PDA

View Full Version : The Super Serious PotUSA Election Thread



TheManFromDelmonte
September 9 2012, 09:17:11 AM
November 6, 2012 America decides the next President.
Gonna steal the OP from FMAR because I'm even lazier.

Congratulations to Nate Silver


(and Obama)


The Choices

Barack Obama
http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/1swXyEfLq6.jpg
Party: Democratic Party
Vice President: Joe Biden
Campaign Website: http://www.barackobama.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/BarackObama
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BarackObama
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BarackObama
Super PAC: http://www.prioritiesusaaction.org/
Super PAC's YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/prioritiesUSAaction

Mitt Romney
http://onebit.us/x/u/AuntRita/mhhzxWEQcV.jpg
Party: Republican Party
Vice President: Paul Ryan
Campaign Website: http://www.mittromney.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/mittromney
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mittromney
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/mittromney
Super PAC: http://restoreourfuture.com/
Super PAC's YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/RestoreOurFuture

There are some other people but they don't really matter.


Websites to read:

http://www.270towin.com/
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://www.propublica.org/special/a-tangled-web

Will add shit as/if FMAR does in General.

Show us how serious you are Serious Business!
(I actually expect this to die, I think people are only interested in this boring event for the shitposting)

SAI Peregrinus
September 9 2012, 09:38:58 AM
You missed a few choices. Both of those are pretty terrible.

Don Rumata
September 9 2012, 02:57:58 PM
An excellent summary of Romney's activities at Bain Capital from Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Irrelephant
September 9 2012, 04:41:15 PM
Funding for both: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3

The top 5 for Romney are all banks.

Qwert
September 9 2012, 06:53:59 PM
http://onebit.us/x/u/qwert/v7Roqdhurl.png (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)


http://onebit.us/x/u/qwert/THWImhrE8a.png
http://onebit.us/x/u/qwert/g0KuaW8yAV.png



:obama:

Evelgrivion
September 9 2012, 06:57:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4

Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention provided an excellent summary of why I'd prefer to see President Barack Obama elected to a second term.

It's a long speech, but it is well worth your time if you have 50 minutes to spare.

Zumwalt
September 9 2012, 09:19:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4

Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention provided an excellent summary of why I'd prefer to see President Barack Obama elected to a second term.

It's a long speech, but it is well worth your time if you have 50 minutes to spare.

I heard it was only supposed to be 20 minutes or so, and he stretched it. Goddamn he's such a good orator. If term limits were removed, I would vote for Clinton.

Sponk
September 9 2012, 09:39:42 PM
Clinton is known for his oral remarks Nbs.

Blah blah tapatalk

SAI Peregrinus
September 9 2012, 10:51:34 PM
Both Republican and Democratic parties have repeatedly shown that they don't support the best interests of the American people. It is only through the entrenched idea that the presidential elections are something individual voters can "win" or "lose" when the candidate they supports wins or loses that the system continues. People begin to think that a vote for a third-party is a waste, since their team won't be winning! Even if their team is bad for them they still stay with the team. Voting for a politician that does not represent one's views is throwing the vote away. Thus, both the choices in the OP are pretty terrible. The other thread on the subject did include the other choices.
This isn't betting on a sports game. You don't win anything extra for having "your team" win. Voting for the team you feel is most likely to win as opposed to voting for the team that represents your interests is a bad choice.
Also, one must consider the (very often vast) disparity between the statements of a politician and said person's actions. Vote based on past actions, not statements. Thus if you don't think that an American president should knowingly allow torture (cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of his/her oath of office) then you shouldn't vote for Obama OR Romney. Obama signed the NDAA of 2012, Ryan (Romney's chosen running mate, Romney was not a congressman) voted for it, and Romney stated he supports it. Since this act allows for the warrantless arrest and torture of American citizens, anyone who voted to allow it is a poor choice. Both candidates listed above supported it, but not every candidate in the current race did so.

Qwert
September 9 2012, 10:54:14 PM
Both Republican and Democratic parties have repeatedly shown that they don't support the best interests of the American people. It is only through the entrenched idea that the presidential elections are something individual voters can "win" or "lose" when the candidate they supports wins or loses that the system continues. People begin to think that a vote for a third-party is a waste, since their team won't be winning! Even if their team is bad for them they still stay with the team. Voting for a politician that does not represent one's views is throwing the vote away. Thus, both the choices in the OP are pretty terrible. The other thread on the subject did include the other choices.
This isn't betting on a sports game. You don't win anything extra for having "your team" win. Voting for the team you feel is most likely to win as opposed to voting for the team that represents your interests is a bad choice.
Also, one must consider the (very often vast) disparity between the statements of a politician and said person's actions. Vote based on past actions, not statements. Thus if you don't think that an American president should knowingly allow torture (cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of his/her oath of office) then you shouldn't vote for Obama OR Romney. Obama signed the NDAA of 2012, Ryan (Romney's chosen running mate, Romney was not a congressman) voted for it, and Romney stated he supports it. Since this act allows for the warrantless arrest and torture of American citizens, anyone who voted to allow it is a poor choice. Both candidates listed above supported it, but not every candidate in the current race did so.

Throw your vote away, I will keep making sure my swing state swings in the direction that is closest to my ideals.

Evelgrivion
September 9 2012, 11:15:31 PM
Both Republican and Democratic parties have repeatedly shown that they don't support the best interests of the American people. It is only through the entrenched idea that the presidential elections are something individual voters can "win" or "lose" when the candidate they supports wins or loses that the system continues. People begin to think that a vote for a third-party is a waste, since their team won't be winning! Even if their team is bad for them they still stay with the team. Voting for a politician that does not represent one's views is throwing the vote away. Thus, both the choices in the OP are pretty terrible. The other thread on the subject did include the other choices.
This isn't betting on a sports game. You don't win anything extra for having "your team" win. Voting for the team you feel is most likely to win as opposed to voting for the team that represents your interests is a bad choice.
Also, one must consider the (very often vast) disparity between the statements of a politician and said person's actions. Vote based on past actions, not statements. Thus if you don't think that an American president should knowingly allow torture (cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of his/her oath of office) then you shouldn't vote for Obama OR Romney. Obama signed the NDAA of 2012, Ryan (Romney's chosen running mate, Romney was not a congressman) voted for it, and Romney stated he supports it. Since this act allows for the warrantless arrest and torture of American citizens, anyone who voted to allow it is a poor choice. Both candidates listed above supported it, but not every candidate in the current race did so.

I don't think you're using very good logic with this; there are more issues at hand than disenfranchisement with the two party system, and choosing a protest candidate solely on these grounds is, to me, almost as bad as being a single issue voter. Vote for the candidate who is most likely to make the nation better, both over their term and in the following years. The true measure of a president's success is how many and which of their policies continue beyond their term in office.

If you want the policies that are bothering you addressed, tackle them at a congressional level, rather than a Presidential level.

Dorvil Barranis
September 9 2012, 11:33:34 PM
Of course, some of us actually like Obama, and don't see him as the lesser of two evils.

Zumwalt
September 10 2012, 02:53:18 AM
Of course, some of us actually like Obama, and don't see him as the lesser of two evils.

I liked him more after he got Bin Laden. He promised so much that he wasn't able to deliver on though, which makes him somewhat of a disappointment.

Sponk
September 10 2012, 03:20:56 AM
He promised so much that he wasn't able to deliver on though, which makes him somewhat of a disappointment.

Some of that is because the democrat-controlled senate was being pussies though.

ValorousBob
September 10 2012, 03:30:25 AM
Of course, some of us actually like Obama, and don't see him as the lesser of two evils.

I liked him more after he got Bin Laden. He promised so much that he wasn't able to deliver on though, which makes him somewhat of a disappointment.

Personally, I only blame him for the stuff that was really his fault. He talked about gay rights during the campaign but didn't do much about it until recently. That was HIS choice, where as most of the other stuff he wasn't able to do came down to having a "loyal opposition" that actually wants him to fail utterly--even if that means the US fails too.

In regards to Peregrinus's comment, I'm happy with most of Obama's policies. There are definitely things I wish he did differently, but given the obstructionism he faced in addition to the difficulty in challenging existing power structures like Wall St, wtf did people expect?




He promised so much that he wasn't able to deliver on though, which makes him somewhat of a disappointment.

Some of that is because the democrat-controlled senate was being pussies though.

And the Democrats only controlled it for like 6 months or something.

(from the time Al Franken's opponent dropped his bogus court case to the time Teddy Kennedy died)

Sponk
September 10 2012, 03:42:25 AM
Some of that is because the democrat-controlled senate was being pussies though.

And the Democrats only controlled it for like 6 months or something.

Shoulda pulled their finger out, then. Pissing away opportunities is their hobby, it seems.

Evelgrivion
September 10 2012, 04:21:00 AM
Some of that is because the democrat-controlled senate was being pussies though.

And the Democrats only controlled it for like 6 months or something.

Shoulda pulled their finger out, then. Pissing away opportunities is their hobby, it seems.

It is a long time, well known weakness of the Democratic Party; they have a hard time finding and exercising charismatic political willpower.

Anyway, since I know there are at least a few of you on here, and this being the serious discussion area (so no trolling or general asshole fuckery should be allowed from any political alignment), what are your reasons for aligning with the present day Republican Party? For the purpose of this discussion, please try to avoid historical ideologies and reputations.

Rudolf Miller
September 10 2012, 03:59:32 PM
Funding for both: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3

The top 5 for Romney are all banks.

How the hell have retired's been the #1 contributor to both Romney and Obama? :derper:

Also, Romney having almost 4X the no disclosure on funds than Obama is not surprising.

ValorousBob
September 10 2012, 05:56:53 PM
Anyway, since I know there are at least a few of you on here, and this being the serious discussion area (so no trolling or general asshole fuckery should be allowed from any political alignment), what are your reasons for aligning with the present day Republican Party? For the purpose of this discussion, please try to avoid historical ideologies and reputations.

This is a good question. Just adding that a lot of the Republicans I know are people in the 1% who say "Democrats hate rich people and I'm rich, so I vote Republican".

Nicho Void
September 10 2012, 06:36:11 PM
Anyway, since I know there are at least a few of you on here, and this being the serious discussion area (so no trolling or general asshole fuckery should be allowed from any political alignment), what are your reasons for aligning with the present day Republican Party? For the purpose of this discussion, please try to avoid historical ideologies and reputations.

Couple quick thoughts:

I support the concept of Federalism over National Government. I prefer to let states and local governing bodies decide the laws under which they live with minimal influence from the Feds. Some Republicans are capable of articulating this point, but party is sliding further and further from this belief, but I've yet to meet a Democrat that remotely agrees with this ideal, so for now +1 to Republicans.

I disagree with the Keynesian approach to national fiscal/monetary policy. Republicans aren't much better (particularly in war spending), but they atleast have a few that subscribe to Austrian school.

That's all I can really think of right now. I'm far more libertarian than the Republican party line, so "support" is given grudgingly.

Edit:


This is a good question. Just adding that a lot of the Republicans I know are people in the 1% who say "Democrats hate rich people and I'm rich, so I vote Republican".
I also despise the concept of a progressive tax system. If Republicans made a flat/vat/anything but progressive tax system their running platform, I'd go door to door supporting them.

Evelgrivion
September 10 2012, 08:09:57 PM
I'm currently very much against the present policies of the Republican Party of the United States of America, for a combination of outlook on human nature and the aftermath of different governing philosophies.

The basic reason I philosophically lean towards the present Democratic Party is because of my outlook on the nature of mankind; no amount of idealism will change human nature. People will be greedy, and that greed will drive people to screw other people over. Wealth begets wealth, and the effect of wealth builds upon itself. People are vulnerable to hate, ill will, and are willing to trump human rights to make themselves feel good about themselves; it's universal. These are narrow examples, but that's why I prefer, in principle, the regulation of corporations, progressive taxation, and not allowing states and localities to ignore Federal Law.

That is not to say there's no such thing as too much regulation, too much taxation, and too much power in the Federal Government; as I see it, it's everyone's job, but especially those with a conservative mindset and a good head on their shoulders, to watch out for these mistakes when they are, or are in a position to be made.

Presently, the Republican Party of the United States has been highly invasive against personal Liberty (abortion, near universal support of the invasive domestic programs enacted in the war on terror, voter suppression), demonstrated dramatic fiscal irresponsibility (the vast majority of the current budget deficit in the United States is because of the policies of President George W Bush; President Obama's share of responsibility for present debt is approximately 20%), Warmongering (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran), have demonstrated a keen interest in maintaining Federal spending (usually in the form of overpriced Defense programs), and showed dramatic preferences towards the ultra rich; A society cannot be healthy with dramatic gaps between the rich and the poor. For these reasons, I do not support, and in fact condemn, the Republican Party that presently exists in the United States, for they have shown themselves to be willing to act in the interest of the nation's citizens. Unfortunately, in their campaigning and stonewalling in Congress, they have also demonstrated a contempt for truth and a willingness to do almost anything to limit President Obama to a single term in office, consequences be damned.

I prefer that the Federal Government be as noninvasive as possible, I prefer gun control solely in the form of weapon registration & denial to proven criminals, and I am pro-life. As I see it, the current GOP is interested in invasive Federal policies in all the wrong places, is keen on leaving gun control strictly as is (gun shows can sell unregistered weapons to anyone), and the majority of the pro-life faction have shown that they'd rather punish people for having and performing abortions than attempt to prevent them from happening. The combination of policy and action including, but not limited to, the examples given above, and embraced by the Republican Party, have very little resemblance to the policies that I feel the United States should be governed by.

This post was made without the use of sources and citations, so it's entirely possible that I am making judgements based on inaccurate recollection of facts; I welcome correction in the form of figures and citations.

Sponk
September 10 2012, 11:44:54 PM
I also despise the concept of a progressive tax system.
Could you elaborate on that?


:words:
Internally-consistent point of view: you are making it.

Diicc Tater
September 11 2012, 06:41:46 AM
as an outsider, the most interesting part of the US elections are the media. I'm used to TV news being forced to make sure each side gets the same amount of time and that they aren't slanted in any direction (they will be fined otherwise).
There is also this thing about the corporate funding and how incredibly important the campaign money are to the success of any one candidate. To someone looking in it appears like any candidate who is on the road to stiffen things up and speak the language of the common american gets shortchanged at the lobby... lobby.
It's fascinating but it's also extremely foreign to me.
The blatant lies of both media and party reps about the other side. The stupid amounts of money needed to make any headway in the race for the big seat. The no less than taliban ideas about abortion, marriage and education (I mean srsly, wtf). How deep the religion is rooted where church and state is supposed to be separate.

It's an awesome, important thing that seems and feels so frightfully corrupted.

Good luck to the US, hope Obama gets some more time. As an outsider it looks a great deal better with his bunch at the helm.
Here in Europe we suffer from racism, far right parties getting some say. Nationalist tendencies in many countries.
When I look at some of the people in the US political scene I don't see that as much but I do see the christian counterpart to the islamic hardcore parties of the middle east. It's fucking scary and weird guys.

So again, good luck.

Rudolf Miller
September 11 2012, 01:38:48 PM
WSJ is noting that post-convention flow went very heavily with Obama, and that his margins increased up to 5 fold in the key battleground states.

First time on that website I've ever seen them posting a picture of Romney with a frown on (besides for the primaries of course).

rojomojo915
September 11 2012, 02:08:02 PM
For what Obama has had to deal with (no party control of congress for most of it and the unwillingness of the parties to work together) he has accomplished a lot. Unfortunately it will probably be that way during his hopeful second term as well.

Also note that the present day Obamacare package is almost identical to the healthcare package that was proposed by Republicans during the 90's Link (http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/06/obamacare_republicans_support_5_issues.php) (there is a better article on this somewhere else, cant find it right now). I understand that ideals can change, but it is amazing how once the other party proposes it, ideals go out the window and it becomes a we must oppose this.

Nicho Void
September 11 2012, 02:34:38 PM
I also despise the concept of a progressive tax system.
Could you elaborate on that?

Ah man, this is probably a different thread entirely, but the super broad top down reasoning is that (imo) progressive tax systems encourage politicians to more or less buy votes by promising tax cuts/breaks/incentives to their target demographic at the expense of others. Dems promise tax cuts for the poor and raises on the rich. Repubs do the opposite. Rather than a cycle of fucking over each group ever few years, taxes should be applied evenly as a percentage of income to everyone. No deductions. Every pays their "fair share" and everyone carries the burden.

Again, super broad. The issue is far more nuanced than the above statement.

Zeekar
September 11 2012, 02:39:55 PM
You do realize that flat tax system punishes the poor more then the rich right?

Nicho Void
September 11 2012, 02:44:49 PM
You do realize that flat tax system punishes the poor more then the rich right?
I disagree, but fine. Let's discuss a VAT or a national sales tax or a dozen different ideas that are less prone to gerrymandering than our current system.

Zeekar
September 11 2012, 02:52:07 PM
You do realize that flat tax system punishes the poor more then the rich right?
I disagree, but fine. Let's discuss a VAT or a national sales tax or a dozen different ideas that are less prone to gerrymandering than our current system.

Feel free to open a new thread discussing taxation systems then, its not proper material for an election thread.

Pattern
September 17 2012, 04:57:55 PM
You do realize that flat tax system punishes the poor more then the rich right?
I disagree, but fine. Let's discuss a VAT or a national sales tax or a dozen different ideas that are less prone to gerrymandering than our current system.

VAT taxes are just as regressive. If someone mentioned a flat tax was applied to disposable income, and at 50% with a a whole bunch of other caveats, then I'd probably take it seriously - otherwise get that idea out of my face.

CastleBravo
September 17 2012, 07:44:27 PM
I hate the democratic and republican parties equally, and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils just to avoid throwing my vote away. At some point enough people like me will start voting independent so that we might have a real chance for change.

Aurora148
September 17 2012, 10:30:19 PM
I hate the democratic and republican parties equally, and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils just to avoid throwing my vote away. At some point enough people like me will start voting independent so that we might have a real chance for change.

Unless your electoral system changes an upsurge in people voting for independents would just trend towards handing victory to the person you most dislike.

Tafkat
September 17 2012, 10:39:42 PM
I hate the democratic and republican parties equally, and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils just to avoid throwing my vote away. At some point enough people like me will start voting independent so that we might have a real chance for change.

Unless your electoral system changes an upsurge in people voting for independents would just trend towards handing victory to the person you most dislike.
Unless people who genuinely dislike both parties just man the fuck up and vote for one of the many alternative candidates on the ballot, third parties will remain inconsequential forever. If you sit around waiting for the whole electorate to go "a plague on both your houses" and make the shift for you so that you can happily tag along in their wake, you're probably going to be sitting and waiting forever.

Pattern
September 26 2012, 10:11:52 PM
Breathing life into this thread:

(I know this is salon, but it's really just picking up on something a lot of meta polsters (like Nate Silver) have been picking up on)
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/more_poll_trutherism/
More poll trutherism
Conservatives debate: Is the liberal media purposefully or simply accidentally making Romney look like he's losing?
BY ALEX PAREENE

TOPICS: 2012 ELECTIONS, MITT ROMNEY, POLLINGPOLITICS NEWS,


Mitt Romney (Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)
I’m not sure it’ll amount to anything but today seems to have marked the birth of the sophisticated version of the elaborate liberal media polling conspiracy fantasy.

The silly version (let’s call it “poll trutherism,” which I think Dave Weigel sorta coined) broke out earlier this week, once Rick Perry discovered the genius that is UnSkewedPolls.com. And the silly version is a good enough piece of propaganda for the hackier elements of the conservative media sphere, from the Washington Times to TownHall to WND toFox & Friends.

In this version, the liberal media purposefully skews the polls, making the (secretly winning) Romney campaign appear to be unable to gain ground on Obama, in order to demoralize Republicans, thus ensuring Obama’s reelection. (Even Jim Geraghty is highlighting some conspiratorial claims from a Republican pollster involving Democrats somehow “lobbying” major pollsters to undersample Republicans.)

At the Weekly Standard, Jay Cost weighs in with a much more rational take on the perhaps all the polls are for some reason — who can say — skewed to benefit Obama narrative. He thinks “many polls have, in my judgment, overestimated the Democrats’ standing right now,” but he is careful not to ascribe conspiratorial causes to this belief. He says it’s just that Romney shouldn’t be polling so far behind Obama when independents are evenly split everywhere.

Cost: “Bottom line: You do not get a four-point lead overall with a tie among independents, unless you are squeezing substantially more votes out of your base than your opponent is.” Well, you do if there are more effectively partisan Republicans calling themselves independents than there are partisan Democrats doing the same, which seems to be the case these days. A lot of Republicans are now calling themselves “independents” because a) the national political culture fetishizes “independents” and b) the Republicans have a toxic brand. (Conversely, fewer Democratic voters might be calling themselves “independents” because suddenly they can feel like they’re on a winning team for the first time since 1996.)

Cost again: “One important ‘tell’ in my opinion, is this president’s continued weak position with independent voters, who remain the true swing vote.” Self-declared independents are not “swing voters,” there are hardly any “swing voters” and what genuine, real-life “swing voters” there are tend to be either very politically idiosyncratic or simply completely uninformed about politics. Most independents lean one way or the other.

Jim Geraghty adds some more numbers to Cost’s point, comparing 2008 exit data to 2012 poll samples, which shows the Democratic/Republican “splut” growing in Pennslyvania and Florida — because there are fewer Republicans and more independents. (Geraghty acknowledges as much, saying: “Perhaps conservative or Republican-leaning voters are more likely to flip between identifying themselves as independents or GOP.”)

There’s some data on the subject: Pew says independents are more conservative than before:

As the number of independents has grown, the ranks of the independents include more moderates and conservatives. Currently, 18% are moderate independents, 11% are conservatives and 8% are liberals. Six years ago, 15% of the public was made up moderate independents, 8% conservative independents and 7% liberals.

So it’s not just “gut feelings” we have to go on here, there are studies and stuff!

Also, voters who just voted — like ones begin exit polled — are more likely to identify with a party than ones being polled before an election, for whatever reason. (Voters are maddeningly inconsistent.) Here, let Mark Blumenthal explain how pollsters weigh demographics and do the crazy “likely voter screen” voodoo.

I wonder. In the event of an Obama victory, do you think the increasingly widespread belief that the polls — nearly all of the polls — consistently overstate Obama’s lead in every state where he leads will cause conservatives to rethink their liberal media bias-based theory of Republican unpopularity, or do you think it will lead to ever more baroque conspiracy theories about voter fraud and ACORN and the New Black Panther Party?

Close

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Lallante
September 27 2012, 08:46:07 AM
Isnt weighting simply that polling entities best estimate of likely voter turnout on election day?

It seems to me that "unskewing" it so that the data is proportionate to actual representation across the whole electorate is actively unhelpful as you wont get a representative mix actually voting.

Lallante
September 27 2012, 08:47:18 AM
I hate the democratic and republican parties equally, and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils just to avoid throwing my vote away. At some point enough people like me will start voting independent so that we might have a real chance for change.

Unless your electoral system changes an upsurge in people voting for independents would just trend towards handing victory to the person you most dislike.
Unless people who genuinely dislike both parties just man the fuck up and vote for one of the many alternative candidates on the ballot, third parties will remain inconsequential forever. If you sit around waiting for the whole electorate to go "a plague on both your houses" and make the shift for you so that you can happily tag along in their wake, you're probably going to be sitting and waiting forever.

No. If enough people vote for third candidates on a particular political wing (left or right) this merely guarantees a win for the party on the other wing.

Its a shit system, but it can only change by electoral reform not voter behavior.

Tafkat
September 27 2012, 09:02:32 AM
Unless people who genuinely dislike both parties just man the fuck up and vote for one of the many alternative candidates on the ballot, third parties will remain inconsequential forever. If you sit around waiting for the whole electorate to go "a plague on both your houses" and make the shift for you so that you can happily tag along in their wake, you're probably going to be sitting and waiting forever.

No. If enough people vote for third candidates on a particular political wing (left or right) this merely guarantees a win for the party on the other wing.

Its a shit system, but it can only change by electoral reform not voter behavior.
And if you vote for members of either dominant party, you're handing power to people who have strong incentives to maintain systems that marginalize third parties and no incentive whatsoever to implement electoral reform. It's a chicken and egg kind of problem, but at least voting for third party candidates en masse clearly signifies dissatisfaction with the existing system and provides the senior strategists of the major party most closely aligned with your view with an impetus to move towards your position in an attempt to recover your vote.

Tafkat
September 27 2012, 09:06:51 AM
Also, since a fivethirtyeight screenshot was posted earlier, here's the predicted outcome if the election were held today per Nate Silver:

http://i.imgur.com/34SP5.png

Lallante
September 27 2012, 10:09:34 AM
Unless people who genuinely dislike both parties just man the fuck up and vote for one of the many alternative candidates on the ballot, third parties will remain inconsequential forever. If you sit around waiting for the whole electorate to go "a plague on both your houses" and make the shift for you so that you can happily tag along in their wake, you're probably going to be sitting and waiting forever.

No. If enough people vote for third candidates on a particular political wing (left or right) this merely guarantees a win for the party on the other wing.

Its a shit system, but it can only change by electoral reform not voter behavior.
And if you vote for members of either dominant party, you're handing power to people who have strong incentives to maintain systems that marginalize third parties and no incentive whatsoever to implement electoral reform. It's a chicken and egg kind of problem, but at least voting for third party candidates en masse clearly signifies dissatisfaction with the existing system and provides the senior strategists of the major party most closely aligned with your view with an impetus to move towards your position in an attempt to recover your vote.

Strongly disagree. This kind of thinking results in George W Bush or the Tories winning elections.

Tafkat
September 27 2012, 10:56:06 AM
Yes it can do that, but look at the post I was originally replying to - "I hate the democratic and republican parties equally". If someone genuinely believes both options to be equally unpalatable, then they've nothing to lose by voting third party.

Also, given the amount of time you spend sneering at "the left", I rather assumed you to be a Tory.

Tellenta
September 29 2012, 01:08:26 PM
I hate the democratic and republican parties equally, and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils just to avoid throwing my vote away. At some point enough people like me will start voting independent so that we might have a real chance for change.

Unless your electoral system changes an upsurge in people voting for independents would just trend towards handing victory to the person you most dislike.
Unless people who genuinely dislike both parties just man the fuck up and vote for one of the many alternative candidates on the ballot, third parties will remain inconsequential forever. If you sit around waiting for the whole electorate to go "a plague on both your houses" and make the shift for you so that you can happily tag along in their wake, you're probably going to be sitting and waiting forever.

No. If enough people vote for third candidates on a particular political wing (left or right) this merely guarantees a win for the party on the other wing.

Its a shit system, but it can only change by electoral reform not voter behavior.

Independents do win elections from time to time. Granted not presidential ones, but high enough in the political hierarchy to make your statement fundamentally false.

definatelynotKKassandra
September 29 2012, 01:11:57 PM
I hate the democratic and republican parties equally, and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils just to avoid throwing my vote away. At some point enough people like me will start voting independent so that we might have a real chance for change.

Unless your electoral system changes an upsurge in people voting for independents would just trend towards handing victory to the person you most dislike.
Unless people who genuinely dislike both parties just man the fuck up and vote for one of the many alternative candidates on the ballot, third parties will remain inconsequential forever. If you sit around waiting for the whole electorate to go "a plague on both your houses" and make the shift for you so that you can happily tag along in their wake, you're probably going to be sitting and waiting forever.

No. If enough people vote for third candidates on a particular political wing (left or right) this merely guarantees a win for the party on the other wing.

Its a shit system, but it can only change by electoral reform not voter behavior.

Independents do win elections from time to time. Granted not presidential ones, but high enough in the political hierarchy to make your statement fundamentally false.

Do they ever win in elections other than those where the 'real' election is the primary? I.e. where both major parties have a realistic chance of winning. Srs qstn.

Tellenta
September 29 2012, 02:01:16 PM
I hate the democratic and republican parties equally, and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils just to avoid throwing my vote away. At some point enough people like me will start voting independent so that we might have a real chance for change.

Unless your electoral system changes an upsurge in people voting for independents would just trend towards handing victory to the person you most dislike.
Unless people who genuinely dislike both parties just man the fuck up and vote for one of the many alternative candidates on the ballot, third parties will remain inconsequential forever. If you sit around waiting for the whole electorate to go "a plague on both your houses" and make the shift for you so that you can happily tag along in their wake, you're probably going to be sitting and waiting forever.

No. If enough people vote for third candidates on a particular political wing (left or right) this merely guarantees a win for the party on the other wing.

Its a shit system, but it can only change by electoral reform not voter behavior.

Independents do win elections from time to time. Granted not presidential ones, but high enough in the political hierarchy to make your statement fundamentally false.

Do they ever win in elections other than those where the 'real' election is the primary? I.e. where both major parties have a realistic chance of winning. Srs qstn.

Every election cycle both parties have a vaguely realistic chance of winning given generous rounding. On a rare occasion a shining star from an independent party gets the votes. Usually only for a term or two but it happens. However in the context of a presidential election I would only see a third party possibly winning if the republican party fractures giving birth to a party that accepts moderate republican views over the insanity it currently courts.

definatelynotKKassandra
September 29 2012, 02:07:36 PM
A Democrat winning the election for Governor of Texas is a realistic possibility? Or a Republican winning Mayor of Baltimore?

Edit: actually I just checked, and the last D governor of Texas was in the nineties. So I guess it is an unlikely but not completely out there possibly nowadays. I would have guessed it would have been in the 60s. So there you go - learn something new every day.

Tafkat
September 29 2012, 02:50:35 PM
A Democrat winning the election for Governor of Texas is a realistic possibility? Or a Republican winning Mayor of Baltimore?

Edit: actually I just checked, and the last D governor of Texas was in the nineties. So I guess it is an unlikely but not completely out there possibly nowadays. I would have guessed it would have been in the 60s. So there you go - learn something new every day.
Actually, with the growing hispanic population, Texas is in line to become a swing state in the next decade or two. Demographic changes are going to force the republicans to tone down their more overt racism/immigrant bashing at the very least if they want to remain competitive there (and they really really can't afford not to be).

Tellenta
September 29 2012, 03:17:07 PM
A Democrat winning the election for Governor of Texas is a realistic possibility? Or a Republican winning Mayor of Baltimore?

Edit: actually I just checked, and the last D governor of Texas was in the nineties. So I guess it is an unlikely but not completely out there possibly nowadays. I would have guessed it would have been in the 60s. So there you go - learn something new every day.

Being a democrat is a more malleable definition when compared to being a republican. It's one of the reasons why having a democrat majority in congress doesn't automatically mean a democratic president can cram through party line legislation. Not everyone toes it.

edit: which is by no means a bad thing a party of yes men only leads to horrible things.

Keorythe
September 29 2012, 11:23:06 PM
A Democrat winning the election for Governor of Texas is a realistic possibility? Or a Republican winning Mayor of Baltimore?

Edit: actually I just checked, and the last D governor of Texas was in the nineties. So I guess it is an unlikely but not completely out there possibly nowadays. I would have guessed it would have been in the 60s. So there you go - learn something new every day.
Actually, with the growing hispanic population, Texas is in line to become a swing state in the next decade or two. Demographic changes are going to force the republicans to tone down their more overt racism/immigrant bashing at the very least if they want to remain competitive there (and they really really can't afford not to be).

The problem there is that if immigration reform occurs or someone actually gets a decent guest worker program going, the Latino population will start to move away from their immigration vote leaning and start focusing more on their core beliefs. For all intents and purposes, Latinos are heavily religious, family oriented, and fiscally conservative. Latinos voting Democrat has always been an act of pure self betrayal. Yet when they are allowed to vote on a topic that won't change immigration status such as the referendums in California, they flip sides.

Again, if there is immigration reform, you may see the voting demographics of a number of red and blue states change really fast.


Being a democrat is a more malleable definition when compared to being a republican. It's one of the reasons why having a democrat majority in congress doesn't automatically mean a democratic president can cram through party line legislation. Not everyone toes it.

I have to disagree on your flexibility stance there. We've seen our fair share of RINO's and there have been several Republican governors in very blue states. Ironically, Romney was one of them. Although it seems that the Dem's in Red states get there based on fiscal issues while the Repubs get there on social issues. Compare someone like Olympia Snow (R) to Claire McCaskill (D).

Pattern
September 30 2012, 06:32:13 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/28/us/politics/now927/now927-blog480.jpg

definatelynotKKassandra
September 30 2012, 08:28:41 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/28/us/politics/now927/now927-blog480.jpg

Where do those figures come from? Surely they can't be counting postal votes and releasing a running count as they go?

Aurora148
September 30 2012, 08:39:27 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/28/us/politics/now927/now927-blog480.jpg

Where do those figures come from? Surely they can't be counting postal votes and releasing a running count as they go?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Its a model which uses individual state's polling data and national polling data, then weights it using things like probable turnout and economic performance.

Dorvil Barranis
September 30 2012, 09:15:43 PM
The problem there is that if immigration reform occurs or someone actually gets a decent guest worker program going, the Latino population will start to move away from their immigration vote leaning and start focusing more on their core beliefs. For all intents and purposes, Latinos are heavily religious, family oriented, and fiscally conservative. Latinos voting Democrat has always been an act of pure self betrayal. Yet when they are allowed to vote on a topic that won't change immigration status such as the referendums in California, they flip sides.

Again, if there is immigration reform, you may see the voting demographics of a number of red and blue states change really fast.

So if the Democrats deliver immigration reform, the latinos will abandon them and start voting like the social conservatives they are? Is Romney dressed in brown face more in touch with the economic interests of the poor then a democrat could be? (Obviously not all Latinos are poor, but http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0695.pdf shows they have a lot more representation in the lower end of the scale then the upper.)

Qwert
September 30 2012, 11:02:21 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/28/us/politics/now927/now927-blog480.jpg

Where do those figures come from? Surely they can't be counting postal votes and releasing a running count as they go?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Its a model which uses individual state's polling data and national polling data, then weights it using things like probable turnout and economic performance.

Note that that is the "nowcast"

Their actual prediction for the election is quite a bit less one sided than that, because it adds in the economy projection among other bits:

http://onebit.us/x/u/qwert/WF5CwX9Bs2.png

Tafkat
September 30 2012, 11:21:32 PM
The problem there is that if immigration reform occurs or someone actually gets a decent guest worker program going, the Latino population will start to move away from their immigration vote leaning and start focusing more on their core beliefs. For all intents and purposes, Latinos are heavily religious, family oriented, and fiscally conservative. Latinos voting Democrat has always been an act of pure self betrayal. Yet when they are allowed to vote on a topic that won't change immigration status such as the referendums in California, they flip sides.
Two problems with this. First, you assume that there will be no residual hostility to the republicans - that you can shit on a group of people from on high for decades then announce you've changed your mind and immediately have bygones be bygones. That's pretty unlikely. Second, hispanics are far more likely to describe themselves as liberal than the average american (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/v-politics-values-and-religion/).

e: also, toning down the immigrant-bashing won't do the republicans any favors in terms of energizing their current base.

Don Rumata
October 2 2012, 01:53:37 AM
For all intents and purposes, Latinos are heavily religious, family oriented, and fiscally conservative. Latinos voting Democrat has always been an act of pure self betrayal.
I agree. No matter how much I try to explain to the guy who cuts my lawn all the benefits of reducing capital gain taxes and the need to support Israel, her never seems to get it.

Traitor.

F*** My Aunt Rita
October 2 2012, 04:36:15 PM
For all intents and purposes, Latinos are heavily religious, family oriented, and fiscally conservative. Latinos voting Democrat has always been an act of pure self betrayal.

It bears repeating that this wrong and Tsubatai's link is why. They are absolutely more liberal than average and even more so for the younger generations. GG for republicans though, who thought you could never build a political coalition out of people who want "whites only" and non-whites.

Aea
October 3 2012, 05:30:56 AM
For all intents and purposes, Latinos are heavily religious, family oriented, and fiscally conservative. Latinos voting Democrat has always been an act of pure self betrayal.

It bears repeating that this wrong and Tsubatai's link is why. They are absolutely more liberal than average and even more so for the younger generations. GG for republicans though, who thought you could never build a political coalition out of people who want "whites only" and non-whites.

Frankly the one one of Keorythe's bullets worth considering is religiousness. "Family Orientated" is nothing more then a code word (as is "Family Values") for traditional religion (and a whole slew of other issues). Fiscally conservative isn't really relevant since the GOP hasn't been at all fiscally conservative unless it supports another agenda for over a decade.

ValorousBob
October 9 2012, 09:41:05 PM
A Democrat winning the election for Governor of Texas is a realistic possibility? Or a Republican winning Mayor of Baltimore?

Edit: actually I just checked, and the last D governor of Texas was in the nineties. So I guess it is an unlikely but not completely out there possibly nowadays. I would have guessed it would have been in the 60s. So there you go - learn something new every day.
Actually, with the growing hispanic population, Texas is in line to become a swing state in the next decade or two. Demographic changes are going to force the republicans to tone down their more overt racism/immigrant bashing at the very least if they want to remain competitive there (and they really really can't afford not to be).

On this note, Texas could become a swing state in the next election if the Democrats actually had a devious side. With the massive rightward shift of the Republican party, moderates like Romney are vulnerable to challenges from radical fringe parties like the Constitution Party, which has some crazy evangelical as their candidate for 2012. If the Democrats successfully ran a false flag operation urging people to vote for a "true conservative" or a "true evangelical" like the Constitution Party candidate, they could probably win some swings states with just the "Ralph Nader effect".



Two problems with this. First, you assume that there will be no residual hostility to the republicans - that you can shit on a group of people from on high for decades then announce you've changed your mind and immediately have bygones be bygones. That's pretty unlikely.

Keory is definitely right on some issues, but in general, Tsubutai's point above can't be emphasized enough. There's a reason Democrats annihilate the GOP among the black community.

Victoria Steckersaurus
October 12 2012, 05:06:35 PM
Two problems with this. First, you assume that there will be no residual hostility to the republicans - that you can shit on a group of people from on high for decades then announce you've changed your mind and immediately have bygones be bygones. That's pretty unlikely.

Keory is definitely right on some issues, but in general, Tsubutai's point above can't be emphasized enough. There's a reason Democrats annihilate the GOP among the black community.

I'm going to poke around and see if I can find the article, there was one just a few days ago discussing Romney's unprecedented level of support among blacks: 0%. Bush and McCain at least polled in the single digits and even in the low 10's.

Bingo, found it. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/ifill-black-voters-romney/index.html?hpt=op_bn6)

The short version is that, on top of being shat upon, targetted in racist ads, and disenfranchised, they're also unhappy with the fairly clearly racist indignities lobbed at Obama over the last four years.

I think the GOP will eventually try to find a way to court blacks, but not until it finds itself becoming completely irrelevant as its old white (and frequently racist) voter base dies off. Then they will decide that it's worth potentially alientating the racists in order to gain the support of the minorities - or not-so-minorities at that point.

TheManFromDelmonte
October 23 2012, 10:25:08 AM
As it's a bit quiet in this serious thread, here's Charles Stross on "Chefs in a city under seige"

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/index.html



Not only is there no news here (the election of Mitt Romney will not stop the drone strikes in the tribal territories of Pakistan), there's not even much of a competition. The statisticians have been calling this 2:1 for Obama for the past nine months.

No, it's not a dead certainty. The election is Obama's to lose: he can screw up completely at one of the staged candidate debates, for example. He could be caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. A random event elsewhere on the planet, suitably mis-handled, could blow up in his face. But it's hard to see Mitt Romney coming up with a convincing argument for why he should win—a hitherto-concealed positive that will pull the undecided voters towards him. US presidential elections are usually decided by macroeconomic factors anyway, and favour the incumbent. There is no natural drama to this process.

Which is why the news media are becoming increasingly desperate to shovel the sizzle at us, regardless of how little steak there might actually be. They're chefs in a city under siege, and whatever the pompous cordon bleu menu might say, they're trying to serve you a dog.


As I said in the OP "I think people are only interested in this boring event for the shitposting".

ValorousBob
October 24 2012, 07:28:54 AM
So what you're saying is, the 24 hour news cycle is one giant plus-one megathread of shitposting.


I can dig it, yo.

Synapse
October 25 2012, 10:55:41 PM
I wanted to coallate my political views into one place, and why not post that publicly. So far as I can tell, most of my positions are disliked by both parties.

Policies
Repudiate the presidential claim on power of assassination, at least of american citizens
Cease drone strikes in foreign countries, relying on navy seals or just not attacking otherwise
Use policy to heavily incentivize new business creation
Prosecute the root causes of the banking crisis and jail people for it if at all possible
Take a hard line on nuclear proliferation, further reduce US stockpile to show we're serious about it, invent some heavy carrots (free power plants, free agrigulture systems, free roadbuilding, nothing military, use savings from military reductions to do this)
Support high speed passenger rail development on both coasts

Investments
Cap defence spending at double the combined spending of all potential enemies
Save further money by removing global military bases from areas that don't need our protection (Europe shut up no one threatens you)
Crucial reform of medicare/social security, to reduce cost
Subsidies:
Less farm
Less auto industry
Less financial industry
More new business
More science
More tech industry
More energy
More graduate/postgraduate education

Initiatives
Cease all domestic spying and wiretapping programs, and prosecute those who have done so against the law in the last 15 years
Reform the banking system so as to avoid a new crisis
Reform immigration by removing ridiculous caps and focusing on the potential of immigrants
Include a temporary migrant worker scheme in immigration reform
Initiate a non-binding bi-partisan commission on electoral process to find ways to eliminate or mitigate risks of electronic vote fraud

I'm sure I forgot some. These are just off the top of my head.

Lallante
October 26 2012, 09:21:20 AM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.

Also you should add "introduce a healthcare system like that of every other developed country in the world".

Zeekar
October 26 2012, 09:25:09 AM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.

Also you should add "introduce a healthcare system like that of every other developed country in the world".

Lallante: "I will support everything as long as it doesn't affect me!"

Lallante
October 26 2012, 10:01:04 AM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.

Also you should add "introduce a healthcare system like that of every other developed country in the world".

Lallante: "I will support everything as long as it doesn't affect me!"

What? I can and do support similar policies to these in the UK, and as a higher rate taxpayer I can assure you they do affect me.

Zeekar
October 26 2012, 10:16:35 AM
I was taking a jab at you for being a part of the rich and not wanting them persecuted in regards for the financial crisis.

Tafkat
October 26 2012, 10:53:38 AM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.
Acting like these people bear all (or even a significant fraction) of the responsibility for the crash is absurd. Borrowing money you cannot repay is dumb, but the same goes for lending money to people who manifestly cannot repay it or packaging up giant piles of those retarded loans into securities and then pretending some fraction of those securities are reliable and credit-worthy investments.

Lallante
October 26 2012, 10:59:17 AM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.
Acting like these people bear all (or even a significant fraction) of the responsibility for the crash is absurd. Borrowing money you cannot repay is dumb, but the same goes for lending money to people who manifestly cannot repay it or packaging up giant piles of those retarded loans into securities and then pretending some fraction of those securities are reliable and credit-worthy investments.

Meh, the crisis was a perfect storm of ineptitude and poor decisions not some evil act of manipulation.

Synapse
October 30 2012, 05:08:06 AM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.
Acting like these people bear all (or even a significant fraction) of the responsibility for the crash is absurd. Borrowing money you cannot repay is dumb, but the same goes for lending money to people who manifestly cannot repay it or packaging up giant piles of those retarded loans into securities and then pretending some fraction of those securities are reliable and credit-worthy investments.

Meh, the crisis was a perfect storm of ineptitude and poor decisions not some evil act of manipulation.

Lall still trollin? but since tsubutai is in on this I'll reply.

We're also forgetting the further failure of rating said packages AAA.

I have no problem with jailing people for ineptitude and poor decisions when the consequences are great.

Its possible regulation is so poor that none of that ineptitude and stupidity was illegal, in which case I'd like the regulators found and fired at the least or potentially proescuted for not regulating. You can always walk it back to someone.

Did I not add a total reform of the banking regulations? I thought I did.

Lallante
October 30 2012, 01:47:15 PM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.
Acting like these people bear all (or even a significant fraction) of the responsibility for the crash is absurd. Borrowing money you cannot repay is dumb, but the same goes for lending money to people who manifestly cannot repay it or packaging up giant piles of those retarded loans into securities and then pretending some fraction of those securities are reliable and credit-worthy investments.

Meh, the crisis was a perfect storm of ineptitude and poor decisions not some evil act of manipulation.

Lall still trollin? but since tsubutai is in on this I'll reply.

We're also forgetting the further failure of rating said packages AAA.

I have no problem with jailing people for ineptitude and poor decisions when the consequences are great.

Its possible regulation is so poor that none of that ineptitude and stupidity was illegal, in which case I'd like the regulators found and fired at the least or potentially proescuted for not regulating. You can always walk it back to someone.

Did I not add a total reform of the banking regulations? I thought I did.

You'd probably jail italians for failing to predict earthquakes then I take it?

lubica
October 30 2012, 04:01:13 PM
unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.


Just bolded the cognitive dissonance in your troll. As if the lenders were forced to give bad loans to people they could have checked out to see if they could repay those loans or not. There are certainly enough cases per year where people intentionally misrepresent their income to get a better loan, but these things were happening on a systemic level and thus the blame cannot go on the collective shoulders of the borrowers. All the people and corporations (and people in those corps) involved in the mess should be held criminally responsible, period.

cheeba
October 30 2012, 05:31:11 PM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.
Acting like these people bear all (or even a significant fraction) of the responsibility for the crash is absurd. Borrowing money you cannot repay is dumb, but the same goes for lending money to people who manifestly cannot repay it or packaging up giant piles of those retarded loans into securities and then pretending some fraction of those securities are reliable and credit-worthy investments.

Meh, the crisis was a perfect storm of ineptitude and poor decisions not some evil act of manipulation.

there was certainly ineptitude and poor decisions, but there was most certainly manipulation and crookery by several financial institutions.

Goldman and certain other city firms made off like bandits. I would say props to them but alot of it was through the dodgiest of proprietary trading that in hindsight was incredibly improper but just about legal.

Remember $5b of the $700b coughed up by congress (fronted by Rahm Emanuel, a GS alum) to save the banks went straight to GS as money owed. Their earnings the season following the crash were 3x the previous year, and in early 2009 GS employees received an average bonus of 475,000 each.

So yeah, GS and others knew they were selling shit. They were just smart enough to wash the brown off their hands by the time the music stopped and the lights came on.

ValorousBob
October 31 2012, 08:10:28 AM
Cease drone strikes in foreign countries, relying on navy seals or just not attacking otherwise

I think you meant drone strikes in NEUTRAL countries, but a lot of people want them gone completely. I take issue with this. Many liberals don't like drones and it's a huge error in framing. Drones are just cheaper, safer, more efficient fighters/bombers/CAS/whatever. It irritates me when people say "drones are bad" because that's fucking retarded. Drones are awesome, but the White House/Pentagon have been using them in ways that cause a lot of civilian casualties.

cheeba
October 31 2012, 09:12:02 AM
Cease drone strikes in foreign countries, relying on navy seals or just not attacking otherwise

I think you meant drone strikes in NEUTRAL countries, but a lot of people want them gone completely. I take issue with this. Many liberals don't like drones and it's a huge error in framing. Drones are just cheaper, safer, more efficient fighters/bombers/CAS/whatever. It irritates me when people say "drones are bad" because that's fucking retarded. Drones are awesome, but the White House/Pentagon have been using them in ways that cause a lot of civilian casualties.

Also, people have been watching Homeland.

Isaah :emo:

Ophichius
November 1 2012, 03:03:01 PM
Cease drone strikes in foreign countries, relying on navy seals or just not attacking otherwise

I think you meant drone strikes in NEUTRAL countries, but a lot of people want them gone completely. I take issue with this. Many liberals don't like drones and it's a huge error in framing. Drones are just cheaper, safer, more efficient fighters/bombers/CAS/whatever. It irritates me when people say "drones are bad" because that's fucking retarded. Drones are awesome, but the White House/Pentagon have been using them in ways that cause a lot of civilian casualties.

Safer. Sure. More efficient and cheaper? Maybe if they were flying something the size and heft of an A-10 air frame that could carry a full load of munitions. As-is they're basically toy planes with a couple missiles strapped on. Two hellfires isn't enough for any sort of serious CAS. Great for picking off a couple of targets and then fucking back off to the base, i.e. airborne assassination. Which is how they're largely used. Most CAS is still done by piloted aircraft bringing a real weapons load on target.

Drones as they currently stand are not viable replacements for the CAS, bomber, fighter, or interceptor roles. The only role in which they currently (sort of) serve is COIN, and even then they're outperformed on an economic and munitions load basis by stuff like the A-37, OV-10, or Super Tucano.

Drones in the future might eventually be viable fighter, bomber, or CAS replacements. But not now. Right now they're overly expensive, glorified war toys that deliver less bang for buck than tested alternatives. Give 'em back to DARPA to polish up and buy some Super Tucanos for COIN.

-O

Lallante
November 1 2012, 03:13:35 PM
Implying targetted assasination is not more effective than and replacing CAS

Synapse
November 2 2012, 02:24:43 AM
I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.
Acting like these people bear all (or even a significant fraction) of the responsibility for the crash is absurd. Borrowing money you cannot repay is dumb, but the same goes for lending money to people who manifestly cannot repay it or packaging up giant piles of those retarded loans into securities and then pretending some fraction of those securities are reliable and credit-worthy investments.

Meh, the crisis was a perfect storm of ineptitude and poor decisions not some evil act of manipulation.

Lall still trollin? but since tsubutai is in on this I'll reply.

We're also forgetting the further failure of rating said packages AAA.

I have no problem with jailing people for ineptitude and poor decisions when the consequences are great.

Its possible regulation is so poor that none of that ineptitude and stupidity was illegal, in which case I'd like the regulators found and fired at the least or potentially proescuted for not regulating. You can always walk it back to someone.

Did I not add a total reform of the banking regulations? I thought I did.

You'd probably jail italians for failing to predict earthquakes then I take it?

No but I very much wish I could jail them for voting Berlusconi

ValorousBob
November 2 2012, 07:41:17 AM
Cease drone strikes in foreign countries, relying on navy seals or just not attacking otherwise

I think you meant drone strikes in NEUTRAL countries, but a lot of people want them gone completely. I take issue with this. Many liberals don't like drones and it's a huge error in framing. Drones are just cheaper, safer, more efficient fighters/bombers/CAS/whatever. It irritates me when people say "drones are bad" because that's fucking retarded. Drones are awesome, but the White House/Pentagon have been using them in ways that cause a lot of civilian casualties.

Safer. Sure. More efficient and cheaper? Maybe if they were flying something the size and heft of an A-10 air frame that could carry a full load of munitions. As-is they're basically toy planes with a couple missiles strapped on. Two hellfires isn't enough for any sort of serious CAS. Great for picking off a couple of targets and then fucking back off to the base, i.e. airborne assassination. Which is how they're largely used. Most CAS is still done by piloted aircraft bringing a real weapons load on target.

They're more efficient/cheaper because the types of missions we're sending drones on are wasteful to use an A-10 on. The drones can stay on station MUCH longer (literally hours), are more accurate, use less ordinance, and can perform intel/scouting duties when they're out of missiles. You're right, two hellfires isn't enough, which is why they developed a smaller missile called the griffin for use on drones. It has a smaller blast radius to limit collateral damage, and I *think* they can carry twice as many griffins as they could hellfires, but I'm not sure. I don't know how much CAS uses drones versus piloted jets, but that's not really the point. Drone technology fills a niche that wasn't really filled before, and enables planes like the A-10 to stick to missions they're better suited for like annihilating larger vehicle convoys, large groups of enemies, or leveling compounds.


Drones as they currently stand are not viable replacements for the CAS, bomber, fighter, or interceptor roles. The only role in which they currently (sort of) serve is COIN, and even then they're outperformed on an economic and munitions load basis by stuff like the A-37, OV-10, or Super Tucano.

Drones in the future might eventually be viable fighter, bomber, or CAS replacements. But not now. Right now they're overly expensive, glorified war toys that deliver less bang for buck than tested alternatives. Give 'em back to DARPA to polish up and buy some Super Tucanos for COIN.

I mostly agree, except for giving them back. Me writing "fighters/bombers/CAS/whatever" was more because I didn't really know what to call their role. OTOH I don't think they *might* be more viable for those roles in the future, I think it's almost inevitable.






I can support most of that except prosecuting those "responsible for the banking crisis", unless you plan on prosecuting the poor people who took out mortgages they knew they couldnt afford to service.
Acting like these people bear all (or even a significant fraction) of the responsibility for the crash is absurd. Borrowing money you cannot repay is dumb, but the same goes for lending money to people who manifestly cannot repay it or packaging up giant piles of those retarded loans into securities and then pretending some fraction of those securities are reliable and credit-worthy investments.

Meh, the crisis was a perfect storm of ineptitude and poor decisions not some evil act of manipulation.

Lall still trollin? but since tsubutai is in on this I'll reply.

We're also forgetting the further failure of rating said packages AAA.

I have no problem with jailing people for ineptitude and poor decisions when the consequences are great.

Its possible regulation is so poor that none of that ineptitude and stupidity was illegal, in which case I'd like the regulators found and fired at the least or potentially proescuted for not regulating. You can always walk it back to someone.

Did I not add a total reform of the banking regulations? I thought I did.

You'd probably jail italians for failing to predict earthquakes then I take it?

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I don't think anyone's talking about jailing a bunch of people who failed to predict the whole house of cards falling down, we want to jail the people who saw it was a house of cards and kept giving out the shitty loans anyways because they were making a ton of money. Now not all the bankers who gave out shitty loans are necessarily in this category, but some of them clearly knew it was wrong and just didn't care.

Tafkat
November 2 2012, 07:04:25 PM
So, here's a contention: if Obama wins on Tuesday, he will kill the Republicans' chances of ever electing another president with their current big business/traditional conservatives/religious right/tea party coalition. The overwhelming likelihood is that the US economy will continue its slow but steady rebound over the next four years (this was actually a key component of Romney's plans, as discussed in the 47% video - 12m new jobs are expected over the next four years essentially independent of government policy), creating a lot of good will towards Obama similar to that enjoyed by Bill Clinton towards the end of his second term. That leaves the way clear for Hillary to take her second shot at the nomination. Obama's in her debt for her turn as SoS and for the way Bubba's been stumping for him during this campaign, so she'd be running with the support of two popular former presidents who can gee up specific key demographics plus she stands to inherit Obama's campaign machinery/GOTV apparatus and has a near coimplete lock on the female vote. There is no credible Republican who could challenge her if she remains in good health, which carries us through to 2020, at which point demographic changes have removed the Republican stranglehold on many of the southern states. Without the ability to take Texas for granted, the electoral map is effectively unwinnable for the republican party - there just aren't enough angry white guys out there to sustain them.

Victoria Steckersaurus
November 2 2012, 07:46:13 PM
While Clinton would be supremely qualified at that point, and could probably manage it, I don't see her running again in 2016. She already went though one long primary campaign and then spent 4 years as SOS. Another primary would suck.

I am hoping/praying that your first premise holds up:

if Obama wins on Tuesday, he will kill the Republicans' chances of ever electing another president with their current big business/traditional conservatives/religious right/tea party coalition.

This should work, but there's always the chance that big businesses will be willing to keep buying the support of the others in order to have their own personal policitical party. If they can hold it together, then we just have to wait for the demographic shift to hurry up and turn the south blue again (or at least competitive).

Personally, I want to see both parties fracture, the centrists get together, the tea party become their own thing, and few actual liberals in the Democratic party get together, and give us three parties to work with. It's not going to happen, but it'd be nice.

Ophichius
November 2 2012, 08:07:49 PM
Personally, I want to see both parties fracture, the centrists get together, the tea party become their own thing, and few actual liberals in the Democratic party get together, and give us three parties to work with. It's not going to happen, but it'd be nice.

Basic mathematics says no to a three party system with our current voting methods.

-O

Victoria Steckersaurus
November 5 2012, 08:19:20 PM
Personally, I want to see both parties fracture, the centrists get together, the tea party become their own thing, and few actual liberals in the Democratic party get together, and give us three parties to work with. It's not going to happen, but it'd be nice.

Basic mathematics says no to a three party system with our current voting methods.

-O

I am aware. It makes me sad.

Although it's mostly because of the "vote for third party is a vote for the candidate you like least" problem. My ideal would be a centrist party that takes a big enough bite out of both the democrats and republicans to win outright, such that a vote for them is just that.

Not gonna happen just yet, but maybe if the republicans impolode/explode/fracture we'll get a centrist party out of it.

Synapse
November 5 2012, 08:32:30 PM
Personally, I want to see both parties fracture, the centrists get together, the tea party become their own thing, and few actual liberals in the Democratic party get together, and give us three parties to work with. It's not going to happen, but it'd be nice.

Basic mathematics says no to a three party system with our current voting methods.

-O

I am aware. It makes me sad.

Although it's mostly because of the "vote for third party is a vote for the candidate you like least" problem. My ideal would be a centrist party that takes a big enough bite out of both the democrats and republicans to win outright, such that a vote for them is just that.

Not gonna happen just yet, but maybe if the republicans impolode/explode/fracture we'll get a centrist party out of it.

Forget exactly what it's called but a multi-stage primary election involving all parties, then then 2 party runoff, a-la france, is supposed to be the solution. Allows third parties to compete without eating into votes because it always comes down to the final pair.

ValorousBob
November 6 2012, 03:02:52 AM
Instant run off is the most common solution proposed in the US, but from your explanation it seems you might be asking about non-instant run off.

Pattern
November 7 2012, 08:22:40 PM
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/young-voters-obama-victory.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Evelgrivion
November 7 2012, 08:44:40 PM
It looks like the participating portion of the US population in the 2012 presidential election was around 38%, give or take. Participation among the population that's old enough to vote looks to be over 50%, but it's impossible to say by how much as yet.

TheManFromDelmonte
November 7 2012, 08:51:05 PM
I'm afraid I'm too stupid (or not-a-mod) to change the title, but well done Obama.

http://isnatesilverawitch.com/