How many of you voted for Obama, what did you do to celebrate? Do you think he'll do a good job? Were you a major supporter of Obama, or did you just think he happened to be better than Romney?
No way in hell I voted for him. I think he will do just as bad as the last four years. I don't like Romney either just think he was the lesser of two evils.
MetalOxide wrote: I am so glad that Obama won! Mitt Romney is so right wing that it's comical.
I think the social stuff is just an act and he is just gaining support from traditional Republicans. I don't think he cares about abortion etc. Though, his economic ideas are crazy.
I love this idea that politicians aren't all morally bankrupt members of group of elites who use a fictional struggle to keep people focused on hating the 'enemy' rather than criticizing them.
ENOZONE wrote: I agree. There's not really more than two options then Obama and Romney though... even if I voted someone else entirely lol.
Same with Australia. We have a right party- Liberal(not as extreme as republicans) and Labour- which is like the democrats. We do have small parties but they get next to no votes in the lower house. They do have power in the Senate however, but they don't have a real say in who is Prime Minister most of the time. Time to time there may be a hung Parliament like this election but most of the time, there are two options, Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: I love this idea that politicians aren't all morally bankrupt members of group of elites who use a fictional struggle to keep people focused on hating the 'enemy' rather than criticizing them.
Bromsy wrote: I love this idea that politicians aren't all morally bankrupt members of group of elites who use a fictional struggle to keep people focused on hating the 'enemy' rather than criticizing them.
Well if you hate politics so much you can always go live out in the woods.
Cheesecat wrote:I think he's a decent president but I don't think I would call him exceptional, 7/10. I'm hoping to see even more changes to healthcare and education.
I think you're being too hard on him. It's tough to serve a decent meal when all you've got to work with are turd sandwiches.
I'm not a huge fan of his, but considering what he's had to work with, I think he's definitely been a solid 8.
Bromsy wrote: I love this idea that politicians aren't all morally bankrupt members of group of elites who use a fictional struggle to keep people focused on hating the 'enemy' rather than criticizing them.
Well if you hate politics so much you can always go live out in the woods.
Well, what a shame. Still, here's wishing him a better second term than the first.
I'd like to say I hope this leads to the Republicans doing a bit of smart reorganizing to face the shifts in demographics and attitudes in the country, but unfortunately I suspect they'll probably still continue to try to win on a, "Social conservative, fiscal whatever!" strategy of appealing to white arch-Christians.
Cheesecat wrote:I think he's a decent president but I don't think I would call him exceptional, 7/10. I'm hoping to see even more changes to healthcare and education.
I think you're being too hard on him. It's tough to serve a decent meal when all you've got to work with are turd sandwiches.
I'm not a huge fan of his, but considering what he's had to work with, I think he's definitely been a solid 8.
Yeah Bush left the country in a mess, so Obama had a lot of ground to cover don't get me wrong though I think he's done a lot of good things it's just it's hard to see the results and effort put in right now maybe one day he'll be remembered as one the more exceptional presidents like
Kennedy or Roosevelt, and he will nicknamed "the Father of Universal Healthcare" who knows.
Well I was a wrong and I'm hardly broken up about it. This could be a tipping a point and the republicans really only have one card left to play, wonder if they have the balls.
rockerbikie wrote: Thank you America! By voting for the right person, you have saved the world's economy. In Australia, Obama would have at least an 80% Majority.
Agreed with this. I can't imagine any significant amount of people in Australia voting for Romney. We just don't have the southern-conservative-christian demographic.
Facing a choice between Gillard and Abbot though... they're both pretty bad but at least Gillard has some policies on the table, so I'll vote for her at least until I get my FTTH internet.
rockerbikie wrote: Thank you America! By voting for the right person, you have saved the world's economy. In Australia, Obama would have at least an 80% Majority.
Agreed with this. I can't imagine any significant amount of people in Australia voting for Romney. We just don't have the southern-conservative-christian demographic.
Cause you are all a bunch of godless criminals who insist on hoarding all the hot chicks that actually have alcohol tolerances. Crass, sir. Crass.
Trasvi wrote: Facing a choice between Gillard and Abbot though... they're both pretty bad but at least Gillard has some policies on the table, so I'll vote for her at least until I get my FTTH internet.
I'm not looking forward to being forced to vote for that...
rockerbikie wrote: I think the social stuff is just an act and he is just gaining support from traditional Republicans. I don't think he cares about abortion etc. Though, his economic ideas are crazy.
Yeah, pretty much this.
The next Obama term will be interesting - the things he said he'd do are basically done. Either they're in place in some form or another (likely compromised but there) or they're absolutely dead in the water and are not going to happen.
The fiscal cliff will be a hurdle, but it's crisis avoidance, not any kind of real structural reform.
I predict that before June next year he will have tried his shot at the Israel legacy and gotten the Palestinians and Israelis to sit down to negotiate. I'd also predict it'll fail like it has with every US president who tried the same thing, but that's like predicting an apple will fall from a tree sooner or later.
It's a good thing, well for the rest of the world, romney appeared to have the propensity to cause another war. Or prolong one that probably shouldn't have happened.
I agree with an above poster, if your given a turd you can't do much with that.
Only be critical if it's a major mess up, but otherwise I doubt anyone here could sort out the economy and keep it stable.
Instead of borrowing "good times"
Trasvi wrote: Facing a choice between Gillard and Abbot though... they're both pretty bad but at least Gillard has some policies on the table, so I'll vote for her at least until I get my FTTH internet.
I'm not looking forward to being forced to vote for that...
Neither am I. I'm voting for Abbot though but my area is in strong Labour territory, so my vote will probably do nothing. I will vote independance in Lowe house and Liberal in Upper House.
... won the popular vote.... not elected though....sounds very familiar eh ?
Journalist friends in America say Fox News was well and truly mental as events unfolded, " It's amazing. Part of Fox news has seceded from the rest of Fox News on the Ohio issue. Brother against brother. Blonde against blonde. Fort Sumter will be fired on any second."
...so guess the Daily Show will have plenty of material for a while then.
There's been viral clips of Rove and Co. when they sent Mamzel Kelly to go and interrogate their own number crunchers. Most bizarre. Keeps the ratings up anyway I guess.
Seaward wrote: I'd like to say I hope this leads to the Republicans doing a bit of smart reorganizing to face the shifts in demographics and attitudes in the country, but unfortunately I suspect they'll probably still continue to try to win on a, "Social conservative, fiscal whatever!" strategy of appealing to white arch-Christians.
This would be nice. I'd love to see a legitimate second choice instead of a party based on "Jesus hates you" and "science is a lie" and an automatic straight ticket vote for "not the crazy ones". But I suspect you're probably right, and the lesson they'll take from this is "we weren't conservative enough" and we'll just see an attempt to go from 95% to 99% support among the religious right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnoM wrote: GG for america, you had a long run, but good luck now. Your screwed.
Yeah, we're doomed with a secret communist muslim who isn't even a US citizen running the country. I suppose now the only question is whether he'll bother waiting until his second term officially begins to declare the US a communist nation, abolish capitalism, confiscate all the guns, and send all the republicans off to mandatory diversity re-education camps. And once god removes his protection from our once-great nation we will be destroyed by earthquakes and hurricanes and gay marriage.
(Or I suppose we could look at things with a bit of sanity and realize that even if you don't like Obama he's a centrist president who loves compromise and isn't going to do anything truly controversial, so life will go on just like usual.)
Peregrine wrote: This would be nice. I'd love to see a legitimate second choice instead of a party based on "Jesus hates you" and "science is a lie" and an automatic straight ticket vote for "not the crazy ones". But I suspect you're probably right, and the lesson they'll take from this is "we weren't conservative enough" and we'll just see an attempt to go from 95% to 99% support among the religious right.
Well, they weren't conservative enough, in some respects, it's just that they'll continue to pick the exact wrong issues to be conservative about. Continuing to try and fight the "culture wars" - which have been well and truly lost by social conservatives - is only going to lead to the same results.
Seaward wrote: Well, they weren't conservative enough, in some respects, it's just that they'll continue to pick the exact wrong issues to be conservative about. Continuing to try and fight the "culture wars" - which have been well and truly lost by social conservatives - is only going to lead to the same results.
That's what I mean, instead of rational plans for a balanced budget or any other conservative virtue I'm afraid we're just going to see four more years of screaming about abortion and gay marriage and conspiracy theories about how global warming is a liberal plot to destroy America, with maybe a token "we'll magically cut taxes and increase military spending and still balance the budget" bit of wishful thinking.
BARACK Obama’s victory has brought the tyrannical New World Order a step closer, according to the Illuminati.
Just hours after his re-election, Obama was taken in a black helicopter to Illuminati headquarters where he was greeted with applause and a banner saying ‘Way to go, mind-control puppet!’
An Illuminati spokesman said: “This is a great moment for America, or as it will soon be known, Population Containment Area 2.
“With Obama back in power we can continue our secret project to enslave humanity and put Illuminati symbols in obscure places where they will only be noticed by conspiracy wingnuts.
“We’ll probably force everyone to be tattooed with a barcode too, although that’s less of an issue now that all their personal details are on Facebook.”
Obama has dismissed the Illuminati’s existence as “conspiracy theory nonsense”, saying he wanted to concentrate on real issues such as the economy, healthcare and compulsory microchips for all Americans.
He said: “My proposal to make ownership of tin foil a capital offence has nothing to do with its microwave-blocking properties. I just happen to think clingfilm keeps your sandwiches fresher.”
Democrat voter Carolyn Ryan said: “As a liberal, I’m a bit disappointed that a vote for Obama was a vote for a secret network of concentration camps to exterminate undesirable elements in society.
“Still, anything’s better than Romney. Four more years!”
While I voted for Romney (who I simply disliked less), I truly hope that Obama succeeds in his second term. Do I think he will? No, I really don't. The country's political parties are so idiotically divided and more or less radicalized that there is little to no hope of any serious compromises on important and far-reaching issues.
Abolishment of the two party system in favor of, say, 5 or so, would be ideal so that rather than picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich maybe there can be a bit more variety in the mix.
As a member of the US Military, however, I suspect we'll continue to see budget cuts aimed at ridiculously expensive/unnecessary research programs but instead taking their toll on the servicemen and their families.
While I think that the whole "OMG ROMNEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THE WORLD OBAMAAAAAA" is fething ridiculous and not-just-a-wee-bit melodramatic, I don't think that he'll do anything better his second term simply, as I stated, due to the incredible divisiveness of the US political system. Hopefully he and Congress prove me wrong (because anyone that wants your president to fail is a slow...) but... I'm not overly hopeful.
Cynicism... the new American dream (for 50% of the people, at least).
ENOZONE wrote: I agree. There's not really more than two options then Obama and Romney though... even if I voted someone else entirely lol.
Same with Australia. We have a right party- Liberal(not as extreme as republicans) and Labour- which is like the democrats. We do have small parties but they get next to no votes in the lower house. They do have power in the Senate however, but they don't have a real say in who is Prime Minister most of the time. Time to time there may be a hung Parliament like this election but most of the time, there are two options, Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard. .
Yeah, but 3rd parties decided who was our PM at the last election, remember that. Between our method of voting (instant runoff and preferences) and our method of selecting a PM, 3rd parties are FAR more important in Australia than in the US. True, we usually end up with one of the two major parties, but 3rd parties still have more power than in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boc wrote: While I voted for Romney (who I simply disliked less), I truly hope that Obama succeeds in his second term. Do I think he will? No, I really don't. The country's political parties are so idiotically divided and more or less radicalized that there is little to no hope of any serious compromises on important and far-reaching issues.
Abolishment of the two party system in favor of, say, 5 or so, would be ideal so that rather than picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich maybe there can be a bit more variety in the mix.
Ah, but you would have to change your voting system for multiple parties to work, and I really don't think Americans as a whole would be interested in that. Here in Australia we've had Instant Runoff voting for a while, and I heartily approve of it, but over in England, people just wouldn't support it, because they didn't want to change from first-past-the-post. I suspect trialling Instant Runoff in America would be similar, because you guys usually like to go by Tradition, and, with the lack of trust in the political system, would probably hate the idea of Politicians changing the way Voting works.
Firstly I think Romney made a gracious losing speech and should be congratulated for it.
Secondly there is much less clear water between him and Obama than has been talked about. Foreigners did not need to fear a Romney presidency as much as they seemed to. (Conversely, Obama has hardly been Superfriend to countries like the UK and Japan.)
Romney could only secure the nomination by appealing to the activist party members who are also the most extreme. However they do not represent anything of a mainstream US citizen view.
It was quite noticeable that Romney's general polls were worst when he was in the nomination battle, and improved the more he resiled from the extremist position and towards the centre.
That said, the government does not consist of the President and if Congress won't pass budgets it is difficult to see how Obama can manage the federal financial situation. While Romney has lost, the extremist elements are still there and will certainly not accommodate with the centre.
Even so, I think the economy will turn around in the next four years because of regression to the mean. That should leave things looking pretty good for a Hilary Clinton nomination in 2016.
Kilkrazy wrote: While Romney has lost, the extremist elements are still there and will certainly not accommodate with the centre.
Hopefully the party leadership will realize that their "make Obama a one-term president at all costs" strategy is a dismal failure and tell the extremist elements to STFU and do their job or be removed from the party. Two years of obstructionist tactics have given congress a terrible approval rating, and now they can't even justify it as being part of a strategy to win the next election.
Kilkrazy wrote: While Romney has lost, the extremist elements are still there and will certainly not accommodate with the centre.
Hopefully the party leadership will realize that their "make Obama a one-term president at all costs" strategy is a dismal failure and tell the extremist elements to STFU and do their job or be removed from the party. Two years of obstructionist tactics have given congress a terrible approval rating, and now they can't even justify it as being part of a strategy to win the next election.
I wouldn't count on it. They spent eight years harrying President Clinton.
Kilkrazy wrote: While Romney has lost, the extremist elements are still there and will certainly not accommodate with the centre.
Hopefully the party leadership will realize that their "make Obama a one-term president at all costs" strategy is a dismal failure and tell the extremist elements to STFU and do their job or be removed from the party. Two years of obstructionist tactics have given congress a terrible approval rating, and now they can't even justify it as being part of a strategy to win the next election.
I wouldn't count on it. They spent eight years harrying President Clinton.
But Clinton was president during good times where there was no urgent crisis and no compelling need to do more than a bare minimum of governing, so obstructionism wouldn't have much of a penalty in popularity and might even earn some favorable "if it's not broken don't fix it" opinions. That's a pretty big difference from the current situation where the economy sucks, we're facing multiple foreign wars that don't have any sign of ending, oil prices and climate change are a looming threat, etc.
The only possible saving grace is that maybe the house and senate republicans will decide to work more with Democrats.
After all, they failed the goal they have been pushing for the past 2 years. Maybe they will change their tune and start trying to help instead of hinder.
Has anything changed? The states have voted more or less the way they did in 2008, and the Republicans still control congress. Obama will still send in the drones on Pakistan, and the fiscal cliff is looming near. Thank you BBC analysis
All my friends and allies voted for the Wiener Dog Party. And yet I wake up and Dempublicans rigged the game again. The Great Wiener Dog declared this morning: "Remember this Humans, there can be no peace while cats live."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Well, what a shame. Still, here's wishing him a better second term than the first.
I'd like to say I hope this leads to the Republicans doing a bit of smart reorganizing to face the shifts in demographics and attitudes in the country, but unfortunately I suspect they'll probably still continue to try to win on a, "Social conservative, fiscal whatever!" strategy of appealing to white arch-Christians.
rockerbikie wrote: Thank you America! By voting for the right person, you have saved the world's economy. In Australia, Obama would have at least an 80% Majority.
No, because in Australia, he would be the moderate right wing candidate, and there would be a moderate leftwing candidate running as well who would make it a close race.
Chongara wrote:Well I was a wrong and I'm hardly broken up about it. This could be a tipping a point and the republicans really only have one card left to play, wonder if they have the balls.
REVOLUTION!
Eiríkr wrote:Good job America. Obama was the right choice for the world.
Exactly 0 American voters consider which canidate is "best for the world."
I like to imagine that the best part of this is all the Facebook status of people claiming the election was "stolen" and this is the "death of America"....ahhh well Best of luck to el Presidente
Huffy wrote: I like to imagine that the best part of this is all the Facebook status of people claiming the election was "stolen" and this is the "death of America"....ahhh well Best of luck to el Presidente
Republicans equated a second election victory of Obama to death to the "old" American values that we hold dear.
In reality, Obama only game changer was Obamacare and a handful of social issues; other than that, he has been very moderate and at times right leaning in many of his policies and decisions. It was almost like Bush 2.0 really with a smattering of liberal thrown in.
Let's be honest here, both candidates were pretty lacklustre. Where were the visions or ideas for the future? Nowhere to be seen. Western politics is a mess.
(I'm rooting for Herman Cain with a midget riding on his shoulders)
I want to see Chris Christie.
See, I'm not sure if Christie's schtick will play well nationally. Christie can be really rude and obnoxious, even to his constituents. Just look around on YouTube for some of his choice moments. That plays in NJ and the northeast, but I'm not sure how it'll go over in other areas of the country where manners matter more. I'm not convinced that he'll get the nomination...especially 4 years out, lol.
We also tend to avoid electing obese candidates at almost every level, when you think about it. I don't know what difference it really makes, but it would appear to be a hurdle of sorts for him.
I mostly agree that Hillary will run in 2016 and be a formidable candidate with Bill in tow. But she didn't blow me away as a campaigner in 2007/2008. I think it's clear now that Bill's personal issues have completely blown over, so she can make full use of him as the devastating political weapon he is.
But as I kept saying with Romney, the candidate has to inspire people to vote for them because of their own qualities...not because they're voting against someone else, and not because they're voting for someone the candidate has in tow. I think that's Hillary's challenge.
Like all disasters we didn't see it coming until too late. All this talk of zombies turned our attention away from the real reason why the tail end of this year is so foreboding.
Did not vote for Obama, but I expected him to win anyway. Personally I haven't seen anything to make me think he has done a good job the first 4 years nor do I see the next 4 being any different.
The interesting thing is to view how each candidate did by county across the country. The big city population areas are the only saving grace for Obama because in most states the majority of the counties went for Romney.
Chongara wrote:Well I was a wrong and I'm hardly broken up about it. This could be a tipping a point and the republicans really only have one card left to play, wonder if they have the balls.
REVOLUTION!
Eiríkr wrote:Good job America. Obama was the right choice for the world.
Exactly 0 American voters consider which canidate is "best for the world."
Um...no. America is part of the world-I'm happy with the rest of the world liking us, and if Obama is helpful to humankind as a whole, that's great. Christie was quoted to say (and I'm paraphrasing) it's disgusting that people were up in arms that he thanked the Democratic President for his actions during HS, being that he's a Republican, and that's what's wrong with our country. Put that on a large scale-humanity should be working together, and leaders that help other nations help humanity to prosper. More than 0 American voters care that the rest of world approves of Obama.
Indeed, Republicans and Democrats should work together to recover the whole nation.
The situation presents Republican members of Congress with an interesting dilemma, though.
In the normal run of things, the economy is likely to recover over the next four years, giving the Democrats a good launch pad for 2016. The obvious job of the Republicans is to frustrate this by sabotaging Obama’s efforts to build up the economy. This should lead them to oppose his budgets and so on.
Republican orthodoxy states, however, that Obama’s measures are bad for the economy. Thus, they actually might do better to work with him and allow the economy to be obviously sabotaged by Democrat led efforts.
The trouble is if they are seen to cooperate too much, they will presumably share in the blame when things go wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it is interesting to compare how each candidate did in a person by person view.
Which says pretty much the same thing. From what I could find Obama is leading by at least 2.6 million votes with 2 million of those being from California - the shining beacon of hope that state usually is.
Kilkrazy wrote: The obvious job of the Republicans is to frustrate this by sabotaging Obama’s efforts to build up the economy. This should lead them to oppose his budgets and so on.
Budgets? When has he submitted a budget that was passed even by his own party? Must have missed that.
The thing is most of those same Republicans that supposedly 'railroaded' Obama's efforts these last 4 years got re-elected even though both Reps. and Dems. have horribly low confidence votes. Seems to me that means that the people that re-elected them want them to keep 'railroading' said efforts.
I'd like to say I hope this leads to the Republicans doing a bit of smart reorganizing
This has been needing to happen for some time. Let the Republican party take this as the wake up call it is. Not just in the White House but in Congress, too. They've been shifter further right over the past few elections and they need to bring it back closer to moderation on a number of issues. They're alienating people, myself included (long-time Republican).
Kilkrazy wrote: Indeed, Republicans and Democrats should work together to recover the whole nation.
The situation presents Republican members of Congress with an interesting dilemma, though.
In the normal run of things, the economy is likely to recover over the next four years, giving the Democrats a good launch pad for 2016. The obvious job of the Republicans is to frustrate this by sabotaging Obama’s efforts to build up the economy. This should lead them to oppose his budgets and so on.
Republican orthodoxy states, however, that Obama’s measures are bad for the economy. Thus, they actually might do better to work with him and allow the economy to be obviously sabotaged by Democrat led efforts.
The trouble is if they are seen to cooperate too much, they will presumably share in the blame when things go wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: I
Republican orthodoxy states, however, that Obama’s measures are bad for the economy. Thus, they actually might do better to work with him and allow the economy to be obviously sabotaged by Democrat led efforts.
The trouble is if they are seen to cooperate too much, they will presumably share in the blame when things go wrong.
The issue is that the Republican orthodoxy is almost entirely fiction. So the first half or your post is the correct half.
This could be a turning point, with the great-white-far-right becoming more and more isolated the republicans basically have to play to the middle to have any hope of retaining real power. However if they do this those very elements could fracture from the party still leaving them without enough support to retain power. They're in a lose-lose as they cannot both adapt to a changing america and retain their strong right arm, they need both to win.
Really their only option is to try and sabotage things and drag down the rest of the country along with the president. The president is going to be held accountable for what happens from here on out, no matter what the real cause is. If they can obstruct and misdirect enough to get things to collapse again, they'll be able to sweep up weary moderates no matter how distasteful they find the Todd Akin types.
Archaeo wrote: Did not vote for Obama, but I expected him to win anyway. Personally I haven't seen anything to make me think he has done a good job the first 4 years nor do I see the next 4 being any different.
The interesting thing is to view how each candidate did by county across the country. The big city population areas are the only saving grace for Obama because in most states the majority of the counties went for Romney.
Because that's where, you know, most of the PEOPLE are.
Kilkrazy wrote: Indeed, Republicans and Democrats should work together to recover the whole nation.
The situation presents Republican members of Congress with an interesting dilemma, though.
In the normal run of things, the economy is likely to recover over the next four years, giving the Democrats a good launch pad for 2016. The obvious job of the Republicans is to frustrate this by sabotaging Obama’s efforts to build up the economy. This should lead them to oppose his budgets and so on.
Republican orthodoxy states, however, that Obama’s measures are bad for the economy. Thus, they actually might do better to work with him and allow the economy to be obviously sabotaged by Democrat led efforts.
The trouble is if they are seen to cooperate too much, they will presumably share in the blame when things go wrong.
Actually the normal thing would be another recession...
4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs. More Americans not being counted as 'unemployed' because they gave up looking for a job. 4 more years of the most corrupt justice department ever. Will probably get a few more Supreme Court Justices that like to crap on the Constitution and individual liberty.
You reap what you sow. What will the excuses be in 4 years when things are no better or, more probably, worse?
Archaeo wrote: Did not vote for Obama, but I expected him to win anyway. Personally I haven't seen anything to make me think he has done a good job the first 4 years nor do I see the next 4 being any different.
The interesting thing is to view how each candidate did by county across the country. The big city population areas are the only saving grace for Obama because in most states the majority of the counties went for Romney.
Because that's where, you know, most of the PEOPLE are.
Yeah but they hardly count. They're not real Americas. Real Americans are from Small Town america.
SickSix wrote: 4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs. More Americans not being counted as 'unemployed' because they gave up looking for a job. 4 more years of the most corrupt justice department ever. Will probably get a few more Supreme Court Justices that like to crap on the Constitution and individual liberty.
You reap what you sew. What will the excuses be in 4 years when things are no better or, more probably, worse?
Blah blah blah
Despite more jobs being created, more Americans being counted as unemployed because they started looking for jobs again...
SickSix wrote: 4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs. More Americans not being counted as 'unemployed' because they gave up looking for a job. 4 more years of the most corrupt justice department ever. Will probably get a few more Supreme Court Justices that like to crap on the Constitution and individual liberty.
You reap what you sew. What will the excuses be in 4 years when things are no better or, more probably, worse?
*sow
Unless you mean like some kind of clothes farmer but that wouldn't make any sense...
I voted for Obama, not because he is a political genius or because he accomplished all that much his first term, but that I tend to not vote for racist, elitist fearmongers who want to revert civil rights and related back to the fifties...
Obama didnt "WIN" so much as Romney threw the election away by having no identifiable position on anything, supporting racist/sexist/zealous douches and generally insulting and dismissing people he needed votes from to win. For someon who is supposedly good with math he couldnt seem to figure this out...
The Republican party needs to accept that extremism when it comes to religion/race/social issues is no longer a winning stance in an America whose demographic face is steadily moving away from one that supports the good 'ol boys club and the various outdated philosophies that the Akins of the world still cling to....
They need to adapt and rebrand themselves or they are in for similar dissapointments in coming elections...
CT GAMER wrote: I voted for Obama, not because he is a political genius or because he accomplished all that much his first term, but that I tend to not vote for racist, elitist fearmongers who want to revert civil rights and related back to the fifties...
So I understand why you didn't vote for Goode, but why didn't you vote for Romney?
CT GAMER wrote: I voted for Obama, not because he is a political genius or because he accomplished all that much his first term, but that I tend to not vote for racist warmongers who want to revert civil rights and related back to the fifties...
Obama didnt "WIN" so much as Romney thrw the election away by having no identifiable position on anything, supporting racist/sexist/zealo9u douches and generally insulting and dismissing people he needed votes from to win. For someon who is supposedly good with math he could seem to figure this out...
The Republican party needs to accept that extremism when it comes to religion/race/social issues is no longer a winning stance in an America whose demographic face is steadily moving away from one that supports the good 'ol boys club and the various outdated philosophies that the Akins of the world still cling to....
They need to adapt and rebrand themselves or they are in for similar dissapointments in coming elections...
They need those "racist/sexist/zealous douches" to win though, they just don't have enough external support to ditch them yet, and the process of gaining that external support would leave them flapping in the wind for too long if they ditched those elements to do so. It's a really hard position to be in.
CT GAMER wrote: I voted for Obama, not because he is a political genius or because he accomplished all that much his first term, but that I tend to not vote for racist, elitist fearmongers who want to revert civil rights and related back to the fifties...
So I understand why you didn't vote for Goode, but why didn't you vote for Romney?
3. On a personal note Bain shut my moms factory that she worked at for 32 years and made her help train the chinese workers before they kicked her out the door yet Romney wants to label her "lazy and entitled 47%".
4. He was and is out of touch and utterly a slave to republican propaganda.
5. He has no understanding of life outside the land of the 1%
Other then that I guess he would have been a great choice...
Congratulations America! We survived a mean, awful election cycle with the end result the weakening of extremism and the strengthening of civil liberties!
And, congratulations Dakka! Now, we can enjoy a good 12 months of non-flame-war off-topic board.
Congratulations America! We survived a mean, awful election cycle with the end result the weakening of extremism and the strengthening of civil liberties!
And, congratulations Dakka! Now, we can enjoy a good 12 months of non-flame-war off-topic board.
If by civil liberties you mean strengthening none of them, gotcha!
Im glad for two reasons.
I get to hear about my cousin whining on facebook about it, and i dont have to hear from him about how Romney will be better every single day.
Congratulations America! We survived a mean, awful election cycle with the end result the weakening of extremism and the strengthening of civil liberties!
And, congratulations Dakka! Now, we can enjoy a good 12 months of non-flame-war off-topic board.
If by civil liberties you mean strengthening none of them, gotcha!
Chongara wrote: If they can obstruct and misdirect enough to get things to collapse again, they'll be able to sweep up weary moderates no matter how distasteful
they find the Todd Akin types.
Don't be so sure of that.
Akins had a slam-dunk victory waiting for him in here in Missouri. EVERYONE hated McCaskill, she has done a very poor job representing the state as a Senator and even most Democrats were planning on voting against her. Then Akins opened his mouth and made a horribly divisive statement, LITERALLY snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
There comes a point where publically making a divisive statement is idiotic. Akins was well past it when he made his legitimate rape statement. Now I'm not going to get into the morality of abortion; that's not the point. He made a divisive statement that only a fool wouldn't have known would cost him votes. In doing so he cast his own ability to make intelligent decisions into doubt.... and it cost him the election he should have won.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: 4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs. More Americans not being counted as 'unemployed' because they gave up looking for a job. 4 more years of the most corrupt justice department ever. Will probably get a few more Supreme Court Justices that like to crap on the Constitution and individual liberty.
You reap what you sow. What will the excuses be in 4 years when things are no better or, more probably, worse?
Ah... 31 staight months of net job creation (I'll grant you they are sucky jobs and don't even come close to replaceing the ones lost under Bush 2.0). Four years of record corporate profits. Yeah, Obama really knows how to wreck an economy, don't he?
Chongara wrote: If they can obstruct and misdirect enough to get things to collapse again, they'll be able to sweep up weary moderates no matter how distasteful
they find the Todd Akin types.
Don't be so sure of that.
Akins had a slam-dunk victory waiting for him in here in Missouri. EVERYONE hated McCaskill, she has done a very poor job representing the state as a Senator and even most Democrats were planning on voting against her. Then Akins opened his mouth and made a horribly divisive statement, LITERALLY snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
There comes a point where publically making a divisive statement is idiotic. Akins was well past it when he made his legitimate rape statement. Now I'm not going to get into the morality of abortion; that's not the point. He made a divisive statement that only a fool wouldn't have known would cost him votes. In doing so he cast his own ability to make intelligent decisions into doubt.... and it cost him the election he should have won.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: 4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs. More Americans not being counted as 'unemployed' because they gave up looking for a job. 4 more years of the most corrupt justice department ever. Will probably get a few more Supreme Court Justices that like to crap on the Constitution and individual liberty.
You reap what you sow. What will the excuses be in 4 years when things are no better or, more probably, worse?
Ah... 31 staight months of net job creation (I'll grant you they are sucky jobs and don't even come close to replaceing the ones lost under Bush 2.0). Four years of record corporate profits. Yeah, Obama really knows how to wreck an economy, don't he?
Frazzled wrote: Ew the stock market is dropping like a rock.
Yes, I also visited the Drudge Report today to sip some tears, and saw the big bold OWN IT headline overlaid the 300 point drop today - mostly in industries now expected to face tighter regulation (i.e., banking). While obviously, the events of the last few years show that the banking industry needs no further regulation and they will always do what's best if left alone (snicker); I'll do you one better.
I'll agree Obama is responsible for today's 300 point drop, if you cede he's also responsible for the approx 5,000 point increase starting Jan 20th, 2009. Which is it, buddy? The POTUS is, or is not, responsible for the stock market?
Frazzled wrote: Ew the stock market is dropping like a rock.
Yes, I also visited the Drudge Report today to sip some tears, and saw the big bold OWN IT headline overlaid the 300 point drop today - mostly in industries now expected to face tighter regulation (i.e., banking). While obviously, the events of the last few years show that the banking industry needs no further regulation and they will always do what's best if left alone (snicker); I'll do you one better.
I'll agree Obama is responsible for today's 300 point drop, if you cede he's also responsible for the approx 5,000 point increase starting Jan 20th, 2009. Which is it, buddy? The POTUS is, or is not, responsible for the stock market?
How about the growth in stock market since 1900?
Blame Bush!
Frazzled wrote: Ew the stock market is dropping like a rock.
Yes, I also visited the Drudge Report today to sip some tears, and saw the big bold OWN IT headline overlaid the 300 point drop today - mostly in industries now expected to face tighter regulation (i.e., banking). While obviously, the events of the last few years show that the banking industry needs no further regulation and they will always do what's best if left alone (snicker); I'll do you one better.
I'll agree Obama is responsible for today's 300 point drop, if you cede he's also responsible for the approx 5,000 point increase starting Jan 20th, 2009. Which is it, buddy? The POTUS is, or is not, responsible for the stock market?
I'll jump in... sure... those 5k increase reflected on the big corporations. Yep, all POTUS fault and sometimes Congress too...
As for the 300pt drop today? Yep... but the kicker is to see how the market reacts between now and the next 6 month.
I don't think things would change much... what we know of the last 2 years... is what we'll see for the next 2-4 years.
SickSix wrote: 4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs. More Americans not being counted as 'unemployed' because they gave up looking for a job. 4 more years of the most corrupt justice department ever. Will probably get a few more Supreme Court Justices that like to crap on the Constitution and individual liberty.
You reap what you sow. What will the excuses be in 4 years when things are no better or, more probably, worse?
So, may we commit this to Dakka's collective memory, just so that we can all laugh at you when the world isn't all flames and suffering 4 years from now?
SickSix wrote: 4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs. More Americans not being counted as 'unemployed' because they gave up looking for a job. 4 more years of the most corrupt justice department ever. Will probably get a few more Supreme Court Justices that like to crap on the Constitution and individual liberty.
You reap what you sow. What will the excuses be in 4 years when things are no better or, more probably, worse?
So, may we commit this to Dakka's collective memory, just so that we can all laugh at you when the world isn't all flames and suffering 4 years from now?
You could always add that to your sigline, because I sure as gak wont remember.
AustonT wrote: You could always add that to your sigline, because I sure as gak wont remember.
You know, I actually added to my calendar sometime a year ago a throwaway line from Biccat about how even a cardboard cutout could beat Obama in 2012. This morning, I brought it up to edit it into my sig and decided that would be lame for 3 reasons. First off, his own sig - which formerly consisted of other people admitting he was right about something - was edited by moderation; which to me implies that they don't like sigs being used to ridicule people for the things they've said.
Second, it looks like maybe he quit Dakka anyway, I haven't seen him in forever.
Third, he had to wake up this morning and know Obama would be president until 2016*, that the economy is likely to recover and he'll get credit for it, that healthcare is now locked into place and beyond challenges - in short, knowing that Obama has already been an enormously successful president in terms of getting his legislative goals accomplished and is likely only to increasingly do so - knowing that Biccat also knows all these things, that just seems like enough.
*or the zombie apocalypse, whichever comes first
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Fair enuff... but, you do know that Boeing almost ALWAYS engages in this kind of information/disinformation for other reasons... right?
If you're going to say something, stop being dance around sally and just post it.
30% in management is no real loss, especially if they think they can function without it. I'd be more concerned if they were manufacturing jobs. To pretend that their official statement and reality are related is something else entirely. Boeing isn't suffering from not fighting two wars. Boeing is suffering from the same procurement woes as other prime military contractors are and will be as the DoD reduces spending and international buyers look to increasingly competitive designs from contractors closer to their homes. I have a list of reason Boeing is in deep gak, but I'm sure you don't really care and it can be summed up as: Boeing has failed to stay relevant.
whembly wrote: Fair enuff... but, you do know that Boeing almost ALWAYS engages in this kind of information/disinformation for other reasons... right?
If you're going to say something, stop being dance around sally and just post it.
Boeing is a big union shop...
All I was saying that when they *talk* about laying off folks, it's mostly posturing (union negotiations, political, etc...). It's a common tactic.
If you want something to look at, check this out:
http://inflation.us/charts.html Scroll down to the 4th chart... the inflation-adjusted Dow. By that measure, we're equal to where we were in 1995... or go further... 1963.
Ben Bernanke may yet be able to get us to 20k... but it won't mean a damn thing. Because...math. (yes, I'm referring to hyper-inflation)
30% in management is no real loss, especially if they think they can function without it. I'd be more concerned if they were manufacturing jobs. To pretend that their official statement and reality are related is something else entirely. Boeing isn't suffering from not fighting two wars. Boeing is suffering from the same procurement woes as other prime military contractors are and will be as the DoD reduces spending and international buyers look to increasingly competitive designs from contractors closer to their homes. I have a list of reason Boeing is in deep gak, but I'm sure you don't really care and it can be summed up as: Boeing has failed to stay relevant.
Which is a real shame...
Maybe the sequestration needs to happen? Just so that all of this can get forcibly re-calibrated.
Even if it is a response to the election, so what? Are we obligated to keep putting ourselves deeper and deeper in debt and start more foreign wars to ensure that no military contractor ever has to cut jobs? Should we buy hardware that we don't actually need because otherwise we might lose jobs (of course losing corporate profits is not an option)?
It's just amusing that the same people who complain about job losses because of military spending cuts are absolutely opposed to things like the auto bailout (protect jobs!) or welfare programs. I guess welfare is only good when it's given to the military?
Peregrine wrote: Even if it is a response to the election, so what? Are we obligated to keep putting ourselves deeper and deeper in debt and start more foreign wars to ensure that no military contractor ever has to cut jobs? Should we buy hardware that we don't actually need because otherwise we might lose jobs (of course losing corporate profits is not an option)?
nope
It's just amusing that the same people who complain about job losses because of military spending cuts are absolutely opposed to things like the auto bailout (protect jobs!) or welfare programs. I guess welfare is only good when it's given to the military?
yep
Also the criminal industrial complex is starting to rival in expense.
Frazzled wrote: Also the criminal industrial complex is starting to rival in expense.
Delightful - that's a phrase I have not previously encountered. Also a deeply disturbing trend, indeed. for-profit prisons should never have been allowed to grow the way they have, their corruptibility is a baked-in feature that simply cannot be overcome.
Frazzled wrote: Also the criminal industrial complex is starting to rival in expense.
Delightful - that's a phrase I have not previously encountered. Also a deeply disturbing trend, indeed. for-profit prisons should never have been allowed to grow the way they have, their corruptibility is a baked-in feature that simply cannot be overcome.
This, though I prefer prison-industrial complex.
You know something is seriously wrong when the government now has a profit motive for inventing crimes and finding that you're guilty of them. Prisons need to go back to being a major drain on the budget so we only imprison the people who deserve it enough that we're willing to pay to keep them out of society. Too bad the war on drugs is profitable enough that it will never happen...
Frazzled wrote: Also the criminal industrial complex is starting to rival in expense.
Delightful - that's a phrase I have not previously encountered. Also a deeply disturbing trend, indeed. for-profit prisons should never have been allowed to grow the way they have, their corruptibility is a baked-in feature that simply cannot be overcome.
Not just for profit prisons. The whole state and federal criminal justice system. Its massively big business. Its also a big reason drug decriminalization is resisted so massively. All that drug enfrocement machinery is big business.
I guess I should call it the criminal justice industrial complex, but mine sounds more catchy.
Frazzled wrote: Also the criminal industrial complex is starting to rival in expense.
Delightful - that's a phrase I have not previously encountered. Also a deeply disturbing trend, indeed. for-profit prisons should never have been allowed to grow the way they have, their corruptibility is a baked-in feature that simply cannot be overcome.
This, though I prefer prison-industrial complex.
You know something is seriously wrong when the government now has a profit motive for inventing crimes and finding that you're guilty of them. Prisons need to go back to being a major drain on the budget so we only imprison the people who deserve it enough that we're willing to pay to keep them out of society. Too bad the war on drugs is profitable enough that it will never happen...
And Colorado is off to a good start! <whistling...>
Frazzled wrote: Also the criminal industrial complex is starting to rival in expense.
Delightful - that's a phrase I have not previously encountered. Also a deeply disturbing trend, indeed. for-profit prisons should never have been allowed to grow the way they have, their corruptibility is a baked-in feature that simply cannot be overcome.
Not just for profit prisons. The whole state and federal criminal justice system. Its massively big business. Its also a big reason drug decriminalization is resisted so massively. All that drug enfrocement machinery is big business.
I guess I should call it the criminal justice industrial complex, but mine sounds more catchy.
Yes, I agree in all ways. I simply picked out for-profit prisons as the juiciest slice of the horse-poop pie, assuming you can make a horse-poop pie without the TSA or ATF.
Cheesecat wrote: I think he's a decent president but I don't think I would call him exceptional, 7/10. I'm hoping to see even more changes to healthcare and education.
More environmental initiatives would be good as well very little in politics has been done to solve climate issues and it would better to start sooner rather than later.
The big trouble with Obama is that he had some good ideas, and some very good ideas but they are way outbalanced by a lot of crazy ideas. He tried to apply the crazy ideas and backtracked out of self interest. However he is now in his 'legacy' term and deosnt have to worry about relection anymore, so its time to brace for a wave of brainfarts, diplomatic facepalms and assorted dogmatic bs.
He said to his waving crowd of dupes after his election that 'the best is yet to come'. I wonder what he means by that.....
... won the popular vote.... not elected though....sounds very familiar eh ?
Journalist friends in America say Fox News was well and truly mental as events unfolded, " It's amazing. Part of Fox news has seceded from the rest of Fox News on the Ohio issue. Brother against brother. Blonde against blonde. Fort Sumter will be fired on any second."
...so guess the Daily Show will have plenty of material for a while then.
There's been viral clips of Rove and Co. when they sent Mamzel Kelly to go and interrogate their own number crunchers. Most bizarre. Keeps the ratings up anyway I guess.
Murphy took Conneticut as well..?! Blimey.
He did pretty well in the popular vote, and by the map, seemed to have carried some of the poorest states in the country.
Ouze wrote: So, does he own the 5,000 point increase?
Yup. Good job Obama.
And yet, Boeing is laying off 30% of non-union workforce in California... announced today! That timing seems awfully... convenient dontcha think?
Businesses are seeing the writing on the walls... so that 5k point increase may go *poof* in the next few months. (I really, REALLY hope not)
Yeah... I'm being eeyorish...
Oh... and I credit Obama for Sturm Ruger's (RGR) being up almost 8 percent for the DAY. Now why is that?
Pro-tip: Buy stocks on guns/ammo companynow. The run on ammo will start again... (which fething sucks sometimes...)
Boeing was the company my friend got in trouble with the union at for moving a piece of sheet steel 15 feet away from his work area. The reason was because he did a union members job.
Jihadin wrote: I'm thinking he was not a certified airframe mechanic
After some of the stories he told me about what he saw there, I'd say I'd trust a high school shop class than some of the guys that worked at that plant.
If he moved a 15 ft sheet metal then he dragged a good 7 ft on the side. Thats seven feet you cannot use on the skin of the aircraft because its scratched to Hell. You do not move sheet metal by yourself. Its a two person job.
edit
Yes I was a airframer when I did my avaition time
Jihadin wrote: If he moved a 15 ft sheet metal then he dragged a good 7 ft on the side. Thats seven feet you cannot use on the skin of the aircraft because its scratched to Hell. You do not move sheet metal by yourself. Its a two person job.
Oh! Now I understand what you meant. You're absolutely right...
Jihadin wrote: If he moved a 15 ft sheet metal then he dragged a good 7 ft on the side. Thats seven feet you cannot use on the skin of the aircraft because its scratched to Hell. You do not move sheet metal by yourself. Its a two person job.
It wasn't a 15 foot sheet., It was something cluttering his work station that he moved 15 feet.
Put's on some head shop sitar music, lights the incense and assumes the lotus position, then posits ... Are we not in the process of dying, even as we are conceived? Is not the world also from the time of its creation also trapped in the same cosmic dungball of conception and death?
AustonT wrote: Why is he not Union yet? Then he can move metal 15ft and then go for coffee.
He's Mormon, so he doesn't drink coffee.
Then I know why the steward doesn't trust him....
Beleive it or not I've heard of similar things, and as much as its personal element makes you on his side, typically theres a good reason for union protections and rules that are not readily apparent.
AustonT wrote: Why is he not Union yet? Then he can move metal 15ft and then go for coffee.
He's Mormon, so he doesn't drink coffee.
Then I know why the steward doesn't trust him....
Beleive it or not I've heard of similar things, and as much as its personal element makes you on his side, typically theres a good reason for union protections and rules that are not readily apparent.
You should have seen it when he was doing a consulting job in Ireland. He met the shop foreman who asked him if was likin' the Guiness, and told the man he didn't drink. The foreman literally did a jerk and a backward step at what he heard. When he introduced him around the plant, he'd say, "This is Kelly. He's not a drinkin' mam.". There would be a short, awkward silence, and someone would always hang their head.
AustonT wrote: Why is he not Union yet? Then he can move metal 15ft and then go for coffee.
He's Mormon, so he doesn't drink coffee.
Then I know why the steward doesn't trust him....
Beleive it or not I've heard of similar things, and as much as its personal element makes you on his side, typically theres a good reason for union protections and rules that are not readily apparent.
You should have seen it when he was doing a consulting job in Ireland. He met the shop foreman who asked him if was likin' the Guiness, and told the man he didn't drink. The foreman literally did a jerk and a backward step at what he heard. When he introduced him around the plant, he'd say, "This is Kelly. He's not a drinkin' mam.". There would be a short, awkward silence, and someone would always hang their head.
Eating live kittens is a more acceptable personal habit then not drinking in Ireland.
Seaward wrote: To sum up, an amusing comment from a blog I was reading a few minutes ago: "Yup. Being the party of creationists has its challenges."
That line is the best thing I've read about the GOP in years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: Yeah, but 3rd parties decided who was our PM at the last election, remember that. Between our method of voting (instant runoff and preferences) and our method of selecting a PM, 3rd parties are FAR more important in Australia than in the US. True, we usually end up with one of the two major parties, but 3rd parties still have more power than in the US.
Yeah, the most important point is that the Senate is decided by proportional representation, meaning while the Lower House is dominated by the two major parties, the minor parties generally hold the balance of power in the Senate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Archaeo wrote: The interesting thing is to view how each candidate did by county across the country. The big city population areas are the only saving grace for Obama because in most states the majority of the counties went for Romney.
The 'only saving grace' was the parts where most of the people live.
Well that's one interpretation of democracy, I guess.
Time to stock up on 'supplies' I guess.
Because....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: 4 more years of millions of Americans losing jobs.
Oh for feth's sake.
Cyclical economic cycles are a thing, and as easy as it is to play politics and pretend whoever is in charge is directly responsible for every job lost... sooner or later everyone has to grow up and stop doing that stupid bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Ew the stock market is dropping like a rock.
Yeah. And pretending its election led requires people to pretend that Obama's win came out of nowhere (and if the stock market couldn't see Obama's win coming, then why should they be listened to about anything?)
Akins had a slam-dunk victory waiting for him in here in Missouri. EVERYONE hated McCaskill, she has done a very poor job representing the state as a Senator and even most Democrats were planning on voting against her. Then Akins opened his mouth and made a horribly divisive statement, LITERALLY snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
Actually, Akin was already down by a couple of points at that time. I agree with the general argument that had they run Brunner then they would have won, but voters had already smelled the Akin crazy before he made that comment.
AustonT wrote: You could always add that to your sigline, because I sure as gak wont remember.
You know, I actually added to my calendar sometime a year ago a throwaway line from Biccat about how even a cardboard cutout could beat Obama in 2012. This morning, I brought it up to edit it into my sig and decided that would be lame for 3 reasons. First off, his own sig - which formerly consisted of other people admitting he was right about something - was edited by moderation; which to me implies that they don't like sigs being used to ridicule people for the things they've said.
That was a weird thing. I said I agreed with biccat on something entirely non-political, and he stuck it in his sig line trying to prove... I don't know what.
You want to see wailing and gnashing of teeth, go to some of the gun sites, and thats BEFORE the Reuters article about Obama suddenly greenlighting the small arms treaty process.
You want to see wailing and gnashing of teeth, go to some of the gun sites, and thats BEFORE the Reuters article about Obama suddenly greenlighting the small arms treaty process.
Panic buying is annoying the hell out of me. Trying to locate a Colt Rail Gun is proving impossible
You know, it's amazing how everytime I read something from extreme religious right-wingers on women or sexual activities, I come out with the distinct impression that my sex life, no matter how it is at the particular moment, cannot be that bad.
I mean, I know it's futile to try to deconstruct something as ridiculous as this, but, just in one go :
A couple weeks ago I predicted a Romney win. I predicted this largely because he played up his alpha cred in the first debate. But one photo-op on the Jersey Shore with Obama looking tough in a bomber jacket destroyed all that, which is yet another reason sane societies don't let women get involved in government.
If this was true, wouldn't Sascha Grey or Asa Akira be the most electable candidate ever?
The reason why Romney lost is because women voted 53-47 for the Democrats because Republicans keep making that kind of remark which lets them know exactly where their real interests stand.
So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?
It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...
That has nothing to do with the election... right?
whembly wrote: So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?
It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...
That has nothing to do with the election... right?
Did you write Beechcraft twice on purpose?
GoDaddy let go people, and he got some flak for saying before the election came there would be layoffs if Obama came back, there's no ambiguity at all in his case.
Big companies want to make more profit by reducing costs and getting rid of staff. But they know that layoffs are bad press. So as soon as a scapegoat shows up and you have a perfect excuse to lay off people you do it.
Not because it's his fault, but because it's a good excuse.
whembly wrote:So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?
It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...
That has nothing to do with the election... right?
Even though D-USA has the right of it, let's for a moment pretend that the layoffs actually are the result of Obama being re-elected: the implication is that we should elect Romney, or else corporations will who the Hell cares, that's extortion bordering on voter intimidation. If corporations are people, and those "people" are trying to extort votes from American citizens, then that sounds like those "people" should be hit with some significant retribution via the criminal justice system, and thereafter be open to civil prosecutions as well.
whembly wrote:So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?
It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...
That has nothing to do with the election... right?
Even though D-USA has the right of it, let's for a moment pretend that the layoffs actually are the result of Obama being re-elected: the implication is that we should elect Romney, or else corporations will who the Hell cares, that's extortion bordering on voter intimidation. If corporations are people, and those "people" are trying to extort votes from American citizens, then that sounds like those "people" should be hit with some significant retribution via the criminal justice system, and thereafter be open to civil prosecutions as well.
A) It just seems coincidential... right?
B) Let me ask you something... why do businesses exist? What is its purpose?
Oh.. and in local news, the makers of Energizer is reducing workforce by 10%
whembly wrote:B) Let me ask you something... why do businesses exist? What is its purpose?
A business exists to attempt to make a profit.
Please note I said "attempt"; all too often I see people speaking as though their business is entitled to turn a profit, particularly when they blame the government for their failing business.
whembly wrote:B) Let me ask you something... why do businesses exist? What is its purpose?
A business exists to attempt to make a profit.
Please note I said "attempt"; all too often I see people speaking as though their business is entitled to turn a profit, particularly when they blame the government for their failing business.
Right... attempt.
Lemme take it a step further...
-Usually, what are the biggest cost to running a business?
whembly wrote:B) Let me ask you something... why do businesses exist? What is its purpose?
A business exists to attempt to make a profit.
Please note I said "attempt"; all too often I see people speaking as though their business is entitled to turn a profit, particularly when they blame the government for their failing business.
Right... attempt.
Lemme take it a step further...
-Usually, what are the biggest cost to running a business?
Workforce.
Which is why they always to lay people off, which results in bad press, which is why they look for any excuse to do it.
whembly wrote:B) Let me ask you something... why do businesses exist? What is its purpose?
A business exists to attempt to make a profit.
Please note I said "attempt"; all too often I see people speaking as though their business is entitled to turn a profit, particularly when they blame the government for their failing business.
Right... attempt.
Lemme take it a step further...
-Usually, what are the biggest cost to running a business?
Workforce.
Which is why they always to lay people off, which results in bad press, which is why they look for any excuse to do it.
You think that's the only reason?
I'll be honest... right now, it's a blip... as it could be an over-reaction or PR stunt like you said. Let's see where we're at 6 month from now...
whembly wrote:B) Let me ask you something... why do businesses exist? What is its purpose?
A business exists to attempt to make a profit.
Please note I said "attempt"; all too often I see people speaking as though their business is entitled to turn a profit, particularly when they blame the government for their failing business.
Right... attempt.
Lemme take it a step further...
-Usually, what are the biggest cost to running a business?
I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter
youbedead wrote: I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter
I'll do you one better, here is the current situation in Oklahoma:
1) The ACA requires that states set up a health care insurance exchange. If you don't set it up by the deadline, the federal government will set one up for you which will create lots of headaches and extra cost for the state.
2) In 2010 our Governor accepted a $54 million federal grant to set up that exchange.
3) State Republicans made a lot of noise about "federal money is evil!" and we send the money back. "No thanks, we will build our own with our own money..."
4) The state has not done anything at all about creating an exchange since then because "it will be declared unconstitutional anyway".
5) Then the state has not done anything at all about creating an exchange because "Romney will win and repeal it on day 1".
6) The deadline is in 8 days...
whembly wrote:B) Let me ask you something... why do businesses exist? What is its purpose?
A business exists to attempt to make a profit.
Please note I said "attempt"; all too often I see people speaking as though their business is entitled to turn a profit, particularly when they blame the government for their failing business.
Right... attempt.
Lemme take it a step further...
-Usually, what are the biggest cost to running a business?
And how is that Obama's fault?
Exactly... I do think it's unfair to attribute any Economic failures solely on the President's feet... but, they are sure quick to claim credit (see Clinton's years of tech bubble)... and that's what we're dealing with.
Maybe it's an over reaction...
Maybe it's normal and would happen this way had there not been an election...
Maybe... just maybe, it's the market reaction to what they believe will happen in the future based on what they believe the Prez/Congress have done and will do (fair or not).
youbedead wrote:I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter
youbedead wrote: I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter
I'll do you one better, here is the current situation in Oklahoma:
1) The ACA requires that states set up a health care insurance exchange. If you don't set it up by the deadline, the federal government will set one up for you which will create lots of headaches and extra cost for the state.
2) In 2010 our Governor accepted a $54 million federal grant to set up that exchange.
3) State Republicans made a lot of noise about "federal money is evil!" and we send the money back. "No thanks, we will build our own with our own money..."
4) The state has not done anything at all about creating an exchange since then because "it will be declared unconstitutional anyway".
5) Then the state has not done anything at all about creating an exchange because "Romney will win and repeal it on day 1".
6) The deadline is in 8 days...
whembly wrote:Maybe... just maybe, it's the market reaction to what they believe will happen in the future based on what they believe the Prez/Congress have done and will do (fair or not).
whembly wrote:Maybe... just maybe, it's the market reaction to what they believe will happen in the future based on what they believe the Prez/Congress have done and will do (fair or not).
WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.
Jihadin wrote: WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.
Well, guess we'd better invade Iran and fix this problem.
whembly wrote:Maybe... just maybe, it's the market reaction to what they believe will happen in the future based on what they believe the Prez/Congress have done and will do (fair or not).
whembly wrote:Maybe... just maybe, it's the market reaction to what they believe will happen in the future based on what they believe the Prez/Congress have done and will do (fair or not).
Jihadin wrote: WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.
Yup. I'd be worried if I didn't have ironclad reason not to be worried.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Romney lost is because women voted 53-47 for the Democrats because Republicans keep making that kind of remark which lets them know exactly where their real interests stand.
Nah. Reagan lost the vote among women by 10 points in 1980. It's far from disastrous for a Republican candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?
It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...
That has nothing to do with the election... right?
For that to make any sense, you'd have to believe companies can go from 'not planning lay offs' to 'announcing lay offs' within 48 hours. Or that companies have some kind of system of conditional announcements, so that they have an announcement lined up in case something happens.
As both of those things are gibberish, then the election can't be the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter
Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.
Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.
I'd bet Republicans could have gotten the votes had Romney won the election. The ACA is still pretty unpopular, and a national election that seems to suggest a repudiation of Obama's policies would have made moderate Democrats in potentially vulnerable states sweat.
Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.
I'd bet Republicans could have gotten the votes had Romney won the election. The ACA is still pretty unpopular, and a national election that seems to suggest a repudiation of Obama's policies would have made moderate Democrats in potentially vulnerable states sweat.
But he didn't win the election, and it never looked like a snap for him to do so.
A company management that bet its life on such a close run thing had not made proper allowance for it going the wrong way. Clear mismanagement.
Kilkrazy wrote: But he didn't win the election, and it never looked like a snap for him to do so.
It did to a lot of people, actually. I know perfectly non-crazy folks who thought there was no possible way turnout would go the way it did. Hell, I thought the polling models were all damn optimistic for Democrats, and I consider myself an independent.
I'll certainly agree it's dumb not to plan for all possibilities, though. I'm not arguing that - just that Romney would have had a fair shot at getting rid of ACA had he won.
Jihadin wrote: WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.
Good. Half the federal government needs to be fired. Then followed by a further 25% cut.
Same to same for the state government. Go to the DMV and you'll come out a believer in the Frazzled plan.
Jihadin wrote: WIth the upcoming Defense cuts expect a lot more. Besides the Defense contractor laying off, the sub contractors will have to lay off to. Also GSA will lose quite a bit of funding to so that will trumble into the civilian sector.
Well, guess we'd better invade Iran and fix this problem.
No. Canada. In Canada first you get the maple syrup, then you get the power, then you get the Wimminz!
You should reorganise the DMV along the same lines as the UK one.
We do it all online and it is super quick and easy. You don't even have to keep track of your MOT and Insurance certificates. They are automatically logged in the system. You just enter your road tax code from the letter each year and your payment details.
A few years ago you had to go to the post office and fill in a stupid form and show your certificates and so on. I imagine the US version is still like that, only worse.
Kilkrazy wrote: You should reorganise the DMV along the same lines as the UK one.
We do it all online and it is super quick and easy. You don't even have to keep track of your MOT and Insurance certificates. They are automatically logged in the system. You just enter your road tax code from the letter each year and your payment details.
more or less our system is like this. Cept I have to print out my insurance and put a sticker on my plate. The only time I go to the DMV was to get special plates. I even order replacement licenses and register to vote online at the DMV website.
Obama heads to Asia amid looming fear of 'Fiscal Cliff'
By S.A. MILLER Post Correspondent
Last Updated: 5:46 AM, November 9, 2012
Posted: 1:52 AM, November 9, 2012
WASHINGTON — President Obama yesterday announced he’s jetting off on a victory lap around Southeast Asia, despite a new government report warning the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff will plunge the US into a recession and drive the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent.
Obama and Congress have just 52 days to reach a deal to avoid sailing off that precipice, when a devastating double whammy of tax hikes and budget cuts will rock the economy and hit just about every American.
The negotiations will be difficult. Obama signaled he’s sticking to his demand for raising taxes on the wealthy. That’s long been a nonstarter with Republicans.
His chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said re-election gives Obama the upper hand.
“If the attitude is that nothing happened on Tuesday, that would be unfortunate,” Axelrod told MSNBC.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) yesterday took all tax-rate increases off the table, though he said Republicans would accept other revenue measures, such as closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.
“Raising taxes on small businesses will kill jobs in America. It is as simple as that,” he told USA Today.
But those tense negotiations won’t interfere with Obama’s boarding Air Force One for a three-day tour of Bangkok, Rangoon and Phnom Penh.
Along the way, he’ll meet with Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to mark 180 years of diplomatic relations, chat with Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi and attend the East Asia Summit in Cambodia. He takes off Nov. 17.
Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report highlighting the economic shock that awaits America. The automatic spending cuts and tax increase will shrink the already anemic economy by 0.5 percent and cause the jobless rate to spike to 9.1 percent, the report predicted.
The average American family will pay an extra $2,000 to $3,000 in taxes after all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire Jan. 1, and about 1,200 government programs will experience spending cuts.
These austere measures, however, will succeed in slashing the deficit by $503 billion in 2013, and the economy should start to pull out of recession by 2014.
“Economic growth will pick up, and the labor market will strengthen,” said the CBO report.
Democrats and Republicans both want to find a way to soften the hard times currently scheduled to start New Year’s Day.
If they succeed, CBO predicted it will boost the economy next year.
America’s gross domestic product would grow by 2.2 percent if the Bush-era tax rates are extended and by nearly 3 percent if Obama’s payroll tax cut and extra long-term unemployment benefits are extended, the report predicted.
Awesome. I say let if fall and blame Obama for not being there. If you're going to play brinkmanship it helps to at least pout up some sort of idea first.
Obama is in a no lose situation with the fiscal cliff.
Either way, he wins politically.
1. The fiscal cliff happens and the take provisions take effect and defense spending is cut. His base is appeased. Yeah, there is an economic slowdown, but that just vindicates the idea that Stimulus is needed, and he can create a new Stimulus package.
2. The Fiscal Cliff doesn't happen, and he takes credit for avoiding to send the economy back into recession despite Republican opposition to the Grand Bargain. heck, chances are he can now get some R's to consider the Grand Bargain to save their precious Defense spending.
d-usa wrote: Drivers License stuff is still in-person at the DMV here, as is any paperwork for new registrations. But renevals have an online option in Oklahoma.
Yep. I've been renewing online. Saves all kinds of time!
If it all falls apart, he is still president and will retire in 4 years. He can't go any higher and has no future career to protect.
The members of Congress OTOH have to worry about the next election. We know a lot of the electorate pretty much blame Congress for the lack of action to sort out mess and don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
The ones who will blame Obama would blame Obama if he had the ability to turn the deficit into pure gold by touching it.
Easy E wrote: Obama is in a no lose situation with the fiscal cliff.
Either way, he wins politically.
1. The fiscal cliff happens and the take provisions take effect and defense spending is cut. His base is appeased. Yeah, there is an economic slowdown, but that just vindicates the idea that Stimulus is needed, and he can create a new Stimulus package.
2. The Fiscal Cliff doesn't happen, and he takes credit for avoiding to send the economy back into recession despite Republican opposition to the Grand Bargain. heck, chances are he can now get some R's to consider the Grand Bargain to save their precious Defense spending.
Either way, he wins.
If the US drops into a recession, the 2016 can blame everything on "the Obama Recession."
d-usa wrote: Drivers License stuff is still in-person at the DMV here, as is any paperwork for new registrations. But renevals have an online option in Oklahoma.
Yep. I've been renewing online. Saves all kinds of time!
Unless your registration never makes it through the mail that it.
whembly wrote: So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?
It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...
That has nothing to do with the election... right?
For that to make any sense, you'd have to believe companies can go from 'not planning lay offs' to 'announcing lay offs' within 48 hours. Or that companies have some kind of system of conditional announcements, so that they have an announcement lined up in case something happens.
As both of those things are gibberish, then the election can't be the cause.
Then, how would you reconcile all these announcement at this time?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: I heard a story on NPR yesterday that apparently some companies had not prepared for the upcoming healthcare changes, as they believed it would be repealed. Doubt it had anything to do with the layoffs, but kind if stupid to rest that amount of confidence in the american voter
Those companies are run by idiots, and surely couldn't last anyway. Even if Romney was elected, repeal was impossible, as it'd require 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans winning enough races to move up to 60 senate seats was not even a hypothetical chance.
Not impossible... can be repealed the same way it was passed... via budget reconciliation, which requires only simple majority.
Kilkrazy wrote: But he didn't win the election, and it never looked like a snap for him to do so.
It did to a lot of people, actually. I know perfectly non-crazy folks who thought there was no possible way turnout would go the way it did. Hell, I thought the polling models were all damn optimistic for Democrats, and I consider myself an independent.
Then start reading more accurate websites? I mean, at some point you need to step back here and admit to yourself that the reporting you rely on is utterly wrong, has misled you, and start to investigate why they did that.
We could definitely cut defense spending. The amount of waste I see every day at work is staggering. Then there are all the projects that soldiers and sailors actually hate but are being pushed forward anyway. LCS? Disaster. LPD-17? Disaster. Aquaflague? Unmitigated Disaster. F-35? Disaster. DDG-1000? Disaster. The only program the Navy has going well right now is the Virginia Class subs.
If you look at when the big breakthroughs came for military thinking in the US, it wasn't when spending was big, it was when the military was small, and resourceful. Currently there are more admirals than ships in the Navy. And among officers, only 41% are combatants, the others are all staff corps of some type. Pretty ridiculous. Like when I got told I couldn't get a drivers license renewed at the DMV because I had not registered for selective service.... And I was in my flight suit.
Ouze wrote: Then start reading more accurate websites? I mean, at some point you need to step back here and admit to yourself that the reporting you rely on is utterly wrong, has misled you, and start to investigate why they did that.
Didn't read any websites, just looked at polling data. 2008 was huge Democratic turnout. Everything between 2008 and 2012 was huge Republican turnout. Everything prior to 2008 suggested that 2008 was an anomaly, as did everything since - up until 2012.
Ouze wrote: Then start reading more accurate websites? I mean, at some point you need to step back here and admit to yourself that the reporting you rely on is utterly wrong, has misled you, and start to investigate why they did that.
Didn't read any websites, just looked at polling data. 2008 was huge Democratic turnout. Everything between 2008 and 2012 was huge Republican turnout. Everything prior to 2008 suggested that 2008 was an anomaly, as did everything since - up until 2012.
I kind of agree with this, that turnout in 2008 and 2012 was pretty high compared to historical averages. That just shows what a great ground game Obama and his tema put together to mobilize the vote, and how badly the GOP poisitons radicalized people who normally do not even vote.
However, the polling data up until election day was pretty clear, Romney had no real chance based on the Electoral College map. If you believed otherwise, you were participating in self-delusion.
I kind of agree with this, that turnout in 2008 and 2012 was pretty high compared to historical averages. That just shows what a great ground game Obama and his tema put together to mobilize the vote, and how badly the GOP poisitons radicalized people who normally do not even vote.
Interesting choice of words.
However, the polling data up until election day was pretty clear, Romney had no real chance based on the Electoral College map. If you believed otherwise, you were participating in self-delusion.
True in retrospect. Saying that it required partisan motivation to believe that 2012 election turnout would not exceed historical trends is incorrect, though.
whembly wrote: So... do I have my tinfoil hat on? How does it look?
It's awfully coincidential that 45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours, such as:
Westinghouse, Research in Motion, Boeing, US Cellular, Commerzbank, Iberia, ING, Ericsson, Bristol-Myers, corning, Boston Scientific, Abbott Labs, St. Jude,Caterpillar, CVPH Medical Center, Lightyear Haqwker Beechcraft, Hawker Beechcraft... etc...
That has nothing to do with the election... right?
For that to make any sense, you'd have to believe companies can go from 'not planning lay offs' to 'announcing lay offs' within 48 hours. Or that companies have some kind of system of conditional announcements, so that they have an announcement lined up in case something happens.
As both of those things are gibberish, then the election can't be the cause.
Then, how would you reconcile all these announcement at this time?
If it all falls apart, he is still president and will retire in 4 years. He can't go any higher and has no future career to protect.
The members of Congress OTOH have to worry about the next election. We know a lot of the electorate pretty much blame Congress for the lack of action to sort out mess and don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
The ones who will blame Obama would blame Obama if he had the ability to turn the deficit into pure gold by touching it.
But if he truly cares about this country and it falls apart, he loses no matter how well he is taken care of and the history written about him will perhaps not be good. Nixon did great things, yet what people think most of when he gets talked about are cover ups and Watergate.
No sane president I would think would want to see their country ruined or lose their possible position in history as a great leader.
Obama cannot save the country single handed. He requires the cooperation of Congress. If Congress does not pull its collective thumb out of its bum, the people will not blame Obama. when the gak hits the fan.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obama cannot save the country single handed. He requires the cooperation of Congress. If Congress does not pull its collective thumb out of its bum, the people will not blame Obama. when the gak hits the fan.
Why not? The democrats blame Bush for everything from wars to global warming/cooling whatever.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obama cannot save the country single handed. He requires the cooperation of Congress. If Congress does not pull its collective thumb out of its bum, the people will not blame Obama. when the gak hits the fan.
Why not? The democrats blame Bush for everything from wars to global warming/cooling whatever.
Bush started two incredibly costly wars and jumped military spending up massively.
Funnily enough you guys are a little broke now.
Though you can thank the Republicans wanting to make Obama a "one term president" by actively preventing anything to actually help the country.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obama cannot save the country single handed. He requires the cooperation of Congress. If Congress does not pull its collective thumb out of its bum, the people will not blame Obama. when the gak hits the fan.
Why not? The democrats blame Bush for everything from wars to global warming/cooling whatever.
Bush started two incredibly costly wars and jumped military spending up massively.
Funnily enough you guys are a little broke now.
Though you can thank the Republicans wanting to make Obama a "one term president" by actively preventing anything to actually help the country.
Wait, what? Are you saying we're "broke" because we "spent all of our money" on Iraq and Afghanistan? That is... silly. On a whole lot of levels.
Bush made war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and refused to follow the Tokyo Convention, etc. Those are facts.
I think you mean the Kyoto Accord. And that was Clinton.
However, Bush did hold the office of the president during a time when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.
translation: yes, he can be blamed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:Wait, what? Are you saying we're "broke" because we "spent all of our money" on Iraq and Afghanistan? That is... silly. On a whole lot of levels.
I agree. You're broke because you spent all your money on Iraq and Afghanistan, while simultaneously lowering the tax rates and further deregulating the financial sector.
Bromsy wrote:Wait, what? Are you saying we're "broke" because we "spent all of our money" on Iraq and Afghanistan? That is... silly. On a whole lot of levels.
I agree. You're broke because you spent all your money on Iraq and Afghanistan, while simultaneously lowering the tax rates and further deregulating the financial sector.
Military spending for the last twelve years of war is a fraction of the money spent through TARP. And unlike TARP there are at least some concrete benefits to the spending-- the equipment density in the Army and the Marine Corps is more than three times higher than it was at the beginning of the conflict.
If you believe the figures they give, TARP has cost $431 billion over four years (2008 to 2012) compared to a military budget of $680 billion for 2010 alone.
If you believe the figures they give, TARP has cost $431 billion over four years (2008 to 2012) compared to a military budget of $680 billion for 2010 alone.
Right, but to get the cost of the wars you would need to subtract the baseline military budget from the overall defense department allocation. For example, very expensive projects like the DDG-1000 or the X-37 space plane obviously have nothing to do with the war. Plus, 431 bill is a pretty light estimate for the total cost of Federal Stimulus under Obummer. Most estimates put the total cost (not including sunken costs or lost opportunities for capital investment) at just north of the 1 trillion mark.
Silverthorne wrote: Right, but to get the cost of the wars you would need to subtract the baseline military budget from the overall defense department allocation.
No we don't, because that "baseline" budget includes spending money on having the baseline capability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars. If we stop having wars and reduce the size of the military appropriately we cut the additional war spending AND the baseline spending that supported it.
Easy E wrote: However, the polling data up until election day was pretty clear, Romney had no real chance based on the Electoral College map. If you believed otherwise, you were participating in self-delusion.
Easy E wrote: However, the polling data up until election day was pretty clear, Romney had no real chance based on the Electoral College map. If you believed otherwise, you were participating in self-delusion.
Seaward wrote: I'd bet Republicans could have gotten the votes had Romney won the election. The ACA is still pretty unpopular, and a national election that seems to suggest a repudiation of Obama's policies would have made moderate Democrats in potentially vulnerable states sweat.
Nah, every Democratic senator would know that leaving the ACA holds the potential for it's support improving, as it comes in to operation and it isn't as bad as people feared. On the other hand, voting for repeal is basically surrendering the issue to the Republicans - they are forced to concede that the bill they personally passed previously was bad law.
Maybe you might pick up one senator who'd be that stupid. But to claim the 7 or 8 needed (if the Republicans had done extremely well in the senate and got up to 52 or 53 votes)... well that's just not a thing that would happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: It did to a lot of people, actually. I know perfectly non-crazy folks who thought there was no possible way turnout would go the way it did. Hell, I thought the polling models were all damn optimistic for Democrats, and I consider myself an independent.
I'll certainly agree it's dumb not to plan for all possibilities, though. I'm not arguing that - just that Romney would have had a fair shot at getting rid of ACA had he won.
Arguing that turn out wouldn't match predictions wasn't crazy. It would be naive to have considered it likely, but sensible to believe it possible.
But arguing that that would happen, and that Republicans would also make gains in the senate, and that then you'd have 7 or 8 Democrats reverse their previous vote to repeal ACA... that's pretty out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Good. Half the federal government needs to be fired. Then followed by a further 25% cut.
Same to same for the state government. Go to the DMV and you'll come out a believer in the Frazzled plan.
I'm increasingly convinced Fraz's entire political philosophy is driven by a long wait he once had at the DMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I see the standard strategy of: "If there's heavy lifting to be done with Congress, fly somewhere else" strategy continues.
I remember people criticising Obama for butting his head in last time, when it was supposed to be up to Congress to hash out a deal.
I see the Republican strategy of 'see whatever Obama does, then complain about it' continues.
Silverthorne wrote: Right, but to get the cost of the wars you would need to subtract the baseline military budget from the overall defense department allocation.
No we don't, because that "baseline" budget includes spending money on having the baseline capability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars. If we stop having wars and reduce the size of the military appropriately we cut the additional war spending AND the baseline spending that supported it.
Well, yeah you do, since I was comparing the Middle East Adventure Wars to TARP. If you want to talk about defanging the USA, that's an entirely different conversation.
Also, you'll be happy to know that we actually DID do what you said with Sequestration. Previously the DOD was mandated to be able to simultaneously overcome two near peer nations in full-out DEFCON 2 war. Now it is mandated to defeat one, and delay another. It's actually a major strategic shift for the USA, I'm surprised that you are ignorant about it.
Personally I think it is a step in the right direction. The early American government was never set up to WTF PWN people overseas like we are currently able to do, but to have a deep bench of citizen soldiers that could fight defensively on a moment's notice. I feel like drastically cutting the Army, or more appropriately, moving those funds to the National Guard, is a good idea. When you have entire cadres of thousands of special forces and an offshore airforce in the form of the Navy, it makes it waaaay to easy for idiots like Obama to overthrow multiple governments in the middle east and replace them with fanatical jihadists while hi-fiving himself about how well he handled the arab spring. As we saw in Iraq (not so much Stan), its kind of a pain to use the Natty Guard as a an invasion force. We should make it as politically uncomfortable as possible to invade people as we can. Plus guard units have operating costs less than 1/6th that of regular military units. Also consider that Guardsmen are under the authority of the Governors, not the President directly. It's a great check on executive power, although it's hard to imagine a situation where the gov would deny the prez the use of guard troops. Still, politically they are much more difficult to deploy.
Also, consider the CIA has an entire three-branch military of it's own now. Jesus, SAD has an Armor component! Spies in tanks! The wonders of the military/industrial/surveillance industry never cease.
whembly wrote: Then, how would you reconcile all these announcement at this time?
Good question. I don't know entirely. Could be that, among the thousands of companies that a person can pick out job loss announcements for a dozen companies at any given time. Could be a flow on from the market drop. Could be that they opted to delay announcement until after the election for information flow reasons - regulators can sometimes look pretty unkindly on companies that place their accouncements at a time when market attention is on a bigger event.
I mean, I don't know what caused it, but I know 'oh no Obama won we're going to have to fire lots of people' doesn't make a lot of sense.
Not impossible... can be repealed the same way it was passed... via budget reconciliation, which requires only simple majority.
And will take months, and given such a politically toxic move wouldn't be attempted while brokering over the fiscal cliff continued, that means it would only happen after a few more months have occurred. Meaning you'd be looked at something over six months before it would be repealed.
At which point you've failed to repeal before much of the bill has come in to play, defeating the point of the political gesture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Didn't read any websites, just looked at polling data. 2008 was huge Democratic turnout. Everything between 2008 and 2012 was huge Republican turnout. Everything prior to 2008 suggested that 2008 was an anomaly, as did everything since - up until 2012.
That's not analysis. That's so ridiculously superficial all can tell someone is that you have absolutely no idea how much depth their is in polling data.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: True in retrospect. Saying that it required partisan motivation to believe that 2012 election turnout would not exceed historical trends is incorrect, though.
You're pretending your position is much stronger that it is, by using the term 'historic trend'. What you call a trend is actually a single data point - 2010.
Bush made war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and refused to follow the Tokyo Convention, etc. Those are facts.
Sure, but most of those feth ups were feth ups he made in his first term. And yet it was only during his second term that his reputation turned to gak.
This is in part because it took an embarassing amount of time for people to stop pretending there was anything in Bush worth defending, and in large part because Bush didn't campaign much anymore - he had no third term to win, and if he copped it instead of his allies then they were free to continue the fight once Bush was gone.
If negotiations over the fiscal cliff tank, then Obama will take much of the blame.
sebster wrote: If negotiations over the fiscal cliff tank, then Obama will take much of the blame.
Well, that depends in how and why they tank. Deft political manuevering could leave some one else holdign the bag instead of the Democrats/President himself.
Whembly, in our discussions your arguments have been rational and based on logic. (save for drunken posts you have made)
You are the definition of a 'moderate republican'.
Look at our discussion on abortion for example. Instead of ranting and raving, we simply disagreed on when the definition of 'life' began. Most rational discussions about policy can be broken down to core elements like that.
Take the highest tax rate for example. Under Clinton it was 36%. Under Bush it was 33%. Rational people realize that's (relatively to total income) a small amount. If you asked pundits on either side its the battle between "Capitalism and Socialism" or "Rich vs Poor". Its neither of those things, its 3%. The problem is talking about 3% does not make for good TV.
Kilkrazy wrote: But he didn't win the election, and it never looked like a snap for him to do so.
It did to a lot of people, actually. I know perfectly non-crazy folks who thought there was no possible way turnout would go the way it did. Hell, I thought the polling models were all damn optimistic for Democrats, and I consider myself an independent.
If you look at a set of numbers from one poll and question it, sure, you can be skeptical and rational.
If you have dozens of polls from a multitude of polling firms and still remain skeptical then you are probably a little bit crazy! Or, at the very least, in need of a remedial statistics class so you understand how samples are created.
It was wildly apparent to all but the most deluded partisan that Obama had this sewn up for months. I'm still waiting for biccat to make good on our bet about it, in fact (where is that guy?). The only chance Romney had was that the science of polling had some fundamental flaw that was not accounted for, and it was a flaw that benefited Romney exclusively.
The one thing this election has done is give us a great list of people to ignore when issues such as climate change or the economy are discussed: if they refuse to acknowledge simple polling than how can we trust them to think rationally about subjects that are more complex?
Whembly, in our discussions your arguments have been rational and based on logic.
I try... but, honestly sometime there's some fail in my part too... I always try to listen to both sides.
(save for drunken posts you have made)
Hey... I may be on to something! Or... I'm just stirring some gak up...
You are the definition of a 'moderate republican'.
Thanks... I think. I don't like labels... I guess I'm more of a "South Park Republican"... whatever that means .
Socially, I'm pretty liberal... but, governmentally (is that a word?)... I'm more on the right.
Look at our discussion on abortion for example. Instead of ranting and raving, we simply disagreed on when the definition of 'life' began. Most rational discussions about policy can be broken down to core elements like that.
True... and I wish most conservative (republicans) can rationally do this... but, right now, they fail miserably (see Akins).
I'm also bias'ed, so I try to 'plain that up front. makes it easier to have an adult conversation.
Take the highest tax rate for example. Under Clinton it was 36%. Under Bush it was 33%. Rational people realize that's (relatively to total income) a small amount. If you asked pundits on either side its the battle between "Capitalism and Socialism" or "Rich vs Poor". Its neither of those things, its 3%. The problem is talking about 3% does not make for good TV.
Yeah... good point.
Taxes, smaxes... I always say the real issue is spending (on BOTH side of the aisle).
We're not there yet, but I believe we're dangerously close to creating a dependency culture. And, honestly, I'm not so sure that it's inherently bad... it's just different.
Some of it's perception, too. I watched Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly talking about a culture of entitlement, and people wanting the government to "give them stuff".
I see a society which believes in taking care of our poor, our sick, and our children in desperate need. Who deserve to have healthcare but who simply can't afford it, especially in our system where private insurance places coverage of care of secondary priority to profit. A country which saw what happened to seniors whose savings were wiped out in the Great Depression and which decided to enact Social Security to protect our elders. A country where we already (including significant legislation under Reagan) have decided that people in need should have care regardless of their ability to pay. So we're better off coming up with a system to pay for that more efficiently, so we don't force those folks to wait until their issues are awful then go get the most expensive possible care in the emergency room. It's much better to provide them with real insurance, so they can get preventive care and treat issues before they become emergencies, which will result in better health outcomes for them and lower costs to the taxpayer.
Mannahnin wrote: Some of it's perception, too. I watched Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly talking about a culture of entitlement, and people wanting the government to "give them stuff".
That's the true battle... "perception".
At the end of the day, the politicians want to get elected and consequently, they'll say just about anything to ensure your vote. It's our job, as responsible citizens, to navigate that gak and adjust our perception accordingly.
I see a society which believes in taking care of our poor, our sick, and our children in desperate need. Who deserve to have healthcare but who simply can't afford it, especially in our system where private insurance places coverage of care of secondary priority to profit. A country which saw what happened to seniors whose savings were wiped out in the Great Depression and which decided to enact Social Security to protect our elders. A country where we already (including significant legislation under Reagan) have decided that people in need should have care regardless of their ability to pay. So we're better off coming up with a system to pay for that more efficiently, so we don't force those folks to wait until their issues are awful then go get the most expensive possible care in the emergency room. It's much better to provide them with real insurance, so they can get preventive care and treat issues before they become emergencies, which will result in better health outcomes for them and lower costs to the taxpayer.
Our culture and technological achievement is shifting this as well.
All these things are worthy causes...its up to us to determine the best way to achieve these goals.
The issue I'm seeing in my lifetime is "compromise" is an art that's been neglected. There are truly some "win-win" proposition if both sides just "give a little" to the other side. But no, it's been more of a Thunderdome environment in the arena of politics. *shrugs* Maybe I'm being naive...
labmouse42 wrote: Look at our discussion on abortion for example. Instead of ranting and raving, we simply disagreed on when the definition of 'life' began. Most rational discussions about policy can be broken down to core elements like that.
Have you considered what it would mean if life began at inception?
I don't believe that it does, but I recognize that someone who feels that way *logically* has a right to be pretty darn upset about the practice. It's very easy for a pro-choice individual to discuss abortion in a detached way, and to say things like "if you don't like abortion, don't have one." The other side just sees murdered children on an epic scale, and thus their strong feelings and (non-violent) actions seem pretty legit to me, even if my personal belief is that they're in error.
Civil conversation is a nice start, but I don't think one can dismiss the emotion from every topic. If our society is to become less polarized, I think real attempts to understand why people feel the way they do are a necessary part of the process. Heck, I make fun of the Tea Partiers just like a lot of people, but maybe our goal should be to understand that all their emotion isn't just manufactured...those citizens are going through something that they feel is impacting them in a very real way.
Note that I'm not trying to jump down your throat on this, it's just that your comment got me thinking about the topic.
The issue I'm seeing in my lifetime is "compromise" is an art that's been neglected. There are truly some "win-win" proposition if both sides just "give a little" to the other side. But no, it's been more of a Thunderdome environment in the arena of politics. *shrugs* Maybe I'm being naive...
I don't think it's just you, and I don't necessarily think that you are being naive here/.
The thing that I see with this, is that, IMO more and more politicians are driven by the TV ratings... I mean, Mark Hatfield, a Senator from my home state retired from that post in the mid 90s, citing the growing rift and lack of compromise in Washington... and that was before places like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and other 24 hour "news" networks really "came to power". Obviously, we cannot get rid of those guys without violating the first amendment, but it is fairly clear to me that things like 24 hour news does not help our country's current situation.
IMO, the truly great senators and representatives are being chased out of their posts, because in today's political world, it is almost suicidal to consider a compromise on any issue that is presented.
Easy E wrote: However, the polling data up until election day was pretty clear, Romney had no real chance based on the Electoral College map. If you believed otherwise, you were participating in self-delusion.
I was just browing google news, and it appears that FOX still has not gotten the clue.
First and possibly foremost, stuff happens. In this case it was a hurricane. Sandy kept Mitt Romney off TV for five crucial days, days which, without Sandy, would almost certainly have seen Romney’s lead solidify and grow. Instead, Barack Obama had a rare (and rarely taken) chance to look truly presidential, for the entire last week of the campaign, with zero competition. He did take it, aided indelibly by visuals of a certain portly Republican firebrand governor fawning all over his presidential greatness.
Which is the second half of this lesson: Sandy may have put Obama over the top. It may also have relegated Chris Christie to the list of also-rans.
If you look at Nate Silvers predictions -- which at this point we can generally agree are pretty damn accurate -- he had Obama ahead in the electorial college by a good margin before the storm. Somehow FOX news still thinks that Romney has this election in the bag.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: I don't believe that it does, but I recognize that someone who feels that way *logically* has a right to be pretty darn upset about the practice. It's very easy for a pro-choice individual to discuss abortion in a detached way, and to say things like "if you don't like abortion, don't have one." The other side just sees murdered children on an epic scale, and thus their strong feelings and (non-violent) actions seem pretty legit to me, even if my personal belief is that they're in error.
Is it logical to get upset about "murdering children on an epic scale" or is it rational? IMHO emotions and logic do not go hand in hand. We all have emotions and understandably get frustrated, but they do not help in determining policy, and anyone overridden by emotions cannot effectively work on policy. This applies for any issue and any side.
Simply put, when someone is not listening because they are overridden by emotion, they cannot compromise or see any problems that may occur. In the case of abortion -- were it outlawed we would see a dramatic increase in minority children being sent to adoption agencies. This is due to the disproportionately high number of abortions by minorities. These agencies already have a hard time finding homes for minorities. In order to prevent a large social problem, it would be best to encourage adoption of minority children were abortion to be make illegal.
That is an example that someone overridden by emotion may not be able to realize or discuss.
gorgon wrote: Civil conversation is a nice start, but I don't think one can dismiss the emotion from every topic. If our society is to become less polarized, I think real attempts to understand why people feel the way they do are a necessary part of the process. Heck, I make fun of the Tea Partiers just like a lot of people, but maybe our goal should be to understand that all their emotion isn't just manufactured...those citizens are going through something that they feel is impacting them in a very real way.
That is an excellent point. Peoples emotional reactions need to be taken into account as well.
gorgon wrote: Note that I'm not trying to jump down your throat on this, it's just that your comment got me thinking about the topic.
As of this moment, Barack Obama has defeated Mitt Romney by a popular vote margin of over three million votes, 50.7% to 47.9%, a slightly greater margin than George Bush defeated John Kerry by in 2004. That margin should continue to grow as provisional ballots are counted across the country, and the more than 3 million votes remaining in California are counted.
More impressive for Obama, and ominous for Republicans, is the electoral college numbers, and Mitt Romney’s failure to make any real headway. In 2004, despite a popular margin of 2.4%, Bush was dependent on a 118,000 vote margin in Ohio, 2.1%, to eke out a 286-252 victory in the electoral college.
This year, Ohio scarcely mattered. Despite the focus on Ohio, an obsession that lasted well-into election-night, even a Romney victory in Ohio would not have mattered. Obama had already won the electoral college, and done so by more than his national margin in Wisconsin(6.7 points), Nevada(6.6 points), Iowa(5.6 points) Colorado(4.7 points), Virginia(3 points). Those states alone would provided Obama with a 291-247 lead in the electoral college. Even the loss of Virginia would still have resulted in a narrow Obama victory, 278-260. Romney would have needed to somehow have won Colorado, which he lost 51.2-46.5, in order to win the election.
In fact all of this was moot. In the end, the only state’s Mitt Romney gained were Indiana, which had been conceded at the beginning of the year, and North Carolina which despite repeated claims that it was “baked”, was decided by a 2% margin.
In the Senate, it was almost equally a clean sweep. Republican hopes for gains evaporated. Linda McMahon, who had led for most of the summer, lost by 12 points in Connecticut, while other Republican challengers, Linda Lingle in Hawaii, Connie Mack in Florida, and Josh Mandel in Florida also fell short. Even in deep red North Dakota, nearly written off at the beginning of the year as an automatic Republican pickup , Republican Congressman Rick Berg fell short. The only competitive Senate races won by Republicans were in Nevada, where an exceptionally weak Democratic candidate dogged by corruption allegations lost to Republican incumbent Dean Heller by a single percentage point, and in Arizona, where late-counting should bring Richard Carmona within less than three points.
But Gerrymandering Held…..
There seems to be a tendency among commentators, while simultaneously focusing on the demographics behind Barak Obama’s victory and the difficulties they pose for the GOP going forward, to claim that the election was nevertheless a split decision. After all, the Republicans maintained control of the US House of Representatives, despite some of the lowest approval ratings in history.
To accept this analysis is to miss what happened Tuesday night. Not only did Barack Obama win a commanding majority in the Electoral College, but Democratic senate candidates swept almost every competitive race, winning 25 out of 33 seats up for grabs, and only narrowly hold Arizona and Nevada. Five of these victories occurred in states Mitt Romney won, two of them in states where his margin of victory was over 20 points.
What saved the Republican House Majority was not any sort of split decision on the part of voters, but rather their good fortune to have had their best year since 1920 in 2010, allowing them to redraw congressional maps nationwide. In North Carolina, Democrats carried a majority of the congressional vote, 2.22 million to 2.14 million, but Republicans won 9 seats to the Democrats 3, with one Democratically-held seat going to a recount. In Michigan and Pennsylvania, Republicans appear to have lost the popular vote as well, but won majorities of 9-5 and 13-5 respectively in those delegations. Republicans won the popular vote in Ohio 53-47, but only because no votes were included from an 83% Obama seat where the incumbent went unopposed. They won 12 out of 16 seats in the congressional delegation. In total, without winning the popular vote, Republicans managed a 41-17.
Gerrymandering is of course not just a Republican sport. Democratic maps in Maryland and Illinois resulted in 7-1 and 12-6 splits respectively, with latter involving a gain of four seats for Democrats and a loss of five for the Republicans. And Democrats had a good night in California where a non-partisan map replaced a bipartisan gerrymander. But the Republicans controlled far more legislatures and in the end the House was not close. Nor, in fact, were many of the legislatures were lines were drawn. Republicans increased their legislative majorities in Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, and held on to lopsided margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
The House is Secure for the Decade, but that is a mixed blessing for the Republican Party
As noted earlier, the Republican Party’s triumph in its efforts to maintain control of the US House of Representatives had more to do with favorable maps than the intent of the voters. With most of the vote in, Democrats and Republicans are almost tied in votes cast, 55,962,439 for Democrats to 55,786,017 for the Republicans. Nonetheless, Republicans are likely to control 54% of the seats.
The Republican victory is if anything more complete, as their majority was never in particular doubt. If the Republicans had lost every race where they took less than 52% of the vote, they would still control the House by a 224-211 margin. By contrast if the Democrats lost every race where they took less than 52%, the result would be a 248-187 Republican majority. In effect Democrats have maxed out their number of likely targets outside of a major wave.
The very security of the Republican majority is not an unmitigated benefit. While securing Republicans a seat at the table of the federal government for the next decade, the very fact that Republicans can likely expect to hold the US House without majority support means that House Republicans have very little incentive to attempt to reach out beyond the 47% or so of the vote they need to maintain a majority. Whereas the Republican party as a whole is focused on winning over young voters and Hispanics, the very concentration of these demographics in urban areas means they play little role in the outcome of house elections even within the few swing districts that are left. Far more important are the rapidly reddening Appalachian districts where Obama underperformed his 2008 performance which was already an underperformance of Kerry’s 2004 results.
As a consequence, House Republicans do not face the same need to reach out beyond the party’s core constituencies that their Senate colleagues face, much less whoever is nominated for the Presidency in 2016. At the same time, given their position in the majority, they will be the branch of the party that will take the lead on policy for the next two years at the very least.
On a state level, a similar situation prevails. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock could not have damaged Mitt Romney and the party as a whole quite so thoroughly had their run-ins with the abortion issue not occurred in the context of efforts by Republican state legislatures to aggressively target access to abortion, including an intrusive ultra-sound requirement passed by the Virginia state legislature. Yet while both the party’s presidential nominee and its senate candidates arguably suffered as a result of these laws, the results for Republican legislators tended to vary based on their control of redistricting. In states where they were unable to draw the lines, New England, the West Coast, Colorado, and Iowa, they suffered either wipeouts or heavy losses. Yet of the states where they drew the lines, only in New Hampshire and New York did they suffer losses. In Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and most of the West and South they increased their majorities. In Pennsylvania and Michigan they suffered only minor losses despite Obama winning both states comfortably.
As Republicans at both the state and federal level become less dependent on swing or democratic voters, they will in turn become more dependent on their own, and the challenges posed by primaries. This will incentivize a drive to the Right, and undermine efforts to moderate, especially if Republicans have a good year in 2014.
Voter ID Laws and Restrictions on Early Voting Backfired on the GOP
In the lead-up to the 2012 election, the battle over how votes would be cast was as brutal in many states as the battle for votes. Having badly lost the early voting battle in 2008, many Republican legislatures moved to curtail early voting availability in 2012, including eliminating weekend voting in Florida and Ohio. Many African American Churches ran “Souls to the Polls” get-out-the-vote drives in 2008 after Sunday services, and such efforts were perceived in many quarters as an effort to disrupt Democratic GOTV efforts in 2012. Many states paired these laws with additional requirements for photo ids to be presented in order to vote and aggressive purges of non-voters from the voting rolls.
Democrats reacted with outrage, with anger particularly concentrated among African American leaders who claimed that such policies were a deliberate effort to disenfranchise minority voters. MSNBC ran extensive coverage of “Republican Voter-Suppression” efforts that the term entered the lexicon of the election, and Al Sharpton devoted an hour a day to ranting on Republican efforts to return to Jim Crow. They declared that Voter ID laws and the purges of non-voters were efforts to prevent Hispanic and African American voters from voting.
These charges are unfair. While restricting Early Voting on Sundays probably had as a motivation disrupting Democratic campaign efforts, the main reason for these laws was less that Republican leaders wanted them than that Republican voters demanded them and their leaders obliged. Regardless of whether widespread fraud was ever a problem, the fact is that a large number of Republican voters believed that it existed, and Republican leaders learned in 2010 what happened to Republican elected officials who ignored their constituents.
In the end the both the charges and the immediate consequences of the laws were minimal. Because fraud was generally not a problem, voter purges in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio had little to no impact on the election because the dead voters removed from the rolls tended to be non-voters in any case. The best example of this occurred in Cuyahoga County in Ohio. An aggressive purge of the voter rolls by the state reduced them from 1.1 million to just over 900,000, but overall turnout remained largely the same. Voter id laws, where implemented, had little effect. African American turnout in Georgia had increased in every year since they were implemented in 2006, and this trend continued in 2012.
Yet if the laws themselves had little consequence, the battle over them was a different matter. Just as perception was more important than reality among Republican voters, the same was true among Hispanic and African American voters, who viewed the laws as an attack on their voting rights. These views seemed confirmed when efforts to get around shortened early voting hours, and the elimination of Sunday voting, resulted in massive lines. In Florida, media coverage for the final week before the election was dominated by lines that averaged more than 3 hours in south Florida, and on Saturday reached 7 hours in Miami-Dade county. Democrats turned the lines into impromptu rallies, summoning speakers, distributing water bottles, and playing movies. In effect, the lines became a mobilizing tool for bringing minority voters to the polls.
Lines and energy are infectious. Had there been no efforts to purge illegal aliens from the voter rolls in Florida, or efforts to restrict early voting, there would still have been lines, but those lines would not have immediately been blamed on a nefarious Republican plot. In the end, the Republican Party probably lost at least ten voters for every fraudulent vote eliminated or voter discouraged from the polls.
Republican Outreach is unlikely to be successful until the party becomes tolerant of Dissent
In the aftermath of the election Republicans are already discussing ways of reaching out to Hispanics and young voters. Most of these suggestions focus on policies that the party can adopt, whether involving some form of support for immigration reform, or abandoning opposition to same-sex marriage.
The problem with these suggestions is that they imply a misunderstanding of the problem the Republican party faces. The problem the party has is not based on hostility to either Hispanic, gay or young individuals per se, but rather on hostility to anyone not within the party. During my years with the College Republicans I never once encountered a lack of individual tolerance for diversity of backgrounds. In fact, few organizations at the University level in the United States are so quick to welcome racial minorities. What the organization however lacked was any sort of tolerance for political dissent. A substantial level of internal tolerance was paired with hostility towards Democrats and Democratic voters to such an extent that often the leadership attempted to force members to choose between friends within and without the organization, with social interaction with those outside of it often viewed with suspicion and implications of disloyalty.
Because the party is in its current form an ideological entity, Republicans view themselves as correct, and people who disagree as either stupid or malevolent. This does not present a challenge when recruiting white voters, since many can function largely within Republican social groups or exist sufficiently at the fringe of political involvement to avoid the drawbacks. When recruiting minorities however it does.
The simple fact is that even with substantial outreach efforts, Republicans are highly unlikely to win a majority of Hispanics, African Americans, Gays, or young voters in the near future. As a consequence, Republican voting members of these groups will have a majority of acquaintances, friends, and relatives voting for Democratic candidates, and odds are that a vast majority of those they interact with on a daily basis will vote for Democrats. Demonizing Democratic voters, means demonizing these friends, family members, and acquaintances, and therefore will continue to serve to alienate these groups from the party, reducing its minority support to those willing to cut themselves off from their own communities. After all, who are voters likely to listen to? Distant and abstract political figures spouting rhetoric, or those they know?
As a consequence, Republican rhetorical criticism of the African American community for its bloc voting for Democrats, suggestions that that Hispanics and African Americans are welfare cheats, and opposition to gay rights tends to undermine Republican support among members of those subgroups who are not any of the above categories and in fact are likely to agree with Republicans on political issues. Any Republican breakthrough with minority voters is therefore likely to be dependent on making it socially acceptable within those communities for individuals to vote Republican.
labmouse42 wrote: Look at our discussion on abortion for example. Instead of ranting and raving, we simply disagreed on when the definition of 'life' began. Most rational discussions about policy can be broken down to core elements like that.
Have you considered what it would mean if life began at inception?
I don't believe that it does, but I recognize that someone who feels that way *logically* has a right to be pretty darn upset about the practice. It's very easy for a pro-choice individual to discuss abortion in a detached way, and to say things like "if you don't like abortion, don't have one." The other side just sees murdered children on an epic scale, and thus their strong feelings and (non-violent) actions seem pretty legit to me, even if my personal belief is that they're in error.
Civil conversation is a nice start, but I don't think one can dismiss the emotion from every topic. If our society is to become less polarized, I think real attempts to understand why people feel the way they do are a necessary part of the process. Heck, I make fun of the Tea Partiers just like a lot of people, but maybe our goal should be to understand that all their emotion isn't just manufactured...those citizens are going through something that they feel is impacting them in a very real way.
Note that I'm not trying to jump down your throat on this, it's just that your comment got me thinking about the topic.
I have a slight problem with those people and their actual motives.
My problem is that the US currently has one of the worst rate of mortality amongst children in the developed world. Shouldn't those people that are so concerned about "murdered abortion babies" do something about this before worrying about the zygote's right to life?
Yes. There is cognitive dissonance in caring about an unborn foetus and not caring about a newborn infant.
If one accepts the misogynistic view of opposition to abortion the dichotomy is easily explained. In other words, the psychological drive to denial of abortion is as a punishment to women rather than in sympathy with the foetus.
I do not believe that is broadly true of pro-life people, of course. The issue is a complex one with many factors in both pro-lie and pro-choice camps.
This article mentions this -- and I wanted to comment further.
The Democrats had 21 seats up for election, plus two independents who caucus with the Democrats, while the Republicans had only ten seats up for election. This means the democrats were fighting for over twice as many races as the Republicans were this time. By all rights, the Republicans should have gotten control of the senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012
So how did the Republicans so eloquently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
One reason is the bad branding that Republicans had this election cycle. When someone talks about the "Rape Candidate" and you must ask them "Which One" its very bad branding for a party.
Another reason is the push of Tea Party candidates, which discourage moderate Republicans. Richard Mourdock, for example, criticized the previous incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Lugar for his support of the auto bailouts. By doing so, shifting out a moderate candidate for a much more radical tea party candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mourdock
TheHammer wrote: If you look at a set of numbers from one poll and question it, sure, you can be skeptical and rational.
If you have dozens of polls from a multitude of polling firms and still remain skeptical then you are probably a little bit crazy! Or, at the very least, in need of a remedial statistics class so you understand how samples are created.
It was wildly apparent to all but the most deluded partisan that Obama had this sewn up for months. I'm still waiting for biccat to make good on our bet about it, in fact (where is that guy?). The only chance Romney had was that the science of polling had some fundamental flaw that was not accounted for, and it was a flaw that benefited Romney exclusively.
The one thing this election has done is give us a great list of people to ignore when issues such as climate change or the economy are discussed: if they refuse to acknowledge simple polling than how can we trust them to think rationally about subjects that are more complex?
Man, I sometimes feel like I'm the only one in this discussion who understands how polling is actually conducted.
But alright, we'll play it your way - how do YOU think they build samples?
I really hate this practice with a passion. I wish more voters realized the importance and impact of Gerrymandering. I have a feeling the first election after a census would be a bit different if voters actually knew what was at stake.
A few states have adopted systems where computers create the districts based on population, symetrical borders, and area. In some states, the courts decide ont he final map. Either system is better than letting the actual political party in power draw the map.
This system leads to gridlock and failure to compromise. If my seat is secure, I have no reason to compromise and every reason to pander to my base's worst instincts.
Earth to GOP: Get a Grip Conservatives should demand IQ tests of Republican candidates.By BRET STEPHENSLike this columnist ..Article Comments (188) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.1EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger In January I was rebuked by some readers for predicting that the GOP would lose, and for saying it deserved to lose, too.
"It doesn't matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing," I wrote. "All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won't be another fiasco. But they can't be reasonably sure, so it's going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know."
I quote these lines less to boast about my prescience than to establish some credibility for what I'm about to say.
Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it's lawful and consensual and doesn't impinge in some obvious way on you. This obsession is socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing.
Also, if gay people wish to lead conventionally bourgeois lives by getting married, that may be lunacy on their part but it's a credit to our values. Channeling passions that cannot be repressed toward socially productive ends is the genius of the American way. The alternative is the tapped foot and the wide stance.
Also, please tone down the abortion extremism. Supporting so-called partial-birth abortions, as too many liberals do, is abortion extremism. But so is opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest, to say nothing of the life of the mother. Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare"; Republicans would have done better by adopting former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's call for a "truce" on social issues.
By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice.
Which reminds me: Can we, as the GOP base, demand an IQ exam as well as a test of basic knowledge from our congressional and presidential candidates? This is not a flippant suggestion: There were at least five Senate seats in this election cycle that might have been occupied by a Republican come January had not the invincible stupidity of the candidate stood in the way.
On the subject of idiocy, can someone explain where's the political gold in demonizing Latin American immigrants? California's Prop 187, passed in 1994, helped destroy the GOP in a once-reliable state. Yet Republicans have been trying to replicate that fiasco on a national scale ever since.
If the argument is that illegal immigrants are overtaxing the welfare state, then that's an argument for paring back the welfare state, not deporting 12 million people. If the argument is that these immigrants "steal" jobs, then that's an argument by someone who either doesn't understand the free market or aspires for his children to become busboys and chambermaids.
And if the argument is that these immigrants don't share our values, then religiosity, hard work, personal stoicism and the sense of family obligation expressed through billions of dollars in remittances aren't American values.
Here's another suggestion: Running for president should be undertaken only by those with a reasonable chance of winning a general election. It should not be seen as an opportunity to redeem a political reputation or audition for a gig on Fox News. Mitt Romney won the nomination for the simple reason that every other contender was utterly beyond the pale of national acceptability, except Michele Bachmann.
Just kidding.
Though conservatives put themselves through the paces of trying to like Mr. Romney, he was never a natural standard bearer for the GOP. He was, instead, a consensus politician in the mold of Jerry Ford and George H.W. Bush; a technocrat who loved to "wallow in data"; a plutocrat with a fatal touch of class guilt. His campaign was a study in missed opportunities, punctuated by 90 brilliant minutes in Denver. Like a certain Massachusetts governor who preceded him, he staked his presidential claims on "competence." But Americans want inspiration from their presidents.
Mr. Romney was never likely to deliver on that score. And though I have my anxieties about the president's next term, I also have a hunch the GOP dodged a bullet with Mr. Romney's loss.
It dodged a bullet because a Romney victory would have obscured deeper trends in American politics the GOP must take into account. A Romney administration would also have been politically cautious and ideologically defensive in a way that rarely serves the party well.
Finally, the GOP dodged ownership of the second great recession, which will inevitably hit when the Federal Reserve can no longer float the economy in pools of free money. When that happens, Barack Obama won't have George W. Bush to kick around.
So get a grip, Republicans: Our republican experiment in self-government didn't die last week. But a useful message has been sent to a party that spent too much of the past four years listening intently to echoes of itself. Change the channel for a little while.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the GOP can keep some of those values -- they don't need to be truly "ditched." The GOP is still winning plenty of elections at the state and local level -- they're just becoming less relevant in the big national race. What's really needed IMO is an end to the quest for ideological purity in the party. They've been purging moderates since the '90s and forcing every Presidential candidate to an entire battery of unfair litmus tests. They just need to take a little more of a "big tent" approach at a national level and recognize that Republicans can stray in spots from the party line and still be good Republicans.
Democratic Senator Casey in PA is a good example of this. He's a pro-life Catholic just like his dad, who served two terms as governor of PA. His father was marginalized somewhat within the party because of those beliefs, and he may or may not have been denied the opportunity to speak at Dem national conventions. The Dems have since figured out that the Casey name is gold in PA, and so it's better to keep Jr. in the fold and fully support him even if they don't agree with his stance on abortion.
Of course, the risk of local crazies influencing the national race won't go away if they pitch the big tent. And I do think the "legitimate rape" comment really galvanized many women across the country against the GOP this year. Romney and his team had to tearing their hair out over that nonsense.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes. There is a lot of sense in his article.
If Republicans would just ditch the extreme issues on abortion and so on, they and Democrats would find a lot less water in between their parties.
Why would anyone vote for slightly stingier Democrats?
I know this Democrat is not a fan of crazy "tax & spend" policies without a plan to reform the budget.
But maybe we don't have to worry about republican presidents for a while. I heard that if it is a legitimate election, women have a way of shutting that down.
d-usa wrote: Maybe congress will quit hiding behind "I wanted to do my job, but papa Obama didn't make me so it is his fault!" Not likely though...
The House should do nothing. It should stand down and tell the Senate to pass a budget first. Then it will vote on that budget. Up or down.
or even better, say it will pass whatever specific budget the President proposes. Have the President give Boner the his exact budget proposal to vote on. Let it all be on the Democrats' heads.
*Frazzled offering to grab Krugman's hand and go over the side with him, as long as he can punch him in the face on the way down.
Doesn't the constitution place the origin of revenue bills in the house? Or are they only strict constitutionalist when they are not trying to avoid responsibility or trying to blame the other party for not doing their job?
d-usa wrote: Doesn't the constitution place the origin of revenue bills in the house? Or are they only strict constitutionalist when they are not trying to avoid responsibility or trying to blame the other party for not doing their job?
Under the Frazzled "I'll have one for the road then its off the cliff with you Krugie" plan it would originate from the House. In fact thats how its normally done. The President works up a budget. Said budget is proposed by a ranking member of his party, and the games begin.
In this case the House and Senate Republicans would just vote yes on his proposed budget. Obama and the Democratic Party are on the hook for whatever is proposed. If it works the Democrats are the great saviors. If not they lose everything in 2014. LETS DO IT! (cartwheels off the edge)
So the Frazzled plan is that the house doesn't actually make a budget like the constitution says it should, instead papa Obama should do the work for them?
labmouse42 wrote: Look at our discussion on abortion for example. Instead of ranting and raving, we simply disagreed on when the definition of 'life' began. Most rational discussions about policy can be broken down to core elements like that.
Have you considered what it would mean if life began at inception?
I don't believe that it does, but I recognize that someone who feels that way *logically* has a right to be pretty darn upset about the practice. It's very easy for a pro-choice individual to discuss abortion in a detached way, and to say things like "if you don't like abortion, don't have one." The other side just sees murdered children on an epic scale, and thus their strong feelings and (non-violent) actions seem pretty legit to me, even if my personal belief is that they're in error.
Civil conversation is a nice start, but I don't think one can dismiss the emotion from every topic. If our society is to become less polarized, I think real attempts to understand why people feel the way they do are a necessary part of the process. Heck, I make fun of the Tea Partiers just like a lot of people, but maybe our goal should be to understand that all their emotion isn't just manufactured...those citizens are going through something that they feel is impacting them in a very real way.
Note that I'm not trying to jump down your throat on this, it's just that your comment got me thinking about the topic.
I have a slight problem with those people and their actual motives.
My problem is that the US currently has one of the worst rate of mortality amongst children in the developed world. Shouldn't those people that are so concerned about "murdered abortion babies" do something about this before worrying about the zygote's right to life?
This is my soapbox... We do not have the highest mortality rate amongst children... we have the highest RECORDED rate and no one else collects this data like we do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So the Frazzled plan is that the house doesn't actually make a budget like the constitution says it should, instead papa Obama should do the work for them?
True... what do you think the house was trying to do the last 2 years?
d-usa wrote: So the Frazzled plan is that the house doesn't actually make a budget like the constitution says it should, instead papa Obama should do the work for them?
Like has been done since I've been around. Hey if El Presidente is going to run on only doing blah blah then put up or shut up time.
d-usa wrote: Doesn't the constitution place the origin of revenue bills in the house? Or are they only strict constitutionalist when they are not trying to avoid responsibility or trying to blame the other party for not doing their job?
I believe the House has passed a budget resolution every year. I know for sure that a budget resolution was passed in 2011 and March of this year.
So I guess I'm not seeing your point.
The Senate on the other hand hasn't passed a budget resolution since August of 2009. And Harry Ried has publicly stated he wont even bring them to the floor to be voted on.
All first world countries such as the USA, Japan, UK, and France, collect epidemiological data to a satisfactory standard to enable useful information to be developed.
d-usa wrote: Doesn't the constitution place the origin of revenue bills in the house? Or are they only strict constitutionalist when they are not trying to avoid responsibility or trying to blame the other party for not doing their job?
I believe the House has passed a budget resolution every year. I know for sure that a budget resolution was passed in 2011 and March of this year.
So I guess I'm not seeing your point.
The Senate on the other hand hasn't passed a budget resolution since August of 2009. And Harry Ried has publicly stated he wont even bring them to the floor to be voted on.
Hence my argument.
"We're with the people and the people have spoken. Mr. President give us a budget today and we will send it to the Senate....approved! Er...Mr. President? Hey where is that guy? A golf course in Asia? Seriously?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: All first world countries such as the USA, Japan, UK, and France, collect epidemiological data to a satisfactory standard to enable useful information to be developed.
This is my soapbox... We do not have the highest mortality rate amongst children... we have the highest RECORDED rate and no one else collects this data like we do.
Care to explain this please?
Every country in Europe, for instance (and a whole lot of other countries do it as well, basically only in really backward countries without a widespread health care network are you unable to access accurate numbers, but those countries also have much higher numbers than developed nations), collects this type of data for analysis, so how are you saying that the no one else does it "right" except for the US?
This is my soapbox... We do not have the highest mortality rate amongst children... we have the highest RECORDED rate and no one else collects this data like we do.
Care to explain this please?
Every country in Europe, for instance (and a whole lot of other countries do it as well, basically only in really backward countries without a widespread health care network are you unable to access accurate numbers, but those countries also have much higher numbers than developed nations), collects this type of data for analysis, so how are you saying that the no one else does it "right" except for the US?
Every nation collects different statistics. There is no common definition of "infant mortality."
Kilkrazy wrote: All first world countries such as the USA, Japan, UK, and France, collect epidemiological data to a satisfactory standard to enable useful information to be developed.
Not true...
I'll have to find the explanation, but the methodology IS different. I remember hearing about a huge controversy about some survey (UN, WHO, ??) on infant mortality and numerous big Children's Hospital in the US actually had a PR campaign to counter that assumption.
Neonatal (preemies) deaths aren't counted in other countries, but they are in the US. That's just one example.
This is my soapbox... We do not have the highest mortality rate amongst children... we have the highest RECORDED rate and no one else collects this data like we do.
Care to explain this please?
Every country in Europe, for instance (and a whole lot of other countries do it as well, basically only in really backward countries without a widespread health care network are you unable to access accurate numbers, but those countries also have much higher numbers than developed nations), collects this type of data for analysis, so how are you saying that the no one else does it "right" except for the US?
Every nation collects different statistics. There is no common definition of "infant mortality."
PhantomViper wrote: So instead of addressing the issue you (you as a nation, not you in particular), just deny the numbers... that is a way to do it I guess...
No.. stop being dense here.
Just acknowledge that the "data collection" method can be different between nations (and even within the country). So much that you cannot really do any "apples-to-apples" comparison between countries.
You have to understand, we're incredibly aggressive in treating kids.
Kilkrazy wrote: All first world countries such as the USA, Japan, UK, and France, collect epidemiological data to a satisfactory standard to enable useful information to be developed.
Not true...
I'll have to find the explanation, but the methodology IS different. I remember hearing about a huge controversy about some survey (UN, WHO, ??) on infant mortality and numerous big Children's Hospital in the US actually had a PR campaign to counter that assumption.
Neonatal (preemies) deaths aren't counted in other countries, but they are in the US. That's just one example.
This is my soapbox... We do not have the highest mortality rate amongst children... we have the highest RECORDED rate and no one else collects this data like we do.
Care to explain this please?
Every country in Europe, for instance (and a whole lot of other countries do it as well, basically only in really backward countries without a widespread health care network are you unable to access accurate numbers, but those countries also have much higher numbers than developed nations), collects this type of data for analysis, so how are you saying that the no one else does it "right" except for the US?
Every nation collects different statistics. There is no common definition of "infant mortality."
That's my point.... Thanks Fraz.
Well, there is actually, it is defined by the World Health Organisation.
PhantomViper wrote: So instead of addressing the issue you (you as a nation, not you in particular), just deny the numbers... that is a way to do it I guess...
We're not denying "the numbers." We're saying our "numbers" are different than your "numbers."
Kilkrazy wrote: All first world countries such as the USA, Japan, UK, and France, collect epidemiological data to a satisfactory standard to enable useful information to be developed.
Not true...
I'll have to find the explanation, but the methodology IS different. I remember hearing about a huge controversy about some survey (UN, WHO, ??) on infant mortality and numerous big Children's Hospital in the US actually had a PR campaign to counter that assumption.
Neonatal (preemies) deaths aren't counted in other countries, but they are in the US. That's just one example.
This is my soapbox... We do not have the highest mortality rate amongst children... we have the highest RECORDED rate and no one else collects this data like we do.
Care to explain this please?
Every country in Europe, for instance (and a whole lot of other countries do it as well, basically only in really backward countries without a widespread health care network are you unable to access accurate numbers, but those countries also have much higher numbers than developed nations), collects this type of data for analysis, so how are you saying that the no one else does it "right" except for the US?
Every nation collects different statistics. There is no common definition of "infant mortality."
That's my point.... Thanks Fraz.
Well, there is actually, it is defined by the World Health Organisation.
PhantomViper wrote: So instead of addressing the issue you (you as a nation, not you in particular), just deny the numbers... that is a way to do it I guess...
We're not denying "the numbers." We're saying our "numbers" are different than your "numbers."
~
The UN, the WHO and even the CIA make those comparisons and corroborate what I'm saying, but you guys are saying that they are all wrong so I'm just supposed to believe you...
PhantomViper wrote: So instead of addressing the issue you (you as a nation, not you in particular), just deny the numbers... that is a way to do it I guess...
We're not denying "the numbers." We're saying our "numbers" are different than your "numbers."
~
The UN, the WHO and even the CIA make those comparisons and corroborate what I'm saying, but you guys are saying that they are all wrong so I'm just supposed to believe you...
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I'm saying I've seen that as differences between countries. Self reporting is a dangerous thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Here, for what it is worth, is a link to the Wikipedia article on infant mortality and the effect of different data gathering practices.
But to say that we have sucky healthcare when you try to compare the system between nations is disingenuous. Trust me, those organization are NOT the subject matter experts for ALL healthcare world wide. This is not something simple as.. "hey, let's ask for data and run an analysis". The methodolgy is different... why, it makes sense. Not everyone, hosptial, caregiver will document the same way.
As much industries like to push for this, there are no standards. (it's why I have my job).
To prove my point, just look at the Clinical Research firms.
Pharmaceuticals and Medical equipment manufacturers spends a gak-ton of money to perform research... you know why? Because it takes a gak ton of manpower to oversee/manage the clinical trials (sometimes done world-wide) just so that the data is accurately documented. Very MANUALLY intensive in terms of management.
Now asking independent organizations to conform to some standards... even at a local level, that doesn't happen.
So... according to your link http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN... we'ved measured 6 per 1000 infant mortality. That's pretty damn good. Even then, you have to look at the methodology / location / some grain of salt when analysing this.
Is the guy lecturing us on statistics and how we are all wrong and he is right the same guy that said that all the statistics and polls are wrong and he was right?
d-usa wrote: Is the guy lecturing us on statistics and how we are all wrong and he is right the same guy that said that all the statistics and polls are wrong and he was right?
Dude... that's different.
But... good one... gotta give you props for that. (is this where I say touche?)
My contention from Nate Silver's was from my sabermetric days in baseball. If you want to see a cesspool arguement that can get, take a gander.
Not having a fade and troll day. I guess I could reply to the whole "the house did propose a budget" argument with the usual "how about they propose a budget that doesn't consist of conservative wish-listing that ignores any idea of a bipartisan compromise in favor of pandering to their rich donor base and ideological nuts and propose a working budget instead that actually includes some sort of compromise instead", but then we have all been down that road too many times haven't we...
I like the implication that everyone else is under reporting child mortality statistics to make the US look bad. That's awesome, really awesome. Because no other country cares about their kids, especially not these dirty socialists with their national healthcare systems. The lying scum.
d-usa wrote: Not having a fade and troll day. I guess I could reply to the whole "the house did propose a budget" argument with the usual "how about they propose a budget that doesn't consist of conservative wish-listing that ignores any idea of a bipartisan compromise in favor of pandering to their rich donor base and ideological nuts and propose a working budget instead that actually includes some sort of compromise instead", but then we have all been down that road too many times haven't we...
Yes the 74B in cuts below Obama's proposed budget were EARTH SHATTERING in a 3.8T budget. Which is why the Senate refused to bring it to the floor right?
I'm sorry you were talking about pandering and ideological nuts. You must have meant not bothering to vote on or try to work out a budget with the highest end of cuts at 1.9% of the liberal wishlist that was sent to the House in the first place. Or I suppose we should talk about 2009 and 2010 when the Democrats controlled Congress as a whole and Barry was in office but no budgets were passed.
Yes I see how failure to compromise by those evil Republicans is the root cause of the continued failure to reach a budget in the past 4 years.
We can dance but I don't think you'll like the music.
Frazzled wrote: In comparison to Obama's budgets which were approved by neither party. Excellent.
Like I said, let the Democrats do it. Then its completely, utterly on their heads.
SImples-Bowles 2016: A ticket we can believe in!
Hey... I liked the Simples-Bowles proposal. It didn't do enough, but we won't be able to fix it on one go... so, it's a good start.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I like the implication that everyone else is under reporting child mortality statistics to make the US look bad. That's awesome, really awesome. Because no other country cares about their kids, especially not these dirty socialists with their national healthcare systems. The lying scum.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes. There is a lot of sense in his article.
If Republicans would just ditch the extreme issues on abortion and so on, they and Democrats would find a lot less water in between their parties.
Why would anyone vote for slightly stingier Democrats?
Because they agree with that stance but they won't vote for nasty Republicans and the Democrats are the only other choice.
But Republicans can't win elections without the pro-life element. It would take them far too long to rebuild a base if they dumped the pro-lifers overboard.
Moreover, most of America's in the middle on abortion - not in favor of unrestricted abortions, not in favor of outright bans. Republicans can - and have - won that flexible middle before. Lately, they've just done an awesome job of screwing themselves over by talking.
The main problem with Republicans, as I see it, isn't so much the social issues - though as someone who voted at least partially Republican this cycle, I'd like if they dropped a few myself - but that they're claiming the "fiscal responsibility" mantle with little to show for it. Give us good, workable budget ideas, and they can start to win. Being just as bad at fiscal responsibility as Democrats will just incline people to "vote for free stuff," and that vote goes Democrat.
d-usa wrote: Not having a fade and troll day. I guess I could reply to the whole "the house did propose a budget" argument with the usual "how about they propose a budget that doesn't consist of conservative wish-listing that ignores any idea of a bipartisan compromise in favor of pandering to their rich donor base and ideological nuts and propose a working budget instead that actually includes some sort of compromise instead", but then we have all been down that road too many times haven't we...
Yes the 74B in cuts below Obama's proposed budget were EARTH SHATTERING in a 3.8T budget. Which is why the Senate refused to bring it to the floor right?
I'm sorry you were talking about pandering and ideological nuts. You must have meant not bothering to vote on or try to work out a budget with the highest end of cuts at 1.9% of the liberal wishlist that was sent to the House in the first place. Or I suppose we should talk about 2009 and 2010 when the Democrats controlled Congress as a whole and Barry was in office but no budgets were passed.
Yes I see how failure to compromise by those evil Republicans is the root cause of the continued failure to reach a budget in the past 4 years.
We can dance but I don't think you'll like the music.
What are we dancing to? Sinatra? or Mosh Pitting on Death Metal?
I looked at it. The US is not awful. However, it is also not top of the pile.
Why would you assume the methodology would be skewed against the USA? I mean, why would that be likely?
I see this sort of paranoia a fair bit when someone posts a stat that is less than favourable towards the US. I don't really understand it. If I see a statistic that Ireland (my home country) is doing worse in some way than other countries, I don't auto assume that the methodology must be flawed.
Da Boss wrote: I looked at it. The US is not awful. However, it is also not top of the pile.
Why would you assume the methodology would be skewed against the USA? I mean, why would that be likely?
I see this sort of paranoia a fair bit when someone posts a stat that is less than favourable towards the US. I don't really understand it. If I see a statistic that Ireland (my home country) is doing worse in some way than other countries, I don't auto assume that the methodology must be flawed.
I'm saying skewed in general between all the countries. I have no dog in this hunt.
Now if you could really dig down, it would be interesting to see what the mortality rate in the US is in non Southern border states. It would also be interesting to see what the mortality rate is sans drug babies. I bet if you take that variable out the mortality rates go through the floor (in other countries as well).
Yes, I'd definitely agree. And your point is more valid when you state it that way, cheers.
I mean, even looking at "The US" as a bloc is a bit misleading. You've got some really isolated rural areas there where medical care is going to be difficult to provide anyhow, and you've got plenty of cities in various states of prosperity skewing stuff all over the shop.
I think sitting over here in Europe, it's too easy to think of the US as one homogeneous country rather than 50 closely related states co-operating. Americans are often mocked for not knowing enough about the world, but conversely, I think many of us outside the US have only superficial understanding of what's going on in the individual states. The overexposure to american media gives us false confidence that we understand stuff. Americans often talk about the UK, Germany, France, individually. Europeans (on Dakka and other fora I've browsed) are less likely to talk about California, New York, Washington.
Dakka OT definitely made me realise I was making that mistake a lot.
Edit: However, I still reserve the right to get grumpy and make snarky posts if I think people are being unreasonable about the UN and other such organisations
Da Boss wrote:I looked at it. The US is not awful. However, it is also not top of the pile.
Why would you assume the methodology would be skewed against the USA? I mean, why would that be likely?
I see this sort of paranoia a fair bit when someone posts a stat that is less than favourable towards the US. I don't really understand it. If I see a statistic that Ireland (my home country) is doing worse in some way than other countries, I don't auto assume that the methodology must be flawed.
Yes, but Ireland doesn't have the reality-fighting jingoism.
Don't worry guys, if you just ignore all of these pesky facts and numbers and just look at these OTHER THINGS it turns out the United States is the best. At everything.
Just like Romney is going to have a landslide victory. Just ignore the polling consensus and instead look at all these other things over this way that show it.
Oh! Now I understand what you meant. You're absolutely right...
