a tossup, what with how often they meddle for the worse. (Federal drug laws, federal surveillance, federal gay marriage ban, education bullshit)

There's a lot of states in the US that would probably be much better off without the feds shoving things down their throat.

And there's many that would be far worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on November 26, 2012, 06:48:51 pm

Quote from: misko27 on November 26, 2012, 06:45:13 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 06:35:32 pm

This is technically a discussion about federal power, not democracy. Not really related. You get the same debate even in non-democratic organizations and nations.

Does it ever happen to anyone that no matter how many times you read a post, it still comes back in your new replies? This is my that. This comment is to get rid of it.

It happens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 26, 2012, 06:55:36 pm

Things like what? environmental regulation necessary for human health? Workplace safety? Freedom of speech? Right to vote as minority? Right to prosecute spousal rape? These are the kinds of things that would go away in many states if the federal government wasn't able to infringe upon "states rights". It is the duty of the federal government to defend the people and their rights from enemies both foreign and domestic. It isn't perfect, and the federal drug and terrorism wars are massive black marks against it. But on the whole, the federal government does more good than harm for Americans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PyroDesu on November 26, 2012, 07:20:46 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-open-running-president-again-215701762--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-open-running-president-again-215701762--election.html)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Half of me hopes he does for the sheer hilarity that could ensue, the other half is horrified at the prospect that if he does he might somehow win. _{(Don't ask me how.)}

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 07:27:36 pm

Someone like him could never win. Santorum running guarantees a Democrat victory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on November 26, 2012, 07:33:19 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 07:27:36 pm

Someone like him could never win. Santorum running guarantees a Democrat victory.

Well...him running in the primaries doesn't mean that. But him being the Republican Candidate certainly does. Provided the country doesn't take a drastic turn for the stupid in the next four years, anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 08:59:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 07:27:36 pm

Someone like him could never win. Santorum running guarantees a Democrat victory.

What's it like in your alternative universe where bad candidates never win elections?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 26, 2012, 09:01:42 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 08:59:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 07:27:36 pm

Someone like him could never win. Santorum running guarantees a Democrat victory.

What's it like in your alternative universe where bad candidates never win elections?

It's following current demographic trends.
 
Of course, as Dan Savage so elegantly pointed out, don't joke. There could have been a terrorist attack, or a hurrican, or something unpredictable, that would put Rick Santorum in the white house. So, do, not, vote for him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 09:09:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 08:59:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 07:27:36 pm

Someone like him could never win. Santorum running guarantees a Democrat victory.

What's it like in your alternative universe where bad candidates never win elections?

A bad candidate wining is one thing, but Santorum is a far-right nutjob who alienated the public during this election. The US is becoming steadily more liberal, and in four years Santorum will be even more unelectable. He's so off the mark that Romney, who actually was a lot more moderate than him, lost badly.

We're talking about a guy who publicly stated that Obama was trying to institute eugenic abortions and then called him a "government nigger" during a speech just a few weeks later. I think we're safe from President Santorum.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 09:28:04 pm

He seems like a far right nutjob because he lost.  Can you name one presidential candidate since 1945 who never won the white house but didn't come across as hopelessly far from the political center?  Once someone's political ship is sunk his defenders vanish and the vultures come out.  When someone is a viable candidate then people close ranks around them and pointing out the obvious becomes a partisan issue.  If Santorum was given the same cheerleading squad as Bush then he'd be considered just as palatable as Bush.

Men far, far worse then Santorum have won democratic elections and lead their countries into ruin.  It happens.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 26, 2012, 10:57:29 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 03:05:15 pm

Quote from: Darvi on November 26, 2012, 03:04:54 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 03:03:32 pm

Pretty sure you can find extremists for every political alignment. Pick my brain and you'll find at least a dozen radical views.

You want to do WHAT to that platypus?

Only if it consents.


(note: being facetious :P )

So... What you are saying is that you don't want a consenting one?

Hey, where's Perry?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scelly9 on November 26, 2012, 11:37:52 pm

-.-

God. Dammit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 12:38:30 am

Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/26/foreign-policys-tom-ricks-appears-on-fox-news-t/191509):

Quote

Fox invited Tom Ricks on the air Monday morning to talk about their Benghazi conspiracy theories. 90 seconds later, Ricks destroyed Fox's argument, accused the network of operating as a wing of the Republican Party, and was cut off prematurely.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 27, 2012, 02:42:52 am

Is it me or you americans have finally reached the point when your ridiculously silly long election campaign wrap around and you're now in a state of permanent campaign? I cannot wait to see candidates for 2020 battle for airtime agains those for 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 27, 2012, 02:49:39 am

We do our politics like we do our holidays. Violently corporatized and extending successively longer periods as attempts to monetize reach greater heights.

Remember, Sheb: The founding reason for th'USA was to make more money. Everything else we say and extend as platitudes beyond that? Generally an outright lie, on the net. Follow the money, m'fellow.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on November 27, 2012, 03:07:28 am

Quote from: misko27 on November 26, 2012, 09:01:42 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 26, 2012, 08:59:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 07:27:36 pm

Someone like him could never win. Santorum running guarantees a Democrat victory.

What's it like in your alternative universe where bad candidates never win elections?

It's following current demographic trends.
 
Of course, as Dan Savage so elegantly pointed out, don't joke. There could have been a terrorist attack, or a hurrican, or something unpredictable, that would put Rick Santorum in the white house. So, do, not, vote for him.

Um...we had a hurricane. It interrupted the Republican National Convention, remember?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on November 27, 2012, 04:19:40 am

Rick Santorum could run for president many times before he becomes too old to be a conceivable candidate. He's only 54.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 27, 2012, 06:34:18 am

Quote from: Sheb on November 27, 2012, 02:42:52 am

Is it me or you americans have finally reached the point when your ridiculously silly long election campaign wrap around and you're now in a state of permanent campaign? I cannot wait to see candidates for 2020 battle for airtime agains those for 2016.

Depending on what the campaigning looks like, a state of permanent campaigning can be a good thing: It draws the public's attention to politics and - to some degree - keeps politicians to say one thing before the election and another thing afterwards. That's not really how it is in the US, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Agdune on November 27, 2012, 07:18:53 am

I found it kinda funny how a hurricane managed to land on the city hosting of the Republican convention, on the day of the convention, and yet the religious nutjobs STILL thought it was because there were too many gays. Logic would dictate that perhaps, if god's wrath was real, he might just be targeting it at someone, yes? Possibly the very prominent event which was occuring where the hurricane hit?

Nah, it must be those gays all over the country. That's why god hit the Republicans convention with a hurricane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on November 27, 2012, 07:46:01 am

Quote from: Agdune on November 27, 2012, 07:18:53 am

I found it kinda funny how a hurricane managed to land on the city hosting of the Republican convention, on the day of the convention, and yet the religious nutjobs STILL thought it was because there were too many gays. Logic would dictate that perhaps, if god's wrath was real, he might just be targeting it at someone, yes? Possibly the very prominent event which was occuring where the hurricane hit?

Nah, it must be those gays all over the country. That's why god hit the Republicans convention with a hurricane.

I think you're both right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Newbunkle on November 27, 2012, 09:44:30 am

Quote from: Agdune on November 27, 2012, 07:18:53 am

I found it kinda funny how a hurricane managed to land on the city hosting of the Republican convention, on the day of the convention, and yet the religious nutjobs STILL thought it was because there were too many gays. Logic would dictate that perhaps, if god's wrath was real, he might just be targeting it at someone, yes? Possibly the very prominent event which was occuring where the hurricane hit?

Nah, it must be those gays all over the country. That's why god hit the Republicans convention with a hurricane.

Hmm, but this conflicts with the theory that the most militant homophobes are in the closet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on November 27, 2012, 11:30:16 am

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 26, 2012, 07:33:19 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 26, 2012, 07:27:36 pm

Someone like him could never win. Santorum running guarantees a Democrat victory.

Well...him running in the primaries doesn't mean that. But him being the Republican Candidate certainly does. Provided the country doesn't take a drastic turn for the stupid in the next four years, anyway.

I'm going to agree, it is very possible for Santorum to win the Republican Primary.  Cause there are not jobs who would still support him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 27, 2012, 12:13:36 pm

It's only page 200 for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 27, 2012, 01:13:04 pm

Quote from: Agdune on November 27, 2012, 07:18:53 am

I found it kinda funny how a hurricane managed to land on the city hosting of the Republican convention, on the day of the convention, and yet the religious nutjobs STILL thought it was because there were too many gays. Logic would dictate that perhaps, if god's wrath was real, he might just be targeting it at someone, yes? Possibly the very prominent event which was occuring where the hurricane hit?

Nah, it must be those gays all over the country. That's why god hit the Republicans convention with a hurricane.

Presumably to punish folks for not getting the job done.

More realistically, from the divine wrath perspective, hurricanes are proof that god hates people near coastlines. More accurately, natural disasters in general are proof that god hates idiots (who live in major risk areas) and poor structural engineers and/or the people who acquire their services. Maybe YHWH's a bit of a... what would you call it, geocist? Geographist? Bigot who's bigoted against people that live in certain geographical areas. Not nations, mind. Like, someone that hates everyone that lives in coniferous forests or in flood plains or somethin'. Like dat, yeah.

... does that actually have a word?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 04:22:00 pm

Let's just lock the thread right here and it can be the devil's thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 27, 2012, 04:25:02 pm

Rick Santorum's newest crusade. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on November 27, 2012, 04:26:50 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 27, 2012, 04:25:02 pm

Rick Santorum's newest crusade. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html)

*SIGH*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 27, 2012, 04:47:10 pm

Quote from: greatorder on November 27, 2012, 09:49:40 am

I find it sort of funny how you're debating 'god's judgement' on page 666.

I was going to make a similar comment that IT IS TIME....UNLEASH THE PIT OF ABADDON! AND THEIR K-STREET LOBBYISTS!


So, anybody paying attention to the rhetoric with the "fiscal cliff" negotiations? Basically, the Republicans are back to "We're not going to do shit, and we're going to say it's all your fault."

Because, y'know....winning strategy for them last month, right?

Mitch McConnell even went so far as to say "So we’ll continue to wait on the President, and hope that he has what it takes to bring people together to forge a compromise. If he does, we’ll get there. If he doesn’t, we won’t. It’s that simple.”

I.e. "We're going to be dicks. If the President has what it takes to make us stop being dicks, we'll compromise. Otherwise, fuck him and the horse he rode in on, and it's his fault for not calling in the Secret Service to hold a gun to our fucking heads."

Seriously...if I was Obama, I'd position snipers in the Capitol gallery and say, "Okay...nobody gets out until you guys work out a compromise that balances tax increases and spending cuts. You try to leave, Corporal Thompson up there is going to put one between your hearing aids. And if you even think of calling that douchebag Norquist, your state will be holding a special election to find your replacement. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR, BITCHES??"

...it's probably a good thing I'm not President.  :-\

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 27, 2012, 04:49:01 pm

Are you kidding? I'd vote for you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 27, 2012, 04:55:54 pm

Shit, I would extraordinary rendition those bastards to Guantanamo for making terrorist threats against the country.

Mostly joking of course.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 04:59:15 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 27, 2012, 04:25:02 pm

Rick Santorum's newest crusade. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html)

Thank god someone finally had the guts to stand up to the disabled.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 27, 2012, 05:00:25 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 04:59:15 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 27, 2012, 04:25:02 pm

Rick Santorum's newest crusade. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html)

Thank god someone finally had the guts to stand up to the disabled.

You read my mind. How Courageous.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 27, 2012, 05:02:47 pm

I do somewhat often wonder if genuine consequences on the level of broken limbs et al would straighten out the politics in... well, most countries, really. "Fly right or we remove your femur with your fibula, y'ken?"

"But Barbarism, Frumple!"

"Well, yes, but extraordinary responsibility should come with extraordinary consequence, should it not? If one is not willing to risk life and limb for one's constituents, what worth are they as a representative?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 27, 2012, 05:04:53 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 04:59:15 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 27, 2012, 04:25:02 pm

Rick Santorum's newest crusade. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html)

Thank god someone finally had the guts to stand up to the disabled.

They are truly the privileged elite, with the most spacious bathroom stalls, the closest parking spaces and entire industries dedicated to supporting that "lifestyle".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 27, 2012, 05:07:42 pm

His poor daughter. At this stage, my usual wish of throwing them into Africa and taking them back after a couple of weeks would probably only give them a scent of paradise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PyroDesu on November 27, 2012, 05:13:15 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 27, 2012, 04:47:10 pm

And if you even think of calling that douchebag Norquist, your state will be holding a special election to find your replacement. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR, BITCHES??"

Both of my state's senators, both Republicans, have recently, publicly, announced that they are rejecting Norquist's pledge, and that the only thing that they are obligated to is the oath they were sworn in on.

Whether or not this means they're actually going to do something, I don't know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on November 27, 2012, 05:13:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 27, 2012, 05:04:53 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 04:59:15 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 27, 2012, 04:25:02 pm

Rick Santorum's newest crusade. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html)

Thank god someone finally had the guts to stand up to the disabled.

They are truly the privileged elite, with the most spacious bathroom stalls, the closest parking spaces and entire industries dedicated to supporting that "lifestyle".

It took me a second to realize you weren't referring to Santorum & Co.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 05:15:11 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 27, 2012, 04:47:10 pm

Seriously...if I was Obama, I'd position snipers in the Capitol gallery and say, "Okay...nobody gets out until you guys work out a compromise that balances tax increases and spending cuts. You try to leave, Corporal Thompson up there is going to put one between your hearing aids. And if you even think of calling that douchebag Norquist, your state will be holding a special election to find your replacement. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR, BITCHES??"

...it's probably a good thing I'm not President.  :-\

So if you were president you'd follow in the stellar economic example of the UK...

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?recession_bars=Off&id=GBRRGDPQDSNAQ,GDPC1&scale=Left,Left&range=Custom,Custom&cosd=2007-01-01,2007-01-01&coed=2012-04-01,2012-07-01&line_color=%230000ff,%23ff0000&link_values=false,false&line_style=Solid,Solid&mark_type=NONE,NONE&mw=4,4&lw=1,1&ost=-99999,-99999&oet=99999,99999&mma=0,0&fml=a,a&fq=Quarterly,Quarterly&fam=avg,avg&fgst=lin,lin&transformation=nbd,nbd&vintage_date=2012-11-27,2012-11-27&revision_date=2012-11-27,2012-11-27&nd=2007-12-01,2007-12-01)

Red line is the US.  Blue line is the UK.  2010 is when the UK decided that the responsible thing was a mix of budget cuts and tax increases.  Both lines are scaled to pre-recession peak.  Notice how the US economy is growing and the UK economy is shrinking.

This ain't rocket science, people.  You do not try to balance the budget until the economy gets close to normal employment levels.

My hope is that the fiscal cliff looms and Obama "caves" and agrees to a 2 year extension of all tax breaks and spending.  Probably a face saving but small amounts of tax hikes and spending cuts that are equal in size and too small to derail the recovery.  The republicans would be stupid to agree to such a deal, assuming that they are completely unpatriotic bastards.  It would do little to hurt the economy and mean they would probably lose control of the house of representatives in 2014 as democrats bask in the unemployment rate falling under 7% or even 6%.  But the republicans might not realize this because they have rejected mainstream economics in favor of supply side jesus economics.  So I can hope.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 27, 2012, 05:46:56 pm

... that graph makes me want to strangle people. Just... just putting that out there. When you do something like that. You go from zero up. Because that shit is deceptive as hell. Lies, damn lies, and statistics? There's your statistics.

Hell, might even be accurate, or the point being made a good one. But how that's presented? A graph maker needs to be kneecapped. That kind of crap doesn't help the dialectic.

Probably just a bit tired (about to take a nap) but... that rubs the wrong way, man. Don't even necessarily disagree with the point you're making, mainiac (at worst, I'd say it's probably simplifying the situation far too much, but whatev'.). That's just a terrible graph. All of my half-conscious hate, for that graph.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 05:49:31 pm

Quote from: Frumple on November 27, 2012, 05:46:56 pm

... that graph makes me want to strangle people. Just... just putting that out there. When you do something like that. You go from zero up. Because that shit is deceptive as hell. Lies, damn lies, and statistics? There's your statistics.

Ok, I'm downright offended here.  That graph is not deceptive.  Why on earth would I want to make 0 the bottom of the scale?  I'm showing trend, not absolute quantity.  I always go to tedious lengths to avoid omitting pertinent details and you are accusing me of deception because a graph doesn't start at 0?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 05:51:00 pm

It's basically undeniable that the UK government managed to turn a steady recovery into a double-dip recession via their austerity measures.

Incidentally the loss in revenue and increase in unemployment caused by this recollapse means the deficit hasn't really been helped much

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on November 27, 2012, 05:51:03 pm

Not scaling it would be downright stupid. Huge amounts of whitespace for no good reason is bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 05:53:41 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 05:15:11 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 27, 2012, 04:47:10 pm

Seriously...if I was Obama, I'd position snipers in the Capitol gallery and say, "Okay...nobody gets out until you guys work out a compromise that balances tax increases and spending cuts. You try to leave, Corporal Thompson up there is going to put one between your hearing aids. And if you even think of calling that douchebag Norquist, your state will be holding a special election to find your replacement. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR, BITCHES??"

...it's probably a good thing I'm not President.  :-\

So if you were president you'd follow in the stellar economic example of the UK...

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?recession_bars=Off&id=GBRRGDPQDSNAQ,GDPC1&scale=Left,Left&range=Custom,Custom&cosd=2007-01-01,2007-01-01&coed=2012-04-01,2012-07-01&line_color=%230000ff,%23ff0000&link_values=false,false&line_style=Solid,Solid&mark_type=NONE,NONE&mw=4,4&lw=1,1&ost=-99999,-99999&oet=99999,99999&mma=0,0&fml=a,a&fq=Quarterly,Quarterly&fam=avg,avg&fgst=lin,lin&transformation=nbd,nbd&vintage_date=2012-11-27,2012-11-27&revision_date=2012-11-27,2012-11-27&nd=2007-12-01,2007-12-01)

Red line is the US.  Blue line is the UK.  2010 is when the UK decided that the responsible thing was a mix of budget cuts and tax increases.  Both lines are scaled to pre-recession peak.  Notice how the US economy is growing and the UK economy is shrinking.

This ain't rocket science, people.  You do not try to balance the budget until the economy gets close to normal employment levels.

My hope is that the fiscal cliff looms and Obama "caves" and agrees to a 2 year extension of all tax breaks and spending.  Probably a face saving but small amounts of tax hikes and spending cuts that are equal in size and too small to derail the recovery.  The republicans would be stupid to agree to such a deal, assuming that they are completely unpatriotic bastards.  It would do little to hurt the economy and mean they would probably lose control of the house of representatives in 2014 as democrats bask in the unemployment rate falling under 7% or even 6%.  But the republicans might not realize this because they have rejected mainstream economics in favor of supply side jesus economics.  So I can hope.

Or you could focus on spending cuts as opposed to tax increases or stimulus and make out like Estonia.
(http://www.tarkinvestor.ee/images/Estonia_vs_US_real_GDP.png)

(http://www.tarkinvestor.ee/images/Estonia_vs_US_budget_deficit2_1.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 27, 2012, 05:56:19 pm

Y'all want bad statistics? You can't get much worse than using the same scale for billions of dollars AND millions of euros.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 05:56:39 pm

In an internet full of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks I respect GreatJustice's continuing commitment to bizarre examples.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 05:59:28 pm

And GreatJustice brings actual deceptive statistics.

Wow, economies that are way backwards and recovering from the post soviet era grew faster before the crisis?  No way!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 06:03:04 pm

Also apparently it's a good thing to lose 14.3% of your GDP in a single year

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 06:11:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 05:59:28 pm

And GreatJustice brings actual deceptive statistics.

Wow, economies that are way backwards and recovering from the post soviet era grew faster before the crisis?  No way!

And after.

Another one, if you prefer:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-24_GJdJxVgk/T9Em8hoF2II/AAAAAAAAAbE/aNknAS5aBgE/s1600/estonia-greece-us-per-capita-real-gdp-2007q3%253D100.png)

It recovered about four times as fast as the US and is presently still growing, while simultaneously running a budget surplus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 06:16:44 pm

According to that graph the US is at about 98% of its post collapse GDP.

Estonia is at more like 91%.

And you're saying Estonia is the one that should be emulated?

I mean that graph isn't misleading so much as just bad for your case

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 06:21:23 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 06:16:44 pm

According to that graph the US is at about 98% of its post collapse GDP.

Estonia is at more like 91%.

And you're saying Estonia is the one that should be emulated?

Estonia is running a surplus and the lowest public debt (as a percentage of GDP) in the Eurozone, whereas the US is in debt equivalent to over 100% of its GDP. Yeah, I'd say Estonia is the one that should be emulated.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 06:26:22 pm

Why even bring up graphs of GDP if you're then going to ignore them and act like debt is the only thing that matters?  Maybe I'm crazy but I'd prefer a healthy economy and a not-horribly collapsed economy to CLEARING THE DEFICIT RIGHT NOW

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 27, 2012, 06:27:25 pm

WIZARD NEEDS SURPLUS, BADLY.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 06:36:35 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 06:26:22 pm

Why even bring up graphs of GDP if you're then going to ignore them and act like debt is the only thing that matters?  Maybe I'm crazy but I'd prefer a healthy economy and a not-horribly collapsed economy to CLEARING THE DEFICIT RIGHT NOW

Because a 14% drop followed by a growth rate of 10% and a surplus is a HORRIBLY CRASHED ECONOMY and a 3.5% drop followed by a 4.5% increase (and a gigantic deficit) is a horribly crashed economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 06:41:01 pm

So yeah you are just saying deficit bad because deficit bad.  Don't you remember you were trying to make a point about GDP earlier?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:10:19 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 06:41:01 pm

So yeah you are just saying deficit bad because deficit bad.  Don't you remember you were trying to make a point about GDP earlier?

Sure. Estonia's GDP growth following the recession was quite a bit better than that of the US, and still is actually.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:EST&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+of+estonia#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:EST:GBR:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=1164603600000&tend=1322370000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Estonia's growth (as of 2011) was/is 7.3%. For reference, the UK's is 0.65% and the US's is 1.7%. So not only did Estonia not generate a deficit (a good thing, unless you think deficits are positive), they recovered more strongly afterwards than the US did.

This is still coupled with the fact that they did this while generating a budget surplus, which is a nice bonus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on November 27, 2012, 07:23:00 pm

It's also a tiny country with a population of 1.29 million people and a GDP that is a fraction of the US's.

I just don't think that the two are all that comparable. Economics is incredibly complicated, and what works in one situation doesn't necessarily work in another. The sheer scale difference required for, say, any large government program is immense.

Providing healthcare for ~1 million people and ~300 million people is not just 'the same thing but more' when you try to put it into practice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 27, 2012, 07:24:27 pm

I guess to compare two countries' post-crisis performance you have to look at their pre-crisis performance, and - relatively speaking - Estonia and the US seem to be comparable in that regard (98% vs. 91%, was it?).

HOWEVER: Estonia and the US aren't comparable in most regards - recent history, size, location, EU membership etc. So this whole discussion is kinda pointless, really ;)

And there's no way in hell that Greek GDP per capita was at some point higher than US GDP per capita. Might be an effect of how GDP is measured, though.
Now, with regards to the US and the European countries: What do you think can be done to get the economy back up and the governments free to act right now and drive down debt in the long run?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 07:28:02 pm

Quote from: Mephansteras on November 27, 2012, 07:23:00 pm

I just don't think that the two are all that comparable.

Yeah you could probably say this to all his comparisons really.  They have to compare 100+ years ago to today, or a minor recession caused by the end of a war to a major collapse in the entire economic system, or the largest economy in the world to a tiny former-Soviet country.

Quote from: Helgoland on November 27, 2012, 07:24:27 pm

And there's no way in hell that Greek GDP per capita was at some point higher than US GDP per capita. Might be an effect of how GDP is measured, though.

It has no units at all actually so it's kindof hard to tell

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 07:29:10 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 06:11:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 05:59:28 pm

And GreatJustice brings actual deceptive statistics.

Wow, economies that are way backwards and recovering from the post soviet era grew faster before the crisis?  No way!

And after.

Another one, if you prefer:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-24_GJdJxVgk/T9Em8hoF2II/AAAAAAAAAbE/aNknAS5aBgE/s1600/estonia-greece-us-per-capita-real-gdp-2007q3%253D100.png)

It recovered about four times as fast as the US and is presently still growing, while simultaneously running a budget surplus.

How is that a "win" for Estonia, since the GDP per capita fell faster than America and has NOT recovered as much? The blue line is Estonia.

also, if you look up unemployment figures for Estonia, they were 3.9% before the crisis, and have "settled" at a steady 10% now, with that magical fixing you're promoting.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:30:34 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 07:29:10 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 06:11:44 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 05:59:28 pm

And GreatJustice brings actual deceptive statistics.

Wow, economies that are way backwards and recovering from the post soviet era grew faster before the crisis?  No way!

And after.

Another one, if you prefer:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-24_GJdJxVgk/T9Em8hoF2II/AAAAAAAAAbE/aNknAS5aBgE/s1600/estonia-greece-us-per-capita-real-gdp-2007q3%253D100.png)

It recovered about four times as fast as the US and is presently still growing, while simultaneously running a budget surplus.

How is that a "win" for Estonia, since the GDP per capita fell faster than America and has NOT recovered as much?

It recovered far quicker and by larger margins than that of America, it just had a far larger initial fall (for a variety of reasons mostly relating to Estonian monetary policy).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 07:33:38 pm

Now you're mincing words, because it's still worse off than America, relative to how it was before the crisis., plus 2.5 times the unemployment they used to have, with no drop in sight.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 07:35:51 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:30:34 pm

It recovered far quicker and by larger margins than that of America, it just had a far larger initial fall (for a variety of reasons mostly relating to Estonian monetary policy).

So Estonia is comparable to the US in some regards (the ones that support your point) but not comparable in other regards (the ones that destroy your point).  Thanks for the clarification.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flare on November 27, 2012, 07:36:38 pm

Would a far larger fall mean that's easier to make up lost ground, and where the closer you are to reclaiming all of the GDP the efforts required to do so also increase? Kinda like how if a sudden shock obliterated three quarters of the GDP in an industrialized country, but leaves all the man-power, industrial capacity, and expertise intact. I would imagine getting that 50% of your GDP would be quite easy to do, while that last 10 or 20% becomes a steep climb because the economy was operating at its optimal most well-oiled peak before the crash.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 07:38:22 pm

That's right, if you look at Venezuela for example, they had the coup and oil strike of 2002-2003 which crippled the economy.

http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

Then the next couple of years, massive growth. 18% growth in 2004, 10% growth in 2005, 9% growth in 2006, 8% growth in 2007. Only the credit crisis put and end to their economic expansion, not any domestic policy.

I guess that several years of record growth in a row was due to Hugo Chavez's policies, right GreatJustice?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 27, 2012, 07:39:10 pm

I dunno, but since '07, which seems to be the measure we're going by, Estonia has been consistently lower than the US. And as you said, they had a worse situation to begin with, so the recovery might seem better than the US' but it doesn't change that they're still worse off overall.

E: Bah, ninjas and homework. I hate you both.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:58:07 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 07:33:38 pm

Now you're mincing words, because it's still worse off than America, relative to how it was before the crisis., plus 2.5 times the unemployment they used to have, with no drop in sight.

Last I checked, 20% to 10% is a drop that can be seen pretty easily. But hey, if you want to argue that Estonia's recovery with 7.8% growth immediately following the recession coupled with a surplus is inferior to America's recovery with ~2% growth immediately following the recession coupled with a huge deficit, be my guest.

Quote from: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 07:38:22 pm

That's right, if you look at Venezuela for example, they had the coup and oil strike of 2002-2003 which crippled the economy.

http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

Then the next couple of years, massive growth. 18% growth in 2004, 10% growth in 2005, 9% growth in 2006, 8% growth in 2007. Only the credit crisis put and end to their economic expansion, not any domestic policy.

I guess that 4 years of record growth in a row was due to Hugo Chavez's policies, right GreatJustice?

Gigantic oil reserves are certainly helpful. It's also worth noting that I didn't mention Estonia's pre-recession growth, largely because such growth was artificial and the result of inflationary policy (hence why the collapse was so large).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 08:01:06 pm

If it's purely "gigantic oil reserves", why did no other government for 20 full years before Chavez have a sustained growth rate like that over multiple years?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 27, 2012, 08:03:22 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 08:01:06 pm

If it's purely "gigantic oil reserves", why did no other government for 20 full years before Chavez have a sustained growth rate like that over multiple years?

Ther are places with some BIG oil reserves. As does my favorite example, Canada. And texas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 08:04:39 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:58:07 pm

Gigantic oil reserves are certainly helpful. It's also worth noting that I didn't mention Estonia's pre-recession growth, largely because such growth was artificial and the result of inflationary policy (hence why the collapse was so large).

So you are saying that you posted a graph where more then half the space is wasted on years that are unimportant and deceptive?

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:58:07 pm

But hey, if you want to argue that Estonia's recovery with 7.8% growth immediately following the recession coupled with a surplus is inferior to America's recovery with ~2% growth immediately following the recession coupled with a huge deficit, be my guest.

Maybe you should shoot yourself in the foot?  Your health will show a marked improvement in the weeks right after you shoot yourself.  Should make you healthier afterwards, right?  I mean your health is improving so much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 08:11:52 pm

It's kinda ridiculous to compare some of the smallest economies in the world to the largest. There are 1.3 million people in Estonia, it's a very poor, and still developing economy. Those places ALWAYS have fast growth. Most of their export economy is a service economy taking advantage of the fact they border much larger countries of Russia, Germany, and in Scandinavia.

Just not a comparable situation AT ALL to America, or to large European countries. Plus, u know they have one of the lowest incomes of the entire eurozone, and very high unemployment. They're starting from very low income per GDP. GDP would have to grow faster than America for MANY years to be comparable.

The same things goes for trading-based city-states like Signapore or Hong Kong, they solely exist to service the larger economies around them. That's just not something that can be "emulated" by full-sized countries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 08:14:02 pm

Wait before we write Estonia off I want to ask Great Justice a question.

Suppose by 2015, 8 years after the crisis, Estonia has restored it's GDP to the pre-crash levels.  Does that make Estonia's recovery a success?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 08:26:20 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 08:01:06 pm

If it's purely "gigantic oil reserves", why did no other government for 20 full years before Chavez have a sustained growth rate like that over multiple years?

Not purely. Regular nationalization of industry but even moreso double digit inflation are also quite helpful.

However, Saudi Arabia is basically nothing but oil industry and STILL averages around 5% growth each year, with no contraction during the recession like Venezuela had, and fairly moderate inflation rates. Is Saudi Arabia's growth the result of their brilliant economic policies? Similarly, the United Arab Emirates experienced an average of around 8% growth each year, which was even higher than Venezuela's over a longer time period and quite a bit more stable to boot.

Actually, for the sake of comparison, growth in the UAE from 2003 to 2007 was:

2003: 16%
2004: 10%
2005: 8.5%
2006: 8.8%
2007: 6.5%

So... basically the same, but longer and more consistent. Actually, I take the previous statements back; oil revenues probably ARE the biggest contributor to Venezuela, considering the correlation with the UAE (a completely unrelated country with different economic policies).

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 08:04:39 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:58:07 pm

But hey, if you want to argue that Estonia's recovery with 7.8% growth immediately following the recession coupled with a surplus is inferior to America's recovery with ~2% growth immediately following the recession coupled with a huge deficit, be my guest.

Maybe you should shoot yourself in the foot?  Your health will show a marked improvement in the weeks right after you shoot yourself.  Should make you healthier afterwards, right?  I mean your health is improving so much.

If your foot recovers 92% of its capacity a few weeks after being shot, either you're taking some very good medicine or you have regenerative powers.

Quote from: Reelya on November 27, 2012, 08:11:52 pm

It's kinda ridiculous to compare some of the smallest economies in the world to the largest. There are 1.3 million people in Estonia, it's a very poor, and still developing economy. Those places ALWAYS have fast growth. Most of their export economy is a service economy taking advantage of the fact they border much larger countries of Russia, Germany, and in Scandinavia.

Just not a comparable situation AT ALL to America, or to large European countries. Plus, u know they have one of the lowest incomes of the entire eurozone, and very high unemployment. They're starting from very low income per GDP. GDP would have to grow faster than America for MANY years to be comparable.

The same things goes for trading-based city-states like Signapore or Hong Kong, they solely exist to service the larger economies around them. That's just not something that can be "emulated" by full-sized countries.

Yet Estonia's growth is considerably larger than that of, say, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland or Hungary, all of which have the same "advantages".

This isn't even mentioning that poorer Eurozone countries have been just as heavily affected by the debt crisis and recession as the richer ones, yet most of them haven't experienced either debt reduction or a recovery.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 08:51:09 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:58:07 pm

If your foot recovers 92% of its capacity a few weeks after being shot, either you're taking some very good medicine or you have regenerative powers.

Well you should be able to hobble on your foot after a few weeks.  Sounds like 92% recovery to me.  So go ahead!  Shoot yourself in the foot!

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 08:26:20 pm

Yet Estonia's growth is considerably larger than that of, say, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland or Hungary, all of which have the same "advantages".

...And all of whom have governments that implemented austerity too except for Poland.  Poland had a smaller slump then Estonia and is pretty much back to pre-slump GDP.  Or as you would put it, was a failure.

It's downright galling that you would compare Estonia to the other Baltics when the other baltics had essentially the same policies as Estonia.  Pretty convenient argument.  Pick whichever of the three failed the least and use that as your standard bearer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 27, 2012, 08:57:58 pm

GreatJustice, You just lied. Venezuela has not had a consistent high inflation period since the revolution. They had 1 bad year, and even that at its highest inflationary point had less than half the inflation of pre-Chavez Venezuela.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 09:15:21 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 27, 2012, 08:57:58 pm

GreatJustice, You just lied. Venezuela has not had a consistent high inflation period since the revolution. They had 1 bad year, and even that at its highest inflationary point had less than half the inflation of pre-Chavez Venezuela.

Uh, it's had between 40% and 10% inflation since 2003. That's pretty damn high.

Besides that, you totally just ignored the fact that the UAE managed nearly the exact same thing as Chavez's Venezuela, for a longer period of time and with less fluctuation, completely destroying the premise of your argument regardless of whether you consider Venezuela's inflation rate to be high or not.

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 08:51:09 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 07:58:07 pm

If your foot recovers 92% of its capacity a few weeks after being shot, either you're taking some very good medicine or you have regenerative powers.

Well you should be able to hobble on your foot after a few weeks.  Sounds like 92% recovery to me.  So go ahead!  Shoot yourself in the foot!

Methinks this analogy is starting to break down.

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 08:51:09 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 08:26:20 pm

Yet Estonia's growth is considerably larger than that of, say, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland or Hungary, all of which have the same "advantages".

...And all of whom have governments that implemented austerity too except for Poland.  Poland had a smaller slump then Estonia and is pretty much back to pre-slump GDP.  Or as you would put it, was a failure.

It's downright galling that you would compare Estonia to the other Baltics when the other baltics had essentially the same policies as Estonia.  Pretty convenient argument.  Pick whichever of the three failed the least and use that as your standard bearer.

The primary difference would be that Estonia's "austerity" was more geared towards spending cuts than tax increases (though it included both). Austerity, in of itself, isn't an especially good policy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 09:34:49 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 09:15:21 pm

The primary difference would be that Estonia's "austerity" was more geared towards spending cuts than tax increases (though it included both).

So you just expect us to trust you on this highly suspicious assertion that you just pulled out of nowhere based on your track record?

Or is this going to be one of those things where you show something like taxes as a percentage of GDP without accounting for cyclical effects and then change the subject when people point out that you are committing crimes against econometrics?

BTW, if your metric is tax cuts good, tax increases bad then doesn't that mean that you should love Obama?  He has lowered taxes in response to the downturn.  Estonia on the other hand has raised taxes.  So doesn't this mean that Estonia is doing it wrong and the US is doing it right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 09:55:03 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 09:34:49 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 09:15:21 pm

The primary difference would be that Estonia's "austerity" was more geared towards spending cuts than tax increases (though it included both).

So you just expect us to trust you on this highly suspicious assertion that you just pulled out of nowhere based on your track record?

Or is this going to be one of those things where you show something like taxes as a percentage of GDP without accounting for cyclical effects and then change the subject when people point out that you are committing crimes against econometrics?

BTW, if your metric is tax cuts good, tax increases bad then doesn't that mean that you should love Obama?  He has lowered taxes in response to the downturn.  Estonia on the other hand has raised taxes.  So doesn't this mean that Estonia is doing it wrong and the US is doing it right?

Well that's not a simplification or anything.

Tax cuts are all well and good, but they're largely pointless without associated spending cuts. Spending cuts are quite a bit more important since they last longer. The "proper" response to a recession would be broad spending AND tax cuts alongside an interest rate increase by the central bank if there is one, as was done in 1921 by the US during the brief recession then. However, the last time I brought that one up you mentioned some irrelevant quotes by Hoover and made a break for it, so its not likely that we'll get any farther using it as an example again.

Now there are plenty of sources that pretty clearly outline what Estonia did (public sector wage cuts alongside some tax increase), but I'm curious as to what you consider a valid source. Would a news article suffice?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 10:22:51 pm

How about the tax rates from the government itself?  Why get less then the best?

You have nice theories.  They contradict all of mainstream economics between 1946-2007 but I will grant you did eventually come at something that is coherent.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 11:18:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 10:22:51 pm

How about the tax rates from the government itself?  Why get less then the best?

Sounds good. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where I would find the relevant info. Any links?

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 10:22:51 pm

You have nice theories.  They contradict all of mainstream economics between 1946-2007 but I will grant you did eventually come at something that is coherent.

Mainstream economics between 1946 and 2007 have something of a poor track record, what with stagflation, the Lost Decade(s), the present recession, etc etc etc

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 27, 2012, 11:18:37 pm

If spending cuts help a recession, then why did the largest public spending increase ever, WWII, effectively end the depression in the US?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 11:28:51 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 11:18:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 10:22:51 pm

How about the tax rates from the government itself?  Why get less then the best?

Sounds good. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where I would find the relevant info. Any links?

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 10:22:51 pm

You have nice theories.  They contradict all of mainstream economics between 1946-2007 but I will grant you did eventually come at something that is coherent.

Mainstream economics between 1946 and 2007 have something of a poor track record, what with stagflation, the Lost Decade(s), the present recession, etc etc etc

Yeah and nothing bad happened with the economy prior to 1946 or after 2007.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 27, 2012, 11:32:06 pm

... some days I feel discussions on economics need massively huge "THIS IS NOT A SINGLE VARIABLE ISSUE" stamps plastered all over them. Shit be complicated. Paying attention to one or two variables (gov' spending and tax rates, ferex) can't really give an actual causative explanation, or anything remotely approaching one, for pretty much any bloody thing that happens regarding economics. There's entirely too many other factors to be able to pick out one, or two, or a half dozen, and say, "This is the cause." You can say they might be part of it -- maybe even a major part (though even major ones are going to be relatively minor, compared to the whole kit an'kaboodle.) -- but the whole cause ? Blatant fantasy and wishful thinking. Nothing in these situations are simple. There's pretty much never a single causative influence. There's usually dozens.

Laser-like focus on a limited number of issues is a good way to completely bugger any attempt to meaningfully discuss an economic situation. Fun times!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: EveryZig on November 28, 2012, 12:56:19 am

How do spending cuts help a recession?  I can see how you would argue that debt is bad in the long term, but how does that impact the actual recession? (These are not a rhetorical questions; I am honestly not sure how you say that would work.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 03:26:04 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 27, 2012, 11:18:37 pm

If spending cuts help a recession, then why did the largest public spending increase ever, WWII, effectively end the depression in the US?

Depends on what you mean by "ended the depression". If you mean in the literal, GDP sense, then that's mostly because GDP is driven by spending. Hence, the government spending a gigantic amount of money on tanks, planes, etc will drive up GDP even if the economy is in a bad shape. The same thing could be done if the Obama administration decided to spend a couple hundred billion/trillion dollars digging ditches in Nebraska, but it certainly wouldn't improve the economy in a meaningful sense.

In the sense of an actual recovery, that didn't come until after the war, when the economy actually began to grow again, which in turn had more to do with enforced saving as a result of rationing than the war itself.

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 11:28:51 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 27, 2012, 11:18:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 10:22:51 pm

How about the tax rates from the government itself?  Why get less then the best?

Sounds good. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where I would find the relevant info. Any links?

Quote from: mainiac on November 27, 2012, 10:22:51 pm

You have nice theories.  They contradict all of mainstream economics between 1946-2007 but I will grant you did eventually come at something that is coherent.

Mainstream economics between 1946 and 2007 have something of a poor track record, what with stagflation, the Lost Decade(s), the present recession, etc etc etc

Yeah and nothing bad happened with the economy prior to 1946 or after 2007.

Barring the Great Depression (in which interventionist methods were used), certainly nothing before 1913 was quite so economically damaging as, say, stagflation. Recessions/panics weren't as long lasting or devastating, though they appeared to be so as deflation was the norm rather than inflation.

Quote from: EveryZig on November 28, 2012, 12:56:19 am

How do spending cuts help a recession?  I can see how you would argue that debt is bad in the long term, but how does that impact the actual recession? (These are not a rhetorical questions; I am honestly not sure how you say that would work.)

They allow for easier resource reallocation in the economy, which allows it to go on a sustainable course and stable recovery as previous malinvestment is purged from the system. If instead stimulus is pursued, the initial "fall" won't be as bad and the recovery will be quicker, but the recovery will be tenuous and another recession/economic problem inevitable due to malinvestment still being present and encouraged to keep the recovery going.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 28, 2012, 04:10:47 pm

Last three pages have been HILARIOUS.

I've been converted, y'all. Justicenomics is the future. We shall start by going over the fiscal cliff with gusto for one year, thus setting the starting point GDP so low that the next ten years after it can be nothing but exuberant successes.

Quote

Barring the Great Depression (in which interventionist methods were used), certainly nothing before 1913 was quite so economically damaging as, say, stagflation.

....you do realize that the Great Depression occurred after 1913, right? Just sayin.

Beyond that, let's see:

1807 - Jefferson embargoes ALL foreign trade, triggers a six-year recession

1836 (Panic of 1837) - Jackson insists on use of silver currency, triggers six-year recession, massive unemployment, agricultural price failures, and a decrease in the money supply of 58%

1873 - Stock prices collapse in Vienna, economic panic spreads to US, dovetailed into some banking/railway collapses in the US, triggers a six-year recession which marked the start of a 23-year period known as the Long Depression.

Honestly, if you look at most economic failures in US history, they're caused when the Fed (or before the Fed's creation, the US government through the Bank of the United States) shrinks the money supply and raises interest rates. We've never had a period of hyperinflation like Weimar Germany, in part because the wealthy have always exerted considerable pressure in this country to KILL INFLATION WITH FIRE. Why? Because inflation is the enemy of accrued wealth. Deflation is the enemy of a functioning economy, but if you can afford to sit tight on your money, you'll make out like a bandit when the economy recovers.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 28, 2012, 04:37:24 pm

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/11/lamar-smith-wins-nomination-for-top-house-science-position.html

Lamar Smith, noted AGW denier is now the chairman of the house Science, Space and Technology committee.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 28, 2012, 04:46:44 pm

I don't have enough hands for this facepalm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 28, 2012, 04:48:01 pm

Cut off your roommate's. It's a win-win situation.

So yeah, how did he even qualify to be nominated for this position?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on November 28, 2012, 04:48:22 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on November 28, 2012, 04:37:24 pm

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/11/lamar-smith-wins-nomination-for-top-house-science-position.html

Lamar Smith, noted AGW denier is now the chairman of the house Science, Space and Technology committee.

Denying AGW on a science committee? Common.

But do you realize that this is the man who introduced freaking SOPA, serving on a technology committee?! Priorities, man!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 28, 2012, 04:52:38 pm

Who better to serve on a science and technology committee than a man who HATES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Hates them, we do! They stole our preciousssss....

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 07:12:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2012, 04:10:47 pm

Quote

Barring the Great Depression (in which interventionist methods were used), certainly nothing before 1913 was quite so economically damaging as, say, stagflation.

....you do realize that the Great Depression occurred after 1913, right? Just sayin.

You do realize that I said "Barring the Great Depression", right?

Quote

Beyond that, let's see:

1807 - Jefferson embargoes ALL foreign trade, triggers a six-year recession

Pretty dumb move from any perspective, post 1945 or not. For reference, though, this one was three years, not six.

Quote

1836 (Panic of 1837) - Jackson insists on use of silver currency, triggers six-year recession, massive unemployment, agricultural price failures, and a decrease in the money supply of 58%

An increase in the monetary supply by around 35% (!!!) prior to the panic, followed by issues stemming directly from the Second Bank of the United States and from various issues with state-chartered banks had quite a bit more to do with it.

Oh, and while this one was pretty bad, it only lasted two years.

Quote

1873 - Stock prices collapse in Vienna, economic panic spreads to US, dovetailed into some banking/railway collapses in the US, triggers a six-year recession which marked the start of a 23-year period known as the Long Depression.

There's a pretty good quote on this one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As economists Friedman and Schwartz have noted, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent-per annum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita. Even the alleged "monetary contraction" never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period. From 1873 through 1878, before another spurt of monetary expansion, the total supply of bank money rose from $1.964 billion to $2.221 billion—a rise of 13.1 percent or 2.6 percent per year. In short, a modest but definite rise, and scarcely a contraction.[46] Although per-capita nominal income declined very gradually from 1873 to 1879, that decline was more than offset by a gradual increase over the course of the next 17 years.

Furthermore, real per-capita income either stayed approximately constant (1873–1880; 1883–1885) or rose (1881–1882; 1886–1896), so that the average consumer appears to have been considerably better off at the end of the "depression" than before. Studies of other countries where prices also tumbled, including the US, Germany, France, and Italy, reported more markedly positive trends in both nominal and real per-capita income figures. Profits generally were also not adversely affected by deflation, although they declined (particularly in Britain) in industries that were struggling against superior, foreign competition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#Interpretations)

So if you even consider it a recession, let alone a depression, it wasn't even close to being as bad as the 70s for people.

Quote

Honestly, if you look at most economic failures in US history, they're caused when the Fed (or before the Fed's creation, the US government through the Bank of the United States) shrinks the money supply and raises interest rates. We've never had a period of hyperinflation like Weimar Germany, in part because the wealthy have always exerted considerable pressure in this country to KILL INFLATION WITH FIRE. Why? Because inflation is the enemy of accrued wealth. Deflation is the enemy of a functioning economy, but if you can afford to sit tight on your money, you'll make out like a bandit when the economy recovers.

Yet the wealthy were (and still are) instrumental in supporting the Federal Reserve system. Why is that?

Remember, the very first people to receive new money aren't affected by the price inflation that comes with the inflation of the monetary supply. Hence the concept of "negative interest rates". The very first people who receive the new money, coincidentally enough, are the exceptionally rich, who in turn would rather not have deflation. Money supply decreases wouldn't be as harmful were there not false expectations created by easy lending in the first place. Deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 28, 2012, 07:24:24 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 03:26:04 pm

Depends on what you mean by "ended the depression". If you mean in the literal, GDP sense, then that's mostly because GDP is driven by spending. Hence, the government spending a gigantic amount of money on tanks, planes, etc will drive up GDP even if the economy is in a bad shape. The same thing could be done if the Obama administration decided to spend a couple hundred billion/trillion dollars digging ditches in Nebraska, but it certainly wouldn't improve the economy in a meaningful sense.

Okay... let's follow this idea.

You agree that stimulus would return the economy to full employment.  Once the economy is at full employment that would mean more private spending and Fed policy would gain traction.  So we would stay at full employment even once the government starts firing ditch diggers to prevent inflation.  This would mean hundreds of billions of dollars in additional economic output that was not there before.

How is hundreds of billions of dollars in additional economic output not a meaningful improvement?  Or do you disagree with something in my previous paragraph?

Please be succinct, on point and do not reference some historical event to change the subject if at all possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 09:23:53 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 07:12:04 pm

There's a pretty good quote on this one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As economists Friedman and Schwartz have noted, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent-per annum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita. Even the alleged "monetary contraction" never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period. From 1873 through 1878, before another spurt of monetary expansion, the total supply of bank money rose from $1.964 billion to $2.221 billion—a rise of 13.1 percent or 2.6 percent per year. In short, a modest but definite rise, and scarcely a contraction.[46] Although per-capita nominal income declined very gradually from 1873 to 1879, that decline was more than offset by a gradual increase over the course of the next 17 years.

Furthermore, real per-capita income either stayed approximately constant (1873–1880; 1883–1885) or rose (1881–1882; 1886–1896), so that the average consumer appears to have been considerably better off at the end of the "depression" than before. Studies of other countries where prices also tumbled, including the US, Germany, France, and Italy, reported more markedly positive trends in both nominal and real per-capita income figures. Profits generally were also not adversely affected by deflation, although they declined (particularly in Britain) in industries that were struggling against superior, foreign competition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#Interpretations)

So if you even consider it a recession, let alone a depression, it wasn't even close to being as bad as the 70s for people.

They're justifying the recession of 1869-1879 on good shit that happened 20 years later! by that reckoning the 1970's wasn't so bad because of good growth in the late 90's. That kind of quote doesn't really justify the "it should be fixed by now!" rhetoric.

And for their logic "there was no contraction of the money supply!" - the money supply was increasing at a MUCH slower rate than growth; that's a contraction by any sensible economic definition - less money per unit of production.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 09:36:58 pm

Sorry to double post, but this is really a separate topic and I didn't want to mix it with my other post:

Another interesting thing is fiscal multipliers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier): economists estimate how much GDP will be affected by government spending or tax cuts - a tax cut is stimulus, as is direct spending: Both attempt to improve the economy by fiscal multiplier flow-on effects on GDP:

Quote

In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options. The multipliers showed that any form of increased government spending would have more of a multiplier effect than any form of tax cuts. The most effective policy, a temporary increase in food stamps, had an estimated multiplier of 1.73. The lowest multiplier for a spending increase was general aid to state governments, 1.36. Among tax cuts, multipliers ranged from 1.29 for a payroll tax holiday down to 0.27 for accelerated depreciation. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent had the second-lowest multiplier, 0.29. Refundable lump-sum tax rebates, the policy used in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, had the second-largest multiplier for a tax cut, 1.26.[6]

As can be seen from the modelling, $1 in food stamps increases GDP by $1.73 and $1 to the Bush Tax Cuts increases GDP by $0.29.

It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see that not extending the bush tax cuts but expanding food subsidies would grow GDP without massively increasing the money supply. There ARE taxes with a large economic stimulus effect, but the Bush Tax Cuts are NOT one of them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 28, 2012, 09:49:34 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 09:36:58 pm

Sorry to double post, but this is really a separate topic and I didn't want to mix it with my other post:

Another interesting thing is fiscal multipliers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier): economists estimate how much GDP will be affected by government spending or tax cuts - a tax cut is stimulus, as is direct spending: Both attempt to improve the economy by fiscal multiplier flow-on effects on GDP:

Quote

In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options. The multipliers showed that any form of increased government spending would have more of a multiplier effect than any form of tax cuts. The most effective policy, a temporary increase in food stamps, had an estimated multiplier of 1.73. The lowest multiplier for a spending increase was general aid to state governments, 1.36. Among tax cuts, multipliers ranged from 1.29 for a payroll tax holiday down to 0.27 for accelerated depreciation. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent had the second-lowest multiplier, 0.29. Refundable lump-sum tax rebates, the policy used in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, had the second-largest multiplier for a tax cut, 1.26.[6]

As can be seen from the modelling, $1 in food stamps increases GDP by $1.73 and $1 to the Bush Tax Cuts increases GDP by $0.29.

It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see that not extending the bush tax cuts but expanding food subsidies would grow GDP without massively increasing the money supply. There ARE taxes with a large economic stimulus effect, but the Bush Tax Cuts are NOT one of them.

As A totally unbiased party, I would like to say that Food Stamps are incredibly helpful to the Economy, and to poor people in general. I have not, and most likely never will, understand the economic argument against them. It's very simple really. Imagine one person had everything. All the money, all the stuff, all the everything. The Economy, therefore, is dead, because no one is spending anything. Poor people instantly spend any money they recieve, because they are poor, while rich people horde, because they can afford to. Money is only really relevant to a economy if it is being spent. I have money, That doesn't help me at all! Only with the rich does having money become a scoring system of life.
 
This, AND the moral argument of feeding poor people, means tha food stamps is, in conclusion, the best idea ever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 28, 2012, 10:10:07 pm

That's certainly an argument for welfare, but the problem with foodstamps is that it creates a black market commodity for no real benefit (other than "punish those lazy poors").

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:25:16 pm

Some relevant data is from that drug testing for Florida welfare recipients, that didn't turn up more than a couple of percent of recipients using illegal drugs, and almost all of those were marijuana. It actually cost more money to administer the tests than the taxpayer saved in people thrown off welfare xD

The bottom line is that yeah, maybe a few people are swapping the food stamps food for other items, but it's a almost certainly very small minority who are doing that, and the stamps are still being spent in the economy, which is already proven to be the biggest possible GDP positive effect of any government program ever conceived, and not (on the whole) inflationary, since it creates more new GDP than the amount spent.

"feeding the poor" is just a beneficial side-effect. The stamps are justified by the economic modelling alone. Don't forget all that spending creates a lot of jobs, thus decreasing the total # unemployed. Some of the people serving the food stamps people would have been unemployed themselves otherwise.

Anyway, they almost all go to families with kids. That has benefits for the kids - or do we hold children fiscally responsible for their parents being poor? Feeding kids improves their school performance and health, which has benefits for the whole economy years down the track, the short-term fiscal multiplier don't take these benefits into account.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 28, 2012, 10:30:01 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:25:16 pm

Anyway, they almost all go to families with kids. That has benefits for the kids - or do we hold children fiscally responsible for their parents being poor? Feeding kids improves their school performance and health, which has benefits for the whole economy years down the track.

I can attest to this.
 

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 28, 2012, 10:48:58 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 28, 2012, 10:10:07 pm

That's certainly an argument for welfare, but the problem with foodstamps is that it creates a black market commodity for no real benefit (other than "punish those lazy poors").

I can't help but suspect that just giving people money would be even more effective. Anyone have the multiplier for direct poor-person-cash-infusion?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:54:49 pm

The problem is that cash can be hoarded, spent in the informal market or used directly to buy black market products. They therefore do not have the same dollar for dollar benefit as food stamps on the retail economy.

Food stamps are "use it or lose it", similar to tax credits, which only kick in if you do the taxable activity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 28, 2012, 11:09:01 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 28, 2012, 10:48:58 pm

I can't help but suspect that just giving people money would be even more effective. Anyone have the multiplier for direct poor-person-cash-infusion?

Well you are basically talking about unemployment benefits there.  They have a high multiplier but not as high as food stamps: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_whats_a_dollar_o.html

Of course the specifics of an individual policy might matter so it shouldn't be the case that all cash transfers are worse then all food stamp spending.  But food stamp spending is pretty darn stimulative.  It has to be spent within the month and it goes to those who are most financially constrained.  Those are pretty much exactly the conditions you'd want to fulfill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PyroDesu on November 28, 2012, 11:13:30 pm

On the subject of economic multipliers, what do ya'll think about NASA, or space programs in general, as economic multipliers?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 28, 2012, 11:51:17 pm

Quote from: PyroDesu on November 28, 2012, 11:13:30 pm

On the subject of economic multipliers, what do ya'll think about NASA, or space programs in general, as economic multipliers?

That's a little different.  NASA is good because in the long run space exploration gives us useful things like Satellite networks and improved understanding of physics.  Stimulus multipliers are about boosting short term employment.  Now NASA spending is still spending so you can still attribute it a stimulus multiplier but keep in mind that multiplier only pertains to very specific economic conditions that have happened twice in a century (1929-1939, 2007-201?).  But that being said I'd guesstimate that the stimulus multiplier is probably somewhere in the range of .9-1.4.  Just heuristically we can say that it's probably more stimulative then housing credits since it's money that goes more directly towards payrolls and inventories so will be less likely to be saved (which is good from a stimulus standpoint).  But it's probably less stimulative then infrastructure spending since NASA is more long term spending and higher skilled labor while stimulus is better off highering less skilled labor and making purchases immediately.  So using Moody's criteria as a guideline I'd guesstimate somewhere between .9-1.4.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 28, 2012, 07:24:24 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 03:26:04 pm

Depends on what you mean by "ended the depression". If you mean in the literal, GDP sense, then that's mostly because GDP is driven by spending. Hence, the government spending a gigantic amount of money on tanks, planes, etc will drive up GDP even if the economy is in a bad shape. The same thing could be done if the Obama administration decided to spend a couple hundred billion/trillion dollars digging ditches in Nebraska, but it certainly wouldn't improve the economy in a meaningful sense.

Okay... let's follow this idea.

You agree that stimulus would return the economy to full employment.  Once the economy is at full employment that would mean more private spending and Fed policy would gain traction.  So we would stay at full employment even once the government starts firing ditch diggers to prevent inflation.  This would mean hundreds of billions of dollars in additional economic output that was not there before.

How is hundreds of billions of dollars in additional economic output not a meaningful improvement?  Or do you disagree with something in my previous paragraph?

Please be succinct, on point and do not reference some historical event to change the subject if at all possible.

Stimulus brings back some measure of the previous prosperity of the boom, but it's doesn't actually solve the problem in of itself. Instead, it creates further imbalances by strengthening the illusion of excess resources/saving where there are none.

See, the problem in the first place is that artificially low rates and an expansion of credit makes entrepreneurs think people have saved more resources than they actually have, meaning they should focus on long term projects as opposed to saving and consolidation. However, those resources don't actually exist, so eventually there comes a point during the boom when they realize that the saved resources are insufficient for all the long term projects, which they are forced to abandon at a loss. If stimulus spending is pursued at this point, some of the entrepreneurs are better off because they get to finish their projects, but the economy as a whole is worse off as resources are diverted to inefficient uses and the same problem is present, meaning the economy will be worse off in the long run. The classic analogy is of an architect who believes he has more bricks than he actually has; naturally, he designs a bigger house, but the later into the project he discovers his brick deficiency the more of it he has to scrap altogether.

Now with the ditch diggers,  resources were taken from productive or potentially productive ventures to allow for them to dig ditches. What we see is an increase in employment and GDP; what we don't is all the things that COULD have been made with what was instead used to dig ditches (/build tanks/bomb countries/etc).

Quote from: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 09:23:53 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 07:12:04 pm

There's a pretty good quote on this one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As economists Friedman and Schwartz have noted, the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent-per annum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita. Even the alleged "monetary contraction" never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period. From 1873 through 1878, before another spurt of monetary expansion, the total supply of bank money rose from $1.964 billion to $2.221 billion—a rise of 13.1 percent or 2.6 percent per year. In short, a modest but definite rise, and scarcely a contraction.[46] Although per-capita nominal income declined very gradually from 1873 to 1879, that decline was more than offset by a gradual increase over the course of the next 17 years.

Furthermore, real per-capita income either stayed approximately constant (1873–1880; 1883–1885) or rose (1881–1882; 1886–1896), so that the average consumer appears to have been considerably better off at the end of the "depression" than before. Studies of other countries where prices also tumbled, including the US, Germany, France, and Italy, reported more markedly positive trends in both nominal and real per-capita income figures. Profits generally were also not adversely affected by deflation, although they declined (particularly in Britain) in industries that were struggling against superior, foreign competition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#Interpretations)

So if you even consider it a recession, let alone a depression, it wasn't even close to being as bad as the 70s for people.

They're justifying the recession of 1869-1879 on good shit that happened 20 years later! by that reckoning the 1970's wasn't so bad because of good growth in the late 90's. That kind of quote doesn't really justify the "it should be fixed by now!" rhetoric.

The good shit that happened 20 years later was the icing on the cake (though keep in mind, its called the "Long Depression" because it supposedly lasted 24 years). In case you missed it,

Quote

the decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent-per annum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita.

So yeah. Calling it a recession is pushing it, let alone a depression.

Quote

And for their logic "there was no contraction of the money supply!" - the money supply was increasing at a MUCH slower rate than growth; that's a contraction by any sensible economic definition - less money per unit of production.

Wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight.

So the money supply was going up, but growth was going up faster, and by rather significant margins too. This resulted in overall price deflation. And you're saying that this means that it was a recession/depression.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PeT-NMASicc/UFC7IpW_EzI/AAAAAAAAC3c/lHvVCujeN3I/s1600/Nicolas-Sarkozy-laughing.gif)

->Why is deflation bad? * Because it causes recessions
->How do we know a recession is occurring? *Because deflation is occurring

Yeah, I know that's a simplification, but still. I can't argue that deflation isn't always bad if you literally consider it to be a Bad Thing regardless of whether or not it's accompanied by an actual recession.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: EveryZig on November 29, 2012, 12:37:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote

And for their logic "there was no contraction of the money supply!" - the money supply was increasing at a MUCH slower rate than growth; that's a contraction by any sensible economic definition - less money per unit of production.

Wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight.

So the money supply was going up, but growth was going up faster, and by rather significant margins too. This resulted in overall price deflation. And you're saying that this means that it was a recession/depression.

I am pretty sure that in that statement he was arguing against the quote's claim of how "the alleged 'monetary contraction' never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period", not directly about the goodness/badness of that deflation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 12:44:12 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Stimulus brings back some measure of the previous prosperity of the boom, but it's doesn't actually solve the problem in of itself. Instead, it creates further imbalances by strengthening the illusion of excess resources/saving where there are none.

See, the problem in the first place is that artificially low rates and an expansion of credit makes entrepreneurs think people have saved more resources than they actually have, meaning they should focus on long term projects as opposed to saving and consolidation. However, those resources don't actually exist, so eventually there comes a point during the boom when they realize that the saved resources are insufficient for all the long term projects, which they are forced to abandon at a loss. If stimulus spending is pursued at this point, some of the entrepreneurs are better off because they get to finish their projects, but the economy as a whole is worse off as resources are diverted to inefficient uses and the same problem is present, meaning the economy will be worse off in the long run. The classic analogy is of an architect who believes he has more bricks than he actually has; naturally, he designs a bigger house, but the later into the project he discovers his brick deficiency the more of it he has to scrap altogether.

Now with the ditch diggers,  resources were taken from productive or potentially productive ventures to allow for them to dig ditches. What we see is an increase in employment and GDP; what we don't is all the things that COULD have been made with what was instead used to dig ditches (/build tanks/bomb countries/etc).

There is a very simple empirical test for this theory. If your story is right then increasing the money supply during a depression would be exactly as inflationary as increasing it in normal times.  If my story is right then increasing the money supply during a depression would be far, far less inflationary then expanding it in normal times.

The logic is simple.  You treat the economy as logically reacting to a decline in real wealth.  If that were true then the price level would behave normally when the money supply is expanded.

And the output that the ditch diggers could have made would have been sitting around scratching their balls because they were unemployed.  Your model isn't very useful at explaining unemployment if it starts by assuming unemployment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on November 29, 2012, 10:18:00 am

Quote from: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 12:44:12 am

And the output that the ditch diggers could have made would have been sitting around scratching their balls because they were unemployed.  Your model isn't very useful at explaining unemployment if it starts by assuming unemployment.

I think this is all that needs to be said to someone putting forward Friedman based ideas really.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on November 29, 2012, 11:07:14 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 07:12:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2012, 04:10:47 pm

Quote

Barring the Great Depression (in which interventionist methods were used), certainly nothing before 1913 was quite so economically damaging as, say, stagflation.

....you do realize that the Great Depression occurred after 1913, right? Just sayin.

You do realize that I said "Barring the Great Depression", right?

You do realize that by saying "nothing before 1913", you automatically exclude the Great Depression, so it's completely unnecessary to mention, right? Grammar -- it's what's for breakfast.

Quote

Quote

Honestly, if you look at most economic failures in US history, they're caused when the Fed (or before the Fed's creation, the US government through the Bank of the United States) shrinks the money supply and raises interest rates. We've never had a period of hyperinflation like Weimar Germany, in part because the wealthy have always exerted considerable pressure in this country to KILL INFLATION WITH FIRE. Why? Because inflation is the enemy of accrued wealth. Deflation is the enemy of a functioning economy, but if you can afford to sit tight on your money, you'll make out like a bandit when the economy recovers.

Yet the wealthy were (and still are) instrumental in supporting the Federal Reserve system. Why is that?

Remember, the very first people to receive new money aren't affected by the price inflation that comes with the inflation of the monetary supply. Hence the concept of "negative interest rates". The very first people who receive the new money, coincidentally enough, are the exceptionally rich, who in turn would rather not have deflation. Money supply decreases wouldn't be as harmful were there not false expectations created by easy lending in the first place. Deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Thank you for proving my point. The Fed (which is the primary tool for fighting inflation in the United States) is supported by the wealthy, because it fights inflation. Businesses love it when the Fed cuts rates, because low rates and an easy money supply make growth easier (although they also make risky financial speculation easier as well). But wealthy individuals benefit when the Fed raises rates and chokes off inflation, because the real value of their accumulated wealth is secured. In a deflationary cycle, their real value of their wealth is *increased* without any effort on their part. Now, if their wealth derives from some ongoing business activity, then yes -- they don't want deflation. But for those whose wealth is already made and don't work to produce additional wealth (I'm looking at you, Mr. Mitt "Unemployed" Romney), then a tight money supply is golden.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 03:44:59 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 29, 2012, 11:07:14 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 28, 2012, 07:12:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2012, 04:10:47 pm

Quote

Barring the Great Depression (in which interventionist methods were used), certainly nothing before 1913 was quite so economically damaging as, say, stagflation.

....you do realize that the Great Depression occurred after 1913, right? Just sayin.

You do realize that I said "Barring the Great Depression", right?

You do realize that by saying "nothing before 1913", you automatically exclude the Great Depression, so it's completely unnecessary to mention, right? Grammar -- it's what's for breakfast.

I mistyped that, I meant 1945. My bad.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Honestly, if you look at most economic failures in US history, they're caused when the Fed (or before the Fed's creation, the US government through the Bank of the United States) shrinks the money supply and raises interest rates. We've never had a period of hyperinflation like Weimar Germany, in part because the wealthy have always exerted considerable pressure in this country to KILL INFLATION WITH FIRE. Why? Because inflation is the enemy of accrued wealth. Deflation is the enemy of a functioning economy, but if you can afford to sit tight on your money, you'll make out like a bandit when the economy recovers.

Yet the wealthy were (and still are) instrumental in supporting the Federal Reserve system. Why is that?

Remember, the very first people to receive new money aren't affected by the price inflation that comes with the inflation of the monetary supply. Hence the concept of "negative interest rates". The very first people who receive the new money, coincidentally enough, are the exceptionally rich, who in turn would rather not have deflation. Money supply decreases wouldn't be as harmful were there not false expectations created by easy lending in the first place. Deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Thank you for proving my point. The Fed (which is the primary tool for fighting inflation in the United States) is supported by the wealthy, because it fights inflation. Businesses love it when the Fed cuts rates, because low rates and an easy money supply make growth easier (although they also make risky financial speculation easier as well). But wealthy individuals benefit when the Fed raises rates and chokes off inflation, because the real value of their accumulated wealth is secured. In a deflationary cycle, their real value of their wealth is *increased* without any effort on their part. Now, if their wealth derives from some ongoing business activity, then yes -- they don't want deflation. But for those whose wealth is already made and don't work to produce additional wealth (I'm looking at you, Mr. Mitt "Unemployed" Romney), then a tight money supply is golden.

Now hold on. Did you just say the Fed FIGHTS inflation?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://www.pbs.org/teachers/mathline/concepts/president/prc18991.gif)

Inflation was next to non-existent prior to the Fed barring the period immediately following the American Revolution and during the Civil War. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find examples of serious inflation without some kind of central bank intervention.

Furthermore, the (idle) rich generally don't literally save all of their money; they invest it in stocks and so on. Inflation makes these these assets generally rise a bit above the actual inflation rate, giving them a net benefit, and that's assuming they have no direct connection to the banking industry.

Quote from: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 12:44:12 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Stimulus brings back some measure of the previous prosperity of the boom, but it's doesn't actually solve the problem in of itself. Instead, it creates further imbalances by strengthening the illusion of excess resources/saving where there are none.

See, the problem in the first place is that artificially low rates and an expansion of credit makes entrepreneurs think people have saved more resources than they actually have, meaning they should focus on long term projects as opposed to saving and consolidation. However, those resources don't actually exist, so eventually there comes a point during the boom when they realize that the saved resources are insufficient for all the long term projects, which they are forced to abandon at a loss. If stimulus spending is pursued at this point, some of the entrepreneurs are better off because they get to finish their projects, but the economy as a whole is worse off as resources are diverted to inefficient uses and the same problem is present, meaning the economy will be worse off in the long run. The classic analogy is of an architect who believes he has more bricks than he actually has; naturally, he designs a bigger house, but the later into the project he discovers his brick deficiency the more of it he has to scrap altogether.

Now with the ditch diggers,  resources were taken from productive or potentially productive ventures to allow for them to dig ditches. What we see is an increase in employment and GDP; what we don't is all the things that COULD have been made with what was instead used to dig ditches (/build tanks/bomb countries/etc).

There is a very simple empirical test for this theory. If your story is right then increasing the money supply during a depression would be exactly as inflationary as increasing it in normal times.  If my story is right then increasing the money supply during a depression would be far, far less inflationary then expanding it in normal times.

The logic is simple.  You treat the economy as logically reacting to a decline in real wealth.  If that were true then the price level would behave normally when the money supply is expanded.

Well now, that one's easy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_stagflation_of_the_1970s) Actually, that's what killed classical Keynesianism for two decades.

Now, the "money supply" requires that the money is actually being exchanged in the economy. If the money is being hoarded despite vast amounts of money creation, something that is distinctly more likely during hard times, then inflation obviously won't occur, as is the case in Japan right now.

Quote from: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 12:44:12 am

And the output that the ditch diggers could have made would have been sitting around scratching their balls because they were unemployed.  Your model isn't very useful at explaining unemployment if it starts by assuming unemployment.

The ditch diggers would have found other, more worthwhile sources of employment, if at lower wages (an essential part of the correction, actually). The shovels would have been used to dig things consumers desired, or else not been made at all, the metal would have been used for something people wanted, the land would have been used more productively, etc etc etc

Certainly, some measure of unemployment is present, especially in the presence of unemployment benefits and the minimum wage, but the ultimate result is renewed growth later regardless from resource consolidation.

Quote from: EveryZig on November 29, 2012, 12:37:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote

And for their logic "there was no contraction of the money supply!" - the money supply was increasing at a MUCH slower rate than growth; that's a contraction by any sensible economic definition - less money per unit of production.

Wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight.

So the money supply was going up, but growth was going up faster, and by rather significant margins too. This resulted in overall price deflation. And you're saying that this means that it was a recession/depression.

I am pretty sure that in that statement he was arguing against the quote's claim of how "the alleged 'monetary contraction' never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period", not directly about the goodness/badness of that deflation.

Okay. Yet he's also trying to argue that the period was actually a recession/depression. If there was net growth above 2.6% during the period where it hit hardest, then that's a rather silly claim. The definition of "monetary contraction" is only even debatably incorrect if the period was primarily characterized by growth, which completely undermines the rest of the argument.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on November 29, 2012, 04:02:55 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/man-romney-face-tattoo-prepares-laser-removal-165623174--election.html

ha!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 29, 2012, 04:19:55 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote from: EveryZig on November 29, 2012, 12:37:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote

And for their logic "there was no contraction of the money supply!" - the money supply was increasing at a MUCH slower rate than growth; that's a contraction by any sensible economic definition - less money per unit of production.

Wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight.

So the money supply was going up, but growth was going up faster, and by rather significant margins too. This resulted in overall price deflation. And you're saying that this means that it was a recession/depression.

I am pretty sure that in that statement he was arguing against the quote's claim of how "the alleged 'monetary contraction' never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period", not directly about the goodness/badness of that deflation.

Okay. Yet he's also trying to argue that the period was actually a recession/depression. If there was net growth above 2.6% during the period where it hit hardest, then that's a rather silly claim. The definition of "monetary contraction" is only even debatably incorrect if the period was primarily characterized by growth, which completely undermines the rest of the argument.

Please, I feel like you're putting words in my mouth.

when I said "recession" i was echoing your use of the word in the prior statement:

Quote

So if you even consider it a recession, let alone a depression

...i was purely going off your use of the term, and assumed you were saying something which made sense (that the period was, or can be, considered a recession). Then, when I repeat your use of the terminology you jump on me with "AHA! you said 'recession' ". I was not making any specific claim about the period myself. It sounded like you were referring to it as a recession, so i used YOUR terminology in my reply.

My only point was to point out that GDP increasing faster than money supply is the same as a money contraction, for all practical intents and purposes. Any additional statements you tack onto that are your idea, not mine.

GDP growth precludes there being a recession, right? That's the definition. Which means USA is not in a recession right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 29, 2012, 04:28:47 pm

And yet you're the one who has to wash their mouth afterwards.

I forgot where I wanted to go with this metaphor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: EveryZig on November 29, 2012, 06:16:17 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 03:44:59 pm

The ditch diggers would have found other, more worthwhile sources of employment, if at lower wages (an essential part of the correction, actually). The shovels would have been used to dig things consumers desired, or else not been made at all, the metal would have been used for something people wanted, the land would have been used more productively, etc etc etc

I am pretty sure that unemployment has existed even before minimum wages were created.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tryrar on November 29, 2012, 07:56:57 pm

Reading the last few pages, you guys have really lost me. I guess being in the lower end of the income bracket, high economics is only a real abstract idea to me, so I have no idea what you guys are arguing. So, Greatjustice, could you please just succinctly sum up what you'd like to see the government do policy-wise?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 08:13:55 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 12:44:12 am

depression

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 03:44:59 pm

Well now, that one's easy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_stagflation_of_the_1970s) Actually, that's what killed classical Keynesianism for two decades.

That's not a depression.  Maybe before criticizing Keynesianism you should learn the most basic thing about the situation it is most important for?

One of the key properties of a Keynesian depression is that real interest rates are abnormally close to zero or outright negative for secure assets.

Seeing as we were discussing depressions and what stimulus does during depressions the fact that you would bring a non-depression as a counter example of depression situation behavoir shows either profound ignorance or dishonesty.

And no, Keynesian economics did not die in the 1970s.  A bunch of galt wannabes just went to hide in their treehouse and pretended they were the academic center of the universe.  Meanwhile the US and every other major market economy continued to operate on Keynesian principles because guess what... they work.

As always you have proven that the audacity of ignorance is boundless.  I'm sure that it is indeed easy to come to an incorrect opinion on a matter which you do not understand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 29, 2012, 08:39:06 pm

It seems to me that the fact that there can be this much disagreement on what the proper policies are, despite the wealth of information available, is simply evidence that market economies don't work. We have the manpower and the resources to provide the necessities for all of humanity. Why do we have to make them dig ditches to get it? Markets make things that would otherwise be practical, like simply building housing for the homeless, or providing universal employment, impossible because of the potential side effects. I say just throw the whole thing out.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 09:08:11 pm

Well throwing markets out entirely doesn't have a great track record.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 29, 2012, 10:20:41 pm

No, replacing markets with dictatorial central management doesn't have a great track record.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 12:58:43 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

Quote

from the Stalin-era to the early Brezhnev-era, the Soviet economy grew as fast as the Japanese economy and significantly faster than that of the United States.

Those central plans turned Russia from a much-maligned rural backwater into one of the industrial power-house nations.

They had a series of economic problems from the mid-1970's onwards, but those specifically popped up 50 years after the start of central planning, so it's intellectually dishonest to draw a straight line from Soviet planning, per se, to the shortages of the late 1970's.

There's really not a single LARGE country that got rich from Laissez-faire. Even most of the "miracle" low-tax countries like Singapore turn out to be run by a ruthlessly centralized economic bureaucracy.

Well, they love to say how great Russia was doing once they got rid of the Communist planning, in about 1990:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Soviet_Union_GDP.gif/800px-Soviet_Union_GDP.gif)

As you can see, if GDP had stayed on the pre-1990 track, the Russian economy would most likely be much larger today than it is. The economy post-soviet is in the toilet compared to before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 30, 2012, 05:56:05 am

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 29, 2012, 08:39:06 pm

It seems to me that the fact that there can be this much disagreement on what the proper policies are, despite the wealth of information available, is simply evidence that market economies don't work. We have the manpower and the resources to provide the necessities for all of humanity. Why do we have to make them dig ditches to get it? Markets make things that would otherwise be practical, like simply building housing for the homeless, or providing universal employment, impossible because of the potential side effects. I say just throw the whole thing out.

While some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia) "socialist" contries did relatively well, their economic systems had plenty of disagreements on proper policies too.

I dislike capitalism as much as anyone else, but I don't think "just" throwing out the idea of the market economy straight out the window is the best idea. To indiscriminately throw the whole thing out seems like a bad idea derived from ideology.

To change from a market economy to something else (which I don't necessarily disagree with) would require time to more smoothly transition (the transition process would likely be quite complex), and it is likely that any new system would be fairly complex itself too. Wealth, labour, distribution etc are complicated things when dealing with irrational human beings on the scale on millions.

Peoples irrationality can be expressed as such:
:o Money Money money money money money money money money 8)

Quote

It seems to me that the fact that there can be this much disagreement on what the proper policies are, despite the wealth of information available, is simply evidence that market economies don't work.

Is it?

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 29, 2012, 10:20:41 pm

No, replacing markets with dictatorial central management doesn't have a great track record.

Totalitarian and incompetent governments screw up countries. Someone would have to identify which bad parts of the country are caused by an alternative economic system as opposed to just bad governance, rather than looking at the country as a whole.

McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) Diddn't help either (in regards to the opinion of anything not capitalist, the thought seems to make many people feel awkward even if the worst of McCarthyism has worn off).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on November 30, 2012, 07:48:55 am

Quote from: Eagle_eye on November 29, 2012, 08:39:06 pm

It seems to me that the fact that there can be this much disagreement on what the proper policies are, despite the wealth of information available, is simply evidence that market economies don't work.

To finish your sentence, since you cut off prematurely, you need the words, "on certain things." It's kind of a known thing, even among th'systems related to market economies themselves, that certain goods and services simply do not function as market economies. Pretty much everything that can be considered genuinely necessary*  is a problem for free markets, as I understand it. Some stuff just can't be influenced by market forces, or at least can't to the degree necessary to have a healthy system. Market economies are damn good at dealing with luxury items in general, stuff that the "invisible hand of the market" can actually work well on. Not so much healthcare when you leg just got cut off or gas, stuff like that.

*Sustenance-level food, shelter, health care, especially in emergency situations, transportation if it's required to function in a society. S'less of an issue when there's a surplus of any of those, but it's still a fairly fundamental "square peg, round hole" sort of situation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 30, 2012, 09:20:20 am

Am I the only one who actually likes capitalism? Not in its present form, of course, but the basic idea appeals to me once you add a welfare state and some government interventions. It's sad how much bad politics is being done in the name of "capitalism".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on November 30, 2012, 09:24:14 am

Nah, I dig it, generally speaking. But with reservations in some areas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on November 30, 2012, 09:25:37 am

Once you've added a welfare state and goverment interventions you're in socialist territory, Helgoland. Just talking about "capitalism" tends to presumpt those out. You know, kind of like saying you like firestorms, after you've made sure it can't burn anyone and firefighters are present.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on November 30, 2012, 09:28:26 am

I dig firestorms. 's all shiny and stuff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on November 30, 2012, 09:52:50 am

How 'bout some middle ground: Social capitalism, Bonn Republic-style! (Soziale Marktwirtschaft, also known under the related term Rhineland Capitalism; the latter you can imagine as capitalism with a semi-paternalistic welfare state, and the former just cut out the paternalistic element.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 30, 2012, 12:53:04 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 12:58:43 am

Those central plans turned Russia from a much-maligned rural backwater into one of the industrial power-house nations.

Turning a backwater into an industrial power house isn't exactly an unusual feat.  That's what industrialization is.  You build a factory in a village, get a bunch of peasants move into it and viola you have an industrial town whose workers have dramatically higher productivity then before.  Plenty of places did this.  And plenty of them grew faster then the US while doing it.  When you are behind it's easy to catch up because there's tons of low hanging fruit in terms of processes to mechanize and technologies to import.  We're talking really obvious stuff here, the farmers don't have tractors and fertilizer so give them that stuff and you won't need as many farmers.

You'd need to argue that the Soviets were good at doing this process but they weren't particularly good.  They moved peasants into factories faster then most but they weren't good at running those factories in the long run.  It's not just that the USSR failed to achieve a higher living standard then the US.  The USSR was had a per capita economy about on par with Greece by the 1989.  If you prefer a 1970 comparison date that puts the USSR in the ballpark of Mexico.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on November 30, 2012, 01:30:58 pm

What mainiac said. It's absolutely true that the USSR's economy grew by leaps and bounds between about 1920 to 1960. But that's because the country was industrializing; industrial revolutions do miracles, but the trouble is, you only get one industrial revolution. After you've got your base of heavy industry, steam power and electrification, further gains rely on increasing productivity- and that's something that capitalism is very good at, unlike communism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on November 30, 2012, 02:31:30 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on November 30, 2012, 01:30:58 pm

What mainiac said. It's absolutely true that the USSR's economy grew by leaps and bounds between about 1920 to 1960. But that's because the country was industrializing; industrial revolutions do miracles, but the trouble is, you only get one industrial revolution. After you've got your base of heavy industry, steam power and electrification, further gains rely on increasing productivity- and that's something that capitalism is very good at, unlike communism.

Well, you also need a market... consumers at home and opening up markets abroad helps that process along...  free trade is it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 04:31:23 pm

Quote from: Reelya on November 29, 2012, 04:19:55 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote from: EveryZig on November 29, 2012, 12:37:34 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 12:16:35 am

Quote

And for their logic "there was no contraction of the money supply!" - the money supply was increasing at a MUCH slower rate than growth; that's a contraction by any sensible economic definition - less money per unit of production.

Wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight.

So the money supply was going up, but growth was going up faster, and by rather significant margins too. This resulted in overall price deflation. And you're saying that this means that it was a recession/depression.

I am pretty sure that in that statement he was arguing against the quote's claim of how "the alleged 'monetary contraction' never took place, the money supply increasing by 2.7 percent per year in this period", not directly about the goodness/badness of that deflation.

Okay. Yet he's also trying to argue that the period was actually a recession/depression. If there was net growth above 2.6% during the period where it hit hardest, then that's a rather silly claim. The definition of "monetary contraction" is only even debatably incorrect if the period was primarily characterized by growth, which completely undermines the rest of the argument.

Please, I feel like you're putting words in my mouth.

when I said "recession" i was echoing your use of the word in the prior statement:

Quote

So if you even consider it a recession, let alone a depression

...i was purely going off your use of the term, and assumed you were saying something which made sense (that the period was, or can be, considered a recession). Then, when I repeat your use of the terminology you jump on me with "AHA! you said 'recession' ". I was not making any specific claim about the period myself. It sounded like you were referring to it as a recession, so i used YOUR terminology in my reply.

My only point was to point out that GDP increasing faster than money supply is the same as a money contraction, for all practical intents and purposes. Any additional statements you tack onto that are your idea, not mine.

GDP growth precludes there being a recession, right? That's the definition. Which means USA is not in a recession right now.

Okay. So why did you bother making an argument? The fundamental question was whether 1869-1879 was a period of growth or not, and you didn't contest that so far as I could tell. Again, for growth to have outpaced the money supply, either the money supply was contracting (it wasn't), or there was growth in the first place.

By the definition of "recession", the USA isn't in one right now. However, the USA is also undergoing a distinctly shaky recovery that I'd bet $50 won't last five more years, which will then almost certainly be blamed on "Capitalism". Of course, that's entirely hypothetical and impossible to prove, but I haven't found many reasonable explanations as to how the recovery can continue when it's basically connected to Quantitative Easing efforts with increasingly short half-lives.

Quote from: EveryZig on November 29, 2012, 06:16:17 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 03:44:59 pm

The ditch diggers would have found other, more worthwhile sources of employment, if at lower wages (an essential part of the correction, actually). The shovels would have been used to dig things consumers desired, or else not been made at all, the metal would have been used for something people wanted, the land would have been used more productively, etc etc etc

I am pretty sure that unemployment has existed even before minimum wages were created.

Not anywhere close to as much, even during periods of massive immigration and excess labour (eg. the Irish in the mid 1800s).

Quote from: tryrar on November 29, 2012, 07:56:57 pm

Reading the last few pages, you guys have really lost me. I guess being in the lower end of the income bracket, high economics is only a real abstract idea to me, so I have no idea what you guys are arguing. So, Greatjustice, could you please just succinctly sum up what you'd like to see the government do policy-wise?

Cut spending drastically, cut taxes somewhat less drastically. Ending legal tender would be helpful, but the Fed raising rates (slightly) would probably be sufficient otherwise.

Quote from: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 08:13:55 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 29, 2012, 12:44:12 am

depression

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 29, 2012, 03:44:59 pm

Well now, that one's easy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_stagflation_of_the_1970s) Actually, that's what killed classical Keynesianism for two decades.

That's not a depression.  Maybe before criticizing Keynesianism you should learn the most basic thing about the situation it is most important for?

One of the key properties of a Keynesian depression is that real interest rates are abnormally close to zero or outright negative for secure assets.

Seeing as we were discussing depressions and what stimulus does during depressions the fact that you would bring a non-depression as a counter example of depression situation behavoir shows either profound ignorance or dishonesty.

And no, Keynesian economics did not die in the 1970s.  A bunch of galt wannabes just went to hide in their treehouse and pretended they were the academic center of the universe.  Meanwhile the US and every other major market economy continued to operate on Keynesian principles because guess what... they work.

As always you have proven that the audacity of ignorance is boundless.  I'm sure that it is indeed easy to come to an incorrect opinion on a matter which you do not understand.

>That's not a depression

Uh huh. Well, there's a generally accepted definition for recession, which is two consecutive periods of negative GDP growth. There is no such generally accepted definition for depression, and the only uncontested example would be, surprise surprise, the Great Depression. The second most widely accepted example would be the Long Depression, which I'd say has been pretty soundly proven to not be much of a depression. So going by that, there has been... one depression. Whoop-dee-doo.

It would be very kind of you to, I don't know, provide a source or two, rather than utilizing bombastic, sweeping statements and declarations.

Quote

And no, Keynesian economics did not die in the 1970s.  A bunch of galt wannabes just went to hide in their treehouse and pretended they were the academic center of the universe.  Meanwhile the US and every other major market economy continued to operate on Keynesian principles because guess what... they work.

So the Supply Siders, Maggie Thatcher and Milton Friedman were Keynesian? Oh, not to mention I didn't say Keynesianism died, I said CLASSICAL Keynesianism died. Were you half as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you would have noticed the difference almost immediately, seeing as how they're two very different things these days.

Quote

One of the key properties of a Keynesian depression is that real interest rates are abnormally close to zero or outright negative for secure assets.

Okay. Well besides the fact that you're basically proving yourself right by creating your own definitions, there's also the fact that real interest rates actually WERE negative during this period (http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/media_stream/mineweb/1/153868/images/120623%20rick%20mills%201.jpg).

Quote from: Reelya on November 30, 2012, 12:58:43 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

Quote

from the Stalin-era to the early Brezhnev-era, the Soviet economy grew as fast as the Japanese economy and significantly faster than that of the United States.

Those central plans turned Russia from a much-maligned rural backwater into one of the industrial power-house nations.

They had a series of economic problems from the mid-1970's onwards, but those specifically popped up 50 years after the start of central planning, so it's intellectually dishonest to draw a straight line from Soviet planning, per se, to the shortages of the late 1970's.

There's really not a single LARGE country that got rich from Laissez-faire. Even most of the "miracle" low-tax countries like Singapore turn out to be run by a ruthlessly centralized economic bureaucracy.

Well, they love to say how great Russia was doing once they got rid of the Communist planning, in about 1990:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Soviet_Union_GDP.gif/800px-Soviet_Union_GDP.gif)

As you can see, if GDP had stayed on the pre-1990 track, the Russian economy would most likely be much larger today than it is. The economy post-soviet is in the toilet compared to before.

Russian GDP grew because of a disproportionate amount of military spending, and inefficiency/waste only made GDP look bigger. The average Soviet citizen's life wasn't significantly, if at all, improved when GDP grew.

It's also worth mentioning that the Soviet Union's industrialization wasn't worth much at the end of the day. Yes, they ended up with an industrial nation and factories; most of them ended up being closed after the USSR fell because they were completely inefficient and out of date compared to the rest of the world. Furthermore, millions of lives were lost in the process of industrialization (primarily during Stalin's rule, mind, but later industrialization was built off of Stalin's initial efforts).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 30, 2012, 04:59:31 pm

GreatJustice, if the most basic knowledge of economics is controversial to you then there won't be much productive conversation.  The difference between a depression and stagflation is such a basic principle that someone who calls stagflation a depression clearly has no interest in economics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 05:34:46 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 30, 2012, 04:59:31 pm

GreatJustice, if the most basic knowledge of economics is controversial to you then there won't be much productive conversation.  The difference between a depression and stagflation is such a basic principle that someone who calls stagflation a depression clearly has no interest in economics.

This coming from someone who doesn't know what classical Keynesianism is.

Again, "depression", unlike recession, is exceptionally vague, perhaps why you used the word in the first place. Define your terms.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 30, 2012, 05:47:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 05:34:46 pm

Again, "depression", unlike recession, is exceptionally vague, perhaps why you used the word in the first place. Define your terms.

As I have explained literally dozens of times in this thread to both yourself and others, depression economics matter when real interest rates are at or near zero due to excess capacity.  You are clearly not interested in what I have to say or you would have picked up on me repeating this many, many times over the past year.  Don't act like I'm being vague here I have taken extreme pains to explain this point.  I did it for you most recently yesterday.

How long do I need to keep repeating econ 101 concepts to you before you learn the vocabulary?  You can disagree but after a year you should know the vocabulary.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on November 30, 2012, 05:55:11 pm

Entitlement is a nation gambling that the people they help out, freeing them from the survival requirement forcing them in the labor pool, pays off with inventions and new ideas.

If you start looking at it that way, maybe you can see why food stamps is a good thing.

We get our steller people who grew up on welfare. The question for you entitlement eliminatists is, is what the government paid into the system worth the chance of great people coming out, or would you rather conserve those resources and not have the Quality of Life increases innovation brings?

I'd rather have my money sapped by a welfare state than live in a place like the America some people describe. Fortunatly that is where I live.

Keep in mind, you people, that Toady One is UNEMPLOYED!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 30, 2012, 06:00:32 pm

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on November 30, 2012, 06:03:22 pm

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on November 30, 2012, 05:55:11 pm

Entitlement is a nation gambling that the people they help out, freeing them from the survival requirement forcing them in the labor pool, pays off with inventions and new ideas.

If you start looking at it that way, maybe you can see why food stamps is a good thing.

We get our steller people who grew up on welfare. The question for you entitlement eliminatists is, is what the government paid into the system worth the chance of great people coming out, or would you rather conserve those resources and not have the Quality of Life increases innovation brings?

I'd rather have my money sapped by a welfare state than live in a place like the America some people describe. Fortunatly that is where I live.

Keep in mind, you people, that Toady One is UNEMPLOYED!

I, really don't understand your argument, nor whether you are in favor or against Food Stamps.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on November 30, 2012, 06:08:07 pm

His argument is that welfare is a long term investment that pays off, which should work as an argument for welfare if you happen to be an asshole productivist who only cares about maximizing production and efficiency.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on November 30, 2012, 06:58:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 30, 2012, 06:00:32 pm

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

Seattle is more expensive than you'd think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 30, 2012, 07:06:58 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 30, 2012, 06:58:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 30, 2012, 06:00:32 pm

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

Seattle is more expensive than you'd think.

It's also the First Circle of Hell, but you don't see me bringing that up.

(I happen to have a long standing grudge against Seattle for stealing Raleigh's position as the US city with the highest percentage of college graduates.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 07:18:35 pm

Quote from: mainiac on November 30, 2012, 05:47:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 05:34:46 pm

Again, "depression", unlike recession, is exceptionally vague, perhaps why you used the word in the first place. Define your terms.

As I have explained literally dozens of times in this thread to both yourself and others, depression economics matter when real interest rates are at or near zero due to excess capacity.  You are clearly not interested in what I have to say or you would have picked up on me repeating this many, many times over the past year.  Don't act like I'm being vague here I have taken extreme pains to explain this point.  I did it for you most recently yesterday.

How long do I need to keep repeating econ 101 concepts to you before you learn the vocabulary?  You can disagree but after a year you should know the vocabulary.

A source would be nice, but apparently saying "THIS IS ECON 101" is good enough for you. Hey, I can play that game too.

"A depression is a situation in which there is a liquidity crunch followed by a decline in the purchasing power of the general population".

Also, once more, there WERE negative real interest rates during the stagflation of the 1970s. You're not even making an argument anymore, you're just mindlessly repeating yourself.

EDIT: Oh I see, you're referencing Krugman and Thoma. That's cute. Could you clarify?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 30, 2012, 07:44:19 pm

Quote

Cut spending drastically, cut taxes somewhat less drastically. Ending legal tender would be helpful, but the Fed raising rates (slightly) would probably be sufficient otherwise.

I could understand the need to cut spending somewhat (but from where?), but what taxes should be cut? There are several types, they would all have different effects on the economy. Would you be ok with increasing them to pre-recession levels when the economy comes out of recession?

You want to end money???? (At least from my search of "legal tender" on wikipedia) What would replace it as a mechanic for deferred payment?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 08:03:22 pm

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 30, 2012, 07:44:19 pm

Quote

Cut spending drastically, cut taxes somewhat less drastically. Ending legal tender would be helpful, but the Fed raising rates (slightly) would probably be sufficient otherwise.

I could understand the need to cut spending somewhat (but from where?), but what taxes should be cut? There are several types, they would all have different effects on the economy. Would you be ok with increasing them to pre-recession levels when the economy comes out of recession?

You want to end money???? (At least from my search of "legal tender" on wikipedia) What would replace it as a mechanic for deferred payment?

Spending cuts should be from just about everywhere. Welfare, government projects, the military (ESPECIALLY the military, actually), and so on. A lot of government programs are basically impossible to fund in the long term, and should be cut back over time regardless.

What taxes should be cut depends on the types of taxes present. The sales tax and VAT, the income tax, capital gains, and the payroll tax in particular all come to mind.

Ending money, no. Legal tender is what legally obligates individuals to accept US Dollars or whatever the local "legal" currency is. Competition in currency creation would prevent the Federal Reserve from promoting unsustainable booms, or at least reduce their long term effectiveness. Furthermore, it would create more flexible interest rates that actually reflect saving in the economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on November 30, 2012, 08:30:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 07:18:35 pm

EDIT: Oh I see, you're referencing Krugman and Thoma.

Delong actually.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on November 30, 2012, 09:02:06 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on November 30, 2012, 08:03:22 pm

Spending cuts should be from just about everywhere. Welfare, government projects, the military (ESPECIALLY the military, actually), and so on. A lot of government programs are basically impossible to fund in the long term, and should be cut back over time regardless

What taxes should be cut depends on the types of taxes present. The sales tax and VAT, the income tax, capital gains, and the payroll tax in particular all come to mind.

the income tax for the higher brackets should not be cut, that would just take money that could be used for welfare/schools/health and transfer it to people so that they can now afford their third beach house. The lowest brackets though, seem like a reasonable idea to lower (or perhaps increase the threshold). Particularly given that the lowest bracket (in America) I think starts at $0. The main problem with the economy being in poor shape is that these people in the lowest brackets are the ones that are suffering, and the ones in the upper bracket sure are not. The military should be cut, this should be more doable with the withdrawl from Iraq. Science is an investment, it is expected that it will make significant returns/benefits in the future (think of what ARPANET the internet did to economics).

Well obviously we can only cut taxes that are present. Sales/VAT taxes are effectively flat taxes that places more burdon on the poor (since the money is worth more to them, to eat etc) so cutting this may not be a bad idea. capital gains tax have been decreased several times and do not appear to have correlated with economic growth (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Top_Capital_Gains_Tax_Rates_and_Economic_Growth_1950-2011.jpg)

Quote

A lot of government programs are basically impossible to fund in the long term, and should be cut back over time regardless.

The governmnent has fluctuated in and out of debt/surpluss since many of these programs have been created. They seem quite possible to fund for the long run, with responsible and non-ideology based policies (eg avoiding the Laffer Curve, a gigantic oversimplification of a complex system).

Many european countries have managed to sustain significantly larger government programs (especially in regards to welfare ahd universal education). (I am using the non-broke countries as an example here, of course. The cause of the other countries debt is often placed on mishandling/corruption of managing the economy *cough*Greece*cough* and is a different discussion).

Quote

Ending money, no. Legal tender is what legally obligates individuals to accept US Dollars or whatever the local "legal" currency is. Competition in currency creation would prevent the Federal Reserve from promoting unsustainable booms, or at least reduce their long term effectiveness. Furthermore, it would create more flexible interest rates that actually reflect saving in the economy.

yes, it would stop the Fedeal Reserve from messing with things, but damn this would fracture the economy. Imagine not being able to pay a supplier, becuase they use a different currency. The supplier has to change currency to another one to pay the manufacturer. The shop that sells stuff after all this only accepts some form of money and not others, so you have to change the currency there. Not to forget international trade. Which countries will work with what currencies?

Having many types of currencies would make a confusing mess of the economic system.

It would also seem likely that large manufactures would all default onto one currency anyway to reduce this (particularly in regard to international trade). That would influence wholesalers etc to do the same thing, resulting in one mostly dominant currency. Now the owner/printer of that currency has the same, if not more power, than the Federal Reserve had, accomplishing nothing.

I don't think many economist's would support this idea...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karnewarrior on November 30, 2012, 11:41:31 pm

The Decentralization in this one is strong...


I think the States should get more Centralized, not less. I also think we should lean more socialist than we do now, it seems to work well enough for the Europeans why not give it a try here? I'm independent because I don't want to affiliate myself with either major party (in fact I don't believe in the party system being useful AT ALL) but I'm mostly leaning democrat for now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Euld on December 01, 2012, 01:45:01 am

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on November 30, 2012, 06:58:36 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on November 30, 2012, 06:00:32 pm

That's not really accurate. Toady is employed, by himself, for himself, as a programer. It makes him a decent amount of money too, judging by the donation count.

Seattle is more expensive than you'd think.

He doesn't live in Seattle.  He lives in Silverdale (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=silverdale+wa&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl), a small town that's actually pretty far removed from Seattle by multiple bodies of water and landmasses.  Learned that from this article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance-of-dwarf-fortress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)  I'll take a guess that where he lives is much cheaper than an apartment in Seattle.

It's always interesting how people from other states (or countries?) seem to think Seattle is the crux of civilization in Washington state :P  It's not even the capitol of Washington, guys.  (Just poking fun, don't take it personally)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on December 01, 2012, 05:40:17 am

Quote from: Karnewarrior on November 30, 2012, 11:41:31 pm

I think the States should get more Centralized, not less. I also think we should lean more socialist than we do now, it seems to work well enough for the Europeans why not give it a try here? I'm independent because I don't want to affiliate myself with either major party (in fact I don't believe in the party system being useful AT ALL) but I'm mostly leaning democrat for now.

I do not live in America, so anything I say is only observation/for discussion. But I agree.

I think that a significant issue is the uncomfortable, awkward feeling people get when they hear the word "socialist", which tends to make arguing for things like socialized health care harder for all the wrong reasons (association fallacies etc).

America's party system makes it very hard for independents/third parties to do anything. If you vote for Democrat-alternative or Republican-alternative, then that is a vote away from a party that is much more likely to win (which makes alot of people think thay they are just throwing their vote away).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on December 01, 2012, 05:58:53 am

I would like to see a centralization of equally accessible participatory organizational infrastructure, coinciding with a dispersion of authority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on December 01, 2012, 07:53:18 am

Quote from: Euld on December 01, 2012, 01:45:01 am

It's always interesting how people from other states (or countries?) seem to think Seattle is the crux of civilization in Washington state :P  It's not even the capitol of Washington, guys.  (Just poking fun, don't take it personally)

New York City isn't even the Capitol of New York State, and it's urban area spills into SEVERAL other states, but you don't see THEM legalizing Marijuana. Damn hippy states.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 01, 2012, 12:09:07 pm

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 30, 2012, 09:02:06 pm

the income tax for the higher brackets should not be cut, that would just take money that could be used for welfare/schools/health and transfer it to people so that they can now afford their third beach house. The lowest brackets though, seem like a reasonable idea to lower (or perhaps increase the threshold). Particularly given that the lowest bracket (in America) I think starts at $0. The main problem with the economy being in poor shape is that these people in the lowest brackets are the ones that are suffering, and the ones in the upper bracket sure are not. The military should be cut, this should be more doable with the withdrawl from Iraq. Science is an investment, it is expected that it will make significant returns/benefits in the future (think of what ARPANET the internet did to economics).

Well obviously we can only cut taxes that are present. Sales/VAT taxes are effectively flat taxes that places more burdon on the poor (since the money is worth more to them, to eat etc) so cutting this may not be a bad idea. capital gains tax have been decreased several times and do not appear to have correlated with economic growth (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Top_Capital_Gains_Tax_Rates_and_Economic_Growth_1950-2011.jpg)

The income tax being cut for all tax brackets frees up more resources for private investment, which can help soften the blow. It's also worth noting that quite often the people who are at the top brackets don't necessarily make that much money in the first place, whereas those who aren't can still be absurdly rich. For example, the established rich (the kind who would actually be buying their third summer home) would have most of their wealth in assets, not income, and would pay quite a bit less in income tax regardless of what the highest brackets paid. Inversely, someone who actually works their ass off to make their money, or actively runs an innovative business, gets taxed quite a bit more.

Science certainly is an investment, but the government has a tendency to crowd out the competition, and its most useful inventions have a tendency to be outlandishly expensive for what they're worth (eg. most of the innovations coming out of the DoD).

EDIT: Oh dear, I forgot to address Capital Gains. Well, the main point here is that, again, tax cuts in of themselves won't really help the economy or unemployment with the possible exception of the employer's side of the payroll tax. The main issues of a standard recession can be traced to a mixture of (enforced) wage rigidity and distortions in the capital structure, neither of which are really solved by tax cuts. However, Capital Gains tax cuts in particular incentivize investment, which leads to saving, which leads to sustainable production, which strengthens the economy in general. This is over a long term, but it certainly helps.

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 30, 2012, 09:02:06 pm

The governmnent has fluctuated in and out of debt/surpluss since many of these programs have been created. They seem quite possible to fund for the long run, with responsible and non-ideology based policies (eg avoiding the Laffer Curve, a gigantic oversimplification of a complex system).

Many european countries have managed to sustain significantly larger government programs (especially in regards to welfare ahd universal education). (I am using the non-broke countries as an example here, of course. The cause of the other countries debt is often placed on mishandling/corruption of managing the economy *cough*Greece*cough* and is a different discussion).

With the exception of Germany, I actually can't think of any European countries that have sustained their government programs without causing huge economic imbalances (France), running up massive debt (Italy, Spain, the UK, etc), or recession followed by major reforms (Sweden). Even Germany's debt has shot up rather dramatically over the years, and they're easily the strongest economy in Europe.

Also, a lot of American welfare is distinctly different from European welfare. For example, Medicare and Medicaid, taking up a gigantic portion of US spending, were originally attempts by the US government to make healthcare more affordable to the groups they're aimed at, and we can see today how successful THAT was. Most European countries don't have such a program at all for rather obvious reasons. The other major expensive American welfare project is Social Security, which European countries DO have in the form of pensions. However, aforementioned pensions are generally kept afloat by raising the age limit at which they can be received or reducing payouts, in short, screwing over the elderly who paid into them.

On that note, I've never understood the rationale behind Social Security. You can't opt out, even these days in the US it doesn't pay out much more than any other pension, and in the long term necessitates screwing over either the young (by forcing them to pay huge amounts of money for a benefit they'll likely never receive) or the elderly (by taking away the benefits that they actually did pay for).

Quote from: alexandertnt on November 30, 2012, 09:02:06 pm

yes, it would stop the Fedeal Reserve from messing with things, but damn this would fracture the economy. Imagine not being able to pay a supplier, becuase they use a different currency. The supplier has to change currency to another one to pay the manufacturer. The shop that sells stuff after all this only accepts some form of money and not others, so you have to change the currency there. Not to forget international trade. Which countries will work with what currencies?

Having many types of currencies would make a confusing mess of the economic system.

It would also seem likely that large manufactures would all default onto one currency anyway to reduce this (particularly in regard to international trade). That would influence wholesalers etc to do the same thing, resulting in one mostly dominant currency. Now the owner/printer of that currency has the same, if not more power, than the Federal Reserve had, accomplishing nothing.

I don't think many economist's would support this idea...

Most currencies would end up being backed by different things, but I'd imagine a lot would just revert to a gold standard of some kind. In turn, conversion would be simple, straightforward, and rejection of currency unlikely. If one of the major producers began cutting its reserves back too much, or inflating heavily, pulling out would be fairly simple and the overall effects on the economy wouldn't  be as harsh. On the other hand, when the Fed does such things, Americans are basically stuck with the consequences of whatever boneheaded policy they implement without many alternatives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 01, 2012, 12:14:36 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 01, 2012, 05:58:53 am

I would like to see a centralization of equally accessible participatory organizational infrastructure, coinciding with a dispersion of authority.

Whoawhoawhoa, that sentence takes five minutes to even begin to understand. Sounds interesting (and slightly anarchist >:( )though - care to elaborate?

GreatJustice: That post was a bit TL;DR, but wouldn't you agree that welfare reform would be better than shrinking the welfare state while keeping the inefficiencies?
Economically I'd say (purely subjectively) that Europe did about as well as the US, at least where Joe Average (Jean Moyen, Otto Normalverbraucher) concerned.
And, last but not least: If a gold standard is what you see as the de facto replacement, why not opt (once more) for reform instead of abolition? Keep the Fed, but keep it in check, so to speak ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 01, 2012, 12:18:21 pm

Do you guys think the USA will ever have a bearded or moustachio'd president again?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2012, 12:25:16 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 01, 2012, 12:14:36 pm

Whoawhoawhoa, that sentence takes five minutes to even begin to understand. Sounds interesting (and slightly anarchist >:( )though - care to elaborate?

SalmonGod does in fact identify as an anarchist, if I am remembering correctly.

Quote from: Owlbread on December 01, 2012, 12:18:21 pm

Do you guys think the USA will ever have a bearded or moustachio'd president again?

Unlikely. Facial hair permanently went out of style in the US after World War I. Can't wear a gas mask unless you're clean shaven.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 01, 2012, 12:27:06 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 01, 2012, 12:14:36 pm

Quote from: SalmonGod on December 01, 2012, 05:58:53 am

I would like to see a centralization of equally accessible participatory organizational infrastructure, coinciding with a dispersion of authority.

Whoawhoawhoa, that sentence takes five minutes to even begin to understand. Sounds interesting (and slightly anarchist >:( )though - care to elaborate?

GreatJustice: That post was a bit TL;DR, but wouldn't you agree that welfare reform would be better than shrinking the welfare state while keeping the inefficiencies?
Economically I'd say (purely subjectively) that Europe did about as well as the US, at least where Joe Average (Jean Moyen, Otto Normalverbraucher) concerned.
And, last but not least: If a gold standard is what you see as the de facto replacement, why not opt (once more) for reform instead of abolition? Keep the Fed, but keep it in check, so to speak ;)

Quite frankly, the best "welfare reform" in my eyes would be removing the welfare state altogether. Of course, that isn't going to happen in the near term barring a total collapse of some kind, so cutting back is good enough. Plus, there are people who are owed something from the welfare state regardless of whether it should have existed in the first place, like Social Security and Medicare recipients. The ideal method of ending SS, for example, would be offering an opt-out while immediately trying to pay off present recipients, which would shrink it to the point of being something reasonable (it could function as a harmless, voluntary, self funding program after a point, or be repurposed as a non-profit). 

The entire problem of the Fed is that it has monopoly privilege, has a pile of different benefactors it has to keep happy (from the banksters over at Goldman Sachs to Congress to the President to the angry, increasingly anti-Fed American citizenry), and quite obviously fails at the one half of its purpose of creation, specifically to prevent inflation.

So far as reform  goes, besides removing this monopoly, I can see only see a few reforms besides removing the monopoly privilege, and all of them have distinct problems, particularly the ones that start with "Let's give Congress more control!". Maybe there are alternatives, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 01, 2012, 12:31:49 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2012, 12:25:16 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 01, 2012, 12:14:36 pm

Whoawhoawhoa, that sentence takes five minutes to even begin to understand. Sounds interesting (and slightly anarchist >:( )though - care to elaborate?

SalmonGod does in fact identify as an anarchist, if I am remembering correctly.

Quote from: Owlbread on December 01, 2012, 12:18:21 pm

Do you guys think the USA will ever have a bearded or moustachio'd president again?

Unlikely. Facial hair permanently went out of style in the US after World War I. Can't wear a gas mask unless you're clean shaven.

I think you can have a small moustache, like Hitler's. Some say that's why he shaved it like that but others say it was because the Fascist movement were composed of working class Germans who wanted to distance themselves from the handlebar moustached upper classes and militiarists.

I've always thought that if I invent anything in my life it will be a gas mask that accomodates a full beard, so the military will have no excuse other than "discipline" aka control. Soldiers in the British army are also allowed to have quite decent-sized moustaches as long as they don't extend to a certain length, I think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tryrar on December 01, 2012, 02:09:01 pm

Again you guys have lost me. Can you guys just sum up this discussion with what you'd like to see the government do economics wise and move on to something else?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 01, 2012, 02:11:57 pm

Quote from: tryrar on December 01, 2012, 02:09:01 pm

Again you guys have lost me. Can you guys just sum up this discussion with what you'd like to see the government do economics wise and move on to something else?

Make moustaches compulsory for all men over the age of 16 (those who cannot grow them will be liquidated) and pump billions of funds into gas mask research to allow the army to have full bearded soldiers. It will be a new golden age.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tryrar on December 01, 2012, 02:15:41 pm

ha ha. Very funny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 01, 2012, 02:19:15 pm

Quote from: tryrar on December 01, 2012, 02:15:41 pm

ha ha. Very funny.

I'm deathly serious.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 01, 2012, 02:32:07 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on December 01, 2012, 02:19:15 pm

I'm deathly serious.

Stop being so ghastly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: EveryZig on December 01, 2012, 03:22:12 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 01, 2012, 12:27:06 pm

Quite frankly, the best "welfare reform" in my eyes would be removing the welfare state altogether.

So... what is your position on the poor then?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 01, 2012, 03:26:31 pm

They would magically not exist if we got rid of all government spending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 01, 2012, 03:30:14 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 01, 2012, 03:26:31 pm

They would magically not exist if we got rid of all government spending.

Given enough time and no access to resources, eventually that would become technically true...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 01, 2012, 03:48:11 pm

Quote from: Euld on December 01, 2012, 01:45:01 am

It's always interesting how people from other states (or countries?) seem to think Seattle is the crux of civilization in Washington state :P  It's not even the capitol of Washington, guys.  (Just poking fun, don't take it personally)

Source: I'm from Spokane, born and raised. Seattle is the crux of Washington's civilization. The state is nothing but farmland till you hit fallout aka Richland and the more northern east-border counties. There's literally nothing of note in the state, except maybe Seattle, and that's only because it's the only city the rest of the US know about existing here, so that's basically a consolation prize. Like being Des Moines.

Oh, and NYT has released a database of corporations that get subsidies from local governments. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?hp)

Here's the explorable database, with lots of neat details and tidbits, like counties and exact amounts rewarded. Sortable too! (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html) Never before has exploring the vast inequity of our governance been more easy.


TL;DR $80.4 billion in incentives each year go to corporations around the country to entice local job growth and keep jobs in the places they are. But noone actually tracks if any of these payments create jobs, and have no way to even track it. So they're funneling money to corporations for the simple fact that they have the power to extort it.

1/4 of that yearly amount is in Texas, go figure.

Quote of the day:

Quote

“I just shake my head every time it happens, it just gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach,” said Sean O’Byrne, the vice president of the Downtown Council of Kansas City. “It sounds like I’m talking myself out of a job, but there ought to be a law against what I’m doing.”

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 01, 2012, 04:35:12 pm

Quote from: EveryZig on December 01, 2012, 03:22:12 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 01, 2012, 12:27:06 pm

Quite frankly, the best "welfare reform" in my eyes would be removing the welfare state altogether.

So... what is your position on the poor then?

They would be left to starve. I would laugh at them while twirling my mustache and drinking thousand dollar wine

Private charity would be far less crowded out and would become more effective, though that's the obvious answer. Mutual aid associations would become common if certain regulations tied to welfare (especially Medicare and the healthcare sector in general) were removed, and would generally be far more capable of providing assistance than the government. Prices in general would tend to either stay steady or drop over time, making things more affordable. The end of the minimum wage would mean most would start with lower wages, but as they built up experience they would end up making far more than they would have otherwise, and would have more opportunities to boot. Getting a job would be significantly more straightforward, and unemployment would be quite a bit lower.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 01, 2012, 04:43:00 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 01, 2012, 03:26:31 pm

They would magically not exist

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2012, 04:46:01 pm

Too bad that's never happened ever. People will be charitable or not with or without the existence of government assistance. If I volunteer, I don't think to myself "gee why am I even bothering these welfare lovers already have all the help they need". No one thinks like that, and in the event that someone does think like that they'd be the kind of ultimate selfish dick who wouldn't let a moment of their precious time be spent on the good of somebody else no matter what the situation is.

We've seen in US history and the present elsewhere what a lack of minimum wage leads to, and that is slave wages. If a business owner can pay their people crumbs and let all the wealth pool at the very top to benefit them, that is what they will do. Most minimum wage jobs don't go anywhere even now. Wal-Mart cashiers don't work really hard and one day become big shot executives, contrary to popular belief.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on December 01, 2012, 04:47:44 pm

Quote from: Sirus on December 01, 2012, 03:30:14 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 01, 2012, 03:26:31 pm

They would magically not exist if we got rid of all government spending.

Given enough time and no access to resources, eventually that would become technically true...

Out of sight, out of mind.  They technically are not considered homeless if they are in jail, I would think.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 01, 2012, 05:47:08 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 01, 2012, 04:35:12 pm

The end of the minimum wage would mean most would start with lower wages, but as they built up experience they would end up making far more than they would have otherwise, and would have more opportunities to boot. Getting a job would be significantly more straightforward, and unemployment would be quite a bit lower.

Please explain how lower wages is possibly going to lead to higher wages.

And what kind of "more opportunities" are you imagining? Because the only opportunities available would be other, below-minimum-wage drudgery jobs. That's definitely the kind of opportunities you want when you're already working two jobs to support your family and can't afford to do anything about your chronic back-pain; the chance to start all over again from the lowest of low positions.

Face the truth, man. The reason minimum wage laws had to be made in the first place was that people were being abused. Workers are still being abused all over the world where there aren't any laws like these. The same thing would happen again in the US or Europe if we were to remove ours.

What next, will you be arguing we should do away with all workplace safety regulations again as well?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 01, 2012, 05:56:02 pm

He probably would.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 01, 2012, 06:29:28 pm

Quote from: Zangi on December 01, 2012, 04:47:44 pm

Quote from: Sirus on December 01, 2012, 03:30:14 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 01, 2012, 03:26:31 pm

They would magically not exist if we got rid of all government spending.

Given enough time and no access to resources, eventually that would become technically true...

Out of sight, out of mind.  They technically are not considered homeless if they are in jail, I would think.

Actually, I was referring to the possibility of them starving to death. But your's is good too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on December 01, 2012, 06:46:23 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 01, 2012, 04:35:12 pm

Private charity would be far less crowded out and would become more effective, though that's the obvious answer. Mutual aid associations would become common if certain regulations tied to welfare (especially Medicare and the healthcare sector in general) were removed, and would generally be far more capable of providing assistance than the government. Prices in general would tend to either stay steady or drop over time, making things more affordable. The end of the minimum wage would mean most would start with lower wages, but as they built up experience they would end up making far more than they would have otherwise, and would have more opportunities to boot. Getting a job would be significantly more straightforward, and unemployment would be quite a bit lower.

This contains alot of assertions. Would private charities become more effective? That would require more people to pay into them (would they?), which would remove incentive for investment. "far more capable of providing assistance than the government" Why? The governmnent makes far more money much more reliably and has far more infestructure in place, it would seem they are much more capable.

I agree that American healthcare needs reform, but not in that direction. Many first world countries have larger and more efficient government health care programs (eg NHS) and most have had them more several decades and have managed to support them through economic booms and busts.

"The end of the minimum wage would mean most would start with lower wages, but as they built up experience they would end up making far more than they would have otherwise" Would they end up making more? Would this apply to everyone or would there be significant chunks of the populace working for $2 an hour, relying on the unpredictable availability of charity?

Quote

It's also worth noting that quite often the people who are at the top brackets don't necessarily make that much money in the first place, whereas those who aren't can still be absurdly rich. For example, the established rich (the kind who would actually be buying their third summer home) would have most of their wealth in assets, not income, and would pay quite a bit less in income tax regardless of what the highest brackets paid. Inversely, someone who actually works their ass off to make their money, or actively runs an innovative business, gets taxed quite a bit more.

Most people in the top bracket are earning that much, that is why they are in the top bracket (the top bracket is 388,351, which is alot of money). It is true though that the absurdly rich are undertaxed, but this could be solved by increasing taxes (for example tax extra house purchases, or even some sort of Robin Hood tax).

This is not a problem solved by decreasing taxes, it is solved by fixing regression in the tax system and making it more actually-progressive.

Quote

Science certainly is an investment, but the government has a tendency to crowd out the competition, and its most useful inventions have a tendency to be outlandishly expensive for what they're worth (eg. most of the innovations coming out of the DoD).

There was nothing stopping any private company from researching an internet-like infestructure. Infact there is little crowding out (except in regards to understandably restricted things like nuclear weapons etc). Alot of research is contracted out to universities/private companies as it is anyway.

"most useful inventions have a tendency to be outlandishly expensive for what they're worth", Is this an opinion?

Quote

Capital Gains tax cuts in particular incentivize investment, which leads to saving, which leads to sustainable production, which strengthens the economy in general. This is over a long term, but it certainly helps.

My diagram has showen virtually no correlation between Capital Gains tax. It is understandable that a ridiculous level of tax would hurt incentives, but the low correlation would suggest that the tax is already so low that it is having virtually no effect.

Quote

With the exception of Germany, I actually can't think of any European countries that have sustained their government programs without causing huge economic imbalances (France), running up massive debt (Italy, Spain, the UK, etc), or recession followed by major reforms (Sweden). Even Germany's debt has shot up rather dramatically over the years, and they're easily the strongest economy in Europe.

That is because it is a global recession. I don't see how being closer to a laissez-faire capitalism system would prevent this from happening (especially given that most of the fault is placed on private investors). America's huge debt and its less socialist/interventive government policies (as opposed to most of europe) do not seem to have helped.

This recession is not the indicator that government intervention/tax is unsustainable (These happen from time to time, plus economic crises are an expected part of capitalism). I woudn't be agains't a flexable policy though, one that can adjust depending on the economic situation etc. But permanently ending some of these things does not seem necessary.

Quote

Also, a lot of American welfare is distinctly different from European welfare. For example, Medicare and Medicaid, taking up a gigantic portion of US spending, were originally attempts by the US government to make healthcare more affordable to the groups they're aimed at, and we can see today how successful THAT was. Most European countries don't have such a program at all for rather obvious reasons. The other major expensive American welfare project is Social Security, which European countries DO have in the form of pensions. However, aforementioned pensions are generally kept afloat by raising the age limit at which they can be received or reducing payouts, in short, screwing over the elderly who paid into them.

I agree that they (Medicare and Medicaid) are not very sucessful. They cost alot and are not very effective. Alot of Eurpoean countries have some form of socialized medicine (the biggest example being the UK's NHS) and are for the most part not in need of these programs (at least not near the same level as the US). I would think that reforms towards something like this would be capable of providing more efficient health care to the poor, and (hopefully) away from facelifts and other inefficient wastes-of-money the private sector has created.

The raising age limit is to coincide with the increasing age that people work upto as well as the increasing life expectancy. Something will probably have to be done, mind you, do deal with the aging baby boomers.

Quote

Most currencies would end up being backed by different things, but I'd imagine a lot would just revert to a gold standard of some kind. In turn, conversion would be simple, straightforward, and rejection of currency unlikely. If one of the major producers began cutting its reserves back too much, or inflating heavily, pulling out would be fairly simple and the overall effects on the economy wouldn't  be as harsh. On the other hand, when the Fed does such things, Americans are basically stuck with the consequences of whatever boneheaded policy they implement without many alternatives.

Currencies backed by the gold standard is unreliable, there is a reason why most countries abandoned it (Great Depression). To transfer from one currency to anoter still requires aquisition of the physical currency, it would become messy dealing with dand aquiring these currencies, regardless of being backed by gold.

Pulling out would not at all be fairly simple, when a company has large stores of cash of a certain type (eg a bank), swapping that around for another currency would be quite a complex process. Ontop of that now the people who go to purchase/withdraw now have to work with different currencies.

Now people won't be stuck with the "consequences of whatever boneheaded policy" private money producers make (Because there is nothing stopping them from being as bad as the government).

As I said, there are reasons most economicists do not support it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Techhead on December 01, 2012, 11:24:06 pm

Volunteer gladiatorial matches! With seniors!
Basically, two people go in, and they each bet their Social Security fund against their opponent in a fight to the death! Win, and double your SS check! Lose, you die! (Injuries sustained in the arena are paid out of your double SS fund, not Medicare)

You might think this to be a break-even arrangement for the government, but you forget something: Sometimes they both die!

Also, you can sell tickets.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on December 01, 2012, 11:25:16 pm

Quote from: Techhead on December 01, 2012, 11:24:06 pm

Volunteer gladiatorial matches! With seniors!
Basically, two people go in, and they each bet their Social Security fund against their opponent in a fight to the death! Win, and double your SS check! Lose, you die! (Injuries sustained in the arena are paid out of your double SS fund, not Medicare)

You might think this to be a break-even arrangement for the government, but you forget something: Sometimes they both die!

Also, you can sell tickets.

Aside from the obvious humanitarian/legal objection, I can't think of any.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on December 01, 2012, 11:40:36 pm

Quote from: Techhead on December 01, 2012, 11:24:06 pm

Volunteer gladiatorial matches! With seniors!
Basically, two people go in, and they each bet their Social Security fund against their opponent in a fight to the death! Win, and double your SS check! Lose, you die! (Injuries sustained in the arena are paid out of your double SS fund, not Medicare)

You might think this to be a break-even arrangement for the government, but you forget something: Sometimes they both die!

Also, you can sell tickets.

Psh, tickets? Pay-Per-View! Set it up like one of those robot fighting shows so they can bring in sledgehammers, circular saws, and so on.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on December 02, 2012, 01:06:33 am

Okay, all my joking aside...


First of all, you want an example of what "Private Charities" do when government gets out of the way? Plenty of examples in Africa!
Some stellar examples there. Of paticular note is the gift of books to starving people and the requirement of conversion to their religion for any aid.
Yea, private charities? To hell with that, I'd rather have half my barely over minimum wage check be taken. It could be the next Stephen Hawking being fed only with foodstamps right now. Will voluntarilly provide it? Nope. I could use that money for purposes of greater immediate benefit to me. I do provide to charities, but nowhere near what the government does in my name. People don't have to starve because of it. You honestly think YOU, person about to argue with me, that you are any different? That without the government you'd pay the same or more to a charity that helps as free of conditions as the Government? Or maybe you think Bibles are tasty.

Now, the other thing... Rich people and taxation. I personally don't advocate taxing assets more, and nobody is. Farmers are usually multi-millionares on paper, and barely making it in reality.
No, what you are seeing here is advocacy of increased taxation on rich income. Capital Gains, regular income, other income sources. If you are making $250,000 a year, your problems aren't managing less than $500 in savings to protect a person who is in an unstable job and helping a unemployed sister and brother and nephews eat. Your problems are keeping your relatives from abusing you and taking another $500 that week to gamble with.
Why do I know this? I make less than $40000 a year. Supporting my family while  protecting another person is my burden, but that other person's unstable job is employed as a caretaker for someone earning about $155000 a year(by my best guess based on the assets they talk about infront of that other person, which they do freely.)
When people talk about how unfair it is to tax the rich, I remember that Capital Gains are taxed lower than my income. If the rich can't stand a little more taxes, they can afford an airplane ticket out. I can't. So yea, it's not about assets, but income.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 11:01:28 am

Income tax is income from labor tax, right? Why don't we tax all income with the same progression, regardless of source? The distinction always struck me as odd...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 02, 2012, 11:12:12 am

I guess the other kinds if income are just difficult to quantify or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 02, 2012, 11:33:49 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 11:01:28 am

Income tax is income from labor tax, right? Why don't we tax all income with the same progression, regardless of source? The distinction always struck me as odd...

It's believed to increase the savings rate when capital gains are taxed at a lower rate then income.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 02, 2012, 11:35:32 am

The big non-income taxes are the property tax, which isn't really income-like at all, and the capital gains tax which is a tax you pay whenever your bonds and stocks and such go up in value but you haven't make any money yet because you haven't sold. The idea behind capital gains taxes being lower is that having them low "incentivizes investors" and makes people want to invest money. Which is really a load of bunk, since the investors are still going to do whatever investment is the most profitable regardless of what percent of the profit they get to keep. Keeping x% of a million is better than x% of a hundred regardless of what x equals.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 02, 2012, 11:36:54 am

It's even more complicated than that. Lower tax rates on investment income were believed to encourage investing, which powers business, which powers the economy. Part of the stated intention was to make investing more attractive to mid-range income levels, rather than it being the near-exclusive domain of the wealthy. In practice, it just served to shift the tax burden away from the rich.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 12:06:51 pm

But why not simply tax on sale? Before a person sells, he hasn't gained anything - the stock might fall again. When he sells, though...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 02, 2012, 12:09:50 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 12:06:51 pm

But why not simply tax on sale? Before a person sells, he hasn't gained anything - the stock might fall again. When he sells, though...

Sale is when capital gains are typically realized.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2012, 04:46:01 pm

Too bad that's never happened ever. People will be charitable or not with or without the existence of government assistance. If I volunteer, I don't think to myself "gee why am I even bothering these welfare lovers already have all the help they need". No one thinks like that, and in the event that someone does think like that they'd be the kind of ultimate selfish dick who wouldn't let a moment of their precious time be spent on the good of somebody else no matter what the situation is.

Straight from the horses mouth. Whoops! (http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2007/2007-012.pdf)

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 01, 2012, 04:46:01 pm

We've seen in US history and the present elsewhere what a lack of minimum wage leads to, and that is slave wages. If a business owner can pay their people crumbs and let all the wealth pool at the very top to benefit them, that is what they will do. Most minimum wage jobs don't go anywhere even now. Wal-Mart cashiers don't work really hard and one day become big shot executives, contrary to popular belief.

Well, besides the fact that this makes absolutely no sense from a historical standpoint, as wages and living standards were shooting up well before the 1930s (when the first minimum wages were put in place), this also ignores the fact that the employees themselves are going to try to get themselves the best deal as well. Unless you're in a country with lots of people, very few places to work, and no real skills like Honduras, the workers are going to be able to get themselves decent jobs regardless because their skills make them hard to replace. Not to mention that, if that logic actually followed, just about everyone would be getting paid minimum wage today.

Now besides all that, you also fail to consider that if an employer doesn't consider an employee worth more than minimum wage, the employee just won't be hired in the first place, whereas they might consider temporarily hiring them at an exceptionally low wage for a period just to train them, and then increase it afterwards. The only people who actually benefit are those who make just slightly under minimum wage, since were they making much more they'd simply be laid off.

Quote

Please explain how lower wages is possibly going to lead to higher wages.

And what kind of "more opportunities" are you imagining? Because the only opportunities available would be other, below-minimum-wage drudgery jobs. That's definitely the kind of opportunities you want when you're already working two jobs to support your family and can't afford to do anything about your chronic back-pain; the chance to start all over again from the lowest of low positions.

Face the truth, man. The reason minimum wage laws had to be made in the first place was that people were being abused. Workers are still being abused all over the world where there aren't any laws like these. The same thing would happen again in the US or Europe if we were to remove ours.

What next, will you be arguing we should do away with all workplace safety regulations again as well?

More opportunities from the experience gained on the job. Experienced workers are worth a lot more than inexperienced workers, even if they're working a cheap job.

This is a fairly well documented (http://epionline.org/studies/macpherson_06-2004.pdf) fact, at least among minimum wage workers. Their wages rise quite quickly over time as they gain experience, and the overwhelming majority have moved well beyond the minimum wage within ten years. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers aren't raising families, and can live off of such small incomes for a time.

Quote from: alexandertnt on December 01, 2012, 06:46:23 pm

This contains alot of assertions. Would private charities become more effective? That would require more people to pay into them (would they?), which would remove incentive for investment. "far more capable of providing assistance than the government" Why? The governmnent makes far more money much more reliably and has far more infestructure in place, it would seem they are much more capable.

Yes, the government is more reliable in securing money for the poor. It also has far less motivation to give it out properly, has a standing army of bureaucrats involved in gathering aforementioned money, and creates a pile of unintentional problems along the way.

Quote from: alexandertnt on December 01, 2012, 06:46:23 pm

I agree that American healthcare needs reform, but not in that direction. Many first world countries have larger and more efficient government health care programs (eg NHS) and most have had them more several decades and have managed to support them through economic booms and busts.

Yet even those "efficient" programs are still pretty damn expensive, and they've got problems that even the US doesn't have to boot (eg. very long waiting lists for treatment).

It's fairly well documented that the bulk of American healthcare expense growth occurred following the times where the government tried to make it "more affordable". Remember, in 1964, when Medicare was introduced to deal with costs, the inflation adjusted yearly cost of healthcare was on average in the realm of $3,000. It sure didn't solve that problem!

Quote

"The end of the minimum wage would mean most would start with lower wages, but as they built up experience they would end up making far more than they would have otherwise" Would they end up making more? Would this apply to everyone or would there be significant chunks of the populace working for $2 an hour, relying on the unpredictable availability of charity?

This would apply to everyone who actually worked reliably over a long term. Employers generally tend to hire those with lots of work experience, even if they don't have many skills, because they know they'll come to work on time, do their job, etc rather than skip work or do a bad job and get fired. The number of people actually getting paid $2 an hour would be vanishingly small, and largely composed of people with no prior work experience.

Quote

Most people in the top bracket are earning that much, that is why they are in the top bracket (the top bracket is 388,351, which is alot of money). It is true though that the absurdly rich are undertaxed, but this could be solved by increasing taxes (for example tax extra house purchases, or even some sort of Robin Hood tax).

This is not a problem solved by decreasing taxes, it is solved by fixing regression in the tax system and making it more actually-progressive.

Yet the richest people aren't necessarily in that bracket, whereas the generally hardest working are. Again, it doesn't distinguish between how long you've been making over that, whether the money is actually going to your benefit, etc. If I work five years for next to nothing and then in one year my project works out and I make $500,000, do I actually have enough money? In actuality, I've been making $50,000 a year, yet the government treats this as though I'm "rich".

Quote

There was nothing stopping any private company from researching an internet-like infestructure. Infact there is little crowding out (except in regards to understandably restricted things like nuclear weapons etc). Alot of research is contracted out to universities/private companies as it is anyway.

There is crowding out because the people most able to create such infrastructure in the first place end up hired by the government instead. The internet may not be the same as it is today without ARPANET, but it seems likely that something similar would have been created otherwise. Plus, private companies created just about everything the government needed to make the internet possible in the first place, AND were responsible for it being something actually worth using today. For example:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

UNIX: Invented by Bell, 1969
FORTRAN and hard drives: invented by IBM, 1956
Packet data transmission over lines: Bell, 1958
Integrated circuits: Texas Instruments, 1958

Quote

"most useful inventions have a tendency to be outlandishly expensive for what they're worth", Is this an opinion?

Do you think trillions of dollars per noteworthy invention from the DoD are worth it, considering the fact that many of them may very well have been developed for less a bit later regardless?

Quote

My diagram has showen virtually no correlation between Capital Gains tax. It is understandable that a ridiculous level of tax would hurt incentives, but the low correlation would suggest that the tax is already so low that it is having virtually no effect.

Capital Gains increases investment and savings, whereas GDP is measured by spending. The correlation between the two is going to be next to nonexistent when monetary policy is taken into effect, which basically drowns out any effect of increased investment. Were interest rates dynamically determined by savings rather than by the Fed, the effects of a Capital Gains tax would be noticeable on interest rates and on long term growth.

Quote

That is because it is a global recession. I don't see how being closer to a laissez-faire capitalism system would prevent this from happening (especially given that most of the fault is placed on private investors). America's huge debt and its less socialist/interventive government policies (as opposed to most of europe) do not seem to have helped.

This recession is not the indicator that government intervention/tax is unsustainable (These happen from time to time, plus economic crises are an expected part of capitalism). I woudn't be agains't a flexable policy though, one that can adjust depending on the economic situation etc. But permanently ending some of these things does not seem necessary.

The global recession is largely the result of the Federal Reserve alongside various corporatist measures taken in the 2000s. Saying "its just the private investors" ignores a lot of key points in the first place.

Besides that, most of these welfare projects are doomed because of demographics, not just economic sustainability. For example, Social Security relies on there being a relatively small amount of elderly recipients compared to workers, which isn't likely to be the case in even ten years.

Quote

I agree that they (Medicare and Medicaid) are not very sucessful. They cost alot and are not very effective. Alot of Eurpoean countries have some form of socialized medicine (the biggest example being the UK's NHS) and are for the most part not in need of these programs (at least not near the same level as the US). I would think that reforms towards something like this would be capable of providing more efficient health care to the poor, and (hopefully) away from facelifts and other inefficient wastes-of-money the private sector has created.

The raising age limit is to coincide with the increasing age that people work upto as well as the increasing life expectancy. Something will probably have to be done, mind you, do deal with the aging baby boomers.

See above. It's worth noting that a lot of the reason European healthcare is cheaper is because they actually do look for cost cutting measures. In the US, there is a gigantic system of government imposed regulations that make costs go up by necessity. For example, a doctor will almost always recommend the "best" treatment, even when it costs 100x as much and is only 2x as effective, an insurance company will pay for it (insulating the consumer from the costs) because of various state mandates, the pharmaceutical companies will charge insane amounts because they're basically a cartel (due to high costs of entry imposed by the FDA among others) and because of patent law. If some new "wonder drug" comes out with significantly better results than older drugs but insanely high costs, the American doctor is obligated to recommend it regardless of cost whereas the European doctor will either wait for the generic version of it to come out at significantly cheaper cost or else recommend a cheaper treatment.

Quote

Currencies backed by the gold standard is unreliable, there is a reason why most countries abandoned it (Great Depression). To transfer from one currency to anoter still requires aquisition of the physical currency, it would become messy dealing with dand aquiring these currencies, regardless of being backed by gold.

Then they could be backed by something else. That's the whole point of competing currencies; they don't HAVE to be backed by anything, they'd just tend to so as to retain their value.

Quote

Pulling out would not at all be fairly simple, when a company has large stores of cash of a certain type (eg a bank), swapping that around for another currency would be quite a complex process. Ontop of that now the people who go to purchase/withdraw now have to work with different currencies.

Okay. So Company A has its reserves in Cool Bux, which are backed by, say, platinum. However, Cool Bux is inflated or has some other problem, so Company A pulls out by taking their platinum and going to something else. Now at this point, either (A) they have a pile of platinum, which can be exchanged for another currency and all is well or (B) Cool Bux was running with fractional reserves and doesn't actually have enough platinum, in which case the standard procedures for any bank going bankrupt occur. Regardless, Company A still gets its money's worth in the end.

So long as the currency is backed by something recognized as being valuable, people will tend towards accepting it. Conversion of some kind may be required, but that would hardly result in everyone rejecting all but one currency (not to mention the internet would make it fairly trivial to convert from one currency to another).

Quote

Now people won't be stuck with the "consequences of whatever boneheaded policy" private money producers make (Because there is nothing stopping them from being as bad as the government).

If private money producers screw up, they go bankrupt and lose their stuff. Not to mention the fact that they keep each other in check through fluctuating exchange rates.

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on December 02, 2012, 01:06:33 am

First of all, you want an example of what "Private Charities" do when government gets out of the way? Plenty of examples in Africa!
Some stellar examples there. Of paticular note is the gift of books to starving people and the requirement of conversion to their religion for any aid.
Yea, private charities? To hell with that, I'd rather have half my barely over minimum wage check be taken. It could be the next Stephen Hawking being fed only with foodstamps right now. Will voluntarilly provide it? Nope. I could use that money for purposes of greater immediate benefit to me. I do provide to charities, but nowhere near what the government does in my name. People don't have to starve because of it. You honestly think YOU, person about to argue with me, that you are any different? That without the government you'd pay the same or more to a charity that helps as free of conditions as the Government? Or maybe you think Bibles are tasty.

A lot of African countries have had their food production destroyed by massive influxes of foreign aid, which destroys the farmers' ability to compete in the short term and ensures both dependency and starvation in the long term. Furthermore, internally speaking, the bulk of sub-Saharan African countries are either big warzones or have socialist governments of some kind, neither of which have great potential for internal charity (which relies on there being more people not in poverty than there are in poverty).

Quote

Now, the other thing... Rich people and taxation. I personally don't advocate taxing assets more, and nobody is. Farmers are usually multi-millionares on paper, and barely making it in reality.
No, what you are seeing here is advocacy of increased taxation on rich income. Capital Gains, regular income, other income sources. If you are making $250,000 a year, your problems aren't managing less than $500 in savings to protect a person who is in an unstable job and helping a unemployed sister and brother and nephews eat. Your problems are keeping your relatives from abusing you and taking another $500 that week to gamble with.
Why do I know this? I make less than $40000 a year. Supporting my family while  protecting another person is my burden, but that other person's unstable job is employed as a caretaker for someone earning about $155000 a year(by my best guess based on the assets they talk about infront of that other person, which they do freely.)
When people talk about how unfair it is to tax the rich, I remember that Capital Gains are taxed lower than my income. If the rich can't stand a little more taxes, they can afford an airplane ticket out. I can't. So yea, it's not about assets, but income.

Yet the tax code, as you said yourself, doesn't distinguish. Old money isn't taxed whereas new money is, which actually reduces social mobility.

Plus, if the rich actually do take an airplane ticket out, then you actually have to pay more to make up the difference. That isn't exactly an ideal result.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 02, 2012, 12:55:36 pm

The above post is a three foot long pack of lies and American exceptionalism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on December 02, 2012, 01:29:16 pm

I like how he compared a country being one big warzone with a one being a socialist country xD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 02, 2012, 01:40:40 pm

Isn't GreatJustice a Canuck?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 01:47:12 pm

Quote from: Grek on December 02, 2012, 12:55:36 pm

The above post is a three foot long pack of lies and American exceptionalism.

Well, a right-wing guy - that stuff was to be expected. "GDP is increased by spending" - it's the gross national product, so if I invest in a machine to produce stuff (or invest money by lending to someone who then goes out to buy a machine), I'm increasing GDP through my investment (unless the stuff that's produced isn't bought, I know. But then that was a bad investment anyway.)

Of course *most rich people* have *old money*, it's not like there's been a major change in how the rich get and stay rich in the past decades. And the inflation doesn't apply to *really huge* piles of money, so it's totally unfair to tax high income. And *sure*, hard-working is equivalent to getting well paid.

And yeah, an employer will pay the people the wages he thinks they *deserve*, not the ones he thinks he can get away with. And sure, employees are in a *great* position for negotiations because the American unions are *strong*.

Hey, let me ask you this: What do you think of unions, GreatJustice?

Fakeedit: What's a Canuck?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 02, 2012, 01:49:40 pm

http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit (http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit)
This makes Great Justices comment for more readable.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on December 02, 2012, 01:50:14 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 02, 2012, 01:40:40 pm

Isn't GreatJustice a Canuck?

No. He's too busy living in his own little world to be Canadian.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 02, 2012, 02:45:30 pm

Alternate Canada?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Willfor on December 02, 2012, 02:49:02 pm

Quote from: Darvi on December 02, 2012, 02:45:30 pm

Alternate Canada?

Also known as Alberta.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Kogan Loloklam on December 02, 2012, 03:20:30 pm

Someone please refresh my memory, where and when did I say that the tax code doesn't distingush?

I talked about taxing income, where the hell did old/new money come from?

For the record, I don't care when a coin was minted or a bill printed. If you save it it isn't my business, but when you first get it, you gotta give a fair and equitable cut to the government on par with what else you are making. Got a million dollars and earned a penny? Give them fractions of a penny up. Got a penny and earned a million dollars? Give them fractions of a million up.
As for paying because the rich leave... Happily. In a heartbeat.

And... Lack of minimum wage law is like sports without drug testing. If you don't know why that's a bad thing, you got a lot to learn.

Either way, religious texts don't feed bellies, only wars. Food stamps is worth the top 10 NGOs. Prove otherwise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Andrew425 on December 02, 2012, 03:32:04 pm

As for social security why not make it a volunteer program after retirement?

20 days in a year or you get 85% of what you would before.

Also is the US doing clawbacks like in Canada (OAS)?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 02, 2012, 03:34:53 pm

At some point GreatJustice went so far into the fires of the flamewars that even I shied away.  He scares me a little.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 05:08:44 pm

Quote from: misko27 on December 02, 2012, 01:49:40 pm

http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit (http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit)
This makes Great Justices comment for more readable.

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

when tha straight-up original gangsta minimum wages was put up in place

This is great.

Quote from: mainiac on December 02, 2012, 03:34:53 pm

He scares me a little.

It's threads like these that make me thankful that probably none of us (explicitly including me) will ever wield actual political power.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 05:10:58 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on December 02, 2012, 01:29:16 pm

I like how he compared a country being one big warzone with a one being a socialist country xD

It could always be both, but in the case of African countries its not exactly a secret that socialism didn't work so well (see: Tanzania)

Quote from: Willfor on December 02, 2012, 02:49:02 pm

Quote from: Darvi on December 02, 2012, 02:45:30 pm

Alternate Canada?

Also known as Alberta.

Actually, Ontario, believe it or not. Mind, the southern part of Ontario across from Detroit where everyone uses Fahrenheit, the Imperial system, and shops across the river, but still Ontario. I'm far too non-religious to be a crazed Albertan.

Quote from: Kogan Loloklam on December 02, 2012, 03:20:30 pm

Someone please refresh my memory, where and when did I say that the tax code doesn't distingush?

I talked about taxing income, where the hell did old/new money come from?

For the record, I don't care when a coin was minted or a bill printed. If you save it it isn't my business, but when you first get it, you gotta give a fair and equitable cut to the government on par with what else you are making. Got a million dollars and earned a penny? Give them fractions of a penny up. Got a penny and earned a million dollars? Give them fractions of a million up.
As for paying because the rich leave... Happily. In a heartbeat.

And... Lack of minimum wage law is like sports without drug testing. If you don't know why that's a bad thing, you got a lot to learn.

Either way, religious texts don't feed bellies, only wars. Food stamps is worth the top 10 NGOs. Prove otherwise.

"New money" as in money people just began to earn, "old money" as in money the person started out with. If you take income, the people who're already rich aren't significantly affected since they don't really need an income, whereas the people who are just becoming rich or else are actually using their money (eg. the guy who borrows against everything he owns to start a business and strikes it rich after a point) get taxed out of existence.

Quote from: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 01:47:12 pm

Well, a right-wing guy - that stuff was to be expected. "GDP is increased by spending" - it's the gross national product, so if I invest in a machine to produce stuff (or invest money by lending to someone who then goes out to buy a machine), I'm increasing GDP through my investment (unless the stuff that's produced isn't bought, I know. But then that was a bad investment anyway.)

Of course *most rich people* have *old money*, it's not like there's been a major change in how the rich get and stay rich in the past decades. And the inflation doesn't apply to *really huge* piles of money, so it's totally unfair to tax high income. And *sure*, hard-working is equivalent to getting well paid.

And yeah, an employer will pay the people the wages he thinks they *deserve*, not the ones he thinks he can get away with. And sure, employees are in a *great* position for negotiations because the American unions are *strong*.

Hey, let me ask you this: What do you think of unions, GreatJustice?

They're fine so long as they remain nonviolent. Striking is fine, negotiations, etc are all okay. Beating up scabs, breaking shit and shooting company property aren't. If the workers themselves are actually worth what they're striking for, then hiring scabs won't be profitable and the company will be forced to give up.

Quote from: misko27 on December 02, 2012, 01:49:40 pm

http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit (http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit)
This makes Great Justices comment for more readable.

You win 10 internets

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 05:14:23 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 05:10:58 pm

Quote from: misko27 on December 02, 2012, 01:49:40 pm

http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit (http://www.gizoogle.net/bing.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bay12forums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D98262.10140%3Btopicseen&se=Bling+dis+shiznit)
This makes Great Justices comment for more readable.

You win 10 internets

Something we can agree on! :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on December 02, 2012, 05:16:41 pm

ogod that is awesome.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 02, 2012, 06:39:49 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice

Furthermore, tha overwhelmin majoritizzle of minimum wage workers aren't raisin crews, n' can live off of such lil' small-ass incomes fo' a time.

Quote of the day.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 02, 2012, 06:55:01 pm

Quote from: Mictlantecuhtli on December 02, 2012, 06:39:49 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice

Furthermore, tha overwhelmin majoritizzle of minimum wage workers aren't raisin crews, n' can live off of such lil' small-ass incomes fo' a time.

Quote of the day.

And on top of that it isn't even remotely true even in its original.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alexandertnt on December 02, 2012, 08:09:41 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

Yes, the government is more reliable in securing money for the poor. It also has far less motivation to give it out properly, has a standing army of bureaucrats involved in gathering aforementioned money, and creates a pile of unintentional problems along the way.

So ensure that the bureaucrats are reasonably seperated from the system? There are more than one way to fix potential problems other than "private".

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

Yet even those "efficient" programs are still pretty damn expensive, and they've got problems that even the US doesn't have to boot (eg. very long waiting lists for treatment).

It's fairly well documented that the bulk of American healthcare expense growth occurred following the times where the government tried to make it "more affordable". Remember, in 1964, when Medicare was introduced to deal with costs, the inflation adjusted yearly cost of healthcare was on average in the realm of $3,000. It sure didn't solve that problem!

Of course those programs are expensive, providing health care to everyone is going to be expensive, but it is more efficient then America's current "system". Efficient does not imply cheap in absolute terms.

The waiting lists do not (mostly) exist for for reasons that lead to similar effects. For example people who can not afford cover do not go into surgery, as opposed to someone in a country with Universal Health Care having to wait some time. The result is the people who can go into health care (more wealthy) have short lists and everyone else has lists of a length of infinite. The number of people who can get in are also reduced by waste-of-money procedures like plastic surgery encouraged by the private sector.

I have already agreed that America's Medicare is pretty shoddy, I am not disputing many of the problems it has caused. I have suggested an alternative solution (other than defaulting to privatisation), one which works quite well in many countries where it is implemented (with the NHS often ranked first in the world for health care) and can provide more balanced access to resources.

What you have stated is not evicence agains't government intervention in health care, just governmnet intervention in that case.

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

This would apply to everyone who actually worked reliably over a long term. Employers generally tend to hire those with lots of work experience, even if they don't have many skills, because they know they'll come to work on time, do their job, etc rather than skip work or do a bad job and get fired. The number of people actually getting paid $2 an hour would be vanishingly small, and largely composed of people with no prior work experience.

Anyone who works hard and reliably will most like earn decent money (and anyone who does not get fired), I do not see how the minimum wage (very low in the USA compared to most other countries) would change this. I do not see how this will cause the number of people who get paid effectively nothing to shrink.

That is not speaking of the poverty cycle. Being born into a poor family may make it very hard to get any meaningful experience when you have to work a McJob just to pay for food.

A solution perhaps is public funding of education (helping avoid college students going broke for example)? It would help ensure that people are educated as America moves towards a service economy.

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

Yet the richest people aren't necessarily in that bracket, whereas the generally hardest working are. Again, it doesn't distinguish between how long you've been making over that, whether the money is actually going to your benefit, etc. If I work five years for next to nothing and then in one year my project works out and I make $500,000, do I actually have enough money? In actuality, I've been making $50,000 a year, yet the government treats this as though I'm "rich".

That is why I suggested we put them in this bracket (Robin Hood taxes, for example). If you manage to go 5 years and the sixth you ake $500,000 then you have made $500,000 in one year. You have survived those 5 years so I don't see how that money would end up going back in time to do anything. (if someone earned 50,000 a year, they would pay bills and not much else. If someone scraped by for 5 years (maby on welfare...), and earned 500,000 the next, they would go out and purchase a fast car etc, not improve the quality of their life for the years they have already lived). It would also suggest that the company has earned alot of money (sine that is not counted as personal income).

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

There is crowding out because the people most able to create such infrastructure in the first place end up hired by the government instead. The internet may not be the same as it is today without ARPANET, but it seems likely that something similar would have been created otherwise. Plus, private companies created just about everything the government needed to make the internet possible in the first place, AND were responsible for it being something actually worth using today. For example:

I never said anything about private corporations not contributing significantly to anything. Private corporations often do good research (which often still costs buttloads of money, and sometimes leads nowhere. But this is the nature of research). I do not dispute this.

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

Quote

"most useful inventions have a tendency to be outlandishly expensive for what they're worth", Is this an opinion?

Do you think trillions of dollars per noteworthy invention from the DoD are worth it, considering the fact that many of them may very well have been developed for less a bit later regardless?

So in other words yes. I do not know of any individual invention that cost trillions of dollars, yet alone "per" invention. That is absurd.

An invention is conceptualised, and costs butloads to bring into reality prematuraly. This is mostly the result of the Cold War, and the "look how much shinier our millitary technology is than yours" thing going on. Much money was wasted during the Cold War due to this.

Or people are paid to come up with inventions. In which you can't "develop" these inventions later at will without the ability to predict the future.

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 02, 2012, 12:28:11 pm

See above. It's worth noting that a lot of the reason European healthcare is cheaper is because they actually do look for cost cutting measures. In the US, there is a gigantic system of government imposed regulations that make costs go up by necessity. For example, a doctor will almost always recommend the "best" treatment, even when it costs 100x as much and is only 2x as effective, an insurance company will pay for it (insulating the consumer from the costs) because of various state mandates, the pharmaceutical companies will charge insane amounts because they're basically a cartel (due to high costs of entry imposed by the FDA among others) and because of patent law. If some new "wonder drug" comes out with significantly better results than older drugs but insanely high costs, the American doctor is obligated to recommend it regardless of cost whereas the European doctor will either wait for the generic version of it to come out at significantly cheaper cost or else recommend a cheaper treatment.

Any legislation causing this to happen is something that I agree is a poor idea, and should be fixed. But this is just a further example of the shambles that is the US health system is, and how looking to Europe may yield a better system (after some modifications to deal with the size of the country, the more "state" focused thing the US has going on, and irrational fear of socialism in the form of association fallacies).

Patents in regards to medicine are pretty busted up at the moment. This needs changing to allow generic medicine to enter the market sooner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 02, 2012, 08:31:09 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 02, 2012, 03:34:53 pm

At some point GreatJustice went so far into the fires of the flamewars that even I shied away.  He scares me a little.

The derision to serious responses ratio is rising, at least.  I finally got to do something before it was cool.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 02, 2012, 09:02:00 pm

Quote from: alexandertnt on December 02, 2012, 08:09:41 pm

irrational fear of socialism in the form of association fallacies

This I believe is the biggest problem of current US politics; every time someone brings up a 'left' idea, there's cries of socialism all over the place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 02, 2012, 10:34:34 pm

More specifically, the same ideas can be thought up by a Republican, with no outcry, but as soon as  a Democrat says "that's a good idea", it's socialism.

Nobody is pushing socialism whatsoever, or any "real" left-wing ideas.

Regulated capitalism with a safety-net isn't socialism, nor is it something solely promoted by "left wing" or liberal parties.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 04:24:40 am

It's definitely a socialist policy. The problem is not them saying it's socialism, which it is, it's people thinking socialism is a bad thing. Which it isn't.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 07:38:08 am

Depends on your definition of socialist: What you call socialist I'd call social democratic (that's a thing in English as well, right?) or Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy) policies. It has the added benefit of not creeping people out with the terminology ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on December 03, 2012, 08:12:34 am

German? That's a nazi policy!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 08:23:01 am

What do you think the "social" in social democracy stands for if not social-ism, dude.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 03, 2012, 09:34:36 am

Perhaps if America actually had a decent socialist or left-wing movement things would be different. They need charismatic figures who can sell the idea of socialism and left wing policy to the masses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 09:38:09 am

Quote from: scriver on December 03, 2012, 08:23:01 am

What do you think the "social" in social democracy stands for if not social-ism, dude.

People appropriate and change the meaning of words all the time. Remember, East Germany was "The German Democratic Republic" and North Korea is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - by that logic they MUST be Democratic, since it says so :/

The socialist economic system isn't compatible with capitalist free market system - social democracy is a hybrid of capitalism, democracy and reformism. Whilst they might approach things from a "social justice" point of view, the reforms under social democracy have nothing to do with socialist economic theories. e.g. you won't find a discussion of the "welfare state" in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao

Socialism is defined as " social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy". Since true socialist systems stipulate the workers as the owners of the assets, no "welfare" is factored in, because there's no "other" to "hand out" "their stuff" - everyone is employed and their job provides them with a living. Until capitalist reforms, all benefits were provided by Chinese companies to their employees for life as part of their pay - hence there was no welfare system as such.

In social democratic countries, almost everything is owned by autocratic top-down private corporations, or run autocratically (top-down) by bureaucrats, with little input from the people who work for those organizations (worker participation in the management of their own workplace is a key element of socialist economics).

The "means of production" is privately owned, and the government is left to provide all non-producing, but still vital services - the stuff no corporation wants to run. That's not socialism - it's a band-aid on the capitalist system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 09:57:51 am

Socialism is both an ideology and an economic system. It is the idea of solidarity among the many - that us individuals should help each other out to form the benefit of all. A state running such things as free hospitals, schools, universites, etc, is a state with socialist policies. That makes it a partly socialist state.

Don't pretend that it's some sort of all-or-nothing bullshit. Socialism and capitalism goes together just fine, and the Scandinavian countries will show you.

Quote from: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 09:38:09 am

The "means of production" is privately owned, and the government is left to provide all non-producing, but still vital services - the stuff no corporation wants to run.

Yeah, that's why you see the state running schools, hospitals, drug-stores, liquor-stores, power companies, police and prisons. Because no private corp wants to.  ::)

Quote

That's not socialism - it's a band-aid on the capitalist system.

A socialistic band-aid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 03, 2012, 10:08:18 am

Perhaps a "socialistic" plaster like you're talking about would be the most reasonable path to take for seeking acceptance of socialism in America, especially if it grew out of the "liberal" movement. I'll say it again, they just need credible politicians and good speakers to get it across. They also need to be able to convince people that their freedoms will not be sacrificed, but socialist countries often end up sacrificing personal and economic freedom for the good of society; it's less that you need to be free to do things but free from things i.e. free from poverty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:11:23 am

The problem is the term is thrown out way to easily, and whilst there might be "socialist sentiment" which is in common, the goals and practices of socialist economics and reformism have little to do with each other. It just confuses the whole issue, rather than help if we lump everything from mild welfare reform to full communism under one banner.

Even conservatives has "compassionate conservatism". Bismarck created the first welfare state, and he was no socialist.

I'm sticking to the usage as per this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

An excerpt pointing out what I was talking about:

Quote

The major difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is the object of their politics: contemporary social democrats support a welfare state and unemployment insurance as a means to "humanize" capitalism, whereas democratic socialists seek to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system, arguing that any attempt to "humanize" capitalism through regulations and welfare policies would distort the market and create economic contradictions.

Another:

Quote

Social democracy is not itself a socialist system. Rather, traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades. This approach has been called the Nordic model.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 10:22:43 am

"Socialist economic theories" "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao"

Socialism isn't really an economic theory, though there are economic theories that are based on socialism. Socialism is the idea that government has an inherent and explicit obligation to defend the welfare and security of all its people, even (or especially) those disenfranchised by economics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:24:58 am

Quote from: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 10:22:43 am

"Socialist economic theories" "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao"

Socialism isn't really an economic theory, though there are economic theories that are based on socialism. Socialism is the idea that government has an inherent and explicit obligation to defend the welfare and security of all its people, even (or especially) those disenfranchised by economics.

That's paternalism you're thinking of. And socialism is definitely an economic theory. esp. Marxism.

Again I will quote the encyclopedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Quote

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

Social ownership does not mean "the state". The end goal of socialist reform is actually the breakdown of economic class hierarchies. State enterprises are seens as a possible a means to that end - not the end itself.

And socialist theory was about empowering the workers, not creating a dependency on a "higher power", i.e. a nanny state.

Even when looking at the way "state socialists" differ from other types, EVERYTHING is about the economics:

Quote

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 10:31:56 am

Yea... I am going to go with wikipedia being wrong in this case.

And paternalism is definitely not appropriate to my words either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 10:35:38 am

Ayup. Wrong it is.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 10:36:36 am

Quote from: scriver on December 03, 2012, 09:57:51 am

Socialism is both an ideology and an economic system. It is the idea of solidarity among the many - that us individuals should help each other out to form the benefit of all. A state running such things as free hospitals, schools, universites, etc, is a state with socialist policies. That makes it a partly socialist state.

Don't pretend that it's some sort of all-or-nothing bullshit. Socialism and capitalism goes together just fine, and the Scandinavian countries will show you.

I keep telling you: This is merely a difference in nomenclature, we all basically agree I think. So: Terminology debate!

Problem is: Socialism is ill-defined. Communism? Sure! Capitalism? Sure! Liberalism? Sure! Socialism? Eeeh... not so much.

Quote from: scriver on December 03, 2012, 09:57:51 am

Quote

That's not socialism - it's a band-aid on the capitalist system.

A socialistic band-aid.

How about this: Capitalism with a band-aid is a social democratic, communism with a band-aid is socialism. That way each term has a clearly defined and useful meaning, and we no longer alienate people when calling reasonable and good policies 'socialist'.

And, because terminology debates get boring/repetitive quickly: What do you think of paternalism?

Fakeedit: I'll vote with Wikipedia, because the thing Nadaka describes is already covered by the term social democratic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 03, 2012, 10:37:08 am

I think that there's a fair statement. It doesn't matter whether you're a socialist or capitalist, we can agree that the two don't really mix. Capitalism cannot be socialized"humanized", and any attempts to do so will meet with increasing levels of bureaucratic resistance.

I am still a die-hard Conservative War-Monger because I think that the markets are far to complex to "fix", but that does not (overmuch) influence my judgement upon a socialism/capitalism hybrid.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:37:45 am

Your idea of a government looking out for people regardless of economic system - isn't socialism by any definition i can find:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Quote

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

1 = collective control of production and distribution of good (i.e. economic production)
2 = no private property, or all state-owned property
3 = marxist definition of socialism.

"welfare" and service provision by a government in a capitalist economy don't fit any of the dictionary definitons. All the definitions are at core, economic systems.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 10:41:31 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 10:36:36 am

How about this: Capitalism with a band-aid is a social democratic, communism with a band-aid is socialism. That way each term has a clearly defined and useful meaning, and we no longer alienate people when calling reasonable and good policies 'socialist'.

[..]Fakeedit: I'll vote with Wikipedia, because the thing Nadaka describes is already covered by the term social democratic.

Ehnope. It's both socialism. The very thing that makes social democracy social democracy is it's socialist policies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:42:43 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 10:36:36 am

And, because terminology debates get boring/repetitive quickly: What do you think of paternalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

nothing wrong with it, if used sparingly. all laws are paternalistic by the standard definitions. Anytime you say "don't do that - it's for your own good". sometimes it's heavy-handed, but sometimes you're right.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 03, 2012, 10:43:26 am

In a capitalist society, you look out for the government by looking out for yourself. Capitalism takes advantage of people's natural selfishness and improves society with it. It gives you the chance to get filthy rich, but by the same token the stuff upon which you became filthy rich will help others. If you're an oil magnate, the oil you help produce helps people. If you produce electricity, that goes to help the people. So, you help society by helping yourself. That is why I am against government subsidies. They take money away from what people need and give it to what the government thinks people need.

HOLY DOUBLE NINJA, BATMAN!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 03, 2012, 10:45:51 am

Quote from: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:42:43 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 10:36:36 am

And, because terminology debates get boring/repetitive quickly: What do you think of paternalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

nothing wrong with it, if used sparingly. all laws are paternalistic by the standard definitions. Anytime you say "don't do that - it's for your own good". sometimes it's heavy-handed, but sometimes you're right.

Paternalism isn't a problem as long as the people have a direct role in the creation of paternalistic laws. The last thing we want is a group of people sitting at the top of the government claiming that they "are the people".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 10:48:15 am

Quote from: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:37:45 am

Your idea of a government looking out for people regardless of economic system - isn't socialism by any definition i can find:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Quote

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

1 = collective control of production and distribution of good (i.e. economic production)
2 = no private property, or all state-owned property
3 = marxist definition of socialism.

"welfare" and service provision by a government in a capitalist economy don't fit any of the dictionary definitons. All the definitions are at core, economic systems.

Socialism makes no assertion on the validity of private ownership of property, that would be an aspect of collectivism.

Quote from: tahujdt on December 03, 2012, 10:37:08 am

I think that there's a fair statement. It doesn't matter whether you're a socialist or capitalist, we can agree that the two don't really mix. Capitalism cannot be socialized"humanized", and any attempts to do so will meet with increasing levels of bureaucratic resistance.

I am still a die-hard Conservative War-Monger because I think that the markets are far to complex to "fix", but that does not (overmuch) influence my judgement upon a socialism/capitalism hybrid.

You are wrong. Capitalism can coexist with socialism, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Socialism makes no demands on who may own or control the means of production as long as the state acts in the defense of its peoples welfare.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 10:50:47 am

Quote from: scriver on December 03, 2012, 10:41:31 am

Ehnope. It's both socialism. The very thing that makes social democracy social democracy is it's socialist policies.

In your nomenclature, yes; I got that the last couple of times ;) I was proposing a new nomenclature to differentiate between the various forms of socialism as defined by you. If you want, we can start talking about socialism_scriver and social democracy_Helgoland, with a conversion table for translations. But just using one is easier. (And apparently a significant chunk of the internet disagrees with your terminology; that doesn't make it less valid, but more inconvenient. Think about it as talking about socialism in French and talking about socialism in Afrikaans: Different words, same meaning.)

Quote from: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 10:48:15 am

Quote from: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:37:45 am

Your idea of a government looking out for people regardless of economic system - isn't socialism by any definition i can find:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Quote

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

1 = collective control of production and distribution of good (i.e. economic production)
2 = no private property, or all state-owned property
3 = marxist definition of socialism.

"welfare" and service provision by a government in a capitalist economy don't fit any of the dictionary definitons. All the definitions are at core, economic systems.

Socialism makes no assertion on the validity of private ownership of property, that would be an aspect of communism or some flavors of statism.

Well, socialism originally referred to a step in the development towards (true) communism: Public ownership of means of production, but still meritocratic as long as there would be insufficient wealth to create true communism.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:52:52 am

I guess you know better than the people who compile dictionaries and encyclopedias both.

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/socialism_1106/

Quote

The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property#Socialist_perspective

Quote

Socialist perspective

In general, socialists view private property relations as limiting the potential of productive forces in the economy. They believe private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. With largely reduced capital accumulation from the original class of owners, private property in the means of production is to be replaced with a free association based on public or common ownership of socialized assets.

Quote from: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 10:48:15 am

You are wrong. Capitalism can coexist with socialism, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Socialism makes no demands on who may own or control the means of production as long as the state acts in the defense of its peoples welfare.
[/quote]
not by any formal definition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 10:54:18 am

Socialism was the GOAL of communism, not its means. And communism is not the only method of working towards that goal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 10:57:18 am

What are you talking about? you have that reversed. Marx held that socialism was the first step, communism was the end point. And Marx is the guy who coined the term Communism, so you'd guess he knew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Quote

Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism.

^ socialist economic system, specifically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 10:58:59 am

Marxism 101, really. Though we should be glad they no longer teach that - in the Eastern Bloc, it was an actual subject!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 03, 2012, 12:00:07 pm

Yes, to Marx communism was the utopic ideal to reach, socialism and people's revolution were the methodology.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 12:22:00 pm

The definition you are using is absolutely identical to communism in every way.

Communism is socialist. Yes... that is probably something that can be agreed upon.

Does that mean that socialism is communism? Not by my usage of the word. And not even by Marx's usage of the word. The only people who agree that socialism is nothing more or less than communism are the people who use both words as insults.

The ultimate goal of communism was the equality of mankind, to remove one mans power over others. The method of achieving that equality was by distributing wealth and decision making to the community as a whole. That goal was never really achieved outside of a handful of tiny communes, and was most likely unachievable by the means attempted.

Is food stamps communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is food stamps socialist? Yes.

Is unemployment insurance communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is unemployment insurance socialist? Yes.

How do we actually describe any government policy/action/system that is intended to benefit all people, particularly those who are disenfranchised in some other way? We call it socialist. So does everyone. That is the defacto definition of socialism. The dictionary is wrong and it is wrong with an agenda.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 03, 2012, 12:42:00 pm

When, exactly, will the general population care about climate change. We found what points to fucking life on Mercury and i doubt many people know. How many years?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 03, 2012, 12:45:28 pm

Organic Material =/= Life

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 03, 2012, 12:46:39 pm

Evidence of life, forgive me   ::) :P. (brain-belch, i believe it's called)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 03, 2012, 12:49:41 pm

It isn't even evidence of life. It's just organic, which means it's a molecule containing carbon, nothing more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 12:50:21 pm

The presence organic material is not evidence of life, any more than the presence of silicon dioxide with traces of copper and gallium is evidence of computer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 03, 2012, 12:56:49 pm

Amazingly i managed to confuse the observational capacity's of curiosity and the satellite observing mercury from the comparisons to tar or coal. Forgive me, not exactly in my most attentive state at the moment by a long shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 01:01:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 12:22:00 pm

Is food stamps communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is food stamps socialist? Yes.

Is unemployment insurance communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is unemployment insurance socialist? Yes.

How do we actually describe any government policy/action/system that is intended to benefit all people, particularly those who are disenfranchised in some other way? We call it socialist. So does everyone. That is the defacto definition of socialism. The dictionary is wrong and it is wrong with an agenda.

Okay, let's just stop this before things get flamey, because I know I have a tendency to get unpleasant. Just one thing: "So does everyone" is not exactly an argument if a significant portion of people here, on Wikipedia and probably everywhere where this is talked about use it differently.

Quote from: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 12:22:00 pm

The dictionary is wrong and it is wrong with an agenda.

Seriously? (Alright, I'm getting flamey. Post terminates in 3, 2, 1)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 01:20:25 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 01:01:58 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 12:22:00 pm

Is food stamps communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is food stamps socialist? Yes.

Is unemployment insurance communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is unemployment insurance socialist? Yes.

How do we actually describe any government policy/action/system that is intended to benefit all people, particularly those who are disenfranchised in some other way? We call it socialist. So does everyone. That is the defacto definition of socialism. The dictionary is wrong and it is wrong with an agenda.

Okay, let's just stop this before things get flamey, because I know I have a tendency to get unpleasant. Just one thing: "So does everyone" is not exactly an argument if a significant portion of people here, on Wikipedia and probably everywhere where this is talked about use it differently.

And I say it's the opposite, it is Ndaka's and my definition that is used everywhere outside of American blame-politics and similar situations. Nobody here in Scandinavia denies that our prosperity was built on socialism and by socialists, for example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on December 03, 2012, 01:36:51 pm

It depends what you call socialism. It's a word with shifting definitions, so this naturally makes discussion difficult.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 01:37:26 pm

I guess Sweden also has two major parties - is the left one the Socialist or the Social Democrat party?

Quote from: Sheb on December 03, 2012, 01:36:51 pm

It depends what you call socialism. It's a word with shifting definitions, so this naturally makes discussion difficult.

Exactly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 01:39:23 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 01:37:26 pm

I guess Sweden also has two major parties - is the left one the Socialist or the Social Democrat party?

It's both.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 01:44:02 pm

The scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of government spending, but also a very high proportion of government employees, and things like true public corporations. To me, that's more true state socialism than just throwing money at the private sector (i.e. America's food stamps).

One problem with expanding the definition of socialist too much, is that it might start to encompass things you don't want in your definition:

e.g. is the army "socialist"? It's government owned, government employees, they provide wages, education and health care to army personnel etc

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 02:25:39 pm

Well, in 1918 the sailors of the Hochseeflotte were the ones who started the German revolution; they were pretty red back then :D

Quote from: scriver on December 03, 2012, 01:39:23 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 01:37:26 pm

I guess Sweden also has two major parties - is the left one the Socialist or the Social Democrat party?

It's both.

What's it called?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 03, 2012, 02:41:02 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 02:25:39 pm

Well, in 1918 the sailors of the Hochseeflotte were the ones who started the German revolution; they were pretty red back then :D

Admittedly, that probably had less to do with economic ideology than a big "Geficken Sie" to the German Admiralty who were ready to sacrifice the entire German Navy in one last glorious battle.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 03, 2012, 02:46:04 pm

I think what you were going for is "Fick dich".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 03, 2012, 02:46:29 pm

Quote from: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 01:44:02 pm

The scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of government spending, but also a very high proportion of government employees, and things like true public corporations. To me, that's more true state socialism than just throwing money at the private sector (i.e. America's food stamps).

One problem with expanding the definition of socialist too much, is that it might start to encompass things you don't want in your definition:

e.g. is the army "socialist"? It's government owned, government employees, they provide wages, education and health care to army personnel etc

Part of the military mission is "socialist", but not just because it provides jobs to a lot of people. Providing a defense against potential military aggression by other countries is in the interest of the welfare of the people.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 03, 2012, 02:47:31 pm

They're called the Social Democrats, and they are socialists. Because social democracy is a form of socialism.

And if you're trying to claim that "one party is called 'the Social Democrats' another 'the Socialists' so that proves they're not socialists", or anything like that, you might want to acknowledge that Sweden doesn't have a party of the latter kind, so such an assertion would automatically fail.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 03, 2012, 03:18:09 pm

Right, so I know I was responded to somewhere back 3 pages or so, but I don't want to be arguing two entirely separate things at the same time so unless you really want to keep it going (in which case you can repost it), I'm going to move on.

Quote from: Reelya on December 03, 2012, 01:44:02 pm

The scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of government spending, but also a very high proportion of government employees, and things like true public corporations. To me, that's more true state socialism than just throwing money at the private sector (i.e. America's food stamps).

One problem with expanding the definition of socialist too much, is that it might start to encompass things you don't want in your definition:

e.g. is the army "socialist"? It's government owned, government employees, they provide wages, education and health care to army personnel etc

The Scandanavian countries can be called "socialist" straight up (and since this is a nomenclature debate, I'm not even going to get into all the associated problems there), but the US is "socialist" in its own way. It leans more towards "fascist" or "corporatist" though, in which the state, the corporations, and the unions all kind of play off each other for control where needed in certain sectors. Hence, the US has a lot of huge, influential corporations like GM, Goldman Sachs, and GE, which in turn generally have large, powerful unions representing their workers, and all of them are both heavily tied to and influenced by the US government. In a lot of ways they exist outside the market economy because of how closely tied they are to the government so far as contracts, regulations, etc go. It isn't outright socialism as in Europe, but it's certainly a type of socialism and definitely isn't capitalistic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 04:05:49 pm

Quote from: scriver on December 03, 2012, 02:47:31 pm

They're called the Social Democrats, and they are socialists. Because social democracy is a form of socialism.

And if you're trying to claim that "one party is called 'the Social Democrats' another 'the Socialists' so that proves they're not socialists", or anything like that, you might want to acknowledge that Sweden doesn't have a party of the latter kind, so such an assertion would automatically fail.

No, that was just curiosity - in some parts of Europe, they're called Social Democrats (Germany, Sweden), in some Socialists (Spain, if I remember correctly). They have largely the same function in their respective countries, though.

Quote from: Darvi on December 03, 2012, 02:46:04 pm

I think what you were going for is "Fick dich".

Or "Ficken Sie sich" when talking to someone you need to pay respect to; it'll lead to some interesting dissonance :D

Quote from: RedKing on December 03, 2012, 02:41:02 pm

Admittedly, that probably had less to do with economic ideology than a big "Geficken Sie" to the German Admiralty who were ready to sacrifice the entire German Navy in one last glorious battle.

Pretty much, yes, but the Navy was known to be quite a bit more red than the rest of the army. Communist/socialist thoughts were widespread in the infantry too, later on leading to the "Dolchstoßlegende" ("WE didn't lose, those damn commies backstabbed us!")

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 03, 2012, 05:19:47 pm

Mittens finds his post-election gig. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mitt-romney-rejoins-marriott-board-200709767.html)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 03, 2012, 07:45:44 pm

Rick Santorum continues to fight the good fight. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-joins-world-net-daily-exclusive-columnist-183059628--election.html)

I'd love to think this is a hoax, but alas, it seems to be legitimate. To be honest, if anyone was still lacking proof that the Republican Party has gone off the deep end, this is it- and perhaps this is the sign that they're irredeemable. A man who almost became the party's presidential candidate but for a primary rescheduling is now writing for World Nut Daily. That tells you something.

Meanwhile, Conservapedia asks: "Will a major boom in shale oil and natural gas give Barack Obama the power he needs for a third term? And a fourth? That might be more reasonable than you think."

(no, it mightn't be)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 03, 2012, 07:57:02 pm

OBAMA 4 PRESIDENT 4 LIFE!

Man, I wish we had FDR back.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 03, 2012, 08:20:03 pm

America is a communist country straight up. Let's look at the actual listed demands in the Communist Manifesto:

Quote from: Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

1. Done. It's important to note that "property in land" here refers (in old-timey communist speak) the rights of the nobility to own demenses of land, tax their serfs whatever they want and ordain local laws. Given that America does not and has never had nobles, this isn't even a thing.

2. Done. The USA totally has progressive income tax, and basically nobody advocates a flat tax anymore, just whether our progressive income tax should be a little progressive or alot progressive.

3. Not quite done. You can still inherit money from your deceased relatives and such. But there are inheritance taxes and Congress can, if they so desire, set these taxes to be any amount they want, up to and including 100%.

4. Non-issue. This one specifically refers to French emigrants and rebels, specifically rich nobles trying to leave France before the revolution that Marx predicted there. Nobody in America cares about the rights of the French nobility in exile from decades ago.

5. Done. See the Federal Reserve.

6. Done. See the FCC.

7. Done. The Department of Agriculture does this kind of stuff all the time.

8. Done. See 7, but also stimulus packages for industry and federal farm/business loans. Also farming subsidies.

9. Done. Agriculture in the US has been industrialized for over 50 years now.

10. Done. Child labour is no longer a thing, public schooling goes all the way to 18 years old and is designed to help you get a job.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 03, 2012, 08:23:21 pm

I should print a thousand copies of this post and mail them to Republican headquarters all over the nation. Maybe the collective impotent rage will make them screw up even more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 03, 2012, 08:24:20 pm

So the US government is a communist conspiracy? What a tweest!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on December 03, 2012, 08:25:55 pm

Quote from: Grek on December 03, 2012, 08:20:03 pm

America is a communist country straight up. Let's look at the actual listed demands in the Communist Manifesto:

Quote from: Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

1. Done. It's important to note that "property in land" here refers (in old-timey communist speak) the rights of the nobility to own demenses of land, tax their serfs whatever they want and ordain local laws. Given that America does not and has never had nobles, this isn't even a thing.

2. Done. The USA totally has progressive income tax, and basically nobody advocates a flat tax anymore, just whether our progressive income tax should be a little progressive or alot progressive.

3. Not quite done. You can still inherit money from your deceased relatives and such. But there are inheritance taxes and Congress can, if they so desire, set these taxes to be any amount they want, up to and including 100%.

4. Non-issue. This one specifically refers to French emigrants and rebels, specifically rich nobles trying to leave France before the revolution that Marx predicted there. Nobody in America cares about the rights of the French nobility in exile from decades ago.

5. Done. See the Federal Reserve.

6. Done. See the FCC.

7. Done. The Department of Agriculture does this kind of stuff all the time.

8. Done. See 7, but also stimulus packages for industry and federal farm/business loans. Also farming subsidies.

9. Done. Agriculture in the US has been industrialized for over 50 years now.

10. Done. Child labour is no longer a thing, public schooling goes all the way to 18 years old and is designed to help you get a job.

This is genius.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkflagrance on December 03, 2012, 09:38:14 pm

Quote from: Grek on December 03, 2012, 08:20:03 pm

America is a communist country straight up. Let's look at the actual listed demands in the Communist Manifesto:

Quote from: Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

1. Done. It's important to note that "property in land" here refers (in old-timey communist speak) the rights of the nobility to own demenses of land, tax their serfs whatever they want and ordain local laws. Given that America does not and has never had nobles, this isn't even a thing.

2. Done. The USA totally has progressive income tax, and basically nobody advocates a flat tax anymore, just whether our progressive income tax should be a little progressive or alot progressive.

3. Not quite done. You can still inherit money from your deceased relatives and such. But there are inheritance taxes and Congress can, if they so desire, set these taxes to be any amount they want, up to and including 100%.

4. Non-issue. This one specifically refers to French emigrants and rebels, specifically rich nobles trying to leave France before the revolution that Marx predicted there. Nobody in America cares about the rights of the French nobility in exile from decades ago.

5. Done. See the Federal Reserve.

6. Done. See the FCC.

7. Done. The Department of Agriculture does this kind of stuff all the time.

8. Done. See 7, but also stimulus packages for industry and federal farm/business loans. Also farming subsidies.

9. Done. Agriculture in the US has been industrialized for over 50 years now.

10. Done. Child labour is no longer a thing, public schooling goes all the way to 18 years old and is designed to help you get a job.

I knew we shouldn't have elected an Islamic president named Hussein to the Whitehouse! This is all that communist sympathizer's fault!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 03, 2012, 11:30:31 pm

But, seriously. Points 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 have been the case in America since before Karl Marx was even born. 2 has been the case for for the entire time the US has had an income tax at all. 10 has been the case for over 100 years now.

Don't worry about if a president is "communist" or if some policy is too "socialist" for you. That ship has sailed, and it likely sailed well before you were born, or even before your parents were born. Absolutely everyone is in America today is living in a Marxist country and nothing bad has come of it! You can stop worrying!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Techhead on December 04, 2012, 02:48:42 am

Quote from: Grek on December 03, 2012, 11:30:31 pm

But, seriously. Points 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 have been the case in America since before Karl Marx was even born. 2 has been the case for for the entire time the US has had an income tax at all. 10 has been the case for over 100 years now.

You do realize that Karl Marx was born in 1818, right? </nitpick>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 04, 2012, 12:02:05 pm

Yes. All of the things I listed have been done by some department or another of the US government since before 1818. Not necessarily their current department, but some department.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 04, 2012, 04:31:22 pm

You are a mad genius. I wonder If that makes Reagan a communist...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 04, 2012, 08:29:26 pm

What's the status on the fiscal cliff? Last I heard, Boehner and the White House have a deal they're putting the finishing touches on...and Boehner's lunatic colleagues won't vote for it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 04, 2012, 08:31:54 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 04, 2012, 08:29:26 pm

What's the status on the fiscal cliff? Last I heard, Boehner and the White House have a deal they're putting the finishing touches on...and Boehner's lunatic colleagues won't vote for it.

That's news to me. Last I heard Obam put put a super Liberal plan and the Republicans responded with a plan that was a least a little concilitory.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on December 04, 2012, 10:08:46 pm

Quote from: misko27 on December 04, 2012, 08:31:54 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 04, 2012, 08:29:26 pm

What's the status on the fiscal cliff? Last I heard, Boehner and the White House have a deal they're putting the finishing touches on...and Boehner's lunatic colleagues won't vote for it.

That's news to me. Last I heard Obam put put a super Liberal plan and the Republicans responded with a plan that was a least a little concilitory.

You must listen to FOX then. The last plan I've seen was the one where Boehner offered Mitt Romney's plan, complete with vague and magical tax deductions which would produce $800 billion dollars of revenue sometime this year... maybe.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 04, 2012, 10:24:54 pm

The republican plan wasn't conciliatory, it was supposed to be a plan that appeals to the media.  Boehner said that we should achieve the same revenue increases and discretionary spending cuts laid out in Simpson Bowles.  3 problems with that:

1) We've already done the discretionary spending cuts in Simpson-Bowles.  You'd need to identify new spending cuts if you want to cut spending again.  And since non-defense discretionary spending has fallen to 50 year lows that pretty much means... cutting defense, i.e. the thing republicans insist we don't cut.
2) Simpson Bowles was a democratic concession to try and get republicans talking when the GOP had just won an election. The GOP just lost an election... and now they expect the democrats to want to make the same concession?
3) Boehner doesn't lay out any actually areas where he would cut spending or raise revenues in anywhere remotely approaching the numbers he wants.  On taxes for instance he wants to raise hundreds of millions in taxes but it cant come from the middle class, cant come from a rate hike and cant cut into popular deductions like the charitable giving deduction.  Well that doesn't leave remotely close the level of revenues needed.  Simpson-Bowles called for increasing capital gains taxes and Pigot taxes and the like, stuff where the numbers checked out.

The media is hopelessly clueless about 1 and 3.  The media has caught onto 2 a little bit.  But this is pretty much what to expect when you have people who know nothing about the federal budget reporting on budget negotiations.  For government nerds this is the equivalent of when the media has a spike of interest in something sciencey related to NASA or the Higgs-Boson and reporters start saying all sorts of ignorant stuff about the subject.  The republican proposal is supposed to appeal to the kind of incompetent reporter who writes those articles.

Obama for his part has basically just offered the same budget he was proposing before the election.  He isn't offering the republicans anything until they actually bring something to the table as well.  He has also suggested a budget that is broadly speaking, good.  The cuts come from things like granting Medicare the authority to negotiate for prescription drug prices.  That is something that we should want anyway.  He also calls for spending increases (not as big as the cuts) in other areas, like infrastructure spending.  So the economic impact of the cuts should be blunted; even though total spending will decrease, it will go where it will get more bang for the buck.

So at this point neither side has really offered anything at all publicly.  But I don't think that's necessarily bad.  Real negotiations tend to keep talks quiet until the end.  People start letting loose the details of the talks when they think negotiations will fail and they want to start spinning it.

My guess is that we will probably see something closer to Obama's proposal then Boehners.  You can't pile concessions to the democrats onto Boehners budget because he doesn't have a budget.  And the democrats are digging in their heels over savaging the Obama budget all that badly.  So my guess is that either the clock running out forces Boehner to accept something like the Obama budget with face saving concessions to republicans that don't do much or the talks break down and we're all dead within two years from a collapse into anarchy followed by nuclear war.  Either way, Boehner has his work cut out for him keeping his leadership position.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 04, 2012, 11:21:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 04, 2012, 10:24:54 pm

or the talks break down and we're all dead within two years from a collapse into anarchy followed by nuclear war.  Either way, Boehner has his work cut out for him keeping his leadership position.

Where are people getting this notion that going over the "fiscal cliff" is going to wreck the country, doom America and cause mountains to crumble into the sea? All that is slated to happen is the Bush tax credits go away and Medicare receives some payout decreases. A few other things too, but those are the big ones. While a lack of compromise would suck for the economy, it wouldn't do all of these horrible things that people keep thinking it will. Life will continue on as normal after the fiscal cliff no matter what happens, just as it did before.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 04, 2012, 11:26:02 pm

Quote from: Grek on December 04, 2012, 12:02:05 pm

Yes. All of the things I listed have been done by some department or another of the US government since before 1818. Not necessarily their current department, but some department.

I think you're taking too narrow a view of 1, which is the big one. It seems to me that Marx wants the abolition of any sort of rent seeking, not just feudal demesnes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 04, 2012, 11:53:32 pm

Quote from: Grek on December 04, 2012, 11:21:27 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 04, 2012, 10:24:54 pm

or the talks break down and we're all dead within two years from a collapse into anarchy followed by nuclear war.  Either way, Boehner has his work cut out for him keeping his leadership position.

Where are people getting this notion that going over the "fiscal cliff" is going to wreck the country, doom America and cause mountains to crumble into the sea? All that is slated to happen is the Bush tax credits go away and Medicare receives some payout decreases. A few other things too, but those are the big ones. While a lack of compromise would suck for the economy, it wouldn't do all of these horrible things that people keep thinking it will. Life will continue on as normal after the fiscal cliff no matter what happens, just as it did before.

While I don't honestly think that it will lead to nuclear war the economic fallout will be pretty bad if no deal is reached.  It's expected to knock 3 points off US GDP in 2013 and cause unemployment to shoot back up to 9.1%.  This would come at the same time that Europe is already going into a double dip recession.  The past five years have seen political dysfunction and extremism on the rise in the peaceful democracies of the world.  The recovery has been too slow so people grow frustrated and you end up seeing things like Hungary's ruling party flout constitutional liberties while rigging the electoral process and ending the independent judiciary.  Well what happens if that slow recovery turns into a double dip recession?  Politics in the US and Europe will just get uglier and that will make us less able then before to deal with these problems.

I expect that somewhere along the line we will turn things around.  We have a long, long way to sink before things get ugly to the point of a breakdown of the relatively peaceful international order that we still enjoy.  But the farther we sink the more difficult these problems become.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 05, 2012, 12:18:28 am

Well, yeah. It would be a massive and unneeded creation of human suffering. But it wouldn't blow up the world or start a war or see congress overthrown by bands of rioting looters or anything like that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 05, 2012, 07:44:10 am

There was a Simpsons episode set sometime in the future, and Lisa was about to marry an English guy:

Homer: "Well, we saved your ass in WWII!"
English guy: "Well, we saved your ass in WWIII!"

I promise all Americans here: If the shit hits the fan, we Europeans will discover that we actuallly kinda like you guys. We'll come over there and save your behinds.

(Or, more probable: Europe once again kicks itself in the nuts and comes crying to America :D )

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 05, 2012, 11:44:12 am

We British people are already America's bitches anyway, so it's not like it's any question we wouldn't help the Americans out if they got into trouble.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on December 05, 2012, 11:51:53 am

Britain could always just say, "Oh great and mighty 'murica! You grace this world with your military strength which is far superior to that of any mere mortal nation. No one can stand against you, if we were assist your majesty in this war then it would only serve to diminish the honor you earn in completing it."

Then since we're all prideful jackoffs we'll be faced with the problem of either admitting we need help or... well the other options don't matter since admitting the need for help is A SIGN OF WEAKNESS I TELL YOU. NEVAR SURRENDAR.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 05, 2012, 12:00:23 pm

NATO's members are bound to assist one another in war.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on December 05, 2012, 12:25:54 pm

Only defensive wars. And I don't think we have to intervene in civil wars. And frankly, you think we're not chicken enough to renegate on our agreements? :p

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 05, 2012, 12:26:43 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-wins-high-popularity-majority-support-2016-120211857--abc-news-politics.html

ugh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on December 05, 2012, 12:51:49 pm

Quote from: Sheb on December 05, 2012, 12:25:54 pm

Only defensive wars. And I don't think we have to intervene in civil wars. And frankly, you think we're not chicken enough to renegate on our agreements? :p

If it's a rebel faction declaring war on the legitimate government, I'm fairly certain that counts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 05, 2012, 04:37:08 pm

The North Atlantic treaty is quite geographically limited, to the point where only a Soviet Russian invasion of West Germany the Western part of Eastern Europe would trigger it. It's broader in naval matters, but it wouldn't apply in the case of civil war or Mexico invading Canada.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 05, 2012, 04:44:45 pm

Mexico invading Canada would be interesting - do you think the US would grant them right of passage?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 05, 2012, 04:53:17 pm

Nah. They'd have to swim. That was a deliberately silly example.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 05, 2012, 05:13:08 pm

What do you think the point of the NAFTA superhighway was?  Get rid of the wetbacks by sending em to canukland.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 05, 2012, 06:07:14 pm

I wonder if Sweden still has American/Nato support. I hear bad rumours about Russia's military drills.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 05, 2012, 06:10:13 pm

If Russia was going to invade Sweden, they would have done it back when they were a superpower. In any case, Sweden is connected to the EU, which is in turn connected to NATO, so I'm guessing the answer is yes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 05, 2012, 06:15:00 pm

Yes. If they wanted to invade something, They should have invaded Switzerland. So Neutral that I didn't even join the UN till 2002, and only then by Referendum. Of course the matter of gettting there would be a problem...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 05, 2012, 06:16:40 pm

Meh, bribe the Italians ;)

But that part got me thinking: In a full-blown non-nuclear military confrontation, who would win: Russia or the EU?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on December 05, 2012, 06:28:13 pm

... what would you considering "winning"? Depending on the goal in question, a lot of variables shift around.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 05, 2012, 06:30:01 pm

Yes, to Quote Defcon: "Nobody wins. But you can try to lose the Least"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 06, 2012, 01:24:54 pm

Jim DeMint is resigning his office to go lead the Heritage Foundation. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jim-demint-resign-senate-seat-run-conservative-heritage-154206702--election.html)

You have to wonder why...there do seem to be a number of people bailing the Republicans one way or the other.

Be fun to watch his replacement election, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 06, 2012, 01:40:27 pm

Simply put, DeMint knows that Senate Republicans are in the minority, and that as Senators it's up to them to be the grown-ups. In other words, to seek pragmatic solutions rather than ideological ones. Senate Republicans are rapidly becoming the "black sheep" among the party faithful, because they're not as in-the-bone-crazy as the House Repubs. They're committing heresies like backing away from Norquist's tax pledge, and actually attempting to work with the Commie Pinko Cryptoislamic Terrorist Democratic Party to find some legit fiscal solutions.

DeMint would rather be free of that taint. By going to a shill tank like Heritage, he can be as diehard far-right as he wants to without having any kind of consequences, and divulge himself of any responsibility when a compromise solution is inevitably reached.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 06, 2012, 01:48:00 pm

They also passed a military bill including a provision that the military's medical insurance covers abortion in cases of rape, 98-0. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/abortion-military-rape-jeanne-shaheen_n_2244668.html) I doubt the House Republicans will be as willing, even having lost a number of their crazies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 06, 2012, 01:52:16 pm

I actually can't wait to watch the Republicans over the next four years. I think, secretly, in the heart of every liberal is a small little voice that wants to have to make a hard choice at the voting booth. It's a long, long, LONG way yet before that's the case, but there does seem finally to be a realization in the more unorthodox parts of the party that something's gone wrong in the rhetoric. Unfortunately, there's nobody who recognizes more than one or two places where the party's out of whack...but a hard defeat in 2014 may speed that up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on December 06, 2012, 05:00:21 pm

The local representative, Justin Amash, has been taken off the House Budget Committee... for being too insanely hyper-Republican. That's right. The Republicans actually axed a guy for being too extreme. Case in point: he voted against Paul Ryan's budget proposal because he thought that the cuts Ryan proposed were too long term.

Is this a sign that the Republicans are slowly and surely returning to some level of sense? Where they're actually starting to deal with the most extreme fringe? I hope so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 06, 2012, 06:35:54 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 05, 2012, 06:16:40 pm

But that part got me thinking: In a full-blown non-nuclear military confrontation, who would win: Russia or the EU?

I imagine that Russia would do quite well in the opening weeks when they'd be trashing on eastern Europe before the western European forces could come fully into play.  But after week three or so Russia is going to have a few problems on their hands as rioting breaks out in all their major cities and their economy collapses.  The Russian economy is based on energy exports that overwhelmingly go to the EU and friends of the EU.  In turn they import many essentials from Europe.  Even though Russia has some reserves, they don't have enough to last a multi-year post war rebuilding period after their essential export infrastructure is damaged.  It takes years to build natural gas pipelines.  Without Russian energy Europe would need to heavily ration electricity and fuel until alternatives come online.  Without trade the Russian economy collapses back to the early 90s.

The winners in the short run would be China who would be able to import Russian natural gas for a song but not in large enough quantities to keep Russia going.  The winners in the long run would be France and Japan.  France would make a killing exporting electricity from their nuclear plants for years after the war.  Japan would probably suffer initially as they would be leery of buying Russian gas during the war.  But after the initial distaste Japan would enjoy a great position important Russian natural gas as it would take years for the physical and commercial infrastructure of Russian exports to Europe to mend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 06, 2012, 07:18:29 pm

Europe has a history or tearing up any empire that decides to occupy large amounts of her for an amount of time. And; in 2012+, the timeframe for collapse would be weeks, not decades. I bet the possibility of Europe getting assaulted ever again are near-zero. Inner-EU strife does not count.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 06, 2012, 08:48:55 pm

Let's just wait for the rest of the world to admit it: We are awesome. Simple as that. I bet there's a reason that Europe and not another region was the only one to ever achieve world dominance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 06, 2012, 10:35:15 pm

Imperialist.
 
More seriously, It was most likely do to favorable livestock and climes. Europe has the vast majority of large mammals suitable for farm work. 12. EU never really achieved World dominance though. They were to damn fractitious. That's really the thing here, not that there tough. Tough like a serb maybe. You guys could have controlled the world, but were to busy divinding it up with infighting. The end of European Dominance of other coutnries was the world wars, which made holding on to colonies expensive.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 06, 2012, 10:49:30 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 06, 2012, 08:48:55 pm

Let's just wait for the rest of the world to admit it: We are awesome. Simple as that. I bet there's a reason that Europe and not another region was the only one to ever achieve world dominance.

Now hold on there, Russia's nominally European too. They certainly have had their times in the sun.

Besides that, Russia would have the distinct advantage in the short term, not in the least because the EU is (A) An economic, not political union, so proper military organization would be a gigantic mess and (B) Basically has a military doctrine, collectively speaking, that comes down to NATO (Read:The US and co) coming in at some point to assist. Furthermore, Russia has an iron grip on European energy via Gazprom. Yes, Russia receives European goods too, but Russia can survive without European consumer goods a lot longer than Europe can survive without Russian gas.

Though if you don't include the non-EU countries, it would be a very cold war since the only borders Russia has with the EU are at the Baltic. If you do include them, Byelorussia would line up with Russia pretty fast, the Ukraine would be a big mess due to ethnic tensions, and most of the rest of the Europeans would rush for the EU. Even with them, though, Russia's sheer military might would probably be sufficient to eat right through the EU.

At which point the frail and overextended Russian economy would collapse, since Russia presently is barely capable of maintaining a peacetime economy, let alone one forced to supply a gigantic force occupying the entirety of Europe without any European imports. So I guess no one would win, though the maps might show a really big green Russia for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 06, 2012, 10:51:04 pm

The funny part is that Russia doesn't even want Belarus. They're like a nation of annoying fanboys.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 06, 2012, 11:03:32 pm

I wonder if the US would use the war to annex Siberia New Greater Alaska... a fair bit of mineral wealth out there, from what I understand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 06, 2012, 11:04:45 pm

I agree. I will point out that some of the other balkan countries will break for Russia or be embroiled in war. Example: Serbia! The question of Russian allying versus European Intergration is a difficult one in many places.
 
But what is the context though? If it's something personal, the US might now want to Intervene. If, in the otherhand, the Chinese feel the can tip the scales, they may be tempted to ally with Russia.
 
The questions would be exactly to what extent the russians will eventually advance, and how long and how effectively they will be able to hold on. I doubt not too long, but war does help economies.I think that, assuming the russians begin their advance, and that the US has up to this point not intervened, they will be able to push at least to France. as soon as the russians begin their advance, of course, the US will be all over that. But that takes time, and the US doesn't have the military prescense in the region it once had. if the Russians push so far back as to essentially claim the continent, There will be a more intersting question regarding whether they can sustain themselves. If they don't push even as far as france, the question is moot.
 
If the russians can't capture land before the trenches are in the ground and the front lines are drawn quite clearly, they're screwed. There advantage of military might is all they have, once the advance has slowed, they'll need to go SUPER-WARTIME ECONOMY MODE to even have a shot of keeping any of that territory. if they somehow manage to hold on for a year and have begun gaining the fruits of the European Economy, WW3 will start. The US will press China into making a descision, and as I said, if it looks like the russians have a good chance, they may well jump ship.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 06, 2012, 11:09:15 pm

Quote from: Osmosis Jones on December 06, 2012, 11:03:32 pm

I wonder if the US would use the war to annex Siberia New Greater Alaska... a fair bit of mineral wealth out there, from what I understand.

It's funny that you would mention that. During some of the USSR's late economic turmoil it was suggested by some that the US approach them with offers of money for land in Siberia. Never went anywhere, obviously, and I think they would have learned their lessen about letting America buy your land after what happened with Alaska.

"No, they said, there's nothing of worth in Alaska, just ice and polar bears! Let the Americans have it, there's no way they'll find massive amounts of oil and gold there later."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 06, 2012, 11:15:09 pm

I sum up: 3 stages, each critical to the chances of this being a war the russians could actually eventually win. The sucess for each will determine the upper limit for sucess on the next one, and increase the odds.
1) Land grab. This should take as little time as possible preferably. The best chance is taking all of mainland Europe, save for neutrals.
2) Capitalize off that shit! This will depend on how sucessful the last was. If therewas little land taken, this will be very short indeed. Preferably lasting as long as possible.
3) The Counterattack. Eventually the opposing world powers are going to have their land armies ready to shoot some russians. This could take a long time, if Europe is totally occupied, or very little, if they made little sucess. How effectively they fight will depend on how sucessful the previous action went.
 
If all these go well, and very well, the Russians will be in a position to fight on equal terms. And so began WW3

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on December 07, 2012, 03:34:53 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 06, 2012, 08:48:55 pm

Let's just wait for the rest of the world to admit it: We are awesome. Simple as that. I bet there's a reason that Europe and not another region was the only one to ever achieve world dominance.

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond addresses those reasons, and is a very good read.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 07, 2012, 05:25:14 am

Russia is no longer 1970s Russia. They're a corrupt shadow of their former selves who have too much to lose in any kind of large scale conflict. Those days, in general actually, are gone. People don't really invade other countries to annex them or annex large amounts of territory, just to force leadership changes if they can afford it. It's quite pointless to debate this kind of thing because it's as likely as Europe actually uniting into a federation - yeah, right. You sell that to the Czechs, British, Hungarians and Latvians.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 07, 2012, 06:40:14 am

Quote from: misko27 on December 06, 2012, 10:35:15 pm

Imperialist.
 

A little bit :P

Quote from: misko27 on December 06, 2012, 10:35:15 pm

More seriously, It was most likely do to favorable livestock and climes. Europe has the vast majority of large mammals suitable for farm work. 12. EU never really achieved World dominance though. They were to damn fractitious. That's really the thing here, not that there tough. Tough like a serb maybe. You guys could have controlled the world, but were to busy divinding it up with infighting. The end of European Dominance of other coutnries was the world wars, which made holding on to colonies expensive.

World dominance was achieved, it just wasn't a very coherent dominance. ~90% of Earth were ruled by Europeans (explicitly including Russia; can't get to 90%  without Siberia), and the rest were small/underdeveloped (at the time) countries - Ethiopia and the early US come to mind.
Not that I'm an advocate of colonialism; it's just that in this crisis it's good to take a look at what Europe is capable of.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 07, 2012, 06:59:30 am

Quote from: Mego on December 07, 2012, 03:34:53 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 06, 2012, 08:48:55 pm

Let's just wait for the rest of the world to admit it: We are awesome. Simple as that. I bet there's a reason that Europe and not another region was the only one to ever achieve world dominance.

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond addresses those reasons, and is a very good read.

Hey! I remember that! My Global history teacher reccomended it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 07, 2012, 07:56:30 am

In GGS, Jared Diamond explains how race plays little part in the spread of "high tech". Food production does. The traditional old-world empires follow the "wheat belt" of Eurasia and North Africa, they themselves were never able to "colonize" outside the wheat belt until fairly recently in history, for example the Dutch sailed past the tropics and landed in the southern temperate zone of South Africa, where there was only hunter-gatherer resistance (the Khoisan tribes), because the central African tropical farm crops couldn't grow in the colder areas, but it was ideal for wheat.

The "backwards" areas are the areas unable to support the dominant crops - or places isolated from trade with the more advanced areas. Trade plays a bigger part than local innovation - consider all the things that made Britain a world power, and very few of them were purely invented in England.

Another thing is that Europe is extremely resistant to deforestation - it rains so much that you just can't clear-cut it. Dryer regions like the Fertile Cresent, and the Chaco Canyon did not bounce back once people started to chop down trees, even though they had what appears to be abundant forest at one point, it was much more fragile. The same aggressive use of forestry in North Africa, Middle East wasn't sustainable, but in Europe, you can chop trees for millennia and barely dent the thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on December 07, 2012, 08:54:34 am

And let's not forget livestocks, and the wonderful amount of germs it brings. Which mean you evovle resistance. Which mean you don't even need to kill the native, coughing in their directions one or twice is enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 07, 2012, 08:57:55 am

Beating expectations, Jobs report Highly positive. 146,000 jobs added, unemployment down to 7.7 precent (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/jobs-report-hits-fiscal-cliff-debate-84747.html?hp=t1)
 
And people were predicting a rise to 8%! Not even Hurricane sandy ruined it. It's the lowest level since 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 07, 2012, 10:05:40 am

Gas prices and unemployment both fell over that last 6 months. Rather than give Obama credit they tried to turn both into a negative: "he only got those figures down because he wants to be reelected". Which snarkily implies that he really wanted everyone to be unemployed and paying high gas prices "just coz", but America was lucky and there was an election coming up so ...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 07, 2012, 10:11:27 am

when one make public statements that you are wiling to intentionally sabotage the economy under the bus to get someone out of office, that person pretty much has to be a villian, or at least you have to pretend so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 07, 2012, 11:08:57 am

http://news.yahoo.com/debt-ceiling-debate-twist-sen-mitch-mcconnell-filibusters-233346015.html

Demonstrating that obstructionism is the only policy that the republicans have left, Mitch McConnell filibusters his own god damn bill.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 07, 2012, 11:14:14 am

Man that hurts xD - am I right in think Mitch McConnell is objecting to not one, but TWO of his own proposals in that story?

#1 - he originally proposed the same debt ceiling mechanism that Obama is proposing, now he's arguing against it.

#2 - he proposed a vote on the new mechanism, then he filibustered the same vote from occurring!

===

on the topic of defaulting on the national debt, I'd really like to see what happens when that does happen. So there's two time-bombs for early next year, the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling.

*gets popcorn ready*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 07, 2012, 12:33:07 pm

Quote from: Reelya on December 07, 2012, 11:14:14 am

*gets popcorn ready*

Me too - a few years back I said I wanted to emigrate to the US, but the political situation kinda scares me. I hope they get their act together until I finish university.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 08, 2012, 02:32:29 pm

The Rupublicans are OK with tax cuts qua tax cuts, but they would rather filibuster and ensure that spending gets cut. Even military spending cuts, which Republicans are normally against, are part of what they are striving for. Ironically, the less they do, the more that gets done.
 
 That being said, the Republicans will get the blame for the fiscal cliff because they are trying to filibuster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on December 08, 2012, 02:58:40 pm

They sure do a good job of giving off the impression that they care about America.

was that sarcasm? was it not? I don't know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 08, 2012, 03:06:17 pm

All politicians do.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 08, 2012, 05:18:42 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 08, 2012, 02:32:29 pm

The Rupublicans are OK with tax cuts qua tax cuts, but they would rather filibuster and ensure that spending gets cut.

I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous.  The spending cuts are already in place as existing law.  If they just wanted spending cuts they'd let the budget sequester go through exactly as is which doesn't require any filibuster, the house would just need to not pass a new budget.  But the house has passed a new budget because they dont want the sequester and they do want new tax cuts on top of the existing ones.  It right there in the budget they passed of their own free will.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 09, 2012, 03:08:18 am

More republican ridiculosity! (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/12/wingnuts-turn-on-ann-coulter.html) (That should totally be a word).

Basically, ANN COULTER is espousing the moderate position!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bdthemag on December 09, 2012, 03:34:08 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 07, 2012, 12:33:07 pm

Quote from: Reelya on December 07, 2012, 11:14:14 am

*gets popcorn ready*

Me too - a few years back I said I wanted to emigrate to the US, but the political situation kinda scares me. I hope they get their act together until I finish university.

Chances are we won't fix our political system for a long time. The only way I could see it happening is if a new political party that quickly gained sizable support was formed. But that's really unlikely, we're too used to the Democrats vs. Republican thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 04:11:16 am

The system's not perfect, but that's not my concern - what I'm a bit scared of is the deep rifts in the country, the all-or-nothing rhetorics, the influence that fundamentalist republicans wield. What I'm scared of is that the right-wing nuts actually have a power option.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 09, 2012, 07:50:43 pm

Nuts? At least we don't support marijuana while trying to outlaw tobacco.
 
 Most Republicans are more or less willing to compromise, but they want an actual compromise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bdthemag on December 09, 2012, 08:01:10 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 09, 2012, 07:50:43 pm

Nuts? At least we don't support marijuana while trying to outlaw tobacco.
 
 Most Republicans are more or less willing to compromise, but they want an actual compromise.

Both republicans and democrats are guilty of being completely unwilling to compromise unless it means they get the better deal, and it's definitely not because they aren't getting a fair deal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 08:35:00 pm

Quote from: Bdthemag on December 09, 2012, 08:01:10 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 09, 2012, 07:50:43 pm

Nuts? At least we don't support marijuana while trying to outlaw tobacco.
 
 Most Republicans are more or less willing to compromise, but they want an actual compromise.

Both republicans and democrats are guilty of being completely unwilling to compromise unless it means they get the better deal, and it's definitely not because they aren't getting a fair deal.

Hey - republicans are evil, democrats are good, alright?  Don't you dare challenge my view of American politics :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 09, 2012, 09:09:33 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 09, 2012, 07:50:43 pm

Nuts? At least we don't support marijuana while trying to outlaw tobacco.
Most Republicans are more or less willing to compromise, but they want an actual compromise.

Have their actually been any Democrat lead efforts to ban tobacco? o_O I know they've been pushing for bans in places like restaurants, but my understanding is all of those smoking rules apply to pot as well, which seems like a fairly coherent position. Certainly not "nutty". And also, yeah, in case you haven't noticed the national Democrats (and we're talking national parties here, my local Republican officials are generally pretty decent) are pretty stridently anti-pot. So I fail to see how that's an argument for anything.

On the "nut" front, the only difference between the two parties right now seems to be that the Republican's have a good deal more of them in positions of greater power - it's no great revelation that the Democrats keep most of their "wingnuts" at arm's length, (even if, in some cases, the "wingnut" position is a perfectly reasonable one).

Quote from: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 08:35:00 pm

Quote from: Bdthemag on December 09, 2012, 08:01:10 pm

Both republicans and democrats are guilty of being completely unwilling to compromise unless it means they get the better deal, and it's definitely not because they aren't getting a fair deal.

Hey - republicans are evil, democrats are good, alright?  Don't you dare challenge my view of American politics :P

Both parties are evil, or at least very, very amoral - they are funded by corporations and run by politicians. Republican's are simply evil in a way that directly harms significantly more people, in general. This doesn't mean every stance the party holds is wrong, but that, practically speaking, most people should rationally prefer the Democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 09, 2012, 11:12:42 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 09, 2012, 07:50:43 pm

 Most Republicans are more or less willing to compromise, but they want an actual compromise.

No they really don't.  When the democratic party adopts Republican ideas, they immediately become the subject of downright insane attacks.  The reason why people are so pissed at the republicans right now is that they have abandoned every principle they had simply to reject compromise:

Libya: Intervening to protect civilians is totally unacceptable when a democrat does it.  Never mind that we are still engaged in multiple wars that republicans started for that exact purpose.  But hey, no surprise, we saw the same damn thing in Yugoslavia.
Obamacare: Mandating people buy insurance is completely unconstitutional when democrats propose it!  Never mind that it was an idea first proposed by 19 republican senators and the republican presidential candidate at the time (Bob Dole).
Stimulus: Never, ever, ever works and is just a big handout to special interests.  That must be why Bush included stimulus in both his 2001 and 2003 budgets and why our republican appointed president of the Fed is begging us to pass more stimulus.

One can not stress enough that republicans in congress are completely devoid of any principle that they will not happily discard in a moment if it helps them achieve their only actual goal which is to make democrats look bad enough for them to return to power.  Absolutely nothing else matters to them in the least.

That being said, the compromise that Obama is offering them is generous.  They are being given some of the spending cuts they want and in return they don't sabotage the economy.  Most people think they should agree to do that for nothing.  Democrats have never threatened to sabotage the economy if they don't get what they want.

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 09, 2012, 09:09:33 pm

On the "nut" front, the only difference between the two parties right now seems to be that the Republican's have a good deal more of them in positions of greater power - it's no great revelation that the Democrats keep most of their "wingnuts" at arm's length, (even if, in some cases, the "wingnut" position is a perfectly reasonable one).

Quite true.  It's a tragic irony of American politics that voting against our disastrous invasion of Iraq ruined many a bright politicians career but not one single war supporter has been held to blame.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 04:20:22 pm

Quote

Libya: Intervening to protect civilians is totally unacceptable when a democrat does it.  Never mind that we are still engaged in multiple wars that republicans started for that exact purpose.  But hey, no surprise, we saw the same damn thing in Yugoslavia.
Obamacare: Mandating people buy insurance is completely unconstitutional when democrats propose it!  Never mind that it was an idea first proposed by 19 republican senators and the republican presidential candidate at the time (Bob Dole).
Stimulus: Never, ever, ever works and is just a big handout to special interests.  That must be why Bush included stimulus in both his 2001 and 2003 budgets and why our republican appointed president of the Fed is begging us to pass more stimulus.

Even a stopped clock is right twice three times a day

Also, it's not like the Democrats totally flipped on civil liberties, the PATRIOT act, etc the instant Obama took office or anything.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 04:33:43 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 04:20:22 pm

Also, it's not like the Democrats totally flipped on civil liberties, the PATRIOT act, etc the instant Obama took office or anything.

Progressives are actually angry about that and are the main source of bitching on that front.  How many republicans are bitching for more stimulus or supporting our troops or singing the praises of the mandate?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2012, 04:34:57 pm

Not to mention that the Republicans are still in love with the PATRIOT Act, while there are plenty of Democrats who would get rid of it even if Obama is a treacherous bastard.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 04:52:07 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 04:33:43 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 04:20:22 pm

Also, it's not like the Democrats totally flipped on civil liberties, the PATRIOT act, etc the instant Obama took office or anything.

Progressives are actually angry about that and are the main source of bitching on that front.  How many republicans are bitching for more stimulus or supporting our troops or singing the praises of the mandate?

There are plenty of Republicans that opposed all of those things when they were "Republican Ideas", probably about as many as there are progressives presently opposing Obama's support of the PATRIOT Act. The number of those who actually stand for their ideals rather than for the colour of their ties is pretty small in both parties, though

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 10, 2012, 04:57:10 pm

And that's why what really matters is the tie - all that 'holier-than-thou' crap is gonna get us nowhere.
That being said, I find it very funny that the republicans are red and the democrats blue :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 05:04:02 pm

Could you name me any republicans in positions of authority who opposed the individual mandate before 2005 or so when democrats started embracing it?

Personally I'd say the number the stand for ideology first is rather high.  You just need to understand that the parties reflect what their true ideologies are.  Democrats desperately want to make government work and will compromise for as much as they think they can get.  Sure single payer would have been the most efficient but they didn't think they could get it so they settled for Obamacare which was the most efficient they could get.  Republicans want to reward the virtuous and punish the undeserving.  Those are their true ideologies and once you look at it that way everything they do makes a lot of sense.  Why would republicans oppose single payer when it allows other countries to have healthcare as a smaller percentage of GDP then just our government funded portion?  Well it punishes the virtuous capitalist who owns an insurance company and rewards the undeserving poor people who never made anything with their lives.

Quote from: Helgoland on December 10, 2012, 04:57:10 pm

And that's why what really matters is the tie - all that 'holier-than-thou' crap is gonna get us nowhere.

This is true that you start with the assumption that both sides are equally at fault and equally virtuous.  If you just think about this proposition in the abstract for a moment then you will see that it's extraordinarily unlikely for both sides to be equally to blame.  Think back through history, how often does it seem that both sides are equally to blame for problems are equally responsible for good events?  It happens but usually when there is broad consensus, which doesn't exactly describe our current politics.

Once you understand that it's reasonable to be concerned with which side is more deserving then the whole point of democracy becomes clear, letting citizens support the deserving.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 10, 2012, 05:26:09 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 05:04:02 pm

Once you understand that it's reasonable to be concerned with which side is more deserving then the whole point of democracy becomes clear, letting citizens support the deserving.

That's what I meant - you can't trust individual politicians, and you can't make big jumps with the parties, soo you'll have to find out which of the existing parties (I'm looking at you, libertarians!) is better.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 05:50:58 pm

I somehow got the opposite meaning of what you wrote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 10, 2012, 06:44:26 pm

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/12/rnc-launches-official-autopsy-on-election-151552.html?hp=t3_3 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/12/rnc-launches-official-autopsy-on-election-151552.html?hp=t3_3)
 
Looks like soon there will be a official response. This could make or break the repubs for a while.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 06:46:38 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 05:04:02 pm

Could you name me any republicans in positions of authority who opposed the individual mandate before 2005 or so when democrats started embracing it?

Personally I'd say the number the stand for ideology first is rather high.  You just need to understand that the parties reflect what their true ideologies are.  Democrats desperately want to make government work and will compromise for as much as they think they can get.  Sure single payer would have been the most efficient but they didn't think they could get it so they settled for Obamacare which was the most efficient they could get.  Republicans want to reward the virtuous and punish the undeserving.  Those are their true ideologies and once you look at it that way everything they do makes a lot of sense.  Why would republicans oppose single payer when it allows other countries to have healthcare as a smaller percentage of GDP then just our government funded portion?  Well it punishes the virtuous capitalist who owns an insurance company and rewards the undeserving poor people who never made anything with their lives.

Depends on what you consider positions of authority to be. Pat Buchanan and Jim DeMint both come to mind immediately, though.

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2012, 06:50:04 pm

Quote from: misko27 on December 10, 2012, 06:44:26 pm

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/12/rnc-launches-official-autopsy-on-election-151552.html?hp=t3_3 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/12/rnc-launches-official-autopsy-on-election-151552.html?hp=t3_3)
 
Looks like soon there will be a official response. This could make or break the repubs for a while.

Fingers crossed that their conclusion is something stupid and messes them up even further.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 10, 2012, 06:54:35 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 06:46:38 pm

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Why are we talking about that stuff at all? what relevance does this have to the whole "we were for it before we were against it" thing that the conversation was actually about? The point was that the Republican's oppose things simply because the Dems support them, from what I understand, rather than because they believe they are doing the best whatever, as far as I can understand it.

Sometimes I honestly have trouble following your train of thought.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 06:59:09 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 06:46:38 pm

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Nancy Pelosi?

She opposes the Patriot act and she is house minority leader.  She would be house speaker right now if Republicans hadn't gerrymandered like it was going out of style.  I don't know any who are isolationist though.  The Democratic party has been for humanitarian intervention since Woodrow Wilson.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2012, 07:11:26 pm

The US hasn't been isolationist for a long, long time. You've got RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL, and that's about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 07:47:14 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 10, 2012, 06:54:35 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 06:46:38 pm

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Why are we talking about that stuff at all? what relevance does this have to the whole "we were for it before we were against it" thing that the conversation was actually about? The point was that the Republican's oppose things simply because the Dems support them, from what I understand, rather than because they believe they are doing the best whatever, as far as I can understand it.

Sometimes I honestly have trouble following your train of thought.

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 06:59:09 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 06:46:38 pm

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Nancy Pelosi?

She opposes the Patriot act and she is house minority leader.  She would be house speaker right now if Republicans hadn't gerrymandered like it was going out of style.  I don't know any who are isolationist though.  The Democratic party has been for humanitarian intervention since Woodrow Wilson.

Well okay then. Boehner opposed the individual mandate from the outset, and the "individual mandate" was barely even a blip on the radar back in 2005. The Clinton healthcare plan was shot down by the Republicans and Democrats, though.

There are plenty of isolationist Democrats out there, though they tend towards economic rather than military isolationism.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 07:56:12 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 07:47:14 pm

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Democrats don't hold the economy hostage to get their way.  That's a huge, huge elephant in the room.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 10, 2012, 08:01:02 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 07:56:12 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 07:47:14 pm

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Democrats don't hold the economy hostage to get their way.  That's a huge, huge elephant in the room.

Well, consider their party animal :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 08:07:54 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 07:56:12 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 07:47:14 pm

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Democrats don't hold the economy hostage to get their way.  That's a huge, huge elephant in the room.

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped. The debt getting to be quite this bad is a bit unprecedented.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 10, 2012, 08:14:51 pm

The debt is at least 75% caused by the republicans to start with. And its only really a problem if the US does something retarded and counterproductive to growth, like exactly what the republicans are doing right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on December 10, 2012, 08:16:14 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 10, 2012, 08:14:51 pm

like exactly what the republicans are doing right now.

Sorry I'm not up to date with the thread or international finance.
What are they doing right now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2012, 08:17:57 pm

It really doesn't matter what the Democrats "would" do if the situation was flipped. This is the situation. It is happening. And the Republicans are being harmfully obstructionist, harming any attempts to derive a solution in favor of "CUT EVERYTHING BUT THE MILITARY, NO ALTERNATIVES, FINAL DESTINATION".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 10, 2012, 08:28:39 pm

Quote from: Max White on December 10, 2012, 08:16:14 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 10, 2012, 08:14:51 pm

like exactly what the republicans are doing right now.

Sorry I'm not up to date with the thread or international finance.
What are they doing right now?

Playing brinkmanship with the US credit rating in order to preserve or increase the tax cuts for billionaires. Forcing economically crippling social program cuts during a recession recovery when America needs them the most. Pretending that the economy is one problem and gutting every aspect of the federal government except corporate welfare and expansionist militarism in the name of fiscal responsibility to balance the budget is its only solution, while not actually balancing the budget. Forcing a complete deadlock to the federal system of governance. Etc. The whole damn thing that they are treasonous doing in order to fuck over my country, to overthrow democracy and liberty and return us to the old way where an elite class of plutocrats wield absolute economic, religious, political and military power of their serfs because that is ultimately the end result if the fuckers get their way.

/me 's eye begins to twitch.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Max White on December 10, 2012, 08:31:17 pm

Well... Fuck.
You can always come down here. I don't even know how but our economy seems to be doing alright. Somehow. I mean everybody is all up in arms about how shit is hitting the fan and then the next day things are a little better than they were meant to be...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 08:35:07 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 08:07:54 pm

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 10, 2012, 08:35:57 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 08:35:07 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 08:07:54 pm

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

Sure you can, its just that it is really easy to dismiss as a diversionary tactic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on December 10, 2012, 08:37:08 pm

Come on, that's a little bit overstating the point, Nadaka.

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 08:35:07 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 08:07:54 pm

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

No, one should certainly wonder that. Partisanship and politics runs deep in both parties, without a doubt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 10, 2012, 08:38:25 pm

Quote from: Strife26 on December 10, 2012, 08:37:08 pm

Come on, that's a little bit overstating the point, Nadaka.

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 08:35:07 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 08:07:54 pm

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

No, one should certainly wonder that. Partisanship and politics runs deep in both parties, without a doubt.

The key part is the evidence and the lack thereof.

edit: I would point out that the evidence STRONGLY shows that the partisanship is much stronger on one side than the other. There is only one side that filibusters their own proposals and bills. There is only one side that chooses to demonize solutions they had had offered a few short yearsmonthsweeks ago. There is only one side that defines compromise as "i get everything i want and you get nothing".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 10, 2012, 08:41:32 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 07:47:14 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 10, 2012, 06:54:35 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 06:46:38 pm

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Why are we talking about that stuff at all? what relevance does this have to the whole "we were for it before we were against it" thing that the conversation was actually about? The point was that the Republican's oppose things simply because the Dems support them, from what I understand, rather than because they believe they are doing the best whatever, as far as I can understand it.

Sometimes I honestly have trouble following your train of thought.

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Uh... no? If they're disagreeing over legitimate issues, that's one thing. And there's some of that here. But obstructionism is something tactical - that example has nada, zip, zilch to do with them being obstructionist. Who exactly are they obstructing by continuing to support those terrible policies? When have they reversed position almost explicitly to oppose "the other guy", despite originating a proposal themselves? When have they constantly filibustered non-controversial nominees? When have they actually acted obstructionist, is the thing.

Your conclusion "Democrats are just as obstructionist" is absurd on the merits of your argument, namely "They didn't oppose Bush's foreign interventions and they participated in broad bipartisan support for the Patriot Act", which seem (if anything) to be diametrically opposed to your claim.

So no, I still don't understand your argument in the slightest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: vadia on December 10, 2012, 10:09:47 pm

Any of you who are against obstructionist behavior etc, should write an email to their respective reps (and senators [hey why not]) that they sould compromise.  If they get a few thousand letters [more than they do on the other side] even those who are least likely to compromise will tend to get the point eventually.

In fact tell your friends and family to do so also.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington them (Did I just make a movie title into a verb?)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on December 10, 2012, 10:20:24 pm

I actually would vadia, but I'm quite pleased with my house rep [Walz] and senators [Klobuchar, Franken].

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkflagrance on December 10, 2012, 10:51:55 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 10, 2012, 04:20:22 pm

Quote

Libya: Intervening to protect civilians is totally unacceptable when a democrat does it.  Never mind that we are still engaged in multiple wars that republicans started for that exact purpose.  But hey, no surprise, we saw the same damn thing in Yugoslavia.
Obamacare: Mandating people buy insurance is completely unconstitutional when democrats propose it!  Never mind that it was an idea first proposed by 19 republican senators and the republican presidential candidate at the time (Bob Dole).
Stimulus: Never, ever, ever works and is just a big handout to special interests.  That must be why Bush included stimulus in both his 2001 and 2003 budgets and why our republican appointed president of the Fed is begging us to pass more stimulus.

Even a stopped clock is right twice three times a day

Also, it's not like the Democrats totally flipped on civil liberties, the PATRIOT act, etc the instant Obama took office or anything.

Would a republican president have done differently? Those who opposed the curtailing of civil liberties never had a choice except between two evils.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on December 10, 2012, 11:14:51 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 10, 2012, 05:04:02 pm

Well it punishes the virtuous capitalist who owns an insurance company and rewards the undeserving poor people who never made anything with their lives.

I'll never understand how people can be tricked into thinking this way...

My immediate reaction upon reading that sentence:  The virtuous (as defined by their success) capitalist has already, by definition, been rewarded, and therefor doesn't need the help of public institutions to pile even greater rewards upon them.  The poor may sometimes be undeserving, but they may also have all the elements necessary to be successful (I would just simplify by calling them virtuous, but in this context virtue means having already become successful...) and simply have not made it yet.  In this case, it's hard to imagine how one would argue that punishment is deserved, and likely prevents would-be successes.

I totally understand that the above is the product of billionaires protecting their status, and their propaganda machines are vast and relentless... but no amount of propaganda should be capable of making the whole ideology any less vulnerable to 2 seconds of honest critical thought.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 10, 2012, 11:38:09 pm

Quote from: darkflagrance on December 10, 2012, 10:51:55 pm

Would a republican president have done differently? Those who opposed the curtailing of civil liberties never had a choice except between two evils.

A democrat from Seattle might have. As always, a lot of this stuff is determined long before the election, in the primaries and earlier, and like grassroots efforts for local offices by third parties, this is where many of the gains are to be made.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 10, 2012, 11:53:07 pm

First of all, the Republicans did not oppose Libya. Second, the Repblicans are filibustering not to get tax cuts, but spending cut (yes, even military), and lastly, they are not demonizing the same policies they had weeks ago, there are new strings attached.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 11, 2012, 12:14:27 am

Quote from: tahujdt on December 10, 2012, 11:53:07 pm

First of all, the Republicans did not oppose Libya.

That would explain why their senate minority leader, house majority leader and presidential nominee all floated conspiracy theories about it.  Oh wait, no it doesn't.  That's because their hipocrites.

Quote from: tahujdt on December 10, 2012, 11:53:07 pm

Second, the Repblicans are filibustering not to get tax cuts, but spending cut (yes, even military)

Do you not follow politics or something?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 12:16:24 am

Quote

That's because they're hypocrites.

Sorry, my inner Grammar Nazi just had to say "hi" :(

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 11, 2012, 12:46:40 am

Quote from: tahujdt on December 10, 2012, 11:53:07 pm

First of all, the Republicans did not oppose Libya. Second, the Repblicans are filibustering not to get tax cuts, but spending cut (yes, even military), and lastly, they are not demonizing the same policies they had weeks ago, there are new strings attached.

On Libya: Yes, they did, you clearly weren't paying attention at the time.

On the rest:
Their primary point of contention is to re-pass the Bush tax cuts as-is. This is not their only sticking point, but it is their MAIN sticking point (at least so far as they've said publicly).

And their "spending cuts" are not fiscal tools (look at the most recent Republican "spending cut" proposal, which manages to spend MORE than the government is spending now is entitlement, but targeted mostly towards business and entrenched interest with a side course of military-industrialism) but cultural and political ones - they want their cuts as a tool to gut Democrat-friendly programs so they can later point and say "Look! The Democrat's program isn't working!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 11, 2012, 06:40:37 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 12:16:24 am

Quote

That's because they're hypocrites.

Sorry, my inner Grammar Nazi just had to say "hi" :(

Let's hippo-crit the hypocrits!

(I find myself advocating political violence a lot these days. Worrying.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 11, 2012, 07:31:44 am

Well still better than hyperbrits.

Wait what?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 11, 2012, 06:00:53 pm

I look forward to hyperbits in the interest of running an aleph-two cardinality number of dwarves.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 11, 2012, 06:11:45 pm

Republicans want to cut all programs. This is not something that they want just to sabotage the Dems, they want to avoid the incoming crisis. Extending the Bush tax cuts would be a good thing, but better if we could get spending cuts too. Also, I'd like to point out the Mr. Obama could have offered the tax cuts at any time, but he chooses to do so now because he knows the Republicans are after something bigger. Spending cuts. Also, Obama had promised to cut spending before, but he hasn't. Government will not cut spending voluntarily, so we need to do it involuntarily. That is, force the spending cuts that happen if Democrats don't agree to compromise.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 06:13:26 pm

Or you know, raise taxes. The horror.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:15:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 06:13:26 pm

Or you know, raise taxes. The horror.

Which ones? How much?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 11, 2012, 06:17:35 pm

Hey, Obama's for tax cuts too. Spending cuts and tax cuts, two ways to help the government. What would be a good idea would be to give tax cuts to businesses that are actively hiring and growing. That would stimulate the economy much better then just inefficiently pouring billions of dollars into it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 11, 2012, 06:19:12 pm

No! All cuts are good! They're cuts! How can you not see it?

Quote from: tahujdt on December 11, 2012, 06:11:45 pm

Republicans want to cut all programs. This is not something that they want just to sabotage the Dems, they want to avoid the incoming crisis. Extending the Bush tax cuts would be a good thing, but better if we could get spending cuts too. Also, I'd like to point out the Mr. Obama could have offered the tax cuts at any time, but he chooses to do so now because he knows the Republicans are after something bigger. Spending cuts. Also, Obama had promised to cut spending before, but he hasn't. Government will not cut spending voluntarily, so we need to do it involuntarily. That is, force the spending cuts that happen if Democrats don't agree to compromise.

Of course government spending is going up - it's called inflation, and (though I guess for America this isn''t as much of a problem) the aging of society.
And Obama offered the tax cuts way back during the original debt crisis, offering the republicans a very generous (read: insane and unacceptable to any true liberal, but the best we'll get) deal. They didn't take it and instead chose to do brinkmanship the like of which has not been seen since Nikita Khrushchev.
The republicans are holding the country hostage - and you try to tell us that it's morally wrong for Obama to use the few bargaining chips he has?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 06:19:22 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:15:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 06:13:26 pm

Or you know, raise taxes. The horror.

Which ones? How much?

A question I'm unable to answer. Though notably, if you bring up "spending cuts," I have the ability ask exactly the same question of "which ones and how much."

Neither raising taxes nor cutting spending is inherently bad. What IS inherently bad is dogmatically saying we should only do one or the other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 11, 2012, 06:23:18 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 11, 2012, 06:19:12 pm

No! All cuts are good! They're cuts! How can you not see it?

Quote from: tahujdt on December 11, 2012, 06:11:45 pm

Republicans want to cut all programs. This is not something that they want just to sabotage the Dems, they want to avoid the incoming crisis. Extending the Bush tax cuts would be a good thing, but better if we could get spending cuts too. Also, I'd like to point out the Mr. Obama could have offered the tax cuts at any time, but he chooses to do so now because he knows the Republicans are after something bigger. Spending cuts. Also, Obama had promised to cut spending before, but he hasn't. Government will not cut spending voluntarily, so we need to do it involuntarily. That is, force the spending cuts that happen if Democrats don't agree to compromise.

Of course government spending is going up - it's called inflation, and (though I guess for America this isn''t as much of a problem) the aging of society.
And Obama offered the tax cuts way back during the original debt crisis, offering the republicans a very generous (read: insane and unacceptable to any true liberal, but the best we'll get) deal. They didn't take it and instead chose to do brinkmanship the like of which has not been seen since Nikita Khrushchev.
The republicans are holding the country hostage - and you try to tell us that it's morally wrong for Obama to use the few bargaining chips he has?

It's going up much faster then inflation, that's for sure. Also, as I keep saying, Republicans don't want tax cuts more than spending cuts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:24:39 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 11, 2012, 06:17:35 pm

Hey, Obama's for tax cuts too. Spending cuts and tax cuts, two ways to help the government. What would be a good idea would be to give tax cuts to businesses that are actively hiring and growing. That would stimulate the economy much better then just inefficiently pouring billions of dollars into it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://ih2.redbubble.net/work.5739875.1.flat,550x550,075,f.stirring-up-a-hornets-nest.jpg)

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 06:19:22 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:15:21 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 06:13:26 pm

Or you know, raise taxes. The horror.

Which ones? How much?

A question I'm unable to answer. Though notably, if you bring up "spending cuts," I have the ability ask exactly the same question of "which ones and how much."

Neither raising taxes nor cutting spending is inherently bad. What IS inherently bad is dogmatically saying we should only do one or the other.

Military cuts and corporate subsidies would probably be the most straightforward, though it seems like even "small government" Republicans won't even consider them. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all should be cut or at least scaled back in some way, and yes I know that's politically unfeasible in the present political climate.

Really, Americans ought to figure out whether they prefer "big government social programs" with all the taxes and side effects those have, or whether they prefer a "low tax low regulation pro-business" government without all of those programs. You can't have it both ways.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 06:26:57 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:24:39 pm

Really, Americans ought to figure out whether they prefer "big government social programs" with all the taxes and side effects those have, or whether they prefer a "low tax low regulation pro-business" government without all of those programs. You can't have it both ways.

I agree, and they should choose the one that won't cause the recession to go on forever.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:36:06 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 06:26:57 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:24:39 pm

Really, Americans ought to figure out whether they prefer "big government social programs" with all the taxes and side effects those have, or whether they prefer a "low tax low regulation pro-business" government without all of those programs. You can't have it both ways.

I agree, and they should choose the one that won't cause the recession to go on forever.

We agree on both points then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 06:40:38 pm

That is the joke.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 11, 2012, 06:44:31 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 11, 2012, 06:11:45 pm

Republicans want to cut all programs.

You keep saying this, but neither their rhetoric nor their actions bear this out. Take the Ryan plan - it significantly increased government spending. And he's considered pretty conservative. In fact, everything approaching a Republican budget proposal so far has increased overall government spending. If Republican's wanted to cut spending across the board, why hasn't anyone in the party proposed these sort of across the board cuts? Or, hell, any sort of overall cut at all?

Quote

Government will not cut spending voluntarily, so we need to do it involuntarily. That is, force the spending cuts that happen if Democrats don't agree to compromise.

And the Republican's have made it quite clear they have no desire to cut spending, only to shift it into their preferred programs. And here's an interesting fact: If you are spending more than you are taxing, and you cut spending and also cut taxes by the same amount, you actually INCREASE the size of the deficit. The fact that you claim there is a disaster coming thanks to the debt, followed by you arguing we should do a thing that makes it worse, makes me believe you either don't understand what you are saying or that you are being facetious. If your goal is ultimately to balance the budget, and you believe this is the highest priority, you would only ever be willing to cut taxes if it would increase government income.

The Republican's have pushed to cut taxes, and don't usually bother to argue any specific tax would would increase this income. Ergo, balancing the budget and fighting the debt is, to put it most politely, not their highest priority. Combined with their stubborn insistence on increasing the deficit at all costs, I'd wager it's not even near the top of the list, except rhetorically. (Which sucks, because I'd be willing to accept spending cuts and consider supporting the Republicans if I thought a reduction in the debt was the ultimate goal. It is quite clear, however, that it is not.)

Which leaves the question of "what is"?

Quote

What would be a good idea would be to give tax cuts to businesses that are actively hiring and growing. That would stimulate the economy much better then just inefficiently pouring billions of dollars into it.

Also, this is just outright wrong.  We've had multiple multi-page back and forths over this issue multiple times over the course of this thread, with a metric ton of evidence brought into play. And tax cuts (at least at our tax rates) of /any/ sort turn out to be terribly inefficient. Turns out the best way to stimulate the economy is food stamps, for a while bunch of reasons. You have to get to rates much higher than ours before tax begin having a decent return on investment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 06:49:02 pm

Actual money would be somewhat better than foodstamps, considering that foodstamps just artificially limit the stimulus and create a black market.  But hey, can't have them lazy poors getting too uppity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 11, 2012, 06:50:15 pm

Actually, I think foodstamps managed to edge out even direct cash. I can't remember why.

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:24:39 pm

whether they prefer a "low tax low regulation pro-business" government without all of those programs. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think you can have it that way at all, at least, not without having a period of "high tax" before-hand, anyway, to pay off the debt. And making sure the "pro-business" doesn't cost to much. At least if you're talking Republican-style pro-business, which tends to get rather expensive on the government spending front.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 06:52:09 pm

You mean comparing foodstamps to equal amounts of cash given to the same people?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 06:52:44 pm

Presumably because you can hoard cash, but good luck hoarding food stamps.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 11, 2012, 06:53:53 pm

I think that was basically it, yeah. Food stamps get spent quicker, resulting in a larger stimulus effect, while cash tends to be saved more often.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 06:56:40 pm

It'd probably make sense to have some kind of money with an expiry date in that case.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 06:59:16 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 06:56:40 pm

It'd probably make sense to have some kind of money with an expiry date in that case.

How on Earth would that make sense?! Haven't you ever saved some cash for a rainy day?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 11, 2012, 07:01:41 pm

And who would accept money that was going to expire? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 11, 2012, 07:08:35 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 11, 2012, 07:01:41 pm

And who would accept money that was going to expire? :P

Someone who doesn't have enough permanent money to meet their immediate needs.

It makes sense because as far as stimulus is concerned, spending it right away means it fuels the economic engine, stuffing it in a piggy bank means there is no feedback loop and the economy shrinks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 07:10:30 pm

In other news,  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html)

Quote

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.

Methinks he was picked up by time travellers in the Middle Ages and dumped in Arkansas by accident.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 07:12:29 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 11, 2012, 07:01:41 pm

And who would accept money that was going to expire? :P

You'd use a similar mechanism to foodstamps.

Although really just giving it to poorer people is usually enough to make sure most of it is spent.  The problem with tax cuts for the rich is it tends to just get thrown on the big pile of money in their bank, where it doesn't do so much for the economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 11, 2012, 07:17:34 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 07:10:30 pm

In other news,  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html)

Quote

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.

Methinks he was picked up by time travellers in the Middle Ages and dumped in Arkansas by accident.

This isn't surprising to me. American Taliban, just change the name of the holy book.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 07:17:49 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 11, 2012, 07:10:30 pm

In other news,  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html)

Quote

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.

Methinks he was picked up by time travellers in the Middle Ages and dumped in Arkansas by accident.

Probably more of a Cool and Calm Progressive thread thing, as it as jack-all to do with the election.
Like at least half the pages in this thread.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 11, 2012, 07:19:28 pm

Does much of anything in this thread have to do with the election now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 07:22:54 pm

No, but some things are further off-topic than others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 11, 2012, 07:26:15 pm

Quote from: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 07:22:54 pm

No, but some things are further off-topic than others.

He is a potential candidate for the arkansas legislature

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 07:28:18 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 11, 2012, 07:26:15 pm

Quote from: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 07:22:54 pm

No, but some things are further off-topic than others.

He is a potential candidate for the arkansas legislature

...goddammit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 11, 2012, 07:31:24 pm

Not anymore he isn't. Extremist statements like that are anathema to a political candidate. You'll get some people who believe in that stuff, but I don't think that even most of the far-right would be able to look at "execute rebellious children" without pause.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 07:32:22 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 11, 2012, 07:31:24 pm

Not anymore he isn't. Extremist statements like that are anathema to a political candidate. You'll get some people who believe in that stuff, but I don't think that even most of the far-right would be able to look at "execute rebellious children" without pause.

He doesn't think he's extremist, though.

Quote

"I think my views are fairly well-accepted by most people," Fuqua said to AP.

Of course he actually is extremist, as you say, but :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 07:34:33 pm

Quote

Fuqua, who has been backed by the state GOP and is seeking a comeback

You were saying, MSH? Sure, other Republicans are decrying him, but it looks like he has some support.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 11, 2012, 07:37:40 pm

And then all the conservatives' mothers suppress that movement as they ask why they don't have any grandkids yet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 07:38:58 pm

It's odd that he hates radical Islam so much, considering how much his own views seem to align with it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 11, 2012, 07:41:26 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 07:32:22 pm

He doesn't think he's extremist, though.

Quote

"I think my views are fairly well-accepted by most people," Fuqua said to AP.

Of course he actually is extremist, as you say, but :P

Extremists never do. That's how they get their death cults started, by pretending to be mainstream.

Quote from: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 07:34:33 pm

Quote

Fuqua, who has been backed by the state GOP and is seeking a comeback

You were saying, MSH? Sure, other Republicans are decrying him, but it looks like he has some support.

I was saying that the state GOP are a bunch of morons. The GOP also backed Atkin and Mourdock, and that crazy party platform in Texas. The GOP backs a lot of stupid, crazy things that the vast majority of Americans will reject. Why do you think the party is dying?

Quote from: Leafsnail on December 11, 2012, 07:38:58 pm

It's odd that he hates radical Islam so much, considering how much his own views seem to align with it.

Most extremists start to become alike and want to kill each other as the level of their extremism increases.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: EnigmaticHat on December 11, 2012, 09:31:33 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 11, 2012, 07:19:28 pm

Does much of anything in this thread have to do with the election now?

American Election Megathread: It's Never Over

not that I'm complaining, this thread is entertaining

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on December 11, 2012, 09:33:09 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 11, 2012, 07:41:26 pm

Extremists never do. That's how they get their death cults started, by pretending to be mainstream.

Hey, I'm an extremist and I realize it!

Though I don't have any death cults, and only a few of my views are extreme...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on December 11, 2012, 09:43:44 pm

No death cults?

You aren't trying hard enough.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 09:44:26 pm

I don't want a death cult, I want a thought cult.

Yes, I am aware that is somewhat of a contradiction.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 11, 2012, 10:12:47 pm

I want a cult of not having a cult of personality of me when I take over - that's just so much better for your image in the history books.

(Do you reckon we might keep this thing going till '16?)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on December 11, 2012, 10:15:36 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 11, 2012, 10:12:47 pm

(Do you reckon we might keep this thing going till '16?)

Why not? Maybe change the title to something else?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 11, 2012, 10:16:35 pm

Call it "American Election Megathread: Round Two!"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on December 11, 2012, 10:46:34 pm

Or just another generic American Politics thread to talk about developments, like the Michigan Union busting or SCOTUS reviewing DOMA and California's Prop 8.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on December 11, 2012, 11:04:00 pm

Yeah, it's gonna come up somewhere, might as well be confined to one place that everyone else can know to avoid.  And I can lock it if need be and nobody will put up a fuss about it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 11, 2012, 11:06:50 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 11, 2012, 11:04:00 pm

Yeah, it's gonna come up somewhere, might as well be confined to one place that everyone else can know to avoid.  And I can lock it if need be and nobody will put up a fuss about it.

Maybe you should lock it now and start a new thread that can carry the politics discussion until April or May 2015 when presidential rumblings start to get underway?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scelly9 on December 11, 2012, 11:09:55 pm

Why? What's the difference from this thread to a new one?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on December 11, 2012, 11:10:56 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 11, 2012, 11:06:50 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 11, 2012, 11:04:00 pm

Yeah, it's gonna come up somewhere, might as well be confined to one place that everyone else can know to avoid.  And I can lock it if need be and nobody will put up a fuss about it.

Maybe you should lock it now and start a new thread that can carry the politics discussion until April or May 2015 when presidential rumblings start to get underway?

Yeah, maybe I should.

And maybe that would completely fucking redundant.  I consider it a triumph that finally most of the inevitable American politics arguments have been contained in a couple of threads that can stay at a low simmer instead of turning into fights in completely inappropriate places.  Anyone who doesn't want a politics discussion can just point to this horse's carcass and say "hey, take it over there".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 11, 2012, 11:12:02 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 11, 2012, 11:06:50 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 11, 2012, 11:04:00 pm

Yeah, it's gonna come up somewhere, might as well be confined to one place that everyone else can know to avoid.  And I can lock it if need be and nobody will put up a fuss about it.

Maybe you should lock it now and start a new thread that can carry the politics discussion until April or May 2015 when presidential rumblings start to get underway?

That would be nice, except that campaign 2016 actually began over a month ago.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Flying Dice on December 12, 2012, 12:55:51 am

So who are we looking at as an early lineup for the GOP? Because I'm too burned out on electoral wankery to keep up with campaign 2016.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on December 12, 2012, 01:01:01 am

Quote from: Flying Dice on December 12, 2012, 12:55:51 am

So who are we looking at as an early lineup for the GOP? Because I'm too burned out on electoral wankery to keep up with campaign 2016.

I'm guessing the only real candidates they have are Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. They could try a Marc Rubio or Bobby Jindal but I'm doubtful they'd win the primaries once the Republican base realizes their only chance of getting a president into office rests with the former pair.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on December 12, 2012, 01:12:16 am

Jeb, huh... what's he got going for 'im, exactly?

I'm definitely a little biased when it comes to that guy (Floridian and a teacher parent, and insofar as I can tell pretty much every teacher in florida hates JB's guts. Only minor exaggeration, there.), so having an outside view of what he's got going for 'im would be illuminating.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 01:14:11 am

Quote from: Glowcat on December 12, 2012, 01:01:01 am

Quote from: Flying Dice on December 12, 2012, 12:55:51 am

So who are we looking at as an early lineup for the GOP? Because I'm too burned out on electoral wankery to keep up with campaign 2016.

I'm guessing the only real candidates they have are Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. They could try a Marc Rubio or Bobby Jindal but I'm doubtful they'd win the primaries once the Republican base realizes their only chance of getting a president into office rests with the former pair.

Bush has a tainted family name amongst both the Republicans and the Democrats, Christie is a refreshingly moderate and practical Republican....which makes him a traitor in the eyes of the party leadership.

Jindal is conservative and party loyal enough for them, so I'd consider him a possibility.

And then there's Santorum, whom I pray will get the 2016 nomination because he is so batshit that there is no way in hell he could ever come close to winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 01:28:27 am

What about the GOP's favorite ladies, Bachmann and Palin? Think they've got a shot?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 01:30:11 am

Palin is far too happy with her golden parachute to go back into politics.  Running for president requires a lot of work.  Bachman will probably take a shot but will probably not amount to much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 01:32:15 am

Shame. Either one of those would have been almost as good as Santorum getting the nomination.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 01:36:30 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 01:28:27 am

What about the GOP's favorite ladies, Bachmann and Palin? Think they've got a shot?

Not really. For one thing, the GOP does not have the best record with gender egalitarianism. Even if it isn't explicit, I think they'd be biased against a female candidate. Palin is a walking media disaster, but unlike Who The Hell Is Joe Biden her antics are facepalm worthy instead of amusing. Bachmann is a psycho anti-vaxxer who wants to nuke Iran. She can't survive in the mainstream. Hell, she can barely survive in an extremely conservative area of Minnesota. She only kept her seat this election by 4298 votes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on December 12, 2012, 01:36:43 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 01:14:11 am

Bush has a tainted family name amongst both the Republicans and the Democrats, Christie is a refreshingly moderate and practical Republican....which makes him a traitor in the eyes of the party leadership.

Republicans are quick to distance themselves from GW's presidency but the libertarian-leaning ones who actually hold Bush accountable are very slim compared to those who still think he had the right idea but distance themselves from political poison. The Democrats/Independents who might be swayed will do so because it's incredibly doubtful the moderate mind wouldn't give Jeb a chance just because of his family relation, especially if they didn't really mind Bush Senior's term.

And Christie's "moderate" status is exactly what he's got going for him. Think about the last few elections in the Republican primaries. McCain was seen as a liberal-leaning senator, a maverick. He got the nomination. Romney was a blue state governor (just like Christie will be) known for his somewhat liberal legislation. See Romneycare. He also got the nomination. This is because despite all the hand-wringing a Republican base might do, they ultimately recognize that they need to actually get their candidate elected into office and that requires winning the general election. Those who are still recalcitrant can be won over enough during the far-right pandering of primaries.

EDIT: Because I forgot, but Christie also has a large degree of charisma. Maybe not an 18 but it's pretty up there.

Quote from: Frumple on December 12, 2012, 01:12:16 am

Jeb, huh... what's he got going for 'im, exactly?

I'm definitely a little biased when it comes to that guy (Floridian and a teacher parent, and insofar as I can tell pretty much every teacher in florida hates JB's guts. Only minor exaggeration, there.), so having an outside view of what he's got going for 'im would be illuminating.

As an anti-Republican, I'm not really sure what people see in him besides being a strong establishment candidate, even if he's not nearly as strong as Hillary in that department. I just see him mostly pushed forward because he's got a somewhat friendly history towards immigration (which the GOP believes will help them close the Latino vote) and more moderate, providing a face of "compassionate conservatism" which the party desperately needs to put forward after this latest shellacking.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 01:39:41 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 01:36:30 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 01:28:27 am

What about the GOP's favorite ladies, Bachmann and Palin? Think they've got a shot?

Not really. For one thing, the GOP does not have the best record with gender egalitarianism. Even if it isn't explicit, I think they'd be biased against a female candidate. Palin is a walking media disaster, but unlike Who The Hell Is Joe Biden her antics are facepalm worthy instead of amusing. Bachmann is a psycho anti-vaxxer who wants to nuke Iran. She can't survive in the mainstream. Hell, she can barely survive in rural Minnesota. She only kept her seat this election by 4298 votes.

What, and Santorum was the reincarnation of Gandhi? Let's not forget his record on gay rights and wonderful theocracy he wants the US to be. He was an idiot before the election and only seems to be getting worse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 01:46:15 am

Quote from: Glowcat on December 12, 2012, 01:36:43 am

Republicans are quick to distance themselves from GW's presidency but the libertarian-leaning ones who actually hold Bush accountable are very slim compared to those who still think he had the right idea but distance themselves from political poison.

That isn't actually what I meant. A lot of the GOP, most strongly the Tea Party, see Bush Jr....as a RINO.

Yes, I know, but they do.

Quote

And Christie's "moderate" status is exactly what he's got going for him. Think about the last few elections in the Republican primaries. McCain was seen as a liberal-leaning senator, a maverick. He got the nomination. Romney was a blue state governor (just like Christie will be) known for his somewhat liberal legislation. See Romneycare. He also got the nomination. This is because despite all the hand-wringing a Republican base might do, they ultimately recognize that they need to actually get their candidate elected into office and that requires winning the general election. Those who are still recalcitrant can be won over enough during the far-right pandering of primaries.

And we all saw how well that went for Romney. Fact is, the party leadership will never allow a moderate Republican to have the nomination for anything less than going full-tilt far-right and worshiping the altar of God, Guns, and Gays. It's a losing strategy, but there are few within the party who want to abandon it.

Anyway, Romney's moderate cred was all the way back in the 90's, for the most part. Christie got called out by the GOP just now. I think it's too soon for people to forget his positions when they get replaced by the party line. His shift will be even more obvious than Romney's was.

Quote

As an anti-Republican, I'm not really sure what people see in him besides being a strong establishment candidate, even if he's not nearly as strong as Hillary in that department. I just see him mostly pushed forward because he's got a somewhat friendly history towards immigration (which the GOP believes will help them close the Latino vote) and more moderate, providing a face of "compassionate conservatism" which the party desperately needs to put forward after this latest shellacking.

The GOP's beliefs about the Latino vote are kind of hilarious, and this election has been a very interesting demographic ground for the Latino vote. Before this, most analysts kind of lazily saw the Latino vote as a carbon copy of the Black vote with immigration sympathies: socially conservative, fiscally liberal.

Then this election came along, and now we know quite clearly that Latinos are actually a socially liberal demographic. And you know how skilled the GOP is at swaying those social liberals. Yep, so many social liberals vote Republican. So many.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on December 12, 2012, 01:55:54 am

It's pretty saddening that parties pick candidates who could get elected, rather than candidates who should get elected. Can we have a meritocracy? Please?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: scriver on December 12, 2012, 01:57:26 am

...Huntsman? No chance?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 01:59:11 am

Quote from: Mego on December 12, 2012, 01:55:54 am

It's pretty saddening that parties pick candidates who could get elected, rather than candidates who should get elected. Can we have a meritocracy? Please?

Democracy is the least meritocratic form of government except for all other forms of government that have ever been tried.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on December 12, 2012, 03:34:31 am

Quote from: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 01:39:41 am

What, and Santorum was the reincarnation of Gandhi? Let's not forget his record on gay rights and wonderful theocracy he wants the US to be. He was an idiot before the election and only seems to be getting worse.

Remember, Santorum wasn't even close to becoming President.

I think Huntsman stands a pretty good chance if he ran again. I wish he'd done better this time around, but I suppose he hadn't the name recognition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 03:48:57 am

...am I the only one who sees that MSH prayed that Santorum would get the nomination precisely because of that?

That was the reason I brought up Bachmann and Palin. Because they're equally nutso and would stand an equally poor chance of actually winning.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 12, 2012, 07:18:19 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 01:46:15 am

the altar of God, Guns, and Gays

We need someone to draw this. With a gay christian cowboy gunslinger posing on it, please.

Quote from: Sirus on December 12, 2012, 03:48:57 am

...am I the only one who sees that MSH prayed that Santorum would get the nomination precisely because of that?

We should start a fund and get liberals to fund the most die-hard conservatives out there - that money woulld be saved later on, when the election is decided from day one.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 09:42:37 am

Just because a candidate looks crazy to you doesn't mean they are not viable.   A lot of people wont think the candidate is crazy because they are conservatives.  Many others don't follow politics in the same way and will not consider the crazy an open and shut case.  Over the course of a year long campaign they will stop caring about the craziness credentials and start caring about the stuff in the campaign.  So a crazy candidate might poll badly a year in advance but the handicap will be all but gone by election day.  And giving them money just lets them close the gap faster.

In a Senate race craziness is more a of liability.  Candidates get less time in the spotlight so one legitimately horrendous comment can sink them as they don't get a chance to recover.  But Presidential races are much more high profile.

So please, please, please do not support crazy republicans.  Their nomination does not ensure democratic victory.  Their nomination makes democratic victory marginally more likely but makes the election of a crazy candidate possible.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on December 12, 2012, 12:19:14 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 01:59:11 am

Quote from: Mego on December 12, 2012, 01:55:54 am

It's pretty saddening that parties pick candidates who could get elected, rather than candidates who should get elected. Can we have a meritocracy? Please?

Democracy is the least meritocratic form of government except for all other forms of government that have ever been tried.

Well, technically an Intelligent, Benevolent dictatorship/monarchy/whatever can be much better about having a meritocratic form of government if the successor is chosen based on merit and not blood/politics. Problem is that the chain always breaks down after 2 or 3 decent leaders and you get the usual problems that a dictatorship of any type has with a bad leader.

Democracy is only better because while it has lower highs, it has much higher lows.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 12:25:21 pm

I'm in favor of bringing back an elective monarchy, Holy Roman Emperor-style. Only make sure the electors aren't total fuckwits or political animals. Maybe an elector that is an outstanding figure in different realms (a hard sciences elector, an arts elector, an economics elector, a religion elector, a foreign policy elector, etc.)

Then of course, the problem becomes making sure the elector positions don't become totally corrupted. *sigh*

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 12, 2012, 12:26:44 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 12:25:21 pm

I'm in favor of bringing back an elective monarchy, Holy Roman Emperor-style. Only make sure the electors aren't total fuckwits or political animals. Maybe an elector that is an outstanding figure in different realms (a hard sciences elector, an arts elector, an economics elector, a religion elector, a foreign policy elector, etc.)

Then of course, the problem becomes making sure the elector positions don't become totally corrupted. *sigh*

But who would elect the monarch? If it's the people it's basically just the same as having an electable president.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2012, 12:27:18 pm

I think seperation of powers is on to something there.

Make sure the people electing the electors (Oh god I can see where this is going. Fuck it, I'm gonna finish the thought!) Make sure they have no vested interests in the position. You wouldn't have the CEOs of Goldman Sachs elect the Finance Minister, right? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 12, 2012, 12:29:45 pm

Quote from: Descan on December 12, 2012, 12:27:18 pm

I think seperation of powers is on to something there.

Make sure the people electing the electors (Oh god I can see where this is going. Fuck it, I'm gonna finish the thought!) Make sure they have no vested interests in the position. You wouldn't have the CEOs of Goldman Sachs elect the Finance Minister, right? :P

But how on earth can you determine who has the vested interests and who doesn't in an efficient way? Democracy isn't perfect but, as people have said, it has the fewest disadvantages and difficulties when compared to the alternatives.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2012, 12:33:04 pm

Keep in mind, I'm in favour of elections-for-life, coupled with a relatively-easy overthrowing mechanic. With that, you don't neeeed it to be efficient. You can spend 5 years figuring out who to put in power for the next 30.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 12, 2012, 12:34:32 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 12:25:21 pm

I'm in favor of bringing back an elective monarchy, Holy Roman Emperor-style. Only make sure the electors aren't total fuckwits or political animals. Maybe an elector that is an outstanding figure in different realms (a hard sciences elector, an arts elector, an economics elector, a religion elector, a foreign policy elector, etc.)

Then of course, the problem becomes making sure the elector positions don't become totally corrupted. *sigh*

I thought about something similar a few months back - I believe it would be a good idea if we gave the universities direct political powers; maybe a senate in the Roman style with its members being professors and other academics from around the country. It would (to some degree) make sure that fundies had no chance of gaining influence.

Quote from: Owlbread on December 12, 2012, 12:29:45 pm

But how on earth can you determine who has the vested interests and who doesn't in an efficient way?

You can't. Let's face it, people: Rousseau sucks :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 12, 2012, 12:37:10 pm

I don't really like the whole "let's leave it up to the 'geniuses' in universities to elect our governments" stuff. There are people well outside universities and similar institutions who are better placed to elect our leaders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 12:40:59 pm

This is why we need to create an immortal hyper intelligent perfectly moral AI to be our absolute leader. What could possibly go wrong?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on December 12, 2012, 12:46:09 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 12:40:59 pm

This is why we need to create an immortal hyper intelligent perfectly moral AI to be our absolute leader. What could possibly go wrong?

The Computer is your friend!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on December 12, 2012, 12:47:50 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 12, 2012, 12:46:09 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 12:40:59 pm

This is why we need to create an immortal hyper intelligent perfectly moral AI to be our absolute leader. What could possibly go wrong?

The Computer is your friend!

>>FRIENDSHIP.EXE
>>FILE NOT FOUND!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 12, 2012, 12:52:40 pm

Quote from: Owlbread on December 12, 2012, 12:37:10 pm

I don't really like the whole "let's leave it up to the 'geniuses' in universities to elect our governments" stuff. There are people well outside universities and similar institutions who are better placed to elect our leaders.

The problem's not that there's too few good people, but that we don't know which ones are good. There certainly are good people outside of universities, but more of them inside.
And that's also the reason why university people should not be supreme leaders: The advantage is not that each of them is perfect, but that the collective is good. Hence, the senate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: i2amroy on December 12, 2012, 12:55:44 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on December 12, 2012, 12:47:50 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 12, 2012, 12:46:09 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 12:40:59 pm

This is why we need to create an immortal hyper intelligent perfectly moral AI to be our absolute leader. What could possibly go wrong?

The Computer is your friend!

>>FRIENDSHIP.EXE
>>FILE NOT FOUND!

>>DOWNLOADING REPLACEMENT .EXE
>>KILL_ALL_HUMANS.EXE HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 01:00:24 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on December 12, 2012, 12:34:32 pm

It would (to some degree) make sure that fundies had no chance of gaining influence.

No, it would insure that within 15 years they would have an enormous deal of influence.  Look at the Senate right now where fundies are more important then climate change advocates.  In any political system you will see factions and an alliance between social conservatives and oligarchs has sprung up in every society that has such people and has politics.  In pre green revolution Egypt the political system was driven underground but it took a matter of weeks for this political faction to spring up once the military forced the president out.  We see it in diverse political systems, the US, China, Russia. The existence of such a political faction is inevitable.  By concentrating power into the hands of an elite you just make it so the alliance of social conservatives and oligarchs becomes more entrenched in power once they win the sympathies of people in power.  And that would happen very, very quickly given our current body public.  15 years might be a conservative estimate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 01:10:18 pm

Worth noting that Alexander Hamilton argued at length in favor of an elective monarchy (calling the position "Governor") in 1787. State power was to be eroded, the lower house would be popularly elected and serve 3-year terms, the upper house would be elected by the same electors who chose the Governor (who were in turn popularly elected...sort of an Electoral College system) and serve for life.

And the Federal government had the power to veto any state legislation.


People agreed it was a good plan, but a bit too close to the way Britain was organized and after the Articles of Confederation, the states weren't likely to agree to such a sweeping cession of power to the Federal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 12, 2012, 01:26:37 pm

Once autonomy is given out it is virtually impossible to take away without great difficulty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 12, 2012, 01:28:40 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 01:10:18 pm

Worth noting that Alexander Hamilton argued at length in favor of an elective monarchy (calling the position "Governor") in 1787. State power was to be eroded, the lower house would be popularly elected and serve 3-year terms, the upper house would be elected by the same electors who chose the Governor (who were in turn popularly elected...sort of an Electoral College system) and serve for life.

And the Federal government had the power to veto any state legislation.


People agreed it was a good plan, but a bit too close to the way Britain was organized and after the Articles of Confederation, the states weren't likely to agree to such a sweeping cession of power to the Federal.

IIRC George Washington was offered the title of King or Emperor following the War of Independance and turned it down. Not unlike the Roman legend of Cincinatus.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on December 12, 2012, 01:43:26 pm

Personally, I think one of the big problems in American politics is the fact that the majority of politicians are lawyers. Lawyers, to a large degree, go into that line of work because of the money and not for any ideals about helping the world. It is also a profession built around selling your version of the truth in order to get a favorable verdict from the system. They also tend to be a very competitive lot.

Hence to main problem, which is that our politicians are predominantly wealthy scum bags who care more about appearance and winning than they do actually helping the country out in any meaningful way.

I wonder how much of the problem is the people going into the system instead of the system itself?

Would it be possible to get some educational system in place that specifically trains political leaders? They'd still need to understand law, of course, but from the standpoint of writing it rather than abusing it. You could then have the system set up to help them get jobs in government. Starting at the local level, but then they can of course move on up as normal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 01:50:48 pm

A law degree is a perquisite to practice law.  Believe it or not most law isn't about selling your soul to the highest bidder.  Mostly it's about mundanely making sure things are done according to the arcane rules laid out.

But more fundementally, someone who is interested in politics would naturally be inclined to get a law degree.  They both require driven people with an interest in law.  It's not surprising there are a lot of lawyers in congress.

Barrack Obama I might remind you is a lawyer, a Harvard one at that.  Mitt Romney is another Harvard law graduate.  Do you honestly think that they disagreed on so many issues because they were paid to do so?  No, they got into politics because they cared about stuff and they got law degrees because it helped them do what they cared about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 01:55:03 pm

Problem being those people you're talking about training wouldn't be politicians, they'd be bureaucrats. There are programs like that (my wife has a Master's in Public Administration, which covers a lot of what you're aiming at), but in the end those people would still have to run for office and be voted in by a majority to become politicians.

You put them up (armed with honesty and graphs and an idea of how government works) against a firebreathing demagogue who just pulls "facts" out of their ass and promises the impossible....I think you can see who's likely to win.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 12, 2012, 02:26:30 pm

Soooo... Truean2016?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 02:29:39 pm

Quote from: MonkeyHead on December 12, 2012, 01:28:40 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 01:10:18 pm

Worth noting that Alexander Hamilton argued at length in favor of an elective monarchy (calling the position "Governor") in 1787. State power was to be eroded, the lower house would be popularly elected and serve 3-year terms, the upper house would be elected by the same electors who chose the Governor (who were in turn popularly elected...sort of an Electoral College system) and serve for life.

And the Federal government had the power to veto any state legislation.


People agreed it was a good plan, but a bit too close to the way Britain was organized and after the Articles of Confederation, the states weren't likely to agree to such a sweeping cession of power to the Federal.

IIRC George Washington was offered the title of King or Emperor following the War of Independance and turned it down. Not unlike the Roman legend of Cincinatus.

That would be the Newburgh Conspiracy, in which Washington delivered the Newburgh Address: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_Conspiracy)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote from: George Washington

Gentlemen:

By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety, how unmilitary, and how subversive of all order and discipline, let the good sense of the army decide...

Thus much, gentlemen, I have thought it incumbent on me to observe to you, to show upon what principles I opposed the irregular and hasty meeting which was proposed to have been held on Tuesday last - and not because I wanted a disposition to give you every opportunity consistent with your own honor, and the dignity of the army, to make known your grievances. If my conduct heretofore has not evinced to you that I have been a faithful friend to the army, my declaration of it at this time would be equally unavailing and improper. But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common country. As I have never left your side one moment, but when called from you on public duty. As I have been the constant companion and witness of your distresses, and not among the last to feel and acknowledge your merits. As I have ever considered my own military reputation as inseparably connected with that of the army. As my heart has ever expanded with joy, when I have heard its praises, and my indignation has arisen, when the mouth of detraction has been opened against it, it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the war, that I am indifferent to its interests.

But how are they to be promoted? The way is plain, says the anonymous addresser. If war continues, remove into the unsettled country, there establish yourselves, and leave an ungrateful country to defend itself. But who are they to defend? Our wives, our children, our farms, and other property which we leave behind us. Or, in this state of hostile separation, are we to take the two first (the latter cannot be removed) to perish in a wilderness, with hunger, cold, and nakedness? If peace takes place, never sheathe your swords, says he, until you have obtained full and ample justice; this dreadful alternative, of either deserting our country in the extremest hour of her distress or turning our arms against it (which is the apparent object, unless Congress can be compelled into instant compliance), has something so shocking in it that humanity revolts at the idea. My God! What can this writer have in view, by recommending such measures? Can he be a friend to the army? Can he be a friend to this country? Rather, is he not an insidious foe? Some emissary, perhaps, from New York, plotting the ruin of both, by sowing the seeds of discord and separation between the civil and military powers of the continent? And what a compliment does he pay to our understandings when he recommends measures in either alternative, impracticable in their nature?

I cannot, in justice to my own belief, and what I have great reason to conceive is the intention of Congress, conclude this address, without giving it as my decided opinion, that that honorable body entertain exalted sentiments of the services of the army; and, from a full conviction of its merits and sufferings, will do it complete justice. That their endeavors to discover and establish funds for this purpose have been unwearied, and will not cease till they have succeeded, I have not a doubt. But, like all other large bodies, where there is a variety of different interests to reconcile, their deliberations are slow. Why, then, should we distrust them? And, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures which may cast a shade over that glory which has been so justly acquired; and tarnish the reputation of an army which is celebrated through all Europe, for its fortitude and patriotism? And for what is this done? To bring the object we seek nearer? No! most certainly, in my opinion, it will cast it at a greater distance.

For myself (and I take no merit in giving the assurance, being induced to it from principles of gratitude, veracity, and justice), a grateful sense of the confidence you have ever placed in me, a recollection of the cheerful assistance and prompt obedience I have experienced from you, under every vicissitude of fortune, and the sincere affection I feel for an army I have so long had the honor to command will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that, in the attainment of complete justice for all your toils and dangers, and in the gratification of every wish, so far as may be done consistently with the great duty I owe my country and those powers we are bound to respect, you may freely command my services to the utmost of my abilities.

While I give you these assurances, and pledge myself in the most unequivocal manner to exert whatever ability I am possessed of in your favor, let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress; that, previous to your dissolution as an army, they will cause all your accounts to be fairly liquidated, as directed in their resolutions, which were published to you two days ago, and that they will adopt the most effectual measures in their power to render ample justice to you, for your faithful and meritorious services. And let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood.

By thus determining and thus acting, you will pursue the plain and direct road to the attainment of your wishes. You will defeat the insidious designs of our enemies, who are compelled to resort from open force to secret artifice. You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings. And you will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, "Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining."

Quote from: Darvi on December 12, 2012, 02:26:30 pm

Soooo... Truean2016?

I don't think she's old enough. You have to be 35 to be President. Besides, Truean would be far better off as Chief Justice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Dutchling on December 12, 2012, 02:35:26 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 02:29:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on December 12, 2012, 02:26:30 pm

Soooo... Truean2016?

I don't think she's old enough. You have to be 35 to be President. Besides, Truean would be far better off as Chief Justice Hammerer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on December 12, 2012, 02:55:13 pm

Let us consider a few different kinds of minds as legislators- that is, those who make the laws.

Lawyer: The technician of law. They first of all are most highly skilled in the current practice of law, the vocabulary of law, and, by thier very nature the most skilled in circumventing its intention. Much like how a computer programmer is probably better at hacking than anyone else in the room.

Author: Skilled in words, yes. Perhaps this means they will write clear laws, with meaning that is well-understood by all. However, a skilled lawyer will no doubt have the power to reinterpret this creatively. And a writer will most likely not be skilled in the existing practice of law, which eventually lead to contradictions with previous laws.

Engineer: Anyone who is skilled in the design of systems; for the purposes of law, I would consider a software engineer the same as an electrical one, or archetectual. If you found such a mind and taught it law, then you might get something pretty useful for legislation. You would, most likely, end up with a lawyer.

I feel that Lawyers make superior lawmakers, because they are the ones most skilled at defeating lawyers. A flaw with a lawyer-dominated government is that it creates a system of laws not open to negotiation or interpretation, especially once precident has been established. This is not a bad thing, so long as the laws are just; but if the lawmaking process is corrupted, which frankly is easier when naive lawmakers are in office, then iron-clad and evil laws will be made, a most negative turn of events.

I think that what we dislike of Lawyers as legislators is not their inherent lawyerness, but instead the inherent Legislationess.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 03:30:53 pm

If I might borrow DF as an analogy for a minute...

I think the problem is that once a framework of law is created, no matter how noble the purpose, there will exist people who study that framework for the sheer purpose of exploiting it for profit (and occasionaly for lulz). Law hackers, if you will.

Toady created mermaids just because they're a mythical creature and he was trying to spruce up the sea life a bit. Because they were so rare, he set the material value for them quite high. Before long....well, you know the story.

Lawmakers will make a law that seems to serve a good purpose, and then a lawyer comes along and finds a way to follow the letter of the law but utterly pervert the intention of it. That's why people don't like lawyers. And yes, the vast majority of lawyers don't do this, and many even attempt to find a legal remedy to thwart the perversion. But that's not what's going to stick out in the public mind, the same way that a few high-profile upper forum threads have helped to create a reputation for all DF players that is somewhat...disturbing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Moghjubar on December 12, 2012, 03:38:26 pm

Quote from: Dutchling on December 12, 2012, 02:35:26 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 02:29:39 pm

Quote from: Darvi on December 12, 2012, 02:26:30 pm

Soooo... Truean2016?

I don't think she's old enough. You have to be 35 to be President. Besides, Truean would be far better off as Chief Justice Hammerer.

So... why have we not made a Dwarf party yet and started 'improving' politics?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 03:54:38 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 03:30:53 pm

If I might borrow DF as an analogy for a minute...

I think the problem is that once a framework of law is created, no matter how noble the purpose, there will exist people who study that framework for the sheer purpose of exploiting it for profit (and occasionaly for lulz). Law hackers, if you will.

Toady created mermaids just because they're a mythical creature and he was trying to spruce up the sea life a bit. Because they were so rare, he set the material value for them quite high. Before long....well, you know the story.

Lawmakers will make a law that seems to serve a good purpose, and then a lawyer comes along and finds a way to follow the letter of the law but utterly pervert the intention of it. That's why people don't like lawyers. And yes, the vast majority of lawyers don't do this, and many even attempt to find a legal remedy to thwart the perversion. But that's not what's going to stick out in the public mind, the same way that a few high-profile upper forum threads have helped to create a reputation for all DF players that is somewhat...disturbing.

My uncle is a lawyer over in China.  He has decades of experience with the American legal system and nearly a decade doing large commercial real estate deals in China.  He told me that his job in China is very easy.  His job is to come up with a legal pretext that sounds vaguely plausible.  It doesn't matter about precedent or other trivia because the case wont be decided on its merits.  The party officials intentionally write the laws to be vague so they can decide whichever way they want.  Other people are in charge of making sure the judges rule the right way.

I feel that a system that allows for loopholes is vastly preferable to a vague one.  Loopholes can be corrected through judicial discretion, appeals and amendments to the code.  But when a law is vague the entire thing is one big loophole.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 03:56:06 pm

Indeed, a decent description of the Supreme Court's job is "closing loopholes".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 04:01:33 pm

No argument there. Law in China has pretty much ALWAYS been that way. Power (and money) trumps law.

But then, is it really any different in the US? HSBC got busted for laundering billions for the Mexican cartels. If a individual person were found guilty of laundering as little as $10,000 they'd be in prison. But a big bank does it, and just gets slapped with a fine. Nobody went to jail or was held personally accountable. A relatively small number of greedy fucking assholes in Wall Street hedge funds jointly tanked the US economy. Almost none of them saw prison time or economic damages.

One of my favorite examples is when former Dallas Cowboys football player Nate Newton was busted driving an entire vanload of marijuana. 175 pounds of marijuana. He got 30 months and a $25,000 fine. If that had been you or me, we'd be in prison for life. There are two justice systems in the US: one for the haves, one for the have-nots. Our system is a lot more harsh.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 04:03:54 pm

In China HSBC wouldn't have gotten caught at all. They'd be running both the cartels and the local government behind the scenes, while also laundering money for them.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 12, 2012, 04:27:02 pm

Of course rich people can still immediately get out by paying a grand.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 12, 2012, 04:47:37 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2012, 04:03:54 pm

In China HSBC wouldn't have gotten caught at all. They'd be running both the cartels and the local government behind the scenes, while also laundering money for them.

No, they wouldn't have gotten caught UNTIL the public found out about it and it became a big embarassment for the government. At which point most of the executives involved would have been executed.

Say what you want about the Chinese legal system (and I make no bones about the fact that horrific injustices occur regularly within it), but when there's a major cock-up, heads DO roll. Literally.

Transpose that here, and there would have been dozens of death sentences handed down out of the AIG and Lehman Brothers scandals.
Bernie Madoff wouldn't be sitting pretty and smirking about how he's a legend over at the prison in Butner.
The guys in charge of the Deepwater Horizon fiasco in the Gulf would be dead.
The top guys at that mining company in West Virginia that basically didn't give a shit about safety procedures? Dead or in prison.
This jackoff that runs that pharmacy responsible for the meningitis outbreak? Yeah, none of this "I invoke my 5th Amendment rights" bullshit. They'd pull out his fingernails until he confessed and THEN shoot him.


Yeah, I know, I know..."that's not the way we do things in America". More's the pity when it comes to the rich and powerful. Corporations in China are NOT people. Which means when they screw up big time, there *is* accountability -- assuming there's enough outcry to bring it to Beijing's attention and enough public anger to make them think twice about trying to sweep it under the rug.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 05:00:01 pm

Isn't all that stuff caused by too few laws, not too many?  The problem with the financial industry is that essentially there were no laws regulating what they were doing.  Institutions were engaging in practices that were essentially banking but without any of the compliance and disclosure that banks have to obey.  This lead to a rash of abuses of that freedom because they were doing things that weren't regulated but clearly should have been.

I do not see any way for the Chinese system to be reformed without a complete overhaul that starts with completely re-envisioning the legal system and changing the role of the judiciary.  Basically you need to throw the system out and start over.  I do see how the American system can be made to work, just write new laws to correct the abuses.

When a new computer virus comes out we dont all go out and buy macs, we update our anti-virus software.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 05:26:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 05:00:01 pm

Isn't all that stuff caused by too few laws, not too many?  The problem with the financial industry is that essentially there were no laws regulating what they were doing.  Institutions were engaging in practices that were essentially banking but without any of the compliance and disclosure that banks have to obey.  This lead to a rash of abuses of that freedom because they were doing things that weren't regulated but clearly should have been.

What regulations do you think there should have been?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 05:27:57 pm

For starters? Glass-Steagal

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on December 12, 2012, 05:28:47 pm

Ninja'd a bit, but here is the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) on the Glass-Steagal act.

Something which should never, ever have been removed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 05:33:20 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 05:26:15 pm

What regulations do you think there should have been?

To put it briefly, it should not be legal to engage in bank type lending and investment unless you follow the regulations and disclosure practices of a bank.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 12, 2012, 05:39:58 pm

yeah, repealing glass-steagal was probably the most destructive thing done by the government since.. vietnam, maybe?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 12, 2012, 05:42:27 pm

Since the Boston Tea Party.

Seriously, that was a damn waste of tea.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on December 12, 2012, 05:43:39 pm

And ever since then, the Boston harbour has smelt -delicious-.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 06:29:47 pm

How did the repeal of Glass Steagal cause the crisis?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 12, 2012, 06:40:13 pm

It allowed banks that deal with mortgages and savings accounts and the like to get involved in investment banking, which is far more risky, thus putting far more money at risk.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 12, 2012, 06:41:52 pm

It did not directly cause the crisis, but it basically made the whole system more unstable, making the crisis possible in the first place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on December 12, 2012, 06:51:02 pm

Repealing a regulation cannot directly cause anything, but it can allow things to happen that would've been impossible otherwise (at least legally).

Potentially important distinction.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on December 12, 2012, 07:46:55 pm

Yeah. Basically, it shifted the balance of everything in a way that made some bad business decisions go from having a small effect to having a very large effect.

Kind of like removing a levee can cause a business to fail. It's not directly responsible, but it allows various events to unfold that wouldn't had the levee been left in place.

To elaborate on this hypothetical example: With the levee gone you get Flooding of the business. This caused repair costs and lost revenue while the building was being restored. Despite the help of Insurance to cover the actual repair costs, the loss of revenue and traffic of customers causes the business to fail. The flooding was perhaps only the straw that broke the camel's back, but if the flood had never happened the business wouldn't have closed.

It's kind of like that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 12, 2012, 08:07:11 pm

Even at it's core, though, it's the fact that the government allows the corps to play a sort of "manipulate the system" game, where they don't have to cover their asses because they can externalize all the losses.

I think, economically, the best sort of regulation is the type that internalizes those losses, so people can't game the system by pushing the risk off onto someone else - more regulation (and better, current stuff is often all to easy to avoid) of that sort would have held those who gambled and lost responsible for the loss, and would have gone a long way towards preventing them from making ultimately unsustainable bets to begin with.

The big players here, the ones who were really responsible, almost all knew they were going to lose, and lose big, eventually - they were just absolutely sure they wouldn't have to deal with the fallout, and their immediate profits would more than offset any minor portion of the cost they might have to actually deal with. And if they didn't, hell, it's not like the government could let them fail, right? It would blow up the economy!

A classic "Heads I win, Tails you lose" sort of situation. And regulation could have prevented it. (As always, the difficult part of regulation is preventing THAT while still allowing the bits that are actually productive and good for the economy)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 08:10:52 pm

Quote from: kaijyuu on December 12, 2012, 06:51:02 pm

Repealing a regulation cannot directly cause anything, but it can allow things to happen that would've been impossible otherwise (at least legally).

Potentially important distinction.

Things like what?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: kaijyuu on December 12, 2012, 08:21:31 pm

Things like... well, if you have a regulation against dumping toxic waste into a river, it is thus prevented from happening (at least legally).

If you want me to explain how repealing Glass Steagal allowed the crisis, I'll have to pass that question on to someone else, as I don't have the expertise or knowledge to do so. You'll note I've made no specific claims about that issue, just made a clarification concerning cause and allowance.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 12, 2012, 08:24:37 pm

Example, I legalize murder. Havign done that, I'm not directly telling anyone "hey, go murder", but The the lack of restrictions is going to massively increase the number of murders.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 08:32:51 pm

No no, Glass Steagal itself.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 12, 2012, 08:34:58 pm

That's rather uncertain. Nobody can agree on whether the restrictions would have slowed the crash, accelerated it, or had already ceased to exist at the time of repeal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 08:38:08 pm

It prevented the conflict of interest between banking and brokering that caused the system to collapse.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 12, 2012, 08:40:50 pm

In theory. Many pundits have argued for years that it no longer did so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 08:47:03 pm

Quote from: Lord Shonus on December 12, 2012, 08:40:50 pm

In theory. Many pundits have argued for years that it no longer did so.

pundits with agenda's.

Glass-Steagal was created in response to the lending and securities fraud that was largely responsible for crashing the US economy at the time. While it held, there were no such society shaking economic crisis's stemming from that cause. In the decade after it was repealed, the exact same kinds lending and securities games were played leading up to and the recession. It is extremely clear cut.

Its not impossible for something else to have happened to cause a recession, but this one was a repeat of history.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 12, 2012, 09:22:32 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 08:32:51 pm

No no, Glass Steagal itself.

Why on earth would someone try to explain something that complex to you?  You would just take potshots at it and then act all smug because you "disproved" it.  It would be like trying to explain the finer points of the Climate Research Unit findings at East Anglia to a climate change skeptic.  You want an explanation?  Tough crap.  Your previous behavior means that nobody is going to waste their time on you.  We are under no obligation to offer you material to flame.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 10:27:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 08:38:08 pm

It prevented the conflict of interest between banking and brokering that caused the system to collapse.

How did it cause the system to collapse?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 01:26:16 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 10:27:07 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 12, 2012, 08:38:08 pm

It prevented the conflict of interest between banking and brokering that caused the system to collapse.

How did it cause the system to collapse?

Were you not paying attention while this whole thing was in the news? Go google the damn the thing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Heron TSG on December 13, 2012, 01:53:11 am

More helpfully: In essence, banks were betting that loans and mortgages they issued would fail so that they could reap benefits.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Glowcat on December 13, 2012, 01:58:07 am

Today Rachel Maddow did a segment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/50182647#50182647) on state-level GOP politics, the effectiveness of gerrymandering, how our representatives aren't representative of the population as a whole, and Republicans attempting to bring their advantage to the national-level. I know we've talked about this sort of thing before but it just occurred to me that this system which grossly favors land over people is racist as shit. Since minority races tend to concentrate in urban districts their votes tend to merely contribute to overkill in a single district, i.e. their votes are disproportionately devalued compared to white people.

Anyone think this might actually be an opening to fix the system?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 02:47:38 am

Yes, take humans out of the redistricting process.

Mandate AI based redistricting with optimization for the following qualities only:
equivalent population
continuousness
compactness
smallest number of edges that do not fall on the border of a county/city

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 13, 2012, 03:59:06 am

You don't even need AI. There are plenty of simple, straightforward (well, for people who can do math, anyway) and overall fair ways to determine redistricting, that leave so little up to actual human judgement that gerrymandering is impossible.

This is a solved problem.

The reason the solution is not applied, is that the only people that want it applied are the people who currently lack the ability to apply it - and as soon as they gain the ability, they will no longer want to. And if, by chance, they did, and the opposition managed to take back the legislative body for a single election, they could undo it just as quickly, and the party that tried to fix it would have served in arguably making things worse.

There is a single, stable Nash equilibrium, and it's at "gerrymander to all fucks out"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on December 13, 2012, 04:04:12 am

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 12, 2012, 10:27:07 pm

How did it cause the system to collapse?

So here's what happened in simple words anyone can understand:

Glass–Steagall Act was repealled in 1999. This allowed deposit banks (ones where you keep your money) to do pretty much everything that an investment bank (ones that give out big loans and run retirement funds) is allowed to do, where before they weren't allowed to do that. This includes offering lots and lots of people mortgages. A mortgage is where you make a deal with the bank where they give you a big loan, and if you can't pay it off the bank gets your house. Now cut to 2004. Housing prices are going up! Deposit banks start aggressively offering mortgages to people who cannot afford them, hoping that they will be able to foreclose on the houses and get lots of expensive houses cheaply. Over the next two years, 3 million houses get foreclosed upon when people that the banks did not expect to be able to make their mortgage payments are unable to make their mortgage payments - just as planned. The banks start loaning each other money to make even more mortgages, putting up the foreclosed houses as collateral. Now cut to 2006. The housing prices crash unexpectedly. Oh no! The banks are suddenly sitting on a bunch of houses that are no longer worth anything and have loaned out all their money as part of their mortgage deals. The banks, not having any money, are unable to make any more loans or even pay off their loans to eachother. America's economy, needing easy to get loans in order to properly function, suddenly shits bricks as the loans that it needs stop being made.

Now, consider what would happen if the Glass-Steagall Act were still in place. All of those deposit banks, not having been allowed to screw themselves over by buying into the housing bubble, would still have heaps of money to lend out, thereby allowing the economy to recover.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 09:39:10 am

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 13, 2012, 03:59:06 am

You don't even need AI. There are plenty of simple, straightforward (well, for people who can do math, anyway) and overall fair ways to determine redistricting, that leave so little up to actual human judgement that gerrymandering is impossible.

The shortest splitline algorithm comes to mind.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 10:13:13 am

I think the only way you could really make a permanent dent in gerrymandering is to have Congress mandate how redistricting is done for all states, and for them to dictate some kind of computerized system that wouldn't be "open to interpretation".

Unfortunately, since the vast majority of House members (from both parties) owe their perpetual re-elections to gerrymandering, that has only slightly less chance of passing than us seeing Rick Santorum carrying the banner at the next San Francisco Gay Pride Parade while wearing assless chaps.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:16:23 am

Looks like we need to go to the Supreme Court, then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 10:28:24 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:16:23 am

Looks like we need to go to the Supreme Court, then.

Problem being that by law, redistricting is a state matter. Imposing any kind of Federal solution (including one by the Supreme Court) is a major cession of state power.

The more likely solution is grassroots movements to get referenda, ballot measures, etc. in each state to hand off redistricting to a neutral third-party rather than leaving it with the state legislatures. It's worked in a handful of states so far, but the problem is that some states will NEVER relinquish that power (I'm looking at you, Alabama.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 10:33:00 am

Quote from: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 10:28:24 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:16:23 am

Looks like we need to go to the Supreme Court, then.

Problem being that by law, redistricting is a state matter. Imposing any kind of Federal solution (including one by the Supreme Court) is a major cession of state power.

State power isn't as important as citizen power. And gerrymandering makes the votes of individual citizens unequal for the empowerment of the few.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on December 13, 2012, 10:33:26 am

Is Citizen power in the Constitution?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 10:41:47 am

Quote from: Sheb on December 13, 2012, 10:33:26 am

Is Citizen power in the Constitution?

yes. Its kinda the whole point. And if that isn't enough there is the 10th amendment, which most states rightists ignore the "or to the people" part.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:42:05 am

Quote from: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 10:28:24 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:16:23 am

Looks like we need to go to the Supreme Court, then.

Problem being that by law, redistricting is a state matter. Imposing any kind of Federal solution (including one by the Supreme Court) is a major cession of state power.

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and their word is Law, state power notwithstanding.

Quote

The more likely solution is grassroots movements to get referenda, ballot measures, etc. in each state to hand off redistricting to a neutral third-party rather than leaving it with the state legislatures. It's worked in a handful of states so far, but the problem is that some states will NEVER relinquish that power (I'm looking at you, Alabama.)

We don't need to hand it over to a "neutral" third-party, we need to hand it over to math, which is incapable of having bias rather than just being disposed against it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on December 13, 2012, 10:52:05 am

Math is the third party.

CALCULUS 2016

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 13, 2012, 10:52:45 am

Yes, CALCULUS/ALGEBRA2016!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 13, 2012, 11:04:36 am

NOOO!

TOPOLOGY/ANALYSIS 2016! A mug's a donut! And a set is closed if its complement is open! And it can be open and closed at the same time! This is a winning team!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 11:11:50 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 13, 2012, 11:04:36 am

NOOO!

TOPOLOGY/ANALYSIS 2016! A mug's a donut! And a set is closed if its complement is open! And it can be open and closed at the same time! This is a winning team!

Sounds like a flip-flopper to me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 13, 2012, 11:44:26 am

To be fair algebra has rarely been constant either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 13, 2012, 11:54:39 am

I'm just wondering what topography is plotting that makes it want this office.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on December 13, 2012, 11:55:22 am

Quote from: Darvi on December 13, 2012, 11:44:26 am

To be fair algebra has rarely been constant either.

He's fairly one-dimensional, at least in most areas.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 13, 2012, 11:57:19 am

But what if he is irrational or has imaginary friends? Will you root for the square?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 13, 2012, 11:57:35 am

Quote from: Helgoland on December 13, 2012, 11:55:22 am

He's fairly one-dimensional, at least in most areas.

Hey, at least you know algebra is real.  Algebra isn't too complex for the average voter either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 12:03:50 pm

And it's sneaky too. Always hiding behind things like "x". Why can't you just tell us what the answer is, algebra? What are you hiding?

Quote from: mainiac on December 13, 2012, 11:57:35 am

Algebra isn't too complex for the average voter either.

You haven't met many average voters, have you? "Fill in the circle next to the candidate of your choice" is too difficult for more than a few.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 13, 2012, 12:05:04 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:42:05 am

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and their word is Law, state power notwithstanding.

Their interpretation is Law. But they can't make laws, and it would be hard to argue the Supreme Court would ever rule on this to begin with - what law does the current situation clash with, that they could pass down some sort of directive? I honestly don't know.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 12:11:57 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 13, 2012, 12:05:04 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:42:05 am

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and their word is Law, state power notwithstanding.

Their interpretation is Law. But they can't make laws, and it would be hard to argue the Supreme Court would ever rule on this to begin with - what law does the current situation clash with, that they could pass down some sort of directive? I honestly don't know.

The intentional subversion of the democratic process outlined in the Constitution for the purpose of partisan political gain.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 12:16:48 pm

Quote from: GlyphGryph on December 13, 2012, 12:05:04 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 10:42:05 am

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and their word is Law, state power notwithstanding.

Their interpretation is Law. But they can't make laws, and it would be hard to argue the Supreme Court would ever rule on this to begin with - what law does the current situation clash with, that they could pass down some sort of directive? I honestly don't know.

Not to mention that the SC has already decided (League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399) that state legislatures can redistrict whenever and however the hell they want to, as long as no racial minority is demonstrably harmed and the state redistricts at least once every ten years. They can redistrict every month if they felt like it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2012, 12:18:32 pm

That would seem to be a point in my court, since it shows the SC is willing to rule on this subject. They've reversed themselves before. Hell, they've reversed themselves on pretty much everything over the years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 12:29:03 pm

Considering that decision was a majority liberal opinion (Scalia and Thomas were the dissenters) upholding a map drawn by Tom fuckin' DeLay, I don't see them reversing anything anytime soon. Both parties benefit from it, so their appointees are unlikely to reverse it.

I think it's interesting that the census-year elections have become some of the most hotly contested ones at the state level. Parties pour shitloads of money into the state legislature races in 2000, 2010 etc. because they know whoever wins the legislature in a state will control the redistricting and thus be able to solidify their party's advantages (and erode those of their opponent) at the Congressional level.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on December 15, 2012, 03:20:41 am

Quote from: RedKing on December 13, 2012, 12:03:50 pm

And it's sneaky too. Always hiding behind things like "x". Why can't you just tell us what the answer is, algebra? What are you hiding?

What the hell is with algebra, man? Always asking me to find its x. No, I won't find your x, and I won't tell you y it left you, either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on December 15, 2012, 10:04:04 am

z is running the table on the whole campaign.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: DJ on December 15, 2012, 10:23:54 am

Algebra doesn't stand a chance, it's opponents will ruin it with a drug scandal (you do know what X is, right?).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on December 15, 2012, 10:49:28 am

Quote from: DJ on December 15, 2012, 10:23:54 am

Algebra doesn't stand a chance, it's opponents will ruin it with a drug scandal (you do know what X is, right?).

I'm imagining chemical X from the powerpuff girls. Algebra is seeking immortality then??

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 15, 2012, 10:51:34 am

I'm more thinking of XTC.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on December 15, 2012, 01:21:58 pm

Xanibar Transit Company?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on December 15, 2012, 03:36:29 pm

Xtra Tasty Cake?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 15, 2012, 03:53:20 pm

Xtreme Testicular Cancer?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on December 15, 2012, 03:54:19 pm

Xtreme Typing Championships

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 15, 2012, 05:14:46 pm

Tell me that you'll have gotten rid of the electoral college by the next election.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 15, 2012, 05:17:42 pm

Quote from: Novel on December 15, 2012, 05:14:46 pm

Tell me that you'll have gotten rid of the electoral college by the next election.

PLease tell me you;ll have solved World Hunger by then, and I'll end the electoral college.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 15, 2012, 05:20:18 pm

Let me rectify that to "why hasn't it been changed in light of recent events", in other words. I suppose there's more then one way to take a lazy protestation, after all, so i understand your frustration. :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 16, 2012, 12:22:56 am

I personally think the EC is a good idea but a lot of my friends don't think so, but just because Obama won. I may not like the man's policies, but he won. It's like, "Oh, the guy I don't like won, so therefore the system is flawed."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2012, 12:35:16 am

Obama would have won the election even if we did not have the electoral college, by a margin of 4,738,230 votes, so I don't know what your friends are on about.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 16, 2012, 01:13:06 am

That's what I said!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Reelya on December 16, 2012, 01:31:26 am

I remember some people here predicting that Obama might win the EC but lose the popular vote. Of course that didn't happen, and in fact, that scenario is extremely unlikely. The EC system is biased against the more highly-populated states, which are where Democrats do best. If the Democrat wins the EC, it's almost assured that he got the popular vote, too.

But hey, if Republicans want to believe that scrapping the EC will give them some strategic advantage, then go for it ;D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2012, 01:33:55 am

It isn't impossible by any means, though. Nate Silver gave it a 1.3% chance of happening, as I recall.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 16, 2012, 01:47:13 am

Quote from: Reelya on December 16, 2012, 01:31:26 am

I remember some people here predicting that Obama might win the EC but lose the popular vote. Of course that didn't happen, and in fact, that scenario is extremely unlikely. The EC system is biased against the more highly-populated states, which are where Democrats do best. If the Democrat wins the EC, it's almost assured that he got the popular vote, too.

Well that works to the democratic advantage but on the other side is that Republicans rack up crazy margins in a lot of states where democrats might as well not be on the ballot.  The huge regional block of votes in the south doesn't have a liberal counterpart elsewhere.  Republicans might not have a prayer at winning California but they do rack up a lot of votes there.  If you uniformly decreased Obama's relative standing in every state by 5.5% so that he lost the popular vote by 1.8% he would have still just squeeked by in Iowa and Colorado and won the Electoral College.

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2012, 01:33:55 am

It isn't impossible by any means, though. Nate Silver gave it a 1.3% chance of happening, as I recall.

That's near the high water mark of that number, it jumped around as the race polling changed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on December 16, 2012, 02:52:22 pm

I heard on the radio in October that, if we had an EC tie, then we might end up with a Romney-Biden administration. The way it would work was, the right-leaning House picks the Prez, and the left-leaning Senate picks the Vice. And if, on the off-chance that the Senate tied the vote for the VP, do you know who would cast the deciding vote? Joseph Biden.
 
 Personally, I think that a Romney-Biden administration would be extremely amusing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on December 16, 2012, 08:02:37 pm

Quote from: tahujdt on December 16, 2012, 02:52:22 pm

I heard on the radio in October that, if we had an EC tie, then we might end up with a Romney-Biden administration. The way it would work was, the right-leaning House picks the Prez, and the left-leaning Senate picks the Vice. And if, on the off-chance that the Senate tied the vote for the VP, do you know who would cast the deciding vote? Joseph Biden.
 
 Personally, I think that a Romney-Biden administration would be extremely amusing.

Two idiots sounding off. Sounds very productive indeed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 16, 2012, 08:30:50 pm

1: The VP has almost no official power, so all a Romney-Biden presidency would do is reduce the opportunity to use the VP for goodwill tours and public appearances.

2: Bidden is hardly an idiot, he just tends to ramble on at far greater length than people tend to pay attention.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2012, 08:34:26 pm

I don't think many people honestly think Biden is stupid, even if that is the wording they use. He's just really.......Bideny.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on December 16, 2012, 09:03:56 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 16, 2012, 08:30:50 pm

1: The VP has almost no official power, so all a Romney-Biden presidency would do is reduce the opportunity to use the VP for goodwill tours and public appearances.

2: Bidden is hardly an idiot, he just tends to ramble on at far greater length than people tend to pay attention.

He suffers from pretty bad foot-in-mouth. Not "legitimate rape" or "47 percent" bad, but still pretty muddled.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 16, 2012, 09:07:19 pm

We actually had the conversation in my circle of a Romney-Biden administration. Biden would be the best troll ever.

First thing I thought of was how he could simply whip his junk out during congressional sessions. Or state of the union addresses. Much fun would be had.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2012, 09:16:17 pm

Really, there's nothing they could do to stop Biden, since he would have no power (besides Senate tiebreaking) and no reason to make the President look good. He could also use his Secret Service detail to obstruct random less important politicians he dislikes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on December 16, 2012, 10:09:49 pm

Bideny is best adjective.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 16, 2012, 10:22:24 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2012, 09:16:17 pm

Really, there's nothing they could do to stop Biden, since he would have no power (besides Senate tiebreaking) and no reason to make the President look good. He could also use his Secret Service detail to obstruct random less important politicians he dislikes.

Biden is SUPER-TROLL, The politician EVERYONE LOVES!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: alway on December 23, 2012, 02:01:54 am

So it seems Mark Sanford is trying to get back into politics. He's the one from SC who 'hiked the Appalachian Trail' all the way to an Argentinian mistress. Or as MSNBC puts it:
"And happy trails to you: Mark Sanford appears to be mounting a political comeback."
Two double entendres in a single quote; GG.

And in other news, likely seen by any keeping an eye of American politics, Boehner (Republican, House majority leader) managed to screw things up incredibly badly. To the point where his counter-proposal to Obama couldn't even get passed his own party in the House, whom he is supposed to be leading. I mean, damn. He now has 0 credibility, 0 bargaining leverage, and has simultaneously shown just how obstructionist his party has become.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: lordcooper on December 23, 2012, 02:07:18 am

Quote from: tahujdt on December 16, 2012, 02:52:22 pm

Personally, I think that a Romney-Biden administration would be extremely amusing.

Maybe they'll make a sitcom.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 23, 2012, 02:35:18 am

Ahh yes. Boehner is burning. Democrats in the House are now vital to any effort to pass anything, and the clock ticks, the public prepared to blame the repubs. It looks BAD for Boehner.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 23, 2012, 09:53:27 am

Quote from: misko27 on December 23, 2012, 02:35:18 am

Ahh yes. Boehner is burning. Democrats in the House are now vital to any effort to pass anything, and the clock ticks, the public prepared to blame the repubs. It looks BAD for Boehner.

He pissed off the arch-conservatives so they're trying to get him tossed out of the speakership. It looks like it might actually happen, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on December 23, 2012, 09:54:43 am

I keep reading Boehner as "boner". I kind of want him in high office, just to see how many newscasters and foreign leaders trip up on his name.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 23, 2012, 10:01:15 am

It's pronounced "Bayner" isn't it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on December 23, 2012, 10:12:11 am

It should be "beuhner" with an "eu" like the french. It's an o with an umlaut in German, so Böhner, although the Yiddish pronunciation has become standard in American English for names like that so it has become Bayner.

You can hear it in the Yiddish song "Bay mir bistu sheyn", which is normally schön. The song wouldn't really work with German:

Bay mir bistu sheyn,
Bay mir hos tu heyn,
Bay mir bistu eyner oyf der velt.

Eyner in German is "einer" and sheyn is "schön", you pronounce them "eye-ner" and "sheun". Doesn't really rhyme. I don't even know if the word "heyn" exists in German.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on December 23, 2012, 11:58:11 pm

It would be cool to see Boehner make a last ditch effort by just totally dropping the tea party/obstructionists from the negotiations and actually negotiate with the Democrats.

Spark a meltdown of the Republican party as we know it...  Yes, I do want to watch something burn.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2012, 12:03:52 am

If he drops them he won't have enough power to get the negotiations through Congress. The GOP has efficiently purged itself of the rational.

I guess he could always blame them when it fails and join the Democrats, though.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 24, 2012, 12:29:25 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2012, 12:03:52 am

If he drops them he won't have enough power to get the negotiations through Congress. The GOP has efficiently purged itself of the rational.

The GOP is about the direction that the wind blows to an enormous extent.  They are lockstep because all the people they are getting their marching orders from say the same thing, death before compromise.  But if this came apart it could potentially come apart in a big way.  The big money donors could change their tune very quickly if they weren't happy with the right wing of the republican party, which they rationally should be (undermining the credit of the US out of spite hurts the exact sort of investor who would profit from the GOP hard money obsession.)  If Boehner could get just 15% of his caucus to support him then he could prevent anyone else from having majority support for the speakership.  So the party would have a bit of an interregnum or a situation akin to having several anti-popes and different bishops (fox news anchors) advocating different sides.  If it seems that Boehner is where the action is at then you could see a lot of long term incumbents who gave lip service to the tea party become born again-again as Boehnerites.

I doubt that's likely though because his previous political history doesn't seem to indicate he'd try something that dangerous.  I'm guessing that he just waffles for a bit and then signs a small deal with Obama that only gets a few republican votes in the house.  Which I consider to be the best case scenario actually.  The whole problem with the fiscal cliff is that it's austerity.  So we want to replace it with as little austerity as possible, which means a small deal is preferable.  The intransigence of the tea party has been good for the country for once.  By demanding so much they've prevented a deal that would have sucked.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 12:33:08 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html

If one of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? Apparently, a lot of house republicans would.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:39:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 12:33:08 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html

If one of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? Apparently, a lot of house republicans would.

It's their political suicide note. Polls show overwhelmingly that the American public blames the Republicans for this mess far more than Obama or the Democrats.

My worry is that this is our Weimar moment. That this will underscore all the negatives with democratic governance and just feed into the desire for a strong, forceful leader and less power for Congress. Hell, even *I* wouldn't mind that so much, if there were a good way to make sure the strong leader wasn't a nutjob.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 27, 2012, 12:43:54 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:39:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 12:33:08 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html

If one of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? Apparently, a lot of house republicans would.

It's their political suicide note. Polls show overwhelmingly that the American public blames the Republicans for this mess far more than Obama or the Democrats.

My worry is that this is our Weimar moment. That this will underscore all the negatives with democratic governance and just feed into the desire for a strong, forceful leader and less power for Congress. Hell, even *I* wouldn't mind that so much, if there were a good way to make sure the strong leader wasn't a nutjob.

Do you really think so, though? I could see us getting a Berlusconi or a Chavez, but in Weimar Germany democrats were by far in the minority, which was why the Nazis were able to get so far- there wasn't too much opposition to totalitarianism. And there would be here.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2012, 12:47:43 pm

Weimar's problems stemmed greatly from the fact that their Left was shattered while their Right was united. The Social Democrats and Communists could have held it together, but the Communists both shunned the Social Democrats and refused to participate in the government at all. The Nationale Socalistik Deutchland Partei, on the other hand, was offering what their potential allies craved.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:50:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 12:43:54 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:39:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 12:33:08 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html

If one of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? Apparently, a lot of house republicans would.

It's their political suicide note. Polls show overwhelmingly that the American public blames the Republicans for this mess far more than Obama or the Democrats.

My worry is that this is our Weimar moment. That this will underscore all the negatives with democratic governance and just feed into the desire for a strong, forceful leader and less power for Congress. Hell, even *I* wouldn't mind that so much, if there were a good way to make sure the strong leader wasn't a nutjob.

Do you really think so, though? I could see us getting a Berlusconi or a Chavez, but in Weimar Germany democrats were by far in the minority, which was why the Nazis were able to get so far- there wasn't too much opposition to totalitarianism. And there would be here.

I won't trot out the old saw about fascism coming to America wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. Oops, guess I did.

I think the opposition would be purely partisan rather than an ideological commitment to anti-totalitarianism. In other words, most people would be fine with a dictator if it was *their* dictator. So I guess we should be grateful for the near 50-50 polarization.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 27, 2012, 12:51:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:50:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 12:43:54 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:39:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 12:33:08 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html (http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html)

If one of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? Apparently, a lot of house republicans would.

It's their political suicide note. Polls show overwhelmingly that the American public blames the Republicans for this mess far more than Obama or the Democrats.

My worry is that this is our Weimar moment. That this will underscore all the negatives with democratic governance and just feed into the desire for a strong, forceful leader and less power for Congress. Hell, even *I* wouldn't mind that so much, if there were a good way to make sure the strong leader wasn't a nutjob.

Do you really think so, though? I could see us getting a Berlusconi or a Chavez, but in Weimar Germany democrats were by far in the minority, which was why the Nazis were able to get so far- there wasn't too much opposition to totalitarianism. And there would be here.

I won't trot out the old saw about fascism coming to America wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. Oops, guess I did.

I think the opposition would be purely partisan rather than an ideological commitment to anti-totalitarianism. In other words, most people would be fine with a dictator if it was *their* dictator. So I guess we should be grateful for the near 50-50 polarization.

Democracy at it's finest.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 12:59:31 pm

If they do something on Day 1 of the session to make the filibuster rule something less than a "I get everything I want or the government STOPS" button, that'd be more than enough for me.

Heck, if the Republican House selects somebody for Speaker other than John Boehner that might be enough.  Not that Boehner himself is even really the problem, he just too much of a hand in the gamesmanship and protecting his seat than he does in getting results.  If that gaggle of tea baggers angling for his blood get somebody they want in the seat, it might actually help by convincing the less-ridiculous side of the Republican membership that they'll have to make a deal without their new "leadership".


Anyway, if you're looking for some deep reading on why the Presidential election went the way it did, the Boston Globe put out a six page breakdown (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html) that's grabbing some attention.  What everyone seems to think important is Tagg Romney (the big man's fortunate son) saying of his father, "He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life."  I think he's just trying to play down the defeat and that Romney didn't take it personally, because I guess he thinks that everyone needs to be reassured that Mitt's feelings weren't hurt or something.

Then again, it might actually be true.  The meat of the story is that Romney basically approached the race like the stingy businessman that he is.  He thought he could use enough targeted advertising to say anything necessary about his product, i.e. himself, to get anybody to buy it, he had actual organized personnel and infrastructure spread across the country rivaled by most Senate campaigns, and of the he people he did hire were so many yes-men so convinced of a Republican manifest destiny to rule in eternity that seemed to hardly believe they needed to campaign to defeat an obviously deranged fluke of an incumbent like Obama.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 01:00:00 pm

Quote from: misko27 on December 27, 2012, 12:51:58 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:50:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 12:43:54 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 12:39:04 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 27, 2012, 12:33:08 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html (http://news.yahoo.com/no-deal-sight-deadline-fiscal-deal-nears-082405286.html)

If one of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? Apparently, a lot of house republicans would.

It's their political suicide note. Polls show overwhelmingly that the American public blames the Republicans for this mess far more than Obama or the Democrats.

My worry is that this is our Weimar moment. That this will underscore all the negatives with democratic governance and just feed into the desire for a strong, forceful leader and less power for Congress. Hell, even *I* wouldn't mind that so much, if there were a good way to make sure the strong leader wasn't a nutjob.

Do you really think so, though? I could see us getting a Berlusconi or a Chavez, but in Weimar Germany democrats were by far in the minority, which was why the Nazis were able to get so far- there wasn't too much opposition to totalitarianism. And there would be here.

I won't trot out the old saw about fascism coming to America wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. Oops, guess I did.

I think the opposition would be purely partisan rather than an ideological commitment to anti-totalitarianism. In other words, most people would be fine with a dictator if it was *their* dictator. So I guess we should be grateful for the near 50-50 polarization.

Democracy at it's finest.

Well played, Founding Fathers. Well played.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 27, 2012, 01:08:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 12:59:31 pm

...six page breakdown (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html)...

This makes me wonder. Is the demographic cliff overrated, then? Perhaps the Republicans could have a real shot in 2016? I mean,

Quote from: The Globe

The majority of voters preferred Romney’s visions, values, and leadership.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 01:33:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 01:08:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 12:59:31 pm

...six page breakdown (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html)...

This makes me wonder. Is the demographic cliff overrated, then? Perhaps the Republicans could have a real shot in 2016? I mean,

Quote from: The Globe

The majority of voters preferred Romney’s visions, values, and leadership.

It's just a matter of conflating polls on a specific question with a more general statement.  It's sloppy statistics.  I could easily show the opposite by conflating something like "who do you trust to care about people like you?" with voters trust democrats more on the economy.  News articles do this all the time, just learn to ignore it.

Personally I prefer what the numbers guys say then the wishy washy political writers (who are basically useless IMHO).  The numbers guys say that Obama only outperformed expectations a little, less then 2% of the vote.  There is no mystery to be explained by Romney being an exceptionally weak candidate although he might have been a bit sub-par.  Maybe you'd notice the difference if the republicans nominated someone exceptionally strong like Eisenhower next time, but I don't see anyone like Eisenhower around now that Petraeus is out of the picture.

But the "demographic cliff" thing is probably overblown.  The two party system has a strong tendency to produce two competitive parties.  I don't know what will make the republicans adapt but I suspect they will adapt because that's what centuries of history tells us they will do.  Hopefully they adapt by being less dickish in the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 27, 2012, 01:38:31 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 01:33:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 01:08:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 12:59:31 pm

...six page breakdown (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html)...

This makes me wonder. Is the demographic cliff overrated, then? Perhaps the Republicans could have a real shot in 2016? I mean,

Quote from: The Globe

The majority of voters preferred Romney’s visions, values, and leadership.

It's just a matter of conflating polls on a specific question with a more general statement.  It's sloppy statistics.  I could easily show the opposite by conflating something like "who do you trust to care about people like you?" with voters trust democrats more on the economy.  News articles do this all the time, just learn to ignore it.

Personally I prefer what the numbers guys say then the wishy washy political writers (who are basically useless IMHO).  The numbers guys say that Obama only outperformed expectations a little, less then 2% of the vote.  There is no mystery to be explained by Romney being an exceptionally weak candidate although he might have been a bit sub-par.  Maybe you'd notice the difference if the republicans nominated someone exceptionally strong like Eisenhower next time, but I don't see anyone like Eisenhower around now that Petraeus is out of the picture.

But the "demographic cliff" thing is probably overblown.  The two party system has a strong tendency to produce two competitive parties.  I don't know what will make the republicans adapt but I suspect they will adapt because that's what centuries of history tells us they will do.  Hopefully they adapt by being less dickish in the future.

It's hard to imagine it happening soon, though...what they need to do is get rid of the Religious Right, but the Religious Right will very happily launch primary attacks and get out the vote to win them against more moderate Republicans, even if they know their candidate will pull an Akin and lose in the general. And that means that anybody in the GOP who starts saying that the Religious Right have to go will get purged.

What may happen is that the Religious Right will be slowly replaced as the Voice of God in American politics by social-justice urban evangelical types, who will migrate to the Democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on December 27, 2012, 01:42:45 pm

I'm guessing shifting more to the right on the belief that the Republicans have not been Conservative enough... that is not considered adapting to the current 'hardships'... is it?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 01:51:03 pm

If recent history tells us anything, it's that they'll adapt by doubling down on being dicks. And then try to move the societal midpoint to the right rather than adapting to the societal norms.

I mean, really...every loss since 1992, the lesson you hear them drawing is "we lost because we weren't conservative enough".
That's why the GOP of 1994 would look at the GOP of 2012 and go "Holy shit...are you people for real?"

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 01:38:31 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 01:33:45 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 01:08:40 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 12:59:31 pm

...six page breakdown (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html)...

This makes me wonder. Is the demographic cliff overrated, then? Perhaps the Republicans could have a real shot in 2016? I mean,

Quote from: The Globe

The majority of voters preferred Romney’s visions, values, and leadership.

It's just a matter of conflating polls on a specific question with a more general statement.  It's sloppy statistics.  I could easily show the opposite by conflating something like "who do you trust to care about people like you?" with voters trust democrats more on the economy.  News articles do this all the time, just learn to ignore it.

Personally I prefer what the numbers guys say then the wishy washy political writers (who are basically useless IMHO).  The numbers guys say that Obama only outperformed expectations a little, less then 2% of the vote.  There is no mystery to be explained by Romney being an exceptionally weak candidate although he might have been a bit sub-par.  Maybe you'd notice the difference if the republicans nominated someone exceptionally strong like Eisenhower next time, but I don't see anyone like Eisenhower around now that Petraeus is out of the picture.

But the "demographic cliff" thing is probably overblown.  The two party system has a strong tendency to produce two competitive parties.  I don't know what will make the republicans adapt but I suspect they will adapt because that's what centuries of history tells us they will do.  Hopefully they adapt by being less dickish in the future.

It's hard to imagine it happening soon, though...what they need to do is get rid of the Religious Right, but the Religious Right will very happily launch primary attacks and get out the vote to win them against more moderate Republicans, even if they know their candidate will pull an Akin and lose in the general. And that means that anybody in the GOP who starts saying that the Religious Right have to go will get purged.

What may happen is that the Religious Right will be slowly replaced as the Voice of God in American politics by social-justice urban evangelical types, who will migrate to the Democrats.

It's less the religious Right that's the problem so much as the idelogical Right. There are a number of prominent evangelicals of the conservative persuasion who have essentially been saying, "Okay so maybe this whole 'getting involved in politics' thing isn't working out for us and we should get back to worrying about God."

That said, it would be nice to see religion in politics shift back to the social activists, like it used to be before the 1970's or so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 02:08:18 pm

Quote from: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 01:51:03 pm

If recent history tells us anything, it's that they'll adapt by doubling down on being dicks. And then try to move the societal midpoint to the right rather than adapting to the societal norms.

Hey, there is a first time for everything.  But I'd say that even today's GOP is less extreme then the democratic party of 1865.  But it only took 9 years for the democratic party to adapt to the new political circumstances and win control of the house of representatives.  It only took 11 years for them to retake the Senate.  They also decisively won the popular vote in the presidential race in 1876 (but lost due to the electoral college) showing that they could appeal to a lot of the population.

I'm guessing that if you told someone in 1865 that democrats would have this turn around, they wouldn't have believed you.  they also wouldn't believe that democrats would strongly wed themselves to working class and immigrant votes, two groups that would have hated slavery if it was still around.  Parties change because that's what the two party system demands.  I'm much more inclined to believe that republicans will adapt or go obsolete then believe the democrats will face no opposition.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 02:25:06 pm

The difference is that in 18-fucking-65, politicians could be almost anyone they wanted to.  Ironically enough, transparency and honesty in intraparty politics has made the environment considerably less stable.  In the last twenty years, mostly the last five, politicians at every level and especially easily-run races like Representatives live in constant fear of not being good enough for "the base" and thereby losing their seat in a primary race.

The Republicans have no idea how to put this Tea Party genie back in the bottle, so you see them bending over backwards and coming up with ridiculous contortions like this fiscal cliff thing: "If we wait until the bomb drops and taxes go back up automatically, then we can make a deal with what Obama wants and call it a tax cut even though we're really just cutting taxes from where they were for a couple days to a point higher than where they were a week prior.  Then we probably won't get blown out of the water by some patsy from Freedomworks or the Enterprise Institute and can blame the whole thing on the Democrats at the next campaign."  They got the know-nothings out in droves like never before, and basically have to stall for time until either the know-nothings go back to paying no attention, or every Republican who could lose a primary does and we're basically left with a Near Republican party and a Super Republican party coexisting under the same name.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 02:36:40 pm

If they double down on extremism then they become noncompetitive in a majority of districts.  That means they get used to losing.  The rich dude wing of the party doesn't want to lose so they look for an out.  The base still wants to win so when the rich people win the way to be relevant the base holds it's nose and accepts it.

This would mimic what the democratic party did after the civil war.  The base clung to their hatred of the government and their racism and became the old school bourbon democrats.  But they held their nose long enough to accept the populist democrats into the party even though some of them weren't even racist.  Parties exist to win so it's no surprise that two party systems make strange bedfellows.

Maybe you can't believe this would happen.  But keep in mind we aren't talking about this year.  We are talking about years into the future.  If the republican party becomes obsolete then over the years the party will change.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 27, 2012, 02:39:51 pm

Unfortunately, the Republican control of state legislatures has meant that for at least a little longer than it should be, their descent into lunacy will be masked by heavy gerrymandering (so they won't feel it until it's too late).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 02:54:28 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 02:39:51 pm

Unfortunately, the Republican control of state legislatures has meant that for at least a little longer than it should be, their descent into lunacy will be masked by heavy gerrymandering (so they won't feel it until it's too late).

That could be a game changer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 27, 2012, 03:09:36 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 02:36:40 pm

Maybe you can't believe this would happen.  But keep in mind we aren't talking about this year.  We are talking about years into the future.  If the republican party becomes obsolete then over the years the party will change.

This is more what I'm thinking (and hoping). The Whigs vanished because they clung to the past, became torn apart by internal schism and became irrelevant. Part of that schism and spall was the Know-Nothing movement, who have a pretty good parallel in the Tea Party and Birther movements.

The thing that really drove a nail in the Whig (and Know-Nothing) coffin was slavery. It split them right in half, which polarized them towards either the Democratic or Republican parties. I'm hard pressed to think of an issue that would split the GOP/Tea Party/Birther conglomerate, although I suppose the "fiscal cliff" might be a step in that direction--ideologues vs. people who don't like the idea of raising taxes on the rich (or seeing Obama get anything he wants), but don't want to see the country hammered economically.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 27, 2012, 03:11:56 pm

Possibly social issues? There have been several strategists saying it's time for the Republicans to start backing off on the social conservatism.

And keep in mind, when the Whigs died it was much easier to start a party because the media was much more decentralized and it didn't cost billions to run one. With the Republicans gone, where will they go? A few might peel off to the Democrats, sure, but...the Libertarians vs. the Constitution Party?

(A three-party Democrat/Libertarian/Constitution system would be interesting, but the Constitution virtually guarantees that any system like that will settle down to a two-party system in a decade or two. Personally I'd bet on the Constitution Party to die, as the electorate becomes increasingly liberal on social issues. We'd therefore basically return to the state of things as they were between the Gilded Age and the '70s: two socially liberal (or at least theoretically so) parties, one economically conservative, one economically liberal(ish), one possessing a vocal regional minority of social conservatives.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 03:21:36 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 02:54:28 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 02:39:51 pm

Unfortunately, the Republican control of state legislatures has meant that for at least a little longer than it should be, their descent into lunacy will be masked by heavy gerrymandering (so they won't feel it until it's too late).

That could be a game changer.

It's hard to appreciate exactly what the districting effect means without some numbers.  The shining example from the 2012 election is Michigan.  Michigan's popular vote went to Obama, so it should come as no surprise that a majority of Michigan voters cast for Democratic candidates for their Representative.  Specifically to the tune of about 2.3 million votes statewide for Democrat House candidates to 2.1 million votes statewide for Republicans.

The Representative delegation Michigan will send to the House in January is nine Republicans and four Democrats.  Yeah, it's that fucking blatantly screwed around.  And as long as that is allowed to exist, and decade-year elections continue to be strong Republican years (as they coincidentally have been since 1970), the Republican party can basically be as crazy as it wants and will probably never have to worry too much about maintaining a competitive number of seats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Angle on December 27, 2012, 03:34:22 pm

I would like to point out California, as an example of what the republican death march to the right may actually end up looking like. California has been having the exact same thing for the past couple decades. The republican base decides that they would rather have someone who is ideologically pure than someone who could actually win office. They then proceed to elect these people in the primaries and watch them lose the actual election. If someone who isn't pure enough for them (I.E. someone who can win) is elected, they won't vote for them. They'll just stay home. Thus, they effectively take their own party out of the game. Anyone who actually wants to be elected become a democrat, cause they're the only game in town.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 27, 2012, 03:36:54 pm

But that state of affairs can't go on indefinitely. The Republicans will lose all their donors.

There perhaps is where a new party would come from- all those donors making a new party from the ground up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 04:53:57 pm

There is some talk of democrats doing mid decade redistricting to overturn some of the gerrymandering.  Cue Fox news calling it undemocratic...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Lord Shonus on December 27, 2012, 06:24:44 pm

I suspect that part of the problem with American politics is that the Constitution worked too well at keeping dictators out. Had this country possessed a Cromwell or Stalin of our own, I think that we'd be less prone to throwing "tyrant" around the way we do, which would lead to a less sharp political divide. The shadow of Hitler and the Soviet puppet states lying on Europe is likely to be a huge part of why they have less entrenched partisanship. Of course, the fact that most governments in Europe are less than sixty years old in their current form might play a part as well.

Either that, or my drunken philosophical ramblings are simply absurd.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 27, 2012, 06:31:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 04:53:57 pm

There is some talk of democrats doing mid decade redistricting to overturn some of the gerrymandering.  Cue Fox news calling it undemocratic...

And for the benefit of the rest of us, for the record it ain't. I think there was a Supreme Court decision a few decades ago where they decided that the state legislature can redistrict twice a week if it feels like it.

Now, what we need is a constitutional amendment that narrows redistricting so that it's fair. But since both parties benefit from it, and even if it did make its way through Congress it would have to be ratified by three quarters of the same state legislatures who caused the problem in the first place, it may never go through.

Mind you, they said that about half the other amendments, too...

Edit: Upon snooping around Wikipedia for unratified outstanding amendments, would anybody like to write an alternate history in which the modern Congress has over 5,000 members? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment) It's even more gridlock-tastic! And it came just this close to being passed.

It also makes you wonder what intracongressional bickering would be like if the House were fifty times bigger than the Senate, instead of just over four times bigger.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 07:41:49 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 06:31:15 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 27, 2012, 04:53:57 pm

There is some talk of democrats doing mid decade redistricting to overturn some of the gerrymandering.  Cue Fox news calling it undemocratic...

And for the benefit of the rest of us, for the record it ain't. I think there was a Supreme Court decision a few decades ago where they decided that the state legislature can redistrict twice a week if it feels like it.

Now, what we need is a constitutional amendment that narrows redistricting so that it's fair. But since both parties benefit from it, and even if it did make its way through Congress it would have to be ratified by three quarters of the same state legislatures who caused the problem in the first place, it may never go through.

The 'how' part is the problem, because in the eyes of Congressional law, my example of a 2.3M to 2.1M vote creating a 9 to 4 representation of the minority party is essentially meaningless.  Parties are not a recognized function of the political system the way parliamentary democracies work - the state government apportions the districts, and whoever gets the most votes in that district wins.  I honestly don't have the first clue how to legally challenge a bogus districting map, and given the state of affairs I highly doubt there even is one, at least under federal law.  A good first step would be making such a thing.

The only way I could think to do it would be to empower the FEC to just not recognize a state's federal voting results as long as it doesn't produce proportions to within a one-seat margin of rounding.  And even I think that would be ludicrously infeasible.

The real thing to fear is that after the last election, all those Republican state governments clinging to a disproportionate amount of power in those states are saying they want to change how their Electoral College votes are distributed.  Currently every state is winner-take-all by popular vote, except for Maine and Kansas.  The way they work is, each presidential candidate gets one Electoral vote for every Congressional district they win, and the majority taker gets the extra two (reminder: every state has as many Electoral votes as Congressmen, so that's one for each district and two for the Senate).

Nobody ever pays much attention to this, because both Maine and Kansas only have like five votes each and they're so homogenous they almost never split anyway.  But imagine if say Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Florida worked that way.  Or the example of Michigan up there.  Because Obama won the popular vote there 2.3M to 2.1M he won the state's 16 electoral votes.  under this proposed system, we can guess by the Representative results that a 2.3M Democrat to 2.1M Republican vote would have translated to Obama getting five Electoral votes to Romney's eleven.

That ought to put some starch in your shorts.  Of course, if that level of blatant vote stealing actually occurred at such a high-profile level, you can bet that there'd be some serious movement on it in about one election cycle.  Except if those Republican state governments get their way, that election would be 2016 and the beneficiary would be a Republican candidate, and you can basically bid farewell to ever having any other government for the rest of time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 27, 2012, 07:42:58 pm

Quote from: Angle on December 27, 2012, 03:34:22 pm

I would like to point out California, as an example of what the republican death march to the right may actually end up looking like. California has been having the exact same thing for the past couple decades. The republican base decides that they would rather have someone who is ideologically pure than someone who could actually win office. They then proceed to elect these people in the primaries and watch them lose the actual election. If someone who isn't pure enough for them (I.E. someone who can win) is elected, they won't vote for them. They'll just stay home. Thus, they effectively take their own party out of the game. Anyone who actually wants to be elected become a democrat, cause they're the only game in town.

Statewide parties are often radically different from national parties. IIRC California actually could be marginally competitive for the Republicans under the right circumstances, but the California GOP is practically to the right of the regular GOP and has a big focus on social issues, hence their inability to get anything done. Of course, what happens in a lot of states, especially in the Rust Belt, is the GOP does very well statewide, redistricts the hell out of the state, and then proceeds to do well in the federal elections afterwards. The Dems do that too, but the Democratic states with gerrymandering tend to already be safely in their column, or else are too small to gerrymander effectively anyway.

And in some states, the parties are basically just vessels for random people of wildly different ideologies to run in. For example, New Hampshire is nominally Democratic now, but the governor pledged not to raise the income tax and the old (Democratic) governor vetoed medical marijuana bills coming from (the Republican) legislature. One of the Democratic state reps is an honest to god anarchist who ran against his roommate.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2012, 09:14:17 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 27, 2012, 06:31:15 pm

Edit: Upon snooping around Wikipedia for unratified outstanding amendments, would anybody like to write an alternate history in which the modern Congress has over 5,000 members? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment) It's even more gridlock-tastic! And it came just this close to being passed.

It also makes you wonder what intracongressional bickering would be like if the House were fifty times bigger than the Senate, instead of just over four times bigger.

It could still happen. The amendment will be pending until the end of the United States if it isn't passed. I'd support it or another amendment like it, because we have far too few representatives. Our number of representatives is similar to that of European countries while our population is orders of magnitude larger. We need a lower house with thousands of members like India's or China's, because we're in that population range.

As for re:gerrymandering, I still support the math solution by way of shortest splitline. You can't corrupt a mathematical division formula that you can't even effect.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 28, 2012, 10:31:38 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on December 27, 2012, 07:41:49 pm

except for Maine and Kansas.

Nitpick: it's Nebraska, not Kansas.

Not that it really matters much...

And what would happen if we had a House that big? As I see it, one of the reasons that a two-party system works congressionally is that the logistics of launching a candidate (except in small, quirky places like Maine or Vermont) make it impossible to do unless you're in one of the parties, or Michael Bloomberg.

So: a House dominated by the Dems and Republicans but with deciding votes decided by a rabble of minor regional parties, and a Senate and White House where the two-party system remains unchanged.

Alse, MSH, re: splitline: what do you do if just by coincidence the splitline formula gerrymanders the House to hell? It's unlikely, sure, but it could happen, and wouldn't it be better to require each state to district according to popular votes (so that in the Michigan example, the House delegation would be seven Democrats and six Republicans?)

Also, since there would still be a certain unfairness in the delegations (because very small states get more representatives per capita), what would the entire U.S. look like if treated splitline as one state with a delegation of 435 representatives?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 28, 2012, 11:09:34 am

This is why I still support an amendment requiring party proportional allotment of house seats within a state. It eliminates gerrymandering, at least until someone is bold enough to reshape the state lines.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 28, 2012, 11:12:42 am

Now here's an idea. What would happen if every ten years we redistricted the states using the splitline algorithm, generating fifty equipopulous states, each of which further got (let's say) ten representatives also generated using splitline?

Is...is there a program for that somewhere?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 11:23:39 am

People always say that both sides do it with gerrymandering.  But it's only republicans that win majorities in seats that they lost the popular vote in.  Yes democrats tend to win majorities by greater margins then their share of the vote but that's because its a fucking first past the post system.  For instance in Maryland Democrats won 62% of the vote but won 7 of the 8 seats.  That looks like gerrymandering.  But the democrat margin statewide was 28%.  And this margin actually understates things because democrats racked up their votes in noncompetitive races with low turnout.  If the congressional districts were not "neutral" but instead random it would be surprising to see republicans win even one seat, let alone more then that. 

Basically Maryland geography boils down to that there are only two areas that could support republicans even if you gerrymandered in the republicans favor, the western hills and the eastern shore.  But these are both sparsely populated areas.  So they both need to be connected to something more.  In the west if you run out of republican counties and go south you hit the DC suburbs where the huge democratic margins drown out the small republican margins in the west and democrats win.  Go east and the democratic margins are smaller so republicans win.  In the east if you go into culturally connected by geographically unconnected annapolis the huge democratic margins in annapolis erase the small republican margins across the bay and democrats win.  If you go north the suburbs aren't democratic enough to put things in play.

So it was basically two possible seats with two equally valid way to do each.  Nowhere else in the state is competitive, the democrats already have 6 seats baked in, even if you tried to gerrymander for republicans.  So faced with these two seats the democrats decided they would split the district, go democratic friendly in one, go republican friendly in the other.  And for this democrats get accused of gerrymandering.  Because apparently the republicans are entitled to two seats even though the republican friendly parts of the map do not amount to two seats worth of voters.  Unless the democrats deliberately gerrymander against themselves at every opportunity, they aren't playing fair.

Nobody bothers to actually learn the fact on this though because "both sides do it".  We know that republicans are gerrymandering (loosing the popular vote but taking the seats 2-1) so we assume that democrats do the same because fairness.  Because that is how politics works, you punish the sinner and the sinless equally.  If I ever became a dictator on day 1 I would decree that anyone saying both sides are to blame would be shot.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on December 28, 2012, 11:30:42 am

Mainiac for el presidente?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on December 28, 2012, 11:42:31 am

Let's try it then; a constitutional amendment banning gerrymandering and providing a universal, nationwide system of determining districts.

This mathematical formula will be based solely on population density and geographic connectiveness; we will make each district have the same total population.

And we will put a 1-year deadline with no extensions. Because otherwise it will never, ever be implemented.

There's one more thing- we need the republicans to THINK that the democrats gerrymander, so that the republicans think they're fighting the dems by passing this ammendment.

So, whatever you do, don't try to convince republicans the democrats aren't just as bad- only liberals.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 28, 2012, 12:17:28 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 11:23:39 am

People always say that both sides do it with gerrymandering.  But it's only republicans that win majorities in seats that they lost the popular vote in.  Yes democrats tend to win majorities by greater margins then their share of the vote but that's because its a fucking first past the post system.  For instance in Maryland Democrats won 62% of the vote but won 7 of the 8 seats.  That looks like gerrymandering.  But the democrat margin statewide was 28%.  And this margin actually understates things because democrats racked up their votes in noncompetitive races with low turnout.  If the congressional districts were not "neutral" but instead random it would be surprising to see republicans win even one seat, let alone more then that. 

Basically Maryland geography boils down to that there are only two areas that could support republicans even if you gerrymandered in the republicans favor, the western hills and the eastern shore.  But these are both sparsely populated areas.  So they both need to be connected to something more.  In the west if you run out of republican counties and go south you hit the DC suburbs where the huge democratic margins drown out the small republican margins in the west and democrats win.  Go east and the democratic margins are smaller so republicans win.  In the east if you go into culturally connected by geographically unconnected annapolis the huge democratic margins in annapolis erase the small republican margins across the bay and democrats win.  If you go north the suburbs aren't democratic enough to put things in play.

So it was basically two possible seats with two equally valid way to do each.  Nowhere else in the state is competitive, the democrats already have 6 seats baked in, even if you tried to gerrymander for republicans.  So faced with these two seats the democrats decided they would split the district, go democratic friendly in one, go republican friendly in the other.  And for this democrats get accused of gerrymandering.  Because apparently the republicans are entitled to two seats even though the republican friendly parts of the map do not amount to two seats worth of voters.  Unless the democrats deliberately gerrymander against themselves at every opportunity, they aren't playing fair.

Nobody bothers to actually learn the fact on this though because "both sides do it".  We know that republicans are gerrymandering (loosing the popular vote but taking the seats 2-1) so we assume that democrats do the same because fairness.  Because that is how politics works, you punish the sinner and the sinless equally.  If I ever became a dictator on day 1 I would decree that anyone saying both sides are to blame would be shot.

Again, Maryland is a tiny state and is harder to gerrymander in the first place. It still has some exceptional gerrymandering, though, especially that (horrifically ugly) 3rd district. Massachusetts is too, especially with regards to basically chopping up parts of Boston and its more Democratic outlying towns to keep the swing districts in the east solidly in their column. Beyond all of these, however, is Illinois, where Chicago is chopped up into solidly D districts that spread a little ways outwards. Just look at the 4th district:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/IL04_109.gif)

Yes, they ran the district through an Interstate just to connect the two halves of the district together. It looks like a very ugly horseshoe. That's possibly the worst district in the entire US, though I'd love to see if anything can beat it for sheer stupidity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on December 28, 2012, 12:22:53 pm

Having thousands of representatives in Congress may not be too bad... it'll be harder for a 2 party system to keep in lock-step,  allowing many more factions to appear.   Just like a public highschool lunch period.  Ok... maybe it won't be worse then how it is now?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 28, 2012, 12:17:28 pm

Again, Maryland is a tiny state and is harder to gerrymander in the first place. It still has some exceptional gerrymandering, though, especially that (horrifically ugly) 3rd district.

Democrats won the 3rd district with 85% of the vote.  The purpose of gerrymandering isn't to pack as many of your votes into a district as possible, tt's to do the opposite.  The actual reason the districts are ugly is because the population of Maryland is dominated by a few small cities.

I am shocked, shocked that you would wade into this topic and use ignorance as an excuse to blame democrats.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 28, 2012, 12:52:09 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 12:30:16 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on December 28, 2012, 12:17:28 pm

Again, Maryland is a tiny state and is harder to gerrymander in the first place. It still has some exceptional gerrymandering, though, especially that (horrifically ugly) 3rd district.

Democrats won the 3rd district with 85% of the vote.  The purpose of gerrymandering isn't to pack as many of your votes into a district as possible, tt's to do the opposite.  The actual reason the districts are ugly is because the population of Maryland is dominated by a few small cities.

I am shocked, shocked that you would wade into this topic and use ignorance as an excuse to blame democrats.

Untrue. Gerrymandering can be used both to dilute the vote to win more seats and to create seats that are comically secure by splitting up the little areas around it that would otherwise make it somewhat competitive.

Are you seriously arguing this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/United_States_House_of_Representatives,_Maryland_District_3_map.png/300px-United_States_House_of_Representatives,_Maryland_District_3_map.png) isn't a gerrymandered district?

The 3rd's gerrymandering is at least somewhat non-partisan, though. The 6th district is quite a bit more obviously partisan, seeing as how they took the one Republican district in western Maryland and shoved a bunch of DC into it to make it more D.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 28, 2012, 12:53:46 pm

It's not often that I'll rush in to defend GreatJustice, but the Dem-friendly gerrymandering of Maryland (and it is gerrymandering) is pretty well-known.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on December 28, 2012, 12:54:29 pm

Maybe more states will do redistricting the way California does now: By having it done not by the legislators but by an independent committee.

We just got the first results of that this year, and I have to say the map does look a good bit more reasonable now. Hopefully that trend will continue.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on December 28, 2012, 01:32:10 pm

Maryland's map is extremely ugly mostly due to the restraints of the Voting Rights Act, IIRC.

Also, there are a couple of states with independent commissions doing redistricting.
List (by memory): AZ (9 seats), CA (53 seats), CT (5 seats), ID (2 seats), IA (4 seats), WA (10 seats), NJ (11 seats?).

Of course, other states had court drawn maps in 2010 as well, which are generally fair.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 01:36:26 pm

Yes GreatJustice, I'm sure you know better then every fucking politician and political expert in the country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 28, 2012, 01:37:26 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 01:36:26 pm

Yes GreatJustice, I'm sure you know better then every fucking politician and political expert in the country.

wut

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 28, 2012, 01:41:07 pm

Ah, I've found a map of the United States districted as if it were a single state with 435 seats (ie no attention is paid to state boundaries in regards to House districts). Behold:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://rangevoting.org/USsplitLine.png)

As usually, it neglects Alaska and Hawai'i (and maybe Puerto Rico in a few years); possibly those could be the only states to have their own apportionment. They only have enough people for three representatives, anyways.

I would be very interested if someone has taken the time to see what the party makeup of this theoretical House would be...

Edit: Apparently, splitlining has a tendency to effectively disenfranchise urban voters; for example, under its system California would send more Republicans to the House than Democrats, even though there are more Democrats than Republicans among the state's voters.

Perhaps a solution is to declare everything within a ten-mile radius of the corporate limits of any city with a population over a million to be, for the purposes of redistricting, its own state. This could mean greater polarization between rural and urban congressmen, but as it stands, there's a great deal of polarization in the country anyways, and at least both sides would get more or less what they wanted in regards to congressmen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 02:03:38 pm

Quote from: Jervill on December 28, 2012, 01:32:10 pm

Maryland's map is extremely ugly mostly due to the restraints of the Voting Rights Act, IIRC.

If you are talking about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that doesn't apply to Maryland IIRC.

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 28, 2012, 01:41:07 pm

I would be very interested if someone has taken the time to see what the party makeup of this theoretical House would be...

My gut tells me that this map would give the republicans a deadlock on the house about as severe as the current gerrymandering does.  This has the conditions favorable to republicans, tightly packed urban only districts and black districts in the southern states diluted out among the white districts.  Democrats do better under mapping where urban votes and rural votes are more mixed together and where there is some minority representation in the south.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: DJ on December 28, 2012, 02:10:17 pm

How flexible are the population size requirements for a district? Would it be feasible to have one district be one county? It would still make for reasonably fair division, with compact shapes because the voters won't accept being assigned to administrative and emergency services half way across the state. And unlike purely mathematical solutions, it would respect history and cultural identity.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 28, 2012, 02:35:50 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 02:03:38 pm

Quote from: Jervill on December 28, 2012, 01:32:10 pm

Maryland's map is extremely ugly mostly due to the restraints of the Voting Rights Act, IIRC.

If you are talking about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that doesn't apply to Maryland IIRC.

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 28, 2012, 01:41:07 pm

I would be very interested if someone has taken the time to see what the party makeup of this theoretical House would be...

My gut tells me that this map would give the republicans a deadlock on the house about as severe as the current gerrymandering does.  This has the conditions favorable to republicans, tightly packed urban only districts and black districts in the southern states diluted out among the white districts.  Democrats do better under mapping where urban votes and rural votes are more mixed together and where there is some minority representation in the south.

OK, so let's look at the requirement where any city with more than a million people is considered its own state. The problem, of course, is defining that. Population within corporate limits produces a counterintuitive list: Virginia Beach has more people than Atlanta, and the I've-never-heard-of-it Mesa, Arizona beats them both, as well as beating Cleveland, New Orleans and St. Louis. Aurora, Colorado beats Pittsburgh. Tulsa beats Minneapolis. El Paso beats Boston and Seattle. Only nine cities (New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and Dallas) reach the million mark! And the next two are...San Jose, California and Jacksonville, Florida. We need to do better.

Metropolitan measures are better, if we could get a constitutional definition of a metro area so that you can't gerrymander by packing the Census Bureau with party favorites. Currently, here's the metro areas (Metropolitan Statistical Areas) that hit the million mark (there are 51 of them):

New York, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, DC, Miami, Atlanta, Boston

San Fran, Riverside (CA), Detroit, Phoenix, Seattle, Minneapolis, San Diego, Tampa, St. Louis, Baltimore

Denver, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Antonio, Sacramento, Orlando, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Las Vegas

San Jose, Columbus (OH), Charlotte, Austin, Indianapolis, VA Beach, Nashville, Providence, Milwaukee, Jacksonville

Memphis, Louisville (KY), OK City, Richmond, Hartford, New Orleans, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, Birmingham (AL), Rochester

The definition of a metro area is of course really nebulous, and would be hard to pull off. Still, this would ensure that cities aren't disenfranchised. The rest of the country could be treated as one large city that would be divided according to splitline...although I do have to wonder how you pull off splitline in a territory with numerous holes in it. Splitline seems to require a modicum of topological continuity, which is probably why that big-ass nationwide map I posted didn't cover Alaska or Hawaii.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 02:47:24 pm

Quote from: DJ on December 28, 2012, 02:10:17 pm

How flexible are the population size requirements for a district? Would it be feasible to have one district be one county? It would still make for reasonably fair division, with compact shapes because the voters won't accept being assigned to administrative and emergency services half way across the state. And unlike purely mathematical solutions, it would respect history and cultural identity.

Counties have nowhere near equal populations.  On  the high end we have LA with 10 million people in one county.  Then there is Wyoming which divides 600k people into 23 counties.

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 28, 2012, 02:35:50 pm

This would just be a massive gerrymander in favor of the republicans.  The geographically concentrated democrats get packed into high democrat urban districts while republicans win the still uncompetative but not by as large margins rural districts.  It wouldn't be surprising to see results like Democrats winning the popular vote 60%-40% but not controlling the house under this system.  You'd be taking a map like they have in Pennsylvania and extending it to the entire country across state boundaries.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on December 28, 2012, 02:58:36 pm

For redistricting, it's helpful to look at something like Dave's Redistricting App (http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/launchapp.html) which allows you to draw your own districts.  I find it also helps to know where the lesser known population areas of each state are.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 28, 2012, 03:44:06 pm

Quote from: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 02:47:24 pm

Quote from: DJ on December 28, 2012, 02:10:17 pm

How flexible are the population size requirements for a district? Would it be feasible to have one district be one county? It would still make for reasonably fair division, with compact shapes because the voters won't accept being assigned to administrative and emergency services half way across the state. And unlike purely mathematical solutions, it would respect history and cultural identity.

Counties have nowhere near equal populations.  On  the high end we have LA with 10 million people in one county.  Then there is Wyoming which divides 600k people into 23 counties.

Agreed. Even within one state, you're liable to see vast variation. NC has 100 counties. The largest (Mecklenburg, home to Charlotte) has 944,000 people. The smallest (Tyrell, a coastal county almost entirely composed of sparsely-inhabited swampland) has 4,364.

And with larger cities, they're often spread across multiple counties. It's also not uncommon to get large metro areas which are multi-city, multi-county conglomerates like Raleigh-Durham-Cary (or its predecessor Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill). These would be treated as multiple smaller (~400-500,000) units when in fact the reality on the ground is that they operate more like a single large city. Other, more well-known examples would be Minneapolis-St.Paul and Dallas-Ft.Worth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 28, 2012, 04:53:02 pm

Or the Five Boroughs of New York City.

Frankly, maybe the whole state idea is outdated. It made sense in 1800 when political divisions were across state lines. Not so much now; a political subdivision of the New York City metro area as itself makes much more sense than New York State.

Maybe we should divide the country into new "states", each of which has a major metro area as an anchor?

Also, Jervill, Dave's Redistricting crashes for me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on December 28, 2012, 04:57:06 pm

Damn, it's a useful program when it runs.  I can't get it to run on my new machine, either.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 28, 2012, 06:15:52 pm

Why does everyone want NYC to be a state? I like upstate. It's like the farming-based territorial holdings. Although we could annex parts of jersey

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkflagrance on December 28, 2012, 09:27:58 pm

I'd be done with being annexed by New York. Connecticut and New Jersey are basically colonial satellites at this point.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 29, 2012, 01:52:05 am

It's worth mentioning that Texas has a clause that lets it split into several different states if it wants. So if the Republicans want some extra senate seats, all they'd need to do would be to chop up Texas and voila, magic control of the Senate! Mind, as far as I know none of them have thought it up, but it would be rather abusive of the present senate system.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 29, 2012, 01:56:43 am

That would not work as advertized. The new states would not all be Republican, or at least not fully so, and the State of Austin would definitely be Democratic. The gamble is too high.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MaximumZero on December 29, 2012, 02:04:30 am

Don't forget that Dallas has a huge population of African American folks, Hispanic folks, and LGBT folks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 29, 2012, 02:39:40 am

Dallas? That is not the city that has "keep Austin weird" as its motto.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on December 29, 2012, 03:46:53 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on December 29, 2012, 01:56:43 am

That would not work as advertized. The new states would not all be Republican, or at least not fully so, and the State of Austin would definitely be Democratic. The gamble is too high.

The proposed maps for a split Texas, from what I've seen, put Austin alongside broader swathes of central Texas, making it practically a "swing state". South Texas would be safely Democratic unless the largely Mexican Hispanics there started to transform politically into Tejanos, Northern Texas would be exceptionally Republican, and the Gulf Coast and the Dallas area, would be somewhere between "Lean R" and "Solid R". At least from the Senate, it would very much favour the Republicans so long as they ran half decent Senate candidates in the two "swingish" and one "swing" state. They'd hurt in the electoral college, mind, and in a bad year could get totally crushed in maybe three of the five new states.

That is, of course, assuming the Texas legislature made a generally fair and reasonable map. If they decided to gerrymander it, they could probably make a big strip of Southern Texas for the Hispanic immigrants and split the remaining four through dilution of northwestern Texas. Doing that, they'd make one state that votes like DC and four that vote like Nebraska, with the added bonus of basically nullifying whatever demographic disadvantages they have in the future.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 29, 2012, 07:45:28 am

Quote from: mainiac on December 28, 2012, 02:47:24 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 28, 2012, 02:35:50 pm

This would just be a massive gerrymander in favor of the republicans.  The geographically concentrated democrats get packed into high democrat urban districts while republicans win the still uncompetative but not by as large margins rural districts.  It wouldn't be surprising to see results like Democrats winning the popular vote 60%-40% but not controlling the house under this system.  You'd be taking a map like they have in Pennsylvania and extending it to the entire country across state boundaries.

See, I'm not entirely sure about this. A lot of those splits cut cities in half and lump them in with rural voters, whose votes are then nullified or at least face stiff competition. Look at Minnesota, for example, dominated by Minneapolis voters, or St. Louis or Kansas City, who together will take most of Missouri.

The thing is I'm not really sure it's possible to create a system where neither rural voters nor city voters are overwhelmingly favored.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 29, 2012, 11:00:49 am

Minneapolis happens to get split in favor of democrats but most other liberal cities aren't.  Democrats don't want liberal cities like Detroit, Chicago, Boston, etc. in densely packed districts.  Democrats will win there with 80% of the vote but that's a lot of surplus democratic votes.  On the other hand it's very difficult to draw many districts that have 80%+ republican votes simply because the parts of the country that republican aren't all that populated compared to NYC the Bay Area, DC, etc.  So simple math identities tell us that's not good for democrats though maybe not to quite the extent I was saying.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Descan on December 29, 2012, 02:39:19 pm

I don't get why you don't just tally up the votes for which party in an area and split it between the candidates. Like, 10 Dem candidates, and 10 Repub candidates, and 7 mill vote for dem, 3 for repub, give 7 of the dems the seats and 3 of the repubs the seats.

I mean, you'd probably want to get a tally of who the voters want most from each party, most to least, in order. And if the candidacy is to represent a specific area, and not just the state as a whole (I don't know how the House works in that regard) then you WOULD want districting.

But otherwise, whyyyy? @_@

does any of this make sense

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on December 29, 2012, 02:46:51 pm

What you are describing is one variant of party proportional by state, something I myself advocate. The only effect of district by district representation comes from people selling votes to get corporate investments in their district and by adding porkbarrel riders to other legislation that gives random government grants and boons to corporations in their districts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 29, 2012, 03:10:54 pm

Party proportional representation is problematic when our legal system doesn't even officially recognize political parties in any way. We'd immediately lose all of our voting power to the whims of party bosses.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 29, 2012, 03:17:05 pm

So, two and a half days until the economy blows up!

(http://rlv.zcache.com/hurray_for_the_red_white_and_blue_bumper_sticker-p128929817944849112en8ys_400.jpg)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 29, 2012, 03:29:13 pm

Quote from: Descan on December 29, 2012, 02:39:19 pm

I don't get why you don't just tally up the votes for which party in an area and split it between the candidates. Like, 10 Dem candidates, and 10 Repub candidates, and 7 mill vote for dem, 3 for repub, give 7 of the dems the seats and 3 of the repubs the seats.

I mean, you'd probably want to get a tally of who the voters want most from each party, most to least, in order. And if the candidacy is to represent a specific area, and not just the state as a whole (I don't know how the House works in that regard) then you WOULD want districting.

But otherwise, whyyyy? @_@

does any of this make sense

Because the US is a strictly representative democracy. That is, you vote for someone, and only that person. That person is the person who holds power, and for better or worse, there is no shadow government, there is no man behind the curtain, what you see is what you get. Speaking from experience, among other things it makes it incredibly hard to launch a coup on the government, since it is impossible to seperate the symbolic government from the functional government.
 
Ironically, it's more representative then other countries in that manner, in that we choose the specific person who has power, as opposed to the party and general ideals of which.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 29, 2012, 03:59:21 pm

Le Fiscal Cliff.
 
A series of masive tax hikes and spending cuts. Super austerity. Will tank economy. To stop it, we have to walk line between stopping the debt and aiding the economy.
 
And we failing bro, we failing.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 29, 2012, 04:48:07 pm

Quote from: Descan on December 29, 2012, 02:39:19 pm

I don't get why you don't just tally up the votes for which party in an area and split it between the candidates. Like, 10 Dem candidates, and 10 Repub candidates, and 7 mill vote for dem, 3 for repub, give 7 of the dems the seats and 3 of the repubs the seats.

I mean, you'd probably want to get a tally of who the voters want most from each party, most to least, in order. And if the candidacy is to represent a specific area, and not just the state as a whole (I don't know how the House works in that regard) then you WOULD want districting.

But otherwise, whyyyy? @_@

does any of this make sense

It would require a constitutional amendment which would require the parties to agree and we don't have high hopes for that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 29, 2012, 07:32:47 pm

On the upside, recent polls suggest the GOP will take the heat (rightfully) for this, far more than the Dems will.

Seriously though, this shit is bloody annoying. I live in another country entirely, on the other side of the world, but our share market is still gonna tank a few points because Boehner is a git and Norquist is a fanatic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 29, 2012, 07:42:26 pm

Unfortunately, the election is as far away as possible, and for a reason. The electorate will have forgotten about this come 2014.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 29, 2012, 07:55:34 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 29, 2012, 07:42:26 pm

Unfortunately, the election is as far away as possible, and for a reason. The electorate will have forgotten about this come 2014.

Not if the dems kep it alive, and more importantly, if the economy tanks, people will remember who exactly did it.
 
As long as the dems learned their mistakes.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Moghjubar on December 29, 2012, 08:12:42 pm

Fiscal cliff diving, weee!

Also, now suggesting topic title descriptor be changed to: Its Never Over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on December 29, 2012, 08:31:37 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 29, 2012, 02:39:40 am

Dallas? That is not the city that has "keep Austin weird" as its motto.

Blame the Dallas suburbs. They're so conservative it hurts. There were people actually supporting Santorum here.

As a result, my vote in the election was mostly wasted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 29, 2012, 08:36:15 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 29, 2012, 02:39:40 am

Dallas? That is not the city that has "keep Austin weird" as its motto.

Do all liberal cities in conservative states have this motto? Louisville has it all over the place.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mego on December 29, 2012, 11:54:44 pm

Quote from: penguinofhonor on December 29, 2012, 08:36:15 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on December 29, 2012, 02:39:40 am

Dallas? That is not the city that has "keep Austin weird" as its motto.

Do all liberal cities in conservative states have this motto? Louisville has it all over the place.

See above. Dallas doesn't tout this motto. And, as far as I know, Austin started the motto. History. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird)

College Station, in response, has started the motto "Keep College Station Normal". San Antonio jumped on the bandwagon and has "Keep San Antonio Lame", a poke at how the city is somewhat of a tourist trap.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 31, 2012, 09:07:38 am

Happy Fiscal Cliff Day! Any bets on whether or not some kind of halfassed compromise gets pulled out at the 11th hour?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tryrar on December 31, 2012, 11:56:07 am

With the way the GOP is stonewalling like the Chin Dynasty against the Mongols(or something to that effect)?  Haha no

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on December 31, 2012, 12:00:02 pm

Quote from: tryrar on December 31, 2012, 11:56:07 am

With the way the GOP is stonewalling like the Chin Dynasty against the Mongols(or something to that effect)?  Haha no

You know, the Mongols DID eventually conquer China. ;)

There's buzz that a lot of the substantive disagreements have either been settled or put aside for now, and it's just coming down to haggling over the numbers. Interesting part would be if the Senate manages to hash out some kind of ugly compromise, sends it to the House, and then enough Tea Party types reject it. Might be the last gasp of the Tea Party if they're pretty much single-handedly the ones that send us over the cliff.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on December 31, 2012, 12:08:50 pm

The following parable has no bearing on the current political situation at all. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=121123.0)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 31, 2012, 05:38:21 pm

By the way, the cliff doesn't have any effect on the debt, right? So a deal fails to go through, China won't get pissed off?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mephansteras on December 31, 2012, 05:45:03 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 31, 2012, 05:38:21 pm

By the way, the cliff doesn't have any effect on the debt, right? So a deal fails to go through, China won't get pissed off?

Actually, the cliff would result in a large repayment of America's debt. The 'Cliff' represents a huge set of tax cuts and spending programs that would expire, drastically increasing the amount of money available to pay off the deficit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on December 31, 2012, 05:51:16 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, your Congress at (non-)work! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/fiscal-cliff-deadline_n_2389831.html?ref=topbar)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 31, 2012, 08:03:56 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on December 31, 2012, 05:38:21 pm

By the way, the cliff doesn't have any effect on the debt, right? So a deal fails to go through, China won't get pissed off?

China doesn't buy treasury notes out of the kindness of their hearts, they buy them to affect the exchange rate.

It looks like there is going to be a fiscal cliff deal by January 3rd that basically erases the entire sequester and extends most of the tax cuts (rates revert to Clinton on personal income above $400k and capital tax rates go from 15% to 20%.)  Current spending and tax levels are extended for five years for most stuff but only 1 year for unemployment insurance (a pity since that is the most efficient stimulus).

If my read of the situation is correct then my hopeful prediction from a few weeks ago seems correct.  Basically congress erased the sequester fully without any austerity.  Economically that's good news.  Without austerity dragging us down the economic indicators for 2013 are quite positive.  2013 should be the year that the real recovery starts.

I'm not too worried about the deficit or inequality implications.  To solve the deficit long term we want to get back to full employment so cuts right now are mostly (but not universally) unproductive long term.  And if the economy does well for the next 4 years we can look forward to the next democratic president having a mandate to finally tackle inequality seeing as the economy will have been recovered by then.

Of course all of this is dependent on what happens with the debt ceiling.  If Obama stands firm on his promise to not negotiate and demand that the republicans do their goddamn job without a ransom then he is a strategic genius.  If he caves and gives in to their hostage taking this deal suddenly looks pretty bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on December 31, 2012, 08:12:11 pm

The Fiscal cliff is the equivalent of cutting ourselves to pour a cup, then selling our blood to the chinese while they look on in horror, and STILL not having enough to be debt-free.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on December 31, 2012, 08:25:05 pm

Quote from: misko27 on December 31, 2012, 08:12:11 pm

The Fiscal cliff is the equivalent of cutting ourselves to pour a cup, then selling our blood to the chinese while they look on in horror, and STILL not having enough to be debt-free.

Well we wouldn't have been debt free but the deficit would have fallen to the level where it would be shrinking as a share of GDP by 2015.

Check out this here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/20/choose-your-own-fiscal-cliff-adventure/

The default scenario is if we went off the fiscal cliff.  You can see that it results in the deficit getting smaller very quickly (but the economy suffering as a result.)  This gets us close to a budget surplus.  All it would take would be a minor tweak to get to surplus at that point, for instance a carbon tax.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on January 01, 2013, 12:46:09 am

Times up, clock's finished and, I have no fucking clue what happened. I see thirty conflicting reports. Reporters, get on it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2013, 01:13:33 am

Obama would have to be a colossal idiot to cave at this point. This is going to fall on the Republicans, particularly the hardliners, and everyone knows it.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on January 01, 2013, 01:28:00 am

It appears he has spiked the football, as republicans are fond of accusing him. However, he did immediately win, so I guess is okay.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkflagrance on January 01, 2013, 01:28:17 am

They're gonna compromise in a couple weeks and then set the changes to apply January 1 so that we don't jump the cliff. It came down to the wire after all.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Criptfeind on January 01, 2013, 05:46:31 am

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2013, 01:13:33 am

everyone knows it.

Who is everyone though? It seems to me that Republican "everybody" is going to blame the Democrats no matter what.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 11:53:47 am

It seems like the early reports I read were very misleading.  The sequester cuts are still happening, just delayed by two months.  So this strikes me as a very bad no good deal.

Obama seems to be thinking that if republicans let the sequester go through without more tax hikes then everyone will blame the republicans because they gave nothing away.  Obama will make offer after offer, the republicans will shoot the offers down and in the end it's the meanie republicans that everyone will (correctly blame).

My thinking is big fucking deal.  The republicans dont care that people will blame them, they have already hit rock bottom in the blame department.  But by letting the sequester go through in two months they can tank the economy and win the 2014 midterms.

How does Obama not understand at this point that he is dealing with nihilistic sociopaths?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on January 01, 2013, 12:21:47 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 11:53:47 am

How does Obama not understand at this point that he is dealing with nihilistic sociopaths?

I take offense to that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 01, 2013, 12:48:19 pm

So what did they accomplish again? Oh right, they kicked the can down the road, because the delusionally think they can somehow cut the deficit without massive spending cuts. Shoulda seen that one coming.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PanH on January 01, 2013, 01:04:07 pm

Quote from: Darvi on January 01, 2013, 12:21:47 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 11:53:47 am

How does Obama not understand at this point that he is dealing with nihilistic sociopaths?

I take offense to that.

As a nihilist sociopath ?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 01, 2013, 01:13:58 pm

Quote from: Darvi on January 01, 2013, 12:21:47 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 11:53:47 am

How does Obama not understand at this point that he is dealing with nihilistic sociopaths?

I take offense to that.

Don't like being compared to Republicans, huh?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 01:44:22 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 01, 2013, 12:48:19 pm

So what did they accomplish again? Oh right, they kicked the can down the road, because the delusionally think they can somehow cut the deficit without massive spending cuts. Shoulda seen that one coming.

Go to the link I provided before to see what you are saying actually compares to reality: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/20/choose-your-own-fiscal-cliff-adventure/

If you want to see what massive spending cuts do without repealing the Bush tax cuts then select extend the Bush tax cuts for low/middle and upper income people.  The result is an average deficit of around 750 billion for the next decade.

If you want to see what just ending the tax cuts would do without touching spending 1 cent then select both repeal the sequester options (domestic and military).  The result is an average deficit of around 300 billion.  That would be a level at which debt was not growing as a share of GDP.

Now let's just go crazy and imagine that democrats had complete control of the budget.  We cancel the sequester entirely and extend the payroll tax holiday for a year.  Then we eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction and take global warming action with a carbon tax and a gas tax.  The result of this would be that we would shrink the deficit down to very small levels and erase it in 2021.  Incidentally the CBO report indicated that this option would lead to a robust economic recovery in 2013 as austerity stops dragging us down.  The result of all of this is that deficits are higher then if we just let the Bush tax cuts expire and did nothing more.  And this is even after you've sacrificed the sacred calves like providing wounded veterans with decent health benefits.

Then let's try the full libertarian approach...  First we completely destroy Medicare, turn it over to the states, make the federal contribution max out at $5.5k a person and raise the age by another two years.  Then we gut social security, raise the age two years for both partial and full benefits, lower the growth rate dramatically.  Then we cut federal employee pay for both civilians and the military.  Then we cut both highway and NIH funding.  We're basically giving the libertarians every concrete proposal they've asked for (so none of the pie in the sky crap that can't be judged.)  This would greatly increase the poverty rate, especially for old people and undermine a lot of essential government functions.

But I'm sure that the CBO is just a bunch of liberal crooks.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 01, 2013, 02:17:37 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 01:44:22 pm

Go to the link I provided before to see what you are saying actually compares to reality: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/20/choose-your-own-fiscal-cliff-adventure/

Seems to be missing a lot of the simpler cuts that could be made that aren't included in the default "fiscal cliff", unfortunately.

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 01:44:22 pm

If you want to see what massive spending cuts do without repealing the Bush tax cuts then select extend the Bush tax cuts for low/middle and upper income people.  The result is an average deficit of around 750 billion for the next decade.

What do you consider "massive spending cuts"? Well over a trillion in spending cuts could be achieved, with further tax cuts, and without so much as touching the funding of Medicare or Social Security, the end result being a surplus by 2016. Of course, that's unlikely to happen, especially since it requires the cutting of many sacred cows (The DoD, Housing, and Medicaid in particular), but it wouldn't run "an average deficit of 750 billion over the next decade".

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 01:44:22 pm

Now let's just go crazy and imagine that democrats had complete control of the budget.  We cancel the sequester entirely and extend the payroll tax holiday for a year.  Then we eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction and take global warming action with a carbon tax and a gas tax.  The result of this would be that we would shrink the deficit down to very small levels and erase it in 2021.  Incidentally the CBO report indicated that this option would lead to a robust economic recovery in 2013 as austerity stops dragging us down.  The result of all of this is that deficits are higher then if we just let the Bush tax cuts expire and did nothing more.  And this is even after you've sacrificed the sacred calves like providing wounded veterans with decent health benefits.

This is assuming that carbon and gas taxes don't cause the companies that would otherwise pay the most to pull a Depardieu and make a break for it, or at least find ways to avoid paying it. And assuming the CBO's "robust recovery" predictions are realistic (protip: they aren't, and I'll get to that).

Quote

Then let's try the full libertarian approach...  First we completely destroy Medicare, turn it over to the states, make the federal contribution max out at $5.5k a person and raise the age by another two years.  Then we gut social security, raise the age two years for both partial and full benefits, lower the growth rate dramatically.  Then we cut federal employee pay for both civilians and the military.  Then we cut both highway and NIH funding.  We're basically giving the libertarians every concrete proposal they've asked for (so none of the pie in the sky crap that can't be judged.)  This would greatly increase the poverty rate, especially for old people and undermine a lot of essential government functions.

Those are some odd things to cut from first, all things considered. Especially considering that you didn't even mention the DoD cuts that would easily be the largest and first to go.

Quote

But I'm sure that the CBO is just a bunch of liberal crooks.

Nah, if 2000-2009 is of any indication, they're just unreastically optimistic. Lets see:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xiOBIieaTdk/TlU7e0YjdaI/AAAAAAAAAG4/dvWdxTH1FYQ/s1600/CBO%2BGDP.PNG)

The "Bush Tax Cuts expire and suddenly revenue!" scenario that you're basing your argument around also assumes that (A) There is already a "robust recovery" occurring for those new revenues to come from (there isn't) and (B) This tax increase will have no effect whatsoever on the economy (see: the Laffer Curve). If you even predict mildly negative things such as a not-so-robust recovery or marginally less revenues from taxes, then the predicted deficit shoots up to several times what it was originally predicted to be. God forbid there be anything incredibly drastic, like a modest economic contraction of some kind in the next 5-10 years, because then the deficit REALLY shoots up.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 02:29:42 pm

Do you remember the part where I said

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 01:44:22 pm

We're basically giving the libertarians every concrete proposal they've asked for (so none of the pie in the sky crap that can't be judged.)

And then you come back with a bunch of pie in the sky crap that can't be judged...

A broken clock is predictable...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 01, 2013, 03:31:21 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 02:29:42 pm

Do you remember the part where I said

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 01:44:22 pm

We're basically giving the libertarians every concrete proposal they've asked for (so none of the pie in the sky crap that can't be judged.)

And then you come back with a bunch of pie in the sky crap that can't be judged...

A broken clock is predictable...

Don't bother talking about how useless everything you've provided so far has been shown to be or anything.

I didn't know concrete DoD cuts, direct cuts from programs, or the scrapping of certain Federal departments counted as "impossible to judge", but okay. Certainly easier to judge than "tax increases", which have no guaranteed associated increase in revenue whatsoever, though.

EDIT: I've not a clue where your "every concrete proposal" came from unless you literally made it up on the spot, but there are plenty of examples of "libertarian budgets" out there with very clear cuts that aren't at all vague. For example, the Paul plan (http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/oct/18/ron-pauls-cuts/) has some extremely specific cuts provided, so I'm kind of surprised you just made something up, or else used something obscure, when there's a very large, very drastic example you could use to claim would result in the end of days.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 01, 2013, 05:29:32 pm

In other news, I became the 63rd person to like the Facebook page "Herman Cain 2016".

Let's make this happen. (In the primaries, at least).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: darkrider2 on January 01, 2013, 05:46:48 pm

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 01, 2013, 05:29:32 pm

In other news, I became the 63rd person to like the Facebook page "Herman Cain 2016".

Let's make this happen. (In the primaries, at least).

Pff I'm still voting jimmy mcmillan whether he runs or not.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2013, 05:53:30 pm

I'm voting for Dread Cthulhu, and by "voting" I mean "blood sacrifice I'a! I'a!".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 05:55:40 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 01, 2013, 03:31:21 pm

I didn't know concrete DoD cuts, direct cuts from programs, or the scrapping of certain Federal departments counted as "impossible to judge", but okay. Certainly easier to judge than "tax increases", which have no guaranteed associated increase in revenue whatsoever, though.

I counted the DoD cuts.  The other stuff was absurdly vague.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 01, 2013, 09:38:23 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 05:55:40 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 01, 2013, 03:31:21 pm

I didn't know concrete DoD cuts, direct cuts from programs, or the scrapping of certain Federal departments counted as "impossible to judge", but okay. Certainly easier to judge than "tax increases", which have no guaranteed associated increase in revenue whatsoever, though.

I counted the DoD cuts.  The other stuff was absurdly vague.

Such as? I was under the impression you were aware of at least some of the "proposals", all of which generally say exactly how much would be cut from each department.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Strife26 on January 02, 2013, 01:49:21 am

Quote from: dhokarena56 on January 01, 2013, 05:29:32 pm

In other news, I became the 63rd person to like the Facebook page "Herman Cain 2016".

Let's make this happen. (In the primaries, at least).

Huntsman/Colbert, thankyouverymuch

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 02, 2013, 02:18:40 am

brain tick... must verify, may be confusing two distant candidates.

Yea, I was thinking of someone else.

Ignore me.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on January 03, 2013, 03:28:39 am

I'm personally hoping Obama goes for the Platinum Coin option. Here's how it works:

1. Section K of 31 USC § 5112, the "Denominations, specifications, and design of coins" section of federal law reads as follows:

Quote

The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

That's it. That's the entire US law regarding what kind of platinum coins the Secretary of the Treasury can issue.
2. The President can make the Secretary of the Treasury mint coins by executive order.
3. If Obama wants, he can sign an executive order ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to issue four platinum coins worth one trillion dollars each.
4. Presto! The budget is now balanced due to a sudden influx of 4 trillion dollars into the Federal Reserve which can then be used to pay off outstanding treasury bonds and get rid of the debt that those represent, pushing congress miles away from the debt ceiling.
5. Everyone briefly flips their shit, but eventually calms down, just like when we went off the gold standard. Demand for treasury bonds goes up hugely, because the Treasury just did something big to say that they are super serious about being willing to pay back those bonds no matter how stupid Congress gets about the budget.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 03:33:32 am

That is crazy and would destroy the economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 03, 2013, 04:52:36 am

Yeah, printing (or minting) that much money is going to devalue the dollar. It's just something you don't do on large scale anymore (except if you're Zimbabwe).

Actually, you could do it, but only with moderation. Another way is to have the Fed lend money at a very low rate to the US government. This way you don't increase total money in circulation a much as it's going to be paid back. Of course, you don't benefit much from that, as your interests rates are already rock-bottom.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 03, 2013, 06:32:37 am

lol, platinum coin.

Yes, let's make a coin that the government says is worth 1 trillion/4 trillion/16 trillion dollars and pay off the debt with it. It's not like that could cause the (already tenuous) US dollar to collapse or anything.

The sad thing is that there are serious economists seriously advocating that, too.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 03, 2013, 08:15:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 11:53:47 am

Obama seems to be thinking that if republicans let the sequester go through without more tax hikes then everyone will blame the republicans because they gave nothing away.  Obama will make offer after offer, the republicans will shoot the offers down and in the end it's the meanie republicans that everyone will (correctly blame).

My thinking is big fucking deal.  The republicans dont care that people will blame them, they have already hit rock bottom in the blame department.  But by letting the sequester go through in two months they can tank the economy and win the 2014 midterms.

How does Obama not understand at this point that he is dealing with nihilistic sociopaths?

So, in the midst of describing the Republicans as nihilistic sociopaths, you allege that Obama is playing the fiscal cliff like a hot potato, putting it into the hands of the Republican house and using the resulting damage to get everyone to blame the Republicans for the ensuing national misery. Interesting. And would not that political gain from sparking another recession be a little bit... nihilist or sociopathic, in itself? Is Obama somehow purer despite the rather chilling and unpatriotic motives that you impute to him, which sound a lot like the same motives that you impute to the Republicans?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Rose on January 03, 2013, 09:19:16 am

Nah, see, it's okay, because he's on our side.

It's only bad if the republicans use those tactics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on January 03, 2013, 09:23:35 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 03, 2013, 08:15:11 am

So, in the midst of describing the Republicans as nihilistic sociopaths, you allege that Obama is playing the fiscal cliff like a hot potato, putting it into the hands of the Republican house and using the resulting damage to get everyone to blame the Republicans for the ensuing national misery. Interesting. And would not that political gain from sparking another recession be a little bit... nihilist or sociopathic, in itself? Is Obama somehow purer despite the rather chilling and unpatriotic motives that you impute to him, which sound a lot like the same motives that you impute to the Republicans?

Thanks for showcasing the talking point mainiac shot down! I too ♥ Obama, I hope we can be friends.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on January 03, 2013, 01:19:16 pm

And we've got the House doing their own election - Pelosi vs Boehner. As a filthy commie leftist Marxist dirty liberal hippie, I'm naturally leaning for Pelosi, although I have to admit Boehner is a funny name.

It's rather amusing when the woman leading the thing (who is she?) calls on someone who's not there and is like, "[NAME] of [STATE]... [NAME]... [NAME]... [NAME], are you there?"

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 03, 2013, 01:21:28 pm

As far as you can tell, what is the average American's perception of what is currently going on, politically and otherwise?  A problem with threads like this is that you're too often exposed merely to extremes. If you're not basing it on reliable statistical support please say so.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 01:33:03 pm

Boehner got his re-election (how shocking), but the reports I'm hearing suggest that he had a lot more opposition than expected. The GOP Civil War continues.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on January 03, 2013, 01:44:27 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 03, 2013, 06:32:37 am

lol, platinum coin.

Yes, let's make a coin that the government says is worth 1 trillion/4 trillion/16 trillion dollars and pay off the debt with it. It's not like that could cause the (already tenuous) US dollar to collapse or anything.

The sad thing is that there are serious economists seriously advocating that, too.

The idea isn't that you hand out these platinum coins as money. They never leave the Fed building. What actually happens is the Fed accepts the coins and, because on paper they now have 4 trillion in extra money, they're allowed to pay out on treasury bonds with regular US dollars without violating the Budget Control Act. You know, the one that establishes the debt ceiling and forbids the Fed from paying off the debt that the US owes. Once Congress gets their shit together and approves a budget/raises the debt ceiling/stops acting like idiots, Obama orders the treasury to melt down the platinum coins and takes that fictional money back out of the economy.

It's just a stupid accounting trick to bypass the dubiously constitutional provisions of the Budget Control Act without having to get the Supreme Court to strike the act down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 01:48:22 pm

Final count is 220 votes for Boehner, 192 votes for Pelosi, and 15 votes for various others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 03, 2013, 02:57:15 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on January 03, 2013, 01:19:16 pm

filthy commie leftist Marxist dirty liberal hippie

Have you perchance noticed the "Describe the user above you" thread? C'mon, get in theeeere...

Also, HOORAY INFLATION! As long as wages go up accordingly, it's nothing else than a flat tax on "cash" (i.e. stuff with a fixed nominal value) - and because only people  who can afford to lose some wealth have that sort of stuff, it'll make for a great tool to get investments flowing again while on the other hand circumventing the republican opposition to raising taxes!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 03, 2013, 03:17:28 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on January 03, 2013, 02:57:15 pm

Quote from: SealyStar on January 03, 2013, 01:19:16 pm

filthy commie leftist Marxist dirty liberal hippie

Have you perchance noticed the "Describe the user above you" thread? C'mon, get in theeeere...

Also, HOORAY INFLATION! As long as wages go up accordingly, it's nothing else than a flat tax on "cash" (i.e. stuff with a fixed nominal value) - and because only people  who can afford to lose some wealth have that sort of stuff, it'll make for a great tool to get investments flowing again while on the other hand circumventing the republican opposition to raising taxes!

It's a not-so-flat tax on anyone who earns a wage, because wages most certainly don't rise with the same speed as inflation. Great for the people who get it first, like the bankers and the government, bad for anyone who gets it later like a regular worker, very bad for anyone saving their money for whatever reason, and exceptionally bad for anyone on, say, a pension.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 03, 2013, 03:29:53 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 03, 2013, 08:15:11 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 11:53:47 am

Obama seems to be thinking that if republicans let the sequester go through without more tax hikes then everyone will blame the republicans because they gave nothing away.  Obama will make offer after offer, the republicans will shoot the offers down and in the end it's the meanie republicans that everyone will (correctly blame).

My thinking is big fucking deal.  The republicans dont care that people will blame them, they have already hit rock bottom in the blame department.  But by letting the sequester go through in two months they can tank the economy and win the 2014 midterms.

How does Obama not understand at this point that he is dealing with nihilistic sociopaths?

So, in the midst of describing the Republicans as nihilistic sociopaths, you allege that Obama is playing the fiscal cliff like a hot potato, putting it into the hands of the Republican house and using the resulting damage to get everyone to blame the Republicans for the ensuing national misery. Interesting. And would not that political gain from sparking another recession be a little bit... nihilist or sociopathic, in itself? Is Obama somehow purer despite the rather chilling and unpatriotic motives that you impute to him, which sound a lot like the same motives that you impute to the Republicans?

Um no.

Obama is getting Republicans blamed for being irresponsible legislatures.  If the republicans want him to stop all they have to do at any time whatsoever is stop their shit.  If they don't want to be spited for refusing compromise then all they need to do is stop refusing compromise.  You are just blaming Obama for pointing out that the political faction you support doesn't want to play nice.

Quote from: Japa on January 03, 2013, 09:19:16 am

Nah, see, it's okay, because he's on our side.

It's only bad if the republicans use those tactics.

I would be more then happy if Republicans blamed Obama for the stuff that's actually his responsibility.  But they don't.  They are cowards who know that they're ideas aren't worth crap so they blame him for their own policies.  They demand he cut social security for a deal then campaign against those cuts.  Then Medicare.  Then Defense.

I'd be over the goddamn moon if Republicans actually took a platform and fought for it under the legislative means that Democrats use.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 03:44:37 pm

I'm just waiting for the Tea Party and the rest of the GOP to snap in half and fly off in different directions, any day now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 03, 2013, 03:49:40 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 03:44:37 pm

I'm just waiting for the Tea Party and the rest of the GOP to snap in half and fly off in different directions, any day now.

I am hoping to see that soon, but I doubt it would happen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 03:54:08 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 03, 2013, 03:49:40 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 03:44:37 pm

I'm just waiting for the Tea Party and the rest of the GOP to snap in half and fly off in different directions, any day now.

I am hoping to see that soon, but I doubt it would happen.

It is on everyone's minds. There's no denying that there's a lot of inter-party tension between the hardliners and everyone else right now. The hardliners being in charge means that concession is unlikely, so I wouldn't rule out the tension growing too high and one side deciding they'd rather take their chances without the other.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:10:45 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 03:54:08 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 03, 2013, 03:49:40 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 03:44:37 pm

I'm just waiting for the Tea Party and the rest of the GOP to snap in half and fly off in different directions, any day now.

I am hoping to see that soon, but I doubt it would happen.

It is on everyone's minds. There's no denying that there's a lot of inter-party tension between the hardliners and everyone else right now. The hardliners being in charge means that concession is unlikely, so I wouldn't rule out the tension growing too high and one side deciding they'd rather take their chances without the other.

Problem being that there's always the specter of total dominance by a united (try not to laugh) Democratic Party. It's the same thing that holds the Dem centrists and wannabe Greens together. Maybe if both parties agreed to split simultaneously, and we'd have a 4-party system of center-left/center/center-right/moonbat.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 04:25:10 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:10:45 pm

Problem being that there's always the specter of total dominance by a united (try not to laugh) Democratic Party. It's the same thing that holds the Dem centrists and wannabe Greens together. Maybe if both parties agreed to split simultaneously, and we'd have a 4-party system of center-left/center/center-right/moonbat.

That's certainly a threat, but they're a threat to each other as well. The wingnuts see the rest of the party as weakling half-liberals who are holding back the One True Cause and must be expunged, where as the rest of the GOP are terrified by the wingnuts and their crazy ruining every attempt at bipartisanship they begin.

The moderates and leftists of the Democrats, on the other hand, are not particularly threatened by each other and are skilled at cooperating. They have nothing to gain by splitting, while the non-wingnut GOP has a chance at getting some of their goals completed through bipartisanship if they drop the wingnuts.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 03, 2013, 04:29:34 pm

Wasn't FDR a rather authoritarian (for american standards) presidents? Four terms and whatnot - and he was a democrat.
Maybe that's what's needed right now...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:37:45 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 04:25:10 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:10:45 pm

Problem being that there's always the specter of total dominance by a united (try not to laugh) Democratic Party. It's the same thing that holds the Dem centrists and wannabe Greens together. Maybe if both parties agreed to split simultaneously, and we'd have a 4-party system of center-left/center/center-right/moonbat.

That's certainly a threat, but they're a threat to each other as well. The wingnuts see the rest of the party as weakling half-liberals who are holding back the One True Cause and must be expunged, where as the rest of the GOP are terrified by the wingnuts and their crazy ruining every attempt at bipartisanship they begin.

The moderates and leftists of the Democrats, on the other hand, are not particularly threatened by each other and are skilled at cooperating. They have nothing to gain by splitting, while the non-wingnut GOP has a chance at getting some of their goals completed through bipartisanship if they drop the wingnuts.

I suppose my minor quibble there is that the mainstream GOP isn't upset at the fringe ruining their attempts at bipartisanship, but rather for constraining their tactical options, which makes it easier for them to fall prey to a well-planned political trap and means they can't take advantage of opportunities. Boehner could have given up the tax hike on $250,000 after token resistance, and then put the onus on the Democrats to match that "huge" sacrifice with more draconian cuts than they were comfortable with. But he never could have sold that to the Tea Party.

It's like a giant game of Magic: The Gathering, and the Republican side has a card in play that never lets them sacrifice one of their own cards, even if it would work to their benefit. (Geekiest. Political Analogy. EVER.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 04:41:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:37:45 pm

I suppose my minor quibble there is that the mainstream GOP isn't upset at the fringe ruining their attempts at bipartisanship, but rather for constraining their tactical options, which makes it easier for them to fall prey to a well-planned political trap and means they can't take advantage of opportunities. Boehner could have given up the tax hike on $250,000 after token resistance, and then put the onus on the Democrats to match that "huge" sacrifice with more draconian cuts than they were comfortable with. But he never could have sold that to the Tea Party.

From where I'm standing, that is bipartisanship.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SealyStar on January 03, 2013, 04:41:50 pm

@MetalSlimeHunt:

I agree. The moderate and left Democrats function perfectly well together, and their representative makeup is a pretty healthy mixture. The moderate and right Republicans, however, have a huge rift that's putting their party through shit. Their leadership as a party is torn, too; they have to decide between courting the middle or appealing to their vocal rightist minority, given Romney didn't do very well at either.

@Helgoland:

Yes, FDR was rather authoritarian. Four terms was because he was popular, but his policies were decidedly heavy-handed. And most of them (exceptions being internment camps and stuff) were reasonably justified, given that the country went through the largest economic collapse and deadliest war in history under him.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:43:55 pm

Quote from: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 04:41:04 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:37:45 pm

I suppose my minor quibble there is that the mainstream GOP isn't upset at the fringe ruining their attempts at bipartisanship, but rather for constraining their tactical options, which makes it easier for them to fall prey to a well-planned political trap and means they can't take advantage of opportunities. Boehner could have given up the tax hike on $250,000 after token resistance, and then put the onus on the Democrats to match that "huge" sacrifice with more draconian cuts than they were comfortable with. But he never could have sold that to the Tea Party.

From where I'm standing, that is bipartisanship.

So bipartisanship is both sides trying to play the other? I suppose it is, but that's a pretty cynical version thereof.
I think of bipartisanship as something both sides can get behind in unison. Like "Eating babies is bad" or "We like bacon."
Or "The country is sad about something so we haz sad too."

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 03, 2013, 04:46:29 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 03, 2013, 04:43:55 pm

So bipartisanship is both sides trying to play the other? I suppose it is, but that's a pretty cynical version thereof.
I think of bipartisanship as something both sides can get behind in unison. Like "Eating babies is bad" or "We like bacon."
Or "The country is sad about something so we haz sad too."

Both of those are bipartisan, and both come with the territory. Pragmatic cooperation leads to greater understanding, and eventually genuine cooperation. The opposite is nothing getting done and the United States going straight over the fiscal cliff, or worse, shit like the Patriot Act getting passed because everyone immediately bows to whomever is willing to "take the most DRASTIC MEASURES FOR OUR SAFETY" in a crisis.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 03:41:51 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 03, 2013, 03:29:53 pm

Quote

So, in the midst of describing the Republicans as nihilistic sociopaths, you allege that Obama is playing the fiscal cliff like a hot potato, putting it into the hands of the Republican house and using the resulting damage to get everyone to blame the Republicans for the ensuing national misery. Interesting. And would not that political gain from sparking another recession be a little bit... nihilist or sociopathic, in itself? Is Obama somehow purer despite the rather chilling and unpatriotic motives that you impute to him, which sound a lot like the same motives that you impute to the Republicans?

Um no.

Obama is getting Republicans blamed for being irresponsible legislatures.  If the republicans want him to stop all they have to do at any time whatsoever is stop their shit.  If they don't want to be spited for refusing compromise then all they need to do is stop refusing compromise.  You are just blaming Obama for pointing out that the political faction you support doesn't want to play nice.

Sounds like an irresponsible executive that would use the country's health to expose irresponsible legislators. It's almost like he's the same. It's almost like it takes two to tango.

I'm imagining the old movie trope where the hero and the villain are in a mexican stand-off, then the villian grabs the hero's lover and threatens to shoot her unless the hero drops his weapon. What does the hero do?

Well, if he's your particular hero, he taunts the villain that everyone will know that he wasn't responsible for his girlfriend getting her head blown off. Interesting plot twist, but I'm not sure it makes the hero look better than the villian. I've never seen that particular movie at the local cinema, so maybe it just doesn't play well outside the kool-aid krowd?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: DJ on January 04, 2013, 04:04:35 am

It's more like the villain is telling the hero to shoot the girl or he'll shoot her.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 04:25:10 am

Quote from: DJ on January 04, 2013, 04:04:35 am

It's more like the villain is telling the hero to shoot the girl or he'll shoot her.

The "hero" is putting everything on the line, including America itself, to make sure that the rich get taxed a little more and government can still spend increasing amounts of borrowed money. Without that stubborn insistence, no one gets hurt.

So your modification to the analogy fails. The hero wants the villain to take the fall for shooting his girlfriend.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 05:57:21 am

Well, what should he do? Let the Republicans wreck the country? You don't negociate with terrorrists. Obama let the GOP have most of their way for the last debt ceiling, and now they want more. What he is doing is making sure the government is not taken hostage every 6 months.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 06:35:47 am

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 05:57:21 am

Well, what should he do? Let the Republicans wreck the country? You don't negociate with terrorrists. Obama let the GOP have most of their way for the last debt ceiling, and now they want more. What he is doing is making sure the government is not taken hostage every 6 months.

Okay, so we take on face value that the Republicans and half the country are all terrorists. What is their moon laser? What is their dastardly plot to destroy America that must be confronted by stubborn resistance, which by the way also greatly harms America?

If a debt ceiling is being broken every six months, the problem is probably not the debt ceiling.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 07:26:30 am

They're not litteral terrorrist. What we mean is that the same principle apply. If you reward dangerous behaviour, they'll continue. Giving up mean they'll do it again in a few months (By the way, if the debt ceiling is broken every six months, it's because the result of the last deabt ceiling crisis was that the GOP only agreed to rise it by a small amount so that we'd face the same problem again now).

The fact is that whether or not America has a debt crisis (I don't think there is one short-term), it should not be solved this way, by threatening default twice a year. And the only way to make this insanity stop is by holding firm once and letting the GOP (and future Democrat majorities under Republican president) learn that this is not the way to do politics.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 07:35:53 am

So what's your solution then?

The Republicans aren't willing to consider anything that majorly increases taxes, true, but then the Democrats aren't willing to consider anything that majorly decreases spending, either, and spending is the far greater problem right now. Neither is willing to cut from what counts though, so as parties they "should" be blamed about equally, since all they've been doing is shuffling the hot potato around to make the other party look bad.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 07:53:53 am

That's stupid and you know it. There is nothing like a Norquist pledge not to decrease spending on the Dem's side. The Dems ARE okay to decrease spending, and all their proposals added a large share of spending cuts to tax rise (Even the progressive caucus and their tax-raising budget wanted deep cuts... in defense).

Also, the view that spending is a far greater problem right now is your opinion. Again, America has no short-term debt problems. People like your debts so much than you can borrow for free or near. What you should be doing is borrow a whole lot of that nearly-free money and use it to invest in infrastructures and educations and other long-term investment.

You do have a longer-term problem, which is that the government promised much more money in Medicare and Social Security payment than it can afford. But the GOP is not ready to cut any of these either (Remember the ads attacking Obama for "cutting" billions out of Medicare?).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on January 04, 2013, 08:09:00 am

It doesn't help that no one can agree on facts.  Both sides produce their own information that's completely different, and accuses the other of lying.  And there's no impartial source anywhere.  So arguments like these are doomed to flutter in raging circles of source denial.

The one thing that can't be denied is we have shitloads of resources that are going to waste for no other reason than big imaginary number game says so.  Big imaginary number game needs to either get a lot more generous with what it has under its control or go the fuck away.  There's just no practical reason for there to be 3x as many empty homes as homeless people.  There's no reason for so many competent and willing people to be unemployed while infrastructure crumbles.  If something like a social program to put those wasting things to use is going to break the big imaginary number game because "omg spending"... then fuck it.  The game is already broken anyway, and doing more harm than good.  All this bickering over the crunchy details of some obviously completely disconnected shit is wasting away unfathomable amounts of potential.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 08:11:52 am

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 07:53:53 am

That's stupid and you know it. There is nothing like a Norquist pledge not to decrease spending on the Dem's side. The Dems ARE okay to decrease spending, and all their proposals added a large share of spending cuts to tax rise (Even the progressive caucus and their tax-raising budget wanted deep cuts... in defense).

Also, the view that spending is a far greater problem right now is your opinion. Again, America has no short-term debt problems. People like your debts so much than you can borrow for free or near. What you should be doing is borrow a whole lot of that nearly-free money and use it to invest in infrastructures and educations and other long-term investment.

You do have a longer-term problem, which is that the government promised much more money in Medicare and Social Security payment than it can afford. But the GOP is not ready to cut any of these either (Remember the ads attacking Obama for "cutting" billions out of Medicare?).

Yes, but again, neither is willing to make "deep" cuts. Defense spending would be a great start, but even the Democrats aren't willing to cut it to the degree that would make a significant difference. Letting it get bigger to invest in long term government projects won't pan out for a variety of reasons, not in the least because other countries are rapidly losing their enthusiasm for Treasury bonds that aren't getting paid back. There are exactly two reasons why the US isn't in a sovereign debt crisis like Europe is now: one, the Greenback is presently being used to back just about every other currency, and two, the Federal Reserve is buying up bonds like crazy to make up for the lack of international enthusiasm. Neither of those "benefits" are going to last forever without additional issues, and the less willing the US appears to start paying back, the less time the US will have before it loses them.

Also, why do you keep saying "you"?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 09:07:34 am

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 07:53:53 am

That's stupid and you know it. There is nothing like a Norquist pledge not to decrease spending on the Dem's side. The Dems ARE okay to decrease spending, and all their proposals added a large share of spending cuts to tax rise (Even the progressive caucus and their tax-raising budget wanted deep cuts... in defense).

Also, the view that spending is a far greater problem right now is your opinion. Again, America has no short-term debt problems. People like your debts so much than you can borrow for free or near. What you should be doing is borrow a whole lot of that nearly-free money and use it to invest in infrastructures and educations and other long-term investment.

Spending is hard to cut. I'm not sure America has ever truly cut spending, just the rates of increase in spending. Let's find a chart.

(http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/FederalSpending077.gif)

Here it is. Since 1965 at least, annual spending has never been cut significantly. Taxes have been raised, but in point of fact, overall spending has never actually been cut. Certain areas of the budget were scaled back occasionally, but that didn't actually change much. Total spending rose elsewhere to fill the void each time spending cuts were made in one area.

You act like agreeing to spending cuts is the easy part. It's the part that has never been accomplished in modern history. Tax raises at least have a historical precedence. We know that they do happen. We also know that the additional revenues are never sufficient to dent the deficit spending. If tax policy and debt ceiling extensions are agreed before spending cuts, spending cuts will once again slip quietly into oblivion.

Also, investing in infrastructure has uses in less developed countries, where roads and cable are obvious investments, but there simply isn't any more infrastructure development in modern America that can pay back the effort used in building it. High-speed rail loses money. As for building human capital through better education, American education is quite expensive enough, and half the graduates can't get jobs. This is the job market informing people that white-collar work has jumped the shark. We need people who can actually accomplish things other than shuffling papers.

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 04, 2013, 08:09:00 am

The one thing that can't be denied is we have shitloads of resources that are going to waste for no other reason than big imaginary number game says so.  Big imaginary number game needs to either get a lot more generous with what it has under its control or go the fuck away.  There's just no practical reason for there to be 3x as many empty homes as homeless people.  There's no reason for so many competent and willing people to be unemployed while infrastructure crumbles.  If something like a social program to put those wasting things to use is going to break the big imaginary number game because "omg spending"... then fuck it.  The game is already broken anyway, and doing more harm than good.  All this bickering over the crunchy details of some obviously completely disconnected shit is wasting away unfathomable amounts of potential.

If you've got savings in the bank, that's the imaginary numbers game. Your parents' pensions and 401k investments, also the numbers game. The numbers game vanished in Zimbabwe last year. I don't think the outcome will be to your liking on closer perusal. The numbers game is keeping score; and without a score, people stop participating. The numbers game is why someone who makes food on a farm, a solid line of work in even the worst catastrophe, feels like working an extra hour to feed someone who produces essay papers in a university, a career that has little meaning when the shit hits the fan.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: DJ on January 04, 2013, 09:27:15 am

You have to adjust the spending to the GDP to get a meaningful graph. And there is a slight dip in ~1987 :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:39:25 am

No opportunity for investment in infrastructure? What the fuck are you smoking?

We have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of general maintenance that has been ignored for decades.

You do realize that American Infrastructure is woefully under repaired. Our bridges are falling apart, bad roads add billions of dollars in gas and auto repair costs. Our power system is barely functional at the best of times and a complete failure given regular natural disasters. Our power plants are ancient. Our internet is laughable, barely better than third world countries when every other western nation is 10 times faster.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on January 04, 2013, 09:41:06 am

That... chart. That chart is hilarious. I particularly like how the longer-term one that actually included '08 data included projections for '09 that was more than the spending budget for 2012. Also nice how it completely ignores population growth and revenue and doesn't tell you what those numbers mean. Millions, billions? (Turns out it's billions because the heritage foundation chart it's ripping off actually labels its unit of measurement, but whatev'.) It's a cute, but terrible, graph.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 09:07:34 am

This is the job market informing people that white-collar work has jumped the shark. We need people who can actually accomplish things other than shuffling papers.

We need something for them to accomplish. If white collar work's jumped the shark, where the blazes does that put the rest of it that's generally even worse off?

Quote

someone who makes food on a farm, a solid line of work in even the worst catastrophe

Minor point of order, here. It may be a solid line of work in the worst catastrophe, but it's a pretty terrible line of work in a time of excess (which we're still thoroughly in). There's only so much food you can sell at a profit and by and large we're way over that point and have been way over that point for quite a while. We're just too good at growing food to really support a notably growing workforce (unless we use pretty cost inefficient methods of farming).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:49:52 am

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 07:26:30 am

They're not litteral terrorrist. What we mean is that the same principle apply. If you reward dangerous behaviour, they'll continue. Giving up mean they'll do it again in a few months (By the way, if the debt ceiling is broken every six months, it's because the result of the last deabt ceiling crisis was that the GOP only agreed to rise it by a small amount so that we'd face the same problem again now).

The fact is that whether or not America has a debt crisis (I don't think there is one short-term), it should not be solved this way, by threatening default twice a year. And the only way to make this insanity stop is by holding firm once and letting the GOP (and future Democrat majorities under Republican president) learn that this is not the way to do politics.

No, they literally are terrorists. The create terror for political and financial gain. They cause financial harm to America. The intentionally fabricated the "uncertainty" in the markets and publicly stated they would be willing to crash the economy to harm the president. It is completely insane.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2013, 09:52:15 am

I'm pretty impressed that a country with 300,000,000 people only spends about $3000 a year on government services

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Zangi on January 04, 2013, 09:53:46 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:49:52 am

No, they literally are terrorists. The create terror for political and financial gain. They cause financial harm to America. The intentionally fabricated the "uncertainty" in the markets and publicly stated they would be willing to crash the economy to harm the president. It is completely insane.

At least not all of em are that conservativecrazy...

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:59:17 am

Quote from: Zangi on January 04, 2013, 09:53:46 am

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:49:52 am

No, they literally are terrorists. The create terror for political and financial gain. They cause financial harm to America. The intentionally fabricated the "uncertainty" in the markets and publicly stated they would be willing to crash the economy to harm the president. It is completely insane.

At least not all of em are that conservativecrazy...

There are a lot of "conservatives" that are theoretically individually ok, except they vote these supreme ass-hats into positions of authority in their party and in this nation, repeatedly.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2013, 10:01:31 am

Also have to factor in population. Of course raw spending is going to increase over time. US population in 1965 was just around 195 million, compared to the 315+ million we have now.

Per capita government spending is right now at about $11K. That's actually below the average for the 20 largest economies, which is just over $16K. Within that group of 20, we're #14 in terms of per-capita government spending. Top of the list is Norway, at $40,908. (2011 figures, from CIA Factbook).

As a percentage of GDP, we're at about 23-24%, well below the average of 44.2% (for that same grouping of top 20 economies). Basically, you can divide that group into three chunks:

Europe + Japan = high govenrment spending
USA = moderate government spending (though still on the low side of moderate)
BRIC + Mexico + South Korea = low government spending

Now while the bottom group may have the fastest-growing economies, it's the top group that has the highest quality of life. I guess the question is what people want: to make yet more money, or to enjoy their lives?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 10:35:42 am

Man the internet kraken ate my post.

Well, just wanted to say that there is no real need for cutting spending. I'm living in a country where the state account for 50% of GDP and I dig it. Oh, and our deficit is half the US's (despite paying twice the interest rate), because we actually pay for that spending through taxes. I don't really know where you decided that you can't reduce deficit through taxation, but Belgium would like to tell you you're wrong.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 10:43:13 am

Quote from: DJ on January 04, 2013, 09:27:15 am

You have to adjust the spending to the GDP to get a meaningful graph. And there is a slight dip in ~1987 :P

I need a better magnifying glass, I guess. GDP growth matters only if you really think that America has years of robust GDP growth ahead to broaden the tax base. Frankly, I don't think so. I realize that the CBO loves to pretend so, but it's the era of the new normal in America now.

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:39:25 am

No opportunity for investment in infrastructure? What the fuck are you smoking?

We have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of general maintenance that has been ignored for decades.

You do realize that American Infrastructure is woefully under repaired. Our bridges are falling apart, bad roads add billions of dollars in gas and auto repair costs. Our power system is barely functional at the best of times and a complete failure given regular natural disasters. Our power plants are ancient. Our internet is laughable, barely better than third world countries when every other western nation is 10 times faster.

Increasing that infrastructure by building more roads and bridges hardly solves your problem of unemployed sociology majors. I mean, it helps the Mexican economy, I suppose, and I read about a Chinese company that won a bid to build a bridge in America and imported Chinese nationals because it couldn't find Americans with dirty enough hands for the job, so Chinese economy, too; but average Americans no longer want to work at anything remotely useful for a living.

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, and I know that I need to spell this out, because Bay12 rarely has a sense of humor. The more important part here is that those infrastructure improvements have dubious real worth. Your current number of bridges are probably getting you to work on time. If another bridge doesn't decrease commute times, it failed as an investment.

American internet is plenty fast. If you have faster internet, how will it increase your productivity? It'll be fun with faster internet, true, but fun doesn't make the world go round. If you set out to borrow trillions more, you better have gotten serious about these questions. The numbers game is real. You eat the numbers game every time when you toss bits of paper at a cashier and she gives you a week's worth of food.

Quote from: Frumple

That... chart. That chart is hilarious.

That chart is a quick image search. never went to the website. You didn't say shit about whether federal spending has ever decreased, though. Do you have a problem with the base data, or just that the base data wasn't goosed and lipsticked enough to your tastes? Maybe it wasn't hilarious enough. The rest can be spun various ways, as you're gleefully doing right now. Spending has never gone down. The rest is pointless trivia. If we enter an age of flat GDP growth, the spending will be the spending, pure and simple. GDP can grow a country out of debt, but America won't do that anymore.

Quote

Minor point of order, here. It may be a solid line of work in the worst catastrophe, but it's a pretty terrible line of work in a time of excess (which we're still thoroughly in).

A time of excess when people are complaining about unemployment and underemployment? We're living on the table-scraps of excess now.

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:49:52 am

No, they literally are terrorists. The create terror for political and financial gain. They cause financial harm to America. The intentionally fabricated the "uncertainty" in the markets and publicly stated they would be willing to crash the economy to harm the president. It is completely insane.

It takes two sides to tango. The Democrats are also terrorists. They're doing the same thing, but more cravenly and opportunistically, because they know that the blame will be stuck on the Republicans.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 10:49:31 am

I don't remember Democrats threatening to make America default on its debts if they didn't get it their way. I don't remember Democrats tying their hands with stupid pledge that forbid them to do any meaningful compromise. Sure, they're not perfect. But they'r enot nearly on the levels of republican congressmen.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 10:51:04 am

It also takes two for someone to stand up against a terrorist.

Can you cite any specific terroristic things that democrats have done to harm America? Anything other than cower in fear before the threats of the right?

I can point to things the republicans have done. The debt ceiling fiasco. The fiscal cliff fiasco. The fabrication of justification for invading Iraq. Then there is the whole randian movement that explicitly wants to see the federal government completely dismantled.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 11:00:24 am

Also, I just found this. (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/1937-2/)

Just adjusting for population shows in fact falls in spendings.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:06:19 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 04:25:10 am

Quote from: DJ on January 04, 2013, 04:04:35 am

It's more like the villain is telling the hero to shoot the girl or he'll shoot her.

The "hero" is putting everything on the line, including America itself, to make sure that the rich get taxed a little more and government can still spend increasing amounts of borrowed money. Without that stubborn insistence, no one gets hurt.

So your modification to the analogy fails. The hero wants the villain to take the fall for shooting his girlfriend.

What you are ignoring here is that one side is a goddamn hostage taker!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2013, 11:10:39 am

Are you seriously suggesting that America's infrastructure can't be improved?  Like, look at mainland Europe or Japan's rail systems and tell me they aren't a) beneficial to their economies and b) better than the one in the US.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:12:56 am

Anybody else get reminded of the run up to the civil war with this debt ceiling crap?

Quote from: Lincoln Cooperstown Address

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Also "that is cool" in the sense that Lincoln uses it is a great phrase and I wish we used it more.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 11:18:00 am

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 04, 2013, 11:10:39 am

Are you seriously suggesting that America's infrastructure can't be improved?  Like, look at mainland Europe or Japan's rail systems and tell me they aren't a) beneficial to their economies and b) better than the one in the US.

Besides that, right now we are waiting for bridges to fall down in rush hour traffic instead of replacing them with safe alternatives. We are doing the same thing with our nuclear power plants. We are doing the same thing with our water and sewage infrastructure. The stuff we built 40 or 50 years ago was never designed to last more than 20 or 30 years, and we have not being making the investments required to keep fully functional or replace them. I am not even talking about stuff like public transportation or clean energy, this is the raw basic stuff that has been neglected for decades.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 11:20:56 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 10:43:13 am

Quote from: DJ on January 04, 2013, 09:27:15 am

You have to adjust the spending to the GDP to get a meaningful graph. And there is a slight dip in ~1987 :P

I need a better magnifying glass, I guess. GDP growth matters only if you really think that America has years of robust GDP growth ahead to broaden the tax base. Frankly, I don't think so. I realize that the CBO loves to pretend so, but it's the era of the new normal in America now.

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:39:25 am

No opportunity for investment in infrastructure? What the fuck are you smoking?

We have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of general maintenance that has been ignored for decades.

You do realize that American Infrastructure is woefully under repaired. Our bridges are falling apart, bad roads add billions of dollars in gas and auto repair costs. Our power system is barely functional at the best of times and a complete failure given regular natural disasters. Our power plants are ancient. Our internet is laughable, barely better than third world countries when every other western nation is 10 times faster.

Increasing that infrastructure by building more roads and bridges hardly solves your problem of unemployed sociology majors. I mean, it helps the Mexican economy, I suppose, and I read about a Chinese company that won a bid to build a bridge in America and imported Chinese nationals because it couldn't find Americans with dirty enough hands for the job, so Chinese economy, too; but average Americans no longer want to work at anything remotely useful for a living.

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, and I know that I need to spell this out, because Bay12 rarely has a sense of humor. The more important part here is that those infrastructure improvements have dubious real worth. Your current number of bridges are probably getting you to work on time. If another bridge doesn't decrease commute times, it failed as an investment.

American internet is plenty fast. If you have faster internet, how will it increase your productivity? It'll be fun with faster internet, true, but fun doesn't make the world go round. If you set out to borrow trillions more, you better have gotten serious about these questions. The numbers game is real. You eat the numbers game every time when you toss bits of paper at a cashier and she gives you a week's worth of food.

Quote from: Frumple

That... chart. That chart is hilarious.

That chart is a quick image search. never went to the website. You didn't say shit about whether federal spending has ever decreased, though. Do you have a problem with the base data, or just that the base data wasn't goosed and lipsticked enough to your tastes? Maybe it wasn't hilarious enough. The rest can be spun various ways, as you're gleefully doing right now. Spending has never gone down. The rest is pointless trivia. If we enter an age of flat GDP growth, the spending will be the spending, pure and simple. GDP can grow a country out of debt, but America won't do that anymore.

Quote

Minor point of order, here. It may be a solid line of work in the worst catastrophe, but it's a pretty terrible line of work in a time of excess (which we're still thoroughly in).

A time of excess when people are complaining about unemployment and underemployment? We're living on the table-scraps of excess now.

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 09:49:52 am

No, they literally are terrorists. The create terror for political and financial gain. They cause financial harm to America. The intentionally fabricated the "uncertainty" in the markets and publicly stated they would be willing to crash the economy to harm the president. It is completely insane.

It takes two sides to tango. The Democrats are also terrorists. They're doing the same thing, but more cravenly and opportunistically, because they know that the blame will be stuck on the Republicans.

The US has had two major examples of massive government spending cuts, though. The first, obviously, is after WW2, which I don't think needs much explanation. The second, however, was during the early 1920s, after the end of the war. As shown:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/5/7/4/8/a3471149-174-Government%20Spending%201920-1940.jpg?d=1284336138)

It's worth mentioning that this massive cut in spending was also occurring at the same time as sizable tax cuts (Especially the income tax, which was substantially reduced) and a fairly deep recession. Despite this, the economy benefited greatly, revenues didn't decrease, and the deficit shot down. So there are times where government spending was cut, if not recently.

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 10:51:04 am

It also takes two for someone to stand up against a terrorist.

Can you cite any specific terroristic things that democrats have done to harm America? Anything other than cower in fear before the threats of the right?

I can point to things the republicans have done. The debt ceiling fiasco. The fiscal cliff fiasco. The fabrication of justification for invading Iraq. Then there is the whole randian movement that explicitly wants to see the federal government completely dismantled.

The Randian movement? Seriously?

Objectivism's "peak" was in the 1960s and was composed of a bunch of impoverished Eastern European anti-communist immigrants living in the same neighbourhood in New York. Yeah, there are Republicans who claim to admire Ayn Rand, but they're basically just giving lip service because "principled" opposition to government spending is becoming fashionable for the first time in ages. Believe me, if the Republicans were Objectivists, they'd be cutting just about every program within reach immediately for every penny it's worth regardless of everything else. They certainly wouldn't be "obstructionist", at least.

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 04, 2013, 11:10:39 am

Are you seriously suggesting that America's infrastructure can't be improved?  Like, look at mainland Europe or Japan's rail systems and tell me they aren't a) beneficial to their economies and b) better than the one in the US.

Utterly irrelevant. (A) Mainland Europe and Japan's populations are far more densely packed, meaning rail is actually somewhat cost efficient, and (B) Cars are far more expensive for consumers to use, especially as a result of exceptionally high gas prices. The bulk of rail would end up just connecting cities in the American interior that would get little traffic, especially when you can just drive your car for shorter trips or take a plane for longer trips.

At least in Canada, the government does subsidize rail transport, and Via Rail is still extortionately expensive, slow, and not terribly high in quality, even though we've at least got the fairly well populated Windsor-Quebec City corridor.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 11:25:11 am

Also, current interest rate for 10-y bonds is 1.84%. It's not like it's hard to find investment that bring more money than this. (Hell, the US could borrow money and buy Chinese bonds and make money.)

P.S. I also find it funny that Troll is claiming we can't lower spending, the GJ claim that we did. Maybe we should jsut let you two debates together. :p

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on January 04, 2013, 11:29:25 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 10:43:13 am

Increasing that infrastructure by building more roads and bridges hardly solves your problem of unemployed sociology majors. I mean, it helps the Mexican economy, I suppose, and I read about a Chinese company that won a bid to build a bridge in America and imported Chinese nationals because it couldn't find Americans with dirty enough hands for the job, so Chinese economy, too; but average Americans no longer want to work at anything remotely useful for a living.

Having an academic degree doesn't make one incapable of getting their hands dirty.  It just means we're capable of doing things in addition to that.  My first job was scanning & stuffing packages into planes for shipping.  I did a damn good job.  I moved top speed for 4-5 hours straight without stopping, moving heavy stuff and packing perfect cans.  On days I wasn't there, they had to pull in three extra people to cover for me.  It was dirty, too.  Dirt from all around the world.  When I blew my nose after work, my snot was black.

I worked that job while getting my degree as a 3d artist, along with a bunch of my classmates.  I couldn't do it forever, though.  I needed higher pay to survive.  Now I'm working a worthless desk job (customs clearance) and I fucking hate it with a passion.  I would go back to throwing around boxes (or any equivalent) in a heartbeat if I could support my family on it.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 10:43:13 am

The numbers game is real. You eat the numbers game every time when you toss bits of paper at a cashier and she gives you a week's worth of food.

If society collectively agreed that you had to earn your food by winning a game of checkers against the cashier, would you say the same?  Attaching stakes doesn't legitimize the game, nor make it well-designed.

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 11:20:56 am

The Randian movement? Seriously?

Objectivism's "peak" was in the 1960s and was composed of a bunch of impoverished Eastern European anti-communist immigrants living in the same neighbourhood in New York. Yeah, there are Republicans who claim to admire Ayn Rand, but they're basically just giving lip service because "principled" opposition to government spending is becoming fashionable for the first time in ages. Believe me, if the Republicans were Objectivists, they'd be cutting just about every program within reach immediately for every penny it's worth regardless of everything else. They certainly wouldn't be "obstructionist", at least.

Libertarianism has seemed to me like it's growing extremely rapidly the last few years, and all the ones I know worship Ayn Rand.  They're not a huge force yet, but the "movement" descriptor is meant to indicate growth and the potential to become a force.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on January 04, 2013, 11:39:18 am

Ah, the old economic solipsism again. Happens to everyone, once in a while.

Sooner or later, you'll calm down and remember that while barter is fine when there aren't any specialized labors- everyone spends all day chasing and stabbing food units- as soon as society reaches a point where there's specialization, a common currency is useful.

Now then, I'm not a nationalist, but the idea that Americans would rather starve than do an honest day's work is repellent to me. I don't know who you are talking to, but I suspect they have a strong bias against the united states for some reason. That's fine, I'm sure, but don't let them give you the wrong impression- there are 300 million americans, and they are not all unemployed liberal arts majors.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:44:23 am

Last time trains come up someone pointed out that US population density is lower then Europe.  Then someone points out that is a meaningless statistic because we aren't trying to connect empty plots of land in Montana, we just care about where people actually live.  So trains come up and we're back to US has lower population density then Europe.

What, practically speaking, is the difference in the behavior of the right wingers in this thread from the behavior of trolls?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on January 04, 2013, 11:46:03 am

That's unfair, surely there are conservatives here who aren't trolls...

like, erm...

hmm.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on January 04, 2013, 11:48:25 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on January 04, 2013, 11:39:18 am

Ah, the old economic solipsism again. Happens to everyone, once in a while.

Sooner or later, you'll calm down and remember that while barter is fine when there aren't any specialized labors- everyone spends all day chasing and stabbing food units- as soon as society reaches a point where there's specialization, a common currency is useful.

I understand the purpose that currency serves.  It fosters broad societal organization as an organically emergent phenomenon by algorithmic abstraction of resource and task allocation, because individual barter is too slow and crunchy.  I've never been given a reason to believe that there aren't other ways we can accomplish the same thing.  I'm not saying civilization should abandon the use of an operating system entirely and cease to function.  I'm saying we can develop other operating systems.  Civilization isn't the same as it was 100 years ago.  It's running on new hardware.  This operating system is incompatible, and the system is breaking down.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 11:49:07 am

Well, just because you don't remember every stuff said before doesn't mean you're a troll.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on January 04, 2013, 11:49:54 am

Quote from: PTTG?? on January 04, 2013, 11:46:03 am

That's unfair, surely there are conservatives here who aren't trolls...

like, erm...

hmm.

Mictlan-somethingsomethingunpronounceable?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 11:50:04 am

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 10:35:42 am

Well, just wanted to say that there is no real need for cutting spending. I'm living in a country where the state account for 50% of GDP and I dig it. Oh, and our deficit is half the US's (despite paying twice the interest rate), because we actually pay for that spending through taxes. I don't really know where you decided that you can't reduce deficit through taxation, but Belgium would like to tell you you're wrong.

Damn krakens. I always copy my posts before clicking post. Anyway, Belgium is a small country that just happens to be the center of the European Union bureaucracy.

Many of the government institutions and workers are located there, and they walk out outside those offices and spend their generous salaries on lunches and handbags and shoes in the local markets. That becomes taxable income to the shopkeepers. It's hard to replicate Belgium anywhere else, because you'd need 26 other countries willing to send you money and overpaid bureaucrats with a taste for the finer things in life.

Now, as to the effectiveness of tax raises, each country has different structural potentials in their tax system. the American structural potential is about 20% of GDP in tax revenue. Raise taxes or lower taxes. We always get around 20% of our GDP in tax revenues. Over a data collection period of 85 years. Here comes another image search chart...

(http://marketminder.com/img/Tax-revenues-vs-top-rates.jpg)

You're getting about 20% of GDP as taxes in America, whether you like it or not. The structural revenue potential is many things, and most are not alterable by government policy. Cultural, geographic, whatever... They don't change fast or sometimes even ever.

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 04, 2013, 11:10:39 am

Are you seriously suggesting that America's infrastructure can't be improved?  Like, look at mainland Europe or Japan's rail systems and tell me they aren't a) beneficial to their economies and b) better than the one in the US.

Yeah, I am. America's rail system is better. America's rail system is in the sky. We use airplanes for most travel, because America is a big country. HSR runs at 180 mph and passenger jets can hit 500 mph at altitude. There's no comparison when the distance is far enough that the plane can reach cruise altitude for a long stretch.

America isn't geographically similar to Europe or Japan. It's a big country on par with China, and travel patterns and maintenance costs will be comparable. China now has HSR from Hangzhou to Beijing. That is a very long stretch of HSR, like perhaps the planned Caltrans or whatever it is. The Chinese HSR hemorhages money. Fun fact. It operates at a huge loss that is siphoned into state-owned bank loans. It's a prestige project. And at prices of about 300RMB, it's caught between bargain-bin regular train seats that are 50RMB and 20 hours, and airplane tickets that are 700RMB and 2 hrs. It's the monkey in the middle. It never quite gets either passenger demographic here in China. I've ridden it, and it's pretty comfortable to be in a cabin meant for thirty that has less than ten!

Let California bite the bullet first. It'd be foolish to spend trillions plowing ahead on massive integration of HSR in the travel grid, when you barely know whether it pays off. It's not as sure a thing as it looks. Air travel is far better for a large country.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:56:11 am

Fun fact, every highway, airport, bridge and port in the US is a money loser.  They're kinda useful though...

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 11:50:04 am

You're getting about 20% of GDP as taxes in America, whether you like it or not. The structural revenue potential is many things, and most are not alterable by government policy. Cultural, geographic, whatever... They don't change fast or sometimes even ever.

Holy mother of making crap up batman!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 11:56:49 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:06:19 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 04:25:10 am

So your modification to the analogy fails. The hero wants the villain to take the fall for shooting his girlfriend.

What you are ignoring here is that one side is a goddamn hostage taker!

Who is holding America hostage is merely a point of view. Either side could bend.

Generously, I permitted your view. I allowed putatively that Republicans are villains, and then I showed you how your hero is acting, if we grant that this is the case. A conventional storybook hero doesn't respond the way Obama has in the hostage situation. It doesn't matter that the villain grabbed the girl. The villain always grabs the girl. What I'm saying is, the hero doesn't react that way in the usual movie trope.

You have to assess whether the movie trope is wrong, or maybe your good guy isn't so good.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 12:02:30 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:56:11 am

Fun fact, every highway, airport, bridge and port in the US is a money loser.  They're kinda useful though...

And HSR would probably be kinda not useful, given the parallels to China geographically, and the fact that few people want to use HSR compared to the alternatives in China. It was a glamor project. You think America can afford a glamor project right now?

Quote

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 11:50:04 am

You're getting about 20% of GDP as taxes in America.

Holy mother of making crap up batman!

View enclosed chart. 85 years. Approximately 20% of GDP in tax revenues over multiple top-rate tax policies.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 12:04:00 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 11:56:49 am

Who is holding America hostage is merely a point of view. Either side could bend.

No it's not.  This crises existed because Republicans made a list of demands.  Democrats did not make a list of demands.  So cut the subjective crap.

Last debt ceiling Republicans insisted on spending cuts or they would destroy the world economy.  This is nihilistic asshole behavior.  Democrats did not demand tax hikes at the threat of being nihilistic assholes.

Your side is assholes, get over it or stop supporting them.

To repeat:

Quote from: Lincoln Cooperstown Address

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 12:02:30 pm

View enclosed chart. 85 years. Approximately 20% of GDP in tax revenues over multiple top-rate tax policies.

So?  That's because our politics has decided on those tax levels.  You might as well say that it's a law of the universe that the speed limit is 65 miles per hour.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on January 04, 2013, 12:11:04 pm

Ah yes, airplanes. The perfect way to move things like shipping containers full of iron ore.

I also find it interesting that 85 years of economic change somehow manages to remain totally the same in terms of tax revenue. Frankly the whole tax/spending argument needs to be revisited from the beginning. We need to agree on the purpose of government and how and what we expect to get out of it. I just don't know what conservatives want; the argument tends to dissolve into what appears to be a cargo-cult ritual of "spending cuts" of one or two cents here in order to spend tens of thousands on guns.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 12:11:55 pm

Well, Troll, just look up the Netherland. Or Denmark. Or Germany. They all spend 5 to 15% more that the US in term of GDP. And their budget deficit is consistantly at around half of the US.

Government spending. (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:General_government_expenditure_by_country_as_a_percentage_of_GDP,_2011.png&filetimestamp=20120801091321)
The Economist cool table with debts level and stuff. (http://www.economist.com/news/economic-and-financial-indicators/21569043-trade-exchange-rates-budget-balances-and-interest-rates)

Of course, Germany got exports, and Belgium got the EU, and the Netherlands got tulips and people coming in to buy weed and Denmark got Smørrebrød and Danish design. We all makes our money in different way. But we all maintain relatively high level of government spending.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 12:15:55 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 11:56:49 am

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:06:19 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 04:25:10 am

So your modification to the analogy fails. The hero wants the villain to take the fall for shooting his girlfriend.

What you are ignoring here is that one side is a goddamn hostage taker!

Who is holding America hostage is merely a point of view. Either side could bend.

Generously, I permitted your view. I allowed putatively that Republicans are villains, and then I showed you how your hero is acting, if we grant that this is the case. A conventional storybook hero doesn't respond the way Obama has in the hostage situation. It doesn't matter that the villain grabbed the girl. The villain always grabs the girl. What I'm saying is, the hero doesn't react that way in the usual movie trope.

You have to assess whether the movie trope is wrong, or maybe your good guy isn't so good.

It is not a point of view. It was a crisis created by the republicans for the express purpose of harming America. Their demand? Harm America or we will harm America more! Compromise is just damage control, and giving them their goal. They are terrorists and traitors attempting to dismantle my country and yours.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: PTTG?? on January 04, 2013, 12:21:02 pm

The United States actually does have exports- very important exports. In fact, downright essential on a global scale. Oh sure, when people talk about american exports, they think of either nebulous "innovation", or else corn and wheat, but those are secondary.

Gas.

While Sauds sell crude, we sell refined gas. This is because we have the refineries. Refineries are very, very expensive toys, and the US was industrialized and making them forever. It's a major value-added business, and while there are several other countries with greater crude reserves, and a few with more actual exports, we are number one when it comes to actual usable fuel.
It's odd that republicans seem to forget about that when they compare the US to other industrial nations. Germany might make things, but they make them out of american plastics and transport them with american energy.

It would probably be very good for the US to ban bunker fuel for large cargo ships and sell them refined gas instead.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2013, 12:24:46 pm

I never even said high speed rail, regular speed rail would be nice too.

In addition air travel is horrible for the environment and not likely to be viable for too much longer.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 12:27:27 pm

Or roads, and bridges and power lines and fiber optics and sewers and water pipes. Our infrastructure is in absolutely terrible shape.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 12:37:20 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 12:11:55 pm

Well, Troll, just look up the Netherland. Or Denmark. Or Germany. They all spend 5 to 15% more that the US in term of GDP. And their budget deficit is consistantly at around half of the US.

Government spending. (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:General_government_expenditure_by_country_as_a_percentage_of_GDP,_2011.png&filetimestamp=20120801091321)
The Economist cool table with debts level and stuff. (http://www.economist.com/news/economic-and-financial-indicators/21569043-trade-exchange-rates-budget-balances-and-interest-rates)

Of course, Germany got exports, and Belgium got the EU, and the Netherlands got tulips and people coming in to buy weed and Denmark got Smørrebrød and Danish design. We all makes our money in different way. But we all maintain relatively high level of government spending.

We could argue all day about how strong the economies of Europe are compared to the US, how prosperous their citizens are in comparison, etc, but I'd say this can generally be summed up with "military spending". The majority of the US's spending comes from Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and "defense". Now "defense" doesn't constitute what would be necessary to defend the US, it also includes the costs of multiple wars and military bases in Europe and East Asia. Believe it or not, the US having a sizable presence in Europe deterring just about any conceivable invasion just might have something to do with far less defense spending in Europe and therefore a larger budget.

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 11:44:23 am

Last time trains come up someone pointed out that US population density is lower then Europe.  Then someone points out that is a meaningless statistic because we aren't trying to connect empty plots of land in Montana, we just care about where people actually live.  So trains come up and we're back to US has lower population density then Europe.

What, practically speaking, is the difference in the behavior of the right wingers in this thread from the behavior of trolls?

"Right wingers? In MY political thread? It's more common than you think."

I'd disagree with being called a "right winger" though, since that would imply some sort of desire to return to the "good old days" or an opposition to change.

Now besides that, your point is still irrelevant because the areas being connected in Japan and Europe are STILL far more densely populated, with plenty of stations connecting sizable towns en route between large cities. In the US, the only two areas where this is even remotely the case would be the Northeastern megalopolis (Boston to Washington) and MAYBE the area between LA and San Francisco in California. It would amount to a huge pile of pork barrel spending, especially considering the states themselves or, god forbid, the private sector would be capable of providing such a comparatively short rail line.

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 04, 2013, 11:29:25 am

Libertarianism has seemed to me like it's growing extremely rapidly the last few years, and all the ones I know worship Ayn Rand.  They're not a huge force yet, but the "movement" descriptor is meant to indicate growth and the potential to become a force.

Libertarianism as an ideology is growing, yes. But Objectivism is an altogether different animal from libertarianism for a lot of reasons, not in the least because it has a strict moral/ethical system tacked on that most libertarians would disagree with, it's associated with a bunch of policies that libertarians tend to find repugnant. Rand herself disliked libertarians for about the same reasons. Politically speaking, a libertarian and an Objectivist would advocate for mostly similar things economically and socially, but that's where the association breaks down. For example, an Objectivist would be okey-dokey with foreign wars across the world so long as they were against "socialist pigpens" or "barbarians" of some description, and would almost always advocate a government that does nothing but build roads, arrest criminals, and battle aforementioned socialists. A libertarian, meanwhile, could advocate for anything from slightly lower taxes and spending alongside a reduced drug war to no government whatsoever.

If you ignore the aforementioned disagreements about ethics and looked at it from a purely political perspective, then Objectivists would constitute a portion of the libertarian movement, but a very distinct one. Treating the two interchangeably would be a bit like calling the European Social Democrats the "Marxist Movement" or the American Democratic Party the "LaRouche Movement".

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 12:49:23 pm

Military spending is a part of government spending. The US's defence spending* may lower the part of government spending spent on the army, but it does not change the fact that government can spend much more than the US do if they're willing to tax for it.


*Actually, the US defence spending is so comically large that you could probably halve it without changing much to Europe's need to spend on defense. but it's true that it does help.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 01:28:03 pm

Honestly, defense spending is far larger than it has been historically, even through the Cold War. It does need trimming. We need to follow through on our Asian pivot and remove bases from other regions. Less research and more ships to project strength in the Pacific. But that won't get rid of the deficit alone. Other spending cuts need to be done.

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 04, 2013, 11:29:25 am

I worked that job while getting my degree as a 3d artist, along with a bunch of my classmates.  I couldn't do it forever, though.  I needed higher pay to survive.  Now I'm working a worthless desk job (customs clearance) and I fucking hate it with a passion.  I would go back to throwing around boxes (or any equivalent) in a heartbeat if I could support my family on it.

Not meaning to pick you out of a crowd of millions, but most of the young college graduates aren't like you. They expect more. They were told college was a sure thing, then loaded up with debt and got out expecting the economy could endlessly make room for more general white-collar workers. It's an overinvestment in too many generalist white-collar workers, and society at large is to blame for signalling to young people that trades are "low-class" work. Welders and pipe-fitters can make a lot of money.

Anyway, I've worked as a landscaper and in a warehouse, so I know what you mean. Moving around all day has its good points compared to desk jobs.

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 12:04:00 pm

Last debt ceiling Republicans insisted on spending cuts or they would destroy the world economy.  This is nihilistic asshole behavior.  Democrats did not demand tax hikes at the threat of being nihilistic assholes.

Inaction is not virtuous behavior, either. Spending money that you don't have, that will plunge this and future generations into chaos, is a form of nihilism heedless of future consequences far worse than a fiscal cliff. Expecting bond-holders to cover the government's bills forever, as they soar past 20 trillion dollars, is perfectly asshole behavior. Are there free lunches in life?

US Treasuries will continue to sell. Then, one day, they won't sell at all. The market will have no confidence in repayment. The end for all debtors, both big and small, comes slowly at first, and then all at once. Zimbabwe ensues.

Quote

Your side is assholes, get over it or stop supporting them.

I don't particularly support them. I have no visions of politicians ushering in a grand utopia. I know both sides are assholes. What I'm saying to you, as you discuss Obama's strategy to give them the blame, is that Obama isn't acting the way any normally concerned person would in a hostage situation.

I've already granted you the premise that Republicans are the villains. Now show me the hero. There is none. If I pointed a gun at your mother, you wouldn't act the way Obama is acting toward the evil villainous Republicans threatening his beloved America. "Go ahead and shoot my mother! The police will know that I didn't do it!"

Quote

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 04, 2013, 12:02:30 pm

View enclosed chart. 85 years. Approximately 20% of GDP in tax revenues over multiple top-rate tax policies.

So?  That's because our politics has decided on those tax levels.  You might as well say that it's a law of the universe that the speed limit is 65 miles per hour.

No, politics didn't decide the tax level. It can't ever. I think you misread the chart. The nominal tax rates have changed many times. They failed to change actual revenue collection. Higher tax rates don't net more tax dollars in actual revenue. We get 20% of what America produces whether we soak the rich for 90% of their marginal income, or for 30% of their marginal income. That is 85 years worth of data.

You can't count on raising tax rates on the rich, or the middle-class, or even the poor to get you out of this deficit. The taxes are what the taxes are. Past a certain point, you simply can't get more revenue by increasing rates. The top rates have been as low as 30%, and tax revenue was still 20% of GDP.

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 12:11:55 pm

Well, Troll, just look up the Netherland. Or Denmark. Or Germany. They all spend 5 to 15% more that the US in term of GDP. And their budget deficit is consistantly at around half of the US.

Absolutely. As I admitted earlier, this 20% GDP cap on tax revenues exists only in America's data. In other countries, the cap is higher for many reasons cultural, demographic, geographic, or whatever.  But the caps do exist. In a perfectly utopian society do you think people would give 100% in tax revenue without reducing output at all?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 01:34:53 pm

Well, this cap seems... specious at best. For starter it's only the top tax rates that's on your graphs. It just seems weird that you can't increase tax revenues at all. Let me dig on it. Also it's funny how you defended using aboslute numbers for deficits and relative numbers for revenues.

As for US Treasuries, when the market loose confidence in them, interest rate will raise and that'll be the signal budget need to be balanced. As long as price don't raise, the signal is clear: borrow. As long as it's used for investment rather than entitlements, it'll be easy to cut later on.


P.S. First, I want to share this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals). Comprhensive tables about the US budget going as far as history allow as spreadsheets. After having spend hours drudging for info on Belgian budgets this is awesome. I wish we had the same.

Now, concerning that 20% GDP, I wonder how much of it is due to political will. Also, while the total stay fairly constant, it's because corporate income taxes went down and was made up with payroll tax. I don't see why we couldn't get corporate tax back up and raise more money that way.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 01:57:28 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 01:34:53 pm

Well, this cap seems... specious at best. For starter it's only the top tax rates that's on your graphs. It just seems weird that you can't increase tax revenues at all. Let me dig on it. Also it's funny how you defended using aboslute numbers for deficits and relative numbers for revenues.

As for US Treasuries, when the market loose confidence in them, interest rate will raise and that'll be the signal budget need to be balanced. As long as price don't raise, the signal is clear: borrow.

But Sheb, the market has ALREADY lost confidence in the US treasuries!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/538150669.gif?w=600&h=429)

Confidence has dropped significantly over the years. Low interest rates are presently the result of the US effectively buying its own debt through the Fed, alongside various credit swaps being conducted alongside other major central banks (the Bank of Japan and the ECB in particular). The inevitable result of this in the near future is either a gigantic credit crisis or massive inflation.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 02:02:40 pm

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:18:05 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 02:02:40 pm

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

It's not strange, it's what mainstream economics has been told us would happen in these circumstances for 70 years now.

Also GJ is full of crap.  If his story was true then interest rates would spike every time the Fed slowed it's purchases, which doesn't happen.

Hey Great Justice, I'll make you a bet.  I'll be that three years from now the Interest Rate on one year US t-notes still will not have passed 10%.  That is a very low bar to set for the hyperinflation you predict.  I'll offer you a bet of up to $100, given to a third party to keep track of in the mean time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2013, 02:41:03 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 02:02:40 pm

Can you explain that graph'?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

From what I can see, it's a graph of who holds how much of our debt? In which case, I fail to see the problem. You'd rather have China and Russia holding giant swathes of US debt rather than the Fed Reserve?

And while Chinese holdings have a slight dip in the last year, Japan has been on a buying spree. Seems Tokyo gots some mad love for the US debt. Since they're really good at taking American things and making them smaller and more efficient, maybe we can get them to do the same for our debt.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 02:48:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:18:05 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 02:02:40 pm

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

It's not strange, it's what mainstream economics has been told us would happen in these circumstances for 70 years now.

Also GJ is full of crap.  If his story was true then interest rates would spike every time the Fed slowed it's purchases, which doesn't happen.

Hey Great Justice, I'll make you a bet.  I'll be that three years from now the Interest Rate on one year US t-notes still will not have passed 10%.  That is a very low bar to set for the hyperinflation you predict.  I'll offer you a bet of up to $100, given to a third party to keep track of in the mean time.

Is that a hyperinflation adjusted $100? if so, his bet doesn't have a very good return on his investment if he wins.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 02:58:21 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 04, 2013, 02:41:03 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 02:02:40 pm

Can you explain that graph'?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

From what I can see, it's a graph of who holds how much of our debt? In which case, I fail to see the problem. You'd rather have China and Russia holding giant swathes of US debt rather than the Fed Reserve?

And while Chinese holdings have a slight dip in the last year, Japan has been on a buying spree. Seems Tokyo gots some mad love for the US debt. Since they're really good at taking American things and making them smaller and more efficient, maybe we can get them to do the same for our debt.

Oh, there's a lot of reasons why Japan is buying T-Bonds, but that's a whole different story. The significant point is that the Fed is basically intervening to great extents to ensure that interest rates stay low. To go back to a previous point:

Quote

As for US Treasuries, when the market loose confidence in them, interest rate will raise and that'll be the signal budget need to be balanced. As long as price don't raise, the signal is clear: borrow. As long as it's used for investment rather than entitlements, it'll be easy to cut later on.

Since the Fed can indefinitely purchase T-Bonds to keep interest rates down, that signal may NEVER appear, and borrowing can and will continue indefinitely until there comes a point where any cut would be economically disastrous. For example, cutting Medicare in the 60s or 70s in some way would have been fairly minor and not terribly damaging since so few people were dependent on it at the time. Now, Medicare is entrenched because lots of people are dependent on it, and that number will only increase without significant changes.

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:18:05 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 02:02:40 pm

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

It's not strange, it's what mainstream economics has been told us would happen in these circumstances for 70 years now.

Also GJ is full of crap.  If his story was true then interest rates would spike every time the Fed slowed it's purchases, which doesn't happen.

Hey Great Justice, I'll make you a bet.  I'll be that three years from now the Interest Rate on one year US t-notes still will not have passed 10%.  That is a very low bar to set for the hyperinflation you predict.  I'll offer you a bet of up to $100, given to a third party to keep track of in the mean time.

Interest rates would spike every time the Fed slowed it's purchases if not for the support of other central banks, conducted through massive credit swaps and through buying each other's bonds to keep up pretenses (see: the Fed and BoJ buying piles of Eurobonds). Your view would only hold true were the Fed the only central bank in the world buying treasuries.

Hyperinflation isn't necessarily going to occur, not in the least because the US could instead end up mired in a debt crisis like Europe or face stagnation like Japan instead (where stimulus spending and infrastructure improvement successfully created a gigantic deficit and no recovery). If I had $100 to throw around right now I'd make THAT bet without a second thought, though some other wager would suffice.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:59:49 pm

How about the loser says publicly they were very wrong and both sides agree never to argue politics on Bay12 for the period of the bet, be it with each other or others.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 03:03:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:59:49 pm

How about the loser says publicly they were very wrong and both sides agree never to argue politics on Bay12 for the period of the bet, be it with each other or others.

Sounds good, then.

Oh, and an addendum, this is null and void if something completely out there happens, such as World War 3, the eruption of a supervolcano, aliens showing up, etc.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 03:13:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 03:03:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:59:49 pm

How about the loser says publicly they were very wrong and both sides agree never to argue politics on Bay12 for the period of the bet, be it with each other or others.

Sounds good, then.

Oh, and an addendum, this is null and void if something completely out there happens, such as World War 3, the eruption of a supervolcano, aliens showing up, etc.

We'd need to appoint a judge to determine that something really is that massive though.  There's always going to be rationalizing...

So are we in agreement that we do not discuss politics on this board with each other or with others until Jan 3 2016?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on January 04, 2013, 03:15:24 pm

Quote from: Darvi on January 01, 2013, 12:21:47 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 01, 2013, 11:53:47 am

How does Obama not understand at this point that he is dealing with nihilistic sociopaths?

I take offense to that.

Me too.

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 03:13:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 03:03:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:59:49 pm

How about the loser says publicly they were very wrong and both sides agree never to argue politics on Bay12 for the period of the bet, be it with each other or others.

Sounds good, then.

Oh, and an addendum, this is null and void if something completely out there happens, such as World War 3, the eruption of a supervolcano, aliens showing up, etc.

We'd need to appoint a judge to determine that something really is that massive though.  There's always going to be rationalizing...

So are we in agreement that we do not discuss politics on this board with each other or with others until Jan 3 2016?

Agreed.
Nobody blame me, I voted for Urist the sockmaker!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 03:17:19 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 03:13:38 pm

Quote from: GreatJustice on January 04, 2013, 03:03:12 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:59:49 pm

How about the loser says publicly they were very wrong and both sides agree never to argue politics on Bay12 for the period of the bet, be it with each other or others.

Sounds good, then.

Oh, and an addendum, this is null and void if something completely out there happens, such as World War 3, the eruption of a supervolcano, aliens showing up, etc.

We'd need to appoint a judge to determine that something really is that massive though.  There's always going to be rationalizing...

So are we in agreement that we do not discuss politics on this board with each other or with others until Jan 3 2016?

Sure. Honestly, I'd think it would make more sense to have multiple judges, since it's entirely possible that a single judge might become inactive or vanish over three years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bauglir on January 04, 2013, 03:20:11 pm

I volunteer to appoint the committee that will appoint judges.
This is a joke

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 03:21:44 pm

You need a second before the motion can be carried according to parliamentary procedure.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 04, 2013, 03:24:32 pm

We should just allow a general consensus vote at the time it happens. I doubt we'll go anywhere before then.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: tahujdt on January 04, 2013, 03:25:45 pm

Quote from: Bauglir on January 04, 2013, 03:20:11 pm

I volunteer to appoint the committee that will appoint judges.
This is a joke

But first, we must appoint the people who will appoint the committee who will go on a fact-finding mission to Switzerland to approve the motion for you to appoint the committe who will appoint the judges.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 03:28:53 pm

And that list must pass by a three fifths majority of both houses, except on the first day of a new session where it requires only a simple majority.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2013, 03:37:32 pm

I am announcing the creation of a party with the platform of filibustering the session until such time as a three fifths majority can be reached, and/or until all the people we don't like on the list die of old age.

Yeah, that's it...."old age". >_>

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 05:04:30 pm

With any luck the framework of this bet can eventually become the system of law for a future government and people can shout arguments at each other over what GreatJustice and mainiac would have wanted.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 04, 2013, 05:09:50 pm

And long will we honor the Founding Forum Fighters.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 04, 2013, 05:11:11 pm

I wish Jefferson had had his way with scrapping and replacing the Constitution every so often.

Probably not every nineteen years. Maybe every forty.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 04, 2013, 06:21:06 pm

Quote from: Nadaka on January 04, 2013, 02:48:34 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 04, 2013, 02:18:05 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 04, 2013, 02:02:40 pm

Can you explain that graph'?

Also, what's the Fed is doing is essentially printing money. Strangely, inflation is constant and low. If/when inflation goes up, we can stop rpinting money, in the meantime it's a good way to boost the economy.

It's not strange, it's what mainstream economics has been told us would happen in these circumstances for 70 years now.

Also GJ is full of crap.  If his story was true then interest rates would spike every time the Fed slowed it's purchases, which doesn't happen.

Hey Great Justice, I'll make you a bet.  I'll be that three years from now the Interest Rate on one year US t-notes still will not have passed 10%.  That is a very low bar to set for the hyperinflation you predict.  I'll offer you a bet of up to $100, given to a third party to keep track of in the mean time.

Is that a hyperinflation adjusted $100? if so, his bet doesn't have a very good return on his investment if he wins.

I'd suggest betting over a case of beer. Hell, I'll even cover shipping if that's an issue ;)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on January 04, 2013, 07:57:17 pm

And to think I was going to show up with an argument this morning.  I'm not going to comment on the content of the last few pages, as it's mostly the same boilerplate argument about short term spending versus long term debt.

I will say that I will be convinced to lock this thread if it gets heated and personal.  I'm not actually that diplomatic myself.  I think people should on occasion be attacked along with ideas, because it's rather rare for someone to espouse an idea they do not believe absolute.  I do think that people who espouse things that are objectively and demonstrably untrue should be called liars or idiots until they stop espousing those things.

However, I am apathetic, and far more importantly I don't own this forum, so keep that crap to a minimum.  Without a specific topic to discuss, I think I will probably will lock this thread in the near future.


That being said, it's not like there aren't specific topics out there.  Certainly there's a good swath of Congress that's acting like the 2012 election didn't really happen yet, so the arguments therein are still powering on.  And speaking of first days of new sessions, the rules for the Senate filibuster will be coming up for review on January 22nd.  Given that the Republican minority of the last six years launched more filibusters than the 214 years before them, up to and including the minority leader blocking his own bill (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121207/NEWS01/312070087/Sen-Mitch-McConnell-filibusters-own-bill-debt-ceiling-when-Democrats-agree-vote), I'd bet safe money that the rules are going to change for the first time in over a generation.

Like, actually making it work the way people think it does where the guy doing the filibustering has to stand the podium talking for as long as he wants to a hold a bill, instead of the current way it works where one guy anonymously says he wants to filibuster and then everything stops until it passes a 60% vote.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Grek on January 05, 2013, 04:12:00 am

I'd like to see things go back to the old-school read from the phonebook fillibuster. It would happen much less often.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 04:12:50 am

Actually Troll, I'm going to call BS on your argument that rasing taxes depress the economy so lower the revenues. It's not at all what your graph shows. It just doesn't make sense that you can't tax more than 20% of GDP. If you set the tax rate to 100%, you're going to get 100% of GDP. Okay, maybe the economy will crash and this 100% of GDP will be less than the current 20% of GDP. But that's not what you're claiming.

Your graph only account for federal government revenues too. Including state and local government show that revenue can and indeed did raise since 1943. The large bump in 1943-1944 itself is an exemple that the federal government revenue can raise if need be.

(http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/usgr_chart3p22.png)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 08:57:53 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 04, 2013, 07:57:17 pm

I do think that people who espouse things that are objectively and demonstrably untrue should be called liars or idiots until they stop espousing those things

Yeah, people like Socrates and Gallileo, for example. What idiots. Make them drink hemlock because they're liars. If they have the nerve to publish a book, burn the books, too. Our objective truth is objective. It's objective because we said it's objective.

Quote from: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 04:12:50 am

Actually Troll, I'm going to call BS on your argument that rasing taxes depress the economy so lower the revenues. It's not at all what your graph shows. It just doesn't make sense that you can't tax more than 20% of GDP. If you set the tax rate to 100%, you're going to get 100% of GDP. Okay, maybe the economy will crash and this 100% of GDP will be less than the current 20% of GDP. But that's not what you're claiming.

Well, at least you do recognize that a 100% tax would cause a massive crash. But there's still some lessons to be learned. You won't understand economics, until you understand that no tax system ever gets 100% of GDP even in your crash scenario. Economies are not just a bunch of abstract numbers. Economies are people, you know. We aren't machines that you can set at a certain speed. The USSR tried to get 100% of production under state control, and it had a thriving underground economy (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900922&slug=1094485). From the article, "In a way, this is the real economy, and it touches all of us, every day of our lives,'' said Yuri Shchekoshikin, a deputy in the national legislature.

If you can read that article and tell me that you still think 100% of production can get taxed anywhere, then we can agree that your worldview simply will never mesh with my worldview. The reason why you aren't getting more than 20% is because people feel that they've given enough at that level, and they either stop doing as much production, or they find things to produce that aren't on the government radar. Usually both.

Quote

Your graph only account for federal government revenues too. Including state and local government show that revenue can and indeed did raise since 1943. The large bump in 1943-1944 itself is an exemple that the federal government revenue can raise if need be.
(http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/usgr_chart3p22.png)

That doesn't square with the BLS data, on the website that you've already linked. Even the federal data for 1944-45 is different. I prefer to stick with federal tax revenue from the BLS website, because those have good data collection. There are 89,000 local governments in America. Those local revenues are all estimates, you realize? Change the assumptions in the estimates over decades, and the data of the estimates change with the assumptions.

Nevertheless. Want to ask yourself why revenues were high in 1999 and 2007? Was it the higher tax rates? You'd get away with that argument in 1999 before the Bush tax cuts, but why was there a fall in revenues before the tax cuts actually took effect? Oh, the economy melted in the Tech Bubble. What about 2007? No tax raises came before the highest revenues ever. It was simply a period of sustained growth. Then, tax revenue fell because of the Housing Bubble. This chart also proves your assumptions wrong. The revenues here don't match the tax rate levels. They match periods of extended prosperity.

The tax rates don't matter much.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 08:57:53 am

Yeah, people like Socrates and Gallileo, for example.

hahahahahaha

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 10:29:23 am

Here's another good example of an underground market. Some towns in Greece have begun doing local commerce in a new currency called the Tem. It's a good way to get around the stiff taxes and fees, which aren't even close to 100% of GDP yet, but they're high enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RI38zFz9WTM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RI38zFz9WTM)

When people stop believing in the government institutions, they create their own.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 05, 2013, 10:53:27 am

This is so ripe for mocking and here I've gone and promised not to argue on these boards.  :(
It's gonna be a long three years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on January 05, 2013, 11:12:31 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 08:57:53 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 04, 2013, 07:57:17 pm

I do think that people who espouse things that are objectively and demonstrably untrue should be called liars or idiots until they stop espousing those things

Yeah, people like Socrates and Gallileo, for example. What idiots. Make them drink hemlock because they're liars. If they have the nerve to publish a book, burn the books, too. Our objective truth is objective. It's objective because we said it's objective.

Yes, do compare your poor old embattled ideas about whether top marginal incomes should be taxed at 35% or 39% to the argument of whether the sun revolves around the Earth.  I take words like "objective" and "demonstrable" quite seriously thank you.  Which leads me to a question.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 08:57:53 am

Want to ask yourself why revenues were high in 1999 and 2007? Was it the higher tax rates? You'd get away with that argument in 1999 before the Bush tax cuts, but why was there a fall in revenues before the tax cuts actually took effect? Oh, the economy melted in the Tech Bubble. What about 2007? No tax raises came before the highest revenues ever. It was simply a period of sustained growth. Then, tax revenue fell because of the Housing Bubble. This chart also proves your assumptions wrong. The revenues here don't match the tax rate levels. They match periods of extended prosperity.

The tax rates don't matter much.

I like how you point out that higher tax rates would have contributed to higher government revenue in 1999, and then say that taxes rates don't matter because a decade of bubble growth later tax revenue happened to surpass what it was under a higher rate.  Would it not then follow that if tax rates had been the same in 2007 as they were in 1999, that 2007 revenue would have been even higher?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 01:04:54 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 04, 2013, 07:57:17 pm

I do think that people who espouse things that are Yes, do compare your poor old embattled ideas about whether top marginal incomes should be taxed at 35% or 39% to the argument of whether the sun revolves around the Earth.  I take words like "objective" and "demonstrable" quite seriously thank you.  Which leads me to a question.

No, it has nothing to do with one particular issue being discussed. It's my distaste for your proposed solution to disagreement, regardless of the issues involved.

I find your remarks advocating mean-spirited debate highly objectionable. You should never assume that you know the objective truth. And then to use that false perception of yourself as omniscient to give yourself permission to debate in ways that many more discerning debaters than you throughout history have avoided from a sense of mere decency alone: that is the substance of my objections. Not this piddly matter of the tax rates.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 08:57:53 am

Want to ask yourself why revenues were high in 1999 and 2007? Was it the higher tax rates? You'd get away with that argument in 1999 before the Bush tax cuts, but why was there a fall in revenues before the tax cuts actually took effect? Oh, the economy melted in the Tech Bubble. What about 2007? No tax raises came before the highest revenues ever. It was simply a period of sustained growth. Then, tax revenue fell because of the Housing Bubble. This chart also proves your assumptions wrong. The revenues here don't match the tax rate levels. They match periods of extended prosperity.

The tax rates don't matter much.

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 05, 2013, 11:12:31 am

I like how you point out that higher tax rates would have contributed to higher government revenue in 1999

Would have? The tax rates were higher in 1999. Tax revenues had been ramping up for most of the decade under the same tax rates. The amount of revenue coming in ramps up during sustained periods of growth. That's objectively true. The tax rates weren't changing as tax revenues increased as a ratio of GDP. The economy broke in mid-2000 in this thing called the Tech Bubble. The tax receipts went down for 2001. He might be tempted to say the tax cuts did all of that, but the same steep drop in tax revenues happened in 2008 when no tax cuts at all were made, therefore it's a shaky claim. 2008 proves that 2001 was due more to the Tech Bubble--which was a huge deal, btw, if you can't remember that far back.

Frankly, I don't even understand what you're claiming I said, or how it makes some kind of point for you. You're telling me what I said; and objectively, it's not the same as what I actually wrote. That's verifiable by comparing the two paragraphs. So under your rules, we call you an idiot and a liar, right? Oh, wait, it's your objective truth that matters, not anyone else's objective truth. Gotcha.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 01:26:35 pm

Well, you really do have a gift for letting the parts that disturb you drop. Okay, there is tons of local government. But state revenues also rose, and there is only 50 of them, for which data is reliably available. So explain that raise in the level of revenue that apparently cannot raise at all.

And yes, economic boom raise revenues and bust lower it. That's not the point. Actually, it destroy your previous argument that revenue where stable at 20% of GDP.

So please come back when you have a consistant worldview based on facts rather than just dismissing stuff that you don't like and acting inconsistant like a goddamn climate denier (or any other kind of reality denier actually).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on January 05, 2013, 01:41:56 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 01:04:54 pm

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 05, 2013, 11:12:31 am

I like how you point out that higher tax rates would have contributed to higher government revenue in 1999

Would have? The tax rates were higher in 1999. Tax revenues had been ramping up for most of the decade under the same tax rates. The amount of revenue coming in ramps up during sustained periods of growth. That's objectively true. The tax rates weren't changing as tax revenues increased as a ratio of GDP. The economy broke in mid-2000 in this thing called the Tech Bubble. The tax receipts went down for 2001. He might be tempted to say the tax cuts did all of that, but the same steep drop in tax revenues happened in 2008 when no tax cuts at all were made, therefore it's a shaky claim. 2008 proves that 2001 was due more to the Tech Bubble--which was a huge deal, btw, if you can't remember that far back.

Frankly, I don't even understand what you're claiming I said, or how it makes some kind of point for you. You're telling me what I said; and objectively, it's not the same as what I actually wrote. That's verifiable by comparing the two paragraphs. So under your rules, we call you an idiot and a liar, right? Oh, wait, it's your objective truth that matters, not anyone else's objective truth. Gotcha.

Okay, first I specifically said that I didn't want any personal crap like that in this thread, because I don't make the rules on this forum.  Second, holy Hell are you taking this shit personally and seem to have some caustic idea of what 'objective' means.  And third and most importantly, you could bone up a little on some reading comprehension.  Let's review.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 08:57:53 am

Want to ask yourself why revenues were high in 1999 and 2007? Was it the higher tax rates? You'd get away with that argument in 1999 before the Bush tax cuts, but why was there a fall in revenues before the tax cuts actually took effect? Oh, the economy melted in the Tech Bubble. What about 2007? No tax raises came before the highest revenues ever. It was simply a period of sustained growth. Then, tax revenue fell because of the Housing Bubble. This chart also proves your assumptions wrong. The revenues here don't match the tax rate levels. They match periods of extended prosperity.

The tax rates don't matter much.

Tax revenue was high in 1999, low after 2001, high again in 2007, low after that.  The economy was booming in 1999, low after 2001, high again in 2007, low after that.  Taxes were high in 1999, low after that.  None of that is in dispute, and yes I was also alive ten years ago.

You made statements there that I'm wondering how you reconcile: "Want to ask yourself why revenues were high in 1999 and 2007? Was it the higher tax rates? You'd get away with that argument in 1999 before the Bush tax cuts..." and "The tax rates don't matter much."  I'm asking, would it not then follow that if tax rates were the same in 2007 as they were in 1999, two points when the economy was booming, that the tax revenue in 2007 would have been a lot higher?

And if so, does that not then mean that tax rates do in fact matter?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 03:41:27 pm

I apologize, if you didn't mean "objective" as a codeword for "I disagree with this" but that is usually the case with most people. Given the known slant here, sometimes I get a persecution complex, heh. Anyway, I think "liar" and "idiot" should be used sparingly, because it takes a long time to really understand other viewpoints. Particularly when the topics are complicated.

Quote

You made statements there that I'm wondering how you reconcile: "Want to ask yourself why revenues were high in 1999 and 2007? Was it the higher tax rates? You'd get away with that argument in 1999 before the Bush tax cuts..." and "The tax rates don't matter much."  I'm asking, would it not then follow that if tax rates were the same in 2007 as they were in 1999, two points when the economy was booming, that the tax revenue in 2007 would have been a lot higher?

Since 1945, we've never breached 20% by more than mere decimals, and never more than one year at a time. You could say that we might have done it in 2007 without the Bush tax cuts, but that's a hypothetical that can't be known. What we do know is that it hasn't happened before. Tax rates have been raised without increases in actual revenues, like in 1990 and again later in the 90s, but we've never seen sustained tax revenues over 20% of GDP under any tax policy for 85 years of data.

You could say "this time is different" but on what strength would it be different this time? Tax rates have been much higher historically, and the revenues were always the same percentage.

Quote from: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 01:26:35 pm

Well, you really do have a gift for letting the parts that disturb you drop. Okay, there is tons of local government. But state revenues also rose, and there is only 50 of them, for which data is reliably available. So explain that raise in the level of revenue that apparently cannot raise at all.

One state taxes this way; another taxes that way. Seven states have no income tax at all. Right now. Further back in history? I don't even know the historical tax policies, and neither do you, and neither does anyone here. You give me an impossible task and then jeer at me when I can't do it. Obviously, though, if states choose low tax policies, they get low taxes. Over time, more states have become centralised and demanded more taxes.

State and local governments are lower to the ground, so they have many means of raising revenue that the federal government cannot do. When a local or state policeman stops a speeding driver, that's state and local revenue. So shall we put federal FBI agents on the highways to make the same revenues for the federal government that state and local governments can make with their police? The federal government isn't close enough to ground level to implement many of the local revenue strategies.

You are asking me to compare your apples to my orange. That's why I pass over this.

Quote

And yes, economic boom raise revenues and bust lower it. That's not the point. Actually, it destroy your previous argument that revenue where stable at 20% of GDP.

No. Not revenues, Sheb. Revenues as a percentage of GDP. That's a key difference. That revenues should increase in an economic boom is obvious because the economy is larger. Half of a barrel is a bit more than half of a teaspoon. Obviously. However, the observation that revenues as a percentage of GDP should also increase is not something that you can airily pass over as obvious. It isn't obvious, and I'm not sure that you even understand yet.

If you set a tax at a certain rate, then in your thinking, you get that rate, right? So in any economic conditions, you might have higher or lower revenues, but you'll always have the same percentage that you set. Nope. That's not the data. The tax rates don't fix the amount of the pie that the government gets. That is the objective data in the the charts and spreadsheets. Prosperity sets the percentages, not the nominal tax rates.

Percentages.

Quote

Actually, it destroy your previous argument that revenue where stable at 20% of GDP.  So please come back when you have a consistant worldview based on facts rather than just dismissing stuff that you don't like and acting inconsistant like a goddamn climate denier (or any other kind of reality denier actually).

Hi. I'm back.

And I'm here to tell you that claiming I said the tax revenues had to be stable at exactly 20% is merely convenient horseshit. When I said there's a cap around 20%, I used words like "around" and "approximately" on purpose. I meant there's an empirical cap in the data from what we can see over 85 years of records, which is a good length to have data. I did not say that it was an immutable law of nature.

Use common sense. I show a chart where there's clearly variation, and even small points where it breaks 20% just barely, and then I say there's a cap around 20% of GDP. Now you claim that I said that the revenues are always 20% and never 19.9% or 20.1%. Does that seem an honest summary of what I've been saying?

You want to end this discussion, and you want to do so while declaring your victory in order to feel good. Fine! You win. But don't put words into my mouth while doing so.

In closing, let this be noted. Right now the tax revenues are around 15%. Historically, there's a lot of upward movement possible: at least another 5% is historically possible. You could get as much as $800 billion more dollars out of the economy. But tax rates won't do it. We need prosperity. Prosperity sets the percentage. You just can't point to a tax raise that has managed to change the revenues as a percentage of GDP.

The earth may not move around the sun... and yet it moves!  :)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on January 05, 2013, 05:53:31 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 03:41:27 pm

We need prosperity. Prosperity sets the percentage.

And this is what I don't get.  We have prosperity.  We have shitloads of resources going to waste.  Necessary stuff like food and shelter.  We have at least 3x more empty homes than homeless people.  How is that not prosperity?  But apparently we have to be prosperous before we can be prosperous?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 06:16:10 pm

Okay. WTF.

1) Your 20% of GDP aren't only income tax either. It's mostly corporate tax, income tax and payroll tax but mixed with a bunch of other things. So please apply the same standard to your numbers that you apply to mine.

2) See above. It's not only income tax, but a whole loads of tax put together. My guess would be it's because people and corporation and stuff earn more and move in higher tax brackets. I must say it seemed much more evident then, dunno why.

3) Since you suddenly seemed to understnad the difference between % of GDP and obsolute revenue, why did you claim several time that a reduction in output would lower revenue as a percentage of GDP? It would lower GDP alright, but that's it.

4) Your graph witht the 20% stuff is pure, refined shit. It's an aggreggate of revenue that you compare to the top tax rate, which is paid by a tiny % of household. It actually be surprising if there was any correlation.

Now, let's use some real data. Here is the revenue from personnal income tax over the years.

(http://i.imgur.com/39Zv2.png)

It's in % of GDP and the date come from the whitehouse website page I linked earlier.

Now, look at this.

(http://i.imgur.com/7ntQo.png)

Corporate revenues. They've been freefalling since the 40's. That's money we can tax. And don't get me started on the carbon tax.
 
P.S. If you want to redo your graph with the rate and income properly, here are all the tax rates for all the bracket since 1913 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist02z3.xls). Have fun!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 05, 2013, 06:16:10 pm

1) Your 20% of GDP aren't only income tax either. It's mostly corporate tax, income tax and payroll tax but mixed with a bunch of other things. So please apply the same standard to your numbers that you apply to mine.

I'm aware of that. I have always said tax revenues, not income tax revenues. What's the problem?

Quote

2) See above. It's not only income tax, but a whole loads of tax put together. My guess would be it's because people and corporation and stuff earn more and move in higher tax brackets. I must say it seemed much more evident then, dunno why.

My guess was that people simply report more hidden income, and take fewer legal tax deductions than they could have, because they're flush with money and not counting nickels and dimes like a recession. When I get a big paycheck, I splurge and don't care if I could have saved a little here and a little there. 

Now, if it is simply moving into higher tax brackets, then tax rates matter. If tax rates matter, then the tax raises in 1990 and 1993 probably spiked the revenues for those years in your own helpful little charts that isolate income taxes from other tax revenues. Oh! No sudden spike in either of those years. The nominal income tax rate simply didn't matter in 1990 and 1993. You're basing your guess on something that your data says didn't matter in a different situation. 

I'll give you the point that your guess makes sense if you actually think the rates set on tax brackets matter. But it doesn't in your own graphs.

Quote

3) Since you suddenly seemed to understnad the difference between % of GDP and obsolute revenue, why did you claim several time that a reduction in output would lower revenue as a percentage of GDP? It would lower GDP alright, but that's it.

Because it does. Look at the graphs. Look at your own graphs. In 2007, the income and corporate taxes were a higher percentage of GDP than the next year on your graph. GDP is another word for output, btw.

Quote

4) Your graph witht the 20% stuff is pure, refined shit. It's an aggreggate of revenue that you compare to the top tax rate, which is paid by a tiny % of household. It actually be surprising if there was any correlation.

You're spitting all of this at me as though I didn't say it was the top tax-rate all along, and you've suddenly discovered something sneaky. Why the venom now? Pure shit why? Because you say so? I don't feel like making graphs. The top tax rates is indicative enough of overall tax policy. Putting all the brackets would be messy and serve no real point. If you know the tax bills in question, like EGTTRA in 2001, the top tax-rate is generally moving in the same direction as other brackets.

You're the one that wants these useless graphs that actually wouldn't prove you a bit more right. So go ahead.

Quote

Now, let's use some real data.

The chart I showed used the data from total receipts, which is in a column right next to the income and corporate data that you've used here. You've basically said that if my total revenues are fake, your two graphs here are from the same "fake" government source.

Quote

Corporate revenues. They've been freefalling since the 40's. That's money we can tax. And don't get me started on the carbon tax.

GDP is a single pie. Corporate tax revenues went down, but other revenues filled them in. The total revenues stayed approximately the same, despite wide swings in constituent parts of the whole. What does that tell you about the connected nature of these things? Corporations are just people and goods. Taxing corporations is taxing the people in those corporations. You can do it, sure, but don't look at it as a whole new way to generate tax that isn't taking money from the same people as the income taxes were.  ::)
 

Quote

P.S. If you want to redo your graph with the rate and income properly, here are all the tax rates for all the bracket since 1913 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist02z3.xls). Have fun!

Seems to me that you're the one who wants that drudgery. That means that you do it. I think the top rate is illustrative enough of overall tax policy. Besides, I heard from Obama that taxing only the rich was a viable strategy, so the top rate has to be a huge chunk of the whole!

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 05, 2013, 05:53:31 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 03:41:27 pm

We need prosperity. Prosperity sets the percentage.

And this is what I don't get.  We have prosperity.  We have shitloads of resources going to waste.  Necessary stuff like food and shelter.  We have at least 3x more empty homes than homeless people.  How is that not prosperity?  But apparently we have to be prosperous before we can be prosperous?

Those are the remnants of a past prosperity. We tax new income and new gains, not accumulated old wealth. There are a lot of empty houses, true, but how many of those houses were made this year? That's why you won't get taxes from them.

If a resource is going to waste, that's an indication that there is a lack of prosperity, actually. Prosperity is when resources are allocated to the places where they're needed and valued. You could also live in a cabin above the largest oil reserves ever found. You'd be poor, and the oil would exist in an unused state. The oil doesn't create prosperity until it's being extracted and used by people that know how to use it.

I suppose you could let the homeless use these homes, but then giving the homes away for free incurs some problems. For one, how do you know that the homes are being given to owners that value them? There are some projects in the inner cities that looked pretty decent when they first were built... but the occupants had no sense of the value that they were being given for free.

More importantly for the rest of us, the reaon why homeless people don't have those homes is that it would cause huge losses to banks if foreclosed homes evaluated at a certain worth on their balance sheets suddenly were distributed to homeless people for much less than appraised. When the balance sheet contracts, banks have less to lend out to other home-buyers and business-owners, fewer businesses can start up or expand their operations, fewer jobs and fewer taxes and less production. In short, if the banks are forced to sell the homes for less, the economy tanks even worse. Banks have garnered quite a bit of bad press, and mistakes were defintely made, but they still serve essential functions that support the economy.

Additionally, let's not forget that many homeless people have trouble functioning in society. Saddling them with a house in which they'd need to do household repairs and pay the electric bills, etc., would probably be worse than giving them care in a more structured environment.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Eagle_eye on January 05, 2013, 10:59:30 pm

And so you seize all the bank's assets, outlaw private banking, set up a government bank that might actually lend responsibly, and give the uninhabited houses away.

Then again, that will never happen. But as it stands, banks are barely lending at all. Losing money on homes isn't going to make them lend less, because they're really only making incredibly secure loans at the moment right now anyway. After all, why risk the money when they could instead buy US treasury bonds with their interest free bailout money, and collect free of risk?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 06, 2013, 05:05:44 am

Okay. I give up. If you hark about how many states have no income tax at all so we can't take care of that data then fallback on your data being a mix of stuff, and if you don't see the inherent stupidity of comparing top income tax bracket to the revenue brought by a whole lots of different taxes, I don't really see the point in arguing with you anymore. We're not on the same planet.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 06, 2013, 12:22:17 pm

Quote from: Eagle_eye on January 05, 2013, 10:59:30 pm

And so you seize all the bank's assets, outlaw private banking, set up a government bank that might actually lend responsibly, and give the uninhabited houses away.

It's hard to imagine why government banks would lend more responsibly, particular when political elites are already incredibly incestous with banking elites. If you gave Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the mandate to create a government bank for the people, I guarantee you a Goldman-Sachs operative gets the nod.  :P

And really, China has state-owned banks, and I can't find where it helps the poor. I still manage to walk past at least four homeless people per a city block here.

Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2013, 05:05:44 am

Okay. I give up. If you hark about how many states have no income tax at all so we can't take care of that data then fallback on your data being a mix of stuff, and if you don't see the inherent stupidity of comparing top income tax bracket to the revenue brought by a whole lots of different taxes, I don't really see the point in arguing with you anymore. We're not on the same planet.

Give up? I've never felt that you were actually trying to understand, so nothing has really changed, has it? You wanted to find a way logically to dismiss the facts in the data before your eyes, but that didn't work; so now you amusingly dismiss the federal tax data itself as irrelevent. And that's absurd. By your logic, if total tax revenue is meaningless, then GDP is also meaningless because it's an aggregate of oh so very many different sectors of the economy. Your quibbles and attempts to dismiss total tax revenue data really are that ludicrous and transparent.

In future, you are barred from ever mentioning GDP, because we all know that you don't believe GDP is valid. Have fun on Jupiter. :D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 06, 2013, 12:40:58 pm

No, the problem is not that you take an aggregate, is that you take an aggregate, compare it to the top tax rate of one of it's constituent and then conclude taxes have no effect on revenues. Also you specifically choose your aggregate to suit your view.

It's like if I took GDP growth, compared it to sales taxes on cookies, and concluded that taxes have no impact on GDP.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 06, 2013, 01:13:09 pm

Quote from: Sheb on January 06, 2013, 12:40:58 pm

No, the problem is not that you take an aggregate, is that you take an aggregate, compare it to the top tax rate of one of it's constituent and then conclude taxes have no effect on revenues. Also you specifically choose your aggregate to suit your view.

It's like if I took GDP growth, compared it to sales taxes on cookies, and concluded that taxes have no impact on GDP.

I reject that analogy, actually, because the proposed analogues don't match. Top rates are not to cookie sale taxes, as total revenues are to GDP. I think you know that.

I'm open to seeing how top rates don't match similar tax policy into other brackets. Do you claim that top rates aren't moving in the same directions as other brackets? They seem to be moving together in the same directions to me, but averaging them into a single curve is more footwork than I care to do.

Regarding corporate taxes, nominally, those rates are the highest rates in the world. That's why we get so little revenue from them. The higher the tax rate, the more incentive to avoid it.

That's a key reality check when discussing taxes. People don't mindlessly pay the set rate. When we started, you said that governments could set taxes at 100% of production and they would get 100% of production, even if that production was lower as a result. Then I showed you an article about the Soviet black markets. They were trying to get 100% of production, and the black markets became the real economy of the USSR.  Do you still think that 100% of production can be captured by the state?

I'd say only 60% or so, even in countries trying to get 100%. Nordic countries are hitting the limits right now.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on January 06, 2013, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 06, 2013, 01:13:09 pm

Regarding corporate taxes, nominally, those rates are the highest rates in the world. That's why we get so little revenue from them. The higher the tax rate, the more incentive to avoid it.

That's a key reality check when discussing taxes. People don't mindlessly pay the set rate. When we started, you said that governments could set taxes at 100% of production and they would get 100% of production, even if that production was lower as a result. Then I showed you an article about the Soviet black markets. They were trying to get 100% of production, and the black markets became the real economy of the USSR.  Do you still think that 100% of production can be captured by the state?

I'd say only 60% or so, even in countries trying to get 100%. Nordic countries are hitting the limits right now.

It's statements like this that make it really hard to follow what you even think you're arguing about.  Especially the corporate tax: "The higher the tax rate, the more incentive to avoid it."  You make it sound like there's some effective corporate tax rate where businesses will go "well it's not really worth the effort to find all the possible deductions and money shuffling needed to avoid it, so we'll just pay the set rate".  Entities that can afford to the proper accounting will always attempt to avoid every expense possible.

You make it sound like the nominal tax rate (which no corporation in America actually pays) being high causes low revenue, and that perhaps lowering it would raise the revenue (which of course would only work if it were less expensive to pay the tax than hiring accountants).  You might be interested to hear that the real world cause of America's very low corporate tax revenue despite having one of the highest nominal rates in the world is not some vague 'black market' nonsense, but that the corporate tax structure has so many rebates and incentives that almost two-thirds of American companies pay effectively no corporate taxes, and quite a few (namely oil companies) qualify for so many rebates that they actually earn money back from the IRS.

Not to the mention that so much effective taxable income is not unreported but rather that the taxes on it go unenforced, because the IRS is so underbudget and understaffed (no really) that they have to adopt a policy of only pursuing issues that can't be caught by a computer.  Interesting fact: Every dollar spent to fund the IRS translates into ten dollars of revenue.  Coincidentally or not, almost every Republican budget proposed for the last thirty years has called for cutting IRS funding, since that's one part of the government that everyone outside of policy wonks loves to hear getting the screws.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on January 06, 2013, 10:41:54 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

Those are the remnants of a past prosperity. We tax new income and new gains, not accumulated old wealth. There are a lot of empty houses, true, but how many of those houses were made this year? That's why you won't get taxes from them.

They're only remnants in relation to the number game.  In terms of real stuff, it's still current prosperity.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

If a resource is going to waste, that's an indication that there is a lack of prosperity, actually. Prosperity is when resources are allocated to the places where they're needed and valued. You could also live in a cabin above the largest oil reserves ever found. You'd be poor, and the oil would exist in an unused state. The oil doesn't create prosperity until it's being extracted and used by people that know how to use it.

If the only thing denying a population prosperity is improper allocation of resources, then why am I wrong for criticizing the system we rely on to allocate resources?

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

I suppose you could let the homeless use these homes, but then giving the homes away for free incurs some problems. For one, how do you know that the homes are being given to owners that value them? There are some projects in the inner cities that looked pretty decent when they first were built... but the occupants had no sense of the value that they were being given for free.

That's because value is relative.  The people occupying a house might not care as much about what it looks like so much as they care about the fact that they have a house to live in.  Your perspective on the value of another person's stuff is different from their own.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

More importantly for the rest of us, the reaon why homeless people don't have those homes is that it would cause huge losses to banks if foreclosed homes evaluated at a certain worth on their balance sheets suddenly were distributed to homeless people for much less than appraised. When the balance sheet contracts, banks have less to lend out to other home-buyers and business-owners, fewer businesses can start up or expand their operations, fewer jobs and fewer taxes and less production. In short, if the banks are forced to sell the homes for less, the economy tanks even worse. Banks have garnered quite a bit of bad press, and mistakes were defintely made, but they still serve essential functions that support the economy.

"We need the number game, because it's how we allocate resources.  We can't allocate resources because it fucks up the number game."

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

Additionally, let's not forget that many homeless people have trouble functioning in society. Saddling them with a house in which they'd need to do household repairs and pay the electric bills, etc., would probably be worse than giving them care in a more structured environment.

There's some truth to this, but there's also a lot of stereotyping and ignoring side-issues.  I agree with you that people who have trouble functioning in society should be provided structured helpful environments.  However, that's a pure social project requiring large amounts of public investment.  I would also disagree that such people make up a majority of homeless under current economic conditions.  Even given the premise that the homeless are worthless to society and deserve not a single fuck, what's the justification for homeless children, who are completely blameless for their situation?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 08:51:51 am

Quote from: Aqizzar on January 06, 2013, 03:25:37 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 06, 2013, 01:13:09 pm

They were trying to get 100% of production, and the black markets became the real economy of the USSR.

You make it sound like the nominal tax rate (which no corporation in America actually pays) being high causes low revenue, and that perhaps lowering it would raise the revenue (which of course would only work if it were less expensive to pay the tax than hiring accountants).  You might be interested to hear that the real world cause of America's very low corporate tax revenue despite having one of the highest nominal rates in the world is not some vague 'black market' nonsense, but that the corporate tax structure has so many rebates and incentives that almost two-thirds of American companies pay effectively no corporate taxes, and quite a few (namely oil companies) qualify for so many rebates that they actually earn money back from the IRS.

The black market is not vague. It happened in the USSR, and it is happening in Greece. I distinctly said that black markets occur after a certain threshold in tax rates, and most modern countries aren't there yet. The goal was to force Sheb to own up that 100% of GDP is not obtainable in taxes, but he has said exactly that before. If nothing else, I would like to accomplish making others here see the tax system as more organic and less mechanical. We're used to playing video games where we set the tax slider to 100% and get 100%, then crush whatever rebellions occur. In fact, if you set the tax to 100% in real life, your system becomes a joke and people develop their own underground economy. Tax rebellions can occur, but it's more common to simply ignore illegitimately high taxes. Endemically ignore. Corruption becomes cultural and is sustained even after the system changes. In Russia and in China, two places where there used to be a 100% tax, to little surprise, a strong ethos of corruption prevails even after their markets have liberalized!

America is far from 100% tax, so we're far from having a strong underground economy or a culture of gleeful corruption. Other than drugs. Punitive cigarette taxes have created a healthy black market production there, to name but one. Yet, where taxes are only moderately high, the risks aren't worth it. However, we do have a variety of gray options in the legal economy; and the higher the taxes, the more people avail themselves of gray options. You can underreport, you can report and then make improper deductions, etc. Outright non-payment probably pales in comparison to little fudged numbers here and there.

The difference between 35% and 39% tax rates seems small to us, but there's a marginal tax-payer somewhere, sitting on his ill-gotten gains, and thinking "Sure, 35% is tough but fair... but 39%... I'm just not feeling it. Time to hide some of this stuff." These marginal cases add up, the higher the tax rates are pushed. Each percentage is another few thousand marginal cases pushed over the edge. And often the underreporting is so small that enforcement would be more expensive than the recovered revenue.

Corporate taxes. Difficult issue. Corporate taxes are lower because of incentives and rebates, but also unreported and misreported profits as well. In particular, companies can record profits from high-tax countries in lower-tax countries. This use of tax shelters shouldn't be discounted as small. There's a risk that it could be discovered and enforced, but the risk in penalties and legal fees is lower than the tax.

Quote

Interesting fact: Every dollar spent to fund the IRS translates into ten dollars of revenue.  Coincidentally or not, almost every Republican budget proposed for the last thirty years has called for cutting IRS funding, since that's one part of the government that everyone outside of policy wonks loves to hear getting the screws.

I think $12 billion is enough to get the job done. Any private organization other than Apple would do flips if their budgets were $12 billion. And almost half is alloted to enforcement. Big Brother is plenty fat. Any extra funding is going to hit diminishing returns. If you have a $100k a year IRS agent burning a small businessman under his magnifying glass for a $1000 improper deduction, that's a waste of time.

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 06, 2013, 10:41:54 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

There are a lot of empty houses, true, but how many of those houses were made this year?

They're only remnants in relation to the number game.  In terms of real stuff, it's still current prosperity.

Actually, most of them need repairs. Mold has infected large numbers of vacant houses (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/13/137629788/as-number-of-foreclosed-homes-grows-so-does-mold). When homes aren't heated and air doesn't circulate, that happens. About $5000 per a house to treat this. Old prosperity deteriorates rapidly, especially unused.

Quote

If the only thing denying a population prosperity is improper allocation of resources, then why am I wrong for criticizing the system we rely on to allocate resources?

Firstly, our present system is partly what you desire. We do try to give houses to poor people. We call them subprime mortgages. You can hate that it collapsed, but recognize that the present system was trying to do as you wanted. And maybe that's why the resources were misallocated in the Housing Bubble. Those people needed homes, sure, but some of those foreclosed houses are pretty big, and required a lot of construction. Maybe the people in those foreclosed McMansions didn't need houses quite that big, requiring quite that many raw resources in their construction? Resources were being allocated to recipients who couldn't reciprocate similar production levels. Because of interference.

So now, keeping in mind that the numbers game is already rigged and unnatural, it does need changes, and changes will happen in a decade or two. Possibly huge changes. Possibly what we least should desire! Criticize, by all means.The only part truly wrong with your present critique is a lack of an explanation how a new system works better, how a select few elites wouldn't easily subvert it as usual, and how the transition could be made smoothly without the butchery and famines the last time capitalism was radically overhauled.

Quote

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

the inner cities ... occupants had no sense of the value that they were being given for free.

That's because value is relative.  The people occupying a house might not care as much about what it looks like so much as they care about the fact that they have a house to live in.  Your perspective on the value of another person's stuff is different from their own.

Value is relative. True. However, there is bound to be a time when you want your stuff to be someone else's stuff, so the opinions of other people still matter. Sane people respectful of their own and others' property tend to like clean environments. They shop for houses in as good a neighborhood as they can budget. Run-down neighborhoods are home to some of these people who are down on their luck, but also to some other less functioning people who simply don't care about their own property... or about yours... or even about whether yours isn't theirs. And that's called burglary and mugging!

As an irrevelant personal aside, just frigging yesterday, my wife and I were walking down the street and a motorcycle mugger grabbed her purse and dragged her about 20 feet. She held on, and after a shocked pause, I ran at the mugger, so he fled. Feel my pain, please.  :(

Quote

"We need the number game, because it's how we allocate resources.  We can't allocate resources because it fucks up the number game."

Yep. Those resources were spent on houses because we artificially subverted the numbers game to give less-productive people the means to order their construction. Without subprime mortgages, those houses wouldn't be there, at least not that large a house that required that many construction materials and that many construction workers to build. To own something, I have to produce something else and get some roughly equivalent numbers in my wallet.

Not to say a pure classically liberal economy is a perfect utopia--life is full of shit, and you have to eat it--but what I am saying is that you can't pin every single failing of the present system 100% squarely on the pure numbers. We've got a lot of people bending and fudging the numbers behind the scenes.   

Quote

what's the justification for homeless children, who are completely blameless for their situation?

I'd hope that there aren't too many of those. Foster care is hardly a blessing, but it's better than the street, right?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 07, 2013, 09:21:48 am

This thread has become so full of derp, it might be time to put it out to pasture. By which I mean, take it around behind the barn and give it the Ol' Yeller treatment. Single slug, right between the eyes. She won't feel a thing.

She's been a good thread, but she's gotten a bit long in the tooth, and now she's starting to foam at the mouth.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Darvi on January 07, 2013, 09:27:53 am

No, not Elly! D:

Or is she called Amy? I'm not sure about that.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 09:54:01 am

Quote from: RedKing on January 07, 2013, 09:21:48 am

This thread has become so full of derp, it might be time to put it out to pasture. By which I mean, take it around behind the barn and give it the Ol' Yeller treatment. Single slug, right between the eyes. She won't feel a thing.

She's been a good thread, but she's gotten a bit long in the tooth, and now she's starting to foam at the mouth.

I'm about ready to call it quits anyway. I still don't see the derp in claiming that America has a 20% ceiling in the amount of GDP to tax revenues. GDP is the whole pie from which taxes are cut. 20% GDP is from 85 years of data under various tax policies that varied all tax brackets and in which Americans used to pay higher rates, top and median incomes, than now. QED.

Don't blame me when your boys failed to explain why higher tax rates were going to work this time.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 07, 2013, 10:34:30 am

I don't have "boys". (Well, I do have one, but I don't think you can fault a 2-year old for not satisfactorily explaining macroeconomic tax policy).

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Leafsnail on January 07, 2013, 11:48:58 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 08:51:51 am

"Sure, 35% is tough but fair... but 39%... I'm just not feeling it. Time to hide some of this stuff."

I'll take "things that nobody in the history of the world has ever said" for $200, please.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 12:23:33 pm

Quote from: Leafsnail on January 07, 2013, 11:48:58 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 08:51:51 am

"Sure, 35% is tough but fair... but 39%... I'm just not feeling it. Time to hide some of this stuff."

I'll take "things that nobody in the history of the world has ever said" for $200, please.

Fair enough, but you're being far too literal.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 07, 2013, 12:24:38 pm

Well, since your 20 % ceiling only hold water if you discount all data that doesn't fit it*, assume that the top marginal rate of the personnal income tax is a great indicator of the overall tax policy of the government**, and that Americans are genetically different from Northern Europeans***, I'm going to keep considering it bogus.

As for the 100%, it wasn't mean literally at first (Yes, I know I sound like a GOP lawmaker), but as an exemple because it looked like you were confusing % of GDP and gross revenue. I'm still not sure if you were confused or merely confusing.

Now, I know you meant one cannot capture 100% of output, and I'm not contesting that. But as a matter of fact, GDP is defined as "the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time." (That's from wiki) Black markets and tax evasion are, by definition, not part of GDP stricto-sensu.


*Like the fact that government revenue are on a steady raise since 1945 if you include local and state government. I'm pretty sure cops don't take 5% of GDP in speeding tickets.

**Hint: Right now the top marginal tax rate went up by four percentage point, but government revenue aren't going to change by much because the other rates didn't change. And I don't think corporate tax rate went up by four percentage point either.

*** If it's a cultural thing, you can change it, although it does take time. However I wouldn't expect it to stay constrant for 80 years.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 07, 2013, 02:22:23 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 09:54:01 am

QED.

Hell no.

1) QED is only used in context where a conclusion is reached from a set of axioms, not when it is based on empirical data. Your implied claim to mathematical accuracy is bogus, to say the least.

2) As you are making a claim in the field of science, you need to provide data to claim to be right [1]. You provide none.

3) Even if data had been provided, a certain amount of rigor is needed to reach a conclusion. Yours is more of a qualitative argument [2].



[1] Or maybe not, looking at neo-liberals.
[2] A euphemism coined by my father, who originally used it to call the arguments usually used by libertarians complete bullshit.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on January 07, 2013, 04:24:42 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 08:51:51 am

Quote from: SalmonGod on January 06, 2013, 10:41:54 pm

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 05, 2013, 09:28:54 pm

There are a lot of empty houses, true, but how many of those houses were made this year?

They're only remnants in relation to the number game.  In terms of real stuff, it's still current prosperity.

Actually, most of them need repairs. Mold has infected large numbers of vacant houses (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/13/137629788/as-number-of-foreclosed-homes-grows-so-does-mold). When homes aren't heated and air doesn't circulate, that happens. About $5000 per a house to treat this. Old prosperity deteriorates rapidly, especially unused.

In my opinion, that's why people shouldn't have been kicked out in the first place.  They were forced to leave their homes for what?  So those homes can sit empty and rot, and banks can fluff the value of their assets on paper?

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 08:51:51 am

So now, keeping in mind that the numbers game is already rigged and unnatural, it does need changes, and changes will happen in a decade or two. Possibly huge changes. Possibly what we least should desire! Criticize, by all means.The only part truly wrong with your present critique is a lack of an explanation how a new system works better, how a select few elites wouldn't easily subvert it as usual, and how the transition could be made smoothly without the butchery and famines the last time capitalism was radically overhauled.

I have a few things I can say here.  They're somewhat vague in the sense that they don't involve hard numbers or concrete action plans.  But this is because I don't think the problems with capitalism that we're discussing here can be reformed away.  Basic principles have to change and a lot of it has to take place at a cultural level.

I'm not going to get into it here, though, because I don't want to take over the thread with radical theorizing.  It's stuff I've already repeated a bunch of times all over the forum anyway.

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 08:51:51 am

Quote

what's the justification for homeless children, who are completely blameless for their situation?

I'd hope that there aren't too many of those. Foster care is hardly a blessing, but it's better than the street, right?

There's plenty. (http://banoosh.com/2012/12/18/number-of-homeless-students-hits-new-record-over-1-million/)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 08, 2013, 06:39:26 am

Not yet! One thing i would like to know before you decide to end it or not, is how much of this sorry list the population as a whole picked up, with any cases based on personal experience to be flagged as such and if not statistically backed.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 08, 2013, 07:54:07 am

Quote from: Trollheiming on January 07, 2013, 08:51:51 am

Quote

what's the justification for homeless children, who are completely blameless for their situation?

I'd hope that there aren't too many of those. Foster care is hardly a blessing, but it's better than the street, right?

Not... not so much, honestly. Foster care is a... bit of a tossup. It's sort of incredibly underfunded and undermanned to achieve reliable results, and there's a distinct shortage of people willing to care for foster children, meaning many case workers will often end up placing children with families that are... less than optimal.

I suppose you could say that foster care is sometimes better than living on the street, but I'd hesitate to give it better than even odds.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: SalmonGod on January 08, 2013, 07:56:50 am

Plenty of foster parents take on children with intent to exploit them one way or another, even today.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 08, 2013, 12:01:29 pm

Just out of curiosity: since a lot of people, myself included, feel this thread has outlived its usefulness, would it be a good idea if I started a replacement American Politics thread that can carry us over to, oh, 2015 when the primaries begin?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 08, 2013, 12:11:59 pm

Probably a good idea. American politics needs a place to call its own, otherwise it'll overwhelm the progressive thread, and then from there it'll spread to the happy, sad and WTF threads. Well, at least the sad and WTF threads.

We must follow a careful strategy of containment to keep American politics isolated. Maybe send in some weapons inspectors periodically or something.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 08, 2013, 12:22:22 pm

Beh, I'm gonna run out of internet here soon (we're moving house). If someone else (you, Redking, maybe, or Aqizzar) wants to set up an alternative thread, all power to you.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Owlbread on January 08, 2013, 06:11:58 pm

It's a pity this thread didn't hit the 1000 page mark before we pronounced it past-its-sell-by-date.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 08, 2013, 06:25:56 pm

How hard is it to program a spambot?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on January 08, 2013, 07:47:23 pm

Well, it did clear ten thousand posts.  That certainly is something.  I'll agree though, this thread has officially gotten too long in the tooth for its own good and is now circling nothing of substance.

I'll be locking it in a little while.  I'm just bidding a fond farewell to my fucking eyesore of a politics thread, it gave its all.  Catch you on the flip side, 2012.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 08, 2013, 07:50:00 pm

So, Bundestagswahlen 2013 thread? :P

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 08, 2013, 07:51:40 pm

It's too young to die!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 08, 2013, 08:04:38 pm

Quote from: mainiac on January 08, 2013, 07:51:40 pm

It's too young to die!

Hey, it outlived Mitt Romney's campaign. xD

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Frumple on January 08, 2013, 08:20:35 pm

Was on the first page, guess I should chime in on the (next to?) last. Fare ye' well, AEM. Even if you're just aim, poorly pronounced.

Any intent on doing this again come next presidential election, Aqi? Assuming you're still around, anyway.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on January 08, 2013, 08:25:04 pm

Quote from: Frumple on January 08, 2013, 08:20:35 pm

Any intent on doing this again come next presidential election, Aqi? Assuming you're still around, anyway.

Assuming there's still a forum here in 2016 and that I still inhabit it, yeah sure why not.  I'm sure I said the same thing in 2008.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 09, 2013, 04:32:11 am

Thanks Aquizzar. I't's been interesting, and I've picked up a lot i might not have otherwise :D.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Jervill on January 09, 2013, 06:50:40 am

...

We almost made it.  We almost made an entire thread without misspelling Aqizzar's name.  Alas, it was not to be.

Quote from: Novel on January 09, 2013, 04:32:11 am

Thanks Aquizzar. I't's been interesting, and I've picked up a lot i might not have otherwise :D.

;D

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Scoops Novel on January 09, 2013, 06:55:33 am

Damn you! Damn you and all my mirth!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 09, 2013, 06:58:25 am

Quote from: Jervill on January 09, 2013, 06:50:40 am

We almost made it.  We almost made an entire thread without misspelling Aqizzar's name.  Alas, it was not to be.

Check the first of mainiac's posts on page 369. Surprisingly, it's not of the 'U' variety, but still.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 09, 2013, 07:14:49 am

How on earth did you still know that?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 09, 2013, 07:20:43 am

He always misspells Aqizzar's name that way. It was but a formality to look for it in a thread of 700+ pages where both of them had been very active.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Sheb on January 09, 2013, 07:56:41 am

Well, this was a great thread (at least during the elections), and I really enjoyed your summaries of the GOP primaries. Thanks Aqizzar.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: misko27 on January 09, 2013, 09:57:21 am

But we still need a thread to discuss US politics in! At least until the semi-official start of campaigning (yes I know about the speculation. speculation != start though.)

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 09, 2013, 01:04:55 pm

inb4 no more thread to spam

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Helgoland on January 09, 2013, 01:08:15 pm

Let's hijack the thread and talk about ninjas, our seafaring forebears.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: FearfulJesuit on January 09, 2013, 01:10:58 pm

We ought to- the thread hasn't had a proper derail. Even the Randroidesque fapibusters were vaguely on-topic.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2013, 02:08:51 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on January 09, 2013, 01:08:15 pm

Let's hijack the thread and talk about ninjas, our seafaring forebears.

Ninjas were for fair sea bears?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Bauglir on January 09, 2013, 02:13:21 pm

Quote from: RedKing on January 09, 2013, 02:08:51 pm

Quote from: Helgoland on January 09, 2013, 01:08:15 pm

Let's hijack the thread and talk about ninjas, our seafaring forebears.

Ninjas were for fair sea bears?

Of course they were. They're amphibious mounts, with a bitchin' coat of fur to boot!

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Karlito on January 09, 2013, 02:23:57 pm

See four bears fairing?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MonkeyHead on January 09, 2013, 02:25:22 pm

C4 bearings?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 09, 2013, 02:44:14 pm

Sea rings bear fur?

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2013, 02:44:34 pm

I had a dream last night I was vice president.  But the vice president isn't important so I just went to work as usual and nothing changed.  I told someone I was vice president and he didn't believe me so I tried to wikipedia myself but I wasn't important enough to have a wikipedia page so he didn't believe me.  But then I realized that was total bullshit because I share a name with someone sorta famous so that should have come up on wikipedia but instead there was no page at all.  So that's when I knew I was in an episode of the X-files.

Not really on topic but if the threads going down I figured what the hell.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 09, 2013, 02:45:25 pm

Go home Biden, you're drunk.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: mainiac on January 09, 2013, 02:50:24 pm

How'd you know it was me? ???

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: RedKing on January 09, 2013, 03:23:41 pm

Are you hitting on a biker chick in front of her two burly male friends? If not, you're no Joe Biden.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 09, 2013, 03:30:40 pm

It's Never Over.

Title: Re: American Election Megathread - It's Over
Post by: Aqizzar on January 09, 2013, 06:44:30 pm

Alright, that was fun.

Peace out y'all.