QuoteSECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
By David Corn on Mon. September 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT
During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:
At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president...that's very interesting."
Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:
We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the five to six or seven percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're– but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below eight percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.
(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)
To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.
When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:
Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact....My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."
Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:
They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets re-elected, I don't know what will happen. I can– I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's— it really is frightening.
At the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly... so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."
Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.
COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video.
Dayum. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser)
I felt it imprudent to post this myself, as I would be deemed all partisan about it.
But way to go, Mittens. :thumbsup:
He's right, of course.
Spellus is even worse than you are, Money. He supports Obama because he's a crook, which is to say he's from Chicago.
So, this is one of those things we all know is true, but he's not supposed to say it, right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 06:13:16 PM
I felt it imprudent to post this myself, as I would be deemed all partisan about it.
Whereas that's not the case at all when Spellus posts it, as we believe him to be completely non-partisan. :)
I find it interesting and endlessly entertaining to watch the worst presidential campaign since Mondale '84 implode upon itself; it's like witnessing an astronomical phenomenon in real time. Fascinating.
Moar, plz. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 06:45:57 PM
I find it interesting and endlessly entertaining to watch the worst presidential campaign since Mondale '84 implode upon itself; it's like witnessing an astronomical phenomenon in real time. Fascinating.
How is this worse than McCain '08? Nothing Romney has done or could do was an error on the order of Palin.
This actually makes me like Romney more. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 06:22:27 PM
He's right, of course.
:huh:
Garbon, you really think that nearly half of the entire population of America are "beyond help"?
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2012, 07:00:52 PM
How is this worse than McCain '08? Nothing Romney has done or could do was an error on the order of Palin.
McCain didn't falter until his running mate choice. Until that point he had been running a competent, albeit unspectacular, campaign.
Mittens' campaign, on the other hand, has been assfucking itself since early in the primaries.
So far no surprises in those here coming out in support of comments.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 17, 2012, 06:39:02 PM
So, this is one of those things we all know is true, but he's not supposed to say it, right?
It is?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 07:02:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 06:22:27 PM
He's right, of course.
:huh:
Garbon, you really think that nearly half of the entire population of America are "beyond help"?
Funny I thought the article quoted him as saying:
QuoteThere are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Now, of course there are some inaccuracies in that statement but on the whole? I don't really see a problem with it other than such rhetoric isn't presidential.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 17, 2012, 06:39:02 PM
So, this is one of those things we all know is true, but he's not supposed to say it, right?
No. At the very, very best it's a massive overstatement.
If this is true, why do the poorest states in the Union go Republican?
I'm not much for math or statistical analysis, but I sincerely doubt that 47% of Americans qualify for that statement and all he implies.
In any case, it undermines his attempt to appear Presidential. When seeking to be POTUS, one would assume you have the cares and worries of 100% of Americans, not just folks who'll vote for you.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 07:15:04 PM
If this is true, why do the poorest states in the Union go Republican?
Because the Republicans have allied themselves with the Christian Right and these voters don't care about economic stuff... which is a shame for them, really.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 17, 2012, 07:16:50 PM
In any case, it undermines his attempt to appear Presidential. When seeking to be POTUS, one would assume you have the cares and worries of 100% of Americans, not just folks who'll vote for you.
Yes indeed. Well at least one should pretend that. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:15:26 PM
I'm not much for math or statistical analysis, but I sincerely doubt that 47% of Americans qualify for that statement and all he implies.
Yi was throwing around that 47% thing last week. Where does it come from? Is it 47% of people who file taxes or it 47% of the population? I'd hardly expect 5 year old kid to pay much in taxation.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 17, 2012, 06:39:02 PM
So, this is one of those things we all know is true, but he's not supposed to say it, right?
Who is that we? :huh: I certainly don't think that all solid Obama voters are freeloaders without ambition.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:21:31 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 17, 2012, 06:39:02 PM
So, this is one of those things we all know is true, but he's not supposed to say it, right?
Who is that we? :huh: I certainly don't think that all solid Obama voters are freeloaders without ambition.
On this board, I think I'm the only one who really fits that description.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 07:15:04 PM
If this is true, why do the poorest states in the Union go Republican?
Because the Republicans have allied themselves with the Christian Right and these voters don't care about economic stuff... which is a shame for them, really.
I disagree that it's a shame for them. They get what they want and what they deserve for their religious and social intolerance.
This is Mitt's "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's done.
He was never a serious contender.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
This is Mitt's "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's done.
This seems way more potent. Hiroshima v. Tsar Bomba.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 07:15:04 PM
If this is true, why do the poorest states in the Union go Republican?
Because the Republicans have allied themselves with the Christian Right and these voters don't care about economic stuff... which is a shame for them, really.
I disagree that it's a shame for them. They get what they want and what they deserve for their religious and social intolerance.
I don't think it's actually true. I think they care about economic stuff, but they don't see themselves as recipients of government aid. They just sorta blot that out. Welfare is what those lazy black people get or as Rick Santorum would say "Blaaahhh" people. Sure they might get social security or medicaid but that's different. I think that's why you often find people with warped ideas like the idea that they have Social Security account.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
This is Mitt's "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's done.
That's a bad comparison since that moment didn't sink Obama.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 07:30:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
This is Mitt's "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's done.
This seems way more potent. Hiroshima v. Tsar Bomba.
I don't know about guns, but the religion part could've seriously tanked him. The quote makes him sound like a disdainful atheist, which IMO is the real religious "skeleton" in his closet. I'm shocked he got off light with that flub, because I think Obama meant exactly what it sounded like he said.
One wonders though if this statement drives anyone away who wasn't already not going to vote for Romney anyway.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
This is Mitt's "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's done.
I don't think it'll hurt him that bad. I think most Republicans believe that.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
I disagree that it's a shame for them. They get what they want and what they deserve for their religious and social intolerance.
I think it's a shame when people are narrow-minded. :sleep:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 06:10:32 PM
QuoteThere are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."[/url]
Well, they sure as hell won't be voting for him now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 17, 2012, 07:34:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
This is Mitt's "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's done.
That's a bad comparison since that moment didn't sink Obama.
Obama hadn't piled up the sheer numbers of nonsensical campaign errors on such a sustained, consistent level like Mittens has.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:35:47 PM
I don't know about guns, but the religion part could've seriously tanked him. The quote makes him sound like a disdainful atheist, which IMO is the real religious "skeleton" in his closet. I'm shocked he got off light with that flub, because I think Obama meant exactly what it sounded like he said.
You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that Obama is (at best) an agnostic. The ironic thing is that the very same idiots who don't realize this keep accusing Obama of being a Muslim for some bizarre reason. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
This is Mitt's "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's done.
No politician in the history of democracy has ever benefited by speculating openly why anybody chooses to not vote for him. That's what Glenn Beck, Limaugh, Palin and the other whackos are for.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that Obama is (at best) an agnostic.
I don't think he's an agnostic as much as he just doesn't care that much about it beyond going to the occasional church service from time to time. You know, like most of the nation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that Obama is (at best) an agnostic.
I don't think he's an agnostic as much as he just doesn't care that much about it beyond going to the occasional church service from time to time. You know, like most of the nation.
I think this is it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that Obama is (at best) an agnostic.
I don't think he's an agnostic as much as he just doesn't care that much about it beyond going to the occasional church service from time to time. You know, like most of the nation.
I wonder if he acts like 'them' in church. You know, all that testifying.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:38:24 PMYou'd have to be an idiot to not realize that Obama is (at best) an agnostic. The ironic thing is that the very same idiots who don't realize this keep accusing Obama of being a Muslim for some bizarre reason. :hmm:
I don't think you have any right to make these kinds of judgments about a person's religious beliefs. I think it is clear that Obama has at the very least an affection for Christianity, and saw-correctly-that it was a way to connect with the African-American experience that he felt alienated from. I'd be surprised if he had the same level of religious certitude as St. Augustine, but that's not that surprising.
Um. Romney's comment that he'd have a better shot of winning if he'd been born of Mexican parents also seems awful.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:35:47 PM
I don't know about guns, but the religion part could've seriously tanked him. The quote makes him sound like a disdainful atheist, which IMO is the real religious "skeleton" in his closet. I'm shocked he got off light with that flub, because I think Obama meant exactly what it sounded like he said.
You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that Obama is (at best) an agnostic. The ironic thing is that the very same idiots who don't realize this keep accusing Obama of being a Muslim for some bizarre reason. :hmm:
Which is the reason I think he has been pointing out that not only does he drink beer, but he brews it as well.
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
I wonder if he acts like 'them' in church. You know, all that testifying.
Doubtful, considering he's practically whiter than you. He just sits there, and claps appreciatively. Politely. Offbeat, of course.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 17, 2012, 07:44:31 PM
Um. Romney's comment that he'd have a better shot of winning if he'd been born of Mexican parents also seems awful.
Yeah, but I doubt that'll hurt him, since he didn't say it in Spanish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:46:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
I wonder if he acts like 'them' in church. You know, all that testifying.
Doubtful, considering he's practically whiter than you. He just sits there, and claps appreciatively. Politely. Offbeat, of course.
does he do the ray charles head swerve thing?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:46:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 07:42:53 PM
I wonder if he acts like 'them' in church. You know, all that testifying.
Doubtful, considering he's practically whiter than you. He just sits there, and claps appreciatively. Politely. Offbeat, of course.
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:lol: You Euros and your hang-ups on religion.
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:hmm:
How would "secular humaist values" differ from Liberal Protestant values?
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
I don't think it can be your second option, as it's hard for me to believe Obama isn't intellectually curious given his background and credentials. I suspect that as soon as he decided he wanted to pursue elected office he realized that he would have to pretend to be religious, as if there's one thing this country won't tolerate it's an atheist politician, for some pathetic reason. I wouldn't fault Obama for that any more than any other secretly-atheist politician in this country.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 17, 2012, 07:44:31 PM
Um. Romney's comment that he'd have a better shot of winning if he'd been born of Mexican parents also seems awful.
Why? Every American who isn't racist is reverse-racist. Being a minority worked for Obama, who brought nothing else to the table.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:48:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:lol: You Euros and your hang-ups on religion.
we didn't get an equivalent of your 1st amendment until it was too late :cry:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:hmm:
How would "secular humanist values" differ from Liberal Protestant values?
Not very much. However, Obama didn't go to a UU church or have Gene Robinson as his pastor did he though?
Lets not do a religion hijack here, if you want, start a thread...
I saw that subtle spelling correction.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
I don't think it can be your second option, as it's hard for me to believe Obama isn't intellectually curious given his background and credentials. I suspect that as soon as he decided he wanted to pursue elected office he realized that he would have to pretend to be religious, as if there's one thing this country won't tolerate it's an atheist politician, for some pathetic reason. I wouldn't fault Obama for that any more than any other secretly-atheist politician in this country.
:yes: Let's not forget that both his parents were atheist/agnostic free-thinkers, and that he himself grew up in multiple and diverse environments. Odds are that if you grow up in such an environment, you either become an atheist/agnostic, or you rediscover religion and go deep into it. Nominal religiosity is for those who were born into religion culturally.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
I don't think it can be your second option, as it's hard for me to believe Obama isn't intellectually curious given his background and credentials. I suspect that as soon as he decided he wanted to pursue elected office he realized that he would have to pretend to be religious, as if there's one thing this country won't tolerate it's an atheist politician, for some pathetic reason. I wouldn't fault Obama for that any more than any other secretly-atheist politician in this country.
There can be only ONE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark)
I don't pretend to be able to read Obama's mind, so I'm not going to rule out intellectual lazyness. The human mind is truly a remarkable thing and capable of incredible feats of cognitive dissonance and just plain "not thinking about shit that I don't want to think about". I judge him by what he says and what he does. He says he's a christian and he acts like an atheist imho.
Jesus H Chocolate Covered Christ on a stick, people.
Sometimes people go to church, not out of "intellectual curiosity" or "nominal religiosity" or any of the other bullshit reasons you fucking noodleheads are overthinking, as fucking usual.
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
Who the fuck hijacked this thread to discuss Obama's religion anyway? :mad: This thread is about Mitt's thought processes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Jesus H Chocolate Covered Christ on a stick, people.
Sometimes people go to church, not out of "intellectual curiosity" or "nominal religiosity" or any of the other bullshit reasons you fucking noodleheads are overthinking, as fucking usual.
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
Church dinners: yum :licklips:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:03:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2012, 07:00:52 PM
How is this worse than McCain '08? Nothing Romney has done or could do was an error on the order of Palin.
McCain didn't falter until his running mate choice. Until that point he had been running a competent, albeit unspectacular, campaign.
False. McCain campaign was disaster from the start when he nearly went bankrupt in the summer of 2007 until New Hampshire saved him on the cheap. He then clinched the nomination summer 2008 by driving around in a golf cart with George W Bush, exclaiming that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" while gas prices skyrocketed and the economy cratered into recession.
McCain hail mary'd for Palin because his campaign was shit, and she almost turned it around for a really short while.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 08:08:46 PM
Who the fuck hijacked this thread to discuss Obama's religion anyway? :mad:
too many republicans here. and Viking.
QuoteThis thread is about Mitt's thought processes.
"dum di dum dum dum, magic underpants, dum di dum dum dum
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
Dude, I know this. When I lived in Boston I used to go to a Unitarian church for precisely those reasons.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
Dude, I know this. When I lived in Boston I used to go to a Unitarian church for precisely those reasons.
Which hardly should be called church.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
Dude, I know this. When I lived in Boston I used to go to a Unitarian church for precisely those reasons.
Unitarians :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
Dude, I know this. When I lived in Boston I used to go to a Unitarian church for precisely those reasons.
So can we all agree that Obama went for the baddass mac n' cheese, then? And leave it at that?
Why the fuck we're talking about Obama's leisurely church habits when you've got a fucking bishop in the Mormon Church running on the GOP ticket complete with secret handshakes, padding around in fucking Downy-soft white Snuggies and slippers, baptizing dead Jews, I mean, c'mon already.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:12:21 PM
Which hardly should be called church.
The UUA is great. You take the good parts of church (aforementioned chicken dinners, free donuts, the occasional hot MILF) and leave out the bad parts (having to believe in stuff, angry old people).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Why the fuck we're talking about Obama's leisurely church habits when you've got a fucking bishop in the Mormon Church running on the GOP ticket complete with secret handshakes, padding around in fucking Downy-soft white Snuggies and slippers, baptizing dead Jews, I mean, c'mon already.
Oh, I don't think Romney believes in any of that shit either. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:15:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:12:21 PM
Which hardly should be called church.
The UUA is great. You take the good parts of church (aforementioned chicken dinners, free donuts, the occasional hot MILF) and leave out the bad parts (having to believe in stuff, angry old people).
Young baptist chicks are hotter.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 08:18:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:15:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:12:21 PM
Which hardly should be called church.
The UUA is great. You take the good parts of church (aforementioned chicken dinners, free donuts, the occasional hot MILF) and leave out the bad parts (having to believe in stuff, angry old people).
Young baptist chicks are hotter.
catholic chicks beat all. sweet, sweet guilt. Although they've stopped going to church.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 08:18:00 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:15:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:12:21 PM
Which hardly should be called church.
The UUA is great. You take the good parts of church (aforementioned chicken dinners, free donuts, the occasional hot MILF) and leave out the bad parts (having to believe in stuff, angry old people).
Young baptist chicks are hotter.
And with daddies who are more likely to be wielding shotguns.
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
catholic chicks beat all. sweet, sweet guilt.
With Daddy complexes and a natural affinity for authority figures? Oh fuck yeah.
And the plaid skirts don't hurt, either.
Too much kneeling in the papist church. My knees are blown out.
Mitts has been done for quite awhile now. It will be interesting to see how far the melt down gets before the GOP tries to shut him up!
The Republicans are toast, this was their last chance to get back the White House and they missed it. Obama will reign supreme followed quickly by Prince Andrew for his 8 years. :showoff:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Too much kneeling in the papist church. My knees are blown out.
i went to a wedding saturday. up and down, up and down. like fucking calesthitics.
also, avoid portuguese weddings. i was there from 11 am to 2 am.
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:10:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 08:08:46 PM
Who the fuck hijacked this thread to discuss Obama's religion anyway? :mad:
too many republicans here. and Viking.
QuoteThis thread is about Mitt's thought processes.
"dum di dum dum dum, magic underpants, dum di dum dum dum
Yep, that's Languish-- a hotbed of GOPers :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 08:26:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:10:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 08:08:46 PM
Who the fuck hijacked this thread to discuss Obama's religion anyway? :mad:
too many republicans here. and Viking.
QuoteThis thread is about Mitt's thought processes.
"dum di dum dum dum, magic underpants, dum di dum dum dum
Yep, that's Languish-- a hotbed of GOPers :lol:
I'm canadian, you're all right leaniing bastards and what not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:10:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
Dude, I know this. When I lived in Boston I used to go to a Unitarian church for precisely those reasons.
So can we all agree that Obama went for the baddass mac n' cheese, then? And leave it at that?
Why the fuck we're talking about Obama's leisurely church habits when you've got a fucking bishop in the Mormon Church running on the GOP ticket complete with secret handshakes, padding around in fucking Downy-soft white Snuggies and slippers, baptizing dead Jews, I mean, c'mon already.
Cause it's fucking Viking and he can't respect anyone's intellect unless they are an atheist.
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:25:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Too much kneeling in the papist church. My knees are blown out.
i went to a wedding saturday. up and down, up and down. like fucking calesthitics.
also, avoid portuguese weddings. i was there from 11 am to 2 am.
Fixed
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 08:26:42 PM
Yep, that's Languish-- a hotbed of GOPers :lol:
I think we'd all be a lot happier with the GOP from 1972. Hell, even 1992 wouldn't be so bad.
Well, maybe not you and the Foetus With The Mostest types. But most of us disaffected voters would be.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:16:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Why the fuck we're talking about Obama's leisurely church habits when you've got a fucking bishop in the Mormon Church running on the GOP ticket complete with secret handshakes, padding around in fucking Downy-soft white Snuggies and slippers, baptizing dead Jews, I mean, c'mon already.
Oh, I don't think Romney believes in any of that shit either. :lol:
My grandfather graduated near the top of his class at Harvard Business and was a devout Mormon until the day he died.
I really hate comparing Mitt to my Grandfathr-a kind, brilliant, hardworking life-long Democrat-to Mitt, but there's an entire class of smart devout Mormons. They're just really great at compartmentalizing. Most of my worst Sunday School teachers were students at UofC's Booth school, who insulted me for not taking 7 days literally and asking questions.
Quote from: katmai on September 17, 2012, 08:35:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:25:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Too much kneeling in the papist church. My knees are blown out.
i went to a wedding saturday. up and down, up and down. like fucking calesthitics.
also, avoid portuguese weddings. i was there from 11 am to 2 am.
Fixed
:o :weep: I thought we were friends.
and i bit mexican weddings are similar :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 08:26:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:10:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 08:08:46 PM
Who the fuck hijacked this thread to discuss Obama's religion anyway? :mad:
too many republicans here. and Viking.
QuoteThis thread is about Mitt's thought processes.
"dum di dum dum dum, magic underpants, dum di dum dum dum
Yep, that's Languish-- a hotbed of GOPers :lol:
Well a bunch of Ronnie GOP here, just the party that went nutso. And wish we had less libertards
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:37:12 PM
and i bit mexican weddings are similar :lol:
I bet they're fun as balls, though. Salma Hayek and Weezer videos tell me that.
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:37:12 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 17, 2012, 08:35:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 17, 2012, 08:25:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
Too much kneeling in the papist church. My knees are blown out.
i went to a wedding saturday. up and down, up and down. like fucking calesthitics.
also, avoid portuguese weddings. i was there from 11 am to 2 am.
Fixed
:o :weep: I thought we were friends.
and i bit mexican weddings are similar :lol:
Stop biting people at weddings weirdo
I think Obama's more Christian then many here would expect, but that's just my gut feeling of him.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 08:36:11 PM
I really hate comparing Mitt to my Grandfathr-a kind, brilliant, hardworking life-long Democrat-to Mitt, but there's an entire class of smart devout Mormons. They're just really great at compartmentalizing. Most of my worst Sunday School teachers were students at UofC's Booth school, who insulted me for not taking 7 days literally and asking questions.
I will say that I think it's more likely that between Obama and Romney, Romney would be the one who is a believer... but somehow I still doubt it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:35:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 08:26:42 PM
Yep, that's Languish-- a hotbed of GOPers :lol:
I think we'd all be a lot happier with the GOP from 1972. Hell, even 1992 wouldn't be so bad.
Well, maybe not you and the Foetus With The Mostest types. But most of us disaffected voters would be.
Hell, even 1994 Republican Revolution(Newt included) types are miles above Tea Baggers.
Cal, Mormonism--the real, organized Mormonisim that Mittens is into--isn't exactly an opt-in. It's not "religious casual". You go all in, or you don't go at all.
Besides, as squirrelly as their framework is, you can't fake believing that bullshit for so long.
Who the hell is running the Romney campaign?? This Stevens guy that's been plastered all over the editorials? Jesus christ.....
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 17, 2012, 09:01:21 PM
Who the hell is running the Romney campaign?? This Stevens guy that's been plastered all over the editorials? Jesus christ.....
Oh yeah, he's a real winner, that one.
Quote from: Caliga on September 17, 2012, 08:42:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 08:36:11 PM
I really hate comparing Mitt to my Grandfathr-a kind, brilliant, hardworking life-long Democrat-to Mitt, but there's an entire class of smart devout Mormons. They're just really great at compartmentalizing. Most of my worst Sunday School teachers were students at UofC's Booth school, who insulted me for not taking 7 days literally and asking questions.
I will say that I think it's more likely that between Obama and Romney, Romney would be the one who is a believer... but somehow I still doubt it.
I don't doubt it. For some reason, Mormons seem to be perfectly able to be extremely successful in intellectual endeavors, and yet still be unshakable in their belief.
So do Jews and Catholics. So what?
If Romney gets elected and Democrats retain the Senate (w/ Harry Reid), Mormons will have taken over two of the three branches of government. Then, he will nominate Mormon justices to the Supreme Court. :!:
Quote"My own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see — without actually doing anything — we'll actually get a boost in the economy."
Mua'dib! Mua'Dib!
Curiously enough, Intrade market didn't move on the news. I guess even crappy predictive markets know enough to price in the possibility of a major Romney gaffe.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 09:10:29 PM
So do Jews and Catholics. So what?
When Mormonism is around for a millennium or two, then we can talk. Shit was invented, like, yesterday.
I think there is a serious problem when the permanent underclass can essentially continually vote themselves ever greater benefits and entitlements, the problem with a democracy is the elites and the powerful are going to over time get out-voted. This is one of those things that no one takes seriously because we all know it's impossible, but there is something to be said for some qualifications to voting. I don't understand why it's considered ideal that almost everyone should get to vote. It's an important decision, and I think the Founders were right on with restrictions along the lines of property ownership (not so much along the lines of race and gender discrimination.)
Anyway, I'm not really saying we should go back to the property qualification, only that there is a valid reason we had one in the first place. The permanent underclass will always be larger than the upper class elites, and let's truly be honest, whose interests should influence national policy? The elites are better in virtually every regard, in terms of decision making and value they add to society, and they're almost exclusively whom we pick to be President, so I don't know that long term all democratic societies won't slowly collapse into a crushing mountain of entitlements and unsustainable benefits for the poor.
I don't know the specifics of the 47% number, but I hear something roughly around that all the time. It's not correct that 47% of America pays no taxes. It's very hard to avoid the payroll taxes and almost impossible to avoid property tax and sales tax. However, it is absolutely true that in terms of Federal in come tax almost 50% of Americans pay $0 or less in Federal effective Federal income taxes.
It's not that hard to fathom, first take all the old people on fixed incomes--they will pay a very low Federal income tax that would most likely be offset to effectively nothing with various credits. Then take all the poor people who work, they typically receive more back than they paid in so their Federal tax rate is actually negative. (For those non-Americans we have child credits and Earned Income Credits which can result in essentially a "negative tax" where you receive a large check from the Government greater than the value of your total income tax paid out. Just a a quick example I've known of poor couples with multiple kids, earning $25-30k total filing jointly who get $13k back, and throughout the year they probably paid no more than 4-5k in income tax withholding if that.) Then take all the people that just don't file tax returns for a panoply of reasons (disabled, prisoners, mental patients who do no work and have no income, children etc, tax scofflaws and itinerant types who work 100% under the table.) It's pretty easy to get to near 50% not paying any income tax.
Just totaling up all the retired people and children and anyone else "not in the workforce" gets you almost to 50% right away, and most of those people wouldn't file tax returns at all or if they would they'd pay little to nothing or actually pay a "negative rate."
Otto, you think the masses of poor voters have influence that outweighs that of the rich voters unafraid to spend their money on influence such as the Koch brothers?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 09:50:29 PM
I think there is a serious problem when the permanent underclass can essentially continually vote themselves ever greater benefits and entitlements, the problem with a democracy is the elites and the powerful are going to over time get out-voted. This is one of those things that no one takes seriously because we all know it's impossible, but there is something to be said for some qualifications to voting. I don't understand why it's considered ideal that almost everyone should get to vote. It's an important decision, and I think the Founders were right on with restrictions along the lines of property ownership (not so much along the lines of race and gender discrimination.)
Anyway, I'm not really saying we should go back to the property qualification, only that there is a valid reason we had one in the first place. The permanent underclass will always be larger than the upper class elites, and let's truly be honest, whose interests should influence national policy? The elites are better in virtually every regard, in terms of decision making and value they add to society, and they're almost exclusively whom we pick to be President, so I don't know that long term all democratic societies won't slowly collapse into a crushing mountain of entitlements and unsustainable benefits for the poor.
The problem with this solution is that people in the underclass will become subjects of the elites. That kind of undoes the point of democracy, undermines its very legitimacy, and welds shut the social unrest safety valve that is its greatest strength.
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Otto, you think the masses of poor voters have influence that outweighs that of the rich voters unafraid to spend their money on influence such as the Koch brothers?
Outweighs? Sometimes, in some contexts. For example if only the elite could vote I can tell you who wouldn't be losing this election right now.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 10:08:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Otto, you think the masses of poor voters have influence that outweighs that of the rich voters unafraid to spend their money on influence such as the Koch brothers?
Outweighs? Sometimes, in some contexts. For example if only the elite could vote I can tell you who wouldn't be losing this election right now.
Which elites, though? Are you defining them strictly along economic lines? There isn't as much cross-pollination between economic elites and the ivory tower elites.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2012, 10:08:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Otto, you think the masses of poor voters have influence that outweighs that of the rich voters unafraid to spend their money on influence such as the Koch brothers?
Outweighs? Sometimes, in some contexts. For example if only the elite could vote I can tell you who wouldn't be losing this election right now.
Which elites, though? Are you defining them strictly along economic lines? There isn't as much cross-pollination between economic elites and the ivory tower elites.
I hear Jaron has a solution for the ivory tower.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 07:35:47 PM
I don't know about guns, but the religion part could've seriously tanked him. The quote makes him sound like a disdainful atheist, which IMO is the real religious "skeleton" in his closet. I'm shocked he got off light with that flub, because I think Obama meant exactly what it sounded like he said.
It did strengthen his claim to have not been in church though. :D
I once read an interesting article that I've since lost. It advocated a voting system by which you basically select a random set of 100,000 people across the entire country from the various States. In each State you divided it up so these groups of people meet in manageable numbers, and basically the government pays them to take a whole year to become educated and informed on all the issues in the present campaign. Come election day this group of 100,000 votes, and whoever takes the majority of their vote wins.
The premise being, the most important thing in a Democracy isn't that everyone's voice is heard but rather that all the people living there benefit from the best possible political decisions being made. In universal suffrage there is a strong argument we have abandoned the policy of giving the people the best decision we can get in favor of lofty ideals about everyone feeling like they matter.
The article I read was purely theoretical and not intended to start some kind of movement, it was an intellectual exercise but an interesting one. It compared these randomly selected voters to juries, people often complain about juries (I know I do sometimes) but by and large jurors actually do a good job quite often, and take their role seriously. I think you empanel a random sampling of Americans, inform them of the gravity and importance of their task and they would take it seriously and really try to educate themselves. These voters would be far less susceptible to the completely bogus attack ads that have proliferated in every campaign during my life. I don't even mean the relatively mild stuff like Willie Horton, but ads that just blatantly state things which are false and extremely deceptive. An educated voter would not be swayed by such things. An educated voter wouldn't obsess over someone saying "you didn't build that" out of context or "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 or less."
The author of the article mostly focused on the improved decision making, and I'd build on that. Don't just try to improve the decision making but the decision maker. When you're selecting your random sampling to be part of the voting pool, exclude certain people entirely. For one, make them take a test similar to the basic citizenship test people have to take to naturalize (if you've ever taken a sample online, it's something any mouth-breather who got a D+ in High School civics would ace.) For two, certain classes of people should be entirely excluded from the pools: full time college students, the extremely old (80 years +), anyone who has filed bankruptcy in the last 7 years, anyone who didn't graduate high school or receive a GED...I think there is a reasonable list of disqualifications people could agree upon.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 07:43:30 PM
I don't think you have any right to make these kinds of judgments about a person's religious beliefs.
QuoteI think it is clear that Obama has at the very least an affection for Christianity, and saw-correctly-that it was a way to connect with the African-American experience that he felt alienated from. I'd be surprised if he had the same level of religious certitude as St. Augustine, but that's not that surprising.
:D
Hose: you're a homo.
FFS Yi learn to quote.
:hmm: Yi's gaydar has been a tad too hypersensitive lately. Is it over-reaction to past failure, or desperation? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2012, 10:38:07 PM
QuoteI think it is clear that Obama has at the very least an affection for Christianity, and saw-correctly-that it was a way to connect with the African-American experience that he felt alienated from. I'd be surprised if he had the same level of religious certitude as St. Augustine, but that's not that surprising.
:D
Hose: you're a homo.
I don't think I said anything that wasn't a paraphrasing of something of one of his own books. Churches are important in Chicago's black belt. He wanted to feel important there, and was attracted to the social message. I didn't doubt or affirm his hugely personal belief in the existence or non-existence of God.
Saw the interview and speech he gave tonight.
Part of me feels sorry for him. I think he's motivated in large part by memory of his father, and this has probably been his goal since Nixon & Co went balls-deep in to George Romney's ass over Vietnam. He seemed dazed, disappointed.
For a man who outwardly seems to want that job so badly, he sure as hell doesn't want it subconsciously, given how he sabotages himself at every step.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
It looks like everything is conspiring to elect Romney President in 2012.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:01:18 AM
There is very little chance of Obama getting reelected, unless Romney is caught in bed with a dead girl or a life boy.
You really think the Obama campaign doesn't say things like this internally/to large donors? I imagine Obama is smart enough not to get caught (again) saying something like this himself, but that's the only real difference I see.
Also, I wonder how this video was obtained; did a Democrat fork over $25k in order to try and get a sound bite to slam Romney with?
Quote from: Kleves on September 18, 2012, 12:09:51 AM
You really think the Obama campaign doesn't say things like this internally/to large donors? I imagine Obama is smart enough not to get caught (again) saying something like this himself, but that's the only real difference I see.
Also, I wonder how this video was obtained; did a Democrat fork over $25k in order to try and get a sound bite to slam Romney with?
What is the hypothetical "both sides!" thing that Obama would be saying?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 18, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 06, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
It looks like everything is conspiring to elect Romney President in 2012.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:01:18 AM
There is very little chance of Obama getting reelected, unless Romney is caught in bed with a dead girl or a life boy.
Let's not chalk up the victory for the good guys yet. For all we know, Obama does have a taste for live boys that might become a matter of interest for the nosy media.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 12:17:37 AM
What is the hypothetical "both sides!" thing that Obama would be saying?
I'm not sure what you mean by "both sides!" but the Obama statement about rural voters who 'get bitter and cling to their guns/religion' seems pretty similar. That was also secretly recorded at a fundraiser, IIRC. I doubt any campaigns ever have very complimentary things to say about people who will not vote for them, no matter the circumstances. It's just that usually those sentiments don't go public.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 12:21:48 AM
Let's not chalk up the victory for the good guys yet. For all we know, Obama does have a taste for live boys that might become a matter of interest for the nosy media.
Don't rule out necrophilia either.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 12:39:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 12:21:48 AM
Let's not chalk up the victory for the good guys yet. For all we know, Obama does have a taste for live boys that might become a matter of interest for the nosy media.
Don't rule out necrophilia either.
His people call it Voodoo. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Kleves on September 18, 2012, 12:23:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 12:17:37 AM
What is the hypothetical "both sides!" thing that Obama would be saying?
I'm not sure what you mean by "both sides!" but the Obama statement about rural voters who 'get bitter and cling to their guns/religion' seems pretty similar. That was also secretly recorded at a fundraiser, IIRC. I doubt any campaigns ever have very complimentary things to say about people who will not vote for them, no matter the circumstances. It's just that usually those sentiments don't go public.
And I don't think the guns/religion statement really hurt Obama since a lot of Dems genuinely believe this. Likewise a lot GOPers think that there's this massive group of leaches that vote money to themselves and that's where the Democrats get their power. It's dumb belief, but it's deeply ingrained in the GOP psyche.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 17, 2012, 06:39:02 PM
So, this is one of those things we all know is true, but he's not supposed to say it, right?
It's funny coming from a working class redneck loser like you. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:48:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:lol: You Euros and your hang-ups on religion.
It's you, not us, who have hangs ups on religion. Poland, the most catholic country in the world, had an openly atheistic president and a couple of prime ministers.
In one hundred years, when your first black quadruplegic lesbian President crawls onto the podium, she is going to claim that God made her in His image, because an atheist could never get elected there.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:hmm:
How would "secular humaist values" differ from Liberal Protestant values?
No matter how you slice it, any religious worldview suffers from the GIGO fallacy. If you feed false data into the system, you are bound to eventually get false results, even if you are lucky and get most of them right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Jesus H Chocolate Covered Christ on a stick, people.
Sometimes people go to church, not out of "intellectual curiosity" or "nominal religiosity" or any of the other bullshit reasons you fucking noodleheads are overthinking, as fucking usual.
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
It could be the reason why Europeans dislike religion - we never get dinners in church.
Quote from: Martinus on September 18, 2012, 01:49:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:48:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:lol: You Euros and your hang-ups on religion.
It's you, not us, who have hangs ups on religion. Poland, the most catholic country in the world, had an openly atheistic president and a couple of prime ministers.
In one hundred years, when your first black quadruplegic lesbian President crawls onto the podium, she is going to claim that God made her in His image, because an atheist could never get elected there.
I would think that most Catholic country in Europe would be the Vatican. Poland on the other hand, was ruled by clique of brutal atheists for 40 years.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 01:58:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 18, 2012, 01:49:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:48:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 07:45:11 PM
As for the atheist view of Obama, at worst he attends church for political reasons (reflects badly on his character), at middle he's a cultural christian who hasn't given the issue much thought (reflects badly on his intellectual curiosity), at best he's a non-confessing in the closet atheist (reflects well on his political judgement, but badly on character and courage). His professed religion is problematic, but then his politics are 100% consistent with secular humanist values, so we forgive him for lying about it.
:lol: You Euros and your hang-ups on religion.
It's you, not us, who have hangs ups on religion. Poland, the most catholic country in the world, had an openly atheistic president and a couple of prime ministers.
In one hundred years, when your first black quadruplegic lesbian President crawls onto the podium, she is going to claim that God made her in His image, because an atheist could never get elected there.
I would think that most Catholic country in Europe would be the Vatican.
you'd be surprised.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 17, 2012, 09:01:21 PM
Who the hell is running the Romney campaign??
Seedy. He's running the whole thing as a double agent. Isn't it obvious?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 17, 2012, 11:23:08 PM
Saw the interview and speech he gave tonight.
Part of me feels sorry for him. I think he's motivated in large part by memory of his father, and this has probably been his goal since Nixon & Co went balls-deep in to George Romney's ass over Vietnam. He seemed dazed, disappointed.
Dreams From His Father? :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 08:32:27 PM
Cause it's fucking Viking and he can't respect anyone's intellect unless they are an atheist.
Well, at least there is something I agree with Ayn Rand about.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2012, 07:20:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:15:26 PM
I'm not much for math or statistical analysis, but I sincerely doubt that 47% of Americans qualify for that statement and all he implies.
Yi was throwing around that 47% thing last week. Where does it come from? Is it 47% of people who file taxes or it 47% of the population? I'd hardly expect 5 year old kid to pay much in taxation.
It's 47% of tax filers I think. The majority are on low incomes and do pay payroll taxes but don't pay income tax, especially with tax credits like the EITC or child tax credit. The remainder are mostly elderly. The problem for me is, I think, the seeming moral judgement (of mainly low income workers) of people not taking personal responsibility.
Facts aside I think it's a dreadful comment for his campaign.
On Obama's faith, he laces his speeches with Biblical reference. I think he's a sincere, liberal Northern Protestant, which is a bit like being a devout CofEer. It doesn't easily look like faith from the outside.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-X4q-X3qChvw%2FUFevoiLnMJI%2FAAAAAAAAGyQ%2FrUxR-mEEaFU%2Fs1600%2F658017580.jpg&hash=3194e42d2d2555934adb2b48548f2615dc7c0721)
The Dem's Southern Strategy revealed at last
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2012, 05:18:51 AM
Facts aside I think it's a dreadful comment for his campaign.
It just makes it dreadfuller, that's all.
However, he did two things last night that didn't help:
1) Calling a press conference at 10pm, which never looks good, regardless of how bad you've fucked up, and
2) Not acting like you've fucked up during it, but digging in with the "entitlement society".
Whether through hubris, incompetence or incompetent hubris at every turn, this guy keeps blowing a winnable election.
I have to call immediate bullshit on that non-payer map. Having owned property in West Virginia for years and hunting there every season there is simply no possibility that they aren't one of the highest of the non-payer States. West Virginia is the second poorest state in the country only ahead of Mississippi.
As for religion, atheists like to believe smart people could only be religious as a fraud, but that just isn't the case. Note who President Obama is married to, a traditionalist black woman. Most likely she's very genuine and big on the religion stuff, which is very big in the black community. It's entirely possible he started to attend Church without being sincere, but from all evidence we have I have no reason to doubt he's pretty sincere about it now.
Romney is a Mormon, and has been for his entire life. There is no possible reason, if you're a secret atheist, your "passing" religion would be Mormonism. If you're a secret atheist you pick a moderate Protestant sect like Episcopalian, Methodist or etc or go Catholic, but you don't pick one of the least understood, most ridiculed, and downright weirdest of the American Christian sects. Especially not if your reason for being a secret atheist is you want to run for political office.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 06:04:04 AM
Romney is a Mormon, and has been for his entire life. There is no possible reason, if you're a secret atheist, your "passing" religion would be Mormonism. If you're a secret atheist you pick a moderate Protestant sect like Episcopalian, Methodist or etc or go Catholic, but you don't pick one of the least understood, most ridiculed, and downright weirdest of the American Christian sects. Especially not if your reason for being a secret atheist is you want to run for political office.
I call bullshit on this reasoning. As you said yourself, he did not pick mormonism, he was raised in it. I don't think people who are atheists but pretend to be religious convert for show - this would require learning all the new tenets that you already believe to be bullshit - it's much easier to stay in your "birth religion" and just lapse secretly.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
Curiously enough, Intrade market didn't move on the news. I guess even crappy predictive markets know enough to price in the possibility of a major Romney gaffe.
Or maybe it wasn't a major gaffe. The 47% number could be accurate, but do you think those 47% of people would realize Romney was talking about them? This is just an updated version of bitching about welfare queens, with some hysteria regarding America approaching a tipping point.
Whoops. Guess that's it for Romney.
Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2012, 07:04:45 AM
Whoops. Guess that's it for Romney.
Not so fast, my friend. There's a negro in the White House that 47% of Americans want to kick out come hell or high water.
QuoteNot so fast, my friend. There's a negro in the White House that 47% of Americans want to kick out come hell or high water.
Still, what a shit thing to utter. Reagan would never have even hinted at something like this.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 07:10:40 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2012, 07:04:45 AM
Whoops. Guess that's it for Romney.
Not so fast, my friend. There's a negro in the White House that 47% of Americans want to kick out come hell or high water.
Oops.
Quote from: Martinus on September 18, 2012, 06:08:21 AMI call bullshit on this reasoning. As you said yourself, he did not pick mormonism, he was raised in it. I don't think people who are atheists but pretend to be religious convert for show - this would require learning all the new tenets that you already believe to be bullshit - it's much easier to stay in your "birth religion" and just lapse secretly.
Maybe, I believe, unless I'm mistaken Cal's point was Romney was just being religious to get votes. Such a calculated position would certainly have lead Romney to at least consider a more mainstream religion, like Catholicism, especially when he was running for the Senate in Massachusetts back in the early 90s.
His wife also was not Mormon when they married, if Romney was an atheist it'd make a lot more sense for him to just go with the flow and start practicing in her religion, but instead he converted her to Mormonism.
It's entirely possible he doesn't buy into his religion and has just stayed in it for community / inertia reasons, but that doesn't jive with the claim it's a cynical act designed to be electable.
Yeah, I can't buy the faux Mormonism angle. It's simply too high maintenance.
And he's a bishop or some sort of Grand Moff or something in the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge No. 26. That's simply too much work.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 10:12:51 PM
Which elites, though? Are you defining them strictly along economic lines? There isn't as much cross-pollination between economic elites and the ivory tower elites.
A property qualification would take care of that, since so many academics live in their mom's basement.
It's hard out there in Academia.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 07:39:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 10:12:51 PM
Which elites, though? Are you defining them strictly along economic lines? There isn't as much cross-pollination between economic elites and the ivory tower elites.
A property qualification would take care of that, since so many academics live in their mom's basement.
It's hard out there in Academia.
Maybe in Canada, but Dr. Kissinger has quite a few pads.
Quote from: Martinus on September 18, 2012, 01:49:55 AM
It's you, not us, who have hangs ups on religion. Poland, the most catholic country in the world, had an openly atheistic president and a couple of prime ministers.
In one hundred years, when your first black quadruplegic lesbian President crawls onto the podium, she is going to claim that God made her in His image, because an atheist could never get elected there.
Being a communist dictatorship will have that effect.
Besides, given the damage that atheism inflicts on the body politic, it's a good idea to keep it quiet.
Quote from: Kleves on September 18, 2012, 12:09:51 AM
You really think the Obama campaign doesn't say things like this internally/to large donors? I imagine Obama is smart enough not to get caught (again) saying something like this himself, but that's the only real difference I see.
In today's day and age of camera phones and the like he would be a fucking idiot to. So yeah, probably. As a Politician, especially as a Presidential candidate, you cannot ever speak openly.
Quote from: Martinus on September 18, 2012, 01:54:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Jesus H Chocolate Covered Christ on a stick, people.
Sometimes people go to church, not out of "intellectual curiosity" or "nominal religiosity" or any of the other bullshit reasons you fucking noodleheads are overthinking, as fucking usual.
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
It could be the reason why Europeans dislike religion - we never get dinners in church.
What? Well that is outrageous.
It's true, especially when it comes to regular old roman catholics.
I went to my in-laws church, some protestant group, I understand the appeal & it was very entertaining. Lunch was very good.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 18, 2012, 08:04:31 AM
It's true, especially when it comes to regular old roman catholics.
I went to my in-laws church, some protestant group, I understand the appeal & it was very entertaining. Lunch was very good.
Well hell half the reason you go to church is for the food and the parties. My church does alot of AA stuff though so sometimes the parties have no booze. I bet that woud not be true if Catholics had them.
I guess for some reason I thought your in-laws were old school Catholics. If they went Protty I guess that explains the existance of fundy Quebeckers.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 08:10:04 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 18, 2012, 08:04:31 AM
It's true, especially when it comes to regular old roman catholics.
I went to my in-laws church, some protestant group, I understand the appeal & it was very entertaining. Lunch was very good.
Well hell half the reason you go to church is for the food and the parties. My church does alot of AA stuff though so sometimes the parties have no booze. I bet that woud not be true if Catholics had them.
I guess for some reason I thought your in-laws were old school Catholics. If they went Protty I guess that explains the existance of fundy Quebeckers.
Might be because most of us are born Catholics, like my in-laws they converted.
This is their church : http://www.labibleparle.com/ (All in French).
They think stupid shit, they praise god too often but they still are good people. I have a pretty good relationship with them, especially my father in law.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 18, 2012, 08:19:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 08:10:04 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 18, 2012, 08:04:31 AM
It's true, especially when it comes to regular old roman catholics.
I went to my in-laws church, some protestant group, I understand the appeal & it was very entertaining. Lunch was very good.
Well hell half the reason you go to church is for the food and the parties. My church does alot of AA stuff though so sometimes the parties have no booze. I bet that woud not be true if Catholics had them.
I guess for some reason I thought your in-laws were old school Catholics. If they went Protty I guess that explains the existance of fundy Quebeckers.
Might be because most of us are born Catholics, like my in-laws they converted.
This is their church : http://www.labibleparle.com/ (All in French).
They think stupid shit, they praise god too often but they still are good people. I have a pretty good relationship with them, especially my father in law.
They need someone to volunteer to build them a website.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 18, 2012, 06:30:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
Curiously enough, Intrade market didn't move on the news. I guess even crappy predictive markets know enough to price in the possibility of a major Romney gaffe.
Or maybe it wasn't a major gaffe. The 47% number could be accurate, but do you think those 47% of people would realize Romney was talking about them? This is just an updated version of bitching about welfare queens, with some hysteria regarding America approaching a tipping point.
The problem is that he didn't attack the 47% of non-payers, he attacked the 47% of solid Obama voters. Only then did he equate those two 47% blocks as if they were perfectly correlated. The biggest of very many problems with Romney statement wasn't that he spoke the truth he shouldn't have said, but rather that he revealed a deranged worldview that used to be attributed to trash like Limbaugh. He basically implied that the only reason to be a solid Obama voter is to be a loser dependent on government.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 08:24:04 AM
He basically implied that the only reason to be a solid Obama voter is to be a loser dependent on government.
Is it something new to suggest that the other side only votes the way they do because they are stupid losers. I think already several times in this thread it was discussed how there are so many individuals that should vote Dem for their own interests but vote Repub because of their religious views. I don't think the posters making such statements were suggesting those individuals are right to do so.
And a related stupidity is to imply that those who don't pay taxes are dependent losers. Maybe most non-Democrat low-income parents who get EITC will miss that dig or ignore it, but I'm sure quite a few would perceive a disdain coming their way.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 08:10:04 AM
My church does alot of AA stuff though so sometimes the parties have no booze. I bet that woud not be true if Catholics had them.
Catholics even incorporated boozing into the mass.
Each side has nothing but contempt for the other. Film at 11.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 08:31:05 AM
And a related stupidity is to imply that those who don't pay taxes are dependent losers.
I'm still curious as to how much in taxes Mittens paid prior to preparing his tax returns in anticipation of running for President. Shame we won't know.
Retirees, disabled veterans and the working poor? Losers, because they don't pay federal income tax.
Multimillionaires with offshore accounts and an army of lawyers and accountants working every financial device imaginable in order not to pay federal income tax? Winners! :yeah:
There's a moral compass disconnect there.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 08:24:04 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 18, 2012, 06:30:23 AM
Or maybe it wasn't a major gaffe. The 47% number could be accurate, but do you think those 47% of people would realize Romney was talking about them? This is just an updated version of bitching about welfare queens, with some hysteria regarding America approaching a tipping point.
The problem is that he didn't attack the 47% of non-payers, he attacked the 47% of solid Obama voters. Only then did he equate those two 47% blocks as if they were perfectly correlated. The biggest of very many problems with Romney statement wasn't that he spoke the truth he shouldn't have said, but rather that he revealed a deranged worldview that used to be attributed to trash like Limbaugh. He basically implied that the only reason to be a solid Obama voter is to be a loser dependent on government.
I don't think alienating solid Obama voters is going to hurt him too much.
It is a paranoid and silly worldview, but I bet this is a story that goes away in a few days and doesn't have more of a lasting effect than "bibles and guns" did.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 18, 2012, 08:41:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 08:24:04 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 18, 2012, 06:30:23 AM
Or maybe it wasn't a major gaffe. The 47% number could be accurate, but do you think those 47% of people would realize Romney was talking about them? This is just an updated version of bitching about welfare queens, with some hysteria regarding America approaching a tipping point.
The problem is that he didn't attack the 47% of non-payers, he attacked the 47% of solid Obama voters. Only then did he equate those two 47% blocks as if they were perfectly correlated. The biggest of very many problems with Romney statement wasn't that he spoke the truth he shouldn't have said, but rather that he revealed a deranged worldview that used to be attributed to trash like Limbaugh. He basically implied that the only reason to be a solid Obama voter is to be a loser dependent on government.
I don't think alienating solid Obama voters is going to hurt him too much.
It is a paranoid and silly worldview, but I bet this is a story that goes away in a few days and doesn't have more of a lasting effect than "bibles and guns" did.
I don't think locking up the vote for Obama's base is a good idea, but besides that, he insulted two 47% groups where the overlap is not nearly as great as he thinks. All 47% of solid Obama voters, many of them yuppies like me who certainly do pay something in taxes, will now regard Romney is a total loon and completely give up on the idea of voting for anyone other than Obama or protest voting or not voting. Some of the tax 47% who aren't actually solid Obama voters will likewise get the hint that Romney has contempt for them, and also may decide to do something other than vote for Romney.
DGuller, I think we just disagree on this. If you are considering not voting for Obama, then you really shouldn't feel personally insulted because you aren't a solid Obama voter.
He said something stupid, and is getting blowback for it, but it isn't as though Republicans insulting recepients of government aid is a new thing.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2012, 08:37:10 AM
Each side has nothing but contempt for the other. Film at 11.
:yes:
Is David Brooks a noted left wing pundit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
Is David Brooks a noted left wing pundit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
I think he's viewed as a token conservative by the true believers.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
Is David Brooks a noted left wing pundit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Was that rhetorical or an actual question?
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 10:11:54 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
Is David Brooks a noted left wing pundit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Was that rhetorical or an actual question?
Actual. I don't know who he is or where he stands normally.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
Actual. I don't know who he is or where he stands normally.
He's a Righty. Editor at the Weekly Standard, used to edit at the WSJ. Probably considered a RINO by now, since he works for Atlantic Monthly and contributes to the NYT.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 10:11:54 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
Is David Brooks a noted left wing pundit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Was that rhetorical or an actual question?
Actual. I don't know who he is or where he stands normally.
His wiki page makes him sound very conservative.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
Actual. I don't know who he is or where he stands normally.
He's a Righty. Editor at the Weekly Standard, used to edit at the WSJ. Probably considered a RINO by now, since he works for Atlantic Monthly and contributes to the NYT.
He is a righty though Yi informed me he was a centrist when I have brought him up before. Which sorta scares me.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 11:06:00 AM
His wiki page makes him sound very conservative.
The Limbaugh wing thinks he's a communist. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
Actual. I don't know who he is or where he stands normally.
He's a Righty. Editor at the Weekly Standard, used to edit at the WSJ. Probably considered a RINO by now, since he works for Atlantic Monthly and contributes to the NYT.
His comment that he knew Obama was going to be a great president when he saw the crease in his pants is both unforgettable and unforgivable. In the context of the NYT he's a conservative; I'd put him slightly right of center.
Heh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_majzpbMR0z1qzhkvho1_500.jpg&hash=f440da9f0b65baf1c455bc5b07f4429c1e00eccf)
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2012, 11:57:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
Actual. I don't know who he is or where he stands normally.
He's a Righty. Editor at the Weekly Standard, used to edit at the WSJ. Probably considered a RINO by now, since he works for Atlantic Monthly and contributes to the NYT.
His comment that he knew Obama was going to be a great president when he saw the crease in his pants is both unforgettable and unforgivable. In the context of the NYT he's a conservative; I'd put him slightly right of center.
LOL, John Sununu just called David Brooks "left leaning".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 12:15:09 PMLOL, John Sununu just called David Brooks "left leaning".
That's the kind of development I was expecting when I asked the question.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 12:30:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 12:15:09 PMLOL, John Sununu just called David Brooks "left leaning".
That's the kind of development I was expecting when I asked the question.
Heh. Most conservatives now think that
Hitler was a leftist. Honest to God.
Quote"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people.
Although there is a lot in the OP I find abhorrent, this particular comment should make this man unelectable.
That's one of the problems. There are so many good ones in that one short speech that it's hard to gain an appreciation for all of them, or even keep them separate.
The biggest point that seems to often be missed is that Mitt didn't bash the moochers, but rather he concluded that the reason, and the only reason, for someone to vote for Obama is that they're a moocher. Thus, the conversation is often centered around how many of those 47% are really moochers, as opposed to the fact that the narcissistic sociopath seems to be unable to contemplate being voted against for reasons that don't involve bribery by the government.
Quote from: Jacob on September 18, 2012, 12:01:55 PM
Heh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_majzpbMR0z1qzhkvho1_500.jpg&hash=f440da9f0b65baf1c455bc5b07f4429c1e00eccf)
I could start cutting pretty easily:
West Virginia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Mississippi
D.C.
New Jersey
Arkansas
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
California
Alabama
That has to be relatively close, right?
If that doesn't do it:
Ohio
Delaware
Kansas
South Dakota
Idaho
Washington
California, Illinois and New Jersey pull their own weight. They pay more in federal tax then they get.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 01:42:32 PM
I could start cutting pretty easily:
West Virginia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Mississippi
D.C.
New Jersey
Arkansas
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
California
Alabama
That has to be relatively close, right?
If that doesn't do it:
Ohio
Delaware
Kansas
South Dakota
Idaho
Washington
That's an odd list. I'm guessing it you were trying to be funny, but I guess I'm not getting the joke.
And then some, in the case of New Jersey. New Jersey is historically the biggest donor state of all, paying almost $2 for every $1 it gets.
I wonder how much of the country feels it is entitled to food. :hmm:
The image I was responding to said "cut the 47% of the country that doesn't matter." Those states are roughly the states that I personally don't like.
I'm not particularly concerned about things like which give the most net to the Federal government, as I benefit very little from those sort of things.
Basically these states bring nothing, they are poor and suck to visit:
West Virginia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Mississippi
Arkansas
Alabama
These states are "failed states" that will eventually collapse into poverty and despair ala Greece:
California
These states are populated with douchebags:
New Jersey
Illinois
Washington
These states are simply boring:
Ohio
Indiana
Kansas
Idaho
Delaware
South Dakota got the axe because I like North Dakota more than South Dakota, and I see no reason to have two Dakotas.
D.C. got the axe because it's a gaping hellhole that is a blight on the Earth.
Basically you wipe out all the douchebag states, wipe out a lot of the poor Southern states, then wipe out the states that are too boring to matter.
You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents. That's why New Jersey and its population of relatively high income (but highly taxed) people gets kicked out. New Jersey contributes absolutely nothing to the United States in term of culture, and its people are abominations. Their governor looks like he might actually try to eat the rest of the country if not checked.
:yeahright: New Jersey contributes nothing to culture? So no one in America watched The Sopranos or Jersey Shore? :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
:yeahright: New Jersey contributes nothing to culture? So no one in America watched The Sopranos or Jersey Shore? :rolleyes:
Um, first of all I think you need to take a deep breath and recognize when talking about states we're removing from the country this isn't a very serious discussion.
Secondly, New Jersey's suckitude is absolutely undeniable.
Thirdly, Jersey Shore? That's the most shameful argument anyone has ever made in the history of arguments.
Fourthly, unless the Sopranos was actually a product of New Jersey I'd say you owe Hollywood for that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:11:47 PM
These states are populated with douchebags:
New Jersey
Illinois
Washington
You forgot Oregon, and either Vermont or New Hampshire, depending on your political leanings.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
:yeahright: New Jersey contributes nothing to culture? So no one in America watched The Sopranos or Jersey Shore? :rolleyes:
ExxonMobile Jersey FTW!
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:25:28 PM
Fourthly, unless the Sopranos was actually a product of New Jersey I'd say you owe Hollywood for that.
It was shot mostly in New Jersey, and without New Jersey there wouldn't be any plot material.
Quote from: Viking on September 18, 2012, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
:yeahright: New Jersey contributes nothing to culture? So no one in America watched The Sopranos or Jersey Shore? :rolleyes:
ExxonMobile Jersey FTW!
D'oh, forgot about that one. Definitely a lot of cultural monuments dedicated to the oil industry that you can still see if you drive on New Jersey Turnpike. :)
@money : You'd give your left nut to live here instead of bawlmore.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:14:17 PM
Basically you wipe out all the douchebag states, wipe out a lot of the poor Southern states, then wipe out the states that are too boring to matter.
You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents. That's why New Jersey and its population of relatively high income (but highly taxed) people gets kicked out. New Jersey contributes absolutely nothing to the United States in term of culture, and its people are abominations. Their governor looks like he might actually try to eat the rest of the country if not checked.
I think we could do with out Texas culture. Also if we are getting rid of states that drag on the economy lets take out Montana, and Wyoming. They are big drags on the economy. In fact most of the big rural states need to go.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:38:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:14:17 PM
Basically you wipe out all the douchebag states, wipe out a lot of the poor Southern states, then wipe out the states that are too boring to matter.
You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents. That's why New Jersey and its population of relatively high income (but highly taxed) people gets kicked out. New Jersey contributes absolutely nothing to the United States in term of culture, and its people are abominations. Their governor looks like he might actually try to eat the rest of the country if not checked.
I think we could do with out Texas culture. Also if we are getting rid of states that drag on the economy lets take out Montana, and Wyoming. They are big drags on the economy. In fact most of the big rural states need to go.
FU hippy.
Then let them really ride on that "ruggeded individualism".
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:44:27 PM
Then let them really ride on that "ruggeded individualism".
They'll get rich exporting oil to us, most likely.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:14:17 PM
You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents.
If you had to pick just one state to keep solely for the BBQ, which one would it be...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:44:27 PM
Then let them really ride on that "ruggeded individualism".
They'll get rich exporting oil to us, most likely.
Currently they get rich having the Feds pay stuff for them. Driving down a federal highway in big 30K truck they wrote off as farm equipment, I'm tired of their asses. If they want to become an oil state fine. Course they'll have to buy that federal land the oil is on. At fair market vaule. After all, "There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch". Ain't that the individualist's slogan?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 02:53:53 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:14:17 PM
You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents.
If you had to pick just one state to keep solely for the BBQ, which one would it be...
Missouri. Duh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:58:27 PM
Missouri. Duh. :rolleyes:
KC is definitely one of the obvious choices. I don't know though. I think if I were going to pick one place it would be Austin.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:58:05 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:44:27 PM
Then let them really ride on that "ruggeded individualism".
They'll get rich exporting oil to us, most likely.
Currently they get rich having the Feds pay stuff for them. Driving down a federal highway in big 30K truck they wrote off as farm equipment, I'm tired of their asses. If they want to become an oil state fine. Course they'll have to buy that federal land the oil is on. At fair market vaule. After all, "There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch". Ain't that the individualist's slogan?
Actually iirc Texas owns the public land the oil is in. Part of deal when we got annexed into the union.
I think Texas actually is a Donor state.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 02:27:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:11:47 PM
These states are populated with douchebags:
New Jersey
Illinois
Washington
You forgot Oregon, and either Vermont or New Hampshire, depending on your political leanings.
I'm politically opposed to most of New England, but it was spared my wrath by and large because I think the New England countryside is pleasant and they have a lot of picturesque seaside towns. Plus Boston can be a fun city to visit.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 02:29:36 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:25:28 PM
Fourthly, unless the Sopranos was actually a product of New Jersey I'd say you owe Hollywood for that.
It was shot mostly in New Jersey, and without New Jersey there wouldn't be any plot material.
Except for the Italian mafia in, you know, New York City. I don't think a series about them would be materially different than the Italian mafia in New Jersey.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:38:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:14:17 PM
Basically you wipe out all the douchebag states, wipe out a lot of the poor Southern states, then wipe out the states that are too boring to matter.
You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents. That's why New Jersey and its population of relatively high income (but highly taxed) people gets kicked out. New Jersey contributes absolutely nothing to the United States in term of culture, and its people are abominations. Their governor looks like he might actually try to eat the rest of the country if not checked.
I think we could do with out Texas culture. Also if we are getting rid of states that drag on the economy lets take out Montana, and Wyoming. They are big drags on the economy. In fact most of the big rural states need to go.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way, if there is any state I regret cutting it's North Dakota. Those big rural states are mostly Federal projects with much of the land being federally owned and very few people there. However, it's a
lot of land, and there is some tangible benefit to keeping that land around. For example we're finding large natural gas and oil deposits in North Dakota...I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of the big empty western states. The dirt-poor southern states are much more egregious because they have far more people and thus far more po folk waiting for hand outs. Montana may not contribute much but in
absolute terms the peoples of Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas are so few that they don't really cost us much either.
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
That's an odd list. I'm guessing it you were trying to be funny, but I guess I'm not getting the joke.
Apparently according to his later post, OvB conflates "don't matter" and "I personally dislike".
The whole issue of donor vs recipient states isn't really entirely valid. A lot of the big empty states aren't recipient states because they are especially poor per capita, and the money they receive isn't a disproportionate pay out of welfare benefits or things like that. Instead it's more related to the fact many of those states are largely under Federal land management. The Federal government doesn't have to keep all that land, and most likely you could find private buyers in those states if you just wanted to sell it off. It's not really accurate to label some of those states as "sucking from the teat" because much of the "disproportionate benefit" they receive is in the form of dollars being spent on Federal land management--land that the residents of those States only derive minor benefit from in most cases. Basically the Federal government keeps that land for its own purposes, so it's not a fair cop for anti-Staters to bitch about the costs of managing the land.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 03:41:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
That's an odd list. I'm guessing it you were trying to be funny, but I guess I'm not getting the joke.
Apparently according to his later post, OvB conflates "don't matter" and "I personally dislike".
Not so much conflates as equates.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 03:41:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
That's an odd list. I'm guessing it you were trying to be funny, but I guess I'm not getting the joke.
Apparently according to his later post, OvB conflates "don't matter" and "I personally dislike".
Not so much conflates as equates.
That's an even odder world view. Just because one doesn't like something, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
:yes: I don't like the present day GOP, but unfortunately it matters quite a bit. I don't like getting explosive diarrhea, but when I do get it, it certainly matters for at least a few frantic moments.
Obama's post-convention bump has disappeared.
Rasmussen Tracking: Romney +2
Gallup Tracking: Obama +1
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx)
Quote from: Phillip V on September 18, 2012, 03:47:28 PM
Obama's post-convention bump has disappeared.
Gallup Tracking: Obama +1
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx)
Ouch, went from a 7-point spread to a 1? Well we'll see what happens as a result of this latest news cycle.
I think it's silly to follow the pollsters. They're generally in stone age when it comes to statistical sophistication of their methods, and there is way too much noise in their data. The national numbers are also meaningless when it's this close, since we have Electoral College and all. I think 538 is the way to go, and it shows 75% chance of Obama win (though down by 5% over the last couple of days).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 03:42:45 PMBasically the Federal government keeps that land for its own purposes, so it's not a fair cop for anti-Staters to bitch about the costs of managing the land.
It would be nice if they found a way to make them profitable. With all the logging and mining and ranching and oil drilling and geothermal power generation and solar and tourism and whatever else that happens on those lands you'd think they could at least be in the black.
BTW, Yi, care to make a bet on the outcome of the election? I need to get back the money that Roberts cost me with his last minute flip-flop.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 03:39:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 02:38:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:14:17 PM
Basically you wipe out all the douchebag states, wipe out a lot of the poor Southern states, then wipe out the states that are too boring to matter.
You keep states like Texas and North Carolina / Louisiana despite their troubling issues because Tex Mex and BBQ are awesome and a society has to have some culture, it can't all be dollars and cents. That's why New Jersey and its population of relatively high income (but highly taxed) people gets kicked out. New Jersey contributes absolutely nothing to the United States in term of culture, and its people are abominations. Their governor looks like he might actually try to eat the rest of the country if not checked.
I think we could do with out Texas culture. Also if we are getting rid of states that drag on the economy lets take out Montana, and Wyoming. They are big drags on the economy. In fact most of the big rural states need to go.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way, if there is any state I regret cutting it's North Dakota. Those big rural states are mostly Federal projects with much of the land being federally owned and very few people there. However, it's a lot of land, and there is some tangible benefit to keeping that land around. For example we're finding large natural gas and oil deposits in North Dakota...I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of the big empty western states. The dirt-poor southern states are much more egregious because they have far more people and thus far more po folk waiting for hand outs. Montana may not contribute much but in absolute terms the peoples of Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas are so few that they don't really cost us much either.
The problem is that people in Wyoming and Montana cost more per person then other states. With every one so spread out it costs more to provide infrastructure. Which road is going to cost more? A road that services 100,000 people in Montana or New Jersey?
A road that services 100,000 people in New Jersey is called a driveway.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 03:42:45 PM
The whole issue of donor vs recipient states isn't really entirely valid. A lot of the big empty states aren't recipient states because they are especially poor per capita, and the money they receive isn't a disproportionate pay out of welfare benefits or things like that. Instead it's more related to the fact many of those states are largely under Federal land management. The Federal government doesn't have to keep all that land, and most likely you could find private buyers in those states if you just wanted to sell it off. It's not really accurate to label some of those states as "sucking from the teat" because much of the "disproportionate benefit" they receive is in the form of dollars being spent on Federal land management--land that the residents of those States only derive minor benefit from in most cases. Basically the Federal government keeps that land for its own purposes, so it's not a fair cop for anti-Staters to bitch about the costs of managing the land.
Of course it is. The Feds payed for the land, and it's not like it's a big draw on the budget to manage 100 square miles of desert. Federal land ownership doesn't really factor into this. The donor vs recipient comes from two main things. The cost of managing large infrastructure, and the fact that rural folks tend to make less money then urban people. They don't seem poorer because cost of living is also lower out in rural areas and small towns. However, since taxes are collected from both at the same rates rural areas bring in much less in taxation.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 04:10:45 PM
The problem is that people in Wyoming and Montana cost more per person then other states. With every one so spread out it costs more to provide infrastructure. Which road is going to cost more? A road that services 100,000 people in Montana or New Jersey?
Fuck you, hippie.
Quote from: PDH on September 18, 2012, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 04:10:45 PM
The problem is that people in Wyoming and Montana cost more per person then other states. With every one so spread out it costs more to provide infrastructure. Which road is going to cost more? A road that services 100,000 people in Montana or New Jersey?
Fuck you, hippie.
Heh.
I'm actually surprised that the Federal government owns large tracts of land in the western states.
That was a major political issue in Canada when the western provinces came into confederation - unlike the original 4 provinces, they did not take title over Crown land.
Of course that was fixed back in the 1930s. Now the only major land owned by the Feds (outside of national parks) is in the northern territories.
The government didn't pay for it. :huh:
Louisiana purchase. :contract: Thankfully, the Louisiana purchase did not consist of just Louisiana.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 05:02:17 PM
The government didn't pay for it. :huh:
Where did you think the land came from?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 05:02:17 PM
The government didn't pay for it. :huh:
Where did you think the land came from?
It was nationalized from the Indians of course. There's no bill of sale showing the US buying it from anyone.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 05:02:17 PM
The government didn't pay for it. :huh:
Where did you think the land came from?
It was nationalized from the Indians of course. There's no bill of sale showing the US buying it from anyone.
I dunno, I'm pretty sure the Feds payed France and Mexico for the Western US. Besides, most of those Indian treaties involved purchases as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 05:25:31 PM
I dunno, I'm pretty sure the Feds payed France and Mexico for the Western US. Besides, most of those Indian treaties involved purchases as well.
That's confusing ownership with sovereignty. A French homeowner in New Orleans still owned his house the day after the Louisiana Purchase. It didn't suddenly belong to the US Government.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 05:29:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 05:25:31 PM
I dunno, I'm pretty sure the Feds payed France and Mexico for the Western US. Besides, most of those Indian treaties involved purchases as well.
That's confusing ownership with sovereignty. A French homeowner in New Orleans still owned his house the day after the Louisiana Purchase. It didn't suddenly belong to the US Government.
Yet the US government was in the position to sell that land to it's citizens via the Homestead act.
Quote from: sbr on September 18, 2012, 02:32:19 PM
@money : You'd give your left nut to live here instead of bawlmore.
Well, duh. Doesn't mean it's not the land of fruits and nuts.
I looked up the Indian treaty for my local area. Treaty of Fort Clark. US paid 800 dollars to the Great Osage tribe and 400 dollars to the not so great Osage tribe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Clark
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 04:19:17 PMOf course it is. The Feds payed for the land, and it's not like it's a big draw on the budget to manage 100 square miles of desert. Federal land ownership doesn't really factor into this. The donor vs recipient comes from two main things. The cost of managing large infrastructure, and the fact that rural folks tend to make less money then urban people. They don't seem poorer because cost of living is also lower out in rural areas and small towns. However, since taxes are collected from both at the same rates rural areas bring in much less in taxation.
That's not universally true, Alaska and Wyoming both have higher than median income. North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa have higher income than Ohio, Michigan and Florida which are far more urbanized states.
Further, how much of the infrastructure of Montana and Wyoming do you believe the Federal government versus the State government is responsible for? Do you think no other states benefit from having a transcontinental highway system? There is a reason we fund the interstate road system and that's because things that have a large national benefit may not always make sense if you break them down on a state by state basis. People from Montana and Wyoming certainly benefit from interstate roads, but if they are like every other state I'm familiar with a great deal of the roads people travel in their daily lives are state highways which are primarily supported by state taxes and not Federal taxes.
If you only argument is that big states receive more road benefits than small states (regardless of population) then that's kind of a moot point. The United States wants all that land, right? The United States wants its people to be able to drive across all that land, right? Why exactly is that even part of the discussion? Doesn't make much sense to me.
In terms of states and political entities that are sucking at the government teat for various entitlement programs, would it surprise you that the top 10 states in terms of welfare recipients per capita are:
1. D.C.
2. Guam
3. Rhode Island
4. Tennessee
5. California
6. Maine
7. Alaska
8. West Virginia
9. Indiana
10. Washington
11. New Mexico
12. Vermont
(I went to 12 since two of the entries in the first ten are obviously not states.)
Wyoming actually has the
lowest number of welfare recipients per capita at 0.143 per 100 people. Idaho is the second lowest at 0.224 per 100 people.
We can argue about people in those states making less than people in New York City or Washington D.C., but it appears they are fairly self-sufficient in comparison.
What exactly is defined as "Welfare" here? Where did that list come from? Feds come in with all sorts of funds for state projects, so even state and local concerns often have federal money in them. Matching funds, grants, etc. And guess what, everyone who gets federal money thinks their purpose is important. You think the US should have a lot of land and that people should be able to drive across it. Fine. Maybe not everyone agrees with you. Maybe Dguller living in New Jersey doesn't want homeless people crowding living around his apartment block and would rather have the feds spend on welfare instead of having some entitled corn farmer write off his truck as "farm equipment", get federal subsides, federal bailouts if crops fail, federal loans, and a federally guaranteed price floor. Maybe Montana should make up the difference somehow. Maybe they should raise their tax rates so they can pay for their own roads if it's so damn important.
"Welfare" probably doesn't include investments like roads and education. The people in Montana and Minnesota benefit from the Port of Oakland as much or more than California does. Personally, I would call farm subsidies welfare but that's probably not included either. I'm guessing it's just the stuff normally considered welfare like food stamps and stuff.
I wonder if social security is in there.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 18, 2012, 07:33:52 PM
Personally, I would call farm subsidies welfare but that's probably not included either. I'm guessing it's just the stuff normally considered welfare like food stamps and stuff.
Welfare only applies to minorities and other undesirables. Corporations and other non-darkie entities don't receive welfare, you know.
I actually don't mind people getting federal subsidies and shit. Doesn't bother me. I think that's part of the roll of government. What pisses me off is people rail on about government wealth transfers, and how goverment "bribes" people when they are major beneficiaries of this.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 07:44:20 PM
I actually don't mind people getting federal subsidies and shit. Doesn't bother me. I think that's part of the roll of government. What pisses me off is people rail on about government wealth transfers, and how goverment "bribes" people when they are major beneficiaries of this.
You should subscribe to Jesus' newsletter! :)
'Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, "Let me take the speck out of your eye", while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour's eye.'
I do. I already get the Catholic Missourian. And they already judge me.
You know, watching the rest of this video--beyond the 47% stuff, into the Palestinian stuff, the Iran issue, the Latino comments, SNL and more--is fascinating. It'd like a window into the stupid.
Any other interesting bits? Did he admit that he rode Seamus on the roof because the look of fear in dogs' eyes puts him in the mood?
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 09:44:31 PM
Any other interesting bits? Did he admit that he rode Seamus on the roof because the look of fear in dogs' eyes puts him in the mood?
:lmfao:
Ann barks when they have sex.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 01:19:54 PM
Heh. Most conservatives now think that Hitler was a leftist. Honest to God.
Conservatives would have preferred reinstating the Kaiser.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 18, 2012, 02:11:47 PM
Basically these states bring nothing, they are poor and suck to visit:
West Virginia
The New and Gauley rivers are quite fun.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2012, 04:10:45 PM
The problem is that people in Wyoming and Montana cost more per person then other states. With every one so spread out it costs more to provide infrastructure. Which road is going to cost more? A road that services 100,000 people in Montana or New Jersey?
A road in Montana services people in New Jersey by letting them get goods more cheaply.
Quote from: Jaron on September 17, 2012, 07:36:29 PM
One wonders though if this statement drives anyone away who wasn't already not going to vote for Romney anyway.
I don't know about the US politics and how much Romney has been hated until now, but I would assume so.
I have to say I had some sympathy for the guy when he was being hounded for his practices at Bain - because, while not very "presentable" to the media largely ignorant of equity markets, I didn't find anything out of ordinary there. So I assume that there might have been moderates/independents there who were considering voting for him.
His taped comments - not just the ones about "losers", but also his implied racism and his disparaging comments about his wife - turned me off completely from him, and I suppose a lot of voters would react like that.
Essentially, from various tidbits we know about him in private (his treatment of the family dog; his hazing/bullying behaviour in the past; his favourite college pasttime of impersonating an officer to intimidate people; and now his comments off the record), there emerges a pretty consistent picture of a rather nasty piece of shit. He is not a charisma-less suit like Kerry - he is much worse than that.
In fact, I imagine that there might be a part of moderate Republican voters who were going to vote for him along party lines, but may decide to stay home now for this very reason.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 04:05:22 PM
BTW, Yi, care to make a bet on the outcome of the election? I need to get back the money that Roberts cost me with his last minute flip-flop.
What are you offering?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 06:23:43 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2012, 04:05:22 PM
BTW, Yi, care to make a bet on the outcome of the election? I need to get back the money that Roberts cost me with his last minute flip-flop.
What are you offering?
I think Obama will win. I'm offering pricing at 70% chance (never figured out the fractional odds). Basically, I win $30 if he wins, and lose $70 if he loses.
Dguller, why not bet on Romney? That way it will cushion the blow.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 08:24:16 AM
Dguller, why not bet on Romney? That way it will cushion the blow.
Not from a financial perspective. If Obama wins, my marginal tax rate will go up to 200%. I earn enough that it will cost me more than $70.
Will 30 bucks cover that?
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 08:21:14 AM
I think Obama will win. I'm offering pricing at 70% chance (never figured out the fractional odds). Basically, I win $30 if he wins, and lose $70 if he loses.
Yi would be significantly better off at intrade where he'd get about $95 for his 30 buck downside.
Quote from: Gups on September 19, 2012, 08:33:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 08:21:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 06:23:43 AM
I think Obama will win. I'm offering pricing at 70% chance (never figured out the fractional odds). Basically, I win $30 if he wins, and lose $70 if he loses.
Yi would be significantly better off at intrade where he'd get about $95 for his 30 buck downside.
He'd be better off betting on Obama.
Quote from: Gups on September 19, 2012, 08:33:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 08:21:14 AM
I think Obama will win. I'm offering pricing at 70% chance (never figured out the fractional odds). Basically, I win $30 if he wins, and lose $70 if he loses.
Yi would be significantly better off at intrade where he'd get about $95 for his 30 buck downside.
:huh: No. The net profits for Yi are equivalent to what he would get if he bought Romney at 30.
You're right, sorry.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2012, 03:13:11 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 17, 2012, 07:36:29 PM
One wonders though if this statement drives anyone away who wasn't already not going to vote for Romney anyway.
I don't know about the US politics and how much Romney has been hated until now, but I would assume so.
I have to say I had some sympathy for the guy when he was being hounded for his practices at Bain - because, while not very "presentable" to the media largely ignorant of equity markets, I didn't find anything out of ordinary there. So I assume that there might have been moderates/independents there who were considering voting for him.
His taped comments - not just the ones about "losers", but also his implied racism and his disparaging comments about his wife - turned me off completely from him, and I suppose a lot of voters would react like that.
Essentially, from various tidbits we know about him in private (his treatment of the family dog; his hazing/bullying behaviour in the past; his favourite college pasttime of impersonating an officer to intimidate people; and now his comments off the record), there emerges a pretty consistent picture of a rather nasty piece of shit. He is not a charisma-less suit like Kerry - he is much worse than that.
In fact, I imagine that there might be a part of moderate Republican voters who were going to vote for him along party lines, but may decide to stay home now for this very reason.
I'm going to risk engaging Marti in political discussion. Hold me, I'm afraid.
These comments obviously don't help him win over undecideds and moderates. No disagreement here. But if you are a consistent Republican voter, I don't think you get turned off by them. There is some fundamental truth to what he said. There is a certain percentage of the population (not 47%, and not everyone who receives government benefits) who aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what. It's probably closer to 30-40% of the population that will vote Democrat no matter what - and the same thing goes for Republicans. So Romney was right in saying you target your message not to everyone, but to the people who you might be able to persuade to vote for you.
If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.
And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.
Yeah, the election is so polarized now, and the polls show very few "undecideds" that the needle's not going to move much; in previous elections, maybe...but, in Romney's favor, there is so, so much vehement disdain and dislike for the President on the right that Romney could assfuck a 7 year old with leukemia live on Nickelodeon to the soundtrack of
300, and they're still going to vote to get the secular socialist Kenyan nigger out.
QuoteAnd I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.
Yeah, all that is swept up under the mantle of "out-of-touch rich guy", and it specifically really doesn't matter. His sheer number of gaffes and missteps, from the primary season to now, it's all been collectively summed up into the singular composite sketch.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
I'm going to risk engaging Marti in political discussion. Hold me, I'm afraid.
These comments obviously don't help him win over undecideds and moderates. No disagreement here. But if you are a consistent Republican voter, I don't think you get turned off by them. There is some fundamental truth to what he said. There is a certain percentage of the population (not 47%, and not everyone who receives government benefits) who aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what. It's probably closer to 30-40% of the population that will vote Democrat no matter what - and the same thing goes for Republicans. So Romney was right in saying you target your message not to everyone, but to the people who you might be able to persuade to vote for you.
If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.
And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.
I don't think that Mitt writing off the chances of convincing a certain part of electorate is the issue here. The issue is him drawing the logical conclusion that those who are solid voters for Obama are that way because they're losers dependent on the government. Why is this point being consistently overlooked?
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
I'm going to risk engaging Marti in political discussion. Hold me, I'm afraid.
These comments obviously don't help him win over undecideds and moderates. No disagreement here. But if you are a consistent Republican voter, I don't think you get turned off by them. There is some fundamental truth to what he said. There is a certain percentage of the population (not 47%, and not everyone who receives government benefits) who aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what. It's probably closer to 30-40% of the population that will vote Democrat no matter what - and the same thing goes for Republicans. So Romney was right in saying you target your message not to everyone, but to the people who you might be able to persuade to vote for you.
If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.
And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.
I don't think that Mitt writing off the chances of convincing a certain part of electorate is the issue here. The issue is him drawing the logical conclusion that those who are solid voters for Obama are that way because they're losers dependent on the government. Why is this point being consistently overlooked?
Not all Obama voters are "losers dependent on government". But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:08:21 AM
But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).
Racist much, assfuck?
Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:08:21 AM
But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).
Racist much, assfuck?
Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.
Do those "southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in" who vote GOP also receive welfare / food stamps?
My Canadian experience is that people on significant government assistance (which is a lot less than 47% of the population) do not vote conservative. Working poor (who still receive significant government benefits) are a different story however.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycentral.com%2Felections%2F12008%2Fexit%2Fincome.jpg&hash=dbfbdca7f7459f33efb47ada6a72210f41ab5d00)
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:08:21 AM
Not all Obama voters are "losers dependent on government". But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).
Well, that's your opinion, and as stupid and offensive as it is in its own right, that's not Romney's opinion. Romney equated the two 47% groups, so he implied 1-to-1 correlation. The issue being discussed here is what Romney said, and why it's offensive, insulting, and not even close to being true.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:17:05 AM
Do those "southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in" who vote GOP also receive welfare / food stamps?
Yes.
QuoteIn December 2009, the New York Times published a series of related articles showing that poor whites across Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta and through the Midwest, Deep South and Texas borderlands were the highest percentage of Americans relying on the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), or food stamp, program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=0
And guess who consistently carry those states?
Food Stamps--They're Just Not For Niggers AnymoreQuotes Paul Krugman pointed out in his 2007 article "Republicans and Race," Southern whites still voted for the GOP at a ratio of 2 to 1. But for poor whites voting Republican, it's a strategy that only serves to keep them in poverty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html
QuoteMy Canadian experience is that people on significant government assistance (which is a lot less than 47% of the population) do not vote conservative. Working poor (who still receive significant government benefits) are a different story however.
And once again, like so many of your fellow idiotic Languish Canuckistani brethren, you apply your foreign presuppositions to uniquely American situations.
We may speak the same fucking language on the same fucking continent, but we're on two different planets. So knock it the fuck off already.
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 10:24:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:08:21 AM
Not all Obama voters are "losers dependent on government". But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).
Well, that's your opinion, and as stupid and offensive as it is in its own right, that's not Romney's opinion. Romney equated the two 47% groups, so he implied 1-to-1 correlation. The issue being discussed here is what Romney said, and why it's offensive, insulting, and not even close to being true.
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
I agree that what Romney said what not true. Much has been rightly said about how that 47% includes veterans and seniors, includes people reciving medicare (which he has promised not to touch), and so on. However I'd like to think even Romney knows that, and that everyone's tongue gets slipped up in rhetoric once in a while.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:08:21 AM
But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).
Racist much, assfuck?
Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.
A lot of them don't vote, and of those who do a significant number of them do indeed vote Democrat.
But yeah, keep throwing the racism accusations around from your glass house.
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2012, 10:48:13 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:08:21 AM
But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).
Racist much, assfuck?
Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.
A lot of them don't vote, and of those who do a significant number of them do indeed vote Democrat.
But yeah, keep throwing the racism accusations around from your glass house.
Eat me, fetus fucker. Tired of your shit, too.
Ooh, a Paul Krugman quote. CASE CLOSED :lol:
Syt's graph looks off to me. Why is the "other/none" column so tiny, when trunout is around 60%
Where's the key - is it talking about household income or individual?
In any event, I wouldn't describe 70% as "almost all", but perhaps that's just me.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
Not really. Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.
Quote from: ulmont on September 19, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
Not really. Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.
15-30k sounds like working poor to me.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 19, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
Not really. Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.
15-30k sounds like working poor to me.
Not if it's a household number, and at that point you're still getting direct tax credits to help support any kids.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 19, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
Not really. Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.
15-30k sounds like working poor to me.
And they can still get government assistance!
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 19, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
Not really. Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.
15-30k sounds like working poor to me.
And they can still get government assistance!
And?
Quote from: Gups on September 19, 2012, 10:49:41 AM
Syt's graph looks off to me. Why is the "other/none" column so tiny, when trunout is around 60%
I'm guessing the graph only represents voters. "Other" would be people who voted for a third party candidate and "None" would be for people who left Presidential Candidate blank on their ballot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 10:39:10 AM
QuoteIn December 2009, the New York Times published a series of related articles showing that poor whites across Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta and through the Midwest, Deep South and Texas borderlands were the highest percentage of Americans relying on the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), or food stamp, program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=0
And guess who consistently carry those states?
Food Stamps--They're Just Not For Niggers Anymore
Wait a minute. If this is true, don't you have to drop the "OMG talking about food stamps is using a raciss dog whistle term" bullshit?
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2012, 11:07:23 AM
Wait a minute. If this is true, don't you have to drop the "OMG talking about food stamps is using a raciss dog whistle term" bullshit?
Nope. I like my dog whistles.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 11:04:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 19, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
Not really. Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.
15-30k sounds like working poor to me.
And they can still get government assistance!
And?
And significant numbers of them vote for the GOP.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:15:38 AM
And significant numbers of them vote for the GOP.
But the majority don't.
Besides, the government does other things besides decide how much money to take out of wallets and how much, if any, to put back in other wallets.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:15:38 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 11:04:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 19, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so :P to you.
Not really. Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.
15-30k sounds like working poor to me.
And they can still get government assistance!
And?
And significant numbers of them vote for the GOP.
And?
Really. What is the point you are trying to make.
Romney said all such people vote Dem.
You said almost all.
You are both wrong.
I think that's the point that's being made.
Quote from: Gups on September 19, 2012, 11:24:01 AM
Romney said all such people vote Dem.
You said almost all.
You are both wrong.
I think that's the point that's being made.
I said people who exist entirely on government support vote overwhelmingly democratic. I stand by that. I also clearly stated that "working poor", who still receive government assistance, are more mixed in their party support.
There's no real category where Republicans are overwhelming Dems. Possibly because there are less Republicans. Possibly because that last election was had a pretty poor showing for McCain.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
There's no real category where Republicans are overwhelming Dems. Possibly because there are less Republicans. Possibly because that last election was had a pretty poor showing for McCain.
Strictly at policies there does seem like there might be a difference between the candidates - though that's strictly on economic grounds.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/22/news/economy/middle-class-election/index.html
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 11:25:54 AM
I said people who exist entirely on government support vote overwhelmingly democratic. I stand by that. I also clearly stated that "working poor", who still receive government assistance, are more mixed in their party support.
You said "dependent" not "exist entirely". One can work and still be dependent on govt assistance. And you said "almost all" not "overwhelmingly" (the last may be pedantic but in my mind almost all is close to 100% while overwhelmingly is a less precise phrase).
Like I said. This won't hurt him much, because conservatives believe it.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
There's no real category where Republicans are overwhelming Dems. Possibly because there are less Republicans. Possibly because that last election was had a pretty poor showing for McCain.
Democrats have outnumbered Republicans as long as we've been alive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
Jesus H Chocolate Covered Christ on a stick, people.
Sometimes people go to church, not out of "intellectual curiosity" or "nominal religiosity" or any of the other bullshit reasons you fucking noodleheads are overthinking, as fucking usual.
Sometimes people go to church because it's a goddamned community thing, it's usually the largest collective activity in the community particularly in the urban environment, and they have some wicked fried chicken dinners afterwards. Fuck.
That's an American thing, it doesn't translate to the continental experience of institutional state churches. The Founders were right - radical disestablishment strengthened religion by forcing religion to integrate fully with civil society.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fpolitics%2Fnonpayers.banner.taxfound.jpg&hash=fdf3bde88fc78e585a00fa0847bf2f2082fe602c)
Source of the image: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-income-taxes/262499/
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 03:21:28 PM
Source of the image: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-income-taxes/262499/
And from your link:
QuoteUpdate: My colleague Derek Thompson picks up the baton from me and digs deeper into the demographics of the so-called 47 percent. One important note he makes is that it's often the lowest-income people in these red states who are most likely to vote Democratic -- it's just that the rest of the population is conservative enough to carry the states into the Republican column.
QuoteIn 2008, Obama lost Georgia by 5 percentage points but he won 70% of voters who earned less than $30,000 -- which is precisely the demo most likely to owe no federal income tax. Obama lost Mississippi by 14 percentage points, but picked up 66% of voters who earned less than $30,000. As a general rule, Republicans win among richer voters -- both in the red states and the blue.
Jacob cares way too much about US politics.
He seems to care a reasonable amount to me. US policies can have dramatic effects on Canada, after all.
Romney focused on income tax in his speech, i.e. around 47% of the American people are resentful wastrels, living on the government teat because they pay no income tax. Isn't that the fault of Republicans like Reagan and Bush, who lowered income tax?
Then Republicans turn around and bitch in Eurofag class warfare terms about the welfare queens, just by looking at income tax. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
Jacob cares way too much about US politics.
US politics are pretty entertaining, especially around presidential elections. It's like the Stanley Cup or Championship League.
Chinese politics are pretty fascinating too, but people here are much less invested in them and generally the English language debate isn't as wide and deep as the one surrounding US elections.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 03:22:43 PM
And from your link:
Yeah I saw that. All kinds of interesting analysis can be done from that situation.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 19, 2012, 03:35:28 PM
He seems to care a reasonable amount to me. US policies can have dramatic effects on Canada, after all.
Like I said, it's like the Stanley Cup playoffs or the Championship League - a great spectacle.
And yeah, there are definite repercussions for Canada and the world from American elections, so of course there's a bit of a stake; ultimately, however, it's about the fact that it makes for a great show if you're interested in politics. And I am.
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 03:47:23 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 19, 2012, 03:35:28 PM
He seems to care a reasonable amount to me. US policies can have dramatic effects on Canada, after all.
Like I said, it's like the Stanley Cup playoffs or the Championship League - a great spectacle.
And yeah, there are definite repercussions for Canada and the world from American elections, so of course there's a bit of a stake; ultimately, however, it's about the fact that it makes for a great show if you're interested in politics. And I am.
It's a great show if you're interested in politics
and live somewhere else. I was sick of election stuff two months ago.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 19, 2012, 03:48:53 PMIt's a great show if you're interested in politics and live somewhere else. I was sick of election stuff two months ago.
Oh definitely :lol:
What makes it a great show is that I can turn it off and ignore it if I feel like it.
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 03:44:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 03:22:43 PM
And from your link:
Yeah I saw that. All kinds of interesting analysis can be done from that situation.
My point was that the chart you posted is rather misleading.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 03:52:53 PMMy point was that the chart you posted is rather misleading.
Not really.
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 04:16:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 03:52:53 PMMy point was that the chart you posted is rather misleading.
Not really.
I think it is. By itself and even for most of that article it seems to suggest that the majority of people that Romney described as Obama-voters actually vote for the GOP. The update points out that actually a sizable portion of those individuals likely not to pay income tax in Red states actually break for Obama.
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 08:21:14 AM
I think Obama will win. I'm offering pricing at 70% chance (never figured out the fractional odds). Basically, I win $30 if he wins, and lose $70 if he loses.
I think more or less the same. I would need the odds sweetened a bit to take Mitt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:06:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 08:21:14 AM
I think Obama will win. I'm offering pricing at 70% chance (never figured out the fractional odds). Basically, I win $30 if he wins, and lose $70 if he loses.
I think more or less the same. I would need the odds sweetened a bit to take Mitt.
How about 75%? That's a nice 7.5% premium on Intrade odds.
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 05:20:32 PM
How about 75%? That's a nice 7.5% premium on Intrade odds.
It's so nice you should be willing to take the other side of the bet, right?
I take that back. I accept your offer of 75 to 25.
Can I also take the offer?
Quote from: derspiess on September 19, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
Jacob cares way too much about US politics.
I wish the same could be said for many Americans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:23:56 PM
I take that back. I accept your offer of 75 to 25.
Deal. For the sake of clarity, I win $25 if Obama wins, and lose $75 if Romney wins.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 19, 2012, 05:28:54 PM
Can I also take the offer?
No. This is a regular customer offer only. :contract:
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 19, 2012, 05:28:54 PM
Can I also take the offer?
No. This is a regular customer offer only. :contract:
What past transactions have you and Yi had?
Quote from: Phillip V on September 19, 2012, 05:35:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 19, 2012, 05:28:54 PM
Can I also take the offer?
No. This is a regular customer offer only. :contract:
What past transactions have you and Yi had?
I've had about half a dozen by now. The latest one was the bet on Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, which I had in the bag until Roberts caved. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:32:35 PMI think it is. By itself and even for most of that article it seems to suggest that the majority of people that Romney described as Obama-voters actually vote for the GOP. The update points out that actually a sizable portion of those individuals likely not to pay income tax in Red states actually break for Obama.
Or it could meant that Romney was right - there are a bunch of shifty, freeloading Democrats in those states, so that makes everyone else vote full out Republican in response.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:23:56 PM
I take that back. I accept your offer of 75 to 25.
You can always hedge it on intrade, right?
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 05:47:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:23:56 PM
I take that back. I accept your offer of 75 to 25.
You can always hedge it on intrade, right?
Yes, he can, if he has an account there. I don't, and I'd rather not risk it.
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 05:47:53 PM
You can always hedge it on intrade, right?
Not really. Even if the thought of losing $25 made me lose sleep the $5 Intrade fee would pretty much kill my arbitrage opportunity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:58:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 05:47:53 PM
You can always hedge it on intrade, right?
Not really. Even if the thought of losing $25 made me lose sleep the $5 Intrade fee would pretty much kill my arbitrage opportunity.
You guys need to start betting Romney-like amounts.
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 06:00:11 PM
You guys need to start betting Romney-like amounts.
"You guys?" It's a participatory activity Yake. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 06:02:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 06:00:11 PM
You guys need to start betting Romney-like amounts.
"You guys?" It's a participatory activity Yake. :)
Heh. Maybe one day :)
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:32:35 PMI think it is. By itself and even for most of that article it seems to suggest that the majority of people that Romney described as Obama-voters actually vote for the GOP. The update points out that actually a sizable portion of those individuals likely not to pay income tax in Red states actually break for Obama.
Or it could meant that Romney was right - there are a bunch of shifty, freeloading Democrats in those states, so that makes everyone else vote full out Republican in response.
That's a rather unlikely reading. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 11:42:08 PMThat's a rather unlikely reading. :P
That's down to your own prejudice :P
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2012, 03:13:11 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 17, 2012, 07:36:29 PM
One wonders though if this statement drives anyone away who wasn't already not going to vote for Romney anyway.
I don't know about the US politics and how much Romney has been hated until now, but I would assume so.
I have to say I had some sympathy for the guy when he was being hounded for his practices at Bain - because, while not very "presentable" to the media largely ignorant of equity markets, I didn't find anything out of ordinary there. So I assume that there might have been moderates/independents there who were considering voting for him.
His taped comments - not just the ones about "losers", but also his implied racism and his disparaging comments about his wife - turned me off completely from him, and I suppose a lot of voters would react like that.
Essentially, from various tidbits we know about him in private (his treatment of the family dog; his hazing/bullying behaviour in the past; his favourite college pasttime of impersonating an officer to intimidate people; and now his comments off the record), there emerges a pretty consistent picture of a rather nasty piece of shit. He is not a charisma-less suit like Kerry - he is much worse than that.
In fact, I imagine that there might be a part of moderate Republican voters who were going to vote for him along party lines, but may decide to stay home now for this very reason.
I'm going to risk engaging Marti in political discussion. Hold me, I'm afraid.
These comments obviously don't help him win over undecideds and moderates. No disagreement here. But if you are a consistent Republican voter, I don't think you get turned off by them. There is some fundamental truth to what he said. There is a certain percentage of the population (not 47%, and not everyone who receives government benefits) who aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what. It's probably closer to 30-40% of the population that will vote Democrat no matter what - and the same thing goes for Republicans. So Romney was right in saying you target your message not to everyone, but to the people who you might be able to persuade to vote for you.
If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.
And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.
Please read what I said - I actually don't think the 47% comment was the worst of all he said. His racism and disparaging "jokes" about his wife were worse, imo. Are these also values Republicans share?
Yes. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:23:56 PM
I take that back. I accept your offer of 75 to 25.
I can offer the same deal. I'm getting tired of waiting on the $100 savings bond you're keeping for me to mature.
(So, I'd owe you $175 in the event of a Romney victory.)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 20, 2012, 04:26:12 AM
I can offer the same deal. I'm getting tired of waiting on the $100 savings bond you're keeping for me to mature.
(So, I'd owe you $175 in the event of a Romney victory.)
Deal.
Same terms as everyone else. Payable at $50 dollars. I.e., if you win, I have a $25 debit balance until it reaches $50.
I take 10% of every transaction. It's the Pizzo.
Or the IRS is on your asses.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2012, 07:05:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 20, 2012, 04:26:12 AM
I can offer the same deal. I'm getting tired of waiting on the $100 savings bond you're keeping for me to mature.
(So, I'd owe you $175 in the event of a Romney victory.)
Deal.
Same terms as everyone else. Payable at $50 dollars. I.e., if you win, I have a $25 debit balance until it reaches $50.
I didn't know that was part of the program. Since we only have one near-term bet, I don't like the idea of potentially getting my $25 in 2020 too. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2012, 07:05:14 AM
Deal.
Same terms as everyone else. Payable at $50 dollars. I.e., if you win, I have a $25 debit balance until it reaches $50.
Sounds suspiciously like a redistribution of wealth.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 20, 2012, 11:57:03 AM
I didn't know that was part of the program. Since we only have one near-term bet, I don't like the idea of potentially getting my $25 in 2020 too. :P
Then walk away. :shrug:
i am far more offended that the 47% of our dependent population, all but enslaved to the state, do not seem to care and want to find a way out
i suspect that these people wouldve preferred the tories in 1776
Of course you are, you're the intended audience for Mitt's speech when he gave it.
Damn those seniors and military people and disabled people and working poor for not wanting to find a way to get out of their non-income tax paying ways.
Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
Of course you are, you're the intended audience for Mitt's speech when he gave it.
Damn those seniors and military people and disabled people and working poor for not wanting to find a way to get out of their non-income tax paying ways.
Having tax-exempt income as a servicemember means you are in a combat zone.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 20, 2012, 05:40:50 PM
Having tax-exempt income as a servicemember means you are in a combat zone, so...
So the wife and the kids back home are the losers then. Swell.
Servicemembers are entitled to food so damn them too.
Quote from: Rasputin on September 20, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
i am far more offended that the 47% of our dependent population, all but enslaved to the state, do not seem to care and want to find a way out
i suspect that these people wouldve preferred the tories in 1776
Christ, how much of that koolaid do you drink a day?
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
Was a little surprised to learn that Dutch came up with the Earned Income Tax Credit. I had thought it was Bubba's idea.
Biscuit, were you being serious or hyperbolci with your hypothetical example of somebody getting back 13k on 4k taxes paid because of child care credit or whatever?
I look Jewish. People frequently think I'm a Jew. Of course I vote for Democrats.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 20, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Servicemembers are entitled to food so damn them too.
bunch of freeloaders the lot of ya.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2012, 05:45:04 PM
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
:lol: I've done this before too. You get so worked up about this thought you just have to convey you completely space on where you're at at the moment.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 20, 2012, 05:40:50 PMHaving tax-exempt income as a servicemember means you are in a combat zone.
Exactly. Obviously they don't care and are not interested in finding a way out.
A mormon perspective on Mitt: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/election2012/6370/mitt_romney%E2%80%99s_best-known_mormon_critic_tells_it_all._one_last_time.__%7C_election_2012_%7C_/
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2012, 05:45:04 PM
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
Meowtf.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2012, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2012, 05:45:04 PM
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
:lol: I've done this before too. You get so worked up about this thought you just have to convey you completely space on where you're at at the moment.
:lol:
Woops.
I just chalk it up to spellus being spellus.
Quote from: katmai on September 20, 2012, 05:57:02 PM
I just chalk it up to spellus being spellus.
Multiple windows open.
Jesus Christ. If tape of Mitt Romney comes out tomorrow where he says that 99% of Americans are vile trash that he dreads having to deal with, 40% of Americans are going to attack Obama for turning so many Americans into vile trash, and praise Mitt Romney for being so candid on hidden camera.
The Pennsylvania GOP manage to meld the Voter ID issue with Mittens' "47%":
QuoteDaryl Metcalfe, a Pennsylvania state House member who originally sponsored the state's voter ID law that is currently in legal limbo, said on a local radio station Wednesday morning that the state shouldn't be responsible for people who are too "lazy" to obtain the needed ID.
"Ultimately, the burden isn't on the state to make sure every individual does what they need to get their ID card. I mean, individuals have certain responsibilities in securing their ID," the Republican lawmaker told Pittsburgh radio station KDKA, in a clip circulated by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. "They have to present the documents needed. The state doesn't have that burden. I think the individual does, and ultimately it's a great travesty of justice to violate the rights of millions to have their legally cast vote protected for the special interests of a few individuals that are too lazy to get out there and get done what they have to to get their ID card."
The host asked whether Metcalfe was convinced that no legitimate voter would be disenfranchised. Metcalfe said he was.
"As Mitt Romney said, 47 percent of the people ... are living off the public dole, living off their neighbors' hard work, and we have a lot of people out there that are too lazy to get up and get out there and get the ID they need. If individuals are too lazy, the state can't fix that. But the process is put in place to get an ID card. There's a free ID available if someone needs one."
Awesome.
Sometimes I start to wonder if I'm going insane, and if what I perceive as reality is just a cruel attempt by my sick brain to torture my soul.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2012, 06:45:36 PM
Sometimes I start to wonder if I'm going insane, and if what I perceive as reality is just a cruel attempt by my sick brain to torture my soul.
Are you sure you emigrated to the right country ? :whistle:
edit:A key advantage of the UK general election is politicians only have three weeks within which to risk letting slip how stupid or venal they actually are.
In the US, you guys get to wade through 2+years of radio gaga/stupid stuff.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2012, 06:45:36 PM
Sometimes I start to wonder if I'm going insane, and if what I perceive as reality is just a cruel attempt by my sick brain to torture my soul.
Welcome to my world, motherfucker.
That may turn out to be a winner yet for Romney and the Republicans... it seems that resentment of lazy layabouts and grifters runs pretty strong and resonates a fair bit, so if the Republicans can turn to discourse into being about how lazy people need to work harder, and how the reason hardworking folks are having a difficult time is because the lazy-people-Democrat-constituency are being lazy and dragging everybody down, they'll probably do better than if the discourse is about Romney's personality, character, coolness under pressure, the war on women, or his plans (whatever it is that they actually are).
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2012, 06:45:36 PM
Sometimes I start to wonder if I'm going insane, and if what I perceive as reality is just a cruel attempt by my sick brain to torture my soul.
Welcome to my world, motherfucker.
:mad: Hey, you're actually nuts. I'm just wailing for dramatic effect here.
Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2012, 07:26:41 PM
That may turn out to be a winner yet for Romney and the Republicans... it seems that resentment of lazy layabouts and grifters runs pretty strong and resonates a fair bit, so if the Republicans can turn to discourse into being about how lazy people need to work harder, and how the reason hardworking folks are having a difficult time is because the lazy-people-Democrat-constituency are being lazy and dragging everybody down, they'll probably do better than if the discourse is about Romney's personality, character, coolness under pressure, the war on women, or his plans (whatever it is that they actually are).
It's nothing that hasn't been bandied about for the last 30 years--the resentment demographic has been set in stone. The needle won't move much either way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2012, 04:56:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 20, 2012, 11:57:03 AM
I didn't know that was part of the program. Since we only have one near-term bet, I don't like the idea of potentially getting my $25 in 2020 too. :P
Then walk away. :shrug:
I's just the first time I've seen that caveat mentioned, probably as it didn't apply to our previous wager. I'll happily go 150:50 if you like.
Quote from: Rasputin on September 20, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
i am far more offended that the 47% of our dependent population, all but enslaved to the state, do not seem to care and want to find a way out
i suspect that these people wouldve preferred the tories in 1776
Yeah, the UK of 1776 redistributed wealth like mad.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2012, 05:45:04 PM
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
I don't know what this question means. I'm gonna say no since the two people I've fucked the most have been an Asian-American and an African-American, although I guess we all have got black hair. Politically speaking I don't know what you're asking. Do I vote for white people? People of average height?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 20, 2012, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2012, 05:45:04 PM
Just curious-does anyone else kind of associate themselves with the side they "look like"? My father is medium height, big nose, broad-shouldered, (had) curly dark-brown hair, fairly thick beard with a lot of body hair. I'm very tall, blonde, medium-width, massively long limbs, shit beard. I feel like a Saxon, even though I'm pretty sure my dad (at least as far as phenotype is concerned) is about as purely pre-Germanic as you would get.
I don't know what this question means. I'm gonna say no since the two people I've fucked the most have been an Asian-American and an African-American, although I guess we all have got black hair. Politically speaking I don't know what you're asking. Do I vote for white people? People of average height?
Yeah, I don't get the question, either. I mean, I'm of Irish descent, and I suppose I look the part*, but then both Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were Irish, too, and looked it, so I can't see what distinction I'm supposed to be drawing.
*Not that an American of Irish descent looks all that noticibly different than a WASP, or an American of German, French, or Polish descent.
I'm guessing he posted in the wrong thread but I wonder what the right one was. Do we have a biological racism thread going?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 21, 2012, 12:19:49 AM
I'm guessing he posted in the wrong thread but I wonder what the right one was. Do we have a biological racism thread going?
Probably, this being Languish and all, though most of our bigotry here is of the cultural and religious type, not blatant racism.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 21, 2012, 12:19:49 AM
I'm guessing he posted in the wrong thread but I wonder what the right one was. Do we have a biological racism thread going?
Probably, this being Languish and all, though most of our bigotry here is of the cultural and religious type, not blatant racism.
Roman barbarian thread.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8399.msg477157.html#msg477157
So if you make a point that is germane to two threads you're not allowed to just copy/paste? :huh:
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2012, 12:38:59 AM
So if you make a point that is germane to two threads you're not allowed to just copy/paste? :huh:
Since when does spellus make a point that's germane to any thread?
I thought his point was that he was Germane.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 12:46:54 AM
I thought his point was that he was Germane.
Hey now, we Germans made many mistakes in our history, but Spellus isn't one of them!
Quote from: Ideologue on September 20, 2012, 11:53:55 PM
I's just the first time I've seen that caveat mentioned, probably as it didn't apply to our previous wager. I'll happily go 150:50 if you like.
Deal.
As to Squeelus, he's definitely Tito.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2012, 05:48:04 PM
Was a little surprised to learn that Dutch came up with the Earned Income Tax Credit. I had thought it was Bubba's idea.
It was Milton Friedman's idea, IIRC
Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2012, 05:39:39 PM
Of course you are, you're the intended audience for Mitt's speech when he gave it.
Damn those seniors and military people and disabled people and working poor for not wanting to find a way to get out of their non-income tax paying ways.
do you really think america has 140,000,000 seniors and disabled people or are you just a full time troll now?
are you not the least bit bothered that the class of federal income tax payer has been reduced to just 53% of the population and there are calls to tax these people more?
do you not understand that when you raise taxes on a guy that can chose who to hire and fire and to whom to give raises or ask for salary or benefit decreases that in the end you actually pass the pain right back to those 47%?
or instead are you just too busy being outraged that mitt only paid 14% of his gross income to notice that that means mitt paid 2,800,000 in income taxes to a bloated federal government that cannot get out of its own way?
If 14% was 2.8 mil, then he could afford 35%.
Job creator is just another term for exploiter.
Quote from: Rasputin on September 21, 2012, 09:59:50 AM
are you not the least bit bothered that the class of federal income tax payer has been reduced to just 53% of the population and there are calls to tax these people more?
I don't see what is so talismanic about income taxation as opposed to other forms but there is a simple solution to this concern that doesn't involve soaking the working poor: broaden the income tax and ditch the payroll taxes.
Would someone please explain the difference between payroll and income taxes to an ignorant furriner?
Quote from: Gups on September 21, 2012, 10:37:03 AM
Would someone please explain the difference between payroll and income taxes to an ignorant furriner?
Payroll taxes are things like FICA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax They cover Medicare, Social Security and other contributions. These aren't progressive and, instead, are really a form of flat income-tax.
Income taxes are our form of progressive, multi-bracket taxes on earnings that scale based upon income and are levied on top of FICA taxes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2012, 10:15:38 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on September 21, 2012, 09:59:50 AM
are you not the least bit bothered that the class of federal income tax payer has been reduced to just 53% of the population and there are calls to tax these people more?
I don't see what is so talismanic about income taxation as opposed to other forms but there is a simple solution to this concern that doesn't involve soaking the working poor: broaden the income tax and ditch the payroll taxes.
Yep, it seems payroll taxes are the way governments of every stripe in every jurisdiction take money while while being champions of low taxation in the name of job creation.
If government really wants to lower the cost of employing more people that is definitely the place to start. With all due respect to Rasputin, I highly doubt that a "job creator" makes decisions about employees based on their own personal income tax situation. They are making on the basis of the cost/benefit to the bottom line of their business and payroll taxes are a huge cost in that calculation.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 21, 2012, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 21, 2012, 10:37:03 AM
Would someone please explain the difference between payroll and income taxes to an ignorant furriner?
Payroll taxes are things like FICA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax They cover Medicare, Social Security and other contributions. These aren't progressive and, instead, are really a form of flat income-tax.
Income taxes are our form of progressive, multi-bracket taxes on earnings that scale based upon income and are levied on top of FICA taxes.
Payroll taxes aren't really flat though--they're regressive, because they're capped at the first $100,000 or so of gross income (see the link in Habbaku's post for the exact dollar figure and more details).
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 10:50:02 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 21, 2012, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 21, 2012, 10:37:03 AM
Would someone please explain the difference between payroll and income taxes to an ignorant furriner?
Payroll taxes are things like FICA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax They cover Medicare, Social Security and other contributions. These aren't progressive and, instead, are really a form of flat income-tax.
Income taxes are our form of progressive, multi-bracket taxes on earnings that scale based upon income and are levied on top of FICA taxes.
Payroll taxes aren't really flat though--they're regressive, because they're capped at the first $100,000 or so of gross income (see the link in Habbaku's post for the exact dollar figure and more details).
Again, another characteristic of payroll taxes across jurisdictions it seems.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2012, 10:50:56 AM
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 10:50:02 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 21, 2012, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 21, 2012, 10:37:03 AM
Would someone please explain the difference between payroll and income taxes to an ignorant furriner?
Payroll taxes are things like FICA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax They cover Medicare, Social Security and other contributions. These aren't progressive and, instead, are really a form of flat income-tax.
Income taxes are our form of progressive, multi-bracket taxes on earnings that scale based upon income and are levied on top of FICA taxes.
Payroll taxes aren't really flat though--they're regressive, because they're capped at the first $100,000 or so of gross income (see the link in Habbaku's post for the exact dollar figure and more details).
Again, another characteristic of payroll taxes across jurisdictions it seems.
Yeah, and to address a point you made earlier about them affecting the employer's bottom line--if you're not familiar with how US federal taxes work, the income tax on employees incomes doesn't really affect the employer at all--the employer simply withhold the appropriate amount from the employee's paycheck. SS tax, those does affect the bottom line, because half of it is essentially hidden from the workers--the employer is assessed a tax equal to that withhelf from the employee's paycheck. In other words, the SS tax is actually twice as high as it seems to be, because half of it is paid by the employer.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 10:50:02 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 21, 2012, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: Gups on September 21, 2012, 10:37:03 AM
Would someone please explain the difference between payroll and income taxes to an ignorant furriner?
Payroll taxes are things like FICA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax They cover Medicare, Social Security and other contributions. These aren't progressive and, instead, are really a form of flat income-tax.
Income taxes are our form of progressive, multi-bracket taxes on earnings that scale based upon income and are levied on top of FICA taxes.
Payroll taxes aren't really flat though--they're regressive, because they're capped at the first $100,000 or so of gross income (see the link in Habbaku's post for the exact dollar figure and more details).
Right.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 10:56:53 AM
Yeah, and to address a point you made earlier about them affecting the employer's bottom line--if you're not familiar with how US federal taxes work, the income tax on employees incomes doesn't really affect the employer at all--the employer simply withhold the appropriate amount from the employee's paycheck. SS tax, those does affect the bottom line, because half of it is essentially hidden from the workers--the employer is assessed a tax equal to that withhelf from the employee's paycheck. In other words, the SS tax is actually twice as high as it seems to be, because half of it is paid by the employer.
This is exactly what killed my job with The Toffee Lady. She could afford to pay my salary. What she couldn't afford were all the taxes that came with it. We discussed lowering my salary, but it didn't lower the taxes enough to make it worthwhile.
Quote from: Rasputin on September 21, 2012, 09:59:50 AMDo you really think america has 140,000,000 seniors and disabled people or are you just a full time troll now?
If you're going to be outraged about the number lazy non-tax paying drains on society gleefully sucking off the tit of welfare, you should probably not include people in the total if, you know, you don't want them to be included in the total. It seems intellectually dishonest. So the 47% number isn't going to fly if you're not including seniors, the disabled, soldiers in combat zones etc in the target of your ire.
Quoteare you not the least bit bothered that the class of federal income tax payer has been reduced to just 53% of the population and there are calls to tax these people more?
Why would that bother me? Why is 53% so bad? Is it some sort of historic low?
Quotedo you not understand that when you raise taxes on a guy that can chose who to hire and fire and to whom to give raises or ask for salary or benefit decreases that in the end you actually pass the pain right back to those 47%?
No, I do not understand that.
But if you believe that, why are you complaining? You are going to pass the pain on to the people who are working for you anyways.
It is very noble of you, however, to be concerned about the negative impact on poor people of an increase in your personal tax burden.
Quoteor instead are you just too busy being outraged that mitt only paid 14% of his gross income to notice that that means mitt paid 2,800,000 in income taxes to a bloated federal government that cannot get out of its own way?
We don't know what Mitt's been paying in taxes, do we?
As for complaining about a "bloated federal government" I don't give that much weight at all. Now, if you're willing to talk about specific reductions that you believe are feasible to make, then that has some meaning; but "bloated federal government" is purely emotive hot air.
Lemonjello keeps his bullion anchored under his boat.
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2012, 11:28:27 AM
This is exactly what killed my job with The Toffee Lady. She could afford to pay my salary. What she couldn't afford were all the taxes that came with it. We discussed lowering my salary, but it didn't lower the taxes enough to make it worthwhile.
Is Toffee Lady still in business?
Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2012, 11:59:19 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on September 21, 2012, 09:59:50 AMDo you really think america has 140,000,000 seniors and disabled people or are you just a full time troll now?
If you're going to be outraged about the number lazy non-tax paying drains on society gleefully sucking off the tit of welfare, you should probably not include people in the total if, you know, you don't want them to be included in the total. It seems intellectually dishonest. So the 47% number isn't going to fly if you're not including seniors, the disabled, soldiers in combat zones etc in the target of your ire.
I think his point was that seniors and the disabled don't make up all the 47%, or even the majority of them, and he thought that you were suggesting that they did.
OMG, now we know what Romney paid in taxes! :w00t:
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2012, 11:59:19 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on September 21, 2012, 09:59:50 AMDo you really think america has 140,000,000 seniors and disabled people or are you just a full time troll now?
If you're going to be outraged about the number lazy non-tax paying drains on society gleefully sucking off the tit of welfare, you should probably not include people in the total if, you know, you don't want them to be included in the total. It seems intellectually dishonest. So the 47% number isn't going to fly if you're not including seniors, the disabled, soldiers in combat zones etc in the target of your ire.
I think his point was that seniors and the disabled don't make up all the 47%, or even the majority of them, and he thought that you were suggesting that they did.
He's also conflating two things. People who collect government assistance and people who don't pay Federal income tax. It's entirely possible that someone doesn't pay federal income tax and doesn't get government assistance. It's also possible that someone does pay Federal income tax and does get government assistance.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2012, 11:28:27 AM
This is exactly what killed my job with The Toffee Lady. She could afford to pay my salary. What she couldn't afford were all the taxes that came with it. We discussed lowering my salary, but it didn't lower the taxes enough to make it worthwhile.
Is Toffee Lady still in business?
For the time being. She's been looking to sell for months, and she has a full-time job on top of working the toffee place. She is: tired.
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2012, 12:59:05 PM
OMG, now we know what Romney paid in taxes! :w00t:
For 2011, when he, his lawyers and accountants knowingly operated under the assumption of a presidential run? Meh, who cares.
The tax returns from when he
wasn't running for office would be much more interesting and enlightening.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 10:56:53 AM
Yeah, and to address a point you made earlier about them affecting the employer's bottom line--if you're not familiar with how US federal taxes work, the income tax on employees incomes doesn't really affect the employer at all--the employer simply withhold the appropriate amount from the employee's paycheck. SS tax, those does affect the bottom line, because half of it is essentially hidden from the workers--the employer is assessed a tax equal to that withhelf from the employee's paycheck. In other words, the SS tax is actually twice as high as it seems to be, because half of it is paid by the employer.
Yeah, that was my point. Payroll taxes directly hit the employers bottom line and make employing someone that much more expensive.
Quote"Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.
This is hard and, you know, it's an important thing that we're doing right now and it's an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt's qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country."
--Ann Romney, First Lady candidate
Quote"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."
--Michelle Obama, First Lady
I don't see what's wrong with Ann's statement. We've seen what's gone down in 4 years when we had a president without any experience and who got treated by his party higherups as though he was still a junior senator.
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2012, 02:58:51 PM
I don't see what's wrong with Ann's statement. We've seen what's gone down in 4 years when we had a president without any experience and who got treated by his party higherups as though he was still a junior senator.
Yeah, because Obama's biggest challenge was obviously dealing with his own party :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2012, 03:11:20 PM
Yeah, because Obama's biggest challenge was obviously dealing with his own party :lol:
Well no, not after his party got their ass handed to them in 2010. Pretty big stumbling block in the first two years though as you'd expect better governance out of a party that had a majority in both parts of Congress and the Presidential seat.
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Quote"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."
--Michelle Obama, First Lady
Lulz, four year old quote. What, couldn't find one from 1998? FOXNEWS FAIL :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo.com%2Fassets_c%2F2012%2F09%2Ffox-and-friends-israel-pirate-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg&hash=a716b5355eeae96384aea789a7a0c55d1632f1f8)
I'd much rather talk to goddamn pirate then I would bibi. The pirate is less likely to stab you as soon as your back is turned.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2012, 03:53:30 PM
I'd much rather talk to goddamn pirate then I would bibi. The pirate is less likely to stab you as soon as your back is turned.
That pirate is more likely to hook you.
The pirate thing is hilarious as that picture is not from this year.
Fuck Israel. They were probably just coming around begging for more technology to sell to the Chinese.
Besides, Obama has Israeli support locked up. As soon as Romney started talking shit about Russia, he guaranteed Israeli hostility.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2012, 03:53:30 PM
I'd much rather talk to goddamn pirate then I would bibi. The pirate is less likely to stab you as soon as your back is turned.
That pirate is more likely to hook you.
Yes, but he'll hook in the eye at least.
Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2012, 04:04:48 PM
The pirate thing is hilarious as that picture is not from this year.
Indeed / really ridiculous even if it had been from this year. :D
We doing funny biased pictures now? :D
Note: Romney does not have any military service, either; first election with no veterans.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/548468_422358634494855_1851857693_n.jpg)
Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2012, 04:04:48 PM
The pirate thing is hilarious as that picture is not from this year.
Yeah, it was from 2009. The Obama campaign could have mentioned that when they tweeted the photo.
They could have thrown Truman in there.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
Note: Romney does not have any military service, either; first election with no veterans.
Not true. It is the first one since 1928, though--neither Herbert Hoover nor Al Smith ever served in the US armed forces.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
Note: Romney does not have any military service, either; first election with no veterans.
Not true. It is the first one since 1928, though--neither Herbert Hoover nor Al Smith ever served in the US armed forces.
Neither did FDR though, unless you count being Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
I like how all those pictures except Eisenhower's were taken when they were taken relatively young.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 21, 2012, 05:24:35 PM
I like how all those pictures except Eisenhower's were taken when they were taken relatively young.
The rest were out of uniform by the time they got old. Eisenhower was in the military for most his adult life, attaining the rank of General.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 21, 2012, 05:24:35 PM
I like how all those pictures except Eisenhower's were taken when they were taken relatively young.
Well LBJ was in Congress before he was in the Navy. His Navy service was kinda... special. It wasn't like Nixon, Ford or Kennedy's.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2012, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 21, 2012, 05:24:35 PM
I like how all those pictures except Eisenhower's were taken when they were taken relatively young.
Well LBJ was in Congress before he was in the Navy. His Navy service was kinda... special. It wasn't like Nixon, Ford or Kennedy's.
Yeah and Reagan's was somewhat odd as well, that's assuming the photo isn't just from one of films.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2012, 07:48:59 PM
Hey Phil, I seem to recall you predicting that Romney was going to play up his "Hispanic" background once the nomination was tied up. Haven't seen that yet.
Mira aquí:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FABC_Univision%2Funi_romney_tan_120921_wg.jpg&hash=38f54c4c43a80cb0c0eb514883102fb481f432f4)
Mitt Romney appeared on Univision's "Meet the Candidate" event on Sept. 19 to talk about issues of importance to Latino voters.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/mitt-romneys-tan-draws-media-fire-makeup-artist/story?id=17290303#.UF0PE43iZcQ (http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/mitt-romneys-tan-draws-media-fire-makeup-artist/story?id=17290303#.UF0PE43iZcQ)
Quote from: Rasputin on September 21, 2012, 09:59:50 AM
do you really think america has 140,000,000 seniors and disabled people or are you just a full time troll now?
are you not the least bit bothered that the class of federal income tax payer has been reduced to just 53% of the population and there are calls to tax these people more?
do you not understand that when you raise taxes on a guy that can chose who to hire and fire and to whom to give raises or ask for salary or benefit decreases that in the end you actually pass the pain right back to those 47%?
or instead are you just too busy being outraged that mitt only paid 14% of his gross income to notice that that means mitt paid 2,800,000 in income taxes to a bloated federal government that cannot get out of its own way?
That was an amusing rant! :lol:
Seemed to be straight out of Paul Ryan's talking papers and, as is usual for his talk, full of lies and mistruths.
I thought you were smarter than that. "do you really think america has 140,000,000 seniors and disabled people?" That smells of straw, big time.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
Note: Romney does not have any military service, either; first election with no veterans.
Not true. It is the first one since 1928, though--neither Herbert Hoover nor Al Smith ever served in the US armed forces.
Yes, amazing what happens to certain generations like that pretty much missed all the big wars.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 08:14:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2012, 07:48:59 PM
Hey Phil, I seem to recall you predicting that Romney was going to play up his "Hispanic" background once the nomination was tied up. Haven't seen that yet.
Mira aquí:
Eh, it's just that Paul Ryan is radioactive. That's why Boenher looks the way he does. Now he's affecting Romney as well.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 08:14:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 07, 2012, 07:48:59 PM
Hey Phil, I seem to recall you predicting that Romney was going to play up his "Hispanic" background once the nomination was tied up. Haven't seen that yet.
Mira aquí:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FABC_Univision%2Funi_romney_tan_120921_wg.jpg&hash=38f54c4c43a80cb0c0eb514883102fb481f432f4)
Mitt Romney appeared on Univision's "Meet the Candidate" event on Sept. 19 to talk about issues of importance to Latino voters.
Yes, about 4 shades darker than he was the day before. :lol: :P
QuoteMitt Romney appeared on Univision Wednesday alongside Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, but something was a little peculiar about his appearance -- his skin tone. Looking back at the hundreds of photos logging his every moment on the campaign trail, the Republican presidential nominee is usually not so shockingly tan.
While his orangey-brown appearance on Univision could have been the result of bad lighting or a makeup mishap, left-wing blog the Democratic Underground concluded that Romney "dyed his face brown for his Univision interview."
The claim is not completely out of the ballpark. After all, as Gawker points out, Romney did say "it would be helpful to be Latino," in a video secretly recorded at a campaign fundraiser earlier this year.
Appearing at a campaign fundraiser in Atlanta, Georgia, before his Univision interview, Romney showed a bit more color, but nowhere near the amount of bronze as seen on stage at the 6:30 p.m. ET filming.
QuoteWhen Romney got off of the plane Wednesday in Miami 'BEFORE' going to Univision his face was already brown, so no one should blame it on a Univision make-up person.
You can see in the photo below a vertical line on his neck - 47% of his neck is white and the rest is brown.
The photo below is from Wednesday and shows how his face looked when he got off of the plane in Miami:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A3MEFIECIAASTGH.jpg)
I'm telling you. Radiation burns.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2012, 08:52:06 PM
I'm telling you. Radiation burns.
The thing is, I wouldn't normally believe that this was some sort of really bad idea to "look" Latino, but this campaign has made so many bone-headed decisions all year long that, yeah, I really could believe
these morons would do it. The Romney Campaign Brain Trust is really capable of being that stupid.
I find it difficult to believe that the Romney campaign believed it to be a good idea for Mitt to get a tan before an appearance on Univision. No one is that stupid.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 21, 2012, 09:23:13 PM
I find it difficult to believe that the Romney campaign believed it to be a good idea for Mitt to get a tan before an appearance on Univision. No one is that stupid.
Maybe the Romney journey is a story that works best if you suspend your disbelief and just vote ?
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 21, 2012, 09:23:13 PM
I find it difficult to believe that the Romney campaign believed it to be a good idea for Mitt to get a tan before an appearance on Univision. No one is that stupid.
His manufactured taxes for 2011 were released showing that he overpaid, only deducting $2.25 million instead of the full $4 million for which he was eligible, just so it didn't look as bad as it could've been.
Believe me, these people are that stupid.
Funny your side being so fixated on skin color.
Well Romney is a bit of political chameleon. It's always possible he undergoes physical alterations depending on his environment. That would explain why he avoid speaking in front of large groups of blacks.
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 10:23:35 PM
Funny your side being so fixated on skin color.
I like to see white babies aborted. Call it really early voter suppression, fetus fucker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Quote"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."
--Michelle Obama, First Lady
Lulz, four year old quote. What, couldn't find one from 1998? FOXNEWS FAIL :P
I also don't see anything too wrong with it, assuming the "time" referenced is that time we elected a black dude. The only other time I was "really," as in very, proud of my country was when we invaded Iraq in the face of global opposition, but Michelle Obama ain't likely to share that sentiment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2012, 08:05:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 20, 2012, 11:53:55 PM
I's just the first time I've seen that caveat mentioned, probably as it didn't apply to our previous wager. I'll happily go 150:50 if you like.
Deal.
OK, confirmed.
QuoteAs to Squeelus, he's definitely Tito.
The Yugoslav guy or the black guy? :unsure:
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
We doing funny biased pictures now? :D
Note: Romney does not have any military service, either; first election with no veterans.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/548468_422358634494855_1851857693_n.jpg)
Wow, I never realized how much W. looked like H.W. as a kid. I mean, there was always a resemblance, I felt, but they're like doubles.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 21, 2012, 10:49:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Quote"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."
--Michelle Obama, First Lady
Lulz, four year old quote. What, couldn't find one from 1998? FOXNEWS FAIL :P
I also don't see anything too wrong with it, assuming the "time" referenced is that time we elected a black dude. The only other time I was "really," as in very, proud of my country was when we invaded Iraq in the face of global opposition, but Michelle Obama ain't likely to share that sentiment.
Black Americans might not be as proud of the US as white Americans.
Indeed, that's what I'm saying. OMG REVERSE RACISM
That's all fine and good. But that begs the question of whether we want a first lady that thinks America generally sucks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:36:56 AM
That's all fine and good. But that begs the question of whether we want a first lady that thinks America generally sucks.
That's sort of an odd attitude. "I'm sorry President Obama. Your wife's unhappiness with this countries history disqualifies her for the unofficial title of 'First Lady'. You'll have to get a divorce."
If I was a black prezdizzle, I'd be getting me something better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:36:56 AM
That's all fine and good. But that begs the question of whether we want a first lady that thinks America generally sucks.
Ann's had no problem with conveying that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:01:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:36:56 AM
That's all fine and good. But that begs the question of whether we want a first lady that thinks America generally sucks.
Ann's had no problem with conveying that.
Nor has Mitt.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 10:02:41 AM
Nor has Mitt.
He's 53% proud. That's a majority. :contract:
Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama won by a plurality of 53% over 47% to Romney ?
Quote from: mongers on September 22, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama won by a plurality of 53% over 47% to Romney ?
It would be much more than just ironic. It would be the first recorded plurality in the history of man to exceed 49%.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 22, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama won by a plurality of 53% over 47% to Romney ?
It would be much more than just ironic. It would be the first recorded plurality in the history of man to exceed 49%.
Google is scary:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+wins+by+a+plurity+of+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jFB&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22obama+won+by+a+plurality+of%22&oq=%22obama+won+by+a+plurality+of%22&gs_l=serp.3...8738.11052.2.11414.5.5.0.0.0.0.115.403.4j1.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.o6DDWDHMCyw&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=ff301ef4d48490c5&biw=1024&bih=461 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=obama+wins+by+a+plurity+of+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jFB&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22obama+won+by+a+plurality+of%22&oq=%22obama+won+by+a+plurality+of%22&gs_l=serp.3...8738.11052.2.11414.5.5.0.0.0.0.115.403.4j1.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.o6DDWDHMCyw&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=ff301ef4d48490c5&biw=1024&bih=461)
Despite Romney supposedly "losing the election" from his latest 47% comments among a long line of supposed turning points, Gallup and Rasmussen released their latest tracking polls today.
Gallup: Tie
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx)
Rasmussen: Tie
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Also contrary to expectations, including my own, Obama has beat Romney in the money game: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81499.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81499.html)
It has been revealed that the Romney campaign actually had to borrow $20 million in August. They (including GOP Super PACs) were outspent by Democrats more than 2-to-1 in ads during the two weeks of the national conventions, not to mention all of this past spring and summer.
People thought that Obama wouldn't outmoney Romney? That was silly of them, don't you think?
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
Note: Romney does not have any military service, either; first election with no veterans.
Makes sense. There is no place for losers in modern politics.
Quote from: Neil on September 23, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
People thought that Obama wouldn't outmoney Romney? That was silly of them, don't you think?
What, that it wasn't until August that Obama finally outraised Mittens? Obama's fundraisers were slow to get out of the gate, and the big spenders for Mittens have been going sour on his inept campaign over the course of the summer. Makes sense.
Want to know what's really scary?
QuoteMichele Bachmann has raised and spent more money this election cycle than any member of the House aside from Speaker John Boehner – close to $16 million through the end of July alone.
But the Minnesota GOP congresswoman and former presidential candidate is still going pedal-to-the-metal with her fundraising efforts as she attempts to fend off a determined Democratic effort to oust her.
"I've never needed your support as much as I do today," she writes in her most recent fundraising email appeal. "In 10 days, we must close our financial books and report our fundraising numbers and, unfortunately, we are still short of our fundraising goals by more than $376,000. This is a deficit that we MUST overcome--in the face of senseless attacks from a ruthless opponent, we can't afford to leave any stone unturned."
While the race is close and the DCCC has flagged Minnesota's 6th District as an "emerging race," Bachmann still appears to have a clear advantage in what is the most Republican seat in the state.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 23, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
People thought that Obama wouldn't outmoney Romney? That was silly of them, don't you think?
What, that it wasn't until August that Obama finally outraised Mittens? Obama's fundraisers were slow to get out of the gate, and the big spenders for Mittens have been going sour on his inept campaign over the course of the summer. Makes sense.
Want to know what's really scary?
QuoteMichele Bachmann has raised and spent more money this election cycle than any member of the House aside from Speaker John Boehner – close to $16 million through the end of July alone.
But the Minnesota GOP congresswoman and former presidential candidate is still going pedal-to-the-metal with her fundraising efforts as she attempts to fend off a determined Democratic effort to oust her.
"I've never needed your support as much as I do today," she writes in her most recent fundraising email appeal. "In 10 days, we must close our financial books and report our fundraising numbers and, unfortunately, we are still short of our fundraising goals by more than $376,000. This is a deficit that we MUST overcome--in the face of senseless attacks from a ruthless opponent, we can't afford to leave any stone unturned."
While the race is close and the DCCC has flagged Minnesota's 6th District as an "emerging race," Bachmann still appears to have a clear advantage in what is the most Republican seat in the state.
Well, everybody loves a fag hag.
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2012, 09:15:06 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 21, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
Note: Romney does not have any military service, either; first election with no veterans.
Makes sense. There is no place for losers in modern politics.
Modern politics is full of losers.
So how about that whole Mitt Romney investing in a state owned Chinese Oil Company* that big investments in Iran?
*no word on what kind of Oil Company.
QuoteMitt Romney Wonders Why Ann Romney's Airplane Windows Don't Roll Down
Making post-fundraiser comments this weekend, presidential candidate Mitt Romney revealed a tenuous grip on the science of aviation, despite the fact that he and his wife, Ann, have been flying around the country this summer on the campaign trail.
After his wife's plane was forced to make an emergency landing this weekend, Romney told the Los Angeles Times, he was worried for her safety. The candidate then continued on a bizarre tangent that showed just how little the Republican nominee understands about flight.
"I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don't think she knows just how worried some of us were," Romney told the paper. "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly."
Romney said the biggest problem in a distressed aircraft is that "the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."
The main reason airplane windows don't open is because there isn't enough oxygen at cruising altitude to keep passengers alive. (The fear of window or cabin failures, which would lead to potentially fatal hypoxia, is why many planes are equipped with emergency oxygen masks.)
"You can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open," Romney told the Times, suggesting that additional oxygen in the cabin during the electrical malfunction could've alleviated the problem. In fact, if there were an electrical fire on board, additional oxygen would have fed the flames.
Strangely, Romney seemed to acknowledge the importance of oxygen later in his comments. "Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver," he said.
Hypoxia aboard aircraft has led to many fatalities over the years, including the 1999 crash that killed golfer Payne Stewart. In 2005, Helios Airways Flight 522 crashed, killing all 121 aboard after the crew was incapacitated.
:frusty:
At least he understands the real world.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 01:58:13 AM
So how about that whole Mitt Romney investing in a state owned Chinese Oil Company* that big investments in Iran?
*no word on what kind of Oil Company.
Cnooc? I found it 1) incredibly interesting and 2) so not surprising at all.
Quote from: Rasputin on September 20, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
i am far more offended that the 47% of our dependent population, all but enslaved to the state, do not seem to care and want to find a way out
i suspect that these people wouldve preferred the tories in 1776
If they were enslaved by the state they would at least be doing some work. As it is we have massive surplus of labor in the first world with little to do. We sort of expected this rocky transition stage coming as part of globalization but it might be more difficult to get through than we thought.
Not sure WTF you mean by the Tories comment. The British didn't give out many handouts to the Colonists.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2012, 08:03:30 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on September 20, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
i am far more offended that the 47% of our dependent population, all but enslaved to the state, do not seem to care and want to find a way out
i suspect that these people wouldve preferred the tories in 1776
If they were enslaved by the state they would at least be doing some work. As it is we have massive surplus of labor in the first world with little to do. We sort of expected this rocky transition stage coming as part of globalization but it might be more difficult to get through than we thought.
Not sure WTF you mean by the Tories comment. The British didn't give out many handouts to the Colonists.
Wasn't the whole problem caused by the fact that the Brits wanted the colonists to give handouts to them? :lol:
I wouldn't expect much from a person who puts Ayn Rand quotes in their sig.
Quote from: Martinus on September 25, 2012, 05:29:37 AM
QuoteMitt Romney Wonders Why Ann Romney's Airplane Windows Don't Roll Down
Making post-fundraiser comments this weekend, presidential candidate Mitt Romney revealed a tenuous grip on the science of aviation, despite the fact that he and his wife, Ann, have been flying around the country this summer on the campaign trail.
After his wife's plane was forced to make an emergency landing this weekend, Romney told the Los Angeles Times, he was worried for her safety. The candidate then continued on a bizarre tangent that showed just how little the Republican nominee understands about flight.
"I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don't think she knows just how worried some of us were," Romney told the paper. "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly."
Romney said the biggest problem in a distressed aircraft is that "the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."
The main reason airplane windows don't open is because there isn't enough oxygen at cruising altitude to keep passengers alive. (The fear of window or cabin failures, which would lead to potentially fatal hypoxia, is why many planes are equipped with emergency oxygen masks.)
"You can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open," Romney told the Times, suggesting that additional oxygen in the cabin during the electrical malfunction could've alleviated the problem. In fact, if there were an electrical fire on board, additional oxygen would have fed the flames.
Strangely, Romney seemed to acknowledge the importance of oxygen later in his comments. "Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver," he said.
Hypoxia aboard aircraft has led to many fatalities over the years, including the 1999 crash that killed golfer Payne Stewart. In 2005, Helios Airways Flight 522 crashed, killing all 121 aboard after the crew was incapacitated.
:frusty:
I know there would be safety issues from a lot of different angles, but rolling down the windows wouldn't have oxygen issues if you got under ~20,000 feet or so. If you are sitting in a smoke filled airplane for an extended period waiting to get to the nearest airport, that may not seem like a bad alternative.
In other news, Intrade has the odds for Romney under 30%. Things seem to be slipping away for him.
I have never been in a smokefilled airplane cabin. At least since the 90s.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 08:32:24 AM
I wouldn't expect much from a person who puts Ayn Rand quotes in their sig.
This coming from someone who's had quotes from Lettow and Hans in his. :P
And Spellus has me in his. :)
Quote from: Queequeg on September 25, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
I have never been in a smokefilled airplane cabin. At least since the 90s.
I doubt most people have been in a malfunctioning plane that lead to smoke inside the plane. :hug:
Quote from: Queequeg on September 25, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
I have never been in a smokefilled airplane cabin. At least since the 90s.
:D You can always tell how old your plane is if it still has the metal ashtrays in the arm rests. Just a bit scary.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 25, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
I have never been in a smokefilled airplane cabin. At least since the 90s.
:D You can always tell how old your plane is if it still has the metal ashtrays in the arm rests. Just a bit scary.
I remember my dad bitching about smoke-filled flights to Japan on JAL in the 90s. He complained about it a lot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2012, 05:57:21 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 01:58:13 AM
So how about that whole Mitt Romney investing in a state owned Chinese Oil Company* that big investments in Iran?
*no word on what kind of Oil Company.
Cnooc? I found it 1) incredibly interesting and 2) so not surprising at all.
Yeah, that's the one. It's particularly interesting, given his own prior statements on what sort of control you have over blind trusts.
Are the facts you stated not in question Jake?
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 11:54:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2012, 05:57:21 AM
Cnooc? I found it 1) incredibly interesting and 2) so not surprising at all.
Yeah, that's the one. It's particularly interesting, given his own prior statements on what sort of control you have over blind trusts.
From what I've read in the NYT and the FT, Cnooc is a particularly nasty operation.
QuoteLast month, Cnooc Limited's chairman, Wang Yilin, said in a speech that the company's large-scale deep water rights were a "mobile national territory and a strategic weapon", a description that highlights the political sensitivity surrounding the company.
QuoteIn the US, the deal was viewed as part of a worrying effort by China to secure energy interests.
According to a report by the International Gas Report in February of 2009, Beijing gave Cnooc the green light to sign a deal with Tehran immediately after the US agreed to sell arms to Taiwan. The agreement, which was on and off for years before the deal was signed, even prompted interest from the US State Department in 2007, which examined whether it violated the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.
QuoteCnooc is awaiting approval by the US for its $15bn takeover of Nexen, an oil group based in Calgary with interests in the Gulf of Mexico. The deal requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, which vets cross-border deals on national security grounds. An earlier attempt by Cnooc to take over California-based Unocal in 2005 was scrapped after the transaction was attacked on Capitol Hill. So far, the takeover of Nexen has not garnered similar opposition, although Mr Romney's tax records has put a new spotlight on Cnooc.
Erica Downs, a fellow at the Brookings Institute, said that if the Nexen deal were approved, it would represent the first time a Chinese company was given an operating role at an energy company in the US.
So not cool.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2012, 12:02:46 PM
Are the facts you stated not in question Jake?
Here are what I understand as being the facts:
1) CNOOC is considered pretty unsavoury by the US, having been denied concessions to get involved with US oil rights, doing business with Iran (immediately after the US shipped weapons to Taiwan) and some of the statements CdM put up. I believe that's pretty much a fact.
2) Mitt Romney is on the record as saying a person has control over what sort of investments are made in a blind trust, that guidelines can be set. I've seen that clip, so I consider that a fact as well.
3) Mitt Romney's blind trust was invested in CNOOC up until some time last year. This I'm not completely sure is a fact; I heard it mentioned a few places, and I believe it's come out as a result of the recent tax return release, but I'm not sure. I expect it's probably true, but I haven't looked into it to a degree that I'll say it's beyond question.
That said, the Financial Times is reporting those three things as facts: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee7de4d2-065b-11e2-bd29-00144feabdc0.html
Obama trading at 76% now. I now have positive equity in my bet. :yeah:
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 02:18:14 PM
Obama trading at 76% now. I now have positive equity in my bet. :yeah:
You could have doubled your money with me. :(
I thought I was giving Yi a ridiculous discount. At this point, I think what holds Romney's price above 0% is a chance of some kind of disaster for Obama, like finally admitting that he's a Muslim, or the effect of voter suppression in some key states.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
I thought I was giving Yi a ridiculous discount. At this point, I think what holds Romney's price above 0% is a chance of some kind of disaster for Obama, like finally admitting that he's a Muslim, or the effect of voter suppression in some key states.
At this point I think it going to take a revelation that the reason they dumped Osama's body at sea is to prevent DNA matching to is brother Obama.
I am sure Hans is feverishly working that angle.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
I thought I was giving Yi a ridiculous discount. At this point, I think what holds Romney's price above 0% is a chance of some kind of disaster for Obama, like finally admitting that he's a Muslim, or the effect of voter suppression in some key states.
No. A devastating economic event would probably be the disaster if one were to happen; along the lines of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and stock market crash in late September 2008 that decisively sunk McCain in the polls.
Obviously some kind of force majore is another thing that can affect Obama. A huge terrorist act, a war with Iran breaking out, or some kind of economic calamity can also jumble up the race.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 26, 2012, 06:38:57 PM
No. A devastating economic event would probably be the disaster if one were to happen; along the lines of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and stock market crash in late September 2008 that decisively sunk McCain in the polls.
I'm not sure a serious economic collapse caused by a company would hand the election to Romney, considering that he is seen as the big business advocate and that would make big business look that much worse.
Romney could also win if he manages to defeat a group of terrorists/thieves in a skyscraper, just like Die Hard.
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 26, 2012, 06:38:57 PM
No. A devastating economic event would probably be the disaster if one were to happen; along the lines of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and stock market crash in late September 2008 that decisively sunk McCain in the polls.
I'm not sure a serious economic collapse caused by a company would hand the election to Romney, considering that he is seen as the big business advocate and that would make big business look that much worse.
You're right. Sitting presidents and their parties are never punished for economic crashes. :wacko:
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 06:55:45 PM
Romney could also win if he manages to defeat a group of terrorists/thieves in a skyscraper, just like Die Hard.
Do we have any photos of Romney with his arms and shoulders exposed?
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 06:55:45 PM
Romney could also win if he manages to defeat a group of terrorists/thieves in a skyscraper, just like Die Hard.
Well, I'd vote for him if he did that. That would be totally fucking rad.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 26, 2012, 06:58:11 PM
You're right. Sitting presidents and their parties are never punished for economic crashes. :wacko:
That's not what I said. I think it would be damaging to both and I don't think it would clearly favor Romney.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2012, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 06:55:45 PM
Romney could also win if he manages to defeat a group of terrorists/thieves in a skyscraper, just like Die Hard.
Well, I'd vote for him if he did that. That would be totally fucking rad.
Obama could be the cop getting the doughnuts.
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 26, 2012, 06:58:11 PM
You're right. Sitting presidents and their parties are never punished for economic crashes. :wacko:
That's not what I said. I think it would be damaging to both and I don't think it would clearly favor Romney.
You're right. Sitting presidents and their parties electorally benefit from economic crashes.
Obama should hope for another recession next month so that less people will vote for Romney. :wacko:
After the election someone will need to coin a new political imperative* "It's the stupid, Stupid."
* Temporarily forgot the exact word I'm looking form, maybe contain an ax, but I can't be arsed to google/find a thesaurus.
The problem for Romney is that people will blame the Republican plutocrats for any problems with the economy, and for good reason.
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 08:30:50 PM
The problem for Romney is that people will blame the Republican plutocrats for any problems with the economy, and for good reason.
The short period that Romney led Obama in the polls last year was during the summer mini-crash following the US debt downgrade (and Greece problems).
Quote from: Phillip V on September 26, 2012, 08:39:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 08:30:50 PM
The problem for Romney is that people will blame the Republican plutocrats for any problems with the economy, and for good reason.
The short period that Romney led Obama in the polls last year was during the summer mini-crash following the US debt downgrade (and Greece problems).
Also known as the period before people really starting to focus on what Romney stood for or rather his ever changing stances on what he stood for at that particular moment in time.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
Obviously some kind of force majore is another thing that can affect Obama. A huge terrorist act, a war with Iran breaking out, or some kind of economic calamity can also jumble up the race.
It's too late in the cycle for a war to be a bad thing for him.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 26, 2012, 08:04:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2012, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 06:55:45 PM
Romney could also win if he manages to defeat a group of terrorists/thieves in a skyscraper, just like Die Hard.
Well, I'd vote for him if he did that. That would be totally fucking rad.
Obama could be the cop getting the doughnuts.
"Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker!" would make a good slogan for a campaign.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 26, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
Obviously some kind of force majore is another thing that can affect Obama. A huge terrorist act, a war with Iran breaking out, or some kind of economic calamity can also jumble up the race.
It's too late in the cycle for a war to be a bad thing for him.
Who knows how people would react? What if an aircraft carrier sinks during the first salvo?
It would have to be a British aircraft carrier to rely on direct fire, so it probably won't be a problem for Obama.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 26, 2012, 08:10:02 PM
You're right. Sitting presidents and their parties electorally benefit from economic crashes.
Obama should hope for another recession next month so that less people will vote for Romney. :wacko:
If you are talking general economic crash you are right. If you are talking about one triggered by a specific boneheaded company doing something dumb I don't think it's as nearly clear cut.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
I thought I was giving Yi a ridiculous discount. At this point, I think what holds Romney's price above 0% is a chance of some kind of disaster for Obama, like finally admitting that he's a Muslim, or the effect of voter suppression in some key states.
I bet I get no credit fr stating that <insert Republican candidate of the Tea Parties choice here> had no chance a long, long time ago.
The Great Tanned Hope is still standing.
QuoteThe deal requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, which vets cross-border deals on national security grounds.
:huh:
Wow, even Poland doesn't have a body like this, and it is a post-communist state. To think I thought you guys were free market capitalists.
Madonna said that if Obama wins she will undress on stage. Time to vote Romney. :(
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2012, 01:07:01 AM
QuoteThe deal requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, which vets cross-border deals on national security grounds.
:huh:
Wow, even Poland doesn't have a body like this, and it is a post-communist state. To think I thought you guys were free market capitalists.
It does seem odd (though I wouldn't mind it to stop the BAE deal), has it always been there or is it something that was created after that Dubai port debacle?
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2012, 01:07:01 AM
QuoteThe deal requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, which vets cross-border deals on national security grounds.
:huh:
Wow, even Poland doesn't have a body like this, and it is a post-communist state. To think I thought you guys were free market capitalists.
The US actually has strategic assets though. Not even Poles really care if Hungary takes over Poland's 'strategic' beet production.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2012, 01:13:07 AM
Madonna said that if Obama wins she will undress on stage. Time to vote Romney. :(
Or, you know, just don't buy tickets. :hmm:
That sounds very exciting. I wonder what Madonna looks like naked? :hmm:
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2012, 07:39:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2012, 01:07:01 AM
QuoteThe deal requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, which vets cross-border deals on national security grounds.
:huh:
Wow, even Poland doesn't have a body like this, and it is a post-communist state. To think I thought you guys were free market capitalists.
The US actually has strategic assets though. Not even Poles really care if Hungary takes over Poland's 'strategic' beet production.
Poland's black bread reserve is in Ms. Kolwaski's basement, Krakow. Knock three times, then three times again to gain access.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 08:20:30 AM
That sounds very exciting. I wonder what Madonna looks like naked? :hmm:
Imagine a prune with a wide gaping hole in it that makes a mournful moan as the wind blows through it. That should give you a good idea.
Quote from: mongers on September 26, 2012, 08:14:15 PM
* Temporarily forgot the exact word I'm looking form, maybe contain an ax, but I can't be arsed to google/find a thesaurus.
aphorism?
axiom?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2012, 04:18:56 AM
It does seem odd (though I wouldn't mind it to stop the BAE deal), has it always been there or is it something that was created after that Dubai port debacle?
It's been around for a while; it actually cleared the Dubai Ports deal.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2012, 05:04:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 08:20:30 AM
That sounds very exciting. I wonder what Madonna looks like naked? :hmm:
Imagine a prune with a wide gaping hole in it that makes a mournful moan as the wind blows through it. That should give you a good idea.
:lol:
Ed, you get your Obama phone yet? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
http://obamaphone.net/
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2012, 09:13:13 PM
Ed, you get your Obama phone yet? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
http://obamaphone.net/
Lol, Wut?
I support programs like safelink.
But no, I got no phone. I'll take some food stamps though.
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2012, 09:13:13 PM
Ed, you get your Obama phone yet? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
http://obamaphone.net/
This inspired me to create something, but someone beat me to it. :blush:
http://obamaphone.ytmnd.com/ (http://obamaphone.ytmnd.com/)
How cute, a ytmnd. 2005 called.
Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2012, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2012, 09:13:13 PM
Ed, you get your Obama phone yet? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
http://obamaphone.net/
This inspired me to create something, but someone beat me to it. :blush:
http://obamaphone.ytmnd.com/ (http://obamaphone.ytmnd.com/)
Cal, Spiess, and the dude who created that abomination should all be ashamed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2012, 10:21:25 PM
Cal, Spiess, and the dude who created that abomination should all be ashamed.
I expect nothing less.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2012, 10:21:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2012, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2012, 09:13:13 PM
Ed, you get your Obama phone yet? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio
http://obamaphone.net/
This inspired me to create something, but someone beat me to it. :blush:
http://obamaphone.ytmnd.com/ (http://obamaphone.ytmnd.com/)
Cal, Spiess, and the dude who created that abomination should all be ashamed.
Of what?
Quote from: Berkut on September 27, 2012, 12:44:10 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
I thought I was giving Yi a ridiculous discount. At this point, I think what holds Romney's price above 0% is a chance of some kind of disaster for Obama, like finally admitting that he's a Muslim, or the effect of voter suppression in some key states.
I bet I get no credit fr stating that <insert Republican candidate of the Tea Parties choice here> had no chance a long, long time ago.
Big deal. I predicted the crash of 2008 in like 2004 an I don't get any credit for it at all. At least I'll make money off of Meltdown Mitt.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
I thought I was giving Yi a ridiculous discount. At this point, I think what holds Romney's price above 0% is a chance of some kind of disaster for Obama, like finally admitting that he's a Muslim, or the effect of voter suppression in some key states.
What if he just gets his ass kicked in the debates?
The polls have been consistently close--over a month away I don't think a 4% lead or whatever it is should be considered all that secure. I think the tendancy is to give Romney less chance than the polling would normally indicate because he has shown no life as a candidate. Which I think is fair--if he is a crap candidate for the first years of his campaign, why should we expect a turnaround in the last month?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
I thought I was giving Yi a ridiculous discount. At this point, I think what holds Romney's price above 0% is a chance of some kind of disaster for Obama, like finally admitting that he's a Muslim, or the effect of voter suppression in some key states.
What if he just gets his ass kicked in the debates?
The polls have been consistently close--over a month away I don't think a 4% lead or whatever it is should be considered all that secure. I think the tendancy is to give Romney less chance than the polling would normally indicate because he has shown no life as a candidate. Which I think is fair--if he is a crap candidate for the first years of his campaign, why should we expect a turnaround in the last month?
I don't think the polls have been that close. Going by 538, the "now-cast" is 98% chance of Obama victory. National polls or poll aggregations are meaningless, since most of the nation is meaningless when it comes to voting.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 09:24:59 AM
since most of the nation is meaningless when it comes to voting.
Like me! People in central Asia who have never heard of the US have roughly an equal impact in this election as I do.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 09:24:59 AM
since most of the nation is meaningless when it comes to voting.
Like me! People in central Asia who have never heard of the US have roughly an equal impact in this election as I do.
Wyoming is like Texas only with seasons.
Those being Winter and Winter+
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 09:24:59 AM
I don't think the polls have been that close. Going by 538, the "now-cast" is 98% chance of Obama victory. National polls or poll aggregations are meaningless, since most of the nation is meaningless when it comes to voting.
I don't get why you like the 538 blog so much.
The national polls would be meaningless, except the electoral vote does actually match the national polling (in terms of the winner at least). Yeah, Al Gore won the popular vote while losing (or "losing") the electoral vote, but the popular vote was about 50-50. The national polls have Obama up by about 4%, and he is up by about that much in most of the swing states. If there was a 5% swing to Romney nationally and included the swing states, Obama would be in real trouble. The national polls are also the most reliable we have (and also easier to discuss than the myriad of possibilities in the state polling).
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 09:24:59 AM
since most of the nation is meaningless when it comes to voting.
Like me! People in central Asia who have never heard of the US have roughly an equal impact in this election as I do.
Same. I'll be voting for the Green Party just because it won't matter in the grand scheme, and I like supporting the smaller parties. Obama has Illinois locked up, so why not?
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Same. I'll be voting for the Green Party just because it won't matter in the grand scheme, and I like supporting the smaller parties. Obama has Illinois locked up, so why not?
Because in a contested election the popular vote can have a persuasive effect. Al Gore may not have been able to contest Florida to the end if the popular vote didn't go his way. Also, the margin of victory can have an effect on the magnitude and length of a "honeymoon" period for a new president.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 09:46:37 AM
I don't get why you like the 538 blog so much.
I like it because it is a statistically intelligent aggregator of poll results. Being a professional statistician of sorts, I am aware of the need to adjust the data in multiple ways before even beginning to analyze it, and that's something that only 538 understands. Others just follow one or two tracking polls, or a mindless average like RCP, which gives a shitload of noise that they misinterpret as signal. Another reason I like it is because it understand that elections are won state by state, and thus all its analysis is done as a sum of 57 state results.
Quote
The national polls would be meaningless, except the electoral vote does actually match the national polling (in terms of the winner at least). Yeah, Al Gore won the popular vote while losing (or "losing") the electoral vote, but the popular vote was about 50-50. The national polls have Obama up by about 4%, and he is up by about that much in most of the swing states. If there was a 5% swing to Romney nationally and included the swing states, Obama would be in real trouble. The national polls are also the most reliable we have (and also easier to discuss than the myriad of possibilities in the state polling).
Again, the problem here is noise, and lack of precision. Tracking polls seem to reverse themselves far more frequently than is warranted.
DGuller, I read 538 briefly after the Ryan selection, and was rather disappointed in the analysis. The basic concept was that Romney's boost on Intrade after the selection was unwarranted (from ~35% -> ~40%) because of historical poll data showing larger bounces were the norm, and these faded. All of which is a fine argument, but it doesn't address the possibility that Romney's choices were more constrained than normal and coming off of the Palin fiasco was going to result in greater scrutiny--and these unique factors were priced into intrade. Thus I think there is a good case to be made that Romney making a choice that made the base happy while moderately boosting his poll numbers was a net positive for his election chances.
What do you think would be a more correct approach: adjust the prediction for the anticipated short term nature of the bounce, and run the risk of over- or under-adjusting it, or take the bounce at face value as the new reality of the race?
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 10:20:16 AM
What do you think would be a more correct approach: adjust the prediction for the anticipated short term nature of the bounce, and run the risk of over- or under-adjusting it, or take the bounce at face value as the new reality of the race?
Obviously you need to adjust for the short term nature of the bounce, but if you are really going to handicap the race you need to do more than use current and historical data. You also need to reflect the historical trends against he current reality to project the degree to which the historical trends will be followed. This is something a market theoretically does well, so it was annoying to read a critique of a market based largely on historical and current data.
When it comes to data adjustments, the perfect is the enemy of the good. You can always refine your adjustments, and I'm sure 538 does plenty of that behind the scenes, but even an imperfect adjustment is better than just taking raw numbers and going with them.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 09:24:59 AM
since most of the nation is meaningless when it comes to voting.
Like me! People in central Asia who have never heard of the US have roughly an equal impact in this election as I do.
Same. I'll be voting for the Green Party just because it won't matter in the grand scheme, and I like supporting the smaller parties. Obama has Illinois locked up, so why not?
Because you are electing the most powerful person on the planet and if enough people think the way you do Romney will be put into that position.
I dont know about you but that possibility would make me vote for Obama if I could.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Same. I'll be voting for the Green Party just because it won't matter in the grand scheme, and I like supporting the smaller parties. Obama has Illinois locked up, so why not?
Because in a contested election the popular vote can have a persuasive effect. Al Gore may not have been able to contest Florida to the end if the popular vote didn't go his way. Also, the margin of victory can have an effect on the magnitude and length of a "honeymoon" period for a new president.
I'm not sure you understand where I live. Illinois, at the best of times, goes Democrat, and now we're the incumbant's home state. My vote is completely irrelevant in this state. I expect it to be 65/35 Obama, and that's pretty conservative. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see it go 70/30.
And given how loud the extreme views of politics in this country are, no matter who wins, there will be no "honeymoon" period after this election. The extremists will make sure of it. So if I cast my vote for a third party, I'm casting my vote against the extremists in the two major parties - and against the two-party system - which makes me happy. Quite frankly, it's the only way I feel like my vote will matter in the least.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:47:32 AM
I'm not sure you understand where I live. Illinois, at the best of times, goes Democrat, and now we're the incumbant's home state. My vote is completely irrelevant in this state. I expect it to be 65/35 Obama, and that's pretty conservative. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see it go 70/30.
And given how loud the extreme views of politics in this country are, no matter who wins, there will be no "honeymoon" period after this election. The extremists will make sure of it. So if I cast my vote for a third party, I'm casting my vote against the extremists in the two major parties - and against the two-party system - which makes me happy. Quite frankly, it's the only way I feel like my vote will matter in the least.
Illinois is included in the popular vote totals still, right?
Yeah ok Illinois is going to go Obama by a 20%+ margin.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:47:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 09:54:13 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Same. I'll be voting for the Green Party just because it won't matter in the grand scheme, and I like supporting the smaller parties. Obama has Illinois locked up, so why not?
Because in a contested election the popular vote can have a persuasive effect. Al Gore may not have been able to contest Florida to the end if the popular vote didn't go his way. Also, the margin of victory can have an effect on the magnitude and length of a "honeymoon" period for a new president.
I'm not sure you understand where I live. Illinois, at the best of times, goes Democrat, and now we're the incumbant's home state. My vote is completely irrelevant in this state. I expect it to be 65/35 Obama, and that's pretty conservative. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see it go 70/30.
And given how loud the extreme views of politics in this country are, no matter who wins, there will be no "honeymoon" period after this election. The extremists will make sure of it. So if I cast my vote for a third party, I'm casting my vote against the extremists in the two major parties - and against the two-party system - which makes me happy. Quite frankly, it's the only way I feel like my vote will matter in the least.
Meri, all politicians in the US look ahead to the next election - which for some of them comes up fairly quickly if I understand it. That is why there is an honeymoon period. Who in their right mind wants to take on a particularly popular president? One of the reasons politics in your country is so vicious at the moment is because for the last many years it is about a 50/50 split. If Obama can win in a popular vote pummeling of Mitt things might change - if only for a while.
Yeah, voting for the Green party is a good way to demonstrate that you are against extremists. What has the Nazi party still not recovered from the Blues Brothers coming through?
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 10:36:01 AM
When it comes to data adjustments, the perfect is the enemy of the good. You can always refine your adjustments, and I'm sure 538 does plenty of that behind the scenes, but even an imperfect adjustment is better than just taking raw numbers and going with them.
If someone gives me a sophisticated discounted cash flow model for a public company that shows a projected stock value, unless it incorporates inside information I'm going to lean toward just using the market value. For all its flaws, I think Intrade gives us a reasonable market value now.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 10:49:44 AM
Illinois is included in the popular vote totals still, right?
Oh for Godsake.
QuoteAl Gore may not have been able to contest Florida to the end if the popular vote didn't go his way. Also, the margin of victory can have an effect on the magnitude and length of a "honeymoon" period for a new president.
Yeah? Well he did not effectively contest the vote in Florida so winning the popular vote did jack and shit. And I couldn't care less about some honeymoon period. Generally the policies early in a Presidency are disastrous anyway. Both of these are pretty poor reasons to vote a way you would prefer not to.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 10:49:44 AM
Illinois is included in the popular vote totals still, right?
So the fuck what? What good does that do? My state's electoral college will go 100% Obama. In the current political climate, the popular vote only counts to help bolster Obama's confidence, not getting his policies passed or affecting true change. Republicans will block everything, anyway, regardless of how convincing a win Obama gets. (Just as the Democrats would do if Romney won.)
My vote will count on my senators and my congressmen. I'll use those wisely. My presidential vote? Wasted ink.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2012, 10:51:56 AM
Meri, all politicians in the US look ahead to the next election - which for some of them comes up fairly quickly if I understand it. That is why there is an honeymoon period. Who in their right mind wants to take on a particularly popular president? One of the reasons politics in your country is so vicious at the moment is because for the last many years it is about a 50/50 split. If Obama can win in a popular vote pummeling of Mitt things might change - if only for a while.
It'll be more of the same, only more so. If Obama wins, and the numbers for the Senate races stay the same, the Democrats will keep the Senate and perhaps even break the 60 to beat the filibusters, the Republitards will keep the House due to redistricting, and it'll be business as usual.
That said, it's better than the alternative.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:55:30 AM
Just as the Democrats would do if Romney won.
What do you base that conclusion on?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2012, 10:51:56 AM
Meri, all politicians in the US look ahead to the next election - which for some of them comes up fairly quickly if I understand it. That is why there is an honeymoon period. Who in their right mind wants to take on a particularly popular president? One of the reasons politics in your country is so vicious at the moment is because for the last many years it is about a 50/50 split. If Obama can win in a popular vote pummeling of Mitt things might change - if only for a while.
Obama won't be running again and I don't expect Romney to run again, so it will all be a wash for the next election. This election won't matter. The one that WILL matter will be 2014 election, which will dictate the general attitude of the country as it regards to the Senate and House.
On top of that, there's the hope that we'll be moving out of Illinois and to a state that actually has a voice in who runs our nation. :)
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
On top of that, there's the hope that we'll be moving out of Illinois and to a state that actually has a voice in who runs our nation. :)
So you want to move to a battlefield state? Like Nevada?
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2012, 10:57:59 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:55:30 AM
Just as the Democrats would do if Romney won.
What do you base that conclusion on?
A general lack of respect for both parties given the lack of actual movement by either party to work together? Granted, I blame the majority of that on the Republicans, but that's because there's a Democrat in the White House. I have a feeling that it would be the opposite if things were flipped.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2012, 11:02:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
On top of that, there's the hope that we'll be moving out of Illinois and to a state that actually has a voice in who runs our nation. :)
So you want to move to a battlefield state? Like Nevada?
Seconded
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2012, 11:02:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
On top of that, there's the hope that we'll be moving out of Illinois and to a state that actually has a voice in who runs our nation. :)
So you want to move to a battlefield state? Like Nevada?
I'm holding out for Washington, but if not, I'd settle for Pennsylvania. Maybe not true "battlefield" states, but both are just enough uncertain that my vote might matter.
I have long since accepted the fact that Ed Anger and MadImmortalMan run this country.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 11:03:32 AMA general lack of respect for both parties given the lack of actual movement by either party to work together? Granted, I blame the majority of that on the Republicans, but that's because there's a Democrat in the White House. I have a feeling that it would be the opposite if things were flipped.
There's a pretty strong current in the US of pinning the worst excess of one party on both parties, it seems. I don't know how accurate it is, nor how healthy it is for the political process.
It seems to me that if one party has not done something, it's unfair to assume that they will do it. Conversely, if one party has done something obnoxious, it would seem fair to hold them responsible for it.
And it's just not about fairness. If you don't like a behaviour that one party has exhibited, but you treat both parties as if they've done it, then there's really no downside for the other party to engage in the undesirable behaviour. Conversely, if you (or rather the electorate as a whole) censure the party that actually did engage in the undesirable party while giving the other party some credit for not having done so (even if they had no chance to), then there's an incentive to avoid the undesirable behaviour for both parties.
To my understanding, the Democrats have not been obstructionist to nearly the same level as the tea-party influenced Republicans. Seems to me that they deserve to keep some credit for that until they reach that level (or squander it on something else).
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2012, 11:12:09 AM
To my understanding, the Democrats have not been obstructionist to nearly the same level as the tea-party influenced Republicans. Seems to me that they deserve to keep some credit for that until they reach that level (or squander it on something else).
I seem to remember the Democrats doing a bang-up job of working very adamantly against Bush while he was in office, too. :hmm:
The thing is, I lean toward the Democratic party in a lot of things because I'm so socially liberal, even though I'm pretty staunchly fiscally conservative. Because of that, I try very hard to see both sides with some objectivity. Yes, I believe that the Tea-Party is doing really dangerous things to the Republican party, there are still a handful of Republican politicians that I think do a decent job.
Ultimately, what gets to me is that in this country, if you're not one party, you're the other. I don't like that. I want to have more legitimate choices. Of course, so long as the money goes the way it does, I don't see it changing anytime soon. Honestly, Jacob, I wish I thought that my opinion - and vote - mattered, but I'm just too jaded now. The system is broken, and my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I vote because I think it's the right thing to do, but I don't actually believe that anyone gives two shits what my vote will be.
They did vote for his war. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 11:05:15 AM
I'm holding out for Washington, but if not, I'd settle for Pennsylvania. Maybe not true "battlefield" states, but both are just enough uncertain that my vote might matter.
:lol: "Pennsylvania" and "vote". That's a good one.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:55:30 AM
So the fuck what? What good does that do? My state's electoral college will go 100% Obama. In the current political climate, the popular vote only counts to help bolster Obama's confidence, not getting his policies passed or affecting true change. Republicans will block everything, anyway, regardless of how convincing a win Obama gets. (Just as the Democrats would do if Romney won.)
My vote will count on my senators and my congressmen. I'll use those wisely. My presidential vote? Wasted ink.
Your vote for Senate and Congressman doesn't matter either. Even the congressional race will probably have over a hundred thousand votes; when you divide the impact of the other guy winning by the chance of your vote affecting the outcome the result isn't worth standing in line for 15 minutes.
OTOH, the feelings one gets from having participated and supported a candidate may well be worth the time. However, that applies whether your guy gets 51% or 70%.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 11:22:14 AM
Ultimately, what gets to me is that in this country, if you're not one party, you're the other. I don't like that. I want to have more legitimate choices.
LOL, "Legitimate" and "choice". That's a good one.
Yeah Eddie I always pay the most attention to local elections. Those often come down to just a few hundred votes and more impact me directly anyway.
This year, it's not any races in Maryland that are particularly competitive, but the gay marriage initiative is on the ballot. That'll bring people out to the polls.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
On top of that, there's the hope that we'll be moving out of Illinois and to a state that actually has a voice in who runs our nation. :)
Your vote has an infitesimal chance of making any difference whatever state you are in. Your vote in Illinois 2012 will make exactly as much of a difference and a single vote did in Florida 2000 - zilch. But if you move to a swing state you will at least get campaigned at, I guess.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 10:36:01 AM
When it comes to data adjustments, the perfect is the enemy of the good. You can always refine your adjustments, and I'm sure 538 does plenty of that behind the scenes, but even an imperfect adjustment is better than just taking raw numbers and going with them.
If someone gives me a sophisticated discounted cash flow model for a public company that shows a projected stock value, unless it incorporates inside information I'm going to lean toward just using the market value. For all its flaws, I think Intrade gives us a reasonable market value now.
Well, our discussion sidetracked a little. I was comparing polls to 538, and in that comparison, 538 is just so superior that it's not debatable. Whether the model is better than a market is a different discussion. FWIW, I think that the two are not independent: I think that most Intrade participants are so reliant on the 538 model that insiders with better information aren't going to move the market. That is the danger of the models in all the markets, IMO.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2012, 10:57:59 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 10:55:30 AM
Just as the Democrats would do if Romney won.
What do you base that conclusion on?
A general lack of respect for both parties given the lack of actual movement by either party to work together? Granted, I blame the majority of that on the Republicans, but that's because there's a Democrat in the White House. I have a feeling that it would be the opposite if things were flipped.
Even as the resident board super moderate, I actually don't agree with that.
I think the radical right is MUCH more effective at hijacking their party than the radical left ever managed to be.
When things WERE flipped, you did not see Dems saying things that basically amounted to "Letting the country go to hell is an acceptable outcome if it results in getting Bush out of the White House".
You saw some fucked up attitudes (the barely suppressed cheering for the US to fail in the Iraq war for example), but nothing to the extreme that we have seen in the last four years.
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2012, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2012, 11:03:32 AMA general lack of respect for both parties given the lack of actual movement by either party to work together? Granted, I blame the majority of that on the Republicans, but that's because there's a Democrat in the White House. I have a feeling that it would be the opposite if things were flipped.
There's a pretty strong current in the US of pinning the worst excess of one party on both parties, it seems. I don't know how accurate it is, nor how healthy it is for the political process.
In and un, respectively.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 11:38:54 AM
Even as the resident board super moderate, I actually don't agree with that.
I think the radical right is MUCH more effective at hijacking their party than the radical left ever managed to be.
When things WERE flipped, you did not see Dems saying things that basically amounted to "Letting the country go to hell is an acceptable outcome if it results in getting Bush out of the White House".
You saw some fucked up attitudes (the barely suppressed cheering for the US to fail in the Iraq war for example), but nothing to the extreme that we have seen in the last four years.
I feel the same way, but I wasn't sure how much of what I felt was colored by my absolute distaste for the Tea-Partiers, so I tried to temper it a bit.
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
No, I think the most dangerous enabler of radicalism are the actual radicals...especially the ones who mistake disagreement with their views as some kind of actual malevolence.
The real enablers of the radicals are the not so radicals who do buy into the idea that dissent within the party is so terrible that it deserves being stamped out irrespective of the legitimacy of the viewpoint.
As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.
That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 11:45:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2012, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 11:38:54 AM
Even as the resident board super moderate,
Snicker.
That is cute isn't it?
Considering that was a preamble to a statement bashing Republicans, the fact that a couple Democrats respond this way kinda supports his claim to the title...
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
No, I wouldn't give them that much credit. "Pox on both houses" is just cynicism, the most chic form of cowardice. It's for people who are so afraid of being wrong and looking stupid that they forgo any chance of being right.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL. I prefer to hold each side accountable for what they actually do instead of being 'moderate' and 'rational' by making up fairy tales about the big bad Tea Party or the big bad Radical Leftists.
Besides alot of things I strongly oppose both parties favor. I cannot really support a political force that is so radically directly opposed to my own beliefs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2012, 11:58:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 11:45:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2012, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 11:38:54 AM
Even as the resident board super moderate,
Snicker.
That is cute isn't it?
Considering that was a preamble to a statement bashing Republicans, the fact that a couple Democrats respond this way kinda supports his claim to the title...
Hans bashes Republicans as well.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
I mentioned that I blame the Republicans in the House and Senate for the last four years, haven't I? :unsure: If not, I should have. I'm just not 100% convinced that the Democrats would have been a tremendous amount better.
I do try to focus on what I've seen happen rather than just the lumped "they all suck!" I've seen the Republicans cock-block Obama over and over again, and I strongly believe that we need to get Democrats into both the US House and Senate by a majority in order to enact necessary changes right now. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't vote for the handful of Republicans that I like in my state. (These Repubs are moderate, and appear to be almost anti-Tea Party, which makes me happy.)
I just don't see either side as mostly moderate, which is what I want. If that makes me "dangerous", well, yay me! :w00t:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 11:58:38 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
No, I wouldn't give them that much credit. "Pox on both houses" is just cynicism, the most chic form of cowardice. It's for people who are so afraid of being wrong and looking stupid that they forgo any chance of being right.
Or you could make up insane fairy tales about non-partisans. Whatever it takes to fight off radicalism. Besides you do the exact same thing I do: babble on message boards and show up to vote. Am I supposed to be over-awed by your courage?
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
It might encourage radicalization, but it's still mostly true. :P
"there's are thing In both parties I don't like" doesn't make you non-partisan.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 11:55:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
No, I think the most dangerous enabler of radicalism are the actual radicals...especially the ones who mistake disagreement with their views as some kind of actual malevolence.
The real enablers of the radicals are the not so radicals who do buy into the idea that dissent within the party is so terrible that it deserves being stamped out irrespective of the legitimacy of the viewpoint.
As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.
That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.
Radicals are always going to be there to some extent. The difference between them being a fringe and being in power is how far they are enabled by non-radicals.
Radicalism is really kind of in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps it should be phrased "people I really disagree with".
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 11:55:55 AM
That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty from secular Kenyan anti-colonialism is no vice!"
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 11:58:57 AM
Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL.
Yes. You've just highlighted the core of the "pox on both houses" thinking: that the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side. If you want to punish radicalism, punish the side that pushes radicalism, don't vote for a third party (which is almost surely guaranteed to be even more radical, just out of power).
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 11:59:18 AM
Hans bashes Republicans as well.
Find me a post where Hans says Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans and you can have that point.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 11:59:18 AM
Hans bashes Republicans as well.
Find me a post where Hans says Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans and you can have that point.
That's a little vague (I could find a quote where Hans says that Democrats aren't as bad at making coffee as Republicans are), and I fail to see why it's relevant. I didn't say "Hans was a democrat.".
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:06:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 11:58:57 AM
Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL.
Yes. You've just highlighted the core of the "pox on both houses" thinking: that the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side.
That is a whopper of a strawman there DG - do you know anyone who would claim "...the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side."
I don't.
Quote
If you want to punish radicalism, punish the side that pushes radicalism, don't vote for a third party (which is almost surely guaranteed to be even more radical, just out of power).
I agree with this.
Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities. Ultimately the point of condemning radicals is not just to resolve the present conflict, but to dissuade future radical solutions to problems, and blaming both children for fighting is always a retarded way to apportion blame.
It is perfectly rational to respond to radicalism with radicalism on your own; that doesn't mean that you've now become just as bad. If your start off protesting peacefully, and your opponents brings out machine guns and artillery to mow you down, you have no choice but to resort to guerrilla warfare (which is always nasty and brutal). That doesn't mean that people like Assad are just as bad as people like Syrian rebels.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 12:13:46 PM
That is a whopper of a strawman there DG - do you know anyone who would claim "...the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side."
I don't.
Valmy's first reaction betrayed that very mode of thought. Sure, he tempered it somewhat later on, but his first reaction was "LOL, blaming one side only is not radical?"
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:14:20 PM
Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.
Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.
Then the same guy will who started it will start the same problem next week.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2012, 12:19:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:14:20 PM
Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.
Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.
I just said in the next sentence why it's important. The current problem is not the last problem we'll face. There will be more problems later on. If there is a culture instilled that radicalism and lack of compromise will be identified and punished, next time there is more incentive to do things sensibly. Blaming both kids for fighting doesn't dissuade fighting as much as punishing the kid who threw the first punch (but of course it's harder to allocate blame that way).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2012, 12:19:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:14:20 PM
Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.
Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.
Well yes I think ultimately what you want to do is behave politically in such a way that it will solve problems. But at the same time you have to learn from experience. If a political organization has a repeated pattern of behavior you have to take that into account.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:06:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 11:58:57 AM
Wait so holding one side entirely responsible is the non-radical approach? LOL.
Yes. You've just highlighted the core of the "pox on both houses" thinking: that the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side. If you want to punish radicalism, punish the side that pushes radicalism, don't vote for a third party (which is almost surely guaranteed to be even more radical, just out of power).
I do do that. That is why I almost always vote Democrat for national and statewide elections these days. I only vote for third parties if I feel like it would be a great thing if that third party candidate won. Which I have only ever done in State and Local elections where every once in awhile a person like this shows up.
But I am certainly not happy with being forced to vote for the Democrats. But, you know, I can hope maybe someday the Republicans will shape up. But it sorta feels hopeless. The standard is just be less bad than the other party which seems to me to guarantee bad government. But that is the system and I am not able or willing to do anything about that...at least not yet. I am not even sure what to do about it.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:16:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 12:13:46 PM
That is a whopper of a strawman there DG - do you know anyone who would claim "...the rationality of one's position is solely a function of how you apportion the blame to each side."
I don't.
Valmy's first reaction betrayed that very mode of thought. Sure, he tempered it somewhat later on, but his first reaction was "LOL, blaming one side only is not radical?"
But that doesn't follow.
Saying that only blaming one side is evidence of radicalism does not equate to claiming that the ONLY criteria for rationality is how you apportion blame.
It is perfectly reasonable to note that in a dispute where it is clear to a observer that there is blame to be spread on both sides, someone claiming all the blame is on one side is likely pretty radical.
That is not at all the same as saying that the only way to measure the reasonableness of a position is the ability to blame both sides by any means.
For example, I could say that the current inability of the government to address our financial issues is largely the blame of the Republicans. In fact, I would say exactly that. If I had to put a ratio of blame, it would be something like 70/30 Republicans douchebags.
But the Dems did their part to create this mess. And someone who says "ZOMG THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMPLETELY TO BLAME IT IS ALL THEIR FAULT 100%!!!" I would think "Nutbar!". That hardly means the only measure of rationality is ability to assign blame - it is just noting that generally on radicals say extreme things like "It is all the other guys fault!" without any ability to see how their own side contributed to the problem, even if it is largely accurate to note that the current problem is mostly one sided.
So no - he is NOT claiming that at all. It is not a general principle, but a specific response to a specific piece of data.
And that desire to paint others into positions they don't hold, and you know they don't hold...well, you know where that is going.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 11:05:56 AM
I have long since accepted the fact that Ed Anger and MadImmortalMan run this country.
If I wasn't on my iPad, a pic of Vigo would be here.
Ok, the "solely" part was overstating it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 12:32:14 PM
I do do that. That is why I almost always vote Democrat for national and statewide elections these days. I only vote for third parties if I feel like it would be a great thing if that third party candidate won. Which I have only ever done in State and Local elections where every once in awhile a person like this shows up.
But I am certainly not happy with being forced to vote for the Democrats. But, you know, I can hope maybe someday the Republicans will shape up. But it sorta feels hopeless. The standard is just be less bad than the other party which seems to me to guarantee bad government. But that is the system and I am not able or willing to do anything about that...at least not yet. I am not even sure what to do about it.
This is exactly why I will vote third party for the Presidential elections this year. I believe in the
concept of a strong third or fourth party, and I believe that lending the support of a throw-away vote will do something toward helping us get there. If the Green Party gets 10-15% of the vote, it's going to start to get some legs under it, forcing both the Democrats and the Republicans to start to look at things differently, or at least to start acting a little differently.
Do I think that my one vote will get them to the 10-15%? Of course not. But if enough people stop supporting the other two parties because they're both so damn broken, then maybe a true shift will occur.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2012, 12:19:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:14:20 PM
Another problem with blaming both sides is that it ignores who started the hostilities.
Yeah because that's unimportant. The important thing is to resolve the problem, not blame somebody.
I just said in the next sentence why it's important. The current problem is not the last problem we'll face. There will be more problems later on. If there is a culture instilled that radicalism and lack of compromise will be identified and punished, next time there is more incentive to do things sensibly. Blaming both kids for fighting doesn't dissuade fighting as much as punishing the kid who threw the first punch (but of course it's harder to allocate blame that way).
No argument here. Just want to note that this is inconsistent with your own stated views on moderates within your own party, where you felt that non-radicalism and compromise should be what is punished.
It isn't important in the current political climate, since even the most moderate of Dems is clearly preferable to the fucked up Tea Party creatures, but I do think that your position on moderates in your party reversed to the Republican Party in the last 4 years is what has gotten the Republicans to be this caricature of a actual party.
If we simply categorize party member using a simplistic scale:
1 - True nutbar radicals - Tea Party activists who think the country should burn if that is what is needed to get rid of Obama, Moveon nutjobs who swore that Bush was going to have a coup to stay in power, etc.
2 - Non moderate True Believers. The "core" of the party, those who are ideologically driven by the foundations of what the party means, and shows consdierable loyalty to THe Party as an ideological identity. I put you in this category.
3 - Party moderates - Those who basically agree with the bulk of the principles their party is based on at least to the extent that they do so more than they do with the other party, but may have some (even significant) differences with group 2 on specific issues, and are generally willing to cross party lines on specific issues.
It is group 2 that allows group 1 to take control when group 2 decides that group 3 are not "true believers" enough and do not support them against group 1. This is what has happened to the Republican Party, to the extent that in many case, you cannot get elected unless you at least pretend to be group 1, you had better AT LEAST be group 2, and group 3 has no shot at winning a primary anymore.
That is what results in the radicalization of a party.
I don't think this has ever happened that I've seen in the Dems, at least not to the extent that it has for the Republicans these last few years. Obviously the balance within any party shifts back and forth over time.
But here is the kicker - you need group 3 to get anything done. Government is the art of compromise, and it is the moderates in each party that are the ones that make governance possible when government is divided...and often even when it is not divided. Because they don't necessarily agree with their True Believers, so that forces the True Believers to temper their demands, which is a good thing (at least to those of use who are not True Believers of the party in power). And that equates to the majority of the population.
QuoteGallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama
CHARLESTON, WV—According to the results of a Gallup poll released Monday, the overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. president Barack Obama. "I like him better," said West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski, who, along with 77 percent of rural Caucasian voters, confirmed he would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad, a man who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and has had numerous political prisoners executed, than spend time with Obama. "He takes national defense seriously, and he'd never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does." According to the same Gallup poll, 60 percent of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's Muslim.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
No argument here. Just want to note that this is inconsistent with your own stated views on moderates within your own party, where you felt that non-radicalism and compromise should be what is punished.
It's inconsistent with your own interpretation of my views, but that's par for the course more often than not.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 11:58:38 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
No, I wouldn't give them that much credit. "Pox on both houses" is just cynicism, the most chic form of cowardice. It's for people who are so afraid of being wrong and looking stupid that they forgo any chance of being right.
Or you could make up insane fairy tales about non-partisans. Whatever it takes to fight off radicalism. Besides you do the exact same thing I do: babble on message boards and show up to vote. Am I supposed to be over-awed by your courage?
You added this second part after I responded! There is one thing a person who says "pox on both their houses" doesn't do. Play defense. He doesn't have to really defend what they believe, only attack. You can look cool and political and worldly without worrying about little things like seeing your ideas blow up in your face or the getting downhearted by a candidate not living up to your expectation. "Pox on both their houses" means never having to admit you were wrong, which is perfect for people who want to look political or feel like they part of a political discussion without actually being part of one.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
You added this second part after I responded! There is one thing a person who says "pox on both their houses" doesn't do. Play defense. He doesn't have to really defend what they believe, only attack. You can look cool and political and worldly without worrying about little things like seeing your ideas blow up in your face or the getting downhearted by a candidate not living up to your expectation. "Pox on both their houses" means never having to admit you were wrong, which is perfect for people who want to look political or feel like they part of a political discussion without actually being part of one.
I guess I do not get the advantage of having your ideas unrepresented by the political mainstream. The fact that horrible ideas and policies are doing great damage to my country is not offset by looking cool and political and worldly.
Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 01:26:33 PM
Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.
Well, most cooks are pretty crazy, at least that's what television has led me to believe. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 01:26:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
You added this second part after I responded! There is one thing a person who says "pox on both their houses" doesn't do. Play defense. He doesn't have to really defend what they believe, only attack. You can look cool and political and worldly without worrying about little things like seeing your ideas blow up in your face or the getting downhearted by a candidate not living up to your expectation. "Pox on both their houses" means never having to admit you were wrong, which is perfect for people who want to look political or feel like they part of a political discussion without actually being part of one.
I guess I do not get the advantage of having your ideas unrepresented by the political mainstream. The fact that horrible ideas and policies are doing great damage to my country is not offset by looking cool and political and worldly.
Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.
What you you do you found out it was your ideas that were horrible? What if they were enacted and did terrible harm?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2012, 12:55:57 PM
QuoteGallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama
CHARLESTON, WV—According to the results of a Gallup poll released Monday, the overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. president Barack Obama. "I like him better," said West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski, who, along with 77 percent of rural Caucasian voters, confirmed he would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad, a man who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and has had numerous political prisoners executed, than spend time with Obama. "He takes national defense seriously, and he'd never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does." According to the same Gallup poll, 60 percent of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's Muslim.
Excellent Onion article.
Quote from: mongers on September 28, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2012, 12:55:57 PM
QuoteGallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama
CHARLESTON, WV—According to the results of a Gallup poll released Monday, the overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. president Barack Obama. "I like him better," said West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski, who, along with 77 percent of rural Caucasian voters, confirmed he would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad, a man who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and has had numerous political prisoners executed, than spend time with Obama. "He takes national defense seriously, and he'd never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does." According to the same Gallup poll, 60 percent of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's Muslim.
Excellent Onion article.
Which was apparently picked up by an Iranian news agency.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 01:32:03 PM
What you you do you found out it was your ideas that were horrible? What if they were enacted and did terrible harm?
I would then change my ideas, when new evidence comes to light you have to adjust.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2012, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 01:26:33 PM
Actually it makes me feel like some sort of cook or crazy person.
Well, most cooks are pretty crazy, at least that's what television has led me to believe. :hmm:
It's true.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2012, 01:32:03 PM
What you you do you found out it was your ideas that were horrible? What if they were enacted and did terrible harm?
Already been there. I was a College Republican.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 12:03:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 11:55:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM
I think "pox on both houses" or "both sides are to blame" is probably the most dangerous mode of thinking you can have in politics. This kind of thinking just encourages more radicalization, since there is a guarantee that both sides will get equal blame no matter how nasty things get. Ironically, while people who think like that consider themselves rational and moderate, they are in fact the most dangerous enabling element of the dangerous radicalization.
No, I think the most dangerous enabler of radicalism are the actual radicals...especially the ones who mistake disagreement with their views as some kind of actual malevolence.
The real enablers of the radicals are the not so radicals who do buy into the idea that dissent within the party is so terrible that it deserves being stamped out irrespective of the legitimacy of the viewpoint.
As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.
That is the real enabler of radicalism within parties - the people who won't tolerate moderates in their own party.
Radicals are always going to be there to some extent. The difference between them being a fringe and being in power is how far they are enabled by non-radicals.
Correct. IIRC, Hitler came to power via a coalition of people who were more afraid of Communists, and everybody else has a high level of moral relativism/individualism?
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 11:05:56 AM
I have long since accepted the fact that Ed Anger and MadImmortalMan run this country.
What a depressing thought.
Quote from: katmai on September 28, 2012, 04:34:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2012, 11:05:56 AM
I have long since accepted the fact that Ed Anger and MadImmortalMan run this country.
What a depressing thought.
My country, right or wrong!
The Romney campaign is now at its worst point since Mitt was being battered in the primaries season. They need to start thinking different this current weekend. Besides trying to make this Wednesday's presidential debate a a game-changer, they need to rethink the campaign's strategy and tactics. I keep hearing them say the focus needs to be on the economy, but the economy is not bad enough to win on that alone. They would need a coming recession and/or unemployment reaching back towards 9% in order to win on that.
Further, most of the ads and messages I see coming out the Romney campaign are negative, usually about Obama's handling of the economy. As I mentioned above: 1. The economy is not bad enough, but also 2. People want positive character and culture fluff. I search the mittromney YouTube channel in vain: http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0 (http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0)
It's not too hard. Many Americans admire Obama's family and biography. The only book Romney wrote---besides one about the Olympics---is boring as hell. Nobody cares about a book full of patriot-spun policies.
Create Hollywood-quality ads about:
- raising 5 sons
- father's poor family immigrating from Mexico
- father's rescue of the auto industry
- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
- lifelong marriage with Ann since high school
- Ann's various health problems
- two years of being a young missionary in France, including his near-death car crash and learning a new language
- the pressure and fear of starting a new company (Bain Capital) at age 33
- building a new church (Mormon temple in Massachusetts)
- rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Then do the same for the VP arm of the campaign concerning Paul Ryan's biography, such as the early death of his father, etc.
There is plenty of material for the Romney and Ryan campaign to work with. The Obama = FAIL stuff is not going to work unless the President is utterly failing in real life. He's still too cool.
Obama is now at his polling high point, a narrow popular---but decisive electoral---lead. Romney would have to win all the toss-up states where he is polling within the margin-of-error. Even Ohio now has Obama up by over 5 points, and North Carolina is not safe. Yet, Romney was seen campaigning in Pennsylvania this week where Obama is up by almost 10 points. :wacko:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/2012electionmap0927.png)
Obama is also beating Romney in the money race. Not only has he vastly outspent Romney for the past year building a huge lead in field offices and ad time, but he still possesses a much larger campaign chest for direct spending. September is seeing the Democratic NC and affiliated Super PACs now also getting the big million-dollar checks that the Republicans enjoyed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F290-width%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20120929_USC172.png&hash=23e240d92511a74da09b117e4767e48d83c2b3a2)
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
Create Hollywood-quality ads about:
- two years of being a young missionary in France, including his near-death car crash and learning a new language
- building a new church (Mormon temple in Massachusetts)
Yes, he should definitely run on this. :D
Quote- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
so his family is used to not attaining political offices? Good, they'll know how to comfort him when he loses :p
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Real base winners there. That's exactly what his party wants to hear. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2012, 02:04:07 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Real base winners there. That's exactly what his party wants to hear. :lol:
Run the ads in markets where he can win the middle.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 02:11:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2012, 02:04:07 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Real base winners there. That's exactly what his party wants to hear. :lol:
Run the ads in markets where he can win the middle.
and when the other areas hear about these ads he'll lose core support.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
Create Hollywood-quality ads about:
- raising 5 sons
- father's poor family immigrating from Mexico
- father's rescue of the auto industry
- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
- lifelong marriage with Ann since high school
- Ann's various health problems
I don't think any of those will move the meter much now. Maybe at the start of the campaign but not likely now.
Quote- two years of being a young missionary in France, including his near-death car crash and learning a new language
Yes please, campaign on being practically French. We love the French, right?
Quote- the pressure and fear of starting a new company (Bain Capital) at age 33
Bain is hurting him more than helping him at this point, I think.
Quote- building a new church (Mormon temple in Massachusetts)
Not sure he wants too focus much on his religion, could be a negative. Though less of a negative than Obama being Muslim.
Quote- rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics
How many millions/billions was his government bail-out there?
Quote- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
Massachusettes has a balanaced budget amendment. Governmental fees skyrocketed during his administration.
Quote- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Not sure he wants to take credit for creating and implementing the Jobs Killing Health Care Act before the Anti-Christ took it Federal.
Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2012, 02:00:23 PM
Quote- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
so his family is used to not attaining political offices? Good, they'll know how to comfort him when he loses :p
Mother ad will show he is pro-woman for their power advancement and that he personally understands discrimination against females having been on the campaign trail for his mother.
Father ad will rub off some conviction on him and possibly anti-war understanding.
Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2012, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 02:11:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2012, 02:04:07 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Real base winners there. That's exactly what his party wants to hear. :lol:
Run the ads in markets where he can win the middle.
and when the other areas hear about these ads he'll lose core support.
Core supporters (both Democrat and Republican) have a tendency to look the other way when their candidate does non-base pleasing things. After all, any large number of Democrats staying home because Obama tripled the number of troops in disastrous Afghanistan and ordered the assassination of an American citizen without trial?
Look, Romney is already losing the character/story game. Severely. Actually creating/spending message/ad time on character/story can't do any worse than what is already happening to him from opposition messaging and his own gaffes. The current "Obama is fail" strategy won't work unless the country has a recession or other major loss. See how Kerry was defeated.
Quote from: sbr on September 29, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
Not sure he wants too focus much on his religion, could be a negative. Though less of a negative than Obama being Muslim.
Not really, Obama's being Muslim causes Republican voters to vote against him; Romney's being Mormon will cause Republican voters to stay home.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2012, 02:46:17 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 29, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
Not sure he wants too focus much on his religion, could be a negative. Though less of a negative than Obama being Muslim.
Not really, Obama's being Muslim causes Republican voters to vote against him; Romney's being Mormon will cause Republican voters to stay home.
Mormonism has been a non-issue. Polls show that Romney now has the same amount of evangelical support that Bush II had, a recovery from McCain's numbers.
Architects of the 2004 evangelical turnout that boosted Bush II have returned to try and do the same for Romney: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/us/politics/ralph-reed-hopes-to-nudge-mitt-romney-to-a-victory.html
Mormonism will help Romney in Nevada. There are only two kinds of GOP here. Mormons and Libertarians.
I don't think shifting to the middle will help Romney that much. He already has a reputation as a guy who will say anything to get elected. Conservatives don't seem to fully believe shift to the right is sincere (which it probably isn't), and watching Romney closely for moving away from political orthodoxy.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 03:44:05 PM
I don't think shifting to the middle will help Romney that much. He already has a reputation as a guy who will say anything to get elected. Conservatives don't seem to fully believe shift to the right is sincere (which it probably isn't), and watching Romney closely for moving away from political orthodoxy.
His professed policies would not change, just the commercials.
Mitt Romney is a loser and the rest of the GOP is finally realizing it. Too late, you can't take him back.
Good luck in 2016, though.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 03:44:05 PM
I don't think shifting to the middle will help Romney that much. He already has a reputation as a guy who will say anything to get elected. Conservatives don't seem to fully believe shift to the right is sincere (which it probably isn't), and watching Romney closely for moving away from political orthodoxy.
His professed policies would not change, just the commercials.
So having commercials that are at odds with his professed policies sounds like a good idea to you?
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 29, 2012, 03:48:19 PM
Mitt Romney is a loser and the rest of the GOP is finally realizing it. Too late, you can't take him back.
Good luck in 2016, though.
To be fair they didn't have a very good pool of candidates.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
So having commercials that are at odds with his professed policies sounds like a good idea to you?
Uhh, Phil is talking about fluff commercials so they won't be at odds with any policies.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 03:44:05 PM
I don't think shifting to the middle will help Romney that much. He already has a reputation as a guy who will say anything to get elected. Conservatives don't seem to fully believe shift to the right is sincere (which it probably isn't), and watching Romney closely for moving away from political orthodoxy.
His professed policies would not change, just the commercials.
So he would praise the health care system in Massachusetts that would be repealed on the national level? How was the budget balanced in Massachusetts ?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2012, 03:59:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
So having commercials that are at odds with his professed policies sounds like a good idea to you?
Uhh, Phil is talking about fluff commercials so they won't be at odds with any policies.
Precisely.
For an example, look to the Obama and Clinton campaigns of 2008. Were they really that different when it came to policy? It was the character/story part that made her lose. She finally revamped her campaign and message in the second half, running stuff like "The Hillary I Know" commercials and "It's 3 AM". For all Obama praise, she still managed to win 49% of the primaries vote.
Right, but your points all seem like things that don't work.
"As the son of Mexicans, who I don't actually like, my father saved the auto industry I thought didn't deserve a bailout. Thank you, and vote for me Ohio!"
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2012, 04:09:33 PM
Right, but your points all seem like things that don't work.
"As the son of Mexicans, who I don't actually like, my father saved the auto industry I thought didn't deserve a bailout. Thank you, and vote for me Ohio!"
:D
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2012, 04:09:33 PM
Right, but your points all seem like things that don't work.
"As the son of Mexicans, who I don't actually like, my father saved the auto industry I thought didn't deserve a bailout. Thank you, and vote for me Ohio!"
1. Why would he say that he dislikes Mexicans in the commercial?
2. Why would he talk about auto bailouts in the commercial?
3. Why would he run this ad in Ohio? Immigration ads should target Hispanic/immigrant areas.
So your plan is that in a few short weeks, the dude who appeared in brownface on Univision will persuade everyone he's descended from Mexicans because his ancestors moved there to practice polygamy?
Good god, romney's done.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2012, 04:17:46 PM
So your plan is that in a few short weeks, the dude who appeared in brownface on Univision will persuade everyone he's descended from Mexicans because his ancestors moved there to practice polygamy?
Good god, romney's done.
No. It would just be a fluff commercial about a family coming to America poor and living the American dream. You've got 30 seconds! :wacko:
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 04:22:03 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2012, 04:17:46 PM
So your plan is that in a few short weeks, the dude who appeared in brownface on Univision will persuade everyone he's descended from Mexicans because his ancestors moved there to practice polygamy?
Good god, romney's done.
No. It would just be a fluff commercial about a family coming to America poor and living the American dream. You've got 30 seconds! :wacko:
And Obama will counter by running the clip when Mom Romney praised America for giving Father Romney welfare.
Sorry Phil, but I don't think more fluff pieces are going to help him that much. And running one ad in one area but may lose you votes in another area doesn't work as well in world with internet.
Romney can't run on his actual record as he's spent the whole election running away from it. That's the thing: Romney is probably the best candidate, but he's running with the party of economic suicide and social depravity, as opposed to the party of economic status quo and a different kind of social depravity.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
Sorry Phil, but I don't think more fluff pieces are going to help him that much. And running one ad in one area but may lose you votes in another area doesn't work as well in world with internet.
But see, it's not "more fluff". There is a current lack of fluff. Most of their ads and messaging are anti-Obama pieces.
That's still "more fluff"!
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
Sorry Phil, but I don't think more fluff pieces are going to help him that much. And running one ad in one area but may lose you votes in another area doesn't work as well in world with internet.
But see, it's not "more fluff". There is a current lack of fluff. Most of their ads and messaging are anti-Obama pieces.
Romney can't win, he can only hope Obama loses.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2012, 04:35:01 PM
That's still "more fluff"!
Ah, so it's just "Will fluff work?"
Phillip V: "Yes."
Razgovory: "No."
:D
The question is, can fluff ads make Romney seem likable? Seems a tall order from all I've heard about him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2012, 04:39:12 PM
The question is, can fluff ads make Romney seem likable? Seems a tall order from all I've heard about him.
Early in the process it might have been possible, as of now he has spent over a year showing everyone how unlikable he is. I don't think he can come back from that with 'fluff ads'.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2012, 04:39:12 PM
The question is, can fluff ads make Romney seem likable? Seems a tall order from all I've heard about him.
It's a question that every campaign faces, thought we may now be late in the game.
How to get a scandal-prone guy from hick Arkansas elected? (Clinton) "Comeback Kid"
How to get a rich idiot kid elected? (Bush II)
How to get an aloof black man with weird name elected? (Obama)
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2012, 09:12:11 AM
The polls have been consistently close--over a month away I don't think a 4% lead or whatever it is should be considered all that secure. I think the tendancy is to give Romney less chance than the polling would normally indicate because he has shown no life as a candidate. Which I think is fair--if he is a crap candidate for the first years of his campaign, why should we expect a turnaround in the last month?
I think one change is that the media will tire of the story about Romney being a loser and Obama running away with it. Any sign of Romney staging a fightback makes for a new story that's more interesting and better copy.
QuoteI seem to remember the Democrats doing a bang-up job of working very adamantly against Bush while he was in office, too.
I think this is overstating things. The only example I can think of Congressional Democrats just obstructing was social security reform. In all of his other domestic initiatives he received significant support from Democrats in Congress: Bush tax cuts, immigration reform, NCLB. I've always thought that critics of the Democrats conflated the blooming of the base on the internet with the Democrats.
There are, I think, probably two reasons for that. Bush's domestic policy placed more emphasis on 'compassionate conservatism' - which is something I think Romney desperately needs (Edit: I think of all the politicians' speeches I saw Rice's, which was 'compassionate conservatism' was second only to Bill's). But then Obama's healthcare proposals were very similar to what Republicans supported a decade ago and his policies were generally more shaped by Baucus and Nelson than Pelosi. The other aspect is that I think while people conflated the Democratic base with their party in Congress, the Republican base and party in Congress seem more genuinely linked. Though I think there's been a restraining of the Tea Party as much as them assuming control. It's been observed, I think rightly, that they're extreme in primaries but then swing behind whoever's the candidate - look at Scott Brown.
I also think there's an issue with seeing the problem as moderates and radicals. Moderates do as much damage as radicals to public trust in politics. There are a few, precious few, conviction moderates in politics. Politicians I think are often passionate about specific issues and occasionally that adds up, with a small dose of philosophy to a passionate centrism - again Scott Brown and Jim Webb spring to mind. More often however moderates are posers like Evan Bayh (whose chances of voting liberally swung wildly when there was potential for him to be a VP nominee or run in the primary), or politicians who will more of less sell their vote on any issue if you sweeten the pot - Arlen Specter, say.
The real problem, in my view, is the hacks vs pols with some conviction. I don't mind a radical, I think they're a bracing and important part of politics. For example Tom Coburn may be fiercely conservative but he's actually motivated by beliefs so he's hinted that he'd be willing to make a deal on revenue to reduce the deficit and the debt. Similarly I think someone like Ted Kennedy would've worked with anyone (and did work with Bush) on issues he cared about like immigration reform. Radicals and moderates can have a good faith negotiation over issues they care about and try to build consensus around them - hacks and careerists can't do good faith, however moderate they may try to appear because of their state, or their election chances, or to balance a ticket.
Look at Ryan who works out a budget plan that tickles his parties fancy (and includes some of Obama's policies) and then attacks that same policy when giving his VP acceptance speech because that's what the party wants to hear then.
QuotePeople want positive character and culture fluff
With respect character isn't fluff. First of all you're electing a head of state. Secondly, character matters. It's the basis of those immediate responses, the 3 AM phone calls and the nature of your relations with Congress. And, above all, remember Burke: 'his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'
Also my view is that Romney's tragedy is that if he loses, I don't think he'll look back with pride. He wanted to be President and in 2006 facing Giuliani and McCain he decided to run as the social conservative candidate: the complete Reaganite conservative. That meant he had to repudiate his relatively successful bipartisan record as a Governor and had to campaign for the votes of people who were suspicious of his faith meaning he had to keep that more quiet - despite it being something he's sincere and devout about (I thought the Mormon testimonials at the RNC were one of the best bits). Romney's campaign has, for 6 years, been running against himself and his best hope as a 'moderate' Republican is that enough moderate voters think he's been lying for that long. It's a real shame, because I think the 'real' Mitt Romney - a compassionate Mormon leader, a pragmatic technocrat with a record of bipartisanship - could do very well in this election.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2012, 11:55:55 AM
As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.
You've a point, but I don't see the problem with lefty Democrats in New England wanting a lefty Democrat to represent their lefty state (or Republicans wanting a sensible moderate in the same state) - they may be a better representative. But you're right that it's counter-productive for the Democratic left to primary a moderate in Nebraska, or the Republicans to decide against, say, Mike Castle.
On the other hand I don't think it's all bad - I'd always rather Rubio than Crist.
A good post Shelf. :)
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
The Romney campaign is now at its worst point since Mitt was being battered in the primaries season. They need to start thinking different this current weekend. Besides trying to make this Wednesday's presidential debate a a game-changer, they need to rethink the campaign's strategy and tactics. I keep hearing them say the focus needs to be on the economy, but the economy is not bad enough to win on that alone. They would need a coming recession and/or unemployment reaching back towards 9% in order to win on that.
Further, most of the ads and messages I see coming out the Romney campaign are negative, usually about Obama's handling of the economy. As I mentioned above: 1. The economy is not bad enough, but also 2. People want positive character and culture fluff. I search the mittromney YouTube channel in vain: http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0 (http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0)
It's not too hard. Many Americans admire Obama's family and biography. The only book Romney wrote---besides one about the Olympics---is boring as hell. Nobody cares about a book full of patriot-spun policies.
Create Hollywood-quality ads about:
- raising 5 sons
- father's poor family immigrating from Mexico
- father's rescue of the auto industry
- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
- lifelong marriage with Ann since high school
- Ann's various health problems
- two years of being a young missionary in France, including his near-death car crash and learning a new language
- the pressure and fear of starting a new company (Bain Capital) at age 33
- building a new church (Mormon temple in Massachusetts)
- rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Please tell me you are joking. :lol:
Especially the mother/father ads or an ad about Ann's health problems. Wtfux? What would that prove?
Edit: I sincerely hope Americans are not THAT stupid to be influenced by ads like this.
We need a "Leave Mitt Alone" youtube vid, by the way.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2012, 03:15:41 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 29, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
The Romney campaign is now at its worst point since Mitt was being battered in the primaries season. They need to start thinking different this current weekend. Besides trying to make this Wednesday's presidential debate a a game-changer, they need to rethink the campaign's strategy and tactics. I keep hearing them say the focus needs to be on the economy, but the economy is not bad enough to win on that alone. They would need a coming recession and/or unemployment reaching back towards 9% in order to win on that.
Further, most of the ads and messages I see coming out the Romney campaign are negative, usually about Obama's handling of the economy. As I mentioned above: 1. The economy is not bad enough, but also 2. People want positive character and culture fluff. I search the mittromney YouTube channel in vain: http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0 (http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0)
It's not too hard. Many Americans admire Obama's family and biography. The only book Romney wrote---besides one about the Olympics---is boring as hell. Nobody cares about a book full of patriot-spun policies.
Create Hollywood-quality ads about:
- raising 5 sons
- father's poor family immigrating from Mexico
- father's rescue of the auto industry
- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
- lifelong marriage with Ann since high school
- Ann's various health problems
- two years of being a young missionary in France, including his near-death car crash and learning a new language
- the pressure and fear of starting a new company (Bain Capital) at age 33
- building a new church (Mormon temple in Massachusetts)
- rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state
Please tell me you are joking. :lol:
Especially the mother/father ads or an ad about Ann's health problems. Wtfux? What would that prove?
Edit: I sincerely hope Americans are not THAT stupid to be influenced by ads like this.
Viewers of a 2008 debate said one of Obama's high points was when mentioned that his mother died of cancer. On the campaign trail, Obama would also describe how his mother was on food stamps for a time. Don't remember if this stuff was also put into his commercials. Then again, it's also in his book.
You know what? I'm starting re-evaluate my position on gays. Shielbh seems like he's capable of thought and reason, even if I don't agree with it.
Maybe the problem is being Polish, or slavdom in general.
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2012, 07:54:47 AM
You know what? I'm starting re-evaluate my position on gays. Shielbh seems like he's capable of thought and reason, even if I don't agree with it.
Maybe the problem is being Polish, or slavdom in general.
Well, on the one hand you've got Sheilbh, garbon, and grallon. OTOH, BB, Scipio and Guller. Make of this what you will.
It's possible that garbon and Grallon's unacceptable behavior is a result of racial inferiority as opposed to sexual inferiority.
Know why I left my last message board? Admin got soft on fags. FYI
Did America win yet ?
Well, I'm now sick of the 'Obama phones' bullshit.
I watched Samuel L. Jackson's "wake the fuck up!" video.
It can be summarized as "Obama hands out more free shit, vote for him you idiot!"
How european.
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2012, 02:14:48 AM
I watched Samuel L. Jackson's "wake the fuck up!" video.
It can be summarized as "Obama hands out more free shit, vote for him you idiot!"
How european.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2012, 06:30:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2012, 02:14:48 AM
I watched Samuel L. Jackson's "wake the fuck up!" video.
It can be summarized as "Obama hands out more free shit, vote for him you idiot!"
How european.
:rolleyes:
Yes, it was about that. I endorse the general message of choosing Obama over Romney. I would endorse the message of choosing a donkey instead of Romney, since at best he would be a figurehead (a donkey can do that) at worst an evil mofo fucking stuff up (a donkey can't).
BUT, that Jackson ad IS about the worst fucking welfare populism there is: vote to the guy who hands out the most taxpayer money, because free money is better for you than no free money.
If that message gains ground, campaigns will become a bidding contest between welfare-spenders, until the future of your country is fucked up for the long term. Ask a lot of European countries about that.
You know, I give you a (mostly) free ride on that libertarian bullshit on account of you being an Eastern European and not knowing better, but you need to shut up.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2012, 07:06:47 AM
You know, I give you a (mostly) free ride on that libertarian bullshit on account of you being an Eastern European and not knowing better, but you need to shut up.
hold your horses, Basement Boy, advising caution on welfare spending does NOT equal libertarianism. It equals responsible governing.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2012, 07:06:47 AM
You know, I give you a (mostly) free ride on that libertarian bullshit on account of you being an Eastern European and not knowing better, but you need to shut up.
He can say what he likes. At least he's talking about the issues rather than whatever tribal bullshit you're always spouting off.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2012, 02:46:17 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 29, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
Not sure he wants too focus much on his religion, could be a negative. Though less of a negative than Obama being Muslim.
Not really, Obama's being Muslim causes Republican voters to vote against him; Romney's being Mormon will cause Republican voters to stay home.
I expect a lot of adds showing Obama drinking both coffee (as in I'm not a mormon) and beer (as in I'm not a muslim) in his campaign adds if the mormon/muslim issue comes up.
Oh, please, like that beer thing is going to fool anyone. The 9/11 hijackers spent lots of time in bars, but that didn't stop them from doing their thing.
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2012, 07:12:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 01, 2012, 07:06:47 AM
You know, I give you a (mostly) free ride on that libertarian bullshit on account of you being an Eastern European and not knowing better, but you need to shut up.
hold your horses, Basement Boy, advising caution on welfare spending does NOT equal libertarianism. It equals responsible governing.
Okay, how much caution are you advising on welfare spending? You seem to be rehashing that old chestnut that welfare is some plot to buy votes.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2012, 08:21:25 AM
Oh, please, like that beer thing is going to fool anyone. The 9/11 hijackers spent lots of time in bars, but that didn't stop them from doing their thing.
You know, I bet they even let Obama on Air Force One without making him go through a metal detector. Don't they know the danger that creates? :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on September 30, 2012, 10:25:36 AM
Know why I left my last message board? Admin got soft on fags. FYI
You like it better when they get hard?
Quote from: Tamas on October 01, 2012, 02:14:48 AM
I watched Samuel L. Jackson's "wake the fuck up!" video.
It can be summarized as "Obama hands out more free shit, vote for him you idiot!"
How european.
Do you remember any specifics?