|
|
They chose a pretty cute pair of pictures for that article.
|
Canada5052 Posts
On November 07 2012 06:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 07 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 06 2012 23:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 23:50 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 18:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
As for the fiscal cliff, is Signet the only person in this thread who thinks hitting the fiscal cliff is a good idea? Supposing that he is a Republican or at least Republican leaning, then at least he's not a hypocrite on this issue.
Compare this to Romney or other Republicans who believe the fiscal cliff will wreck the economy, while at the same time believing that stimulus is bad and that deficits are bad. Such a belief is self-contradictory and completely hypocritical.
I don't think hitting the cliff is a good idea. I think deficit hawks (which I'm not) should be saddened that neither party is willing to actually go through with it. Yes, I agree. I've asked that question probably ten times in this thread and no one has been able to answer. No Republican here is able to explain their hypocrisy on the fiscal cliff. That's one reason why people shouldn't vote for Romney. Wanting to cut the deficit doesn't necessarily supersede all other considerations. For example if you want to cut your own household budget because you are racking up too much debt you wouldn't want to stop heating your house in the winter. That's not hypocritical - that's smart. Similarly, no-one is happy with the fiscal cliff - both from the standpoint of its composition and its timetable. So the only way someone is being hypocritical is if they have taken the stance of opposing the deficit "by any means necessary" - a stance that is taken by a very minority of people. Everyone wants to cut the deficit eventually. It make sense that some people think that massively reducing the deficit quickly is bad, that we should do it slowly, and that not all cuts are good, which is what you're basically saying. But the logic leading that person to believe that massively cutting the deficit in the short term is bad for the economy, also implies that increasing the deficit in the short term is good for the economy. Therefore, the hypocritical Republican position I'm talking about is believing: 1) Hitting the fiscal cliff is bad because it massively reduces the deficit through spending and tax cuts while the economy is still in a recession. 2) A large increase to the deficit by increasing spending in a recession will stimulate the economy. Simultaneously holding both beliefs makes no sense to me. I can't speak for all Republicans but most aren't anti-stimulus so much anti- Obama's stimulus. The ARRA was the Democrat's legislation and Republican's didn't like its composition and so they opposed it. Since then the message has devolved a bit from criticism over a specific stimulus to criticism of stimulus. But I think that's more of a dumbing down of the rhetoric than a real change in policy. Then why have I've never seen a Republican (excluding him) say that stimulus is good, but not Obama's stimulus? Where's all the Republicans saying they want stimulus, just not Obama's stimulus?
Where are all the Republicans and conservatives that are obsessed with the national debt PRAISING and hoping for the fiscal cliff? That's a sure fire way to lower the deficit!
|
Going off the models, I'd go with Obama winning all battleground states except NC, which is 332-206.
But Florida is now a coin flip, Nate Silver says the "margin in Florida now Obama 49.797, Romney 49.775".
So it could equally likely be 303-235.
I put money on Obama losing Florida a few days ago, but now, according to the models, I believe he has a infinitesimally higher chance to win it than Romney.
|
Canada5052 Posts
On November 07 2012 06:23 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 06:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
My Final Prediction:
EC:
354-184 Romney
Romney carries: OH, NV, MI, WI, CO, IA, MN, OR, NH, PA, VA, NC, FL (possibly NM)
Popular Vote:
Romney: ~ 54%
Obama: ~ 43%
Johnson: ~ 3%
Stein: > 0.1%
it's been a lot of fun guys. may the best man win. I'll see ya'll on the other side!
I'm surprised you didn't put California on that Romney list.
Fuck it, just throw in Canada, too.
|
On November 07 2012 06:31 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 06:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 07 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 07 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 06 2012 23:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 23:50 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 18:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
As for the fiscal cliff, is Signet the only person in this thread who thinks hitting the fiscal cliff is a good idea? Supposing that he is a Republican or at least Republican leaning, then at least he's not a hypocrite on this issue.
Compare this to Romney or other Republicans who believe the fiscal cliff will wreck the economy, while at the same time believing that stimulus is bad and that deficits are bad. Such a belief is self-contradictory and completely hypocritical.
I don't think hitting the cliff is a good idea. I think deficit hawks (which I'm not) should be saddened that neither party is willing to actually go through with it. Yes, I agree. I've asked that question probably ten times in this thread and no one has been able to answer. No Republican here is able to explain their hypocrisy on the fiscal cliff. That's one reason why people shouldn't vote for Romney. Wanting to cut the deficit doesn't necessarily supersede all other considerations. For example if you want to cut your own household budget because you are racking up too much debt you wouldn't want to stop heating your house in the winter. That's not hypocritical - that's smart. Similarly, no-one is happy with the fiscal cliff - both from the standpoint of its composition and its timetable. So the only way someone is being hypocritical is if they have taken the stance of opposing the deficit "by any means necessary" - a stance that is taken by a very minority of people. Everyone wants to cut the deficit eventually. It make sense that some people think that massively reducing the deficit quickly is bad, that we should do it slowly, and that not all cuts are good, which is what you're basically saying. But the logic leading that person to believe that massively cutting the deficit in the short term is bad for the economy, also implies that increasing the deficit in the short term is good for the economy. Therefore, the hypocritical Republican position I'm talking about is believing: 1) Hitting the fiscal cliff is bad because it massively reduces the deficit through spending and tax cuts while the economy is still in a recession. 2) A large increase to the deficit by increasing spending in a recession will stimulate the economy. Simultaneously holding both beliefs makes no sense to me. I can't speak for all Republicans but most aren't anti-stimulus so much anti- Obama's stimulus. The ARRA was the Democrat's legislation and Republican's didn't like its composition and so they opposed it. Since then the message has devolved a bit from criticism over a specific stimulus to criticism of stimulus. But I think that's more of a dumbing down of the rhetoric than a real change in policy. Then why have I've never seen a Republican (excluding him) say that stimulus is good, but not Obama's stimulus? Where's all the Republicans saying they want stimulus, just not Obama's stimulus? Where are all the Republicans and conservatives that are obsessed with the national debt PRAISING and hoping for the fiscal cliff? That's a sure fire way to lower the deficit!
That's how the conversation started. No, I don't know where they are.
|
On November 07 2012 06:32 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 06:23 urashimakt wrote:On November 07 2012 06:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
My Final Prediction:
EC:
354-184 Romney
Romney carries: OH, NV, MI, WI, CO, IA, MN, OR, NH, PA, VA, NC, FL (possibly NM)
Popular Vote:
Romney: ~ 54%
Obama: ~ 43%
Johnson: ~ 3%
Stein: > 0.1%
it's been a lot of fun guys. may the best man win. I'll see ya'll on the other side!
I'm surprised you didn't put California on that Romney list. Fuck it, just throw in Canada, too.
Not China though. He hates China.
|
This poll worker clearly doesn't have a brain.... tampering in Oregon, lol.
|
On November 07 2012 06:34 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 06:32 Defacer wrote:On November 07 2012 06:23 urashimakt wrote:On November 07 2012 06:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
My Final Prediction:
EC:
354-184 Romney
Romney carries: OH, NV, MI, WI, CO, IA, MN, OR, NH, PA, VA, NC, FL (possibly NM)
Popular Vote:
Romney: ~ 54%
Obama: ~ 43%
Johnson: ~ 3%
Stein: > 0.1%
it's been a lot of fun guys. may the best man win. I'll see ya'll on the other side!
I'm surprised you didn't put California on that Romney list. Fuck it, just throw in Canada, too. Not China though. He hates China.
He loves the Cayman Islands tho!
|
On November 07 2012 06:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
My Final Prediction:
EC:
354-184 Romney
Romney carries: OH, NV, MI, WI, CO, IA, MN, OR, NH, PA, VA, NC, FL (possibly NM)
Popular Vote:
Romney: ~ 54%
Obama: ~ 43%
Johnson: ~ 3%
Stein: > 0.1%
it's been a lot of fun guys. may the best man win. I'll see ya'll on the other side!
Hey, I think you forgot Vermont. Pretty sure that's going to go Romney as well.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On November 07 2012 03:38 farvacola wrote:tree.hugger with that straight party ticket, a man after my own heart 
I voted Horner in 2010 tho. Almost accidentally made Emmer governor. Lesson learned.
|
On November 07 2012 05:12 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2012 05:07 Tarot wrote:On November 07 2012 05:07 Boraz wrote:On November 07 2012 05:05 radiatoren wrote:
Someone is looking at a reality through a monochromatic lense. The questions you should be asking is "how can someone do it better?", "Why do people act the way they do?" and "Why do people disagree with me?". If you find the answers to those questions irrelevant, you are probably not discussing the right issue, with the right people and from a big enough perspective.
There is always more to learn Boraz and some of it is about yourself. Why is somebody from Denmark even posting in here? Because a certain party (in your presidential election) never ceases to amuse. We need a thread for the next Canadian election. I'd really like the opportunity to return some smugness Jonny - dish out the info. I know NOTHING of Canada. Except something about Harper being bad.
It's off topic but I think Canadian's are in for a reality check when commodity prices come back to Earth and their own debt problems come home to roost.
|
On November 07 2012 06:34 BluePanther wrote:This poll worker clearly doesn't have a brain.... tampering in Oregon, lol.
Sigh... poll workers really need to be better trained. It's not even this, but workers just generally being inefficient and not knowing the proper protocol. It's hard to believe we spend $6 billion on an election and the people in charge of getting the votes don't know what they're doing. It also points to how fucking uninformed the average voter is.
|
On November 07 2012 06:19 Nesto wrote:
hmm, I watched like 20 minutes of CNN, they now had interviews with two guys on the rep side and two on the democrats side and every single one tells Blitzer how turnout on their side is greater than expected and that they don't see the same on the other side...
god that's annoying... lol
The partisan bias is verry strong in all the republicans and democrats i have seen on cnn.
Cnn expects to call the election around midnight eastern time, first results in 90 minutes.
8 more hours and this ordeal is over and can forget about the usa politics for the next 4 years.
Just hope it doesnt end with a huge letdown, like obama winning with a landslide 
Would definatly feel fooled by the media if that happend.
|
On November 07 2012 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 05:07 Tarot wrote:On November 07 2012 05:07 Boraz wrote:On November 07 2012 05:05 radiatoren wrote:
Someone is looking at a reality through a monochromatic lense. The questions you should be asking is "how can someone do it better?", "Why do people act the way they do?" and "Why do people disagree with me?". If you find the answers to those questions irrelevant, you are probably not discussing the right issue, with the right people and from a big enough perspective.
There is always more to learn Boraz and some of it is about yourself. Why is somebody from Denmark even posting in here? Because a certain party (in your presidential election) never ceases to amuse. We need a thread for the next Canadian election. I'd really like the opportunity to return some smugness
For anyone interested, here's the last Canadian election thread (2011): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=212002
|
Canada5052 Posts
On November 07 2012 06:41 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2012 05:07 Tarot wrote:On November 07 2012 05:07 Boraz wrote:On November 07 2012 05:05 radiatoren wrote:
Someone is looking at a reality through a monochromatic lense. The questions you should be asking is "how can someone do it better?", "Why do people act the way they do?" and "Why do people disagree with me?". If you find the answers to those questions irrelevant, you are probably not discussing the right issue, with the right people and from a big enough perspective.
There is always more to learn Boraz and some of it is about yourself. Why is somebody from Denmark even posting in here? Because a certain party (in your presidential election) never ceases to amuse. We need a thread for the next Canadian election. I'd really like the opportunity to return some smugness For anyone interested, here's the last Canadian election thread (2011): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=212002
Prepared. To. Be. Bored.
|
Canada5052 Posts
On November 07 2012 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 05:12 JinDesu wrote:On November 07 2012 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2012 05:07 Tarot wrote:On November 07 2012 05:07 Boraz wrote:On November 07 2012 05:05 radiatoren wrote:
Someone is looking at a reality through a monochromatic lense. The questions you should be asking is "how can someone do it better?", "Why do people act the way they do?" and "Why do people disagree with me?". If you find the answers to those questions irrelevant, you are probably not discussing the right issue, with the right people and from a big enough perspective.
There is always more to learn Boraz and some of it is about yourself. Why is somebody from Denmark even posting in here? Because a certain party (in your presidential election) never ceases to amuse. We need a thread for the next Canadian election. I'd really like the opportunity to return some smugness Jonny - dish out the info. I know NOTHING of Canada. Except something about Harper being bad. It's off topic but I think Canadian's are in for a reality check when commodity prices come back to Earth and their own debt problems come home to roost.
Yup. I expect our real estate market to crash. And we have our own issues with China.
|
On November 07 2012 05:40 DystopiaX wrote:
^^So a video of a malfunctioning voting machine isn't worth talking about? I think there's a possibility it is just a broken machine or something, but the warning you quoted says "something of substance" and a voting machine that clearly doesn't let people vote for Obama seems substantial to me.
It was discussed, like three pages ago. In addition they reported on AC 360 like an hour ago that the machine was malfunctioning, it was taken offline and re-calibrated, and is back in service.
Nothing to see here people, move along.
|
Just voted, went to my old elementary school, not a great turnout, but still something.
|
On November 07 2012 06:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 07 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 06 2012 23:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 06 2012 23:50 Signet wrote:On November 06 2012 18:24 paralleluniverse wrote:
As for the fiscal cliff, is Signet the only person in this thread who thinks hitting the fiscal cliff is a good idea? Supposing that he is a Republican or at least Republican leaning, then at least he's not a hypocrite on this issue.
Compare this to Romney or other Republicans who believe the fiscal cliff will wreck the economy, while at the same time believing that stimulus is bad and that deficits are bad. Such a belief is self-contradictory and completely hypocritical.
I don't think hitting the cliff is a good idea. I think deficit hawks (which I'm not) should be saddened that neither party is willing to actually go through with it. Yes, I agree. I've asked that question probably ten times in this thread and no one has been able to answer. No Republican here is able to explain their hypocrisy on the fiscal cliff. That's one reason why people shouldn't vote for Romney. Wanting to cut the deficit doesn't necessarily supersede all other considerations. For example if you want to cut your own household budget because you are racking up too much debt you wouldn't want to stop heating your house in the winter. That's not hypocritical - that's smart. Similarly, no-one is happy with the fiscal cliff - both from the standpoint of its composition and its timetable. So the only way someone is being hypocritical is if they have taken the stance of opposing the deficit "by any means necessary" - a stance that is taken by a very minority of people. Everyone wants to cut the deficit eventually. It make sense that some people think that massively reducing the deficit quickly is bad, that we should do it slowly, and that not all cuts are good, which is what you're basically saying. But the logic leading that person to believe that massively cutting the deficit in the short term is bad for the economy, also implies that increasing the deficit in the short term is good for the economy. Therefore, the hypocritical Republican position I'm talking about is believing: 1) Hitting the fiscal cliff is bad because it massively reduces the deficit through spending and tax cuts while the economy is still in a recession. 2) A large increase to the deficit by increasing spending in a recession will stimulate the economy. Simultaneously holding both beliefs makes no sense to me. I can't speak for all Republicans but most aren't anti-stimulus so much anti- Obama's stimulus. The ARRA was the Democrat's legislation and Republican's didn't like its composition and so they opposed it. Since then the message has devolved a bit from criticism over a specific stimulus to criticism of stimulus. But I think that's more of a dumbing down of the rhetoric than a real change in policy. Then why have I've never seen a Republican (excluding him) say that stimulus is good, but not Obama's stimulus? Where's all the Republicans saying they want stimulus, just not Obama's stimulus?
Well they passed their own relatively small stimulus back in '08 before things got really bad.
Then when the ARRA was being drafted Reps were complaining about not having enough of a say in the matter, which was their main argument at the time for voting against it. They also had a couple alternative (and smaller if I remember right) stimulus plans of their own.
|
On November 07 2012 06:35 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2012 03:38 farvacola wrote:tree.hugger with that straight party ticket, a man after my own heart I voted Horner in 2010 tho. Almost accidentally made Emmer governor. Lesson learned.
Yeah, Minnesota is an interesting state when it comes to state politics; it's got a strong and influential independent voter sensibility, and along with Wisconsin y'all just seem to pump out influential politicians. And yes, thank god y'all did not elect Tom Emmer, he is pretty much the worst kind of Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
