I'm really interested in what to be taken away from this election concerning what is in store for future elections. As I see it, the most viable strategy for Republicans since the turn of the century has been to move towards the center on immigration reform specifically and try to bring Americans of Latino descent into the fold of their party. Bush made significant gains in this area in the 2004 election, but he couldn't get immigration reform passed into law. In 2008 McCain ran after having a record of supporting Bush-era immigration reform and still lost ground in the demographic. The last four years the party has pushed itself even farther right and surrendered even more of the vote to President Obama and Democrats.
A push for real immigration reform by the Republican party would only aid them in farther solidifying the southeastern states as red. Democrats are already salivating at the prospects of Arizona coming into play if the Republicans don't do anything. Republican prospects would improve in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. The remaining current battleground states could still stay in play. The Democratic stranglehold on California could show weaknesses.
If you're a Republican and you want the Presidency in 2016 I think your best chances are with Marco Rubio at the helm, while championing comprehensive immigration reform. The party has been putting him in a position to make a run in 2016, and I expect them to propel him through the primaries while trying to keep immigration talk to a minimum. Once he secures his nomination and is on the national stage they'll shift the attention and the race will be on.
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!?
It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing.
So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth...
if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it?
GMO has some problematic carryover of abilities. It is estimated that it takes less than 20 years from a GMO-crop is first planted on a field untill the specific gene from the crop has spread to every other plant in the area. The basic problem of this transfer of ability is that the specific effect of the gene can vary based on the rest of the genetic sequence in the organism and to be sure, you would therefore need to test the immunised weed to see how animals react to them too and so on and so forth (let alone the ecologicaleffects of the specific gene - if it is immunity to a specific herbicide, the longterm effect is rather serious for the manufacturer of the herbicide.). Reality is that the specifics of tranferring genes between species is still poorly understood and the effects of the transfer of a previously unreleased gene and its effect on nature is virtually untested.
The Monsanto overreaches are just an example of a clever businessman gaming the patent system. Nothing more, nothing less and it has very little to do with GMOs.
that first paragraph is an argument for oversight on planting of gm crop. that is all well and excellent. the food itself has no issues that anyone is aware of.
That is correct as such, but often contamination is not insignificant and when cancer is a possible sideeffect of bad genes. and that effect often is associated with low quantities of a compound, it is not as farfetched as it sounds.
well, okay. that is an argument i will admit is technically sound. but monoculture is a feature of agribusiness, and regulating species diversity may be an alternative to consider.
On November 08 2012 08:05 Souma wrote:
On November 08 2012 08:02 oneofthem wrote: do they have the right to know if the food has been trampled over by a black cat at any point in time?
Now you're just being snippy (but if it was a finished product I would hope people would remove it as someone could be allergic to cats).
We're talking about the composition of the food, not the specifics of the processes in which it was made (I don't think people should have to label whether or not their pork was smashed into concrete ground while it was still alive).
GMO is the organism that was modified. the food itself is not modified in situations where it contains no genetic material, and infinitesimally modified when it's a seed or something.
the food is molecularly equivalent except for a few genetic changes. the monoculture point made above is relevant to increase the level of impact of an incredibly unlikely event of the couple molecules becoming a problem, but you are eating the thing and digesting it so it is incredibly unlikely that it will present a problem.
I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me... So the food is composed of something that was genetically-modified, correct?
typically only food containing genetic material would be physically different from stuff that's "natural." but no, "composed" is wrong. if you have a GM cow, the milk would not be composed of the cow. it would be milk, but maybe with a different nutritional composition, allergens etc.
Well, in the case of milk (the cow never crossed my mind) it came from something that was genetically modified and its composition is a consequence of it so imo, it counts! But really this is digressing. People have a right to know what their food is is all I'm saying. I'm neither demonizing nor stating an opinion on its health effects.
On November 08 2012 07:53 coverpunch wrote: The labeling law was poorly written. I personally voted against it.
To avoid confusion, here is the summary of the law:
- Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. - Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” - Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.
It's just a bad law because if you're going to harp on "natural", farming is by definition an unnatural activity and there's no proof that GMO foods are at all harmful. And it's always a bad sign when the list of exemptions is longer than the law itself.
This video is a terrible waste of time... The rate of food-allergy is rising in every country, even in those where GMOs aren't used. So is cancer. People refuse to accept the fact that their poor way of living is the cause for all of this. Blaming it on random stuff won't help. It's just dumb. This video's only goal is to scare people. If they had any intention on teaching people about GMOs, they would have sent a scientist who explains how these work, and what makes them different. No, they send an unkown woman who starts out by saying how many children she has and how afraid she is that they might get hurt.
Even though Rubio is my own friggin Representative I'll tell you the only thing I remember about him: In his campaign he claimed that his parents were Cuban refugees who fled Castro and came to America for freedom. It turned out his parents came to Florida before Castro ever took power and were (this is quite fine with me) just looking for a better place to live.
So he pretty much fits the bill of a Republican candidate.
The US didn't really have a problem with Castro until he started putting dissidents in front of firing squads and jumping on the communism train for sweet sweet money after the US showed no interest in a $30b Marshall Plan for Latin America.
Cuba was an American colony for about 4 years, between 1898 and 1902. (I may be wrong I'm not looking this up and that may be a foolish choice). So calling it our 'colony' is about as accurate as calling the Philippines our colony. Technically correct but really really out of date, even for the 1960s.
Anyway Rubios parents left Cuba a few years before the US started its first major embargo (arms and military hardware) against Cuba because the dictator before Castro was running the country into the ground. Then Castro took power and nationalized almost all the private property (read:stole) after the Cuban Marshall Plan didn't draw any water. And here we are 50 years later. Rubio likes to portray his parents coming over in a dinghy or raft like so many Cuban immigrants but the truth is they took a nice boat and had an uneventful and standard journey here. The borders were open to Cuba for many years after they immigrated. So he plays up his image as a Cuban refugee at times but it's pretty inaccurate.
On November 08 2012 08:17 p4NDemik wrote: I'm really interested in what to be taken away from this election concerning what is in store for future elections. As I see it, the most viable strategy for Republicans since the turn of the century has been to move towards the center on immigration reform specifically and try to bring Americans of Latino descent into the fold of their party. Bush made significant gains in this area in the 2004 election, but he couldn't get immigration reform passed into law. In 2008 McCain ran after having a record of supporting Bush-era immigration reform and still lost ground in the demographic. The last four years the party has pushed itself even farther right and surrendered even more of the vote to President Obama and Democrats.
A push for real immigration reform by the Republican party would only aid them in farther solidifying the southeastern states as red. Democrats are already salivating at the prospects of Arizona coming into play if the Republicans don't do anything. Republican prospects would improve in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. The remaining current battleground states could still stay in play. The Democratic stranglehold on California could show weaknesses.
If you're a Republican and you want the Presidency in 2016 I think your best chances are with Marco Rubio at the helm, while championing comprehensive immigration reform. The party has been putting him in a position to make a run in 2016, and I expect them to propel him through the primaries while trying to keep immigration talk to a minimum. Once he secures his nomination and is on the national stage they'll shift the attention and the race will be on.
See this is sensible. I think the Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot time and time again with their courting of the so-called 'Tea Party' bloc. If I recall correctly the hispanic community is, on the whole more socially conservative and should lean to the Republicans more, but because of the party's antics lately, for example that proposed law in Arizona, they turn off a demographic that is more likely to support them.
I just hope that the Republicans stop pandering to the reactionary zealots that they have been lately, and get back to actual policy debate and the historical values of the party. The Republicans ideals aren't nearly as unpalatable as us Europeans believe, that perception is partly because of this recent drive to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Boehner's rhetoric is a start, last time the Republicans from the outset were looking to make life difficult from Obama, and this political strategy hasn't worked. This time, at least ostensibly they aim to work with him a bit more, and that can only do politics in the US some good.
Our #1 goal as a nation should be campaign finance reform. If Democrats push for it I'm not sure Republicans as a whole would be able to obstruct it without shooting themselves in the foot.
Fuck you, you do not represent the rest of the world.
I hate it how people get all high and mighty and presume that everyone outside of America is an Obama supporter.
FWIW I hate both Romney and Obama equally and am not grateful that the US has voted for the current President.
Lol, i love your rant, why do you have to take his comment up in the anal region? You must accept that most of the world does not know who Romney is (because he is just a candidate, not the president), most of the world also doesn't follow American politics seriously. Though if it came to mind most would think of election and Obama.
You need to chill out bro, go play SCBW cat and mouse CPU, that always makes me happy. Btw I am grateful that america has elected Obama, coming from Canada I hope Obamacare can be as good as our universal health care.
Fuck you, you do not represent the rest of the world.
I hate it how people get all high and mighty and presume that everyone outside of America is an Obama supporter.
FWIW I hate both Romney and Obama equally and am not grateful that the US has voted for the current President.
Lol, i love your rant, why do you have to take his comment up in the anal region? You must accept that most of the world does not know who Romney is (because he is just a candidate, not the president), most of the world also doesn't follow American politics seriously. Though if it came to mind most would think of election and Obama.
You need to chill out bro, go play SCBW cat and mouse CPU, that always makes me happy. Btw I am grateful that america has elected Obama, coming from Canada I hope Obamacare can be as good as our universal health care.
Obamacare is terrible but it's a start. I take it as the first step to a true universal health care system.
My wife is teaching an English class to some local immigrants two nights a week. One of the most surprising things she said was that her class honestly believed that if Romney were elected that they would all be deported. I found this particularly disturbing for a couple of different reasons.
1. The Republican party has got to do a better job getting their message out. We need to find a way to overcome the media bias (fox included) and educate our newest citizens on where we stand on a lot of social issues.
2. The fact that people who are so uneducated are allowed to make decisions about the future of our nation is concerning. Hold out your judgement and hear me out. No one is going to hire the homeless guy off the street to handle your personal finances, right? That doesn't make you an evil bigot, it means you have common sense. I want all people to be able to vote, but I think its more important than ever that people understand what they are voting for and why.
I sincerely believe that people should be required to go through some kind of voter education class before being able to vote. Not so that we can limit who does and does not vote, but to ensure that people are making informed decisions about things that affect our nation and ultimately the world around us.
On November 08 2012 08:53 Joedaddy wrote: My wife is teaching an English class to some local immigrants two nights a week. One of the most surprising things she said was that her class honestly believed that if Romney were elected that they would all be deported. I found this particularly disturbing for a couple of different reasons.
1. The Republican party has got to do a better job getting their message out. We need to find a way to overcome the media bias (fox included) and educate our newest citizens on where we stand on a lot of social issues.
2. The fact that people who are so uneducated are allowed to make decisions about the future of our nation is concerning. Hold out your judgement and hear me out. No one is going to hire the homeless guy off the street to handle your personal finances, right? That doesn't make you an evil bigot, it means you have common sense. I want all people to be able to vote, but I think its more important than ever that people understand what they are voting for and why.
I sincerely believe that people should be required to go through some kind of voter education class before being able to vote. Not so that we can limit who does and does not vote, but to ensure that people are making informed decisions about things that affect our nation and ultimately the world around us.
That's the Republican party's fault as much as anything else. If you look at the anti-immigrant rhetoric coming out of influential figures, it's no surprise that people will become paranoid. Likewise women became fearful on the reproductive rights issues because of the stream of nonsense coming out of a select few Republicans, which I also felt hurt the party.
I do agree in principle that idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I'm against it because how is the line drawn except arbitrarily?
EPT
