|
|
On August 23 2012 05:36 xDaunt wrote:
The whole Bill Ayers thing is the perfect example of the rampant liberal bias in the American media. Obama's relationship to Ayers alone should have automatically made him an unviable candidate politically. The only reason why it didn't is because basically no one other than Fox News and talk radio reported on it for what it was, so most Americans were generally unaware of the connection. Can you imagine what would happen if someone found out that Romney had launched his campaign from the house of someone who used to bomb abortion clinics? Do you think that we'd ever hear the end of it in the news? It's absolutely disgraceful.
The fact that US media never actually call out Republicans when they publicly lie would suggest that at worst both parties are called out too little on their bullshit. From what I see from the outside, Republicans get away with much more severe bullshit than Democrats, but pretty much both parties are free to bullshit as they want.
|
A state-by-state analysis of the presidential race conducted by two University of Colorado professors predicts that Mitt Romney will be our next president. The analysis, released today, by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver, is based on economic and other factors within each of the 50 states. This same study has correctly predicted the winners of the last eight presidential elections, starting with the 1980 election won by Ronald Reagan.
The press release on the study says, the “prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.”
The analysis is summarized as follows, “President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.”
Obama winning 218 electoral votes would means Romney wins the remaining 320 out of 538 electoral votes.
Professor Bickers said President Obama is likely to be defeated for reelection this fall, saying, “Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble.”
The authors of the study said an incumbent Democratic president loses advantages of incumbency when unemployment hits the level of 5.6 percent. Current official unemployment is reported at 8.3 percent. They said the study will be updated with additional economic data available in September and that some of the states closed to 50-50 status might change upon that revision of the study.
Source.
This is in line with what I've been thinking, though I think that Romney is likely to get a larger percentage of the national vote and possibly fewer electoral votes.
|
|
|
On August 23 2012 07:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +A state-by-state analysis of the presidential race conducted by two University of Colorado professors predicts that Mitt Romney will be our next president. The analysis, released today, by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver, is based on economic and other factors within each of the 50 states. This same study has correctly predicted the winners of the last eight presidential elections, starting with the 1980 election won by Ronald Reagan.
The press release on the study says, the “prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.”
The analysis is summarized as follows, “President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.”
Obama winning 218 electoral votes would means Romney wins the remaining 320 out of 538 electoral votes.
Professor Bickers said President Obama is likely to be defeated for reelection this fall, saying, “Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble.”
The authors of the study said an incumbent Democratic president loses advantages of incumbency when unemployment hits the level of 5.6 percent. Current official unemployment is reported at 8.3 percent. They said the study will be updated with additional economic data available in September and that some of the states closed to 50-50 status might change upon that revision of the study. Source. This is in line with what I've been thinking, though I think that Romney is likely to get a larger percentage of the national vote and possibly fewer electoral votes.
I had seen that on another site, interesting but waaaay too soon to tell. I think they had said basically "if the election were held today" and "much depends on how the state of the economy changes".
I do think that it will be much harder for the Dems to motivate people to head out to the polls than in '08 though.
|
On August 23 2012 06:28 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 05:36 xDaunt wrote:
The whole Bill Ayers thing is the perfect example of the rampant liberal bias in the American media. Obama's relationship to Ayers alone should have automatically made him an unviable candidate politically. The only reason why it didn't is because basically no one other than Fox News and talk radio reported on it for what it was, so most Americans were generally unaware of the connection. Can you imagine what would happen if someone found out that Romney had launched his campaign from the house of someone who used to bomb abortion clinics? Do you think that we'd ever hear the end of it in the news? It's absolutely disgraceful. The fact that US media never actually call out Republicans when they publicly lie would suggest that at worst both parties are called out too little on their bullshit. From what I see from the outside, Republicans get away with much more severe bullshit than Democrats, but pretty much both parties are free to bullshit as they want.
Yeah, Republican supporters have a tendency to scream about the 'liberal media' (whatever that might mean) whenever one of their candidates is called on something, whether or not that candidate should have actually been called on it. I do wonder why nobody screams about the 'right-wing' media bias - FOX news, Limbaugh etc - blatantly making things up. Maybe that's just not as important to Republican supporters, and it's much easier to believe everyone is against them. Gives them a siege mentality, I guess.
Media in the US is pretty biased one way or the other, it's hard to get anything without some kind of spin on it weighted heavily towards one party or the other. It comes from pretty much all the media being owned by a very few people, all of whom throw their support towards one side or the other and telling their stations to report in a way that favourably helps their causes. That said it's hard to get unbiased news anywhere - can anyone suggest a truly unbiased/unpartisan news source that covers US news well? The BBC is less biased than news here but its coverage of US politics is a little basic.
Politics is kinda screwed up over here >.>
|
On August 23 2012 07:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +A state-by-state analysis of the presidential race conducted by two University of Colorado professors predicts that Mitt Romney will be our next president. The analysis, released today, by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver, is based on economic and other factors within each of the 50 states. This same study has correctly predicted the winners of the last eight presidential elections, starting with the 1980 election won by Ronald Reagan.
The press release on the study says, the “prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.”
The analysis is summarized as follows, “President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.”
Obama winning 218 electoral votes would means Romney wins the remaining 320 out of 538 electoral votes.
Professor Bickers said President Obama is likely to be defeated for reelection this fall, saying, “Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble.”
The authors of the study said an incumbent Democratic president loses advantages of incumbency when unemployment hits the level of 5.6 percent. Current official unemployment is reported at 8.3 percent. They said the study will be updated with additional economic data available in September and that some of the states closed to 50-50 status might change upon that revision of the study. Source. This is in line with what I've been thinking, though I think that Romney is likely to get a larger percentage of the national vote and possibly fewer electoral votes.
Someone... Save... Us... And yes I say us because the US policies directly inflict upon its surrounding nations.
|
|
|
I posted it on the last page :-)
|
On August 23 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:I posted it on the last page :-)
Oops my bad :[
|
On August 23 2012 07:24 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 07:18 xDaunt wrote:A state-by-state analysis of the presidential race conducted by two University of Colorado professors predicts that Mitt Romney will be our next president. The analysis, released today, by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver, is based on economic and other factors within each of the 50 states. This same study has correctly predicted the winners of the last eight presidential elections, starting with the 1980 election won by Ronald Reagan.
The press release on the study says, the “prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.”
The analysis is summarized as follows, “President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.”
Obama winning 218 electoral votes would means Romney wins the remaining 320 out of 538 electoral votes.
Professor Bickers said President Obama is likely to be defeated for reelection this fall, saying, “Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble.”
The authors of the study said an incumbent Democratic president loses advantages of incumbency when unemployment hits the level of 5.6 percent. Current official unemployment is reported at 8.3 percent. They said the study will be updated with additional economic data available in September and that some of the states closed to 50-50 status might change upon that revision of the study. Source. This is in line with what I've been thinking, though I think that Romney is likely to get a larger percentage of the national vote and possibly fewer electoral votes. I had seen that on another site, interesting but waaaay too soon to tell. I think they had said basically "if the election were held today" and "much depends on how the state of the economy changes". I do think that it will be much harder for the Dems to motivate people to head out to the polls than in '08 though.
I agree that the status of the economy will be the most important factor. However, all signs point to the economy continuing to worsen in the near term, which will not help Obama.
|
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/22/723241/gop-approves-most-conservative-platform-in-modern-history/?mobile=nc
I'm officially done with the Republic Party. I can SORT OF understand banning abortion and restricting womens rights in that regard. SORT OF. But banning them from fighting on the front lines? That's straight up fucking sexism.
NO ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST.
The proposal for a “human life amendment” passed without a hitch — and without any exceptions for rape or incest. The committee didn’t stop there; they also adopted language that would ban drugs that end pregnancy after conception, which could potentially include Plan B, the “morning after pill.”
SALUTE TO MANDATORY ULTRASOUNDS.
The GOP officially praises states’ “informed consent” laws that force women to undergo unnecessary procedures, require waiting periods and endure other measures meant to discourage them from getting an abortion. One such law receiving a “salute” was crafted by committee head McDonnell, who passed a notorious mandatory ultrasound requirement after he signed an unsuccessful bill to require an even more invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound during an abortion consultation.
NO LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES.
The committee embraced extreme anti-gay language, even rejecting a proposal to endorse civil unions for gay couples after vehement objections from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Romney adviser Jim Bopp, who called it a “counterfeit marriage.” The rejection of civil unions, along with the refusal to include a line affirming the legal equality of same-sex couples prompted the organization GOProud to declare, “Those who have engaged in this public platform fight have provided distraction from important issues and damaged Mitt Romney’s campaign.”
REPLICATE ARIZONA-STYLE IMMIGRATION LAWS.
Kris Kobach, who wrote the now mostly invalidated immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, pushed for language calling for a border fence, a national E-Verify system to make it harder for undocumented workers to find employment, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities. The committee overwhelmingly approved the proposals, as well as a line chastising the Department of Justice to halt the lawsuits against draconian immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah: “State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked.”
AUDIT THE FED.
The pet project of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to audit the Federal Reserve has now been embraced as an official Republican goal. For the first time, the platform calls for an annual audit of the Federal Reserve.
NO WOMEN IN COMBAT. The platform condemns “social experimentation” in the military, which covers everything from the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to allowing officers to wear their uniforms in gay pride events to letting women serve on the front lines.
NO STATEHOOD, MORE GUNS FOR WASHINGTON DC.
FRC’s Perkins, who recently blamed President Obama and the Southern Poverty Law Center for the shooting at FRC’s Washington headquarters, requested and received a section specifically urging the DC Council to expand gun rights. The same section also opposes DC statehood, which would allow the District to govern itself and put an end to Congressional attempts to impose abortion bans on DC.
NO NEW TAXES, EXCEPT FOR WAR.
The platform calls for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority to approve any tax increase, “with exceptions for only war and national emergencies.” It would also deliberately hobble future Congresses through a cap limiting all government spending to historical average percentage of GDP — “so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes.”
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Oh wow, it's more extreme than I thought it would be...
By the way, can someone explain to me what's wrong with auditing the Federal Reserve? Why would anyone be against it?
|
On August 23 2012 08:13 Candadar wrote:
I'm officially done with the Republic Party. I can SORT OF understand banning abortion and restricting womens rights in that regard. SORT OF. But banning them from fighting on the front lines? That's straight up fucking sexism.
I never could understand why different groups fight so hard for the "right" to serve the oligarchy. I am a big supporter of human rights, gay marriage, etc. But why this? On the other hand, I also don't understand why the oligarchy would care who fights and dies for them...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
|
why should it be if it is not necessary?
|
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote:
Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
|
On August 23 2012 08:13 Candadar wrote:http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/22/723241/gop-approves-most-conservative-platform-in-modern-history/?mobile=ncI'm officially done with the Republic Party. I can SORT OF understand banning abortion and restricting womens rights in that regard. SORT OF. But banning them from fighting on the front lines? That's straight up fucking sexism. Show nested quote +NO ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST.
The proposal for a “human life amendment” passed without a hitch — and without any exceptions for rape or incest. The committee didn’t stop there; they also adopted language that would ban drugs that end pregnancy after conception, which could potentially include Plan B, the “morning after pill.”
SALUTE TO MANDATORY ULTRASOUNDS.
The GOP officially praises states’ “informed consent” laws that force women to undergo unnecessary procedures, require waiting periods and endure other measures meant to discourage them from getting an abortion. One such law receiving a “salute” was crafted by committee head McDonnell, who passed a notorious mandatory ultrasound requirement after he signed an unsuccessful bill to require an even more invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound during an abortion consultation.
NO LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES.
The committee embraced extreme anti-gay language, even rejecting a proposal to endorse civil unions for gay couples after vehement objections from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Romney adviser Jim Bopp, who called it a “counterfeit marriage.” The rejection of civil unions, along with the refusal to include a line affirming the legal equality of same-sex couples prompted the organization GOProud to declare, “Those who have engaged in this public platform fight have provided distraction from important issues and damaged Mitt Romney’s campaign.”
REPLICATE ARIZONA-STYLE IMMIGRATION LAWS.
Kris Kobach, who wrote the now mostly invalidated immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, pushed for language calling for a border fence, a national E-Verify system to make it harder for undocumented workers to find employment, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities. The committee overwhelmingly approved the proposals, as well as a line chastising the Department of Justice to halt the lawsuits against draconian immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah: “State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked.”
AUDIT THE FED.
The pet project of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to audit the Federal Reserve has now been embraced as an official Republican goal. For the first time, the platform calls for an annual audit of the Federal Reserve.
NO WOMEN IN COMBAT. The platform condemns “social experimentation” in the military, which covers everything from the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to allowing officers to wear their uniforms in gay pride events to letting women serve on the front lines.
NO STATEHOOD, MORE GUNS FOR WASHINGTON DC.
FRC’s Perkins, who recently blamed President Obama and the Southern Poverty Law Center for the shooting at FRC’s Washington headquarters, requested and received a section specifically urging the DC Council to expand gun rights. The same section also opposes DC statehood, which would allow the District to govern itself and put an end to Congressional attempts to impose abortion bans on DC.
NO NEW TAXES, EXCEPT FOR WAR.
The platform calls for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority to approve any tax increase, “with exceptions for only war and national emergencies.” It would also deliberately hobble future Congresses through a cap limiting all government spending to historical average percentage of GDP — “so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes.”
God damn.
These guys are sure doing a good job of making the rest of the world think America is insane.
|
The platform calls for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority to approve any tax increase, “with exceptions for only war and national emergencies.” It would also deliberately hobble future Congresses through a cap limiting all government spending to historical average percentage of GDP — “so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes.”
I think that bothers me the most. Shows their value of idealism over discretion, in literally every subject. Always lower taxes, never raise, hoo-rah -- let's legislate our current political mantras into a full-out Constitutional Amendment to provide special barriers for elected officials of generations to come. Let's give the future less freedom to design their own fiscal policies.
And just from a statistics point-of-view, what would happen over time, logically? The overall tax rates would just find their ideal place and stay there? No, it would constantly trend lower and lower. Seems like it'd make for a real problem.
This is supposed to be the party of Constitutionalists, and they want to place in the Constitution illogical special restrictions on certain policies, to last throughout the future, all based on their current, modern-day rhetoric. That's some history in the making right there.
|
Interesting. Auditing the federal reserve and limiting Congressional spending to a percentage of GDP seems like sound, financial sense - you'd want to know how much money the US has and make sure it doesn't go crazy spending too much. Course, no tax raises means no end in sight to the tax breaks that is doing far more harm to the economy than good. Anti-immigration makes sense, I guess - make it hard for illegals to get work and maybe they won't stay. Course it doesn't really help anything and creates an underclass of transient workers barely registering on the consciousness of local authorities, but I can understand the aims.
As for attacking civil rights of same-sex couples, the rights of women regarding their bodies and insisting on informed consent laws that are pretty violatory towards the bodies of women (which would apparently apply in the cases of rape and incest, which must always be nice after someone fucking raped you), keeping DC in a grey zone where the laws don't really apply like they do in the rest of the US... That's pretty messed up. Finding it harder every day to think that there are really two viable choices in the US.
|
Canada11268 Posts
Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
