On November 19 2012 05:39 farvacola wrote: Hardly, I'm more referring to an analysis of winning issue structure, an analysis that indicates a drive towards the center, regardless of political affiliation. And I don't see how pointing out the failure of previously more libertarian issues indicates any sort of selection bias on my part; I am not discounting the presence of moderate libertarians, I am merely speaking on the problem of nebulousness as it pertains to estimating libertarian favor amongst the populace in regards to interpreting election results.
Edit: Social choice is not the discrete domain of libertarianism, that is my entire point.
Of course social choice isn't the discrete domain of libertarianism, social choice is the domain of both liberals and libertarians by definition. According to the two-scale axis of political ideology, at least.
It's not a reliable estimator, but it's still a decent sign that libertarians matter, as neither banned same sex marriage or banned marijuana fall under "small government". Even regulated substance use is smaller government than complete bans.
On November 19 2012 04:38 farvacola wrote: Yes, please conservatives, resist the push towards the center, please do. This act of pretending that Reagan-Era conservatism still holds water amongst the national electorate will make 2016 oh so much easier for Democrats. Fortunately for the GOP, a lot of the visible Republican leadership post election has made it clear that they acknowledge the shift in demographics, unlike what y'all are offering up, and if this notion wins out the GOP has a much better chance in the coming elections.
The real problem is the GOP leadership isn't in the elected reps, it's in Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. The right-wing media, which started with radio, has become a very large industry from which the right-wing electorate has formulated so much of its ideas and rhetoric. It can not be underestimated, and the leaders of the GOP are very beholden to it.
This all started with the Reagan-era. The policies they've been promoting have been consistently conservative and unflexible.
Boehner and whatever political leadership the right-wing turns to has to somehow get this right-wing entertainment complex to shift with the changes they make. I'm just not sure how that's possible. They've built a brand out of pure, unrelenting "trickle-down" economics, and you're basically asking them to change their brand.
I have no doubt there are Republican leaders that want to turn more to the center. But as long as you have that Rush Limbaugh element in the GOP - which is not going away anytime soon - you're more likely to split the GOP in two than make any sudden philosophical changes.
Not that I mind that happening. My hope and dream is that the GOP will actually become an ineffectual party, to the point that something else entirely will take its place. A whole new name, which maybe even takes some of the centrist Democrats with it. Then the right-wing thinkers of America can fully shed itself of this stench they've accumulated over the past 3 decades and abandon their pure ideology for practical alternatives to Democrat governance.
It's real, it came up on my facebook an hour ago+ Show Spoiler +
I think that's why Republicans don't understand. The young vote doesn't always agree with is policies but President Obama acts like a fucking human being instead of a political robot.
actually he talks in a monotone, never changes pitch or cadence, and falls on his face without a teleprompter... tbh, he's one of the worst public speakers in politics right now (major figure).
but the media says he's cool and Beyonce invited him to a party so I guess he's cool. personally, I think jobs and opportunity are cool, but I guess I'm just the turd in the punchbowl here...
edit: stupid me, why should I care about runaway debt when the President "gets me"?
Great reason to vote for Romney, since he'll blow up the "runaway debt" with $5T of tax cuts and $2T of military spending, which he refused to specify how he'll pay for.
On November 19 2012 07:02 sam!zdat wrote: quiet PU... gop is the party of small government and fiscal conservatism!!! They will make the debt go away because of busyness.
Massive tax cuts on the part of the population who still retain their spending capacity is a sure-fire way to reduce deficits, apparently.
Maybe you can build schools and hospitals and roads with libertarian magic dust?
On November 19 2012 07:02 sam!zdat wrote: quiet PU... gop is the party of small government and fiscal conservatism!!! They will make the debt go away because of busyness.
Massive tax cuts on the part of the population who still retain their spending capacity is a sure-fire way to reduce deficits, apparently.
Maybe you can build schools and hospitals and roads with libertarian magic dust?
Every time you read someone extolling the dynamism of the modern economy, the virtues of risk-taking, declaring that everyone has to expect to have multiple jobs in his or her life and that you can never stop learning, etc,, etc., bear in mind that this is a portrait of an economy with no stability, no guarantees that hard work will provide a consistent living, and a constant possibility of being thrown aside simply because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this. Your church and your traditional marriage won’t guarantee the value of your 401(k), or make insurance affordable on the individual market.
I don't normally quote Krugman, or pay much attention to his more political statements, but I think he hits the nail on the head in describing the general feelings on the economy for a great number of Americans.
On November 19 2012 05:39 farvacola wrote: Hardly, I'm more referring to an analysis of winning issue structure, an analysis that indicates a drive towards the center, regardless of political affiliation. And I don't see how pointing out the failure of previously more libertarian issues indicates any sort of selection bias on my part; I am not discounting the presence of moderate libertarians, I am merely speaking on the problem of nebulousness as it pertains to estimating libertarian favor amongst the populace in regards to interpreting election results.
Edit: Social choice is not the discrete domain of libertarianism, that is my entire point.
Of course social choice isn't the discrete domain of libertarianism, social choice is the domain of both liberals and libertarians by definition. According to the two-scale axis of political ideology, at least.
It's not a reliable estimator, but it's still a decent sign that libertarians matter, as neither banned same sex marriage or banned marijuana fall under "small government". Even regulated substance use is smaller government than complete bans.
To go back to something mentioned earlier in this discussion, I tend to agree that the low voter turn-out would surely be a win for independents (including libertarians), even though Gary Johnson didn't get many votes. Many people saw it completely pointless (like myself) to vote for any of the candidates, because I already knew that either Romney or Obama would win and I didn't care for either. I don't remember the exact number, but I think something close to 10 million less people voted than last election. It's true that this doesn't mean "omg 10 million libertarians" but it certainly supports the argument that more people are against the Republican and Democratic parties, therefore there are more opportunities for libertarians in the future to capture those voters. I honestly wanted to vote for Romney to get Obama out, as I saw him as the "lesser of 2 evils", but I didn't want it on my conscience to vote for somebody else who I still viewed as "evil".
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Stopped reading right there. Went to BLS for latest local unemployment data (2011).
35.2% unemployment rate for age 16-19, 17.6% for ages 20-24.
Are you using some alternate definition of "unemployment" that I'm not privy to? Please tell me you're not doing "100 minus employment" to calculate the unemployment rate ><
On a completely unrelated note that bears no insight into the state of the GOP at large, is this a "facts" problem, or a "messaging" problem?
35.2% is pretty fucking close to 50%.
oh and I forgot that if you're unemployed for a long time you suddenly stop being unemployed. it's great how reality works, isn't it?
Every time you read someone extolling the dynamism of the modern economy, the virtues of risk-taking, declaring that everyone has to expect to have multiple jobs in his or her life and that you can never stop learning, etc,, etc., bear in mind that this is a portrait of an economy with no stability, no guarantees that hard work will provide a consistent living, and a constant possibility of being thrown aside simply because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this. Your church and your traditional marriage won’t guarantee the value of your 401(k), or make insurance affordable on the individual market.
I don't normally quote Krugman, or pay much attention to his more political statements, but I think he hits the nail on the head in describing the general feelings on the economy for a great number of Americans.
uh, lol?
that was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and I am so not surprised that Krugman is the guy who said it. first he says that the problem with a dynamic free-market is that it's dynamic... and then he tops the sundae with this cherry:
And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this.
oh yeah, Krugers, there's nothing you can do. NOTHING! all those millions of people who have done things about it? all imaginary.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Stopped reading right there. Went to BLS for latest local unemployment data (2011).
35.2% unemployment rate for age 16-19, 17.6% for ages 20-24.
Are you using some alternate definition of "unemployment" that I'm not privy to? Please tell me you're not doing "100 minus employment" to calculate the unemployment rate ><
On a completely unrelated note that bears no insight into the state of the GOP at large, is this a "facts" problem, or a "messaging" problem?
On November 19 2012 10:04 sc2superfan101 wrote: oh yeah, Krugers, there's nothing you can do. NOTHING! all those millions of people who have done things about it? all imaginary.
He isn't saying there is nothing that people can do to mitigate the effects of these problems, just that they cannot do anything about the problems themselves. The average person is not a multi-billionaire, and even multi-billionaires can have difficulty influencing markets, and yet you are saying that "millions of people" can influence the value of their 401(k), for example?
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Stopped reading right there. Went to BLS for latest local unemployment data (2011).
35.2% unemployment rate for age 16-19, 17.6% for ages 20-24.
Are you using some alternate definition of "unemployment" that I'm not privy to? Please tell me you're not doing "100 minus employment" to calculate the unemployment rate ><
On a completely unrelated note that bears no insight into the state of the GOP at large, is this a "facts" problem, or a "messaging" problem?
35.2% is pretty fucking close to 50%.
oh and I forgot that if you're unemployed for a long time you suddenly stop being unemployed. it's great how reality works, isn't it?
And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this.
oh yeah, Krugers, there's nothing you can do. NOTHING! all those millions of people who have done things about it? all imaginary.
Way to miss the point. Unless you're an executive you can't do shit about what happens to your company or what happens to the stock market. Unless your suggestion is that we all start our own businesses or something...
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Stopped reading right there. Went to BLS for latest local unemployment data (2011).
35.2% unemployment rate for age 16-19, 17.6% for ages 20-24.
Are you using some alternate definition of "unemployment" that I'm not privy to? Please tell me you're not doing "100 minus employment" to calculate the unemployment rate ><
On a completely unrelated note that bears no insight into the state of the GOP at large, is this a "facts" problem, or a "messaging" problem?
35.2% is pretty fucking close to 50%.
True, 35 is only around 40% off of 50.
I wish I could think with my gut like that. Have to use math instead. Much easier to get wrong than gut.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Stopped reading right there. Went to BLS for latest local unemployment data (2011).
35.2% unemployment rate for age 16-19, 17.6% for ages 20-24.
Are you using some alternate definition of "unemployment" that I'm not privy to? Please tell me you're not doing "100 minus employment" to calculate the unemployment rate ><
On a completely unrelated note that bears no insight into the state of the GOP at large, is this a "facts" problem, or a "messaging" problem?
35.2% is pretty fucking close to 50%.
True, 35 is only around 40% off of 50.
I wish I could think with my gut like that. Have to use math instead. Much easier to get wrong than gut.
It's still significantly higher unemployment than Texas' youth, just sayin..but it is much easier to attack someone's skewed math than actually address his point, isn't it?
On November 19 2012 10:29 kmillz wrote: It's still significantly higher unemployment than Texas' youth, just sayin..but it is much easier to attack someone's skewed math than actually address his point, isn't it?
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
On November 19 2012 10:29 kmillz wrote: It's still significantly higher unemployment than Texas' youth, just sayin..but it is much easier to attack someone's skewed math than actually address his point, isn't it?
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Is there something I'm missing here?
That the unemployment of California's youth is still atrocious? Here, I'll even give you a liberally biased source to support this claim.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Stopped reading right there. Went to BLS for latest local unemployment data (2011).
35.2% unemployment rate for age 16-19, 17.6% for ages 20-24.
Are you using some alternate definition of "unemployment" that I'm not privy to? Please tell me you're not doing "100 minus employment" to calculate the unemployment rate ><
On a completely unrelated note that bears no insight into the state of the GOP at large, is this a "facts" problem, or a "messaging" problem?
35.2% is pretty fucking close to 50%.
True, 35 is only around 40% off of 50.
I wish I could think with my gut like that. Have to use math instead. Much easier to get wrong than gut.
It's still significantly higher unemployment than Texas' youth, just sayin..but it is much easier to attack someone's skewed math than actually address his point, isn't it?
California's youth employment has always been shitty it has more to do with california's economy then the national economy.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.pr0gramm.com/2012/11/8191317327-5180e95d98-c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7djI.png)
