| 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 | ||
|
Flakes
United States3125 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:10 msl wrote: Serious question: Are Americans really pasionate about politics despite their system being being broken or because of it? Serious answer: Despite our sensationalist media, we have like 50-60% voter turnout | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:17 Flakes wrote: Serious answer: Despite our sensationalist media, we have like 50-60% voter turnout For presidential races at least. The off years have significantly less turnout (30-40% or something like that). | ||
|
theJob
272 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:07 kwizach wrote: 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). Allright, my bad. I thought it was total fundings. However if we look at the ad spending in key states Obama overwhelmingly outdid Romney which pretty much supports the theory. http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-obama-romney-final-ad-spend-2012-11 | ||
|
msl
Germany477 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:17 acker wrote: For presidential races at least. The off years have significantly less turnout (30-40% or something like that). Seriously? Never mind then. The inpression one gets is one of a much livelier and involved democratic culture in the US then here. The numbers seem to suggest otherwise, though. My bad, stupid question, carry on. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On November 09 2012 00:46 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't agree with using the word uneducated here. In fact, people are too educated when it comes to politics for the US to go without a war. Some people believe that war is a necessary fact of politics, exactly because all the research into political systems seems to suggest this (not saying i agree). In any case, war has little to do with the president anyway. I remember Daniel Ellsberg (the high level governmental adivsor during the Vietnam war, who leaked the Pentagon Papers) saying that the president will have 100 days after an election where they can have some influence, and after that it tends to be the heads of departments (ie the CIA, DOD, NSA etc.) who make most of the important decisions, or twist situations in a way that leaves the president with no choice. Notice not many candidates will bring up ending wars to gain support from the people. The political discussion doesn't even exist, anywhere in the world. I'm sorry for sounding a little tinfoilhattish but its pretty much career suicide to honestly believe in ending war abroad. It only seems to suggest that to someone who is uneducated. The US is in part built on ideas which are harmful to peace. Add to that the xenophobic republican media machine. That there's any legitimacy given to such extreme positions with only tangible basis in reality, built almost entirely on fearmongering, is where the real problem is. And this is where the lack of education is really showing. That said I wouldn't call myself in a believer of peace. Some use of force will be necessary for the time being, but the end goal is (or at least should be) to sustain stability without the use of force. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
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. 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. It did prior to us having factual evidence that the earth actually was round. I'm not conflating anything. You may not agree with their beliefs (I certainly don't) but unless you are a psychiatrist and have evaluated them, calling them crazy is an opinion. You think they are crazy, but you can't say they are crazy for the same reason they can't say snakes can talk. You have no evidence. And you're getting off-topic. This was supposed to be in the context of Mormonism and whether or not it is any more "crazy" than Christianity. And regardless of what you believe about religion in general, the vast majority of the American populace thinks Mormonism is weirder than Christianity and that will impact the chances of any Mormon candidate. In this context it doesn't matter what is actually crazy, as if that could be proven, but how people perceive these religions. Just look at all the stream ads trying to paint Mormons as regular people. They are trying extremely hard to overcome this public perception. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:18 theJob wrote: Allright, my bad. I thought it was total fundings. However if we look at the ad spending in key states Obama overwhelmingly outdid Romney which pretty much supports the theory. http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-obama-romney-final-ad-spend-2012-11 Actually, your link is about online ads, not ads in general. Here's an article that details ad spending in the battleground states by the candidates and the associations supporting them. You'll see the Romney camp outspent the Obama camp in several states Obama ended up winning. edit: I don't have the time right now to find another source to back up the numbers, so take them with a grain of salt. edit2: ok, here's another source :p | ||
micronesia
United States24813 Posts
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. Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate. If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.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? Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:31 ZasZ. wrote: It did prior to us having factual evidence that the earth actually was round. I'm not conflating anything. You may not agree with their beliefs (I certainly don't) but unless you are a psychiatrist and have evaluated them, calling them crazy is an opinion. You think they are crazy, but you can't say they are crazy for the same reason they can't say snakes can talk. You have no evidence. That's kind of the point. We have evidence, therefore flat-earthers are crazy. Crazy is not an opinion, but an absence of facts. In the case of Mormons v. mainstream Christianity, neither side has facts. Therefore, the only logic you're using is argument ad populum; since one side PHYSICALLY outnumbers the other, the other must, by necessity, be crazier than the other. You don't see the problem with this train of thought? | ||
|
theJob
272 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:32 kwizach wrote: Actually, your link is about online ads, not ads in general. Here's an article that details ad spending in the battleground states by the candidates and the associations supporting them. You'll see the Romney camp outspent the Obama camp in several states Obama ended up winning. edit: I don't have the time right now to find another source to back up the numbers, so take them with a grain of salt. Obama outspent Romney not only on internet ads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-romney-ad-spending The reports authors said they believed Obama's advertising advantage may explain why polls in key states have shifted his way in recent weeks. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote: 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. 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? A nearly 50-50 race is what you Republicans deluded yourself into thinking. And one of the reasons why you were dead wrong. Obama had a small, but consistent lead in the battleground states. Obama had the momentum, and eventually a 90% chance of winning. I don't need to "find" reasons to bash the Republican party, I have heaps. Republicans are against spending craptons of money? Are you serious? Republicans have been blowing up the budget for decades. Bush turned a deficit into a surplus. Romney wanted to spend $5T on tax rate cuts, which was mathematically impossible to make revenue neutral, and then an additional $2T on defense. ![[image loading]](http://www.olymanifesto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/republicans-increase-debt.jpg) Yes, the debt has increased under Obama, but that's because of the global financial crisis, falling tax revenue, the wars, and continuation of Bush tax cuts, which Republicans refuse to let end. If we look at spending growth Obama hasn't increase it but much. The stimulus wasn't large in comparison. ![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FiW5I95R5xg/0.jpg) This might partly be due to Bush blowing up the deficit so large that the $800 billion stimulus wasn't too relatively large as a percentage, and what amounts to "austerity" as stimulus money fades. Spending more money on more stimulus would have helped the economy. Yes, there is a war on women. Romney wants to appoint judges to overturn Woe v Wade, but he use to say that he was pro-choice, but then he's pro-life. He's flip-flopped so much on this issue. I suggest you get the facts, and not whatever nonsense your totally Republican family says before you vote, because that's the sort of anti-intellectualism and denial that led to conservatives to be so sure that Obama was gone, and then utterly shocked when they realized that they were dead wrong. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:36 theJob wrote: Obama outspent Romney not only on internet ads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-romney-ad-spending Read the data in the two links I provided you with. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:36 theJob wrote: Obama outspent Romney not only on internet ads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-romney-ad-spending No offense, but that article is from a month ago. It's not a very good breakdown of campaign spending when Romney's machine (and Obama's) only kicked into high gear in early/mid October. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:36 theJob wrote: Obama outspent Romney not only on internet ads. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-romney-ad-spending I guess republicans can find republican facts and democrats can find democrat facts. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/ The Republican party is going to either change or die. They allied themselves with Fundamentalists to create a powerful base but now they're stuck fighting against abortion, gay marriage, and minorities. Forever, or they lose their base. Combine that with Reagan era Republicans who don't save the country money, they spend it and lose it at an alarming rate. The Republicans have to change either their social stance or their fiscal policies. They have absolutely nothing to offer someone unless you're incredibly religious or you subscribe to the theory that by spending mass amounts of money on the military and tax cuts America will magically re-make that money decades from now. As America becomes less religious there's really no hope for the current Republican party. They'll either change or they'll stop winning elections until they're replaced by a new party. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:32 micronesia wrote: Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course. If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made. Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish. Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44450 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/ I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On November 09 2012 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote: Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans. You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series. Or to any Oakland Raiders game. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
ArT vs MindelVK
MiniZergUA vs TBD
Shameless vs TBD
Ultimate Battle
OSC
ByuN vs MaxPax
herO vs Krystianer
Percival vs Shameless
LetaleX vs YoungYakov
Nicoract vs Gerald
GgMaChine vs ArT
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
TerrOr vs IJ_Terran
rasowy vs Hazorath
BSL
TerrOr vs OyAji
UltrA vs Gosudark
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
