|
|
On October 29 2012 13:32 ZackAttack wrote:
I just want to let everybody know that I made my facebook status, "Hurricane Sandy has got to have something to do with Obama being a communist". A lot of people liked it, but only about half knew I was kidding.
the hurricane was a magical conjuration after years and years of underground collaboration with communists. thought everyone knew?
|
oh man, if the republicans ran a guy who understood christianity I might vote for him.
|
On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates.
That's the thing - the country isn't moving to the left, but the Republicans are definitely moving to the right, which has much the same effect as far as their ability to secure votes is concerned.
|
On October 29 2012 13:32 ZackAttack wrote:
I just want to let everybody know that I made my facebook status, "Hurricane Sandy has got to have something to do with Obama being a communist". A lot of people liked it, but only about half knew I was kidding.
The really scary thing is, when people blame global warming, they ARE serious.
I love poking at the left. 
|
Poll: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote?President Barack Obama (484) 58% Governor Mitt Romney (190) 23% Third Party Candidate (96) 12% I do not plan to vote (59) 7% 829 total votes Your vote: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote? (Vote): President Barack Obama
(Vote): Governor Mitt Romney
(Vote): Third Party Candidate
(Vote): I do not plan to vote
Not really surprised at this poll's results, considering TL is more liberal than conservative (although I think it'll be a lot closer in the real election between Obama and Romney than this poll's spread).
Out of curiosity, does the fact that you live in (or don't live in) a swing state matter to you? I know some people will cast their vote for the candidate they like the most, regardless of anything else. However, others will vote for a different candidate (or will vote at all) only if it's likely/ slightly possible their vote "will matter" (as in, they don't live in a state that's pretty much already decided as Won By Candidate X).
Just curious if these other factors play a role in anyone's voting decision.
|
There's a storm a comin'!
|
On October 29 2012 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote?President Barack Obama (484) 58% Governor Mitt Romney (190) 23% Third Party Candidate (96) 12% I do not plan to vote (59) 7% 829 total votes Your vote: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote? (Vote): President Barack Obama
(Vote): Governor Mitt Romney
(Vote): Third Party Candidate
(Vote): I do not plan to vote
Not really surprised at this poll's results, considering TL is more liberal than conservative (although I think it'll be a lot closer in the real election between Obama and Romney than this poll's spread). Out of curiosity, does the fact that you live in (or don't live in) a swing state matter to you? I know some people will cast their vote for the candidate they like the most, regardless of anything else. However, others will vote for a different candidate (or will vote at all) only if it's likely/ slightly possible their vote "will matter" (as in, they don't live in a state that's pretty much already decided as Won By Candidate X). Just curious if these other factors play a role in anyone's voting decision.
I'm voting third party. My state is locked. If I lived in a swing state, I don't think I could ever vote third party. I actually like knowing that my vote won't matter, gives me the freedom to vote for everything I want instead of settling for the lesser of evils. But I guess everything is a lesser of evils.
|
On October 29 2012 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote?President Barack Obama (484) 58% Governor Mitt Romney (190) 23% Third Party Candidate (96) 12% I do not plan to vote (59) 7% 829 total votes Your vote: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote? (Vote): President Barack Obama
(Vote): Governor Mitt Romney
(Vote): Third Party Candidate
(Vote): I do not plan to vote
Not really surprised at this poll's results, considering TL is more liberal than conservative (although I think it'll be a lot closer in the real election between Obama and Romney than this poll's spread). Out of curiosity, does the fact that you live in (or don't live in) a swing state matter to you? I know some people will cast their vote for the candidate they like the most, regardless of anything else. However, others will vote for a different candidate (or will vote at all) only if it's likely/ slightly possible their vote "will matter" (as in, they don't live in a state that's pretty much already decided as Won By Candidate X). Just curious if these other factors play a role in anyone's voting decision.
I'm voting in Ohio for Obama, though I currently live near Seattle. Still got my apartment in Columbus
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm not voting because i'm too lazy. but jill has my blessing.
|
On October 28 2012 16:50 Souma wrote:
This brings up an interesting question though. What do conservatives think of the current wealth inequality and what measures, if any, do you propose should be taken to solve the issue?
The problem has never, ever been wealth inequality. The problem is absolute standard of living. If everyone is equal in society, but there is widespread starvation, then that is not a desirable system. The equality is a non-issue, the only issue at stake is preventing human suffering. Reducing absolute human suffering, not relative inequality, that is the moral goal here, the goal of a true progressive. It is the absolute situation of individuals, their quality of life, that matters, not the difference between them and some other group of people. This is why I mention repeatedly, class warfare and divisiveness. Because the progressive's primary interest is NOT in improving the welfare and standard of living of the poor. If that were the case, income inequality wouldn't even need to be mentioned. It would be a non-issue. I care about the poor, I care about their living conditions, I care about their health, I care about their education. That in no way translates in my brain to focusing on rich people and how much they are making. When I see a poor person, my mind does not somehow leap to rich people, that would be forgetting the entity that should be the focus. It's based on an ignorant zero-sum view of the economy and of an individual's economic situation.
Government assistance can help the poor, it can improve their situation. Acknowledging that is completely different than whining about the 1%. When people talk about the 1% and how much they make, we are no longer talking about helping the poor, we are talking in terms couched in anger, hatred, envy, and divisive class identity politics. It's an Us vs. Them mentality, it's an unhealthy mentality imo. Helping the poor is not an Us vs. Them mentality, it's a focus on the poor. If someone thinks rich people are to blame for poverty, instead of poverty being the natural human condition which must be fought and escaped, well, then your ignorance runs deep.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 14:11 oneofthem wrote:
i'm not voting because i'm too lazy. but jill has my blessing.
^ Heathen! Get your butt up and go vote for Jill. Every vote counts for third-party candidates. They need more recognition. >=F
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
baargaining power is very important in determining wage level.
|
On October 29 2012 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Poll: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote?President Barack Obama (484) 58% Governor Mitt Romney (190) 23% Third Party Candidate (96) 12% I do not plan to vote (59) 7% 829 total votes Your vote: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote? (Vote): President Barack Obama
(Vote): Governor Mitt Romney
(Vote): Third Party Candidate
(Vote): I do not plan to vote
Not really surprised at this poll's results, considering TL is more liberal than conservative (although I think it'll be a lot closer in the real election between Obama and Romney than this poll's spread). Out of curiosity, does the fact that you live in (or don't live in) a swing state matter to you? I know some people will cast their vote for the candidate they like the most, regardless of anything else. However, others will vote for a different candidate (or will vote at all) only if it's likely/ slightly possible their vote "will matter" (as in, they don't live in a state that's pretty much already decided as Won By Candidate X). Just curious if these other factors play a role in anyone's voting decision.
Yes If I still lived in Nevada , I would have voted for Barack Obama instead of Jill Stein.
I do like being able to vote who shares my vision though.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 14:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 16:50 Souma wrote:
This brings up an interesting question though. What do conservatives think of the current wealth inequality and what measures, if any, do you propose should be taken to solve the issue? The problem has never, ever been wealth inequality. The problem is absolute standard of living. If everyone is equal in society, but there is widespread starvation, then that is not a desirable system. The equality is a non-issue, the only issue at stake is preventing human suffering. Reducing absolute human suffering, not relative inequality, that is the moral goal here, the goal of a true progressive. It is the absolute situation of individuals, their quality of life, that matters, not the difference between them and some other group of people. This is why I mention repeatedly, class warfare and divisiveness. Because the progressive's primary interest is NOT in improving the welfare and standard of living of the poor. If that were the case, income inequality wouldn't even need to be mentioned. It would be a non-issue. I care about the poor, I care about their living conditions, I care about their health, I care about their education. That in no way translates in my brain to focusing on rich people and how much they are making. When I see a poor person, my mind does not somehow leap to rich people, that would be forgetting the entity that should be the focus. It's based on an ignorant zero-sum view of the economy and of an individual's economic situation. Government assistance can help the poor, it can improve their situation. Acknowledging that is completely different than whining about the 1%. When people talk about the 1% and how much they make, we are no longer talking about helping the poor, we are talking in terms couched in anger, hatred, envy, and divisive class identity politics. It's an Us vs. Them mentality, it's an unhealthy mentality imo. Helping the poor is not an Us vs. Them mentality, it's a focus on the poor. If someone thinks rich people are to blame for poverty, instead of poverty being the natural human condition which must be fought and escaped, well, then your ignorance runs deep.
Uhm, massive wealth inequality (what we are facing currently and not, say, 20 or 60 years ago) and social mobility go hand-in-hand. What we should address, for the sake of all things in the long term, are not the symptoms (suffering), but the systemic problems. Tossing money at poor people through government assistance is equivalent to putting a band-aid on a knife wound. But in this case, while government assistance is a necessary endeavor to ease people of their suffering in the short-run, it's pertinent that, as sam said before, we design a society that curbs these issues all together.
The irony of a libertarian calling a progressive's beliefs based on "an ignorant zero-sum view of the economy," oh my. And if you had actually followed along with the conversation before, you'd realize that it's obvious that some wealth inequality is necessary and even welcomed - what we have right now, no, it's detrimental to the health of our economy and society as a whole.
By the way, this is in no way demonizing rich people. You just want to make it sound like that because it probably helps you sleep at night if you make us seem like envious poor folk. However, if you don't think some rich people are at least in some way culpable for some of the issues we've been facing (Wall Street, Koch Brothers, etc.), you're extremely ignorant yourself.
|
On October 29 2012 14:16 oneofthem wrote:
baargaining power is very important in determining wage level.
Wealth does not come from bargaining. It comes from producing and earning. More zero-sum perspective.
The people who are successful in this country have usually gotten there by improving themselves. Improving their education, learning marketable skills, social skills, etc. It's about self-value, not force or taking power.
|
On October 29 2012 14:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 16:50 Souma wrote:
This brings up an interesting question though. What do conservatives think of the current wealth inequality and what measures, if any, do you propose should be taken to solve the issue? The problem has never, ever been wealth inequality. The problem is absolute standard of living. If everyone is equal in society, but there is widespread starvation, then that is not a desirable system. The equality is a non-issue, the only issue at stake is preventing human suffering. Reducing absolute human suffering, not relative inequality, that is the moral goal here, the goal of a true progressive. It is the absolute situation of individuals, their quality of life, that matters, not the difference between them and some other group of people. This is why I mention repeatedly, class warfare and divisiveness. Because the progressive's primary interest is NOT in improving the welfare and standard of living of the poor. If that were the case, income inequality wouldn't even need to be mentioned. It would be a non-issue. I care about the poor, I care about their living conditions, I care about their health, I care about their education. That in no way translates in my brain to focusing on rich people and how much they are making. When I see a poor person, my mind does not somehow leap to rich people, that would be forgetting the entity that should be the focus. It's based on an ignorant zero-sum view of the economy and of an individual's economic situation. Government assistance can help the poor, it can improve their situation. Acknowledging that is completely different than whining about the 1%. When people talk about the 1% and how much they make, we are no longer talking about helping the poor, we are talking in terms couched in anger, hatred, envy, and divisive class identity politics. It's an Us vs. Them mentality, it's an unhealthy mentality imo. Helping the poor is not an Us vs. Them mentality, it's a focus on the poor. If someone thinks rich people are to blame for poverty, instead of poverty being the natural human condition which must be fought and escaped, well, then your ignorance runs deep.
That anyone actually thinks the rich need defending will never cease to astound me, but you are arguing against a caricature of liberalness to your own detriment nonetheless. No one worth their progressive weight would argue for anything as singular as a mere indictment of the rich; reforms to tax code, government programs, and economic policy are always worth attention, in the name of progress above all else, on all fronts. A question of priority is certainly a topic for debate, but if you are going to tell me that those making billions off job exports and domestically detrimental business strategies don't have to start making some sacrifices, I'm going to call bullshit.
|
On October 29 2012 12:40 jalstar wrote:
I'm actually baffled as to why the Republicans don't win every election in a landslide.
The country is 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative, and most exit polls have not only confirmed this but shown that swing states have a similar composition.
With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have been running center-left candidates since 1968, the Republicans have been running center-right candidates for the same time period.
The problem is that the Republicans just seem to have such a hard time finding good candidates, I mean those stats at the top of my post look so good for Romney, but 70% of moderates and 25% of conservatives are voting Obama, and meanwhile Romney is only getting 5% of liberals.
The country isn't moving to the left like NYT/WaPo/HuffPo want it to be, the Republicans just suck at finding candidates who appeal to conservatives and to a lesser extent moderates.
Maybe Americans view the scale differently (shifted to the left because the entire country is further right) but the way people in most of the world sees it Democrats run center/center right candidates and Republicans are far right. Which explains why the elections are close as the Democrats get most of the moderates.
|
On October 29 2012 13:42 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 13:32 ZackAttack wrote:
I just want to let everybody know that I made my facebook status, "Hurricane Sandy has got to have something to do with Obama being a communist". A lot of people liked it, but only about half knew I was kidding. the hurricane was a magical conjuration after years and years of underground collaboration with communists. thought everyone knew?
yall fucked, obama controls the weather
republicans shouldve paid attention in science class. SCIENCE BITCHES.
as demonstrated by this image, he can also shoot rainbows out of his hands.
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6LTkxoqrkp4/TcE6rmT1H9I/AAAAAAAAAOY/wwMcwKtSz8o/s640/Obama_Unicorn_Whisperer_thumb.jpg)
it'll be interesting to see what sort of disaster response will be need and how obama will manage it-- hopefully not too much will be needed. more importantly, what effect will this have on people getting out to vote and such?
|
On October 29 2012 14:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 14:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 28 2012 16:50 Souma wrote:
This brings up an interesting question though. What do conservatives think of the current wealth inequality and what measures, if any, do you propose should be taken to solve the issue? The problem has never, ever been wealth inequality. The problem is absolute standard of living. If everyone is equal in society, but there is widespread starvation, then that is not a desirable system. The equality is a non-issue, the only issue at stake is preventing human suffering. Reducing absolute human suffering, not relative inequality, that is the moral goal here, the goal of a true progressive. It is the absolute situation of individuals, their quality of life, that matters, not the difference between them and some other group of people. This is why I mention repeatedly, class warfare and divisiveness. Because the progressive's primary interest is NOT in improving the welfare and standard of living of the poor. If that were the case, income inequality wouldn't even need to be mentioned. It would be a non-issue. I care about the poor, I care about their living conditions, I care about their health, I care about their education. That in no way translates in my brain to focusing on rich people and how much they are making. When I see a poor person, my mind does not somehow leap to rich people, that would be forgetting the entity that should be the focus. It's based on an ignorant zero-sum view of the economy and of an individual's economic situation. Government assistance can help the poor, it can improve their situation. Acknowledging that is completely different than whining about the 1%. When people talk about the 1% and how much they make, we are no longer talking about helping the poor, we are talking in terms couched in anger, hatred, envy, and divisive class identity politics. It's an Us vs. Them mentality, it's an unhealthy mentality imo. Helping the poor is not an Us vs. Them mentality, it's a focus on the poor. If someone thinks rich people are to blame for poverty, instead of poverty being the natural human condition which must be fought and escaped, well, then your ignorance runs deep. That anyone actually thinks the rich need defending will never cease to astound me, but you are arguing against a caricature of liberalness to your own detriment nonetheless. No one worth their progressive weight would argue for anything as singular as a mere indictment of the rich; reforms to tax code, government programs, and economic policy are always worth attention, in the name of progress above all else, on all fronts. A question of priority is certainly a topic for debate, but if you are going to tell me that those making billions off job exports and domestically detrimental business strategies don't have to start making some sacrifices, I'm going to call bullshit.
I personally don't have the view that American well being is somehow more important than other people, I don't think in nationalistic terms. So I don't think job exports are bad on that grounds, but that's a separate topic....
Trade is good, trade is beneficial. No one says "I'm not going to buy anything from walmart, because then walmart would have my money. I'm going to grow my own food and build my own furniture and weave my own clothes so that I stay economically strong." It's the most ridiculous economic fallacy, and yet it gets repeated endlessly.
Trade is efficient. People specialize in one task they can do better than others, and that trade based on specialization and comparative advantage leaves both parties better off. A person who shops and trades for their goods will always be richer, because they will be getting those goods at a cheaper cost than they could have produced themselves.
It shows a real ignorance of economics to think that outsourcing is bad for the country. Outsourcing is bad for the individuals who lose their jobs, but it is good for the country. We have goods produced at a lower cost, which means more money in our pockets to spend and other goods and replace those jobs plus interest.
We should not be subsidizing inefficient industries and jobs to cater to a minority of workers at the expense of the rest of the country. Imagine if we had subsidized horse and buggy drivers when the automobile came out, to protect their jobs. Protectionism is also provably anti-progress and therefore anti-progressive in my opinion. I don't know what you mean when you say "domestically detrimental business strategies," but something makes me think it's based either on more economic fallacies such as the one above, or on a failure of government regulation.
|
On October 29 2012 14:38 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 13:42 Doraemon wrote:On October 29 2012 13:32 ZackAttack wrote:
I just want to let everybody know that I made my facebook status, "Hurricane Sandy has got to have something to do with Obama being a communist". A lot of people liked it, but only about half knew I was kidding. the hurricane was a magical conjuration after years and years of underground collaboration with communists. thought everyone knew? yall fucked, obama controls the weather republicans shouldve paid attention in science class. SCIENCE BITCHES. as demonstrated by this image, he can also shoot rainbows out of his hands. it'll be interesting to see what sort of disaster response will be need and how obama will manage it-- hopefully not too much will be needed. more importantly, what effect will this have on people getting out to vote and such?
Obama doesn't control the weather, don't you remember the Beijing Olympics? The Chinese control the weather, the COMMUNIST Chinese. Obama had to give all our jobs to the communists in the modern day equivalent of a summoning ritual to get the Chinese to use their weather machine to launch a hurricane at us.
Because of.... Muslims. Yea, that's it, Kenyan Muslims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Most_d497e2_172791.jpg)
