|
|
On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is. Show nested quote +Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds. That's the least likely scenario, a 269-269 tie is more likely than a repeat of 2000 and a 269-269 tie is less than 10% chance if you believe people like Nate Silver which I don't, since he enjoys giving more weight in his statistical model to Obama-leading polls than Romney-leading ones simply because well who knows why).
This is a nonsense article written by someone who is illiterate in statistics. He writes:
Real Clear Politics gives equal weight to all of the polls it includes and uses only the most recent polls from each polling organization in a given timeframe.
Then Real Clear Politics is completely wrong. Given a number of poll estimates, each with their own standard error, you can combine these estimates to get a smaller standard error estimate by weighting using the sample size of the polls. Equally weighting polls is wrong. This guy has clearly never heard of composite estimation.
But Nate Silver weights polls in a more sophisticated way, he includes factors like how accurate they have been in the past at predicting the outcome.
I read Nate Silver, the reason why I trust his forecast is because he's demonstrated on many of his articles that he understands the nuances and statistical theory related to interpreting polls. I find him impressive because his knowledge of statistics agrees with mine and it agrees with the textbooks.
|
On October 26 2012 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 26 2012 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Thank you for once again showing that you have no idea about European Politics. Yes you dont like to hear it but the Republican party would be as likely to get votes here as said radical parties. Thank you for showing you can't read? I said those parties couldn't get votes here because of their rather explicitly racist nature, which is their appeal in Europe. Not that the GOP couldn't get votes in Europe. Yes you don't like to hear it but you have parties that get 10-20% (or more!) of the vote on your Continent that couldn't crack 5% here. And the reason they get that many votes there and wouldn't here is the same. Hes calling them "not-insignificant political forces" which infact they very much are. Guess i should have made that more clear.
Keep telling yourself that, your denial is hilarious when your own elites regularly get the vapors about the Freedom Party or the National Front or the BZO or Geert Wilders. The coalition kingmaker party in the Netherlands is insignificant? The FPO and BZO in Austria are insignificant when they hold 1/5 of the parliament? The Fidesz in Hungary which is currently the ruling party is insignificant? The National Front is insignificant in France? Suuuuuure.
|
On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is. Show nested quote +Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds. That's the least likely scenario, a 269-269 tie is more likely than a repeat of 2000 and a 269-269 tie is less than 10% chance if you believe people like Nate Silver which I don't, since he enjoys giving more weight in his statistical model to Obama-leading polls than Romney-leading ones simply because well who knows why).
Yeah, it's not like Nate Silver is an experienced statistician who has justified his model multiple times and has a huge stake in its success. Obviously he's just rigging it so Obama will win even if that means he loses his credibility!
Edit: The fact that the writer thinks having a higher partisan identification for Democrats in a poll means the poll is favoring democrats is laughable.
Edit2: AHAHAHAHA, he also thinks the weighting of a poll isn't related to its differences from the other polls, minimizing the value of outlier polls. Does he even read 538 or just cherrypick numbers?
|
On October 26 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is. Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds. That's the least likely scenario, a 269-269 tie is more likely than a repeat of 2000 and a 269-269 tie is less than 10% chance if you believe people like Nate Silver which I don't, since he enjoys giving more weight in his statistical model to Obama-leading polls than Romney-leading ones simply because well who knows why). This a nonsense article written someone who is illerate in statistics. It writes: Show nested quote +Real Clear Politics gives equal weight to all of the polls it includes and uses only the most recent polls from each polling organization in a given timeframe. This is completely wrong. Given a number of poll estimates each with their own standard error, you can combine these estimates to get a smaller standard error estimates, by weighting by the sample size of the poll. Equally weighting polls is wrong. This guy has clearer never heard of composite estimation. Nate Silver weights polls in a more sophisticated way, he includes factors like how accurate they have been in the past at predicting the outcome. I read Nate Silver, the reason why I trust his forecast is because he's demonstrated on many occasions that he understands the nuances and statistical theory related to interrupting poll.
It's obvious you didn't understand what you read, try it again.
|
On October 26 2012 00:27 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues? No to minorities? What?
I'm not speaking about Romney, he changes his opinions too often. So often that on some topics he doesn't seem to have a proper opinion lol 
In general republicans however seem to be quite opposed to gays, immigrants etc. Or am I wrong?
|
On October 26 2012 01:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is. Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds. That's the least likely scenario, a 269-269 tie is more likely than a repeat of 2000 and a 269-269 tie is less than 10% chance if you believe people like Nate Silver which I don't, since he enjoys giving more weight in his statistical model to Obama-leading polls than Romney-leading ones simply because well who knows why). Yeah, it's not like Nate Silver is an experienced statistician who has justified his model multiple times and has a huge stake in its success. Obviously he's just rigging it so Obama will win even if that means he loses his credibility!
This guy crunches numbers as well for a living. Nate Silver does not justify his numbers in any meaningful fashion, do you read his posts at 538? He explains his process in a general way and gives the numbers he puts in, not why he for example gives a week-old PPP poll a weighting of 1.15569 and a few-days-old PPP poll a weighting of .95201. Guess which poll favored Obama more?
|
On October 26 2012 01:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is. Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds. That's the least likely scenario, a 269-269 tie is more likely than a repeat of 2000 and a 269-269 tie is less than 10% chance if you believe people like Nate Silver which I don't, since he enjoys giving more weight in his statistical model to Obama-leading polls than Romney-leading ones simply because well who knows why). Yeah, it's not like Nate Silver is an experienced statistician who has justified his model multiple times and has a huge stake in its success. Obviously he's just rigging it so Obama will win even if that means he loses his credibility! This guy crunches numbers as well for a living. Nate Silver does not justify his numbers in any meaningful fashion, do you read his posts at 538? He explains his process in a general way and gives the numbers he puts in, not why he for example gives a week-old PPP poll a weighting of 1.15569 and a few-days-old PPP poll a weighting of .95201. Guess which poll favored Obama more?
So he gave a polling firm less weight after it appeared as an outlier the previous week. Makes sense to me.
If you sincerely believe Nate Silver is going to risk his reputation to put out a model that favors Obama, you are in a bizarre place. Might as well believe Dick Morris.
|
On October 26 2012 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is. Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds. That's the least likely scenario, a 269-269 tie is more likely than a repeat of 2000 and a 269-269 tie is less than 10% chance if you believe people like Nate Silver which I don't, since he enjoys giving more weight in his statistical model to Obama-leading polls than Romney-leading ones simply because well who knows why). This a nonsense article written someone who is illerate in statistics. It writes: Real Clear Politics gives equal weight to all of the polls it includes and uses only the most recent polls from each polling organization in a given timeframe. This is completely wrong. Given a number of poll estimates each with their own standard error, you can combine these estimates to get a smaller standard error estimates, by weighting by the sample size of the poll. Equally weighting polls is wrong. This guy has clearer never heard of composite estimation. Nate Silver weights polls in a more sophisticated way, he includes factors like how accurate they have been in the past at predicting the outcome. I read Nate Silver, the reason why I trust his forecast is because he's demonstrated on many occasions that he understands the nuances and statistical theory related to interrupting poll. It's obvious you didn't understand what you read, try it again.
I understand what I'm reading. Some guy is praising RCP for not weighting polls, and takes issue with how Silver weights his polls. But not weighting polls when combining them is wrong.
|
On October 26 2012 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Thank you for once again showing that you have no idea about European Politics. Those parties are very much insignificant politicaly. Trying to call Europe more racist then America is laughable when you look at the actual measures being taken against ethnical minority's. Yes you dont like to hear it but the Republican party would be as likely to get votes here as said radical parties.
Jobbik called, they want 17% of the vote back.
The 'far-right' has been growing quickly in Europe, and in almost every European country, they either have members in national parliaments, the European Parliament, and/or they receive several percent of the vote every election.
|
On October 26 2012 01:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is. Because and this is honestly the most likely scenerio, Obama will win electoral college but lose the popular vote. The national vote seems to be having Obama lose ground in NE which he will win and South which he will lose so they basically dont matter. He is still winning in enough states to hit 270 with room to spare provided his 5 point lead in Ohio holds. That's the least likely scenario, a 269-269 tie is more likely than a repeat of 2000 and a 269-269 tie is less than 10% chance if you believe people like Nate Silver which I don't, since he enjoys giving more weight in his statistical model to Obama-leading polls than Romney-leading ones simply because well who knows why). Yeah, it's not like Nate Silver is an experienced statistician who has justified his model multiple times and has a huge stake in its success. Obviously he's just rigging it so Obama will win even if that means he loses his credibility! This guy crunches numbers as well for a living. Nate Silver does not justify his numbers in any meaningful fashion, do you read his posts at 538? He explains his process in a general way and gives the numbers he puts in, not why he for example gives a week-old PPP poll a weighting of 1.15569 and a few-days-old PPP poll a weighting of .95201. Guess which poll favored Obama more?
Nate Silver isn't personally giving any poll a weight. He puts the results in a model, and takes whatever weight and estimate it spits out.
Nate Silver justifies his numbers just fine: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/
Each poll receives a weight in the FiveThirtyEight trend-line calculation based on its sample size and its pollster rating. The model accounts for the fact that tracking polls use an overlapping set of interviews. A three-day tracking poll might consist of interviews conducted on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for instance. When the polling firm issues its next release of the survey, a fresh set of interviews from Thursday will replace the ones from Monday in the sample. Thus, we reduce the weight assigned to each edition of a tracking poll to avoid counting the same interviews multiple times.
The weighting procedure he describes sounds like composite estimation (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2286977), which is used in survey statistics to reduce variance when combining polls with rotating samples. Even leaving theoretical details aside, this is clearly a very sound and logical thing to do. As I said, this is someone who knows what he's talking about. He understands statistical theory.
Also, I'm going to need a citation on this.
This guy crunches numbers as well for a living
This Josh Jordan guys sounds like he has no idea what he's talking about by basically advertising a simple average of polls as somehow more accurate:
|
On October 26 2012 01:21 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 00:27 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues? No to minorities? What? I'm not speaking about Romney, he changes his opinions too often. So often that on some topics he doesn't seem to have a proper opinion lol In general republicans however seem to be quite opposed to gays, immigrants etc. Or am I wrong?
No offense, but you're wrong. Gays? Maybe. Immigrants? No. Illegal immigration? Yes.
Even most liberals are probably opposed to illegal immigration. Though calling the Republicans "anti-minorities" because they support defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is grasping for straws.
|
On October 26 2012 01:30 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 26 2012 00:27 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues? No to minorities? What? I'm not speaking about Romney, he changes his opinions too often. So often that on some topics he doesn't seem to have a proper opinion lol In general republicans however seem to be quite opposed to gays, immigrants etc. Or am I wrong? No offense, but you're wrong. Gays? Maybe. Immigrants? No. Illegal immigration? Yes. Even most liberals are probably opposed to illegal immigration. Though calling the Republicans "anti-minorities" because they support defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is grasping for straws.
Even if it was the only point of contention (it isn't) that is pretty anti minority.
|
On October 26 2012 01:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Thank you for once again showing that you have no idea about European Politics. Yes you dont like to hear it but the Republican party would be as likely to get votes here as said radical parties. Thank you for showing you can't read? I said those parties couldn't get votes here because of their rather explicitly racist nature, which is their appeal in Europe. Not that the GOP couldn't get votes in Europe. Yes you don't like to hear it but you have parties that get 10-20% (or more!) of the vote on your Continent that couldn't crack 5% here. And the reason they get that many votes there and wouldn't here is the same. Show nested quote +They're hypocrites for claiming to care about the debt "for our children", and yet (if they're not denying science) don't give it shit about climate change, which really will be for our children. Call us when the earth actually starts warming again and you have some computer models that actually predict what will actually happen, instead of the epic fail that they have been. Kinda sad that your models predicated on humans causing global warming couldn't manage to square up with the stagnancy of the last 14 years.
14 years is a small term compared to 100 years. We likely will not be alive in a century, but our descendants will. Also scientists do not claim that it will be 100% bad. They say that the chance of things getting really bad is in the order of tens of percents depending on the model. The last 14 years do not change it.
Furthermore reducing fossil fuel usage is not the only way to mitigate climate change. In case things go bad there is geo-engeneering, which is also very cheap even on planetary scale. If republicans like fossil fuels, why aren't they promoting geo-engineering instead of lying about no consensus (again scientific consensus is not that all will definitely be terrible, but that the risks are very high).
|
Haha because the Front National is a neo nazi party according to americans ?
|
On October 26 2012 01:33 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:30 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 01:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 26 2012 00:27 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 25 2012 16:55 Alex1Sun wrote:So if I understand it right (please correct me if I'm wrong), a main difference between two parties is as follows: - Republicans are liberal in economic terms (yes to free market, yes to low taxes etc.) and conservative in social terms (no to minorities, no to abortion etc.)
- Democrats are conservative in economic terms (no to free market, no to low taxes etc.) and liberal in social terms (yes to minorities, yes to abortion etc.)
The choice seems quite limited. What if some people like liberal approach to both economic and social issues? No to minorities? What? I'm not speaking about Romney, he changes his opinions too often. So often that on some topics he doesn't seem to have a proper opinion lol In general republicans however seem to be quite opposed to gays, immigrants etc. Or am I wrong? No offense, but you're wrong. Gays? Maybe. Immigrants? No. Illegal immigration? Yes. Even most liberals are probably opposed to illegal immigration. Though calling the Republicans "anti-minorities" because they support defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is grasping for straws. Even if it was the only point of contention (it isn't) that is pretty anti minority.
Even if it were, there are plenty of "moderate right-wing" parties in Europe that support the same definitions, including those in your own country (Fine Gael).
|
On October 26 2012 01:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2012 01:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 26 2012 01:03 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Souma thinking that the Republican party is further to the right than the BNP or National Front is just another indicator of how ignorant and malicious he is. Those parties would be considered no different from an Aryan nation compound here in America; they wouldn't even be political parties. They'd never win representation or election to anything more than dogcatcher of Puskeepatawnie Township, but over in Europe they're not-so-insignificant political forces. Europe today is far more racist than America is.
Thank you for once again showing that you have no idea about European Politics. Yes you dont like to hear it but the Republican party would be as likely to get votes here as said radical parties. Thank you for showing you can't read? I said those parties couldn't get votes here because of their rather explicitly racist nature, which is their appeal in Europe. Not that the GOP couldn't get votes in Europe. Yes you don't like to hear it but you have parties that get 10-20% (or more!) of the vote on your Continent that couldn't crack 5% here. And the reason they get that many votes there and wouldn't here is the same. Hes calling them "not-insignificant political forces" which infact they very much are. Guess i should have made that more clear. Keep telling yourself that, your denial is hilarious when your own elites regularly get the vapors about the Freedom Party or the National Front or the BZO or Geert Wilders. The coalition kingmaker party in the Netherlands is insignificant? The FPO and BZO in Austria are insignificant when they hold 1/5 of the parliament? The Fidesz in Hungary which is currently the ruling party is insignificant? The National Front is insignificant in France? Suuuuuure.
Comparing apples and oranges, parties on the fringe in the american electoral system will never obtain a significant vote share. Instead, the fringes hold the center hostage, making your entire political system a complete mess and ever more polarized.
The tea party, for example, holds much more (legislative/electoral) power than the Freedom Party is the Netherlands in your political process than it did in ours (the party is essentially irrelevant now). Same for France, Belgium and Austria, where extreme parties hold seats but are largely excluded from making policy. Hungary is hardly an adequate comparison when it comes to developed political systems.
|
On October 26 2012 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:
Haha because the Front National is a neo nazi party according to americans ?
Perhaps neo-Nazi wasn't the best term. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but economically, they're the the left of Francois and Sarkozy, but on "social" issues, such as the deportation of "non-French" people, they're pretty "extreme" no?
In fact, almost all of the European 'far-right' parties support a massive welfare state and big government.
|
On October 26 2012 01:41 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:
Haha because the Front National is a neo nazi party according to americans ? Perhaps neo-Nazi wasn't the best term. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but economically, they're the the left of Francois and Sarkozy, but on "social" issues, such as the deportation of "non-French" people, they're pretty "extreme" no?
No they're not really different from Sarkozy about non-French, they're just more nationalist : they think that France's problems comes from immigration (so they want to stop it completly, while Sarkozy just wanted to "control it"), that economical problem comes from free trade, (so closing France on itself is their solution to everything), etc.
Aside from specific laws project (The "national preference" which is basically the ideas that any state help should be directed toward french citizen) they are not really different from other parties. The thing that makes them so popular is that they consider (much like a lot of French actually) that the cause of our current situation is the state of our political class and that they represent "change" against both left and right politics (who are, more or less, considered the same).
Sarkozy was really hard on non french people too, but people don't know it. He made camps (one not so far from where I live) and deported them a lot. Don't misunderstand me, the FN a xenophobic party (maybe even racist to a certain extent) but it's far from the KKK.
In fact, almost all of the European 'far-right' parties support a massive welfare state and big government.
Yes, exactly.
|
On October 25 2012 22:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 20:50 v3chr0 wrote:On October 25 2012 17:52 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2012 17:46 BluePanther wrote:On October 25 2012 17:02 heishe wrote:
As an outside I'm completely baffled how people can even for one second consider voting for Romney.
He has now shown several times how competely incompetent he would be to run a country. The methods he proposed to cut taxes were shown to be mathematically impossible, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of understanding of the military, and worst of all he's a blatant liar. He lies and is constantly contradicting himself, flip flopping on his own views on a subject constantly, sometimes in really short timespans of less than an hour.
Of course, that he's the follower of a completely nutjob religion and seems like a rich sleezy douche in general doesn't help at all. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts and did quite well for himself. He's actually had more experience running a state than Obama, actually. Maybe more than Obama had four years ago. Obama has had more experience at running a nation now than Romney, about four years more. He has nearly 4 years of experience now, yes. Does that really mean anything when he hasn't done all too much but make things worse? His record is what counts, not what he says or how many years he has done less than adequate at his job. I see it the opposite, these 4 years have proven what I already knew and expected; he is not qualified to run this country, nor does he seem to even understand how it works. To him, it's all class warfare, and blame. Regardless of his situation, he the leader of this nation and it his responsibility to get things moving forward, he couldn't even do that with full control for 2 years. Social and foreign issues are not of utmost importance, this is about our saving our economy before everything recedes into chaos. How has Obama made things worse? Things are getting better, employment is increasing, unemployment is decreasing. You can argue that things aren't getting better fast enough, but things are not worse. That's simply wrong. The economy is recovering. If you want to see things getting worse go look at the UK, where their economy was slowly recovering under Brown, and then contracted a couple a quarters into Cameron's term because he suddenly pivoted to austerity. Now the UK is stuck in a double-dip recession and it's not getting better. Obama prevented the economy from crashing because of the stimulus. However, the problem is that there wasn't enough stimulus and recoveries from financial crises are usually slow: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.htmlNote that this article isn't some after the fact justification. Reinhart and Rogoff wrote a book in early 2008, chronicling the history of financial crises and showing that they're followed by slow recoveries. If you want to make things worse, then vote for Romney. He'll give tax cuts, mostly for the rich, which will have little stimulative effect, and would cut spending and balance the budget, rather than pushing for more spending to create jobs. For example Obama's stalled jobs bill is estimated to create around 2 million jobs by independent experts: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/07/812251/republicans-blocked-jobs-act-one-year/
The American Jobs Act was structured to provide 2 years of stimulus followed by a decade of austerity to pay for it (p. 14). In the context of Reinhard and Rogoff, that the recovery will be slow for an extended period of time, does that structure make sense? Or is it just setting up a new 'fiscal cliff' of sorts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
