|
On March 13 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 22:42 DoubleReed wrote:On March 13 2012 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2012 20:05 DoubleReed wrote:
lol, and I like how you still haven't reconciled the fact that your claims are logically inconsistent and blatantly hypocritical. Whining about how we're ass-backwards is genuinely adorable.
Edit: And don't get me started on "common sense." Seriously, how is this still used in political discussions? Intuition sucks to figure things out about the real world. Everyone knows the world has a ton of counter-intuitive notions yet people still act as "common sense" is still worthwhile and useful. "Common sense" is also known as "guessing." Fuck common sense. I already reconciled this issue in a post above. I stated that stereotyping is merely a tool akin to statistical analysis. There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about it. You, on other hand, are starting with the presumption that stereotyping is always wrong, ie that stereotyping is bigotry and discrimination. Yet, you have not provided any argument for why this incredibly broad-based presumption holds true. In fact, aren't you stereotyping merely by holding that presumption? You said bigotry is a policy of using stereotypes and bigotry is bad. Then you say we should use stereotypes in our policy and that is ok. That is literally what you said. You have yet to reconcile that. I only said that stereotyping is a tool and that bigotry is a policy. I did not say that using stereotypes in making policy is necessarily bigotry. EDIT: And just to clarify, stereotyping most certainly can lead to bigotry if abused, which is why the politically correct have deemed stereotyping to be taboo. Show nested quote +How is that stereotyping? Look, all stereotyping is a certain kind of prejudice. That certain kind isn't very good. Stereotyping is not the same as statistical analysis at all. It relies heavily on preconceived notions and then people rationalize exceptions to maintain those incorrect notions. It flies in the face of all statistical reasoning, because the statistics must updated after every iteration (a more complicated version of Bayes Theorem essentially), and stereotypes are not constantly updated like that. This all goes back to my original point about stereotyping from several pages ago: good stereotypes are based in truth. Stereotypes don't work if they are simply untrue.
No you aren't getting it. It is probabilistic. You must constantly update them. Your stereotype about us darn liberals must be updated every time you meet a new liberal and learn about his/her views. That is not what you are doing.
The idea of constantly updating a stereotype flies in the face of everyone's definition of a stereotype. Stereotypes are not updated at every iteration. "Camp gays" are not updated at every iteration. Neither are your idiotic ideas about liberals. Stereotype =/= prejudice.
Prejudice is just judging something before you know the full story, by definition. Obviously you don't need full information to make predictions about things. And prejudice can literally be about anything (it could be about candy, Starcraft race, or tattoos). Stereotypes is simply a bad, incorrect, irrational kind of prejudice.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 13 2012 22:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 21:44 Jibba wrote:On March 13 2012 14:30 xDaunt wrote:
See, I find people's responses this topic of stereotyping to be interesting because they are so demonstrative of how ass-backwards our society has become in its pursuit of the politically correct. Stereotyping has become so demonized that it's now a dirty word. So much for common sense. Your argument for the TSA is indicative of the problem. Suicide bombers don't dress or look like conservative Muslims and the next wave are unlikely to even be Arabic. Not to mention TSA is still hugely ineffective to begin with. Our safety is mostly due to the fact that we're simply not at much risk of attack to begin with, contrary to society's perception. I'm glad that you brought this up. Go read about the Israeli airport security system, which is the best in the world. It's built upon stereotyping and *GASP* racial profiling, and I'm guessing that it processes a far larger percentage of Muslim passengers than the TSA does. Also, on a side note, I like how you automatically mentioned "Muslims" -- without any prompt from me -- in your response to my post about how TSA should implement stereotyping. "I can sense the struggle in you -- the conflict!" There may be hope for you yet. It's not simply based upon racial profiling. Race is actually one of the least important components of what they're doing. They do interviews and both entrance/exist examinations, and they employ highly trained (and paid) intelligence personnel who are skilled at reading body language and nuances in speaking. On top of that, their airports (plus the security check begins before you're actually in the airport) are much, much smaller than American international airports and they have a very limited set of cultures/nationalities.
While Arabs and Muslims are probably detained more frequently, ALL non-Jews are detained at a much higher rate than Israeli Jews. And as soon as a Jewish or formerly Jewish terrorist (aside from the one who shot Rabin) tries to sneak in a bomb, that'll change. Race and ethnicity are factors, but they're minor componenets and it's more about the multiple waves of interviews examinations. Even Israeli security experts don't pre-suppose the next attack will be from someone of those specific backgrounds.
|
On March 13 2012 23:28 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2012 22:42 DoubleReed wrote:On March 13 2012 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2012 20:05 DoubleReed wrote:
lol, and I like how you still haven't reconciled the fact that your claims are logically inconsistent and blatantly hypocritical. Whining about how we're ass-backwards is genuinely adorable.
Edit: And don't get me started on "common sense." Seriously, how is this still used in political discussions? Intuition sucks to figure things out about the real world. Everyone knows the world has a ton of counter-intuitive notions yet people still act as "common sense" is still worthwhile and useful. "Common sense" is also known as "guessing." Fuck common sense. I already reconciled this issue in a post above. I stated that stereotyping is merely a tool akin to statistical analysis. There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about it. You, on other hand, are starting with the presumption that stereotyping is always wrong, ie that stereotyping is bigotry and discrimination. Yet, you have not provided any argument for why this incredibly broad-based presumption holds true. In fact, aren't you stereotyping merely by holding that presumption? You said bigotry is a policy of using stereotypes and bigotry is bad. Then you say we should use stereotypes in our policy and that is ok. That is literally what you said. You have yet to reconcile that. I only said that stereotyping is a tool and that bigotry is a policy. I did not say that using stereotypes in making policy is necessarily bigotry. EDIT: And just to clarify, stereotyping most certainly can lead to bigotry if abused, which is why the politically correct have deemed stereotyping to be taboo. How is that stereotyping? Look, all stereotyping is a certain kind of prejudice. That certain kind isn't very good. Stereotyping is not the same as statistical analysis at all. It relies heavily on preconceived notions and then people rationalize exceptions to maintain those incorrect notions. It flies in the face of all statistical reasoning, because the statistics must updated after every iteration (a more complicated version of Bayes Theorem essentially), and stereotypes are not constantly updated like that. This all goes back to my original point about stereotyping from several pages ago: good stereotypes are based in truth. Stereotypes don't work if they are simply untrue.
No you aren't getting it. It is probabilistic. You must constantly update them. Your stereotype about us darn liberals must be updated every time you meet a new liberal and learn about his/her views. That is not what you are doing.
The idea of constantly updating a stereotype flies in the face of everyone's definition of a stereotype. Stereotypes are not updated at every iteration. "Camp gays" are not updated at every iteration. Neither are your idiotic ideas about liberals. Stereotype =/= prejudice.
How is what you're saying any different than my point that stereotypes must be based in truth to be effective? Where is it written that stereotypes can't change or be "updated?"
Prejudice is just judging something before you know the full story, by definition. Obviously you don't need full information to make predictions about things. And prejudice can literally be about anything (it could be about candy, Starcraft race, or tattoos). Stereotypes is simply a bad, incorrect, irrational kind of prejudice.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that society has been trained to reflexively regard stereotyping as being bad and taboo. Again, how is stereotyping "bad, incorrect, or irrational" when it is based in truth?
|
On March 13 2012 15:14 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 11:49 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote:
[
Edit: I agree that prejudice is a useful tool for things in people's lives. But basing it on non-choices like skin color, sex, or sexual orientation is impractical (and often incorrect) most of the time. Basing your prejudice on clothing or hygiene, for instance, is more practical. The problem with stereotypes is that they simply aren't very good a lot of the time. I'm sorry, I don't want to extend this conversation much further, but this edit is pretty silly. Anyone can make fairly accurate generalizations based on a person's sex. Perhaps overall value judgement's are bad, but there are many things that are pretty simple that are so different that if you don't make the recognition you just look dumb (or worse). For instance, going around hugging men (as another man), even if you know them (like a high school reunion), is not recommended. My sister's boyfriend hugs everyone, friends or foe almost.
Doesn't he get hit a lot? Some kid JUST tried doing that at our 5 year and got laid out, not even kidding. That's why I brought it up.
On March 13 2012 20:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 11:49 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote:
[
Edit: I agree that prejudice is a useful tool for things in people's lives. But basing it on non-choices like skin color, sex, or sexual orientation is impractical (and often incorrect) most of the time. Basing your prejudice on clothing or hygiene, for instance, is more practical. The problem with stereotypes is that they simply aren't very good a lot of the time. I'm sorry, I don't want to extend this conversation much further, but this edit is pretty silly. Anyone can make fairly accurate generalizations based on a person's sex. Perhaps overall value judgement's are bad, but there are many things that are pretty simple that are so different that if you don't make the recognition you just look dumb (or worse). For instance, going around hugging men (as another man), even if you know them (like a high school reunion), is not recommended. What? That's not a form of prejudice. I'm talking about making judgements about people's personalities and beliefs. What is silly about this?
Seems pretty stereotypical to me.
|
On March 14 2012 00:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 20:05 DoubleReed wrote:On March 13 2012 11:49 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote:
[
Edit: I agree that prejudice is a useful tool for things in people's lives. But basing it on non-choices like skin color, sex, or sexual orientation is impractical (and often incorrect) most of the time. Basing your prejudice on clothing or hygiene, for instance, is more practical. The problem with stereotypes is that they simply aren't very good a lot of the time. I'm sorry, I don't want to extend this conversation much further, but this edit is pretty silly. Anyone can make fairly accurate generalizations based on a person's sex. Perhaps overall value judgement's are bad, but there are many things that are pretty simple that are so different that if you don't make the recognition you just look dumb (or worse). For instance, going around hugging men (as another man), even if you know them (like a high school reunion), is not recommended. What? That's not a form of prejudice. I'm talking about making judgements about people's personalities and beliefs. What is silly about this? Seems pretty stereotypical to me.
I don't understand. Please clarify.
On March 14 2012 00:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:28 DoubleReed wrote:On March 13 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2012 22:42 DoubleReed wrote:On March 13 2012 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2012 20:05 DoubleReed wrote:
lol, and I like how you still haven't reconciled the fact that your claims are logically inconsistent and blatantly hypocritical. Whining about how we're ass-backwards is genuinely adorable.
Edit: And don't get me started on "common sense." Seriously, how is this still used in political discussions? Intuition sucks to figure things out about the real world. Everyone knows the world has a ton of counter-intuitive notions yet people still act as "common sense" is still worthwhile and useful. "Common sense" is also known as "guessing." Fuck common sense. I already reconciled this issue in a post above. I stated that stereotyping is merely a tool akin to statistical analysis. There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about it. You, on other hand, are starting with the presumption that stereotyping is always wrong, ie that stereotyping is bigotry and discrimination. Yet, you have not provided any argument for why this incredibly broad-based presumption holds true. In fact, aren't you stereotyping merely by holding that presumption? You said bigotry is a policy of using stereotypes and bigotry is bad. Then you say we should use stereotypes in our policy and that is ok. That is literally what you said. You have yet to reconcile that. I only said that stereotyping is a tool and that bigotry is a policy. I did not say that using stereotypes in making policy is necessarily bigotry. EDIT: And just to clarify, stereotyping most certainly can lead to bigotry if abused, which is why the politically correct have deemed stereotyping to be taboo. How is that stereotyping? Look, all stereotyping is a certain kind of prejudice. That certain kind isn't very good. Stereotyping is not the same as statistical analysis at all. It relies heavily on preconceived notions and then people rationalize exceptions to maintain those incorrect notions. It flies in the face of all statistical reasoning, because the statistics must updated after every iteration (a more complicated version of Bayes Theorem essentially), and stereotypes are not constantly updated like that. This all goes back to my original point about stereotyping from several pages ago: good stereotypes are based in truth. Stereotypes don't work if they are simply untrue.
No you aren't getting it. It is probabilistic. You must constantly update them. Your stereotype about us darn liberals must be updated every time you meet a new liberal and learn about his/her views. That is not what you are doing.
The idea of constantly updating a stereotype flies in the face of everyone's definition of a stereotype. Stereotypes are not updated at every iteration. "Camp gays" are not updated at every iteration. Neither are your idiotic ideas about liberals. Stereotype =/= prejudice. How is what you're saying any different than my point that stereotypes must be based in truth to be effective? Where is it written that stereotypes can't change or be "updated?" Show nested quote +
Prejudice is just judging something before you know the full story, by definition. Obviously you don't need full information to make predictions about things. And prejudice can literally be about anything (it could be about candy, Starcraft race, or tattoos). Stereotypes is simply a bad, incorrect, irrational kind of prejudice.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that society has been trained to reflexively regard stereotyping as being bad and taboo. Again, how is stereotyping "bad, incorrect, or irrational" when it is based in truth?
Because it's not true or false. It's about certainty and probability. You have to update your certainty and probability of the stereotype being accurate. Human beings tend to force stereotypes to work and incorrectly update this certainty unless they actually train themselves to. And by changing the stereotype itself without shifting your certainty you are "moving the goalposts." If you update the method properly you will actually find that any stereotype of reasonable narrowness is overwhelming inaccurate.
But the real reason is that you are using some alien form of stereotyping and then claiming "oh but stereotyping isn't inherently bad." Don't blame us if you make up your own definition for something and we misunderstand you. That's just rude.
|
We construct stereotypes out of necessity. By 'stereotypes', I'm referring to the broad generalizations we make about people, products, and places around us that form the basis of most of our decisions.
I agree with others, that 'stereotyping' is wholly inadequate for making decisions. But we all do it. Which is why, as xDaunt says, they're malleable.
The paradox (not sure if it applies in this situation, but let's go for it) is that people tend to modify themselves based on other people's perceptions and expectations -- we live up to other people's stereotypes or rebel against them.
Life is like a feedback loop. The more you treat someone like they are a criminal, the greater likelihood they are to eventually commit a crime. The more you treat someone like a leader, the more confidence they'll have to make decisions for others.
|
United States22883 Posts
I agree with that entirely, Defacer.
|
On March 14 2012 00:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:28 DoubleReed wrote:On March 13 2012 22:56 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2012 22:42 DoubleReed wrote:On March 13 2012 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2012 20:05 DoubleReed wrote:
lol, and I like how you still haven't reconciled the fact that your claims are logically inconsistent and blatantly hypocritical. Whining about how we're ass-backwards is genuinely adorable.
Edit: And don't get me started on "common sense." Seriously, how is this still used in political discussions? Intuition sucks to figure things out about the real world. Everyone knows the world has a ton of counter-intuitive notions yet people still act as "common sense" is still worthwhile and useful. "Common sense" is also known as "guessing." Fuck common sense. I already reconciled this issue in a post above. I stated that stereotyping is merely a tool akin to statistical analysis. There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about it. You, on other hand, are starting with the presumption that stereotyping is always wrong, ie that stereotyping is bigotry and discrimination. Yet, you have not provided any argument for why this incredibly broad-based presumption holds true. In fact, aren't you stereotyping merely by holding that presumption? You said bigotry is a policy of using stereotypes and bigotry is bad. Then you say we should use stereotypes in our policy and that is ok. That is literally what you said. You have yet to reconcile that. I only said that stereotyping is a tool and that bigotry is a policy. I did not say that using stereotypes in making policy is necessarily bigotry. EDIT: And just to clarify, stereotyping most certainly can lead to bigotry if abused, which is why the politically correct have deemed stereotyping to be taboo. How is that stereotyping? Look, all stereotyping is a certain kind of prejudice. That certain kind isn't very good. Stereotyping is not the same as statistical analysis at all. It relies heavily on preconceived notions and then people rationalize exceptions to maintain those incorrect notions. It flies in the face of all statistical reasoning, because the statistics must updated after every iteration (a more complicated version of Bayes Theorem essentially), and stereotypes are not constantly updated like that. This all goes back to my original point about stereotyping from several pages ago: good stereotypes are based in truth. Stereotypes don't work if they are simply untrue.
No you aren't getting it. It is probabilistic. You must constantly update them. Your stereotype about us darn liberals must be updated every time you meet a new liberal and learn about his/her views. That is not what you are doing.
The idea of constantly updating a stereotype flies in the face of everyone's definition of a stereotype. Stereotypes are not updated at every iteration. "Camp gays" are not updated at every iteration. Neither are your idiotic ideas about liberals. Stereotype =/= prejudice. How is what you're saying any different than my point that stereotypes must be based in truth to be effective? Where is it written that stereotypes can't change or be "updated?" Show nested quote +
Prejudice is just judging something before you know the full story, by definition. Obviously you don't need full information to make predictions about things. And prejudice can literally be about anything (it could be about candy, Starcraft race, or tattoos). Stereotypes is simply a bad, incorrect, irrational kind of prejudice.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that society has been trained to reflexively regard stereotyping as being bad and taboo. Again, how is stereotyping "bad, incorrect, or irrational" when it is based in truth?
Because it is only based in truth, it departs from it, and it generates bad blood between yourself and the people you've stereotyped before you've even met them. Did you completely disregard the likeness to how the jews were alienated further and further until some people only saw it right to exterminate them? Stereotyping is the first step in this. Good reason, then, that society has started to deem it bad and taboo.
Relevant:
+ Show Spoiler [Defacer's response from above] +On March 14 2012 01:21 Defacer wrote:
We construct stereotypes out of necessity. By 'stereotypes', I'm referring to the broad generalizations we make about people, products, and places around us that form the basis of most of our decisions.
I agree with others, that 'stereotyping' is wholly inadequate for making decisions. But we all do it. Which is why, as xDaunt says, they're malleable.
The paradox (not sure if it applies in this situation, but let's go for it) is that people tend to modify themselves based on other people's perceptions and expectations -- we live up to other people's stereotypes or rebel against them.
Life is like a feedback loop. The more you treat someone like they are a criminal, the greater likelihood they are to eventually commit a crime. The more you treat someone like a leader, the more confidence they'll have to make decisions for others.
|
Man this thread always derails into strange places. Are we really discussing the pros and cons of stereotyping?
Any update of the nominations? When is the next primary and is there any chance that Romney will seal the deal soon? I don't see how Santorum can get the nod. Actually no, that isn't right, I can't see a rational process of decision making would end with Santorum getting the nod. That guy scares me. Like actually scares me. The world has already had one US president who didn't understand the value of nuance and treading carefully, we don't need another.
|
WTF happened?
Mensrea posted and then disappeared I'm losing my mind!
|
Canada5062 Posts
On March 13 2012 08:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 08:23 mensrea wrote:
It won't make any difference whoever wins. They have no chance against Obama.
I'm just sayin'. I remember you making a bold prediction on Bush's re-election and being right about it, but you also said Obama didn't have a chance at becoming President because he was a minority. So you're 1-1 as far as I know 
Obama would not have won, but for the single most significant piece of bad economic news since 1929 occurring just prior to the elections. Look at the election results and I don't mean the electoral college results which shows Obama winning pretty handily. I mean the actual vote count and spread in battleground states. It was very close to a McCain victory. Look at the polls pre-Lehmans and you'll see what I mean. It almost literally took a once-in-a-century catastrophe to derail the endemic racism within American democracy.
Clearly the American psyche was sufficiently shaken by the events of that Fall on Wall Street to provide just the opening for a relative outsider ("something different = hope") to win by a nose.
For the record, except for Obama-McCain, I have correctly called every American Presidential election since after Reagan-Mondale. That's a 5-1 record (which will be 6-1 when Obama wins a second term).
There is no talent involved. Just a very cynical world-view and a healthy does of scepticism towards American media. My disillusionment began with Reagan-Mondale '84 when everything in the media pointed to a close race - when in fact it ended up being one of the greatest landslide victories in American Presidential Election history (525-13 electoral votes for Reagan - Mondale only managed to carry DC and his home state of Minnesota, and even then only just barely).
Close races sell better than the truth. Welcome to America.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On March 14 2012 08:00 Probulous wrote:WTF happened? Mensrea posted and then disappeared I'm losing my mind!
(No, just me messing up the buttons again.)
|
On March 14 2012 08:02 mensrea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2012 08:23 mensrea wrote:
It won't make any difference whoever wins. They have no chance against Obama.
I'm just sayin'. I remember you making a bold prediction on Bush's re-election and being right about it, but you also said Obama didn't have a chance at becoming President because he was a minority. So you're 1-1 as far as I know Obama would not have won, but for the single most significant piece of bad economic news since 1929 occurring just prior to the elections. Look at the election results and I don't mean the electoral college results which shows Obama winning pretty handily. I mean the actual vote count and spread in battleground states. It was very close to a McCain victory. Look at the polls pre-Lehmans and you'll see what I mean. It almost literally took a once-in-a-century catastrophe to derail the endemic racism within American democracy. Clearly the American psyche was sufficiently shaken by the events of that Fall on Wall Street to provide just the opening for a relative outsider ("something different = hope") to win by a nose. For the record, except for Obama-McCain, I have correctly called every American Presidential election since after Reagan-Mondale. That's a 5-1 record (which will be 6-1 when Obama wins a second term). There is no talent involved. Just a very cynical world-view and a healthy does of scepticism towards American media. My disillusionment began with Reagan-Mondale '84 when everything in the media pointed to a close race - when in fact it ended up being one of the greatest landslide victories in American Presidential Election history (525-13 electoral votes for Reagan - Mondale only managed to carry DC and his home state of Minnesota, and even then only just barely). Close races sell better than the truth. Welcome to America.
This might sound crazy, but If Israel declares war on Iran or vice-versa, than I think the Republicans have a chance against Obama. The myth of Obama being a wuss or too lax on Iran is strong enough.
|
On March 14 2012 08:07 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:02 mensrea wrote:On March 13 2012 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2012 08:23 mensrea wrote:
It won't make any difference whoever wins. They have no chance against Obama.
I'm just sayin'. I remember you making a bold prediction on Bush's re-election and being right about it, but you also said Obama didn't have a chance at becoming President because he was a minority. So you're 1-1 as far as I know Obama would not have won, but for the single most significant piece of bad economic news since 1929 occurring just prior to the elections. Look at the election results and I don't mean the electoral college results which shows Obama winning pretty handily. I mean the actual vote count and spread in battleground states. It was very close to a McCain victory. Look at the polls pre-Lehmans and you'll see what I mean. It almost literally took a once-in-a-century catastrophe to derail the endemic racism within American democracy. Clearly the American psyche was sufficiently shaken by the events of that Fall on Wall Street to provide just the opening for a relative outsider ("something different = hope") to win by a nose. For the record, except for Obama-McCain, I have correctly called every American Presidential election since after Reagan-Mondale. That's a 5-1 record (which will be 6-1 when Obama wins a second term). There is no talent involved. Just a very cynical world-view and a healthy does of scepticism towards American media. My disillusionment began with Reagan-Mondale '84 when everything in the media pointed to a close race - when in fact it ended up being one of the greatest landslide victories in American Presidential Election history (525-13 electoral votes for Reagan - Mondale only managed to carry DC and his home state of Minnesota, and even then only just barely). Close races sell better than the truth. Welcome to America. This might sound crazy, but If Israel declares war on Iran or vice-versa, than I think the Republicans have a chance against Obama. The myth of Obama being a wuss or too lax on Iran is strong enough.
Politically, bombing Iran would greatly benefit Obama. Not only would it cure the perception that he is weak, but it would distract people from the looming disaster in Afghanistan that will be firmly hung around his neck.
|
Canada5062 Posts
Neither side will "declare war". Declaring war is a quaint anachronism and a geopolitical device only credibly used to effect by the global powers. Israel and Iran are not included in that exclusive cadre.
Does not mean hostilities won't break out, which they very well could (air strikes, missile lobs, covert special forces insertions and the like). Don't think those will mean much to the American voters going in either directions.
All bets are off if the conflagration spreads, but doubt that will happen. None of the great powers would be interested enough for them to let that happen.
|
On March 14 2012 08:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:07 Defacer wrote:On March 14 2012 08:02 mensrea wrote:On March 13 2012 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2012 08:23 mensrea wrote:
It won't make any difference whoever wins. They have no chance against Obama.
I'm just sayin'. I remember you making a bold prediction on Bush's re-election and being right about it, but you also said Obama didn't have a chance at becoming President because he was a minority. So you're 1-1 as far as I know Obama would not have won, but for the single most significant piece of bad economic news since 1929 occurring just prior to the elections. Look at the election results and I don't mean the electoral college results which shows Obama winning pretty handily. I mean the actual vote count and spread in battleground states. It was very close to a McCain victory. Look at the polls pre-Lehmans and you'll see what I mean. It almost literally took a once-in-a-century catastrophe to derail the endemic racism within American democracy. Clearly the American psyche was sufficiently shaken by the events of that Fall on Wall Street to provide just the opening for a relative outsider ("something different = hope") to win by a nose. For the record, except for Obama-McCain, I have correctly called every American Presidential election since after Reagan-Mondale. That's a 5-1 record (which will be 6-1 when Obama wins a second term). There is no talent involved. Just a very cynical world-view and a healthy does of scepticism towards American media. My disillusionment began with Reagan-Mondale '84 when everything in the media pointed to a close race - when in fact it ended up being one of the greatest landslide victories in American Presidential Election history (525-13 electoral votes for Reagan - Mondale only managed to carry DC and his home state of Minnesota, and even then only just barely). Close races sell better than the truth. Welcome to America. This might sound crazy, but If Israel declares war on Iran or vice-versa, than I think the Republicans have a chance against Obama. The myth of Obama being a wuss or too lax on Iran is strong enough. Politically, bombing Iran would greatly benefit Obama. Not only would it cure the perception that he is weak, but it would distract people from the looming disaster in Afghanistan that will be firmly hung around his neck.
Good point. Afghanistan is a train wreck ...
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 14 2012 08:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:07 Defacer wrote:On March 14 2012 08:02 mensrea wrote:On March 13 2012 08:30 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2012 08:23 mensrea wrote:
It won't make any difference whoever wins. They have no chance against Obama.
I'm just sayin'. I remember you making a bold prediction on Bush's re-election and being right about it, but you also said Obama didn't have a chance at becoming President because he was a minority. So you're 1-1 as far as I know Obama would not have won, but for the single most significant piece of bad economic news since 1929 occurring just prior to the elections. Look at the election results and I don't mean the electoral college results which shows Obama winning pretty handily. I mean the actual vote count and spread in battleground states. It was very close to a McCain victory. Look at the polls pre-Lehmans and you'll see what I mean. It almost literally took a once-in-a-century catastrophe to derail the endemic racism within American democracy. Clearly the American psyche was sufficiently shaken by the events of that Fall on Wall Street to provide just the opening for a relative outsider ("something different = hope") to win by a nose. For the record, except for Obama-McCain, I have correctly called every American Presidential election since after Reagan-Mondale. That's a 5-1 record (which will be 6-1 when Obama wins a second term). There is no talent involved. Just a very cynical world-view and a healthy does of scepticism towards American media. My disillusionment began with Reagan-Mondale '84 when everything in the media pointed to a close race - when in fact it ended up being one of the greatest landslide victories in American Presidential Election history (525-13 electoral votes for Reagan - Mondale only managed to carry DC and his home state of Minnesota, and even then only just barely). Close races sell better than the truth. Welcome to America. This might sound crazy, but If Israel declares war on Iran or vice-versa, than I think the Republicans have a chance against Obama. The myth of Obama being a wuss or too lax on Iran is strong enough. Politically, bombing Iran would greatly benefit Obama. Not only would it cure the perception that he is weak, but it would distract people from the looming disaster in Afghanistan that will be firmly hung around his neck. It's indeed a trainwreck, but bombing Iran would also make oil prices skyrocket more than they already are. Staying in Afghanistan has indeed been a mistake (I think I said during the 2008 election he should give it up ), but it's quite possible it'll only become a pivotal issue after the election. If the primary really does go to the convention, that leaves them two months to form a narrative and you can't overload the various messages. Like, they can call Afghanistan a disaster, but they can't do it within a reasonable time period of calling him weak on Iran. Especially when Ds'll fire back about Osama, Libya, Somalia, etc. and try to make Obama seem moderate-hawkish.
They can try to say that he's indecisive on both issues, but it's the same thing as with North Korea. There's 8 months left and anything they say today could bite them in the ass as the situation changes - either through conflict or resolution.
|
the stereotype debate is stupid. (on one side obviously), but i can't see Obama losing unless he's having sex with an intern. The whole Iran thing could screw his potential 2nd term hopes though
|
I don't get it. Do we want another war? We just got out of Iraq, and I thought that was a massively popular move. Why is the American populace ready to go to war again? Shouldn't they be booing the war-hungry rhetoric???
Man, I don't understand politics at all...
|
On March 14 2012 08:02 mensrea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:00 Probulous wrote:WTF happened? Mensrea posted and then disappeared I'm losing my mind! (No, just me messing up the buttons again.)
It's also proof that mods can delete posts. Mmmm the secret is free now. The weirdest thing was that my subscribed threads had -1 as a jump to the last post. I was literally scratching my head trying to work that one out. Really interesting post btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
