Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

The Unofficial But Kind of Official US Pawliticks Thread

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 151 to 225 of 309
  1. #151
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Everybody and their mom seems to agree with Gary Johnson's positions on pretty much everything yet I never hear anyone talkin about him. Why is he such an open secret, and why was I led to believe that the race was just between Obama and Romney?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Everybody and their mom seems to agree with Gary Johnson's positions on pretty much everything yet I never hear anyone talkin about him. Why is he such an open secret, and why was I led to believe that the race was just between Obama and Romney?
    Because he tries to play for the Republicans and Libertarians. The former doesn't want him because he's not a neocon warmongerer propagandist, the latter doesn't help him because it's not a major party and doesn't have an organized enough base (and never will)

    The Democrats would accept him and his ideas if he was also able to mold some of them to more realistic terms. Libertarians are still stuck in the mold of believing ideals = reality. So they have zero tolerance policies on things like taxes without caring for the details

    Gary has some fantastic ideas, namely about the drug war, but other ideas that need to be reworked, namely his flat tax proposal. His tax proposal may be better than what the neocons propose, but libertarians have yet to realize that what they really want out of a 'flat tax' is a flat burden, not a flat rate. A flat rate is actually a regressive tax (and a huge one at that). They confuse themselves by equivocating rate with burden in their rhetoric. They need to honestly reexamine their ideas then realize that the party they agree with on just about anything (in real world terms) is the Democrats. They also need to realize that there is a deep aristocratic and socially destructive streak in their party and ideology. It's not a coincidence that David Koch was once the Libertarian Party's VP candidate
  3. #153
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Thanks for the explainin', Wuf. Many good ideas but even more destructive ones.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  4. #154
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 09-21-2012 at 05:51 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  5. #155
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    When Romney says Economic Freedom does he mean easier access to hard work (either labor or industry)?

    On 60 mins he said his plan for revving the economy back up was to return some of the Economic Freedom we had which made our economy so large in the first place.

    Does anyone know the history of the economy of America? I remember that we've been the biggest economy since before the first world war and I'm wondering how we managed it.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post

    Does anyone know the history of the economy of America? I remember that we've been the biggest economy since before the first world war and I'm wondering how we managed it.
    Short story: by being the biggest modern nation. Today, US lags behind many other modern nations in per capita income (a more appropriate measure would be median wealth, which we're even further behind in) due to a whole bunch of stuff.

    Also Romney doesn't mean anything by what he said. He couldn't say something correct to save his life. He lives in the bubble of modern royalty. He wishes he could go back to a time where the super rich were so isolated from the normies that they didn't even know what a weekend was
  7. #157
    Xianti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,246
    Location
    facebook.com/mediacookery
    The Jon Stewart / Bill O'Reilly debate is now all over YouTube for free:
    The Rumble 2012 - Jon Stewart vs. Bill O&#39;Reilly Medium Quality - YouTube
  8. #158
    ^^Thanks a bunch for that. I had completely forgotten about it. Hope they don't spend too much time talking about the Obama/Romney debate because every single thing the media has said about it has been facepalm wrong
  9. #159
    Why this is the most important election of our lifetime

    Cliche much?

    The economy is rebounding well. Obama has made many policy changes that will benefit the country for decades to come, yet he receives no credit for them whatsoever. The nation itself has shifted to where even a GOP presidency would govern more to the left than Bush ever did. But if that happens, a problem will arise that shifts perceptions for an entire generation.

    2012 has been a very good economic year; it has been the first year of strong recovery and 2013-2016 will be even better. Very few people have yet to see this, and if Romney is elected, he will be given the praise for it. He could literally do nothing and would end up reaping all the benefits of what Obama and a shift towards liberal ideals has done for the country. This then would inform elections for many cycles to come. Romney would win reelection quite easily and Justice Ginsburg will have retired and be replaced with a neocon that will fully shift the SCOTUS into far right-wing territory unlike we've seen in a century. If Romney is elected, the country will be duped into giving him and the GOP all the credit, and this will allow them the power to entrench the country into their aristocratic corruption even more than before

    If, however, Obama is reelected, by the time 2016 rolls around, everybody will know that it was Obama and the Democrats who brought the economy back from the dead, and not only from the dead but revitalized it into a juggernaut. The Democratic health care, education, manufacturing, tax, and even Federal Reserve changes under the Obama Administration will create this juggernaut anew. When the nation sees this and feels it in their own lives by 2016, it will give liberalism and the Democrats a fighting chance to keep the neocon snake-oil aristocrats from taking credit and taking over.

    This election really is about two directions for the country. We can either elect Romney and let him ride on the back of Obama and take credit for the recovery that is already underway and will keep his deceptive neocon ideals in power for decades to come, or we can reelect the man who turned the Financial Crises of 08 and the Great Recession into great prosperity for a new generation. That prosperity may not be apparent right now, but the logistics show that the economic path the nation is on is potentially one of the greatest in its history
    Last edited by wufwugy; 10-12-2012 at 12:50 AM.
  10. #160
    bode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,043
    Location
    slow motion
    obviously standard Hi, I'm Wufwuggums post, but i'd love to hear your reasoning behind the 2 quoted statements below.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The economy is rebounding well.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    2012 has been a very good economic year;
    The unemployed rate is slightly down and the housing market slightly up, but other than that the economy is still very stagnant and shaky at best.
    eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
  11. #161
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,437
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Quote Originally Posted by Xianti View Post
    The Jon Stewart / Bill O'Reilly debate is now all over YouTube for free:
    The Rumble 2012 - Jon Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly Medium Quality - YouTube
    Hey new guy! How do you pronounce your name?!?!?!
    LOL OPERATIONS
  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Xianti View Post
    The Jon Stewart / Bill O'Reilly debate is now all over YouTube for free:
    The Rumble 2012 - Jon Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly Medium Quality - YouTube
    Video is down, and it's not on netflix, hulu, etc because they're trying to sell it to me for $5. How could it possibly be free to see 3 free debates between the actual POTUS and the other main presidential candidate plus a freebie debate between the VPOTUS and the running mate to the other main presidential candidate, yet I have to pay to see a comedian debate a talking head?
  13. #163
    I tried to keep it short for ya. Now sure if that worked...

    Quote Originally Posted by bode View Post
    obviously standard Hi, I'm Wufwuggums post, but i'd love to hear your reasoning behind the 2 quoted statements below.

    The unemployed rate is slightly down and the housing market slightly up, but other than that the economy is still very stagnant and shaky at best.
    This is a graph of unadjusted employment data. What you're mainly looking for is each seasonal low instead of highs. This shows that the first year of real recovery since the crash was from 2011 to 2012, and it is as big of an improvement as the single best year during the bubble



    Many people like to point out that unemployment is much higher than it seems because of employment to population ratio, but that point by itself doesn't matter. Here's a graph shows such. Also need to keep in mind that retirement of baby boomers has to have tremendous downward pressure on this ratio, which all means it isn't the problem people think



    Private sector job growth under Obama has been very good, much better than it was under Bush, in fact. On the surface this doesn't appear to be the case because state and city governments have all cut back employment. They had to do so due to state constitutional mandates and they didn't receive enough fiscal and/or monetary boosting from Congress and/or the Fed in order to not do so. Here is another graph where you will see that if the public sector was merely allowed to grow at historical rates, we wouldn't even have an unemployment problem right now



    This is most important because only within a few months have state and city governments began hiring back employees. The imbecilic rhetoric about cutting back government has hurt the economy tremendously. The facts have already been established that public sector growth is necessary relative to GDP growth and relative to optimal private sector functioning.

    The housing bubble created a recession, but it was not a big one. The Federal Reserve created the financial crisis due to misunderstanding that the lowering interest rates by the housing recession wasn't a demonstration of loosening money, but was in fact tightening money. This mistake is borne of the stagflation era dogma that made the Fed afraid of any semblance of inflation. So they completely missed the fact that the housing bubble was creating rapidly tightening money, then that triggered the financial crisis, which then triggered what will later be known as the Great Recession; however the Great Recession was still not a product of the financial crisis exclusively, but more a product of the imbecilic anti-government rhetoric and policy that crushed the ability for the public sector to rebound.

    In addition, the Fed's policy shifts have been very slow, but they are there. Just a couple months ago they announced QE Unlimited and have given some praise to the idea of NGDP targeting someday in the future. This is VERY important because the short of it is that economic growth rates are mostly dependent upon monetary growth rates, and the Fed has been keeping growth way too low for too long (because of the stagflation dogma held by the aristocratic curmudgeons); however, this is now changing and the Fed is finally (finally!) making small moves to quantitative easing and monetary expansion. All the previous QEs and bank loans weren't any real sort of expansion because they were too short and small to do anything due to the "threat" of future contraction and all they did was just move money back and forth.

    There are several other more indirect fiscal issues like healthcare costs, education debt, tax burdens, and job reshoring that are all under huge improvements that have set the stage for strong and long lasting recovery. I honestly believe we're going to see longer prosperity now than even in the Clinton years. The United States is the biggest and baddest and it gets lazy because of it. But now that a shitty economy is the scourge of the country, that laziness on the issue is discarded, and we will see the US do what it takes to restore itself. We're already seeing this with things like healthcare finally resembling the modern model and the Fed beginning to move in the direction of Australia's central bank (which hasn't had much financial or recessionary issues for decades due to their proactiveness and savvy). I'll leave on the point that the healthcare law is truly historic on the level of Social Security, but both opponents and supporters of Obama and the Dems are unable to see why because they don't know what is actually in it and what it actually does.
  14. #164
    It's important to note that the slowdown in EU and China isn't a problem for the US. If you read any "journalism" anywhere, you'll think that it is, but journos these days don't have an intimate knowledge of how the stuff they report on works and they're really just dittoheads. Regardless, the historical facts are that the US always does well when the rest of the world doesn't. Reasons for this are that US desires cheaper energy and is big and dynamic enough that it can produce and consume all it needs outside of commodities, which are better for US when cheap anyways
  15. #165
    I'm pretty sure I'm jaded since I'm right in the middle of the 'Lost Generation' but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that obama is getting my vote. I'm currently grinding a gas station job and I hear this from people from all ages and walks of life as well. I live in an area mostly dominated by manufacturing/factory type jobs and we got kicked Right. In. The. Dick. by the recession and people around here are nowhere near seeing this 'recovery' that youre talking about. Asking people out of work or underemployed persons,like myself to 'just stick it out til 2016' is asinine.

    Dont think this means I'll vote for Romney, it just means on election day, ill be still scraping my pennies and hoping to god I get a little help from a financial aid office somewhere so I can get back to school without being butied under a six figure student loan debt.

    Tl;dr

    Fuck Obama.
    Fuck you for telling people like me to just stick it out a bit longer. Im not waiting til im pushing 30 to see a comeback.
    Also fuck Romney.
    This government is a huge fucking joke.
  16. #166
    Ha... you are hoping that a financial aid office will help you, then you say "Fuck Obama."

    People fall on hard times, and they need a hand. The Democratic Party has it's short comings, but most, if not all of them, stem from being too centered and not left-leaning enough. Do you really think Romney is going to do anything to help you get back in the game? Do you really think he won't do something that actually hinders your efforts to get back on your feet? You might not be a huge fan of Obama, and sometimes I'm not either, but voting for Romney, or sitting out the election is only going to hurt you.

    It will be rare that a candidate actually personifies all of your ideals, concerns, aspirations, etc... but it is important to vote for who best aligns with your interests. In doing so, you help to shift the paradigm in your favor. After your candidate wins, in the coming election cycles you'll see more candidates on your side pushing the envelope further. It's a slow process, but it will be even slower without your input.
  17. #167
    Man reading Wuf talk about economics makes my head hurt, mainly because of a fundamental lack of understanding of concepts like steady states / dynamic equilibrium and so on.

    I will preface this by saying I have read less than 10% of his posts on this page, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but his explanations / understanding of even the graphs he posted varies from contentious to just plain wrong in a lot of cases.

    First, about the U.S. not being tops in GDP per capita; here's the list:

    List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So the U.S. ranks 8th. But looking at the countries ranked higher, it's pretty plain to see that most of them are only there circumstantially. Luxembourg: tiny country, not comparable. Macau, Hong Kong - not really countries. Qatar and other arab nations: oil money, and the distribution of wealth in those countries is likely far worse than in the United States.

    The only two countries that are legit ahead of the U.S. are Norway and possibly Switzerland, again two smallish countries that have rather uniform populations and relatively progressive if somewhat leftist economic policies. So, complain about being behind them, I guess.

    As for this gem:

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post


    Oh lookie here, let's overlap some graphs and show that Obama is "better than Bush". This is a pretty classic example of lying with statistics. This graph is ignorant of the economic contexts of each of the presidencies. But let me explain the difference between the two curves.

    Bush's presidency obviously started off with the economic downturn that was kicked off by the dot com bubble and followed up with the issues surrounding 9/11 in terms of consumer confidence and economic instability (and uncertainty in the financial system). Obama inherited a much worse downturn, obviously - the global economic crisis which we're still largely suffering from to this day.

    So why am I bringing this up, it kind of looks bad for Bush. The graph says the economy's private sector grew faster under Obama after a much worse recession.

    Thing is, that's exactly what is predicted by econ theory. I'll try and not make this pedantic. The gist of it is, countries have something called a "balanced growth path"; this is believed to be in the range of 1.5-2.5% growth per year for highly industrialized nations like the U.S. and Canada.

    When a shock occurs, either upward or downward, there is expected to be a short term shift in growth. In this case, the shock was the financial/economic crisis of 2008, a deeply downward shift in growth.

    Over the long-run, however, provided there are no fundamental shifts in economic cornerstones like the capital / labour ratio, the birth rate, the rate of technological progress and so on, the growth path is expected to "catch up" to its original trajectory. This means that a greater downward shock will result in a generally quicker marginal adjustment towards equilibrium (the steady state, or balanced growth path).

    So it's no surprise that Bush's numbers don't move upward as quickly as Obama's. It actually has very little to do with policy choices. Bush's recession was shorter and not as pronounced, so the adjustment towards the steady state was slower. The '08 recession, on the other hand, was a disaster, and so we observe a quicker (marginal) adjustment towards the long run equilibrium.

    Now, I want to qualify everything by saying that YES policy decisions do matter, and I'm not here to debate where stimulus A would have been better than stimulus B or no stimulus at all or whatnot. I'm just saying that it's nothing special that Obama's private sector growth was faster than Bush's, given the context, and it's borderline silly to suggest that one presidency was superior to the other because of it.

    By the way, on this BGP stuff - this is the exact same theory that explains why lump-sum transfers to poor nations rarely have an effect in the long run. Suppose rich country A gives a one-time lump-sum transfer to poor country B. The BGP theory says that in the short run, growth will increase in this country, before slowing back down to its natural rate. Many years in the future, the country is no better off due to the transfer. That's why I've always asserted that giving money to poor countries is a dead end; the problems they have exist in fundamental issues like capital and labour, birth rates, and infrastructure. These are best addressed with targeted subsidies rather than lump sum transfers.
    Last edited by Penneywize; 10-15-2012 at 06:37 PM.
  18. #168
    I didn't use that graph for the purpose it seems you think I did. The purpose was showing how much of the unemployment doldrums is due to cutting back public sector employment under Obama in ways that didn't happen under Bush.

    Your explanation on the movement of private employment is probably correct, but it isn't a refutation of my point. My point was about the difference in public employment. More precisely that what we've coined the Great Recession is really just this drop in state and city employment which not only could have been avoided by proper Fed and Congress policy, but is finally back on the rise

    Also I said per capita income, not per capita GDP. I should have been more precise by saying per capita living standards and purchasing power. The US lags many countries in that measure which they outperform in per capita GDP. Cheaper health care lowers GDP yet raises living standards and effective personal wealth....
  19. #169
    Per capita income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Per capita income or average income or income per person is the mean income within an economic aggregate, such as a country or city. It is calculated by taking a measure of all sources of income in the aggregate (such as GDP or Gross National Income) and dividing it by the total population.
    Check your facts. The GDP identity reflects national income, so that GDP per capita and "income" per capita are one and the same.

    As for that other stuff you said, I'll have to check but I imagine the private sector is vastly larger than the public sector in the US, so that suggesting the decrease in total employment is due to public sector cuts doesn't really hold water.

    I should have been more precise by saying per capita living standards and purchasing power. The US lags many countries in that measure which they outperform in per capita GDP. Cheaper health care lowers GDP yet raises living standards and effective personal wealth....
    If that's true, I didn't know it. I'd really want to see some proof of that rather than taking it as a given.
    Last edited by Penneywize; 10-16-2012 at 12:47 AM.
  20. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    If that's true, I didn't know it. I'd really want to see some proof of that rather than taking it as a given.
    Yep. GDP as a measure of living standards is crummy due to things like this. Another example is if you stop using your dryer to dry your clothes and instead hang them up, that GDP generated from the use of the dryer vanishes into thin air, yet it actually raises living standards

    This is one reason why living standards in regions with lower per capita GDP than US can be higher than US. Turn Germany into a suburban sprawl with gas guzzlers and their GDP will go up quite a bit yet living standards will see no improvement. Then exchange their education system for the US system and their GDP would go way up yet living standards would plummet
  21. #171
    hmm, obama -210 to win president. it was -500.. might be a good bet?
  22. #172
    If Obama can score some points in tonight's debate then yes. But then the odds would probably change not long after anyway. Tough call, oddsmakers probably got it right.
  23. #173
    Oddsmakers have it way wrong. Barry has been around 90% equity for many months now. The debate didn't change anything whatsoever; the problem is that pollster aggregates and political pundits have no idea what they're doing. They systematically consider awful polling methodology and momentary response enthusiasm to polling as game changers

    Correctly weighted polls show Obama crushing, so much so that there is potential that he wins even Arizona this cycle. The RAND survey, which is miles more methodologically correct than any other polling, has Obama crushing. When you add things like proper Hispanic representation through Espanol surveying and detract improper weighting like people who answer or simply don't screen landlines during the day, you'll find that the swing states aren't really even that close. We don't yet know exactly how to analyze Hispanic turnout, but it is now possible that Obama carries AZ (I don't think he will), but he will carry NV and CO by margins a bit higher than pollster predict (just like before). For some reason IA is strong Obama (regional issues and Hispanics IMO), but the NV CO IA combination won't push Obama over the top without NH at minimum, and NH will be much closer than those, but is still quite good on Obama.

    If the Hispanic effect is growing beyond what pollsters are able to analyze, then VA and possibly NC will go to Obama by more than before. OH even, but he's got that one in the bag for other reasons. IMO FL is the most likely to go to Romney of the swing states, but I still have Obama as the favorite there.

    Romney has to come over sooooooooo much in order to win. Obama's ad campaign is better, Obama's ground game averages to about 2x better, there are not that many undecided voters and the polls systematically underestimate enthusiasm levels and demographic turnouts. For example, first-language Espanol Hispanics go for Obama at around 3:1, yet none of the popular pollsters have accounted for this whatsoever. So many of the polls people look at are a fucking joke. Like one in NH released today showing the race a tie only used responses from those to checked the highest box on the "likelyhood to vote" question. This alone will skew results heavily Republican but will never predict actual turnout correctly
  24. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Ha... you are hoping that a financial aid office will help you, then you say "Fuck Obama."

    People fall on hard times, and they need a hand. The Democratic Party has it's short comings, but most, if not all of them, stem from being too centered and not left-leaning enough. Do you really think Romney is going to do anything to help you get back in the game? Do you really think he won't do something that actually hinders your efforts to get back on your feet? You might not be a huge fan of Obama, and sometimes I'm not either, but voting for Romney, or sitting out the election is only going to hurt you.

    It will be rare that a candidate actually personifies all of your ideals, concerns, aspirations, etc... but it is important to vote for who best aligns with your interests. In doing so, you help to shift the paradigm in your favor. After your candidate wins, in the coming election cycles you'll see more candidates on your side pushing the envelope further. It's a slow process, but it will be even slower without your input.
    Perhaps if a college education didnt cost $5-15k a semester I wouldnt need the handout. I would love to be able to pay it off as I go but theres not a chance anyone can do that without the help of a rich family.

    And stop acting like I'm a Romney fanboy. Because its definitely not the case. I'm sitting here staring at two piles of shit, wondering which one I'd prefer to eat for the next four years. Its all just huge joke.

    I'm not voting because they both suck fat horse cock. I'm disgusted with my options.
  25. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by dranger7070 View Post
    Perhaps if a college education didnt cost $5-15k a semester I wouldnt need the handout. I would love to be able to pay it off as I go but theres not a chance anyone can do that without the help of a rich family.

    And stop acting like I'm a Romney fanboy. Because its definitely not the case. I'm sitting here staring at two piles of shit, wondering which one I'd prefer to eat for the next four years. Its all just huge joke.

    I'm not voting because they both suck fat horse cock. I'm disgusted with my options.
    I did not intend to paint you as a Romney supporter. I only am trying to illustrate to you that, due to our shitty two party system, by not giving your support to Obama, you are giving it to Romney. And this wouldn't be a problem if you actually thought both of them were equally shitty candidates. However, from the grievances you've cited, Obama is your man, no question.

    If you want the country to move towards a future in which getting an education won't cripple you financially well into your career, then you should be voting Democrat. It really sucks that this is how it is, but we have a two party system, and so it is how it is.

    edit: as for school costs... Higher education and Healthcare both have insane costs of entry, and a lot of this is due to how these institutions are setup, and so they need to be reformed. Nonetheless, these are simply expensive services-- services which without assistance are going to be out of reach for, or severely set back the financial position of the average American. This is why we need healthcare reform along with Universal healthcare. This is why we need schools to regain the funding they've lost and gain additional funding to alleviate the student and their families of this immense financial burden. If these are serious concerns of yours, and then you really need to reconsider sitting out on election day. We have seen the political center shift further and further to the right over the past several decades. They seem to get it. It's a war of attrition that moves at a snails pace. Do your part to help move the center back the other way.
    Last edited by boost; 10-16-2012 at 07:42 PM.
  26. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by dranger7070 View Post
    Perhaps if a college education didnt cost $5-15k a semester I wouldnt need the handout. I would love to be able to pay it off as I go but theres not a chance anyone can do that without the help of a rich family.

    And stop acting like I'm a Romney fanboy. Because its definitely not the case. I'm sitting here staring at two piles of shit, wondering which one I'd prefer to eat for the next four years. Its all just huge joke.

    I'm not voting because they both suck fat horse cock. I'm disgusted with my options.
    It's truly a shame how the Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich trope has caught on because it couldn't be further from the truth, but that's what we get when we live in a culture that requires instant gratification and low information.

    Obama has been an absolutely excellent president, but that doesn't mean he's been a Fairy Godmother Conjurer of Infinity Blowjobs. When you look at the logistics of how societies and economies work, Obama has been outperforming reasonable expectations. When you look at who is responsible for fucking you, me, and most everybody we know in the ass, it's neoconservatism Republicanism. Fortunately for us, the Democrats are very unlike the Republicans; I only hope enough people can actually pay enough attention to see the obvious. It is Republican policies that would have you working on a farm or not working at all, and Democratic policies that would have you get educated on Pell grants
  27. #177
    Just explain to me what Obama has done that makes uoubwantbto cast your vote for him. I dont like asking for a handout. I hate the welfare/food stamp system we have. It disgusts me that people have to rely on this garbage amd open the door for people to abuse it. I'm not a fan of big government. I like the fed playing a minimal role and letting the states decide their own policies.

    Obama isnt my guy. Ron Paul was. From what I've seen, read, and heard, Romney sounds closer to my ideals than Obama.
  28. #178
    And look, like I said when I made the OP, im very new to the politics game.

    Wuf could youbexpand on your point that obama has done a better job than expected? I realize he has accomplished some good things, but I dont see many people near where I live benefiting from these OMG AWESOME things.
  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I did not intend to paint you as a Romney supporter. I only am trying to illustrate to you that, due to our shitty two party system, by not giving your support to Obama, you are giving it to Romney. And this wouldn't be a problem if you actually thought both of them were equally shitty candidates. However, from the grievances you've cited, Obama is your man, no question.

    If you want the country to move towards a future in which getting an education won't cripple you financially well into your career, then you should be voting Democrat. It really sucks that this is how it is, but we have a two party system, and so it is how it is.
    In just four years, Obama and the Dems have changed the financing of education so drastically that we've gone from a society where you can rake up 100k in schooling debt that you can never pay off to getting the same education but for much less and being able to pay it off at a reasonably low rate.

    Politics is glacial. Even if Lincoln, Mandela, Einstein, and Superman morphed into one giant Mega President, the rate of change we would see would be very slow. For example, Obama's health care and education reforms are truly landmark on the order of Social Security levels, yet it will take the better part of a decade for the society to actualize them


    Also it should be added that a lot of what people from the left hate Obama for isn't stuff Obama actually is responsible for. I've been included in this. An example is the "crackdown" on medical marijuana. The facts are that Obama never cracked down on dispensaries operating legally under state law. Reporters simply suck asshole and conflated topics of differing legal status. In the scope of things, the Obama admin has been positive on marijuana, just not vocally or vividly so.
  30. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    In the scope of things, the Obama admin has been positive on marijuana, just not vocally or vividly so.
    Actions speak louder than words, and words speak louder than...whatever has given you the impression that the Obama admin has been any different than any previous administration regarding the drug war.
  31. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by dranger7070 View Post
    Just explain to me what Obama has done that makes uoubwantbto cast your vote for him. I dont like asking for a handout. I hate the welfare/food stamp system we have. It disgusts me that people have to rely on this garbage amd open the door for people to abuse it. I'm not a fan of big government. I like the fed playing a minimal role and letting the states decide their own policies.

    Obama isnt my guy. Ron Paul was. From what I've seen, read, and heard, Romney sounds closer to my ideals than Obama.
    Well, you mentioned your major gripes, and if you think the guy that will fix those gripes is Romney, not Obama, then.. well.. lol...

    For the stuff you just mentioned... just.. ugh.. It's a falsehood that there are throngs and throngs of welfare queens with seven kids with eight different fathers. Are there people out there who abuse the welfare system? Yes. Does that make the system a bad thing? No. This sort of fear mongering, hate inspiring, drivel really disgusts me. If taking a "hand-out" really hurts your pride so much, then don't take one. Enjoy your perpetual existence as a gas station clerk. But have a look at healthy societies around the world. They don't take an every man for themselves approach. Supporting those who struggle and growing the middle class is a cornerstone of a healthy society. "Hand-outs" are a cornerstone of a strong middle class. I mean, you want education to be cheaper, but how exactly? You don't want a hand-out, but then what? Is it different if the Gov't simply funds the school itself? How is that any different than a hand-out? How about driving on public roads without paying a toll each time you do. Is that a hand-out?

    A governments raison d'etre is to collect taxes and do it's best to spend the money in a way that best benefits the society. It's not a hand-out, it's your fucking money, you contribute to this society and this society is investing in you, because we collectively believe it is a worthy investment. You should be grateful for this, but moreover you should be proud of it.
  32. #182
    No mentions of Gary McKinnon in this thread? It's been all over the UK news today - would be interested to hear a US perspective.

    For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about:

    Gary McKinnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cliffs:

    - accused of hacking into various military/NASA computers in 2001/2002 and causing damage to the systems
    - indicted by American jury in 2002
    - not arrested for 3 years
    - admits to hacking the system but claims he did so to find evidence of UFOs
    - UK implemented Extradition Act 2003 - treaty with US wherein US did not need to provide contestable evidence
    - 2005 US began extradition procedure
    - appealed 2008; 8-10 years per count if he contested charges (7 counts), 37-46 months if co-operated and went voluntarily
    - diagnosed with Asperger's - sucidial
    - 2008 lost appeal to courts
    - 2009 judicial review, lost

    Today, UK government blocked extradition due to his Asperger's syndrome diagnosis although UK prosecution is still possible
  33. #183
    Not really sure that belongs in this thread, but... assburgers or not, he hacked into classified military servers and messed shit up. The servers belong to a strong ally of the country he lives in. He's being extradited. What's the problem?

    I mean, the amount of time he could spend behind bars seems crazy... but aside from that, what's the problem?
  34. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by dranger7070 View Post

    Wuf could youbexpand on your point that obama has done a better job than expected?
    Two examples would be the strength of the recovery (financial crises ALWAYS have many years of lag) and health care reform that is arguably the most important legislation since Johnson. There are many other issues like the rapidity of gay rights progression, credit card and financial reform, tax reform, manufacturing reform, focus on womens and Hispanic issues, war reform, and energy reform.

    I realize he has accomplished some good things, but I dont see many people near where I live benefiting from these OMG AWESOME things.
    1. The most important thing the President can do is appoint Supreme Court Justices, and Obama's appointments have been the best in our lifetime: two women, one Hispanic, both highly qualified, moderate, and reasonable. This sounds like it shouldn't be a big deal, but it really really is. The appointment of competency alone is something recent presidents have trouble with, but Obama has done much better than that through savvy of diluting the Old White Boys Club that is American Establishment while appointing those with stronger negotiation skills who can help sway the Chief Justice away from the incompetent blowhards in Thomas and Scalia.

    The most rapid and long-lasting civil change in this country comes out of Supreme Court makeup. If Romney wins, he gets to replace Ginsburg, then we'll have the most aristocracy-friendly and incompetent court in our lifetime. If Obama wins, not only will he replace Ginsburg with an equally astute and sensitive person he has before, but he may get a chance to replace one of the neocons who want to return the country back to times when Chinamen built railroads and you couldn't swear in front of women.

    2. Obama is the anti-war candidate. He's even more anti-war than Ron Paul, despite the perception that he's not. Paul would obtusely extract military presence from around the world and we'd find this causing a tsunami of blowback (ironic, given how Paul claims to want to avoid blowback). OTOH, Obama draws down intelligently (Iraq and Afghanistan) and fixes potential wars before they even become a problem (Libya). If Romney or any other neocon was President, you can bet every Star Wars card you have that US would have invaded Libya and Iran already.

    3. Health care is arguably the single most important economic issue of our time because a poorly functioning system, like what we had when Obama took office, would swallow up the nation in a few decades time. Bush never tried to fix it, Clinton tried yet failed, HW Bush and Reagan didn't do anything, but Obama did fix it. We now have a system that insures all, reduces costs and waste, and shifts burden from the poor and middle to the wealthy. It is some of the best stuff that has happened politically in this generation but much of it doesn't go into effect for years. You can blame the Republicans for that

    4. I don't know by how much Obama has increased Pell grants for education, but they say it's a lot. The neat thing is that the "lot" is still only like 5.5k per year per student. More importantly, the behemoth of student loan debt is coming to a halt because Obama made it so your payments are only 10% of your income. This will have tremendous effects on rising costs of education (costs will actually drop a lot), but it will allow people to get great educations yet be able to use them for what they love to do instead of being forced into high salary executive-type fields

    5. Obama has began such a mobilization of domestic energy production that US is predicted to surpass Saudi Arabia in oil within a decade IIRC. Coupled with this has been more dramatic regulations on energy efficiency than any other President

    6. He really did save the auto industry. The Republicans gave no questions asked bailouts to the banks; Obama put faltering manufacturing companies through bankruptcy and oversaw them developing better business plans and products because of it.

    7. He killed OBL. The Republicans purposely avoided OBL because they wanted to keep him alive so they could control the populace.

    That's just seven highly important ones, but there are approximately 200 things of note he's done here idontreadresponses comments on What exactly were Obama's promises in his '08 campaign, and how did he fulfill each one (if he did)?

    In his second term I think we're going to see him gain ground on continually lowering taxes on domestic functions and be able to get another significant raise of taxes on the wealthy and/or outsourcing multinational corporate functions. There are a lot of boring details here, but basically some taxes need to go up while some need to go down, and Obama has been focusing on both

    He will also focus heavily on immigration and Hispanic issues. He's already done way more than the GOP ever did in curbing illegal immigration, and even though he didn't get the DREAM Act passed because of Republicans, he did enact executive orders much to the effect. I think, the second term will try to do a lot on this issue though.

    I also think we're going to see a push towards legal marijuana. Both WA and CO are going to legalize it this year, the feds won't crackdown on it, and it will gradually be like the gay marriage issue where states keep passing it, then the federal politicians start acting on it. Obama won't be in office when it comes time to act on it openly, but there is some probability that his second term will nudge in the direction of legal marijuana
  35. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    Actions speak louder than words, and words speak louder than...whatever has given you the impression that the Obama admin has been any different than any previous administration regarding the drug war.
    Yes it's very marginal, but we're in at a point where an improvement on the drug war from the feds is simply not overt attacking drugs. Obama's positiveness on drugs is very, very small, but not non-existent. It's with things like merely even residing over an establishment that is able to question the DEA the way they did and have commissioned some important studies. Governments are glacial, it takes a long and arduous process that seems utterly wasteful in order to change anything
  36. #186
    On the welfare issue

    The amount of "entitlements" for the aristocracy is immeasurably more than the poor. More importantly, the welfare issue is merely a political and race issue. The facts have been in for quite some time: welfarism actually helps economies and societies, but the reason the US doesn't think so is because the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy whose fundamentals of winning elections is racism. So merely because a whole bunch of poor white people are brainwashed into thinking poor black people are cheating them, the GOP is voted into power and then they sell both the white and black poor into debt slavery while drinking $1k wine bottles on golf courses on yachts with bankers and oil tycoons
  37. #187
    Wuf I really wish you wouldn't follow up intelligent, intuitive and defensible points with absolute bullshit every now and then. I'll make a quick list of things I found objectionable in the last few posts of yours:

    1) I think pollsters tend to get things right, while others are not quite as good. Zogby had Kerry winning in '04, sure, but Rasmussen has been right pretty much every time. Trends are what is most important in polling, not necessarily historical levels of support (just ask the Bloc Quebecois who had shown a downward trend from the beginning of the 2011 election campaign, though historically would win upwards of 40% of the Quebec vote. They went from ~50ish seats to only 4. Results of the Canadian federal election, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). If you think latinos are being undersampled, or their voting habits are not being accurately accounted for, that is pretty much your opinion unless you're able to prove otherwise i.e. the burden of proof is on you, and I don't see much support for your argument.

    2) I am highly doubtful that McCain would have led the U.S. into war v. Iran. Maybe it's easy to paint republicans as warmongers, ty to G.W. for that one, but you'd have to be an idiot to go to war versus a legit power that has not only a decent navy but a standing army of over 500,000. Demographics are in the favour of the western world as far as Iran is concerned. Change will come from within, at some point.

    3) Obama didn't "save the auto industry", unless you ascribe a president as being responsible for every little thing that happens during his tenure. I'll admit I don't have in-depth knowledge of the steps taken by the administration in righting some of the concerns of investors and industry experts or as you said how they worked with the companies to work on their business plans. But it seems reasonable to me that any president, republican or democrat, would have taken the proper steps in any similar scenario. Besides, the amount of managerial / entrepreneurial talent available to big auto companies is absolutely ridiculous. You could even argue that they would have been better off without direct involvement from the government. I've even heard some convincing arguments that indicated things would have been better in the long run without the auto company bailouts.

    Food for thought. Things aren't as black and white as you're making them out to be.

    EDIT: just noticed this one
    7. He killed OBL. The Republicans purposely avoided OBL because they wanted to keep him alive so they could control the populace.
    LOL, ya that makes sense.
    Last edited by Penneywize; 10-16-2012 at 09:29 PM.
  38. #188
    By the way, on our earlier discussion about the counting of GDPPC and whether it's a good proxy for quality of life -- I've found some problems with the examples you gave re. healthcare and the rather odd example of using a clothesline instead of a dryer. I can explain if you like.
  39. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post

    1) I think pollsters tend to get things right, while others are not quite as good. Zogby had Kerry winning in '04, sure, but Rasmussen has been right pretty much every time. Trends are what is most important in polling, not necessarily historical levels of support (just ask the Bloc Quebecois who had shown a downward trend from the beginning of the 2011 election campaign, though historically would win upwards of 40% of the Quebec vote. They went from ~50ish seats to only 4. Results of the Canadian federal election, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). If you think latinos are being undersampled, or their voting habits are not being accurately accounted for, that is pretty much your opinion unless you're able to prove otherwise i.e. the burden of proof is on you, and I don't see much support for your argument.
    Not all pollsters are created equally and Scott Rasmussen's record is not what you think. He has been "caught" doctoring numbers a bunch. I say "caught" because it's not possible to catch him because he doesn't release methodology. Particular patterns that he has demonstrated, however, fly in the face of non-juiced stats. Things like the accuracy is only from polls released very close to the election and most of what he releases coincides with a narrative in ways that other pollsters do not. Outside of that, aggregators have shown that Ras leans to the right of actual results and any competent analysis determines that things like tracking polls are simply not accurate due to issues like single day robopolling which only catches people who answer landlines during the day.

    The stuff I said about Hispanics is very true. Ras and others drastically underestimated races in the West with large Hispanic numbers. Ras' final poll even had Reid losing by 7, outside of their error margin, yet Reid won. This is because their methodology fucking sucks. In this election cycle, I caught Ras lying about the MO presidential race during the Akin debacle, but nobody has covered it in the slightest. Aggregators and analysts treat pollsters like good science regardless of the fact that they're almost all bad science.

    2) I am highly doubtful that McCain would have led the U.S. into war v. Iran. Maybe it's easy to paint republicans as warmongers, ty to G.W. for that one, but you'd have to be an idiot to go to war versus a legit power that has not only a decent navy but a standing army of over 500,000. Demographics are in the favour of the western world as far as Iran is concerned. Change will come from within, at some point.
    He said he would. And yes, he would. Don't forget that the same exact GOP invaded Iraq purely on lies.

    3) Obama didn't "save the auto industry", unless you ascribe a president as being responsible for every little thing that happens during his tenure. I'll admit I don't have in-depth knowledge of the steps taken by the administration in righting some of the concerns of investors and industry experts or as you said how they worked with the companies to work on their business plans. But it seems reasonable to me that any president, republican or democrat, would have taken the proper steps in any similar scenario. Besides, the amount of managerial / entrepreneurial talent available to big auto companies is absolutely ridiculous. You could even argue that they would have been better off without direct involvement from the government. I've even heard some convincing arguments that indicated things would have been better in the long run without the auto company bailouts.
    On this issue I constructed a contrast between the GOP style bailout and the Dem style "bailout". You can rest assured that a GOP POTUS would have either done nothing or given them money with no strings.

    Food for thought. Things aren't as black and white as you're making them out to be.
    I'm making them black and white?


    LOL, ya that makes sense.
    It does make sense. Bush is on record not caring about pursuing OBL. The entire GOP stance on OBL has been smoke mirrors. IIRC, on top of Bush vocally stating he doesn't care about OBL, the military under Bush stopped even pursuing him
  40. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    By the way, on our earlier discussion about the counting of GDPPC and whether it's a good proxy for quality of life -- I've found some problems with the examples you gave re. healthcare and the rather odd example of using a clothesline instead of a dryer. I can explain if you like.
    Sure
  41. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post

    Food for thought. Things aren't as black and white as you're making them out to be.
    I'd like to respond to this differently.

    Bush fucking sucked. Fucking. Sucked. Everybody worth having an opinion on this agrees and can point out several reasons why. Yet nobody who identifies as a conservative or moderate seems to be capable of acknowledging that there is exactly zero difference between Bush's policies and Romney's or McCain's or any other national establishment Republican's.

    If it seems like I'm acting like things are black and white, it's because I'm speaking on things that actually are. For example, people who think they know what they're talking about will claim that the "Iran issue" is really complicated and not black and white and blah blah blah, but then all I have to do to completely and utterly obliterate their argument is show them is this picture



    Only the deluded do not realize that the "Iran issue" is aristocratic propaganda. You actually could not create a more ridiculous idea than Iran being a threat to US if you tried. Historically, US is the empire-builder and Iran is nothing of the sort, philosophically, US is the invader and Iran is not, logistically, US has the military to hurt nations, Iran does not. Even the rhetoric most US citizens think comes from Iran are bad translations.

    When the choice is between being right or wrong, it can seem black and white
  42. #192
    lol, wuf. Do you really think that picture means anything at all? It's not obliterating anything man. You could bring up pictures from elsewhere in the world, boy I wonder how many U.S. military bases are within 200 km of the Canadian or Mexican border. Does that mean the U.S. is threatening Canada? Logic fail. Come on man, you're smarter than that. Presence of military bases doesn't really mean much on its own. In all likelihood a good number of those bases predate any foreseen conflict with Iran.

    EDIT: Just noticed that's it's pretty easy to figure out where those military bases originated from. Iraqi bases - Iraq war, ditto those in Afghanistan (oh but they were set up with the foresight that Iran would be invaded too amirite). Kuwait bases - first iraq war. Base in the middle of the sea. Base in the middle of the sea? Oh, you.

    I want to point out here that several of my good and close friends are Iranian (I'm from Montreal, natch). And guess what - they don't hate Americans; if anything they have something against their own tyrannous government. Believe me when I say that demographics favour a cautious strategy with regards to Iran. Tehran is considered to be a very western-like city, fwiw.

    If McCain ever unequivocally said he'd invade Iran, I've yet to hear it. I doubt you could prove that other than hearsay. McCain always struck me as a moderate, that is until he had the misfortune of running against Obama; then he was pretty much painted as a right-wing extremist -- how much of this was due to the fact that as the republican candidate he had to accept a bunch of policy views expected of republican presidential candidates, I don't know, but the media certainly played a part in this portrayal.

    I don't think there is any genuine concern that Iran would be a serious threat to the United States. They are however a genuine threat to Israel, a close ally and friend of the United States. If you want to argue over the ethics of this alliance then be my guest, but it's not any of my concern. The threat to Israel is however beyond reproach.

    As for polls - fine, perhaps Rasmussen was the wrong choice. Maybe I should have said Gallup, or are they also hopelessly biased and bad at statistics as you claim? Apparently so bad that someone without any understanding of statistics whatsoever (i.e. you) can point out just how bad they are. Do you have any idea how hard it would be for you to come up with any irrefutable evidence of the things you are saying?

    BTW if Rasmussen was fudging numbers, how come absolutely nobody working for that firm picked up on it? I guess he's a right-wing loonie and he must pay off his own staff so he could spread his lies in an attempt to sway public opinion. Yeah, right. It's not like he's running a for-profit business or anything, where accusations of fudging numbers could be especially damaging to the reputation of his company. Oh...

    When I say you're being black and white about things, it has little to do with whether I believe you're being genuine or truthful or not. It has to do with how you present your arguments with absolutely no uncertainty to them whatsoever, even though the claims you make cannot be proven. Further, making outrageous claims that are so far from what is generally accepted does not in any way prove that the reality is somewhere in between. I find it pretty annoying when you do those types of things.
    Last edited by Penneywize; 10-17-2012 at 12:53 AM.
  43. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    lol, wuf. Do you really think that picture means anything at all? It's not obliterating anything man. You could bring up pictures from elsewhere in the world, boy I wonder how many U.S. military bases are within 200 km of the Canadian or Mexican border. Does that mean the U.S. is threatening Canada? Logic fail. Come on man, you're smarter than that. Presence of military bases doesn't really mean much on its own. In all likelihood a good number of those bases predate any foreseen conflict with Iran.
    The picture is fine within context. You mean to suggest that a superpower (the only superpower) that spends more than the next 13 countries combined that has invaded and occupied the two geographically closest and strategically important regions to Iran is doing so on the up n up? Not only that but their domestic rhetoric is nothing but lies and hyperbole on the issue and they have a history rife in control of oil. So this speck of a nation relative to the US juggernaut that has never ever actually threatened the US or Israel and doesn't have a delivery system to do so is somehow the aggressor?

    EDIT: Just noticed that's it's pretty easy to figure out where those military bases originated from. Iraqi bases - Iraq war, ditto those in Afghanistan (oh but they were set up with the foresight that Iran would be invaded too amirite). Kuwait bases - first iraq war. Base in the middle of the sea. Base in the middle of the sea? Oh, you.

    I want to point out here that several of my good and close friends are Iranian (I'm from Montreal, natch). And guess what - they don't hate Americans; if anything they have something against their own tyrannous government. Believe me when I say that demographics favour a cautious strategy with regards to Iran. Tehran is considered to be a very western-like city, fwiw.

    If McCain ever unequivocally said he'd invade Iran, I've yet to hear it. I doubt you could prove that other than hearsay. McCain always struck me as a moderate, that is until he had the misfortune of running against Obama; then he was pretty much painted as a right-wing extremist -- how much of this was due to the fact that as the republican candidate he had to accept a bunch of policy views expected of republican presidential candidates, I don't know, but the media certainly played a part in this portrayal.

    I don't think there is any genuine concern that Iran would be a serious threat to the United States. They are however a genuine threat to Israel, a close ally and friend of the United States. If you want to argue over the ethics of this alliance then be my guest, but it's not any of my concern. The threat to Israel is however beyond reproach.
    Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran - YouTube

    Even if that doesn't mean anything to you, keep in mind that the GOP is a monolith. It wasn't always and it won't always be in the future, but it is today. This means that McCain would have been no different than Santorum or fucking Pat Robertson.

    And Iran is not a threat to Israel. Not in the smallest iota of the slightest itty bit. This shit is nothing but propaganda. The government is a rational actor which is confined to their borders and has displayed nothing (nothing!) to suggest they're looking to attack an international community that could glass their entire country in a day's time.

    As for polls - fine, perhaps Rasmussen was the wrong choice. Maybe I should have said Gallup, or are they also hopelessly biased and bad at statistics as you claim? Apparently so bad that someone without any understanding of statistics whatsoever (i.e. you) can point out just how bad they are. Do you have any idea how hard it would be for you to come up with any irrefutable evidence of the things you are saying?
    It's not what I say, it's how the polls work. Just a couple months ago Gallup was outed for having awful methodology, then they came out saying they fixed it. But most of what Gallup does is daily national tracking, and it's not literally possible to represent the necessary voting populace with that methodology

    BTW if Rasmussen was fudging numbers, how come absolutely nobody working for that firm picked up on it? I guess he's a right-wing loonie and he must pay off his own staff so he could spread his lies in an attempt to sway public opinion. Yeah, right. It's not like he's running a for-profit business or anything, where accusations of fudging numbers could be especially damaging to the reputation of his company. Oh...
    Maybe if Scott released his methodology we could discover that people actually work for him.

    The bottom line is that Ragmussen has been caught with numbers and placements too sketchy too often

    When I say you're being black and white about things, it has little to do with whether I believe you're being genuine or truthful or not. It has to do with how you present your arguments with absolutely no uncertainty to them whatsoever, even though the claims you make cannot be proven. Further, making outrageous claims that are so far from what is generally accepted does not in any way prove that the reality is somewhere in between. I find it pretty annoying when you do those types of things.
    You're right about this. My prose has idiosyncrasies that make me seem very obtuse at times. What it boils down to is that I debate my point to the fullest that I feel I should, but behind the text I'm still fully respondent to new information and ideas. Take the Anderson Silva stuff for example. Also, a ton of what I say today about politics is not like what I said a year ago. A year ago I called the Fed a monster, but since having read Scott Sumner and some other stuff, I have learned I was wrong about that. Two years ago I said Obama was idiot douchetard, but since then I've learned more about the relevant topics...
  44. #194
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I think the problem is much more simple when choosing between the Rs and Ds. The Rs want to run up debt to strangle the beast. And they'll want to do it in a way that juices the soil to try to grow more businesses.

    The Ds will be forced to stay in check with their spending because the Rs love deficit spending to use the debt against Ds in power.

    I think the Ds are a better choice. That right now we need some gov't spending to help juice demand so the American markets can support businesses. When American demand bounces back, then we go switch back to the Rs trying to juice businesses.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  45. #195
    Ds juice business more than Rs BTW. By a lot, actually. The Bush years weren't that good despite the fact that everybody believes they were; the Clinton years were extremely good despite the fact that few can admit that.

    You could say our country's narrative is "United States of Republica." Our economy systematically does worse under Republicans yet most people think it does better.
  46. #196
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    There's a lot of crossover between Rs and Ds.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  47. #197
    There's some for sure, but in what way to you mean? For the most part, they are quite different: Ds balance budgets, Rs unbalance budgets; Ds don't start wars, Rs start wars; Ds reduce tax burdens on the poorer, Rs don't; Ds increase education, Rs don't; all civil rights issues come through Ds...
  48. #198
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Its always nice to see when economists agree but can't find the rhetoric to make it politically palatable.

    A Tax Plan That Economists Love (And Politicians Hate) : Planet Money : NPR

    Maybe these are the things Romney's thinking of but not sharing.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  49. #199
    I don't believe it in the slightest, but still lold

  50. #200
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    As far as I can tell, the R's and D's want the same things, but they just can't agree on the language. They are so deadlocked in an us-against-them mentality that they can't see that they are exactly the same.

    Like an R saying they don't believe in entitlements, but they do believe in farm subsidies.
    Like a D saying they are against military imperialism, but that America should not stop fighting the "War on Terror" in as many countries as "necessary".

    I'd love to see a 3rd party come along and show just how much the R's and D's have in common. I don't know if American's care enough about politics to allow a 3rd party into their thoughts.
  51. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    As far as I can tell, the R's and D's want the same things, but they just can't agree on the language. They are so deadlocked in an us-against-them mentality that they can't see that they are exactly the same.

    Like an R saying they don't believe in entitlements, but they do believe in farm subsidies.
    Like a D saying they are against military imperialism, but that America should not stop fighting the "War on Terror" in as many countries as "necessary".

    I'd love to see a 3rd party come along and show just how much the R's and D's have in common. I don't know if American's care enough about politics to allow a 3rd party into their thoughts.
    Start listing off policies and you'll see that they share similarities on only a small number of things.

    They're opposites on almost every social issue you can find and they're opposites on the majority of economic issues. This trope of sameness is some kind of crazy phenomenon
  52. #202
    Also, the idea that the parties aren't much different is an inherent logic fail because if that was true, they would pass laws on those things they agree on rather easily. Ds and Rs are among the most policy-antithetical opposing major political parties in the modern world
  53. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Its always nice to see when economists agree but can't find the rhetoric to make it politically palatable.

    A Tax Plan That Economists Love (And Politicians Hate) : Planet Money : NPR

    Maybe these are the things Romney's thinking of but not sharing.
    Thank you for posting this. Very good stuff, and I look forward to future articles in the series.

    I'm also pleased to see that wuf and penny are finally butting heads on this economic stuff that they've always disagreed on but don't seem to ever boil it down to a substance-vs-substance argument (if I'm wrong, then plz link me to other instances).
  54. #204
  55. #205
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    if that was true, they would pass laws on those things they agree on rather easily.

    I don't think that is useful evidence to prove your point that the parties are antithetical. They find disagreement because they want to contrast one another and its good for politics, but they are in practice (and in policy) quite similar.
  56. #206
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I don't follow US politics, but I always assumed one party won't sanction the oppositions policies because they want them to fail in order to ease their own claim to power. What's best for the people has little to do with it.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  57. #207
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Taking this further, I believe there is more than one route to most objectives, but by bickering over the route nothing gets done. The very structure of both US and British government ensures that very little is achieved because we constantly get a half of a particular path which doesn't allow the objective to be fulfilled. Imo once a party is elected they should then have the power to follow through with their plans rather than being thwarted at every turn by the opposition.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  58. #208
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Start listing off policies and you'll see that they share similarities on only a small number of things.

    They're opposites on almost every social issue you can find and they're opposites on the majority of economic issues. This trope of sameness is some kind of crazy phenomenon
    I strongly disagree with this assessment. Just because polarizing language is used to describe something, that doesn't make the something a polarized issue.

    E.g. both parties want to create jobs, they just disagree about what is the best way to do so. Both want to ensure that sick people are treated with dignity and care, they just disagree about how it should be financed. Both want to provide perks and stability to their constituencies, which are ultimately the same people. Both parties want to strengthen the American dollar and promote worldwide economic stability... etc.
  59. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I strongly disagree with this assessment. Just because polarizing language is used to describe something, that doesn't make the something a polarized issue.

    E.g. both parties want to create jobs, they just disagree about what is the best way to do so. Both want to ensure that sick people are treated with dignity and care, they just disagree about how it should be financed. Both want to provide perks and stability to their constituencies, which are ultimately the same people. Both parties want to strengthen the American dollar and promote worldwide economic stability... etc.
    These aren't policy.
  60. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I don't think that is useful evidence to prove your point that the parties are antithetical. They find disagreement because they want to contrast one another and its good for politics, but they are in practice (and in policy) quite similar.
    Can you give me some examples of both parties agreeing on politically feasible policy yet not getting it done? I honestly can't find a single one. The parties are not drumming up fake controversy, they're warring over real controversy
  61. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I strongly disagree with this assessment. Just because polarizing language is used to describe something, that doesn't make the something a polarized issue.

    E.g. both parties want to create jobs, they just disagree about what is the best way to do so. Both want to ensure that sick people are treated with dignity and care, they just disagree about how it should be financed. Both want to provide perks and stability to their constituencies, which are ultimately the same people. Both parties want to strengthen the American dollar and promote worldwide economic stability... etc.
    The examples you give are not of the polarizing language you suggest, but of uniform language yet with antithetical policies underneath them. You kinda just made my point that the parties are indeed very different.

    Honestly, do the exercise: list policies and platforms of each party. You'll find they're worlds apart. Let's just take a look at three large issues that have gotten a ton of play in the last four years

    1. Employment growth - On this the Dems pushed for fiscal stimulus while the Rethugs pushed for tax cuts, public sector employment cuts, and nothing. "Nothing" is important because when the Repubs haven't been obstructing the Dems and the economy, they have been spending the rest of their time (most of their time) on ridiculous anti-abortion bills, anti-minority bills, and stuff like what we should call certain Holidays. The parties could not be more different on employment issues

    2. The national debt and deficit - The Dems have pushed for reforming growth in costs of Medicare, reforming growth in equipment the military doesn't even want, and raising taxes on the wealthy. The Repubs, however, have pushed for budget cuts to highly irrelevant programs, enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, huge increases in military spending that the Joint Chiefs don't want, and destroying Medicare. The parties could not be more different if they tried

    3. Gay rights - The Dems have done a myriad of things for gay rights like repeal DADT which only had 6 Repub Senate votes, all from Senators who were abandoned by their party or were in highly Democratic states. The GOP monolith itself has been staunchly anti-gay rights at every juncture.
  62. #212
    A counterpoint to some of what I've said can be found in the fact that both parties do want to lower corporate tax yet it isn't getting done. There are a lot of details as to why it's like this and some of them could be considered fake controversy to a degree, but the divide is still a divide and the Repubs have been obstructing lowering the corporate tax for political gain, thus their effective policy position is not lowering corporate tax

    When both parties want something, it gets done so fast its yesterday. When stuff doesn't get done it is quite simply because one party is stopping it from getting done
  63. #213
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  64. #214
    It used to be political suicide to be labeled a flip flopper, but now the black guy has been so rhetorically delegitimized in the minds of the opposition that they don't care. Lucky for us, the white aristocracy is losing this race war. I guess what bugs me the most is that it's not recognized as the race war it really is regardless of the fact that the entire electoral strategy of the GOP since Obama has been elected has been to get white men to hate the Kenyan Muslim
  65. #215
    pwned, lol.
  66. #216
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The examples you give are not of the polarizing language you suggest, but of uniform language yet with antithetical policies underneath them. You kinda just made my point that the parties are indeed very different.
    Almost thought I'd been pwned, but after some further thought:

    If people think they agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution, then they have not agreed on the problem. A problem that is well stated implies its solution. If a solution is not clear, then the problem statement is either too vague or the terms are not being used equally by all parties involved.

    It is common that 2 parties will agree that an effect of some policy is undesired, but they do not agree on the cause. This leads them to favoring different policies to alter different causes. This doesn't mean that they are antithetical to each-others ideas, it just means that they have not addressed the same problem.
  67. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Almost thought I'd been pwned, but after some further thought:

    If people think they agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution, then they have not agreed on the problem. A problem that is well stated implies its solution. If a solution is not clear, then the problem statement is either too vague or the terms are not being used equally by all parties involved.

    It is common that 2 parties will agree that an effect of some policy is undesired, but they do not agree on the cause. This leads them to favoring different policies to alter different causes. This doesn't mean that they are antithetical to each-others ideas, it just means that they have not addressed the same problem.
    You're right that that alone doesn't make them antithetical, but when you look at the actual policy positions, they end up being antithetical regardless of rhetoric, some nuances in disagreements, how they got there, etc.

    The Rs start unprovoked wars and dont pay for them, the Ds dont start wars and pay for the ones started by the Rs. This is antithetical. Inserting the fact that both Ds and Rs like a large military doesn't negate it, but that is an example of how people will falsely conclude that the parties are the same. They merely look at the patterns they want to see while ignoring everything else
  68. #218
  69. #219
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,876
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    How DO rocks work?


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  70. #220
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Do rocks work?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  71. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Do rocks work?
  72. #222
    bode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,043
    Location
    slow motion
    Quote Originally Posted by Galapogos View Post
    How DO rocks work?
    eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
  73. #223
    is this accurate?

  74. #224
    ^^ Probably. If you got that from reddit I'm sure somewhere in the comments somebody knows.

    Regardless, it's probably very close to true since the only nation to put much money into their navy since aircraft carriers made most other ships obsolete is the US. They're extremely expensive, and the other large nations that have them do so mainly just to keep up to date. The US just builds and builds and builds and we have an assload of superfluous military equipment because of it. Eisenhower was as accurate as can be about the Military/Industrial Complex. It's just perpetual building of equipment regardless of utility
  75. #225
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    That center column are Nimitiz-class carriers. We've got 10 of those bitches alone.

    The US Navy Aircraft Carriers

    List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Navy is full of cool shit.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •