|
|
On November 09 2012 01:33 theJob wrote:
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing.
Nope, Obama isn't beholden to corporate interests. Wall Street bet the house on Romney.
This was posted earlier in the thread.
![[image loading]](http://www.tagbait.net/images/2012/October/15/507c4f3111474.png)
|
Whether a law potentially exists and whether a law is potentially enforced are two entirely separate matters.
Jaywalking is virtually impossible to enforce, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Ditto with online piracy, moon-shining, and a host of other issues.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh look the US government supporting obama. clear communism.
|
On November 09 2012 01:44 Papulatus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 22:10 Nizaris wrote:On November 08 2012 21:32 blug wrote:
Getting sick of people from my Country saying "YAY OBAMA WON!" and don't even really know what it means. Hell, I don't even really know what it means, but people are enjoying his victory based off of nothing, besides the fact that he acts like a nice guy and is black.
It really seems to me Obama does a really good job at making his opposition look evil not by dismissing or ridiculing his ideals, but simply by acting sincere/genuine. I'm not sure if that's a good thing. i know the US won't be getting a mormon as president so that's a good thing. we don't need religious ppl making policies based on an old book, instead of based on what is rational. I'm sorry but saying that rape is an act of god makes him look retarded. i know it means the us military won't be getting a funding boost.. another good thing. Yeah but the U.S. has a christian president. The christian religion preaches talking snakes and a 6,000 year old world. Christianity is just as fucking crazy as Mormonism.
No it really isn't. I'm not religious at all, but it's no secret Christianity is the most popular religion in this country, and even they think Mormonism is crazy. They may have suppressed some of the more questionable, controversial tenets like polygamy, but the vast majority of people still regard it as a kooky cult, whether that's what it is or not.
You don't have to believe in Christianity (I don't), but it's a stretch to call it a "kooky cult" when so many believe and the claims seem a bit less far-fetched than Mormonism.
It would be like a Scientologist running for President. Yeah, religion is weird, but that religion is REALLY weird. People want to be able to relate to their presidential candidate, and if they think they are batshit crazy, that's hard to do.
|
On November 09 2012 01:28 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:02 zalz wrote:On November 09 2012 00:59 Holgerius wrote:
AFAIK, the matter of the legality of the Iraq invasion is still up for debate. Depends on if you use the definition of legal, as used by the majority of humanity and all recognized bodies of law. Or an Alex Jones website. You can take one side of the discussion sure, but to deny that the legality is highly contested is absurd. This report gives a good overview over the issue and the different positions: http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/
Best way to ruin any argument against government is to alienate them alongside conspiracy juggernauts like Alex Jones. Pretty poor insinuation by Zalz.
In the end the legality of it won't matter except in history books, nothing damning will come.
On November 09 2012 01:49 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:44 Papulatus wrote:On November 08 2012 22:10 Nizaris wrote:On November 08 2012 21:32 blug wrote:
Getting sick of people from my Country saying "YAY OBAMA WON!" and don't even really know what it means. Hell, I don't even really know what it means, but people are enjoying his victory based off of nothing, besides the fact that he acts like a nice guy and is black.
It really seems to me Obama does a really good job at making his opposition look evil not by dismissing or ridiculing his ideals, but simply by acting sincere/genuine. I'm not sure if that's a good thing. i know the US won't be getting a mormon as president so that's a good thing. we don't need religious ppl making policies based on an old book, instead of based on what is rational. I'm sorry but saying that rape is an act of god makes him look retarded. i know it means the us military won't be getting a funding boost.. another good thing. Yeah but the U.S. has a christian president. The christian religion preaches talking snakes and a 6,000 year old world. Christianity is just as fucking crazy as Mormonism. No it really isn't. I'm not religious at all, but it's no secret Christianity is the most popular religion in this country, and even they think Mormonism is crazy. They may have suppressed some of the more questionable, controversial tenets like polygamy, but the vast majority of people still regard it as a kooky cult, whether that's what it is or not. You don't have to believe in Christianity (I don't), but it's a stretch to call it a "kooky cult" when so many believe and the claims seem a bit less far-fetched than Mormonism. It would be like a Scientologist running for President. Yeah, religion is weird, but that religion is REALLY weird. People want to be able to relate to their presidential candidate, and if they think they are batshit crazy, that's hard to do.
Really really really bad argument. You basically said "Well X is crazy because few believe but Y isn't because many believe!"
That's a pretty absurd fallacy.
Christianity is perceived as less ignorant because masses believe it and we'd have trouble sleeping at night realizing that a majority of people believe crazy shit so we tweek it to "not so crazy" when it is relatively insane.
Mormonism may be worse than Christianity but it has nothing to do with the amount of people practicing it and you should really present a reasonable argument.
T.T
|
On November 09 2012 01:49 ZasZ. wrote:
No it really isn't. I'm not religious at all, but it's no secret Christianity is the most popular religion in this country, and even they think Mormonism is crazy. They may have suppressed some of the more questionable, controversial tenets like polygamy, but the vast majority of people still regard it as a kooky cult, whether that's what it is or not.
You don't have to believe in Christianity (I don't), but it's a stretch to call it a "kooky cult" when so many believe and the claims seem a bit less far-fetched than Mormonism.
It would be like a Scientologist running for President. Yeah, religion is weird, but that religion is REALLY weird. People want to be able to relate to their presidential candidate, and if they think they are batshit crazy, that's hard to do.
Crazy is not a popularity contest, it's a question of evidence. Magic underwear has just as much evidence as Jewish zombies or reincarnation...or, for that matter, colander headgear.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i can't figure out some of you guys' leanings so as to adopt the appropriately biased position against your posts. goddamn
|
Wall Street is going to have to do some serious ass kissing to Obama after supporting Romney.
|
On November 09 2012 01:52 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:49 ZasZ. wrote:
No it really isn't. I'm not religious at all, but it's no secret Christianity is the most popular religion in this country, and even they think Mormonism is crazy. They may have suppressed some of the more questionable, controversial tenets like polygamy, but the vast majority of people still regard it as a kooky cult, whether that's what it is or not.
You don't have to believe in Christianity (I don't), but it's a stretch to call it a "kooky cult" when so many believe and the claims seem a bit less far-fetched than Mormonism.
It would be like a Scientologist running for President. Yeah, religion is weird, but that religion is REALLY weird. People want to be able to relate to their presidential candidate, and if they think they are batshit crazy, that's hard to do.
Crazy is not a popularity contest, it's a question of evidence. Magic underwear has just as much evidence as Jewish zombies or reincarnation...or, for that matter, colander headgear.
No...being factually correct is a question of evidence. Calling someone "crazy" is subjective and an opinion unless you are a qualified psychiatric professional.
Crazy is most definitely a popularity contest. It doesn't matter where factual evidence lies, but if you have a majority on one side with no evidence, and a minority on the other side with all the evidence, they can still paint the minority as being "crazy." Just look at the history of religious persecution.
|
Physics TA had Elizabeth Warren as his professor back at Harvard Law. Apparently she's Garrus Vakarian incarnate on consumer law.
On November 09 2012 01:57 ZasZ. wrote:
Crazy is most definitely a popularity contest. It doesn't matter where factual evidence lies, but if you have a majority on one side with no evidence, and a minority on the other side with all the evidence, they can still paint the minority as being "crazy." Just look at the history of religious persecution.
This is a question of what people think is crazy, not what is crazy. You're still conflating the two issues.
If everyone on the planet thought that the earth was flat, that doesn't mean round-earthers are crazy.
|
On November 09 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:Not too surprising, these sorts of data mining are used a lot by businesses from modelling traffic to ranking recommendations on Amazon. Nerds use math to beat Romney. Again. Feels good.
I don't think you can actually delude yourself into thinking that Republicans are anti-intellectual. And you certainly don't believe Romney didn't have something in the same vein working for him. The real story of that news article, imo, is that they consolidated databases and that allowed them to wield the data to a much a greater extent in helping the Obama campaign.
Of course, denying reality and science is an intrinsic component of the conservative worldview, so denying unfavorable polling is just an natural extension as I've argued before the election.
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
|
On November 09 2012 01:45 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:33 theJob wrote:
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. ...what? Care to back that up with some evidence or are you talking completely out of your ass? It's widely known that Romney had more financial clout on the campaign trail...whether he used it effectively or not is another discussion.
As for the theory
Party Realignment and American Industrial Structure: The Investment Theory of Political Parties in Historical Perspective
T Ferguson - Research in Political Economy, 1983 - JAI Press Greenwich, CT
As for the fundings
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
|
On November 09 2012 01:58 acker wrote:
Physics TA had Elizabeth Warren as his professor back at Harvard Law. Apparently she's Garrus Vakarian incarnate on consumer law.
I don't get this. She likes calibrating? She'll do whatever it takes to hunt down and kill those who skirt the consumer law?
|
On November 09 2012 02:02 theJob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:45 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 01:33 theJob wrote:
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. ...what? Care to back that up with some evidence or are you talking completely out of your ass? It's widely known that Romney had more financial clout on the campaign trail...whether he used it effectively or not is another discussion. As for the theory Party Realignment and American Industrial Structure: The Investment Theory of Political Parties in Historical Perspective
T Ferguson - Research in Political Economy, 1983 - JAI Press Greenwich, CTAs for the fundings http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
The page specifically says they only added the money raised/spent by one SuperPAC for each candidate. Factor in the other SuperPACs supporting each candidate, and you'll see the money was actually on Romney's side.
edit: see here ("overall spending" line).
|
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote:
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
Was Obama born in the United States?
Party affiliation and proportional responses to this question are available on Pew Research. Same with questions like "is global warming happening?" or "was the world made 6000 years ago?". Or the whole gamut on evolution.
False equivalency is weird. There are plenty of intelligent Republicans, but that doesn't say anything about the relative proportions of the base.
|
On November 09 2012 02:04 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:58 acker wrote:
Physics TA had Elizabeth Warren as his professor back at Harvard Law. Apparently she's Garrus Vakarian incarnate on consumer law.
I don't get this. She likes calibrating? She'll do whatever it takes to hunt down and kill those who skirt the consumer law?
She had reach, but he had flexibility.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:02 theJob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:45 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 01:33 theJob wrote:
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. ...what? Care to back that up with some evidence or are you talking completely out of your ass? It's widely known that Romney had more financial clout on the campaign trail...whether he used it effectively or not is another discussion. As for the theory Party Realignment and American Industrial Structure: The Investment Theory of Political Parties in Historical Perspective
T Ferguson - Research in Political Economy, 1983 - JAI Press Greenwich, CTAs for the fundings http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance saying money matters a lot is fine and true. but that is not particularly explanatory of obama's victory.
his volunteer and ground game for example, is not investment spending. it's citizen initiative and a lot of it.
|
On November 09 2012 02:02 theJob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:45 ZasZ. wrote:On November 09 2012 01:33 theJob wrote:
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. ...what? Care to back that up with some evidence or are you talking completely out of your ass? It's widely known that Romney had more financial clout on the campaign trail...whether he used it effectively or not is another discussion. As for the theory Party Realignment and American Industrial Structure: The Investment Theory of Political Parties in Historical Perspective
T Ferguson - Research in Political Economy, 1983 - JAI Press Greenwich, CTAs for the fundings http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Serious question: Are Americans really pasionate about politics despite their system being being broken or because of it?
|
On November 09 2012 01:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:33 theJob wrote:
What was the biggest reason Obama won
Other explain: As the most reliable factor of determening the outcome of american presidential elections, once more, total raised and spent cash was the determening one. And as seen before (also under obamas precidency) this will heavily influence the policies during the next period. Basically now it's time for Obama to pay back the corporations who helped him buy the election.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. Nope, Obama isn't beholden to corporate interests. Wall Street bet the house on Romney. This was posted earlier in the thread. + Show Spoiler +
The financial sector is just one of several big investor-interestgroups. Again, the theory holds true again; The candidates with the most purchasing power wins the elections. And if Obama is to repeat his first candidate period he will make sure that the big campaign contributors will get return on their investment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
