On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug*
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
Clearly either a) we are not a Democracy, or b) the majority do not think we should raise taxes on the rich, otherwise it would have been done.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug*
LOL @ doctors voting democrat.
edit: As for a more detailed response:
I didn't say anything about poor people, I said people who want things from the government without having to sacrifice, so let's go through your list.
Teachers - have many fucking times do teachers go on strike ? Weren't Chicago teachers like the highest paid teachers in the country BEFORE they went on strike ?
Attorneys - trial attorneys vote democrat because they are against tort reform, which is something republicans try to do. Cut the frivolous lawsuits.
Professors - the high cost of tuition is their gravy train. Putting out that a college education is a 'right' increases the demand for their services, hence, their pay and job security.
Hollywood - you put Hollywood in the 'smart' category ? WTF. Hollywood is a cesspool and aside from being blacklisted for being conservative, they are a big union, are they not ? Screen actors guild ?
Pharmacists / Nurses - not sure from where you draw the conclusion that these vote democrat. Perhaps a trade group has come out in support of ACA. However, the AMA came out for the ACA as well, and it pissed off a LOT of actual doctors.
The last category, Jews, honestly completely fucking baffles me why they vote as much Democrat as they do. I think they believe the hype that Liberals stain Conservatives, because as a Conservative, it seems to me that Jews are backing the wrong horse. Obama is about to let Israel get overrun, but I guess Jews in America don't care as much as I thought they would.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
I know its not what you are talking about, but if it makes you feel any better the rich get taxed more starting next year thanks to Obamacare.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug*
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug*
On September 29 2012 18:58 Defacer wrote: More evidence of the Obama Bueller Effect ... Mitt Romney simply can't get people's attention for the right reasons. R-Money and Clint Eastwood are kicking Romney's ass.
Eh, I think Youtube is a terrible indicator. Suffice it to say I genuinely believe Youtube has a liberal bias (as does most of the internet). If you think about it, large portions of Youtubers are the young, college students, and/or non-Americans.
Weird how Clint Eastwood's act doesn't have more views though. It was exotic.
Oh, it's a fine indicator -- of how much harder it is for Romney to reach his base than it is for Obama to reach his.
No matter how much Romney will try, most people aren't paying attention to him for the right reasons. He's certainly not getting his 'message' out online or through mainstream media.
What's left? Robocalling the elderly, costly paid-advertising and $50,000-per-plate dinners.
If it makes Romney feel better, he can take comfort in the fact that even though Obama is trouncing him, Maru and Bieber are absolutely crushing Obama.
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
Its easier for Obama to get his message out to his base, but its harder for him to get them to the polls.
With the new voter ID laws this could ring true - like literally.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug*
LOL @ doctors voting democrat.
edit: As for a more detailed response:
I didn't say anything about poor people, I said people who want things from the government without having to sacrifice, so let's go through your list.
Teachers - have many fucking times do teachers go on strike ? Weren't Chicago teachers like the highest paid teachers in the country BEFORE they went on strike ?
Attorneys - trial attorneys vote democrat because they are against tort reform, which is something republicans try to do. Cut the frivolous lawsuits.
Professors - the high cost of tuition is their gravy train. Putting out that a college education is a 'right' increases the demand for their services, hence, their pay and job security.
Hollywood - you put Hollywood in the 'smart' category ? WTF. Hollywood is a cesspool and aside from being blacklisted for being conservative, they are a big union, are they not ? Screen actors guild ?
Pharmacists / Nurses - not sure from where you draw the conclusion that these vote democrat. Perhaps a trade group has come out in support of ACA. However, the AMA came out for the ACA as well, and it pissed off a LOT of actual doctors.
The last category, Jews, honestly completely fucking baffles me why they vote as much Democrat as they do. I think they believe the hype that Liberals stain Conservatives, because as a Conservative, it seems to me that Jews are backing the wrong horse. Obama is about to let Israel get overrun, but I guess Jews in America don't care as much as I thought they would.
Wow? You did nothing to improve your argument. You don't think BUSINESSMEN want shit from the government? The elderly? Rural voters? Everyone wants SOMETHING from the government (which is why most Republicans are so damn hypocritical). The fact that you said they don't want to 'sacrifice anything' obviously implies taxes, which has been proven untrue many times.
And no, I wasn't saying Hollywood-types were intellectuals, but it's a well-known fact intellectuals lean liberal.
And for the record, those Chicago teachers were not striking to get their salaries raised.
And how does it come as a surprise to you that Jews lean liberal? Most Israelis don't even agree with Netanyahu's war fever (and just so you know, Netanyahu is now on the same page as Obama on the Iran situation, and Romney has softened his stance as well. Foreign policy goes to Obama).
On September 29 2012 08:45 dannystarcraft wrote: No pretty graphs. Sorry! I will try to find you some.
I only know from experience in government work, where the agency contracted out everything into private industry because it was more efficient at getting the required job done in the specified amount of time than anything that we could produce at the government level. A lot of government work gets contracted out... a lot. Also, there seems to be a general political focus on improving the private sector and this equating to economic improvement. I guess that is where I was drawing the overarching performance of the private sector as important.
Oh, no doubt the private sector does a better, more efficient job than the government in many aspects. I was just wondering how universities compared to the private sector in terms of science research on a cost-per-innovation/valuable discovery aspect.
Yeah, that would be a great thing to quantify. Walking through a university that my employer collaborates with, I am surprised at the number of projects and posters on the wall that just seem to have no real application which would produce a valuable product or technology. I have been googling it for a bit now, and I am not finding any concrete stats. I guess I am just assuming from what I see in the university.
"Dr. Fleming, your work on beta lactams is all very well and good, but we're cutting your funding, it has no real application that would produce a valuable product or technology."
Seriously, that's about what this amounts to, and it's a really really old story. You sound like someone in Big Oil here in Alberta. There is a mentality like that in industry and among funding agencies when fiscal conservatives are in power. It's people with limited vision who can't see the forest for the trees. They only want to invest in what their short sightedness judges to have a viable return. I'd also like to point out that oil companies collaborate with professors here at the university because there is far more knowledge and understanding on the side of the university than the oil company.
This is one of the biggest problems with fiscal conservatism, and why spending cuts for research, teaching, and universities are not the way forward.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug*
LOL @ doctors voting democrat.
edit: As for a more detailed response:
I didn't say anything about poor people, I said people who want things from the government without having to sacrifice, so let's go through your list.
Teachers - have many fucking times do teachers go on strike ? Weren't Chicago teachers like the highest paid teachers in the country BEFORE they went on strike ?
Attorneys - trial attorneys vote democrat because they are against tort reform, which is something republicans try to do. Cut the frivolous lawsuits.
Professors - the high cost of tuition is their gravy train. Putting out that a college education is a 'right' increases the demand for their services, hence, their pay and job security.
Hollywood - you put Hollywood in the 'smart' category ? WTF. Hollywood is a cesspool and aside from being blacklisted for being conservative, they are a big union, are they not ? Screen actors guild ?
Pharmacists / Nurses - not sure from where you draw the conclusion that these vote democrat. Perhaps a trade group has come out in support of ACA. However, the AMA came out for the ACA as well, and it pissed off a LOT of actual doctors.
The last category, Jews, honestly completely fucking baffles me why they vote as much Democrat as they do. I think they believe the hype that Liberals stain Conservatives, because as a Conservative, it seems to me that Jews are backing the wrong horse. Obama is about to let Israel get overrun, but I guess Jews in America don't care as much as I thought they would.
There is a lowest common denominator you're missing here, something Bill Clinton alluded to in his speech. It's the difference between a you're-on-your-own winner-take-all society and a we're-all-in-this-together society. The lowest common denominator is emotional development. How deeply can you feel someone else's pain? People with greater empathy are less likely to promote a you're-on-your-own winner-take-all society, and ignore the problems it causes. Just my opinion on the matter.
Also, your model doesn't work when you consider Hollywood. Why would the gazillionaires in Hollywood be looking for a government handout? It must have to do with something else.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
Clearly either a) we are not a Democracy, or b) the majority do not think we should raise taxes on the rich, otherwise it would have been done.
Or c) the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, and opinion polls do not necessarily translate into policy.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
Clearly either a) we are not a Democracy, or b) the majority do not think we should raise taxes on the rich, otherwise it would have been done.
Or c) the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, and opinion polls do not necessarily translate into policy.
The answer is c), btw.
No, the answer is (a). We are not a democracy. Money wins, not votes. 93% of the winners in the House had more money than their opponent. 93%! There was also a major shift in terms of the power of big spenders in the last two congressional elections.
A representative and senator's ideas and opinions have very little to do with whether they get elected. For governors and presidents it's more varied, of course. They are more well known.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
Clearly either a) we are not a Democracy, or b) the majority do not think we should raise taxes on the rich, otherwise it would have been done.
Or c) the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, and opinion polls do not necessarily translate into policy.
The answer is c), btw.
No, the answer is (a). We are not a democracy. Money wins, not votes. 93% of the winners in the House had more money than their opponent. 93%! There was also a major shift in terms of the power of big spenders in the last two congressional elections.
A representative and senator's ideas and opinions have very little to do with whether they get elected. For governors and presidents it's more varied, of course. They are more well known.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
Clearly either a) we are not a Democracy, or b) the majority do not think we should raise taxes on the rich, otherwise it would have been done.
Or c) the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, and opinion polls do not necessarily translate into policy.
The answer is c), btw.
No, the answer is (a). We are not a democracy. Money wins, not votes. 93% of the winners in the House had more money than their opponent. 93%! There was also a major shift in terms of the power of big spenders in the last two congressional elections.
A representative and senator's ideas and opinions have very little to do with whether they get elected. For governors and presidents it's more varied, of course. They are more well known.
2/3 of Americans is more than just Democrats. In fact it's 41% of Republicans.
"It's a mistake, though, to conclude from this set of facts that more campaign money necessarily means more votes. "
If you haven't finished reading the article you posted I suggest you do so.
I don't know, trying to make a point by lumping elections in which the "winning margin was 10% or less" doesn't make much sense. If anything they should have lumped elections where the incumbent retired to try and make the point.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
Clearly either a) we are not a Democracy, or b) the majority do not think we should raise taxes on the rich, otherwise it would have been done.
Or c) the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, and opinion polls do not necessarily translate into policy.
The answer is c), btw.
No, the answer is (a). We are not a democracy. Money wins, not votes. 93% of the winners in the House had more money than their opponent. 93%! There was also a major shift in terms of the power of big spenders in the last two congressional elections.
A representative and senator's ideas and opinions have very little to do with whether they get elected. For governors and presidents it's more varied, of course. They are more well known.
2/3 of Americans is more than just Democrats. In fact it's 41% of Republicans.
"It's a mistake, though, to conclude from this set of facts that more campaign money necessarily means more votes. "
If you haven't finished reading the article you posted I suggest you do so.
No, I read it. Admittedly, I'm just being sensationalist. It's still drastically showing how politicians are bought off. Even when they try to factor in all sorts of things, a significant majority of the time the big spender wins.
The question I ask you is: do you really think politicians have incentive to tax the rich more? Even if that's what the people want? 2/3 of America! Do you know how difficult it is to get 2/3 of America to agree on anything????
On September 29 2012 08:45 dannystarcraft wrote: No pretty graphs. Sorry! I will try to find you some.
I only know from experience in government work, where the agency contracted out everything into private industry because it was more efficient at getting the required job done in the specified amount of time than anything that we could produce at the government level. A lot of government work gets contracted out... a lot. Also, there seems to be a general political focus on improving the private sector and this equating to economic improvement. I guess that is where I was drawing the overarching performance of the private sector as important.
Oh, no doubt the private sector does a better, more efficient job than the government in many aspects. I was just wondering how universities compared to the private sector in terms of science research on a cost-per-innovation/valuable discovery aspect.
Yeah, that would be a great thing to quantify. Walking through a university that my employer collaborates with, I am surprised at the number of projects and posters on the wall that just seem to have no real application which would produce a valuable product or technology. I have been googling it for a bit now, and I am not finding any concrete stats. I guess I am just assuming from what I see in the university.
"Dr. Fleming, your work on beta lactams is all very well and good, but we're cutting your funding, it has no real application that would produce a valuable product or technology."
Seriously, that's about what this amounts to, and it's a really really old story. You sound like someone in Big Oil here in Alberta. There is a mentality like that in industry and among funding agencies when fiscal conservatives are in power. It's people with limited vision who can't see the forest for the trees. They only want to invest in what their short sightedness judges to have a viable return. I'd also like to point out that oil companies collaborate with professors here at the university because there is far more knowledge and understanding on the side of the university than the oil company.
This is one of the biggest problems with fiscal conservatism, and why spending cuts for research, teaching, and universities are not the way forward.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
Once again, attorneys, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, (aka professionals/academia), also Jews, Hollywood and most college-educated folk tend to vote Democrat. You have absolutely no basis when you say 'a bunch of people who don't want to sacrifice anything.' Yeah poor people make up a significant portion of the Democratic party. So do smart people. *shrug*
LOL @ doctors voting democrat.
edit: As for a more detailed response:
I didn't say anything about poor people, I said people who want things from the government without having to sacrifice, so let's go through your list.
Teachers - have many fucking times do teachers go on strike ? Weren't Chicago teachers like the highest paid teachers in the country BEFORE they went on strike ?
Attorneys - trial attorneys vote democrat because they are against tort reform, which is something republicans try to do. Cut the frivolous lawsuits.
Professors - the high cost of tuition is their gravy train. Putting out that a college education is a 'right' increases the demand for their services, hence, their pay and job security.
Hollywood - you put Hollywood in the 'smart' category ? WTF. Hollywood is a cesspool and aside from being blacklisted for being conservative, they are a big union, are they not ? Screen actors guild ?
Pharmacists / Nurses - not sure from where you draw the conclusion that these vote democrat. Perhaps a trade group has come out in support of ACA. However, the AMA came out for the ACA as well, and it pissed off a LOT of actual doctors.
The last category, Jews, honestly completely fucking baffles me why they vote as much Democrat as they do. I think they believe the hype that Liberals stain Conservatives, because as a Conservative, it seems to me that Jews are backing the wrong horse. Obama is about to let Israel get overrun, but I guess Jews in America don't care as much as I thought they would.
There is a lowest common denominator you're missing here, something Bill Clinton alluded to in his speech. It's the difference between a you're-on-your-own winner-take-all society and a we're-all-in-this-together society. The lowest common denominator is emotional development. How deeply can you feel someone else's pain? People with greater empathy are less likely to promote a you're-on-your-own winner-take-all society, and ignore the problems it causes. Just my opinion on the matter.
I think most science is a question of marketing. People see science and think of big clunky spaceships, a big hole in the ground in Schwitzerland or a mad man mixing chemicals with clear visual effects.
If you look into science it is infinitely more complex: There is the theoretical basic side, which seems like complete nonsense to most business-people and the general population. The problem is that these discoveries are exactly the foundation ideas are build from! The there is a practical basic side. It is often very messy like CERN or some of NASAs experiments and it is hard to see the practical application. But since basic theories can be wrong, you need to solidify them to get it into the books and taught to students. Once in a while someone gets an idea based on the theoretical basic science. It can be a way to do a calculation faster, measure something others haven't before or something along those lines. It is theoretically sound science but it is not applied in reality. Practical science is production of a certain mixture of chemicals, create a proof of concept for measuring the new thing and proving the theory right, It is still a bit of an oddity for most people in business The last of the scientific ways is taking something that is working and making it better by applying the above knowledge. It is what all people can see the potential in doing. Of course there is the prototyping, scaling and in general production of things based on science, but that is more of a technological and engineering project than science.
How does it work in companies? My impression is: You buy something fancy you need to use, you get a basic idea about how it works and you use it that way untill it is broken and the company buys a new one to let the cycle continues... If it is working it is fine. No need to fix it if it aint broken. If it is broken, contact the company behind it and either you are a boob or they are a boob. What is wrong? Who cares, as long as economic blame can be placed... If science can help pat your company bankaccount for sure it is very good. If not, well what a waste... I have come across several strange things in companies nobody understands how works, but they claim it does and that is enough for them. The company logic is utilitarianism. Fuck stupid telescopes and CERN and other waste of money. If something is not immediately useful it is a waste. They don't care if the earth is round or flat, if the earth is not the center of the universe and if sugar and fructose are not the same. They do care about the tidal water, the way the wind is blowing and if something is healthy (for marketing reasons mostly)... If something works, we use it or else we do not. Keep it simple stupid. Think one step ahead and find a way to survive the step.
Many people are able to look past the pure utilitarianism today at least in the western world, but it is still very prevalent amoung very religious people (literal interpretations of the bible and a belief in god as an interventionalist), businesses (I.e. above) and really poor people (Thinking from hand to mouth is a useful ability to have in a life or dead situation). Come to think of it, maybe you can start a political party around utilitarianism...
politicians are a professional class reliant on the support of wealthy donors. that's basically the game here.
even more telling than "rich pol always wins" is the fact that candidates with no backing from the party funding backbones rarely makes it even past primaries.
libertarian types should be more up in arms over interest capture than anything tax related, really. at least one of the above serves a legit public function.
On September 29 2012 18:58 Defacer wrote: More evidence of the Obama Bueller Effect ... Mitt Romney simply can't get people's attention for the right reasons. R-Money and Clint Eastwood are kicking Romney's ass.
Eh, I think Youtube is a terrible indicator. Suffice it to say I genuinely believe Youtube has a liberal bias (as does most of the internet). If you think about it, large portions of Youtubers are the young, college students, and/or non-Americans.
Weird how Clint Eastwood's act doesn't have more views though. It was exotic.
Oh, it's a fine indicator -- of how much harder it is for Romney to reach his base than it is for Obama to reach his.
No matter how much Romney will try, most people aren't paying attention to him for the right reasons. He's certainly not getting his 'message' out online or through mainstream media.
What's left? Robocalling the elderly, costly paid-advertising and $50,000-per-plate dinners.
If it makes Romney feel better, he can take comfort in the fact that even though Obama is trouncing him, Maru and Bieber are absolutely crushing Obama.
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
Its easier for Obama to get his message out to his base, but its harder for him to get them to the polls.
On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote: Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ?
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system...
It's not always a democracy...
2000 Presidential Results: George W. Bush - 50,456,002 47.9% Winner! Al Gore - 50,999,897 48.4%
Also, this is an interesting video that goes more in depth about the voter fraud that is going on on the right
EPT
![[image loading]](http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/NHI-Support.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A35KhkHCIAEYxlz.png)
