| Blogs > rogzardo |
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:41 Blazinghand wrote: I've had good dialogue in it. If you don't try to put something in you'll never get any thing out. Yeah....no. | ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3301 Posts
This is an essential question in many elections, but this one especially: are people voting based on "Which candidate better?" Or are they voting purely based on "How happy am I with the incumbent's performance?" The first option is a direct comparison between the two candidates, while the second is purely an evaluation of the incumbent's performance, and his opponent only needs to be vaguely competent. Most people are of the opinion that if voters choose based on the "which candidate is better?" option, Obama is quite likely to win. If people are purely voting based on "How do I think Obama's been doing?" the election will be much closer. Because it's not just you that thinks people aren't supporting Romney, they're opposing Obama; that's pretty much the common opinion this cycle, and both candidates know it. Note that Romney's and Ryan's speeches don't tout Romney's record nearly as much as they emphasize criticizing Obama's; they want people thinking in terms of the latter question. Obama, for his part, is trying to bring up Romney's record as much as possible to shift people back in to the former camp. So to answer the question: Romney, because he was the only even slightly viable Repubican candidate, and a lot of people hate Obama's presidency enough that they're willing to vote for just about anyone else. I support Obama, by the way, if that's relevant. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Anyway Romney is such a strange specimen and shows how far lobbyism has gotten. Rich people have used their huge influence to convince commoners to vote neo-con even though it's against their interests. There are a few reasons to vote for Romney, the first is you're rich and immoral with no social conscience, the second is you dislike Obama, but given how you think Romney would be better, your reasons are probably not too convincing. The man has an extensive history of acquiring his fortune through morally questionable ways, sometimes ruining the lives and careers of others. Don't be suckers just because of your ridiculous "Free Market" ideals. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
Blazinghand has a point. There are posters who know what they're talking about. Not to mention you post in it anyway. If you really think it's a complete and utter waste of your time to post in that thread, then just stay out. It would be conducive to your continued privilege to post on TL, in any event. | ||
|
Carson
Canada820 Posts
On September 17 2012 13:31 Aerisky wrote: Blazinghand has a point. There are posters who know what they're talking about. Not to mention you post in it anyway. If you really think it's a complete and utter waste of your time to post in that thread, then just stay out. It would be conducive to your continued privilege to post on TL, in any event. LOL I like the wording of your post ^^ It's funny being Canadian, because it would seem we care more about your politics than our own. My question is: can a person ever be 100% satisfied with the government? + Show Spoiler + I don't think so. | ||
|
Entirety
1423 Posts
On September 17 2012 14:56 Carson wrote: LOL I like the wording of your post ^^ It's funny being Canadian, because it would seem we care more about your politics than our own. My question is: can a person ever be 100% satisfied with the government? + Show Spoiler + I don't think so. Why yes, a person can be 100% satisfied with the government. + Show Spoiler + Only if he's the one ruling it | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
Don't even think your vote truly matters either. Tell Al Gore that the people choose the President, he'd love to hear that. | ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
I wish I can pitch in, but I'm in the Obama camp... at the very least his rhetoric appeals to me more than Romney's and I want to see what he can do in the next four years. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:15 docvoc wrote: I'm not necessarily voting, but, [list] [*]Bin Laden was going to happen had it been anyone else, he had nothing to do with that, that would be like giving Kennedy full responsibility for the bay of pigs, which was created in the Eisenhower presidency. Bin Laden had been a 12 year long affair. When you're president, it's your fault. Sometimes that's a good thing. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
On September 17 2012 19:15 Newbistic wrote: This thread's a pretty good snapshot of youth today. Someone asks for serious discussion on a serious issue, everyone pitches in but no one answers the question. Everyone wants their say but nobody has anything worth saying. First amendment rights in the hands of people who love to exercise it but do not understand its true value. Today's youth is raised in an era of considerably less journalism than ever. It wouldn't seem like it, there's information everywhere, but 80-90% of it is generated by a small number of news sources then flung and reflected around the net (twitter, anyone?). The old pillars of the industry have eroded and left news stations at the mercy of their advertisers who wield this corporate interest extremely effectively. Furthermore, we've been raised during the emergence of the attack ad and simplified campaign messages. Why did this happen? Because, for the older generation, it worked. The politicians who used these tactics got elected. So we grow up media savvy, see through it, and become cynical about the whole system. In a typical 30 minute newscast, 10 is devoted to commercials. 6~7 each to sports and the god damn weather & traffic (seriously? the weather ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT), then 4 minutes for civic issues. So politicians have to dumb down their messages even more, refine their talking points harder and pander to the media -- it's the only way they can be seen by their constituencies. C-span removes the right of congress to secrecy and disallows the intrinsic deliberation, debate and friction around issues which needs to take place for the result to be worth anything. Furthermore it can't do any justice to the complex voting and discussion system which takes place in Congress. So we see more and more attack ads, more and more of the same messages and themes used by all politicians -- because that's what works. Media only focuses on conflict, winners and losers, and follows the narrative frame "look at the game these people are playing. It's dramatic, but you're helpless and this doesn't involve your interests. We'll just highlight different points of view from powerful people and set those as the full spectrum of inevitable outcomes." Not mentioned is how, to feed their families, these networks have to feed off this system. Because, you know, it's all that gets paid for. People aren't willing to pay for actual journalism since the internet (*fingers crossed* -- yet!) And everybody thinks journalists are jackasses even though they're the ones who keep the gov't clean. Don't ever think there aren't smart people in the government who want to make our country better. There are, and a lot of them. But they have to represent their constituencies and remain loosely true to the vows they ran on. If they suck, it's our fault. There's much more I can expand on but, in short, it's everybody's fault but nobody in particular. The reality we're at now is that democracy is completely malnourished and sick from lack of participation. But because it's sick and not working the way we don't want to feed it. Or, in my generation's case, if we're part of the silent majority who want to participate despite the rampant cynicism ripping hope from people, we don't know how to participate effectively because they don't teach you that shit in school or anywhere unless you're born into it. Just remember this, cynicism is cancer. Every time you devalue your importance to the democratic process it becomes sicker. So when that first romney supporter posts, before you type a response you have to try and identify with and understand his, and really think about the merits. which group of people share his pov? why? do you actually? why or why not? what group of people share your interests? Wish I could get more specific. So, it's your choice, but stop not participating. I've had a policy where I don't post things I wouldn't/haven't said to people irl for a while now. So I can say with full authority that if you're not happy with something and you're not trying to change it or talk about it, I don't respect your point of view and you're a useless person. I can also tell you we still have enough time from terminal condition. I hope we cure the cancer. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:57 Djzapz wrote: Anyway Romney is such a strange specimen and shows how far lobbyism has gotten. Rich people have used their huge influence to convince commoners to vote neo-con even though it's against their interests. There are a few reasons to vote for Romney, the first is you're rich and immoral with no social conscience, the second is you dislike Obama, but given how you think Romney would be better, your reasons are probably not too convincing. The man has an extensive history of acquiring his fortune through morally questionable ways, sometimes ruining the lives and careers of others. Don't be suckers just because of your ridiculous "Free Market" ideals. The media. They were hamstrung to the ground by the corporations, and now they're getting hit over the head by everyone else! | ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
| ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:14 B.I.G. wrote: As an outsider, I'm still amazed you guys have only two parties to choose from.. That is an unfortunate side effect of the way our election system is designed. Any given election is winner-takes-all, which is a massive reason to not vote for anyone who you don't think has a reasonable chance at winning. It's not that we don't have more than two parties, because we do - green, libertarian, workers', etc., but they often share candidates with the Democrats or Republicans on the big tickets, because third party candidates don't work. In fact, voting for a third-party candidate in the US usually means that it's more likely your least preferred candidate will win. For example, say you vote for the Green Party this election, and Obama loses your state by one vote, and therefore the election. I can reasonable say that someone who votes Green probably would prefer Obama to Romney, but Romney won, because people who would have voted Obama in a true 2-party election voted for someone else. Take the 2000 Presidential elections, where Bush won Florida (and thus the election) by 537 votes. That year, a staggering 2,882,000 (out of around 100,000,000 votes cast, that is, about 2% of the vote) people voted Green party. If even 600 of those people were in Florida and had voted for Gore, Gore would have won. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
however, he has proven himself to be a huge vote whore depending whichever way the wind blows any given day. he has steadily gone further towards the neo con religious right, and paul ryan is a fucking nutcase, which is what really sealed the deal for me | ||
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
(In most states) What's your opinion on the bailout that he did? | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
No matter how you slice the pie, a country is basically a business. I'm hoping he can do whatever business-stuff he needs too in order to fix our economy. Because if our economy isn't fixed, it's not going to be much longer that any of this shit even matters. | ||
|
brolaf
291 Posts
5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama. 5T more debt Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force These are good points. What will Romney do to improve them? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama. 5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation You do realize that Obama's powers are executive, not legislative. As such, Congress is responsible for most of those perceived shortcomings, as Obama's role in those matters is largely advisory, although he can pull some strings and hope for the best. That's not to say he did a great job, but if we give it an honest look rather than partisan bullshit, we have to think about the fact that we can't compare the path that Obama's administration took with "the path not taken" for which we have no data (as it didn't happen, obviously). So, Obama was given very limited control of the US's economic policies at the beginning of a major economic crisis, and just like in every recession, unemployment goes up and in keynesian economies the debt goes up too. Now you can look at that and say, look the debt is up and unemployment is up therefore its bad. Or, you can put on your critical thinker hat and say "well we don't know shit". Times are tough because it's a recession, so we can reasonably expect to get worse (and thus people will complain regardless). The question is, how much worse? So who's to say that things aren't better now than they would otherwise have been? The rotten economy was left by the previous administration (Again, not Bush specifically - the decisions taken in Congress had a huge impact). To expect unemployment to be back after 4 years is probably quite crazy. And to put the blame on the executive branch of the government is just odd. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns31458 tarik_tv17139 Grubby3584 Liquid`RaSZi1854 B2W.Neo931 RotterdaM160 KnowMe151 ArmadaUGS146 Hui .68 JuggernautJason27 |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
