13,971 Forum Posts by "gumOnShoe"
Missed this, sorry for the double post:
At 8/12/11 07:53 PM, TheMason wrote: I wish I could find it, but there was an interesting article by a political statistician that modeled mid-term elections as a predictor of a president's re-election and his findings showed that it really is a good model. The one outlier was Clinton's 1996 victory, however Clinton did not win a plurality because their was a major third party candidate (Perot) so once controlled for this he found that a massive mid-term loss bodes very poorly for the incumbent president or incumbent party (in years their is no sitting president running).
Be that as it may, the Republican party is in flux. Its not the party it used to be when these things happened. Statistics are only observed trends. As predictors they can be wrong.
Also, Wisconsing is a pretty interesting situation. Here you have the Unions, a major part of the Democratic base, pushing for the recalls and pouring a lot of time and money into ousting six suppossedly vulnerable Republicans. In the end:
Wisconsin is weird. Recall was about unions, but then none of the candidates mentioned unions. It was all talking points and it was a pretty bad election from all sides.
And again, local elections turn out different people than national. We'll see.
The big story with Wisconsin is that it now puts the state firmly into play as a battleground state for 2012. It used to be safely Democratic, but with the Republican take-over in 2010 and victories in the recall election and re-election of a state supreme court justice...it has now joined the ranks of swing states. Furthermore, there are efforts afoot to recal Walker. If the Unions and Democrats succeed in forcing a recall election and lose...it could mean major trouble in 2012. Especially if Obama comes to stump for the Democratic challenger.
We'll see. I think there's a good chance that Walker has pissed enough people off if recall is even on the table.
With all due respect, I don't really think this makes sense. An integral reason why the Republicans did so well was dissatisfaction with Obama. It's the same reason the Republicans lost control of the Congress in '06. Yeah the president's party loses seats in mid-term elections...but when it is a historic rout of the president's party I think that is a pretty good sign the electorate is upset with the president.
It does make sense. But on a different level. If you look at all of the last elections since 2 years before the end of Bush's term they have all been giant swing elections from one end to another. The people aren't voting for a particular ideology, they are voting people out. The question is, in the end, whether enough people believe Obama needs voted out. I'm not sure. A lot of the people who didn't vote for him are solidified against him because they view him as the source of all their problems. And there have been some turn coats.
But anyone who really takes a good look at what Republicans are doing, who has a someone decent grasp of math, knows their path is a dead end that really will lead to bankruptcy. So, we'll see. I'd like to bet on American intelligence. But, there stands Perry.
Obama is either facing Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, or Ron Paul.
If you can't see why Obama would be able to face down almost any of those, then meh. Romney is the one Obama would have the hardest time with. Rick Perry is going to drive Republicans further to the right. Bachman?? Bachman. And Ron Paul, well, he appeals strongly to a minority of voters.
Unelectable isn't the word I use to describe Obama right now. This is looking more and more like Clinton V Dole.
At 8/10/11 10:45 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't know. The 2010 mid-terms handed Obama his ass and last night's Wisconsin recall election (as well as their last Supreme Court election) handed the Union's theirs. I think this signifies a huge dissatisfaction and disappointmen with Obama.
Not really. Just that the right really came out during a congressional election that most voters generally stay home for. Obama wasn't on the ballot and the democrats didn't get the vote out. Now, I'm not saying that's not a danger. But statistically the kind of people who voted for Obama are more likely to vote during the presidential election than during the 2 term representative elections. Which isn't saying much for voters anywhere.
This was more about the ability of the tea party to get their representatives elected than anyone being really upset with Obama.
Time will tell. I won't claim Obama is an amazing president, but he's better than bush.
At 8/10/11 11:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Like i said it doesn't invalidate your argument. Just wanted to point out that as of the polling dates themselves, Paul and Pawlenty, respectively.
Actually, I forgot the link I was comparing against. My mistake afterall:
My points should at least make more sense now.
The *Republican* brand is better off than Obama right now. But Republicans are fractured between candidates. And certain candidates bring in different middle of the road voters. When you actually do a head to head matchup, Obama comes up on top of every single one of them right now:
Romney, who currently has the most support of a Republican (but has only won over 20% of republicans) loses by 3-4 percentage points. And Perry (who's nuts) but comes in at 15% of the support (ie next popular) loses 37% percent to 49.2%.
So, right now, Obama is in better position.
A lot of liberals are upset with him. We've been talking about wanting a better president for a long time. But, ultimatley, Bush convinced a lot of us, we'd still rather vote for the horrible right of center democrat than a crazy nut like Perry or Palin.
At 7/29/11 07:12 AM, BeechSK8R wrote: It's a giant game of poker and after every round all the "little billionaires" are let out of their posh cages to play chess.
It's not ACTUALLY a problem. The money and work didn't suddenly vanish.
And yet more irony, they don't play poker with their money, they play it with ours when we put it in the banks. Its a perfect system.
A: Hey, I'll hold onto your money for you, you can come to me later when you want it back.
B: What are you going to do with it? How will you keep it safe?
A: I'm going to Vegas!
B: That sounds like a horrible plan.
A: It is, for you. But for me it won't matter. And the government has guaranteed your savings, so don't worry about it. Neither of us lose anything.
B: Wait, don't I pay taxes?
A: Shit, gotta catch a plane, bro.
At 7/29/11 07:10 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: We are already in a recession.
No, we aren't. We left the recession 2 years ago. A recession requires you to post negative growth for two quarters I believe and we've (outside the public sector) been doing the opposite. Sure, we haven't been having a hard core recovery, but things are going up slowly, not down (even housing has turned around for the last 2 months). Its an economic misnomer that the recovery is part of the recession. The recession is the free fall part of the deal. Everything that sucks following isn't considered part of the same entity.
At 7/29/11 07:08 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Then after the 401ks recover
yeah, I meant to say crash... lol
Tuesday, if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the stock market is going to crash and we're going to be sent into another recession. When that happens 401ks are also going to plummet. Last time they lost a large percentage of their value and they've never really recovered.
Then after the 401ks recover, the republicans are going to insist on cutting entitlements like social security and the elderly are going to get completely fucked.
That's called irony. Because Republicans want to cut entitlements, they are going to crash the private savings of individuals and then cut the savings from the government.
This isn't really political. Its economics. Its humor. Its frankly hilarious if you've got any sense of dark humor.
In short, give your soon to retire grandparents a hug cause they ain't getting much else in the future.
At 6/11/11 06:17 PM, adrshepard wrote:At 6/11/11 03:47 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: how the hell do you defend that.If the person's bills are being paid by the state, and his condition is terminal, and expensive procedures only delay the inevitable for a few weeks or month while he's a vegetable, that's how.
These aren't the death panels people were upset about. In these cases, the medical futility of treatment is the main issue, whereas the feared death panels were driven purely by cost and not medical judgment, since the health system would be rationed.
& Rydia
I completely understand that there are advanced situations where the state is paying all the money and there is no hope of life and the person is no longer beneficial to society. I understand that there is a difference between killing someone and letting their body decompose as it would naturally without intervention. It isn't murder in my opinion.
However, it does offend a lot of people, and the Republicans went on for 3 or 4 months about this fake legislation the democrats weren't proposing. They used it as a tactic to bring down Obama's approval and stall congress. And it worked. The sad thing is, they already passed the law in Texas. And it wasn't make believe then.
This facepalm moment for me was all about the hypocrisy.
This is about to be one hell of a face palm moment. You ready? Put foam on your desk in case you should happen to crash face first into it upon reading.
Back when Obama wanted to pass health care reform, Palin and other right wingers went on and on about "death panels." At the time, this was a gross misunderstanding of dr & patient conversations about end of life plans. Basically, talking about exit strategies. If you have cancer do you want to be hooked up to life support or go to hospice? That kind of conversation. The idea is that every person might not want to be a vegetable for the rest of their life. But, the law never said there would actually be a panel reviewing whether people should live or die. It was supposed to just enforce a conversation between patient & doctor.
The media blew it up and a lot of conservatives used it as evidence to hate the bill.
There never really was a death panel though... or was there? There wasn't a death panel in Obama's legislation. On that point we are clear, but there is death panel legislation out there. And its actually at the state level. In the heart of conservative territory.
And it was signed in to law by none other than George W. Bush.
Texas of all states has death panels.
I just... :( wow...
Her *facts* don't really match up with reality either; let alone the nursery rhyme.
Yes, Revere was going out to protect what was basically a colonial arms depot. But he did it as silently as possible. He was one of two people who did it; and he was a well respected silver smith at the time. I don't know where she got the bell; if not from some sort of fudged story.
The thing is; this is *supposed* to be some sort of educational trip for her. What it really is, is a media stunt to get more attention. I think media sluts (I'd use that term for Trump willingly as well), deserve any negative attention they get.
Her whole tour has been a half hour at any given site where she signs some autographs, takes a few pictures and then gets back on the bus. Her aides hint to a few journalists where she's going next so no one gets lost. Its all a stage. So, when she can't even get a loosely planned media stunt to work right; it shows that she lacks ... well ... a lot.
This is nothing new. I wish they'd stop giving her attention in any situation. But she does keep asking for it.
Herman Cain has made some remarks about not trusting Muslims to hold any office in the government and he also has said he wants to go back on the gold standard. Loony just about covers that guy...
My dad works for a sporting goods store, up in corporate for their hunting department. The rumor that goes around, and it may be more or less than just that, is that rifle hunters fear that with a crossbow all the game will be gone before their season opens. There are a lot of people who hunt with guns, and they have a lot of weight because of it. When you can use the cross bow during bow season, they think that'll give the bow hunters an unfair advantage over them.
Weird, I know, as they are using rifles, and its a very me over them argument, but its apparently the argument that is made every year. Obviously my dad wants the restriction dropped. One, he like to hunt with all of the weapons available, and two he'd like to be able to put more merchandise in the store.
Tell J to take the $ from the fam and go find Ds in his new suite.
Screw the family ethics.
But, yeah, anyways I don't know. It sucks to be gay in America to a certain extent, but I can't help but think some of this drug use is getting in the way. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that's just my upbringing. I've got my own vices, but they don't kill me or my brain little measurable bits at a time.
At 5/11/11 12:47 PM, Minion777 wrote:At 5/11/11 12:45 PM, Lorkas wrote:What?
Dude I'd be worried if I were you, since you have:
Blams: 18,012
Saves: 22,959
I think what he's trying to say is that your pixels are at risk. Your pixels are higly dependent on the arrangement of certain bits in your specific row of a SQL table. Clearly Lorkas believes that your both your bits and pixels are at risk and that you ought to really care about this serious issue.
Lost bits are nothing to laugh at, and just think of the damaged pixels. They'll never shine so brightly ever again.
I don't think huffing paint does much for you mentally. And J wasn't apparently that in to open relationships. Sounds like a fucked up situation at best.
A sound mind > $ + love.
At 5/9/11 10:26 AM, Evark wrote: Stick it out with the old company and start making moves for your next thing NOW. You can get your paid days off, not care about a phantom extra $500 over the course of the next year (especially presuming you don't take a pay cut when you move on to the next opportunity), and you won't have your Europe travel plans destroyed or horribly maimed.
Unless there's a factor I'm failing to grasp or otherwise am missing entirely? Seriously though, don't compromise a trip to Europe! I went to Rome and Venice last year and it was so worth the week off without pay that I took (already used my PTO week in the summer to spend it on Nantucket).
The department I work for, one level above my manager is my future father in law. He's the one initiating the entire move. That's the factor that I left out this morning. When he goes, there will be little reason to keep my department where I am. There's a good chance the company I work for will fire me on the spot. Not great, but good. They will need someone to wind things down with their clients or to transfer work to other offices, but long term there's no reason to keep me on.
Unfortunately I have certain requirements that need to be met by whatever job I take. I went to a pretty expensive school, so there's debt to be worried about that I can't just shrug off. And I don't know how it is out where you are Evan, but here there's only so many opportunities for employment, and most of them don't pay nearly well enough. That said, I am going to start sending out my resume tonight.
Ah newgrounds, full of angsty teens. If I tickle its dirty belly, will I find wisdom or moldy belly button lint? Lets find out.
I work for a company. It will remain unnamed. The entire department I work with has the "opportunity" to leave and do the same job for another company. There's some risk staying where we are, but more risk for any single individual that stays where he is if the rest of the group goes. $500 additional per year is the benefit for going over to the other company.
Honestly, if that were the situation I'd just go over. But there's more.
I have 17 PTO days I've acquired for an all expenses paid June - July trip to Europe. Amazing, right? I know.
If I go over to the other company I lose all of those days. The company I work for will decide whether they want to pay me for the 17 days. There is no guarantee that they will or won't. I only get 12 days at the new company for the rest of the year. I'll be short 4 days for a 16 day trip.
I can either take that time and not get paid and not have the money to pay back on my debts (school loans, car, rent, utilities) and have 12 days to use for the rest of the year as I expected I'd be able to. Or, I can soak up all of that time, get payed for 12 of them and not have another day off the rest of the year, and still make a little less than I would have.
In the end I'll be down $500. Additionally, it is not likely I'll stay with the new company. I've been planning to leave the old one anyways. So if I take the time off and leave early, I'll owe the new company all the time I took off as PTO. At that point I'll be down about $2000 to $4000 depending on how everything swings. (but at least I'll have a job, lol :( )
Life as an adult sucks. I'm here to ask the innocent and unmaimed what they think I should do. Also, pictures of goofy animals may cheer me up.
At 5/6/11 07:47 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 5/6/11 07:21 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Communism, if it is to succeedCommunism cannot succed, see my first post in this thread.
Communism can't succeed if it is to be managed by a big bureaucratic government. I'd agree to that any day of the week. There's no argument to be had there. And of course people need to have incentive to work. And so the answer is actually a strange variant mix of communism and capitalism. People most be rewarded for the work they do. The question is, is it possible to be rewarded in ways that don't lead to money "pooling" or where money can literally be created out of thin air without devaluing anything but still giving incentive to work. Crazy, yes. But when the demand is no longer an issue and supply & cost to produce are all that matters things change.
The scarcity issue must be solved first. I'm not sure that it can be solved, but if it can be solved incentives and freeloading don't matter so much.
The best way to do this is to bring the new community to the real world. Overlay the social networks with topography maps and GPS on the real world. Let communities rate each other real time and set their goals in real time. Let them share information at will. In this way communism will rise up outside of government, and possibly eventually replace it.This...is just bizarre.
:D This...is the future.
Where we're going, we don't need roads.
I'm sure computers would look and sound bizarre to someone in the 1800s, just as cars did to people in 1800 & 1700 hundreds & planes. but it happens....
Communism, if it is to succeed must be embraced by the community and built for the community. The best way to do this is to bring the new community to the real world. Overlay the social networks with topography maps and GPS on the real world. Let communities rate each other real time and set their goals in real time. Let them share information at will. In this way communism will rise up outside of government, and possibly eventually replace it.
People aren't willing to vote for Nader, if it means getting Bush II all over again or worse, and many believe the tea party is worse, so this is what happens.
At 5/3/11 10:12 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Well, yes. Republicans are more likely to be white, and whites are more likely to be Republican. So what? It looks to me like they didn't correct for income, and I'd bet income would explain a lot of this. People vote in their own self-interest, and minorities are more likely to be poor and culturally opposed to doing what is necessary to get out of poverty.
At 4/30/11 03:43 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:Again, this is about culture and income. People who are above poverty level are more likely to be individualistic, and faith, as opposed to the broken (cf. Hume) Enlightenment holdover of glorifying reason to the point of faith, is... er, wait, the Enlightenment was a white people thing, and atheism is still mostly a white people thing, so I'm not sure if I quite understand what you're on about.At 4/30/11 03:11 PM, Korriken wrote:I thought about going that route, too. The other way would've been to link to this . . .
. . . and wonder if that describes a certain skin color-type preference. Honey attract bees, s'all I know.
I disagree with your general idea here. Republicans and Democrats are mostly divided by Rural/Urban lines. Suburbia tends to be a mix, but still has a higher Republican rate on average (if I'm remembering correctly). While you do have a racial divide between those two settings as well, you have to remember that there are plenty of poor white people out there that vote republican.
I think most of it is that you have different lines of communication. Groups in suburbia & rurality are more insular. Their beliefs are often less challenged by their group, and most of their information comes from within the group. People in Urban cultures also have a bit of that but they are bombarded by close information all the time. Consider that the newest generation is decidedly more "liberal" than the older generation. What's the difference? The old generation didn't have the internet maybe?
I think most of the lines are drawn by what sources you have access to and which ones you believe trustworthy. White people, by location, generally choose the same sorts of information. Overlay that with any xenophobic views the average white person has and you get a more full formed picture.
That said, most republicans are actually poorer white people. And most of them are very religious. I don't want to say all of them use religion as a crutch, but I know several that do. And they carry that blind faith and "i know everything" attitude into politics. The few I'm thinking of in particular hold racist views as well, though they'd never own up to being racists.
There's something else going on, and its more to do with style of life. You live out in suburbia & rurality and you'll have more of a "get on by myself" attitude. You live in urbania and you'll be relying on others to get along often enough, be it networking to get a job or just living and being around others all the time. Each lifestyle is likely to influence your views in a specific way.
At 4/26/11 01:38 PM, Coop wrote:At 4/23/11 09:57 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Nothing to move/remove poison counters yet? Won't be long.Well, either no-one's talking about who won the war, either because we're not bothered, or because we're trying to avoid the topic and the spoilers that comes with it. A new block out soon, then we can get on with our lives and proper Magic once more >:(
Well the good news is that Garfield (the original creator of magic and dude who worked on Ravnica) is working on Innistrad (the next block).
Also, we get to see jace 2.0, titans, squadron hawk (probably) and stoneforge mystic rotate out in october, which should help standard at least...
btw, splinter twin went up to $10 over the weekend. :(
Mod banning usually happens with de-modding first... The gold aura is like totem armor if anyone still plays magic. Some mods just sac their auras. ;)
I'll nerd somewhere else now.
At 4/30/11 04:11 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:At 4/30/11 03:41 PM, Warforger wrote: Just because they're part of the population doesn't mean they vote.I agree, but if I were a Republican strategist, I would be targeting this area of the population, seeing how fast it's growing and how much support could be generated from this group. Ignoring such people could be harmful down the road.
Too much of "the base" is concerned about "anchor babies."
At 4/30/11 03:01 PM, Korriken wrote: *head scratch* funny, putting words in my mouth.
Remember where 2/4 of your reasons for Obama winning were race related? Oh yeah....
I rest my case. I love how liberals love to use words like "phobia" bleh.
What case? You haven't fucking made a case.
I never said Obama was not an american. His mother, in life, was an american citizen, which makes Obama a natural born american citizen... or at least, to my knowledge.
Remember our "Real American TM" discussion?
AKA, Palin loves the "REAL" America? Or, Obama hates America, or isn't patriotic or some such nonsense?
Obviously, if you think like them, you're one of them. Problem is, people are taking the small "birther movement" and trying to plaster all of Obama's opposition with it. as if "there is no logical base for anyone to oppose this man, they must all be a bunch of stupid ignorant rednecks."
I'm not doing that. But I am saying a lot of people don't justify why they don't like Obama based on policy, and that always boils down to being the same thing as Birtherism. "Trust," "Patriotism," "Eligibility," and many "Experience" arguments rest on the same flawed base position.
not really. He signed an executive order within days of being elected and didn't touch it since. He knew from the beginning gitmo wouldn't be shut down, where would we put the prisoners?
You missed the attempt to relocate them to Indiana, which Republicans shut down. And you must have missed the attempt to try them in civilian courts in NY City, which Republicans shut down again.
There was only 61 of them in the senate... 2 or 3 of em went rogue and screwed the whole thing up for Obama.
One died (Kennedy). Not his fault and had to be replaced.
A couple "blue dogs" aren't really democrats at all, they're like your "RINOS"
And Lieberman might as well not be a Democrat at all because he broke ranks to make John McCain feel better.
Democrats (for change) never had a majority.
Hope was "ooh a president that wants to achieve bipartisanship!" what did we get? business as usual. so much for "hope"
Eh, I don't think anyone voted for Obama to get biparticism. But, even now Obama's trying to be bipartisan. Maybe you missed the spat this last week. Boehner finally talked about getting rid of oil subsidies. Obama sent him a letter and say, draft something up and we'll do it. We'll cut several billion from the budget right now. I think that's a great idea. Boehner turns around and says "Sorry, can't do that, it'll raise gas prices. Which it won't.
Working with the republicans for the last two years has been like this. Republicans help with health care, then they pull the footfall. Republicans suggest Cap n Trade in the 90s, then pull the football. Republicans say they want to help small businesses, then they veto a small businesses bill. Republicans say they want to cut the deficit, but they won't do it anyway the democrats are willing to.
You can't have Obama be the only bipartisan person on the field.
It was already on people's minds. That didn't change.
Not as something that was big and needed fixing it wasn't.
Well, every president does SOMETHING right.
lol, "its just something buthe'sstillnottransparent" amiright?
Preventing the opposition from having a say is pretty vulgar. Of course, if either side gets a big enough laptop supermajority, we'll be in for 2 years of single party rule. Neither side is really innocent of that.
They had their say. It was broadcasted live on c-span. They turned against it at the last minute because Boehner wanted opposition. He wanted power over solutions. Don't let government do anything. Democrats look bad. Republicans get elected. TA DA!
well, except when they told the republicans to go fuck themselves and shut the doors. C-span wasn't let in either.
After republicans said they weren't going to vote for the legislation they helped write, Democrats said "go fuck yourselves" as they ought to have done and passed a watered down bill that could get past blue dogs.
It was barely touched on. If Jeremiah Wright got as much attention during the election that the names of fallen soldiers got in the beginning to middle of the iraq war, Obama would have been finished.
Except it was a non issue because the two men are completely different people.
Palin saying that Africa was a country and that she could see Russia from Alaska got more coverage.
Meh that was probably a day's worth of coverage. The problem was she had a new slip up almost ever day (Catie's Interview much?) and she became an easy target and there was always something new to report about or make fun of. We all knew who Obama was by then, but know one knew who Palin was...
given the long span of time he spent in the church, upwards of around 20 years. To say that he doesn't agree with him is just absurd. You don't go to a church and listen to a pastor that you don't agree with for such a long time. Common sense tells you that much.
I doubt the pastor was preaching about 9/11 before it happened. And I've listened to a preacher say plenty of dumb stuff without switching where i went. Sometimes, wait for it, you can listen to a position and disagree with it!
well the media isn't controlled by the people. Also, people are selectively blind. Jeremiah Wright WAS a big deal to Obama's opposition. To his supporters, they willfully ignored it to focus on Palin saying Africa is a country.
The people are the media. Wright wasn't on the ballot.
Obama would streak through town wearing nothing but a swastika cape shouting "death to the jews" and there would be people out there who wouldn't see that as a reason for him to resign.
I'd call for it immediately. Stop it with the straw men.
Umm... I dunno... I mean presidential candidate having a racist pastor that he went to for 20 some off years is a non issue to you, so, I can't really see McCain's age (which was harped on all the way to election day) as that big of a deal. given that he is, in fact, still alive, shows you were worried about nothing.
McCain is a senile man. It was more to do with that than age. Also, you can see presidents undergo a lot more stress than other people. How he is now isn't how he would have been.
I never said 96% of all blacks turned out to vote, TWICE. you still stuck on that.
You said this:
you're just one person. You gotta look at the bigger picture. 96% of black people voted for Obama? hmm. I wonder if that had ANYTHING to do with the color of his skin?
And I was confused by what you meant. But go to the other topic and see just how many black people are actually republicans, then think about whether that's necessarily black people being racist or possibly indicative of Republican Racism since Dems & Reps switch places in the middle of the last century.
Yep... you voted for a lie, but you didn't wanna vote for a lie, but you would gladly do it again so long as the liar is a democrat. good job.
I'd gladly not vote for Palin over and over. Obama wasn't the best. He wasn't a real liberal. He's been a pushover. I'd rather have a real liberal option. But so long as the other option is Palin and her ilk, I'll keep voting to keep them out of office.
Meh, depends on where you live I suppose.
Mayhap.
Obama - "That's what I will do in bringing a...
It would appear that was an obvious lie.
Except, it wasn't. Because they actually did do that. I was just out of school and job hunting and I watched several of the sessions live. They didn't stop doing it until Republicans decided they weren't going to work with Democrats to pass anything. And in many of those sessions Republicans had been wasting time all along.
The republican plan: don't legislate. Make dems look bad. Get elected again.
At 4/29/11 09:49 AM, Korriken wrote: it was a factor, but not the only factor. and I never denied that white racists have anything to do with it. what I'm saying is that white racism isn't as rampant as the media makes it out to be.
No, what you were trying to say is that "reverse racism" gave Obama the election. Which I don't believe. And I've given you plenty of reasons. I'm glad you admitted that it wasn't the only factor, now maybe you can raise yourself up just a little more and admit its unlikely racism on its own decided the election. You can do it. I don't have much faith that you will, but I know its a possibility.
in that case, everyone is a xenophobe.
What FUNKBrs said, with an addendum.
There's xenophobia, and then there's xenophobia, its on a continuum. Some people let it rule their lives & decisions and others don't. In the end its often used to justify certain things, but xenophobia itself is rarely a good excuse. Its an excuse of convenience & habit. Its a way of saying "I have a reason" without ever providing one base case or piece of actual evidence.
He's not American! go from there.
you do realize the birthers are a small group right? of course not, the media tells you they're the entirety of the right wing and that only the left wing are sane. Yeah, in the beginning there are people who doubted Obama's birthplace. He could have had released his long form birth certificate right then and shut them down and made them look like fools. Instead he waited 2 years. Now they wanna know what took so long.
I know birthers are a small group. The number of people that make excuses for them? Or who think like them in a different way?
And no he couldn't release the long form. The state law of Hawaii says they aren't allowed to distribute copies of the long form, probably because of identity theft. Obama had to ask for a special stipulation, and he had to take time out of his day to do it as he had to personally request it. Why bend to an obvious minority when you don't have time for it? I know, he did it now, but only after be harangued for two years and having trump trying to make it an election topic.
that and the It's easy to notice that the "birther" movement also don't like his policies.
Then why not leave it at that? Because its easier to demonize that with which you disagree with.
He was elected on a lie. "Hope and change!" "We're going to be the most transparent administration in the history of this country!" "I'm shutting down gitmo in a year!"
Eh, made an effort at Gitmo. Failed to make it an issue and push it through. Priority wise I can understand why it took a back seat. Hope & Change. I always knew that was a load of horse shit. There weren't enough hope & change people running for congress at the same time. Without congress the President is a mouth piece. A lie? Maybe. Wishful thinking & campaigning? Pretty typical. I think Reagan & Bush also promised hope and change. BTW, we did get change and in my opinion a tiny bit of hope. Hope = no palin. Change = health care now on peoples mind.
what did we get? None of that. Nothing has changed, party politics still running rampant, the administration is just as secretive as any other. that and Gitmo is still open.
Its not as secretive actually. Most of that transparency had to do with lobbyists, which now are recorded publicly whenever they visit the white house so you know who's coming and going.
No, what we got is one of the most vulgar first years in office with the healthcare bill and the giant cloud of secrecy that was around it.
vulgar = opinion
The debates on health care were largely broadcast on c-span for all of america to watch. You know, that boring channel that's usually on station 2 or 4?
you mean when they waited for months and then only played a suppressed, watered down version. If the media had focused on jeremiah wright the way they focused on McCain's age, Obama's political career would have been utterly destroyed. Of course, Obama says, "I never heard him say anything like that." and not one person said, "bullshit, man you were there for 20 years and you never ONCE heard him say ANYTHING like this?" they just ran with, "Obama said it, so it must be true!"
lol, what rose tinted glasses will yield. The Jeremiah stuff lasted for about a month and a half in the early summer of the last year of the election. In election politics & news thats a fucking long time.
And I still fail to see how one man's opinions that have been renounced taint Obama to such a degree. If the comments had been that poisonous he wouldn't have won because they wouldn't have died out. Clearly enough people didn't care.
you miss the point. the point is, in the media, Bush's around $50m inaugural party was "vulgar wasteful spending in hard economic times" fast forward to Obama around $150m part in much harder times, "Its glorious! its magnificent!" hang on now. I fail to see how Bush's party can be vulgar when Obama's was 3 times the cost in much harder times and not be criticized much harder than Bush's.
And Fox took up the other narrative. The narrative was out there for anyone who cared about such things. I think its a non issue, myself.
When it comes to real issues though, if you think the coverage was worse for McCain or Bush, did you stop to think that maybe there was actually more of substance to criticize at points?
you missed the joke,
Again, thanks FUNKBrs & a reiteration. I didn't find it funny. Those are jokes my old man makes in restaurants that make me want to dip my head and sigh.
oh so, since I'm not gay and turned down your offer for gay sex I'm a homophobe.
I clearly explained that "Fuck You" as I uttered it didn't mean I wanted to have gay sex with you. I'l just reference you back to the list of things you can go do with your life.
I love how you distort what I say. I never said 96% of the voters were black, or that 96% of the black population turned out to vote. Even you should know that by 96% I was talking percentage of the black population who did go vote.
Well that's wrong too, it was more like 65% turn out
did you by any chance happen to vote for Obama?
yup, and I would again when presented with Palin/McCain. Any day of the week, any time of year WWIII or a mountain of Bunnies on the horizon.
Given the first year of his presidency and what all went on before the republicans got a few members in to put the kibosh on Obama's massive majority, I'd rather take my chances with trump.
You would, but every moderate I've talked to hates Trump as a president. Every one of them. He's convinced the base of the republican party, but I don't even know if that means anything anymore. If you want to be a "base" republican the points are all outlined them you just have to repeat them over and over again.
"Small government, reduce the debt, business, no taxes, abortion, america was better, ahchacha"
Let's see you defend him on THAT point.
I have no desire to. The law that was eventually modified was written on CSpan. The back door negotiations flared up when it became pretty apparent that republicans were just going to be oppositional and set fire to their own plans, as the did and have continued to do. Everything that Obama passed was a Republican idea from the early 1990s. I know you're too young to remember that. I was pretty young myself, but there's records of it if you're willing to look it up.
Also, I find it funny that you think "transparency" means "be a republican and let republicans do what they want"
Also, I don't think the internet had anything to contribute.
At 4/28/11 06:02 PM, Korriken wrote: Some? SOME? The media dug hard and deep for any perceived sign of racism they could find. some even went so far to say that "Racism could cause Obama the election". Which to me sounds like an attempted guilt trip to vote for em. Yeah, some white people are racist against blacks. Of course, there are just as many people who refused to vote for McCain because he was white. no one ever mentions that. Its a widespread thing down here in Louisiana. The mayor of my hometown only wins elections because of his skin color (and its not white btw) the black majority in this town makes DAMNED sure white people stay out of local politics... unless they have deep enough pockets to throw the right amount of money in the right way, and even then its only so long as a prominent black person doesn't want the position.
Well the black majority in your town is not the majority of Americans. And while you're whining that Obama was elected because of his race, and you're holding up a minority of people as evidence and yet denying that white racists have anything to do with it I'm laughing at you because you're a total contradiction. You're an example of an individual being willfully blind.
But I also remember Republicans going on and on and on about "Real Americans"had nothing to do with race.
No, it has everything to do with xenophobia which is the real issue here. You brought up race and I don't think he was elected due to race so I could give a shit about racism. Xenophobia is the intolerance of someone who you deem to be different from you, be it for racist, bigoted, or other reasons.
Obama either wasn't the right kind of Christian, or was too black, or too white, or too liberal or what have you. Or he wasn't American enough. It all came down to the same thing, some people didn't like him for some reason other than his policy objectives and the deigned to think that was good enough without realizing they were being fucking ignoramuses.
And those people are birthers and people like birthers. They're the people who say they don't like him because there's something they can't name that makes them not trust him.
While you sit there and say Obama won because of race, I sit here and say you're full of shit. He won because the Republicans put up a piss pore candidate, who in turn put up an even pissier candidate and because Americans like "hope" and "change" over war war war.
so? people are people and some people are stupid. doesn't mean everyone on the right of a bunch of bigoted idiots, though that is what the left and the media want you to think.
And it doesn't mean everyone on the left voted for him because he was black you fucking idiot.
I'll give you that some people didn't vote for him because he wasn't a conservative that shared their views. I don't mind saying that, but you said he won due to the race card and race as two whole points. If you don't understand how that could possibly wrong and how that could possibly make you look like a fucking dick, then I can't help you.
There will always be one dissenter. Fox is only 1 network.
And yet how many news stations played that Reverend Wright shit? All of them?
There were plenty of other networks that weren't so cheery on Obama. But most of the negativity from the news was focused on Palin, who didn't know that Africa was a continent and whose foreign policy credentials is that she can see Russia. Scccoooofffffff.
I'll just leave this here
Petty is as petty does. I never cared much for criticisms against bush with vacation time or parties...
I don't play for that team.
As in go to hell. Go fuck yourself. You are a low life piece of shit. Eat vomit and die you fucking biggot?
Help you understand what I mean homophobe?
you're just one person. You gotta look at the bigger picture. 96% of black people voted for Obama? hmm. I wonder if that had ANYTHING to do with the color of his skin?
There wasn't even a 96% turn out rate in the black community. Stop pulling numbers out of your ass. And Black people generally vote democratic anyways. I'm not saying there wasn't a higher turn out in the black community, and that it didn't help, but urban centers already swing democratic and it wouldn't have changed which districts Obama won that much. He had support outside of that community or he couldn't have possibly won.
BTW
Overall, whites2 made up 76.3% of the record 131 million people3 who voted in November's presidential election, while blacks made up 12.1%, Hispanics 7.4% and Asians 2.5%
I kinda hope not, but It couldn't be much worse than 4 more years of Obama.
But it could be. I'd rather have a mediocre guy who doesn't like to piss people off than a guy who burns bridges and purposefully lies to get his way. What kind of president is that? A guy who only care about himself. That'd be no good for this country or our place in the world.
That is a very good point. Actually, You just hit the nail on the head. Trump is in this for himself to head off tax hikes that will harm his business. that's my new theory on it.
Lol, no. Its to give himself more money, mostly by making people know his name and brand more so that someone walks into Macy's and buys a suit or tie with the word "Trump" on it. If he managed to get elected and rig the system in his favor that'd be bonus points for him. Chances are he won't run. He'd have to reveal too much about his finances and his business. He won't do that if he thinks he'll make more money by holding onto everything he has. A president's salary isn't much compared to what he supposedly has.
Sycophant vs Sycophant. next year is gonna be fun!
Eh sycophant's not the right word for Trump. Narcisist is the word I was looking for. Obama may actually be a bit of a sycophant the way he bows down to the right all the time...
but are they more afraid of Trump or more afraid of reelecting Obama? world's going to hell and we're here to see it off. wave big now.
Most people are more afraid of Trump. Obama's a known entity. We know what the worst is he's willing to do. Republicans know how to handle him. If it came down to it, Obama would win against Trump. I have doubts on this.
I'm just trollin :P. Personally... I feel the need to run for president myself. Shit's gotten too out of whack. I think a person like myself would make for a damned fine president
...
At 4/28/11 07:16 AM, Korriken wrote: Bush was connected politically, but, Obama had 4 things doing for him.
1. Timing. the wars, economy, and media's 8 years of pounding on Bush put the republicans in a position that a stale bags of corn chips could have beaten them in an election.
I'll grant you timing, if you grant me that Bush was a pretty bad president with some of the things he perused that I mentioned earlier in the thread. Any Democrat following Bush probably would have won. In fact, Obama had a close race until McCain picked Palin. I remember some democratic organizers I knew calling the race in McCains favor in August because they couldn't see how Obama could make up the points needed to win. I think Palin is one of the main reasons Obama won. People chose the *not crazy* person to go to the white house.
2. media. they praised and worshipped Obama like.. well... some sort of political gift from heaven. Not to mention the media protected him and even went so far as to throw out an entire deck of race cards, first against Hillary, then against McCain.
There was some use of race in the election. But I also remember Republicans going on and on and on about "Real Americans" and I remember some fairly racist campaign stops where Republicans were hurling racial epitaphs at Obama. I don't buy that Obama was 100% protected by the media. Frankly, all Fox News did was rail against him. Unless you're admitting Fox News isn't "News."
3. Race. yes I said it.
Fuck you?
No, sincerely, from a guy who voted for Obama for almost every reason I could think of, and never once did race enter the equation.
Fuck you.
4. one hell of a teleprompter writer. You never saw him without when he was campaigning and of course the media made damned sure to stay silent on the issue.
Yeah, whatever. I'm not going to overly defend a guy who's reneged on so many things he said he'd do on the campaign trail. But teleprompters aren't exactly new to politics. Every politician has been using them or note cards since their invention. Maybe you missed out on speech/debate class, but its a standard thing for public speaking to have a reference on you. For a guy doing speeches every day of his life, whose scrutinized left and right, it is strategic to have such a thing in order to stay on message, and I'll say that for republicans as well.
The only reason you keep bringing this up is because Palin wrote basic fundamental points she should have been able to remember in magic marker on her hand, for a short interview.
You never can tell. People said Obama didn't stand a chance.
People were saying Obama was an interesting guy 2 years before he showed up. That was calculated. People didn't know who he was. For Trump its something else. Everyone knows his name. Everyone recognizes him. It makes for a very different situation.
Could he be elected? Sure. Reagan the actor was elected. Should he be? God, I hope not.
Or maybe he's just a liberal plant put in there to derail the election and make sure Obama wins.
That would require trump to care about more than something other than Trump. I don't buy it.
Nah, he's trying to gin up attention for himself, his show, etc. He did the same thing in the 80s and didn't follow through. Yeah, he's got some liberal background, but he's a sycophant. He'll do anything to get more attention, increase his ratings, and make more money. He'll drop out just before he has to declare. If he doesn't, I will be genuinely surprised. Then I'll watch him lose. I know more moderates that are afraid of Trump than are afraid of Palin, and what does that tell you?
yeah, how dare someone not have a liberal platform...
He's not fiscally conservative or socially conservative. So I don't know what platform he's running on in all honesty. Its not liberal, but I wouldn't call it conservative either. The guy's been pro-abortion, pro-universal health care, etc.
