|
On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want.
The sad reality is still reality. Also people choose media sources based on what they already believe, and largely believe or disbelieve news stories based on their pre-existing political views. Ultimately it probably comes down to genetic and environmental factors more than anything else.
Humans, on the whole, are way less logical or rational than we give ourselves credit for.
|
On March 15 2012 02:11 xDaunt wrote:
Here are the main reasons:
1) Bad economy.
2) Obamacare.
3) High gas prices.
4) High debt.
5) Afghanistan.
6) Lack of achievement.
Sorry for editing your long post, I just didn't want to quote the entire thing out courtesy for other the entire thread. No disrespect intended. 
1) It's a shame, but you're probably right about voters taking out the economy on Obama. But it's not like the Keystone pipeline was some magical silver bullet that would saved your economy. Betting on green technology -- I wouldn't call it corrupt, but it is a failure. It's like betting on any emerging technology though. If you want to invest in 'innovation', you're going to be taking a risk.
2) I'm one of those filthy Canadians that just doesn't understand why Americans think Obamacare is such a bad idea. You guys already pay way more for standard medical procedures and exams than any other country (MRIs, delivering babies etc.). And I thought, by law, hospitals have to provide emergency care in US. So there are millions of Americans that aren't paying for insurance that are getting a bit of a free ride already. Forcing everyone to be insured or at least pay something for services they'll get anyway seems reasonable, and if anything, conservative. Enlighten me, please
3) Only thing the government can control is the tax added on to gas, and your gas already the cheapest in the first world. There's more off-shore drilling in the US than ever before, but the output hardly puts a dent in the insane amount of oil that you consume. Any US politician that claim they can have a significant impact on US gas prices is just lying to you.
4) Obama being the biggest spender in US history -- I'm pretty sure this just isn't true.
5) Yeah, Afghanistan is a clusterfuck. But there's not easy way to end a war you didn't start.
6) Killing Osama was pretty big. Obamacare is pretty big, depending on which side of the fence you're on. Saved the automotive industry. If you're going to blame the war in Afghanistan on Obama, you might as well give him credit for ending the war in Iraq. And he has created more jobs in the past 3 years than Bush did in his 8 years.
Meh.
|
On March 15 2012 03:46 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. The sad reality is still reality. Also people choose media sources based on what they already believe, and largely believe or disbelieve news stories based on their pre-existing political views. Ultimately it probably comes down to genetic and environmental factors more than anything else. Humans, on the whole, are way less logical or rational than we give ourselves credit for.
This is true. Often, I hear people ask why the government is stupid. The sad truth is, its because people are stupid and easily manipulated.
|
Humans, on the whole, are way less logical or rational than we give ourselves credit for.
Just look at exit polls or any sort of interview from any republican voter in Mississippi and this statement becomes abundantly more clear. At least the dumb fucks in Louisiana who oppose any sort of regulation at all are slowly sinking into the ocean because of horribly designed and implemented waterways to maximize the amount of oil they can siphon out of the ground and subsequently transport, if only the same thing could be said about Mississippi.
|
On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want.
Here's something that will really mindfuck you: republicans believe that democrats enjoy an electoral advantage from the current education system. The line of thought goes something like this: The public school system is a bastion of liberal thought and indoctrination for lack of a better way of putting it. The result is that the public school system churns out all sorts of liberally-minded young people who are unable to think critically for themselves, and are thus prone to voting for the intellectually easy, touchy-feely liberal policies (namely fiscally liberal policies).
|
On March 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:13 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Yes, you're correct about Bin Laden. I forgot about that one. But let's look at the others: the economy, high debt, and Obamacare. You're not even characterizing those as outright positive achievements, and you seem to admit they are problems, even if they are "undeserved" problems. Again, Obama really doesn't have anything positive to run on in an election that it will inevitably be a referendum on him. This is obviously a huge problem. So really now, who's actually wearing the tinted glasses? EDIT: And I forgot to mention: you didn't even address the last part of my post listing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that democrats/Obama are in trouble. Killing bin Laden is something that could be a dealbreaker. I did answer economy/high debt/biggest spending. Also ObamaCare, he did not achieve what he wanted, but it´s a step towars universal healthcare, his solution to a problem which is healthcare in the US. No he cannot run on the economy - at least not as a positive success. In these times pretty much no (western) incumbent politician can - maybe if you are Mr. Hu from China and want to get applause from your posse of boot licking Comrades. I am not even outright defending Obama - just pointing out flaws I see with your quite partisan assessment - at least that´s my opinion. On the other hand it´s nice for a change to have someone who is not completely sold on Obama getting his 2nd term  . Though if I could bet on it today - I probably would. You're missing the point, as have the two posters above. The real issue is how will the American people view these issues? Do you really think that they are going to give Obama a pass on the economy? History strongly suggests that they won't ("It's the economy, stupid."). Do you really think that the American people, who really hate Obamacare, are going to give Obama a pass on it because Obama was unable to pass universal healthcare? Do you really think that the American people are going to sympathize with Obama on Obamacare because the media has supposedly given it a bad rap? Seriously, who's actually being the partisan advocate? I'm explaining why Obama and the democrats are in trouble, as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by recent election results. What I'm getting in response is a bunch of excuses from liberal sympathizers rather than a realistic assessment of Obama's current situation and prospects for reelection.
What I tried to point out earlier is that the generalizations that you're making aren't true at all. This is where polling and surveys can actually help us out. The right wing hates Obamacare, that's for sure, but for the country as a whole that isn't true. What people in this thread keep doing over and over is expand their own ideas to the population as a whole under the cover of 'how can a reasonable person not agree with me'.
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/q2rwj1tqbeqhslyjbet4tg.gif)
I'm all for a discussion on what issues help/hurt Obama/Republicans but lets at least do it on the basis of some data. You can have a discussion on what policy ideas are best too, but you can't have these two discussions at the same time.
|
On March 15 2012 03:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. Here's something that will really mindfuck you: republicans believe that democrats enjoy an electoral advantage from the current education system. The line of thought goes something like this: The public school system is a bastion of liberal though and indoctrination for lack of a better way of putting it. The result is that the public school system churns out all sorts of liberally-minded young people who are unable to think critically for themselves, and are thus prone to voting for the intellectually easy, touchy-feely liberal policies (namely fiscally liberal policies).
Intellectually easy? I don't see how it's any easier than "get government out of everything!"
Maybe people come out of college more liberal because (gasp) liberal ideas are more effective and make the most sense in our world.
|
On March 15 2012 03:43 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. It´s quite doable to win elections like that - you just described how politics works. And don´t kid yourself that in Canada only rational arguments and facts will be put into consideration... Though I am quite sure that in the long run it will neither be good for the country nor its people. Every nation has the government it deserves.
We have the most moderate and boring media and political parties ever. I love it. People complain its boring, but that is EXACTLY what I love. Our debates are so dry, but they are filled with questions that actually get answered, using actual statistics and evidence. I was watching our provincial debate from the previous election again, and it was filled with very specific questions, that were actually answered, and each candidate had referenced sources to rebut with. It was gloriously boring and civilized.
As for the whole rational arguments being the only consideration, no they wont be 100% of the deciding factor, but seeing as how the vast majority of Canadians are around the center, usually being socially more liberal and fiscally a bit more conservative, you need actual arguments to sway these people to the slight left or right of their position. Wild outlandish ideas, lies, radicalism, none of these things work to sway the middle, and the middle is the majority here. It makes for a much more rational process.
I have actually been trying to find serious bias in our tv news stations, and it is incredibly hard to find. All of the stations seem to just report things, and dont seem to take a serious stance on either side of issues. Again this could be a result of appealing to a moderate population. Its just strange watching the American election process. Its so wildly different from anything we would ever experience up here.
|
On March 15 2012 03:49 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:11 xDaunt wrote:
Here are the main reasons:
1) Bad economy.
2) Obamacare.
3) High gas prices.
4) High debt.
5) Afghanistan.
6) Lack of achievement.
Sorry for editing your long post, I just didn't want to quote the entire thing out courtesy for other the entire thread. No disrespect intended. 1) It's a shame, but you're probably right about voters taking out the economy on Obama. But it's not like the Keystone pipeline was some magical silver bullet that would saved your economy. Betting on green technology -- I wouldn't call it corrupt, but it is a failure. It's like betting on any emerging technology though. If you want to invest in 'innovation', you're going to be taking a risk. 2) I'm one of those filthy Canadians that just doesn't understand why Americans think Obamacare is such a bad idea. You guys already pay way more for standard medical procedures and exams than any other country (MRIs, delivering babies etc.). And I thought, by law, hospitals have to provide emergency care in US. So there are millions of Americans that aren't paying for insurance that are getting a bit of a free ride already. Forcing everyone to be insured or at least pay something for services they'll get anyway seems reasonable, and if anything, conservative. Enlighten me, please 3) Only thing the government can control is the tax added on to gas, and your gas already the cheapest in the first world. There's more off-shore drilling in the US than ever before, but the output hardly puts a dent in the insane amount of oil that you consume. Any US politician that claim they can have a significant impact on US gas prices is just lying to you. 4) Obama being the biggest spender in US history -- I'm pretty sure this just isn't true. 5) Yeah, Afghanistan is a clusterfuck. But there's not easy way to end a war you didn't start. 6) Killing Osama was pretty big. Obamacare is pretty big, depending on which side of the fence you're on. Saved the automotive industry. If you're going to blame the war in Afghanistan on Obama, you might as well give him credit for ending the war in Iraq. And he has created more jobs in the past 3 years than Bush did in his 8 years. Meh.
Regarding 2: Obamacare doesn't fix ANY of the cost problems. It makes them worse. Plus, it's implemented in a way that infringes freedoms. In reality, it should work more akin to Medicare, but it doesn't. It's simply a bad program.
Regarding 3: Do you think Joe American gets this? Here's what he's going to see: high gas prices and the refusal of the president to drill more oil domestically or otherwise expand domestic production. The optics problem is blindingly obvious.
Regarding 4: Obama is spending at a faster clip than any president in history.
Regarding 5: As I said, it doesn't matter than Bush started the war. Obama and the democrats now own the war. Bush is going to get a pass on that anyway because the country would have impeached him had he not.
Regarding 6: So Obama's platform is "reelect me because I killed Osama, passed Obamacare [which none of you idiots like], and I saved the automotive industry." I don't think that's going to cut it. Nor will any singing of his economic accomplishments until the economy actually improves to a point where Americans no longer feel the pinch (which probably will not happen).
|
On March 15 2012 03:58 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:43 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. It´s quite doable to win elections like that - you just described how politics works. And don´t kid yourself that in Canada only rational arguments and facts will be put into consideration... Though I am quite sure that in the long run it will neither be good for the country nor its people. Every nation has the government it deserves. We have the most moderate and boring media and political parties ever. I love it. People complain its boring, but that is EXACTLY what I love. Our debates are so dry, but they are filled with questions that actually get answered, using actual statistics and evidence. I was watching our provincial debate from the previous election again, and it was filled with very specific questions, that were actually answered, and each candidate had referenced sources to rebut with. It was gloriously boring and civilized. As for the whole rational arguments being the only consideration, no they wont be 100% of the deciding factor, but seeing as how the vast majority of Canadians are around the center, usually being socially more liberal and fiscally a bit more conservative, you need actual arguments to sway these people to the slight left or right of their position. Wild outlandish ideas, lies, radicalism, none of these things work to sway the middle, and the middle is the majority here. It makes for a much more rational process. I have actually been trying to find serious bias in our tv news stations, and it is incredibly hard to find. All of the stations seem to just report things, and dont seem to take a serious stance on either side of issues. Again this could be a result of appealing to a moderate population. Its just strange watching the American election process. Its so wildly different from anything we would ever experience up here.
LOL. This is so true.
The reason why I follow the GOP nomination is because it's truly become a Reality show where wealthy white men will do and say anything to get people to like them. Except for Ron Paul. He's "the weird one".
|
On March 15 2012 04:01 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:58 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:43 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. It´s quite doable to win elections like that - you just described how politics works. And don´t kid yourself that in Canada only rational arguments and facts will be put into consideration... Though I am quite sure that in the long run it will neither be good for the country nor its people. Every nation has the government it deserves. We have the most moderate and boring media and political parties ever. I love it. People complain its boring, but that is EXACTLY what I love. Our debates are so dry, but they are filled with questions that actually get answered, using actual statistics and evidence. I was watching our provincial debate from the previous election again, and it was filled with very specific questions, that were actually answered, and each candidate had referenced sources to rebut with. It was gloriously boring and civilized. As for the whole rational arguments being the only consideration, no they wont be 100% of the deciding factor, but seeing as how the vast majority of Canadians are around the center, usually being socially more liberal and fiscally a bit more conservative, you need actual arguments to sway these people to the slight left or right of their position. Wild outlandish ideas, lies, radicalism, none of these things work to sway the middle, and the middle is the majority here. It makes for a much more rational process. I have actually been trying to find serious bias in our tv news stations, and it is incredibly hard to find. All of the stations seem to just report things, and dont seem to take a serious stance on either side of issues. Again this could be a result of appealing to a moderate population. Its just strange watching the American election process. Its so wildly different from anything we would ever experience up here. LOL. This is so true. The reason why I follow the GOP nomination is because it's truly become a Reality show where wealthy white men will do and say anything to get people to like them. Except for Ron Paul. He's "the weird one".
lol...your country CAN´T be that boring...can it? :D
|
So Obama's platform is "reelect me because I killed Osama, passed Obamacare [which none of you idiots like], and I saved the automotive industry."
I'm going to assume for a second that what you said is actually true here xDaunt and go out on a limb and say that even if this quote was the case, I'd still vote for him over Rick "elect me so I can ban pornography and abortions" Santorum or Mitt "wait who am I talking to again so I get my 'facts' right" Romney.
edit: From defacer's post below mine
Lower taxes for corporations and the fantastically wealthy? Worse health care? A war in Iran?
Killing Osama actually seems pretty good compared to this.
|
On March 15 2012 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
Regarding 6: So Obama's platform is "reelect me because I killed Osama, passed Obamacare [which none of you idiots like], and I saved the automotive industry." I don't think that's going to cut it. Nor will any singing of his economic accomplishments until the economy actually improves to a point where Americans no longer feel the pinch (which probably will not happen).
Hmmm ... yeah, that is weak. Of course, I don't know if it's dire enough to get independents to flip to 'the dark-side.'
Depends on what the GOP is selling, right. Lower taxes for corporations and the fantastically wealthy? Worse health care? A war in Iran?
|
On March 15 2012 04:10 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
Regarding 6: So Obama's platform is "reelect me because I killed Osama, passed Obamacare [which none of you idiots like], and I saved the automotive industry." I don't think that's going to cut it. Nor will any singing of his economic accomplishments until the economy actually improves to a point where Americans no longer feel the pinch (which probably will not happen). Hmmm ... yeah, that is weak. Of course, I don't know if it's dire enough to get independents to flip to 'the dark-side.' Depends on what the GOP is selling, right. Lower taxes for corporations and the fantastically wealthy? Worse health care? A war in Iran?
Romney's going to be the nominee, and you know that he's going to sell as little as he has to do. He knows that this election won't be about his platform unless he makes it so. He'll throw out some really easy issues for voters to get behind like lower taxes (including lower corporate taxes) and repealing Obamacare. He'll be painfully vague otherwise.
|
On March 15 2012 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:10 Defacer wrote:On March 15 2012 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
Regarding 6: So Obama's platform is "reelect me because I killed Osama, passed Obamacare [which none of you idiots like], and I saved the automotive industry." I don't think that's going to cut it. Nor will any singing of his economic accomplishments until the economy actually improves to a point where Americans no longer feel the pinch (which probably will not happen). Hmmm ... yeah, that is weak. Of course, I don't know if it's dire enough to get independents to flip to 'the dark-side.' Depends on what the GOP is selling, right. Lower taxes for corporations and the fantastically wealthy? Worse health care? A war in Iran? Romney's going to be the nominee, and you know that he's going to sell as little as he has to do. He knows that this election won't be about his platform unless he makes it so. He'll throw out some really easy issues for voters to get behind like lower taxes (including lower corporate taxes) and repealing Obamacare. He'll be painfully vague otherwise.
I would honestly say that Santorum has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney. Crazies gonna craze, you know?
|
On March 15 2012 04:18 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 04:10 Defacer wrote:On March 15 2012 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
Regarding 6: So Obama's platform is "reelect me because I killed Osama, passed Obamacare [which none of you idiots like], and I saved the automotive industry." I don't think that's going to cut it. Nor will any singing of his economic accomplishments until the economy actually improves to a point where Americans no longer feel the pinch (which probably will not happen). Hmmm ... yeah, that is weak. Of course, I don't know if it's dire enough to get independents to flip to 'the dark-side.' Depends on what the GOP is selling, right. Lower taxes for corporations and the fantastically wealthy? Worse health care? A war in Iran? Romney's going to be the nominee, and you know that he's going to sell as little as he has to do. He knows that this election won't be about his platform unless he makes it so. He'll throw out some really easy issues for voters to get behind like lower taxes (including lower corporate taxes) and repealing Obamacare. He'll be painfully vague otherwise. I would honestly say that Santorum has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney. Crazies gonna craze, you know?
There are a lot of republicans that believe this.
|
On March 15 2012 04:06 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:01 Defacer wrote:On March 15 2012 03:58 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:43 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. It´s quite doable to win elections like that - you just described how politics works. And don´t kid yourself that in Canada only rational arguments and facts will be put into consideration... Though I am quite sure that in the long run it will neither be good for the country nor its people. Every nation has the government it deserves. We have the most moderate and boring media and political parties ever. I love it. People complain its boring, but that is EXACTLY what I love. Our debates are so dry, but they are filled with questions that actually get answered, using actual statistics and evidence. I was watching our provincial debate from the previous election again, and it was filled with very specific questions, that were actually answered, and each candidate had referenced sources to rebut with. It was gloriously boring and civilized. As for the whole rational arguments being the only consideration, no they wont be 100% of the deciding factor, but seeing as how the vast majority of Canadians are around the center, usually being socially more liberal and fiscally a bit more conservative, you need actual arguments to sway these people to the slight left or right of their position. Wild outlandish ideas, lies, radicalism, none of these things work to sway the middle, and the middle is the majority here. It makes for a much more rational process. I have actually been trying to find serious bias in our tv news stations, and it is incredibly hard to find. All of the stations seem to just report things, and dont seem to take a serious stance on either side of issues. Again this could be a result of appealing to a moderate population. Its just strange watching the American election process. Its so wildly different from anything we would ever experience up here. LOL. This is so true. The reason why I follow the GOP nomination is because it's truly become a Reality show where wealthy white men will do and say anything to get people to like them. Except for Ron Paul. He's "the weird one". lol...your country CAN´T be that boring...can it? :D
I struggle to even remember the last issue that was genuinely controversial.
Really, most of the hippies on the West Coast complain about economic inequality (being too broke to make a living off their goofy art projects), native rights, infrastructure projects (spending too much governemnt money on renovating a building or something), legalizing weed, and having to pay $3000/year for tuition instead of $1500/year (or something like that).
Man, I love Canada.
|
On March 15 2012 04:19 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:06 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 04:01 Defacer wrote:On March 15 2012 03:58 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:43 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. It´s quite doable to win elections like that - you just described how politics works. And don´t kid yourself that in Canada only rational arguments and facts will be put into consideration... Though I am quite sure that in the long run it will neither be good for the country nor its people. Every nation has the government it deserves. We have the most moderate and boring media and political parties ever. I love it. People complain its boring, but that is EXACTLY what I love. Our debates are so dry, but they are filled with questions that actually get answered, using actual statistics and evidence. I was watching our provincial debate from the previous election again, and it was filled with very specific questions, that were actually answered, and each candidate had referenced sources to rebut with. It was gloriously boring and civilized. As for the whole rational arguments being the only consideration, no they wont be 100% of the deciding factor, but seeing as how the vast majority of Canadians are around the center, usually being socially more liberal and fiscally a bit more conservative, you need actual arguments to sway these people to the slight left or right of their position. Wild outlandish ideas, lies, radicalism, none of these things work to sway the middle, and the middle is the majority here. It makes for a much more rational process. I have actually been trying to find serious bias in our tv news stations, and it is incredibly hard to find. All of the stations seem to just report things, and dont seem to take a serious stance on either side of issues. Again this could be a result of appealing to a moderate population. Its just strange watching the American election process. Its so wildly different from anything we would ever experience up here. LOL. This is so true. The reason why I follow the GOP nomination is because it's truly become a Reality show where wealthy white men will do and say anything to get people to like them. Except for Ron Paul. He's "the weird one". lol...your country CAN´T be that boring...can it? :D I struggle to even remember the last issue that was genuinely controversial. Really, most of the hippies on the West Coast complain about economic inequality (being too broke to make a living off their goofy art projects), native rights, infrastructure projects (spending too much governemnt money on renovating a building or something), legalizing weed, and having to pay $3000/year for tuition instead of $1500/year (or something like that). Man, I love Canada.
Our last big issue in Ontario was whether or not a plant they were building was going to make a neighbourhood look less attractive, and effect the home values. The current issue is whether we should build a light rail transit line on Eglinton to Scarborough, or subways. It is actually that boring.
|
On March 15 2012 03:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. Here's something that will really mindfuck you: republicans believe that democrats enjoy an electoral advantage from the current education system. The line of thought goes something like this: The public school system is a bastion of liberal thought and indoctrination for lack of a better way of putting it. The result is that the public school system churns out all sorts of liberally-minded young people who are unable to think critically for themselves, and are thus prone to voting for the intellectually easy, touchy-feely liberal policies (namely fiscally liberal policies).
More education leads to intellectually easy ideas and less critical thinking. Ahhh, xDaunt how can I get angry at you when you say such adorable things? I suppose it would be too much to ask for proof that better educated people think less critically or are more vulnerable to indoctrination.
Besides, why would that give liberals an advantage? Our education system sucks.
|
On March 15 2012 04:26 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:19 Defacer wrote:On March 15 2012 04:06 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 04:01 Defacer wrote:On March 15 2012 03:58 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:43 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. It´s quite doable to win elections like that - you just described how politics works. And don´t kid yourself that in Canada only rational arguments and facts will be put into consideration... Though I am quite sure that in the long run it will neither be good for the country nor its people. Every nation has the government it deserves. We have the most moderate and boring media and political parties ever. I love it. People complain its boring, but that is EXACTLY what I love. Our debates are so dry, but they are filled with questions that actually get answered, using actual statistics and evidence. I was watching our provincial debate from the previous election again, and it was filled with very specific questions, that were actually answered, and each candidate had referenced sources to rebut with. It was gloriously boring and civilized. As for the whole rational arguments being the only consideration, no they wont be 100% of the deciding factor, but seeing as how the vast majority of Canadians are around the center, usually being socially more liberal and fiscally a bit more conservative, you need actual arguments to sway these people to the slight left or right of their position. Wild outlandish ideas, lies, radicalism, none of these things work to sway the middle, and the middle is the majority here. It makes for a much more rational process. I have actually been trying to find serious bias in our tv news stations, and it is incredibly hard to find. All of the stations seem to just report things, and dont seem to take a serious stance on either side of issues. Again this could be a result of appealing to a moderate population. Its just strange watching the American election process. Its so wildly different from anything we would ever experience up here. LOL. This is so true. The reason why I follow the GOP nomination is because it's truly become a Reality show where wealthy white men will do and say anything to get people to like them. Except for Ron Paul. He's "the weird one". lol...your country CAN´T be that boring...can it? :D I struggle to even remember the last issue that was genuinely controversial. Really, most of the hippies on the West Coast complain about economic inequality (being too broke to make a living off their goofy art projects), native rights, infrastructure projects (spending too much governemnt money on renovating a building or something), legalizing weed, and having to pay $3000/year for tuition instead of $1500/year (or something like that). Man, I love Canada. Our last big issue in Ontario was whether or not a plant they were building was going to make a neighbourhood look less attractive, and effect the home values. The current issue is whether we should build a light rail transit line on Eglinton to Scarborough, or subways. It is actually that boring.
Yeah.
No one is going around arguing that we should stop insuring birth control because birth control is evil and women that use it must be sluts. And if they did, no politician here would actually be stupid enough to half-agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
