EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1103
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:56 xDaunt wrote: MSNBC actually gets better ratings than CNN now. That's because Chris Matthews is mah boiiiiii | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/competing-headlines-of-the-day.html | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:50 xDaunt wrote: Also, I'm not even sure that I buy the "trends" towards Romney that most polls are reflecting. Let's say Romney wins. Are we really to believe that there was actually a 10-15 point swing in opinion towards Romney over the final six weeks? I really don't see how that many people could have been truly undecided. Maybe not undecided but just unenthusiastic about voting. After the first debate, the Republican base was riled up. I'm sure some people did change their minds from a "no/maybe" to a "yes" when they saw the revival of moderate Romney, but I think a lot of it has to do with voter enthusiasm. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote: absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr "The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote: This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
MSNBC is like the Fox News of the Democrats right? | ||
|
Liszt
Austria86 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:36 Kipsate wrote: Just a question as I am not 100% informed and I am a European MSNBC is like the Fox News of the Democrats right? there is no equivalent for fox news on the left | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:36 Kipsate wrote: Just a question as I am not 100% informed and I am a European MSNBC is like the Fox News of the Democrats right? That would be the comparison that is generally made, you are correct. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:36 Kipsate wrote: Just a question as I am not 100% informed and I am a European MSNBC is like the Fox News of the Democrats right? Sorta. FoxNews is a more serious news network. It has more than just commentary. It has a robust news and reporting unit as well. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote: ^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I kinda want to beat him with a stick for taking this long to decide. Unfortunately, he's in a swing state, so I have to be thankful. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:44 Souma wrote: ^ It never came to mind that you'd vote for anyone else. You don't seem libertarian enough for Gary Johnson and you're not liberal enough for Obama. I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:47 BluePanther wrote: I originally planned on voting for Obama and have been delaying myself on voting for Johnson. I voted Libertarian in 08. I also voted for more Dems than Reps in 10. I'm actually a rather independent voter despite my personal views. I actually like Obama in a lot of respects. However, the Stuxnet and other national security leaks that appeared to be political in nature is the reason I cannot justify supporting him. National secrets should not be exploited for political gain--I draw the line there. So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:51 farvacola wrote: So you draw the line based on appearances? Isn't that called shallow? Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
| ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote: Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I guarantee you national security leaks will happen under Romney as well. If that's one of your main reasons to vote for Romney, you're deceiving yourself. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:52 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Lol at BluePanther acting surprised he's voting Romney. I actually had no intention to vote for him 3 months ago, so yeah, I am a little. I was thinking Obama/Johnson, then Romney. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote: Huh? Are you calling me racist or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? Yeah... this is a bit of a stretch for what you said Blue. | ||
| ||
