|
|
On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon
The time of the Third Great Awakening is upon us, and it will leave us a changed and blessed people. I mean that in the least religious way possible :p I seriously do think a major shift in collective perspective is in order, though I've not much to back up such a claim more than whispers and guesses.
|
This is what I'm obsessed about, actually
edit: whispers and guesses is the name of the game, I'm afraid 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon The time of the Third Great Awakening is upon us, and it will leave us a changed and blessed people. I mean that in the least religious way possible :p I seriously do think a major shift in collective perspective is in order, though I've not much to back up such a claim more than whispers and guesses.
December 2012...!?
|
Ugh.. you're beyond debating with. I never said the U.S. should appease other nations, but it might try respecting them as Obama has done? You linked a CNN page from 2008 that shows Obama to be reasonable. He supports criminal background checks? He thinks that should apply to gun shows? He wants to restrict ammunition that is marketed as "armor piercing?" What a knave. Guess what else it says on that page. Voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens. Oops. You said previously you're 20 years old, which of course leads me to question you when you say foreign policy is your strong suit. Your argument that "you're wrong because I've written papers" isn't very compelling. It's also amazing that you'd respond to my accusations of a "fuck China," "fuck Russia," and "fuck Iran," foreign policy by essentially saying "fuck Argentina." Well played. I'm not going to bother getting through to you, I don't believe it's possible at this stage of your life.
Yeah, sevencck, perhaps Swazi Spring didn't turn such a blind ear on Obama's apology tour.
There has been times when America's shown arrogance and been dismissive even derisive ...
The United States has been working through some of our own darker periods in our history ...
We've been at times been disengaged and at times we've sought to dictate our terms.
We've got to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes ... that's how we learn
Unfortunately faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions ... in other words we went off course.
~ Obama, 44th President of the United States of America
You say no appeasement, but respect as Obama has done? We've seen enough apologies for what Bush did and how America's perceived. Maybe this, in other's minds, America's reputation abroad isn't where it should be. Maybe, apologizing for what Bush did, for what America has done in the past is the way to remedy this, so the thinking may go. Obama did go about making these apologies, make no mistake about it. I listened to his addresses, I marked his tone. He spent the last 4 years as president; he may have no naive ignorance going his way now. So back off the mundane ad hominem ("You said previously you're 20 years old, which of course leads me to question you when you say foreign policy is your strong suit." "I'm not going to bother getting through to you, I don't believe it's possible at this stage of your life.") and realize that no prattle on Obama's respect will erase his methods of apologies.
|
On October 26 2012 16:01 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon The time of the Third Great Awakening is upon us, and it will leave us a changed and blessed people. I mean that in the least religious way possible :p I seriously do think a major shift in collective perspective is in order, though I've not much to back up such a claim more than whispers and guesses. December 2012...!?
Hell naw, the end of a Mayan era is a red herring, a distraction that only exists to warm the bench for what's really going to happen. Perhaps a good old fashioned war everyone can get behind or a scientific breakthrough that fundamentally alters our understanding of something very basic. Who can say these things?
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:45 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 14:45 Lmui wrote:On October 26 2012 14:37 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 14:20 Lmui wrote:The last time I posted something similar, it didn't get the attention it deserved I think http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdfFrom a purely analyitical standpoint, the numbers are completely out of line compared to what they should be. There's 11 separate cases where it seems that something funny's going on. In short: It appears that there is a reasonable case for investigation into election fraud. The numbers are too far out of line and too consistent across the board to be a statistical anomaly. Edit:: It is an extraordinary observation and indicates overwhelming evidence of election manipulation. A massive set of detailed data and analysis for all 50 states, beyond the scope of this paper, also confirmed these unlikely results. There may be other reasons for this but given that when analysis of other areas is done, it seems that it settles out to the expected value of a straight line. Actually this has a much more straight-forward explanation (coming from someone who's been in an election war room. Smaller precincts tend to have easier counts, and therefore report sooner. The late reporters tend to be major suburban areas (large populations yet not state of the art systems for counting). This is (in my eyes) Romney's republican primary voting group. How would reporting later or earlier influence the results? We're aren't talking about 1-2% differences between the 5% cumulative mean and the 100% total tally. We're talking about 5-10% swings across thousands of precincts, consistently across the board. Also, explain pages 20 and 21 where Romney in 2008 got flat lines. Huckabee got a small curve there but nothing compared to the straight evenly sloped line that's present in Romney's 2012 primary results. Edit:: Reading it again, Historically in other contests not involving GOP candidates, we found no significant correlation
between precinct vote tally and the percentage success for each candidate. In other words, for most
counties and states, the vote result is unrelated to the number of voters in a precinct. There are random
variations between precincts, but no definite linear trend from small to large precincts. Also At this point of our analysis, the cause appears to originate with electronic voting equipment; the
problem does not exist when manual methods are used. The individual voting machines terminals,
the large central scanners or the central tabulators each or all could be the cause. Both seem rather damning. Ok, i misunderstood the charts originally. This is easy. Larger areas are more liberal than smaller areas. It makes sense, with Romney as the only moderate this year, that he did better in more populated areas. Last year doesn't work because McCain is also a moderate, so they may have split that. Nor does the other election they used on 21 where it is a late primary when he had already won. Most people just voted for him regardless. That makes no sense. They found no correlation between voting habits of precincts in rural areas vs urban areas. The only variable that changed was the amount of people in a particular precinct. I'm done for tonight though as far as this topic goes, I'm tired and my ability to read through a paper comprehensively is dropping pretty quickly.
Maybe they just found a correlation they weren't expecting?
I mean, I do election law, and I can assure you that in Wisconsin it is not "rigged". Ballot box stuffing is doable, but counting? No way in hell. Maybe in Waukesha which is a mess, but many of these municipal elections are run by 70 year old ladies. The amount of collusion that it would require is just impossible. Not to mention the whole paper trail that is left behind and often has been verified as being legit.
|
On October 26 2012 16:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 16:01 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon The time of the Third Great Awakening is upon us, and it will leave us a changed and blessed people. I mean that in the least religious way possible :p I seriously do think a major shift in collective perspective is in order, though I've not much to back up such a claim more than whispers and guesses. December 2012...!? Hell naw, the end of a Mayan era is a red herring, a distraction that only exists to warm the bench for what's really going to happen. Perhaps a good old fashioned war everyone can get behind or a scientific breakthrough that fundamentally alters our understanding of something very basic. Who can say these things?
The mayan thing is because everybody knows shit's getting real but they can't cope with thinking about how things actually might change, so that anxiety sort of get sublimated into this millenarian craze. It's a similar phenomenon with the zombies and other post-apocalyptic genres.
|
On October 26 2012 15:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon Ain't that the truth. The biggest enemy of America is not Russia, China, or even Iran. It's ourselves.
you mean romney, ryan and their congress friends
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 16:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 16:01 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon The time of the Third Great Awakening is upon us, and it will leave us a changed and blessed people. I mean that in the least religious way possible :p I seriously do think a major shift in collective perspective is in order, though I've not much to back up such a claim more than whispers and guesses. December 2012...!? Hell naw, the end of a Mayan era is a red herring, a distraction that only exists to warm the bench for what's really going to happen. Perhaps a good old fashioned war everyone can get behind or a scientific breakthrough that fundamentally alters our understanding of something very basic. Who can say these things?
Would be nice if there was a scientific breakthrough that could give us all amazing memories. I feel like I've been getting old these days... forgetting things ten seconds after the fact.
|
|
|
On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists.
False. Obama's statement was true.
|
On October 26 2012 16:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Ugh.. you're beyond debating with. I never said the U.S. should appease other nations, but it might try respecting them as Obama has done? You linked a CNN page from 2008 that shows Obama to be reasonable. He supports criminal background checks? He thinks that should apply to gun shows? He wants to restrict ammunition that is marketed as "armor piercing?" What a knave. Guess what else it says on that page. Voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens. Oops. You said previously you're 20 years old, which of course leads me to question you when you say foreign policy is your strong suit. Your argument that "you're wrong because I've written papers" isn't very compelling. It's also amazing that you'd respond to my accusations of a "fuck China," "fuck Russia," and "fuck Iran," foreign policy by essentially saying "fuck Argentina." Well played. I'm not going to bother getting through to you, I don't believe it's possible at this stage of your life. Yeah, sevencck, perhaps Swazi Spring didn't turn such a blind ear on Obama's apology tour. Show nested quote +
There has been times when America's shown arrogance and been dismissive even derisive ...
The United States has been working through some of our own darker periods in our history ...
We've been at times been disengaged and at times we've sought to dictate our terms.
We've got to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes ... that's how we learn
Unfortunately faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions ... in other words we went off course.
~ Obama, 44th President of the United States of America
You say no appeasement, but respect as Obama has done? We've seen enough apologies for what Bush did and how America's perceived. Maybe this, in other's minds, America's reputation abroad isn't where it should be. Maybe, apologizing for what Bush did, for what America has done in the past is the way to remedy this, so the thinking may go. Obama did go about making these apologies, make no mistake about it. I listened to his addresses, I marked his tone. He spent the last 4 years as president; he may have no naive ignorance going his way now. So back off the mundane ad hominem ("You said previously you're 20 years old, which of course leads me to question you when you say foreign policy is your strong suit." "I'm not going to bother getting through to you, I don't believe it's possible at this stage of your life.") and realize that no prattle on Obama's respect will erase his methods of apologies.
Those quotes are taken out of context.
If you put them in context, they say something like: "America has made some mistakes, but America has also done a lot of good, and we should work together to continue to make things better."
Every fact checker has rated the apology tour as false, because they looked at the context.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/
|
Such a shame the Third party debates get so little attention. Wheres the democracy in there only being two parties at the 'official' televised debates. The Democrats and the Republicans have been pedaling the same politics for years, it doesn't matter who comes to power its the same crap over and over. It's like people don't have a choice in america
EDIT: I just realized that maybe my post goes against that third part in the note at the top of the thread, it's just sad to see Romney vs. Obama the only thing being shown in the media because the people that own the media are the same ones financing the 'main' parties, and the same people are financing both parties so it doesn't matter who wins.
|
On October 26 2012 20:12 ahappystar wrote:Such a shame the Third party debates get so little attention. Wheres the democracy in there only being two parties at the 'official' televised debates. The Democrats and the Republicans have been pedaling the same politics for years, it doesn't matter who comes to power its the same crap over and over. It's like people don't have a choice in america EDIT: I just realized that maybe my post goes against that third part in the note at the top of the thread, it's just sad to see Romney vs. Obama the only thing being shown in the media because the people that own the media are the same ones financing the 'main' parties, and the same people are financing both parties so it doesn't matter who wins.
Talking about the third party candidates should be fine, I think, since they'll be "on the ballot" as well. I think mods just don't want this becoming a generic politics thread.
I'd be super hype if there was a candidate who came out and said that as president, he won't actually have that large an influence over the economy and that no policy change will fix a recession overnight. Doubt it'll ever happen.
On a lighter note, slightly old but funny article comparing politics to sports fans.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/05/24/are-voters-just-rooting-for-clothes/
|
On October 26 2012 20:46 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 20:12 ahappystar wrote:Such a shame the Third party debates get so little attention. Wheres the democracy in there only being two parties at the 'official' televised debates. The Democrats and the Republicans have been pedaling the same politics for years, it doesn't matter who comes to power its the same crap over and over. It's like people don't have a choice in america EDIT: I just realized that maybe my post goes against that third part in the note at the top of the thread, it's just sad to see Romney vs. Obama the only thing being shown in the media because the people that own the media are the same ones financing the 'main' parties, and the same people are financing both parties so it doesn't matter who wins. Talking about the third party candidates should be fine, I think, since they'll be "on the ballot" as well. I think mods just don't want this becoming a generic politics thread. I'd be super hype if there was a candidate who came out and said that as president, he won't actually have that large an influence over the economy and that no policy change will fix a recession overnight. Doubt it'll ever happen. On a lighter note, slightly old but funny article comparing politics to sports fans. http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/05/24/are-voters-just-rooting-for-clothes/
Nice article. It's just that things like police arresting Green Party candidate Jill Stein and her running mate for protesting against the debate being hosted only for the richest and biggest parties is something that should turn on at least some warning lights..
Maybe this article does a better job at explaining than I do
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/16-10
|
Ima put some monney on Obama to win.
Then if romney looses i am at least still somewhat happy.
It also seems like a good deal.
I mean: the change that obama wins is like 90% and you get 60-40 odds
|
GDP growth better than expected.
US economic growth up sharply in third quarter The US economy grew more than expected in the three months to September, official figures showed. The world's largest economy expanded at an annualised rate of 2% in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said. The jump was partly due to a large increase in government spending.The figures are the one of the last pieces of important economic data before the US presidential election between Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney on 6 November. Federal government expenditures and gross investment increased 9.6% compared with the previous quarter, while national defence spending rose by 13%. The Commerce Department said there was a jump in personal consumption as well. A drought in the US, which was the worst for 50 years, cut farm output and took 0.4 percentage points off the GDP figures, the Commerce Department said. With more than 20 million Americans unemployed and a huge public deficit, the economy has become one of the central issues of the campaign. The US has now been growing for more than three years, since June 2009. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20096380
Stimulus works.
|
On October 26 2012 17:42 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists. False. Obama's statement was true.
No, not really.
Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets.
So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS.
|
On October 26 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:
I think it would be for the best. You have to consider carefully how to get there, however. I honestly don't see the US as being governable outside of some major demographic shifts and soon The time of the Third Great Awakening is upon us, and it will leave us a changed and blessed people. I mean that in the least religious way possible :p I seriously do think a major shift in collective perspective is in order, though I've not much to back up such a claim more than whispers and guesses.
I feel it too dawg! The Mayan calendar works just like our does, when it ends, you just start over. And According to their calendar, it's about the transition into the "Golden Age" where enlightenment is at it's highest.
I'm excited.
|
On October 26 2012 22:47 Rassy wrote:Ima put some monney on Obama to win. Then if romney looses i am at least still somewhat happy. It also seems like a good deal. I mean: the change that obama wins is like 90% and you get 60-40 odds
Those numbers are very crooked. I am pretty sure that it is no longer a 90% sure victory for Obama. Essentially it takes a singe north-eastern state to turn the table, if we can count New Hampshire as Romneys (it is shown as Obamas, but it is a single poll with 9 point lead for Obama with a small Romney lead in all the rest!). If Ohio, Michigan or Wisconsin tips over, Romney will be US president. Much of the US elections are about getting people off the couch and down voting for both parties. Stealing voters is not as important as getting the bases to vote. Last election Obama got a lot of excited minority groups to vote, while many are less fired up about voting this time around! How bad that trend is will determine a good part of the election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
