Post-Election discussion thread Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
Couple good columns: Chuck Krauthammer today: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333030/way-forward-charles-krauthammer "The country doesn't need two liberal parties. Yes, Republicans need to weed out candidates who talk like morons about rape. But this doesn't mean the country needs two pro-choice parties either. In fact, more women are pro-life than are pro-choice... Tuesday's exit polls showed that, by an eight-point margin (51-43), Americans believe that government does too much. " I think it is nice for American's to speak of wanting a smaller government, but are we ever really going to have to stop subsidizing Big Bird? I don't know if Chuck is right or not. I worry you are right , the people have been bought with their own money. But Chuck does give me some hope. ITMT: www.anncoulter.com is probably the most correct. More than anything, Tuesday proved that incumbency is powerful. After all the debates and money spent, we largely re elected what we already had. | |
I look at the American right wing wing trying to blame everything else other than the fact that their policies were so crap that they outweighed opposing a weak president with a weak economy, and I find it delicious. The electorate is stupid; the electorate has been bribed; a few idiots made silly comments relating to abortion; incumbency advantage, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever needs to be said to pretend the Republican platform wasn't really rejected. This is perhaps no surprise when the Republican noise machine is so busy telling its supporters bollocks. As long as it continues mangling polls, facts, science and analysis, it will perpetually be telling Republicans that the world is other than it really is. And when reality bites, Republican voters evidently find little more to do but seek comfort in the same sources that misinformed them in the first place, as if that will solve their problems. Their problems will be solved only because the more grounded, rational party elites will try to drive changes with real information. And they'll be driving that change despite the grassroots, not because of them. | |
Actually S&P, DOW and NAXS are all up ~10% over the last 12 months. http://www.barchart.com/stocks/indices.php Much of this poor performance is a result of loss of confidence in the market by non institutional investors (like me), mainly due to the new two tiered system created by LLT systems.
LOL! Citation required, because boomers still have ~80% of the wealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer#Size_and_economic_impact | |
The exit polls clearly show Romney failed to convince voters that the poor economy was Obama's fault (and not GWB's). Only the gerrymander saved the GOP. http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012/11/07/last-nights-most-amazing-statistic/ | |
I find it funny that Congress had one of the lowest approval rates in history, yet only 3 seats or something like that, actually changed. Which will give us the same situation we've been in for the past two years. I personally think it's going to be an interesting two years until mid-term, especially with the Fiscal Cliff, Iran, etc etc etc that will be coming to a head in the next few years. | |
Gerrymandering is more of a problem at a state level and it is one of the few things that you can legitimately say that both sides do. I just looked at the house numbers in for the last few elections and when you look at it the majority side normally has a benefit of a couple of percentage point (eg. they hold 55% of seats with 52% of the 2-party vote). It does not really have much of an effect at the federal level, it appears that the two sides cancel each other out. It is still a bad thing though, especially when you get down to state level, where you can have stupid events like one party winning 75% of seats with 48% of the vote.
Actually this year had more changes than you would suspect. 13 representatives lost in primaries and 17 lost in the election. On top of that there were also 40 retirements, a handful of which resulted in a change of affiliation. All up you are looking at a change of ~10% in terms of affiliation, although the final net change is almost zero because of cancelling out. What you are thinking about is specifically the Seante (just one part of Congress). They had 2 incumbents lose and 3 affiliation changes due to retirement. There was only 33 seats up for election though. 5 changes out of 33 is a 15% change though, which is quite large. | |
Can we agree that the voters he tended to be unable to "convince" the poor economy were disproportionately in groups outside of white male?
Is Krauthammer correct? That people overall in the USA thinks the government does too much? What are some of the "more grounded" ideas they should adopt? Because right now, a lot of them think they need to embrace amnesty. | |
It was +7D in the house and +2D in the senate overall. The senate result is actually surprising when you consider that this election was for the senate seats caught up in the wave election in 2006 leaving dems defending a far higher number of senate seats, 21D+2 caucusing independents to 10 Republican ones that the expected logic was the Dems to lose at least 2 simply due to where each of these seats were and the amount they were defending. | |
I don't know. But this is my problem with the general standard of US right-wing media. They're so informationally illiterate or mendacious, I couldn't trust them to tell me whether the sun rises at dawn. We might consider, for instance, Krauthammer saying more women identify as pro-life than pro-choice. At face value, this is correct (from memory, according to Gallup). However, what this fact implies and what is actually the case when attitudes to abortion are examined in detail is very different. The cleverest way to mislead is with selective truth. If this is the same thing, then he might be right again at face value. However, the fine detail about how people think government is too big might be very dismaying for the average Republican voter.
Yes, I think that's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect. Of course, the Republicans have also tried it before (GWB, wasn't it?) so it's got form. | |
Interestingly enough, I was going to respond to this, but I found another comment on another site that sums up the GOP demographic problems perfectly:
| |
And if she's single and doesn't bring in enough to pay the bills? Would you rather have her shackle herself to some random guy for the money and so that he can reach tall shelves?
Christ almighty, Gorfias. This is not a men vs. women issue. Plenty of women voted for R-squared and plenty of men (myself included) voted for O-B. Nobody's done the equivalent of buying prostitutes with tax money. Head Start is just fucking daycare, for crying out loud! It's not emasculating you. Stop treating this like an assault on your manhood because women don't have to depend on you to take care of their kids anymore. Or would you rather live in a world where the only way for single moms to take care of their kids is to get hitched with a guy that has money? | |
I would rather she not vote that I am a piece of property to be violently violated for her comfort.
I think you could benefit a lot from doing more research on what a "gender gap" means.
No, having a gender gap of women decide to violate me and take my income for their own uses is emasculating. It is no fun being a slave and treated like a piece of government property.
No, I'd prefer single moms, who want to be single, figure out a way to make things work without committing the immoral act of, basically, stealing from me for their comfort. Fair enough?
Mark Steyn regularly worries that Americans would very much like to stop trying to "defend the free world" stop spending so much on the military, etc. Sorry Mark, but I tend to agree. Establishment Republican hate this line of thinking.
This only has some meaning if my major concern (what the Dems want is impossible and they're going to destroy the country and turn us into Greece x 1000) is unfounded. On a regular basis, I am told by leftists in this forum there is nothing to worry about... have some Koolaid. It still doesn't respond to matters of simple justice: it is wrong, for instance, to force me to pay for another man's kid's daycare. | |
I just watched the first segment on the 07.11.12 Colbert Report and... it's stunning how well his satire mirrors some actual reactions on this forum. Kind of reminds me of the few times The Onion's satire actually turns out to aim too low. | |
It's wrong for me to pay to bomb foreigners. It's also wrong for me to pay to lower your gas prices. Given the myriad of things that taxes pay for, everyone will disagree with how they are used somewhere. But, really, getting upset over day care and calling yourself a "slave" because of it has to be the best example of pointless hyperbole I have seen in quite some time. And as we just finished election season, that covers quite a bit of ground. | |
But bombing foreigners is arguably a function of the state and they can force to you pay for that. Helping socially disenfranchise myself is another matter.
It doesn't much matter anymore. I don't really have much to do but accept my fate. I am a piece of property. Freedom, or the illusion of it, was fun while it lasted. | |
Uhhh... Wow... There's nothing I can say to this. You made an unfounded claim, and then claim it is not unfounded. The idea that Democrats are out to destroy the US by making it a little bit easier to live in, despite all evidence showing it will have the exact opposite effect (see: Most of Europe, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and, hell, pretty much every other democratic nation in the world), is not only unfounded, it is fucking-crazy
As opposed to paying for some other mans war? I'm sorry Gorfias, but the world has changed in the last 50 years, and this kind of "I've got mine, fuck everybody else" is the mentality that is causing America's decline in the world. You need to create an education and economic system that starts earlier in life and is easier on the middle and lower classes later in life than what you currently have. Innovation and entrepreneurship increases dramatically where the consequences of failure are less severe. A nations economy is stronger when people are not terrified that they could loose their job next week and, even if they do, there's a support structure to immediately reintegrate them into a new job. That a strong regulatory system keeps that strength stable and keeps in check the self-destructive impulses of capitalism. And these programs and safety nets grow economies and keep them stable and healthy. It's time that your country grew the fuck up and stop bitching about everyone else and start doing what is necessary to move your economy into stronger direction, or your country will be the next body on the ash heap of history. You've done it before, now do it again. | |
Here...
Most of that is all well and good as long as you do not turn us into Greece x 1000... and that's what is happening. May turn around before it is too late, but in the end, I think people will have much less, owe much more than if they never looked to government to pay their own bills. Greece should be rich. They aren't. I think things will be even worse here. Is I wrote before, subsidized day care, by itself, is a huge topic. Save it for another time. | |
You know what the big part of the solution is there that get's glossed over, but at least gets a mention in the solution part of that? Tax Increases (although refers to it as tax reform). What party has vowed to not only unanimously block any form of revenue increase, but push for deeper and deeper tax cuts with no way to pay for them? I'll give you a hint: they lost mostly on Tuesday.
Greece's biggest problems were that they did not develop their economy and government to promote development (they're are a lot of problems with the overabundance of social programs in Greece, but it's the inverse of the problems with the US where they are not adequate) and a tax system that blatantly failed to collect from the higher earners. Italy had a similar problem and put a technocrat in charge and is on it's way to recovery. Their solution? Deal with the economy first, then deal with the debt. It's easier to deal with the debt in economic good times than it is to deal with the debt in bad times. | |
We cover Viagra/Cialis as part of most major health care policies, but not birth control. I fail to see the oppression against men. If you are offended that men are being outvoted then your problem isn't government, its men. I not sure specifically what you believe the Obama administration is going to buy for women with your tax dollars, but perhaps a specific example that goes beyond a cheap home appliance might be better. Are you saying the government will give them equal pay (Lilly Ledbetter Act) or that women will receive adequate health care for issues that actually affect them? | |
Pregnancy is a disease?
For starters. Man earns $1.15. Woman earns $0.85. Under LL, that should be the end of it. It won't be. Indirectly if need be, they'll transfer 30 cents from the guy so both are receiving $1.00 a piece. I think that a theft action.
I do worry about the politicization of health care. Women already outlive men. I keep reading about funding for breast cancer. Prostate cancer goes unmentioned. Feh. When I'm dead, I won't have to worry about this crap anymore.
That is not an argument that the problem of insolvency does not loom, which is what those on this forum appear to keep poo pooing. | |
Looking at this thread, I don't think anythings gonna get done if the two parties keep on convincing themselves they exist in completely opposite dimensions. Facts, science, statistics, empathy, rational thinking, critical thinking, history and observation tend to have a liberal bias. People on welfare arn't living the highlife for free, Obama didn't hurt the economy, the deficit doesn't work the way Romney and friends tell you it does, and in the information age, I don't particularly see what excuse there is to still believe a campaign defined by lie after lie. | |
I'll admit, I don't know that much about mathematics but I believe that $0.85 + $0.30 =/= $1.00. That's just my liberal opinion ofcourse. | |
Pregnancy can be a disease. | |
I Just... I mean wow. This isn't even political for you anymore, this is all in your head. Somehow you believe that white men are oppressed in this country. Pregnancy isn't a disease but it does require near constant medical care and that is when the pregnancy is not considered "at risk" issues like breach birth a per-clampsia are dangerous to both mother and child. So no pregnancy isn't a disease, nor should it be treated like one. But much like chronic conditions it does require monitoring to ensure that the process remains healthy. Fair pay. I don't know how you can be against fair pay. Is it that you fear the solution will affect your pocket book. Because if that is it then I just feel sorry for you. Your bank account is not more important than equal rights, it just isn't, and if you go on insisting that it is then it just makes you a selfish prick. You want a great America, it has to based on a society of respect and you my friend don't seem to respect the need for the equality of all citizens when it comes to basic inalienable rights. As someone who recently had a colonoscopy at age 31 I can guarantee you that men's health issues are more then well funded and studied. In fact a recent study may have determined that with one clear colonoscopy and follow up blood tests may be all that are needed to detect colon cancer, instead of repeat colonoscopies every year. Otherwise without some sort of site I am going to have to call shenanigans on your argument of "science cares more about women's health then men's. | |
But most of what I've seen you write, that fact has lead you to side with the people who caused that to happen: the conservatives. If the economical future of the US interested you, as you implicitly meant in what you wrote, I'd expect you to be either a very progressive democrat or with that Justice Party. I can't really explain why you'd first worry about the disastrous consequences of half a century of small government conservatism, and then believe the solution is.... small government conservatism.
Anyone who's honest will admit that white men are being oppressed. In fact, them, and atheists, are the only groups against which there's institutionalised discrimination.
Didn't you read my reply last time this came up? Strictly speaking prostate cancer occurs more often, but it is far less lethal than breast cancer. Only a small minority of early agressive cases require treatment, because the median age for getting prostate cancer is so old that you die of old age before it starts to even show symptoms. Breast cancer on the other hand is deadly. If it goes undiscovered for too long you need some pretty agressive treatment for not such a good chance of survival. It should come as no surprise if it's indeed true that more effort is spent screening for breast cancer, which saves lives, than screening for prostate cancer, which is kind of useless because even if they find it, it doesn't require treatment. And you should be aware, men get can breast cancer too. ^_^ | |
No, but Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome is. Take a guess at what's used to help prevent and treat PCOS. Go ahead, take a shot in the dark. Both of my sisters had PCOS, and were it not for the pill, would have developed ovarian cancer due to it, which would have required the removal of their ovaries. My niece just recently had her first birthday. And, y'know what's funny? The only reason my family was able to afford their birth control was because of Massachusetts' socialized state health insurance. Viagra/Cialis help men get an erection, and could potentially prevent prostate cancer. Birth control pills can help prevent and/or treat PCOS and help prevent ovarian cancer. Both have legitimate medical uses, both have frivolous uses. So why should only one be covered? | |
My bad: take .15 from guy, give it to woman earning .85 = 1.00. Hey, I'm having a hard time here!!! My party just got routed!!! *pours more gin* TGIF.
That's rough. I have female family members that need BC pill not to avoid pregnancy, but for such similar matters. But, does it cost about what my prilosec costs? Cuz, in socialist MA, I still have to pay for mine. I'm kinda a health care radical: give me single payer, or give me true free market. I don't think we have either right now.
Do you agree that in the USA, women live longer than men?
Well, at least you aren't arguing that fiscal disaster is all in my head.
And yet, USA women live longer than men, right? Not that it matters. You know the joke. Why do husbands die before their wives? Because they WANT to! Bazinga! Ahhh, I'm not dying yet. I am having another gin though. Happy Friday of a long weekend all! | |
Actually, in Massachusetts, Omeprazole(which is the medical name for Prilosec) is covered under a prescription. I should know, mine is, as is my mother's. But then again, chronic heartburn and GERD can cause ulcers, as well as esophageal erosion, both of which can lead to serious infection or even cancer, so considering both mine and my mother's GERD is of the cripplingly severe variety, it could be covered due to the severity of our symptoms. | |
We all understand that the US is on the brink of insolvency, we disagree on the solution. As a non American businessman I find it astounding that one political party can remove one of the only two avenues to prevent this looming fiscal catastrophe (revenue increases). But you do understand what will happen if the US defaults? US wages will decline in real terms, as the US currency value crashes due to quantative easing (printing money to pay the interest). Conspiracy theorists would argue this is a plan to equalise US wages with those in Asia, thus allowing US manufacturing to compete again. All it will cost is the US worker's standard of living...(and your pension if you live in places heavily invested in US dollars like Japan) | |
Do you take more than the OTC 20 Mgs per day? Maybe my health care (and others... it is OTC at Walmart) sucks?
I'm not sure that's true. Around here, I keep getting, "you don't even know what it means for a country to go bankrupt: hint, it can't" type of messages. Or messages to the effect that our fears are way over played: there is no real danger.
I'm one of the people that agrees this is a catastrophe. For me personally, tax increases are off the table until we have balanced budget legislation. I don't want to see credit cards paid off just to see them revved up again. I also think revenue increases a very small part of the problem. We simply have people living longer with fewer kids. Adjustments need to be made. I keep hearing of nightmare scenarios where we need 80% taxes just to pay current entitlements by 2060ish. Raising taxes alone isn't the answer, but I fear our nation now too infantile to deal with this matter. Conservatives seem unusually despondent. I would write it is because we always fear a "tipping point". A point where so many people have been bribed by their own tax dollar that they no longer truly vote their conscious. I think we conservatives fear that time has already come. That's why we keep writing, "we're screwed". | |
The US will never go bankrupt. Because the Fed will use quanataive easing to pay off the debit (as it has recently). The issue is what effect that quantative easing will have on the value of US assets and labor.
And that is the problem. The US economy CANNOT be fixed by just having a balanced budget. In fact the US govenment should be investing in infrastructure to stimulate the local economies. These austerity measures forced on the US are what is prolonging the recession. Look at Australia, the govt gave every tax payer US$2k when the GFC started, putting the country into debit. Now our economy is going well and we can afford a surplus again, as well as a US$16/hr min wage, public healthcare, etc. Even if the US added nothing to the current debit (ie had a balanced budget), interest on the current debit would still cripple the US economy in 3-5 years.
This is the bit that astounds me about Americans, their lack of understanding of economics. You want a balanced budget but refuse to allow the ONLY measure that will enable that to happen. As the video you have posted twice in this thread points out; NO AMOUNT OF SPENDING CUTS WILL PAY OFF THE US DEBIT! The more you cut welfare, the more you will have to spend on law enforcement. Currently 15% of the US populaton can not afford enough food and you want to cut their support. Shame on you! | |
Something that crossed my mind just now, does anyone think that it was perhaps disrespectful for Romney not to have prepared a concession speech? There is a fine line between being optimistic and dismissing your opponent as nothing. Obama prepared a concession speech despite being the incumbent and given a 90% chance to win by our overlord Nate Silver. Isn't it disrespectful that the Romney campaign thought so little of the President that they didn't contemplate losing? | |
I think you might be reaching pyrate. He was in it to win it, he probably didn't allow himself to think he might lose because he knew how much of an uphill battle he was facing and had to throw himself 100% into it. | |
I think I understand what you're trying to say but you're using the wrong word here. Insolvency implies the inability to pay it's obligations, which is something that will not happen in any of our lifetimes barring absolute catastrophe. What we in the financial industry are more worried about is the desire of the US government, in particular the Republican party following last years debacle, to pay these obligations. It's a slight but very important distinction to make. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
Is it really a United States site? I've always seen it as international. What with the international audience, international modding team. And International news. Now, im not speaking for the owners of the site but an organization can be placed in a specific country and still be international.
And even if it was a United States site, does it take the right to complain away from non-americans? If 5 threads were made about atheism-vs-religion they would all have been locked too. Just because its US elections doesnt make having a thousand threads with the same topic any less annoying.