2012 Election Season

[Aran]

Nate Silver disagrees, and explained how the effect of voter disenfranchisement laws can be overestimated.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/

 

(Worth noting that the HP article you linked is over a year old, and several of the states, like Wisconsin, have since struck down the laws mentioned.)

[Tyranicus]

(Worth noting that the HP article you linked is over a year old, and several of the states, like Wisconsin, have since struck down the laws mentioned.)

Pennsylvania has as well. My home state doesn't often get things right, but even a blind squirrel occasionally finds some nuts.

[Balladeer]

I predict that about half the country will be disappointed come Tuesday night and about 75% will be disappointed round 4 years from now.

[Harehunter]

I think that is probably a safe bet, regardless of who wins.

[Randomizer]

I think your numbers are a bit low.

[Student of Trinity]

http://xkcd.com/1130/

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

 

'nuff said.

[nikki.]

Heh, nice one Grimm. I saw this on Reddit a while ago (or a similar sign at least). Since I'm rewatching, it immediately came to mind:

 

[keira]

[Rowen]

[Callie]

snip

NO.

[keira]

Ironically, this didn't load for me at first either.

 

But seriously, I have a primal urge to kill anyone who links funnyjunk. Seriously, it's not too much to just rehost it on imgur or your own site, and it saves people the effort of bypassing funnyjunk's stupid-ass hotlink protection (which I don't even bother doing, hope it was some funny junk!).

[nikki.]

Ironically, this didn't load for me at first either.

 

But seriously, I have a primal urge to kill anyone who links funnyjunk. Seriously, it's not too much to just rehost it on imgur or your own site, and it saves people the effort of bypassing funnyjunk's stupid-ass hotlink protection (which I don't even bother doing, hope it was some funny junk!).

 

Buster: "and my (whispered) is shaped like a (whispered (lobster's tail)) without the shell".

[Triumph]

http://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/index.php?/user/276-hey-you-go-vote/

 

Alorael's PDN has become politicized! This is the worst possible thing that could happen. We're doomed.

[nikki.]

http://spiderwebforu...ey-you-go-vote/

 

Alorael's PDN has become politicized! This is the worst possible thing that could happen. We're doomed.

 

Why? They're often topical. Just the other day I saw one that was halloweeny, (or rather All Saint's Day-y) for instance.

[Triumph]

...I'm joking. It's a riff off the tired refrain of this or that person complaining shrilly about how something or the other has "become politicized" and how outrageous it is. Do people not complain like that over there?

[Tyranicus]

This is the worst possible thing that could happen.

[nikki.]

No. Nobody talks about politics in my town, and possibly my country. I am starved of political debate, which is why I turned to the US election with such enthusiasm only to realise that one candidate is sane and voteable, and the other desires to push America back 50 years into the past (unless you happen to be super-rich or a rapist)..

 

Seriously. How is it as close a race as I'm hearing it is?!

[Callie]

I hope that's sarcasm there, but even if it is, it's pretty alarming. Insisting that your political opponents "[desire] to push [the country] back 50 years into the past" is old, tired rhetoric and is really just divisive.

[Triumph]

Eep. While I'm not an admirer of either major party candidate, I don't think either of them "desires to push America 50 years into the past" except for rapists and super-rich (who both get to stay in the 21st century, I guess? LOL). I'd suggest more research into candidates and / or different sources of news.

 

As for how close you're hearing it is...ehh. I don't trust polls. Poll questions can be manipulated, the sample of people polled can be manipulated, the interpretation and presentation of the results can be manipulated, etc. And then you have to assume everyone polled is honest, which isn't always guaranteed. The only poll that matters is the one using ballots. I realize every year people raise concerns about disenfranchisement on one hand or fraud on the other, but while I don't believe the system is perfect, I trust it *vastly* more than any poll. We'll see tomorrow if it's close or not.

[nikki.]

Yeah, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think this attitude only came after I heard the Republicans say that a rape victim would have "inbuilt defences against a pregnancy that occurred as a result of said rape" (paraphrasing, but the idea is there). I DO try to keep an open mind, but when those attitudes (and others - I have friends from many US states (and not just people who frequent these forums), and they do comment on the state of the nation), are communicated to me, I just despair. I like to think I am able to approach news coverage from an unbiased viewpoint and consider the stance of both candidates fairly, and I like to think that I am aware of media bias, but on the one hand we have somebody who does not recognise basic human rights (such as rights for LGBT community), and on the other we have somebody who has actively tried to promote human rights within the country, I just wonder how there's even a debate?

 

Hell, the rape thing alone should be enough.

 

(edited for typos)

[nikki.]

Also, I saw one Presidential Debate, and didn't Romney just lie about everything? And you know, cover up his illegal tax dodging? I dunno. My country's politics are messed up, but at least we weren;t considering electing Jaffa from Aladdin.

 

Edit: Haha. Jafar. Sorry.

[Triumph]

The rape comment you refer to was a gaff by one senate candidate, roundly condemned by everyone in the party (they also unsuccessfully tried to get him to bow out of the race after he said it). It makes no sense at all to link that incident to the presidential candidates, which it sounds like you may be doing.

 

I know of no evidence that Mr. Romney did any illegal tax dodging. If there were evidence, I'm pretty sure the IRS would be coming after him.

 

Also, the Jaffa are from Stargate, not Aladdin.

[nikki.]

Well, I don't deny that I'm an outsider looking in, and perhaps one with slightly less information than I might have. And, I would like to repeat again that I hate SW debates, and therefore steer clear, but c'mon. Obama isn't perfect, but he's far better than Rmoney.

[Dikiyoba]

...on the one hand we have somebody who does not recognise basic human rights (such as rights for LGBT community), and on the other we have somebody who has actively tried to promote human rights within the country, I just wonder how there's even a debate?

This.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Rowen]

Jaffa - f + r =

[nikki.]

Oh hush. Y'all pick on me for my accidental typo, and yet nobody comments on the deliberate one. I've half a mind to get the Queen to subject you all to colonisation again!

[keira]

I say, good chap, if this tillytallying typo business continues I will fly across the pond and engage in a bout of fisticuffs. We shall quarrel like ruffians!

Edited November 6, 2012 by Sylae
Wot

[Rowen]

colonisation

 

Oh dear, that would be a poopy situation.

[Callie]

The reason for opposing LGBT rights is often attributed to hatred and/or ignorance by those who support it, but that's an unfair generalization. Although homophobia certainly exists and is prevalent in everyday society, most of the people who show up at the polls in opposition to gay marriage don't think of themselves as opposing civil rights and are legitimately concerned about altering an institution they consider sacred. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that people with opposing political beliefs are like the pundits and politicians we see on TV, but the vast majority of people are far more agreeable than political pundits. They're everyday people who might very well be picking their children up from soccer after they vote. There's a debate because there's disagreement about the issue, and usually people are more receptive to other people's opinions than you might think. We just tend to remember the disagreeable or vocal people we've had conversations with, but there's plenty of others who are courteous about debating or might not even wish to express their opinion at all. The internet provides a place for those loud, disagreeable people to be anonymous, and that really doesn't help our perceptions of others.

 

(Full disclosure: I support gay marriage rights, but I think limiting marriage to two people is still too restrictive and that the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage at all)

[Sudanna]

Whatever they think of themselves as doing, it is opposing civil rights.

[Tyranicus]

The reason for opposing LGBT rights is often attributed to hatred and/or ignorance by those who support it, but that's an unfair generalization. Although homophobia certainly exists and is prevalent in everyday society, most of the people who show up at the polls in opposition to gay marriage don't think of themselves as opposing civil rights and are legitimately concerned about altering an institution they consider sacred.

Many people who who opposed interracial marriages probably thought the same thing. When someone does not want to extend the same rights to other people that they themselves enjoy, that is bigotry. It doesn't matter what justification they give for it.

[keira]

^ that

 

maybe im missing something but how is the idea of withholding marriage from people based on whats between their legs anything but bigotry

 

no you two cant love each other because you both have vaginas

[Alorael at Large]

There are all kinds of torturous justifications for it. Some many people probably believe, and probably with minimum examination. Implicit or explicit, it's bigoted.

 

—Alorael, who is willing to concede separate but equal. Define a legal status with all the rights, benefits, and constraints of marriage by a different name. Allow gays to have that. (Then follow it up with getting rid of marriage as a matter of civil law and leave only that for gays, straights, and everyone else alike.)

[keira]

sure i mean it worked out pretty well for jim crow

[Callie]

I don't think people with conflicting religious beliefs are inherently bigoted, maybe misguided, but I don't think that being misguided automatically amounts to bigotry.

[Tyranicus]

What these people don't seem to realize is that separation of church and state means just that. If your church doesn't believe two men should marry, fine; your church won't perform the ceremony. You cannot use those religious reasons as a justification for preventing those two men from marrying in another church or in a nonreligious ceremony.

[Callie]

What these people don't seem to realize is that separation of church and state means just that. If your church doesn't believe two men should marry, fine; your church won't perform the ceremony. You cannot use those religious reasons as a justification for preventing those two men from marrying in another church or in a nonreligious ceremony.

I agree with this entirely, and yet, I'm not convinced that it automatically amounts to bigotry. I would reserve accusations of bigotry toward those who attribute non-heterosexual behavior to evil or any comparable accusation of immorality.

[Student of Trinity]

To me the analogy with opposition to interracial marriage is decisively damning. I don't accept that the opposition really has a leg to stand on, after that. But the problem is precisely that we're talking about civil rights, not natural law. Civil rights have to be conceded by society. Universal marriage is not yet a civil right in the US; that's the whole debate.

 

There should be a universal body of law about domestic contracts, and probably also about rearing children. I bet that's how most European countries run the show. There's been gay marriage in the Netherlands, for instance, for quite a while. Dutch society hasn't crumbled. I suppose in fairness I should admit that Dutch society is just not very crumbly. Maybe that's the point, though.

[Lilith]

the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage at all

 

this is one of those positions that works better in theoryland than in reality. for example without some formal definition of what kinds of relationship are considered important, who should inherit in cases where someone dies without a will? and if someone is incapacitated by illness, who should have the right to make medical decisions on their behalf by default? it's not very practical to drag every situation like that through the courts in the name of judging them on their individual merits, so it's useful to have rules of thumb like "if you're married to this person you get their stuff when they die"

[keira]

I would reserve accusations of bigotry toward those who attribute non-heterosexual behavior to evil or any comparable accusation of immorality.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

a lot of religiously affiliated people have thrown gems like those to the wayside, unfortunately others cling to them tightly. for the latter i like to ask them how i should handle the killing of my neighbors for working on the sabbath.

[Callie]

this is one of those positions that works better in theoryland than in reality. for example without some formal definition of what kinds of relationship are considered important, who should inherit in cases where someone dies without a will? and if someone is incapacitated by illness, who should have the right to make medical decisions on their behalf by default? it's not very practical to drag every situation like that through the courts in the name of judging them on their individual merits, so it's useful to have rules of thumb like "if you're married to this person you get their stuff when they die"

How is it determined that certain relationships are important and others are not? Marriage, whatever that means, seems like a rather arbitrary distinction and its definition in democratic societies is subject to the whims of the majority. Is it more advantageous than allowing people to define their own similar contracts?

 

 

 

bible said:

 

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

a lot of religiously affiliated people have thrown gems like those to the wayside, unfortunately others cling to them tightly. for the latter i like to ask them how i should handle the killing of my neighbors for working on the sabbath.

you should read some of my old posts on ppp

[keira]

you have 1,384 posts on ppp, could you be more specific

[Lilith]

How is it determined that certain relationships are important and others are not? Marriage, whatever that means, seems like a rather arbitrary distinction and its definition in democratic societies is subject to the whims of the majority. Is it more advantageous than allowing people to define their own similar contracts?

 

you're missing my point: what do you do when people don't define their own contracts? there has to be some kind of default presumption as to what they would have wanted. based on current social norms, a reasonable presumption is that if you have a spouse and no will, you want them to inherit your property in the event of your death.

 

(before you ask, over here a couple that's been living together for more than 6 months is treated the same as a married couple for most legal purposes, so the presumption doesn't just apply to people who have gone through a formal marriage ceremony and registered their partnership. but being married does make it easier to prove that you were a couple)

[Callie]

you're missing my point: what do you do when people don't define their own contracts? there has to be some kind of default presumption as to what they would have wanted. based on current social norms, a reasonable presumption is that if you have a spouse and no will, you want them to inherit your property in the event of your death.

 

(before you ask, over here a couple that's been living together for more than 6 months is treated the same as a married couple for most legal purposes, so the presumption doesn't just apply to people who have gone through a formal marriage ceremony and registered their partnership. but being married does make it easier to prove that you were a couple)

<3

 

As long as the government allows people to define contracts different than its default presumption.

 

 

you have 1,384 posts on ppp, could you be more specific

Oh wow, I forget I've been around that long.

 

Well, this thread has plenty of Leviticus in it.

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

Religious objection is not always bigotry, you know.

Being a Christian, I cannot, on principle, support gay marriage as an institution because the Word clearly describes it as sin in both the Old and New Testaments (I spent the last two hours writing up my full take on how Christians should approach the evolution of sexuality and gender, and have since cut it out and archived it. Ask privately, if you feel like a debate. I don't want to throw off the thread.)

At the same time, I do want people to be happy, successful in their relationships, their lives; and the New Testament is heavily peppered with reminders that Christians are to treat others with love and grace. And humility. And a few other things that people who like to publically quote Leviticus tend to lack... like knowledge... caution... you get the idea.

Just as significant, I don't want to see anyone judged. in the Biblical sense. I mean, that is a huge freaking part of the whole Christ-one thing.

It's a lot easier to balance all of that on a person-to-person basis than it is to politic in broad strokes, and easier still to dismiss the rest of the world as sinners going to hell.

While that last part does smack of bigotry, what does the rest of it sound like to you?

 

I guess it's a good thing that I'm not voting on just that issue, and that my investigations into the candidates on my ballots goes into other things like fiscal records, voting and policy records, compared to actual actions. I know for sure that I will be voting to remove my incumbent Congressman because he refused to even consider compromise during the budget crisis, and made darn well sure that Twitter knew it... and shortly thereafter used campaign funds to take his family on a vacation in Europe. Fortunately, the competition looks competent.

Most of the local positions are running unopposed. That's what happens when the unions run the area. In those that have challenges, only one challenger actually looks better than the incumbent. Happens every now and then.

 

It's four in the morning, and I'm still undecided on my Presidential vote. As a man and a politician, let alone a leader, President Obama has lost almost all of the respect that I had for him by refusing to man up or compromise, insisting that his long string of failures, ineffective policies, and insufficient measures were not his fault. On the other hand, Romney's record in the social, economic, and legal arenas has been so damned inconsistent, the only thing that seems to be counted on is his faithfulness to the voters that got him elected. While I can actually see some of his policies going places, I don't particularly care for the people to whom he has been pandering. Hell, it's been over a year, I will likely be voting within the next twelve hours, and I'm still playing with the idea of voting for Obama, just to give Chris Christie a chance while he's still considering the possibility of running.

 

 

I'm thinking of running in 2024. My campaign will be based on policies of common sense, balanced budget, and absolutely no use of the words "middle class". Possibly some reform in social programs, but the aim of this would be to give them more bang for their buck. No gimmicks, no assault ads, no catering. Just an average American trying to help America.

Anybody think I could get a kickstarter fund for my campaign?

---

The Silent Assassin will be writing in Bob the Dog, as he does every year.

Bob, of course, returns the favor, as he doesn't think that voting for himself is ethical.

[Lilith]

"balancing the budget" is not quite the worst thing anyone has ever seriously suggested doing to the US economy but it's pretty high up there

[Student of Trinity]

To balance the US federal budget you need to bring in half again as much revenue, or cut spending by one third. That's how badly out of balance it is, and has been for quite some time. Moreover, nothing that is easy to cut in the budget adds up to a hill of beans, in comparison with the enormous, 50%-of-income difference between income and outlay. Practically all of the budget goes on three big items, and the rest is either seriously non-discretionary (like paying for the justice system or veterans' benefits) or tiny. You will need to do one of the following:

a. Entirely eliminate one of: defense, medicare, or social security.

b. Very drastically cut back two or more of defense, medicare, and social security, to the point of reducing the services offered to a qualitatively lower league. For example, no more being a superpower AND all old people without ample private means live in penury.

c. Raise overall taxes by 50%.

d. Some compromise between b and c. This would be the most sensible, though still extremely painful, but it would have the effect of making absolutely everyone angry, instead of just half the people.

 

To me the obvious candidate for cutting drastically would be defense. As a non-American, I'm happy that if we had to have a superpower for the past seventy years, the United States was it. When Obama accepted the Peace Prize on behalf of the American military, I thought that was fair enough. But the fact is that the enormous American military preponderance is a luxury. A far smaller and cheaper force would be enough to provide basic security, and while I'm sure that the far larger force America now fields does bring in some benefits, and in that sense serves American interests, I doubt that it brings in enough benefit to pay for itself. I admire American military professionalism very much; if I had to pick a team to defend the world against aliens, I'd pretty much sign up the whole US armed forces. What they do is not a game to them. But for the United States as a nation state, I think the American military is a very expensive subscription to the World of Warcraft.

[Aran]

The rape comment you refer to was a gaff by one senate candidate, roundly condemned by everyone in the party (they also unsuccessfully tried to get him to bow out of the race after he said it). It makes no sense at all to link that incident to the presidential candidates, which it sounds like you may be doing.

 

Wait, when you say "one senate candidate" are you referring to Todd Aikin in Missouri, Tom Smith in Pennsylvania or Richard Mourdoch in Indiana?

 

Though specifically, I admit it was Aikin who said the bit about rape not causing pregnancy. Smith was the one who compared rape pregnancy to having a baby out of wedlock, and Mourdoch was the one who said rape pregnancy was a divine gift. Fairly sure I'm leaving out a few others who may or may not be running for senate.

 

It's gaffetopia.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

To me the obvious candidate for cutting drastically would be defense. As a non-American, I'm happy that if we had to have a superpower for the past seventy years, the United States was it. When Obama accepted the Peace Prize on behalf of the American military, I thought that was fair enough. But the fact is that the enormous American military preponderance is a luxury. A far smaller and cheaper force would be enough to provide basic security, and while I'm sure that the far larger force America now fields does bring in some benefits, and in that sense serves American interests, I doubt that it brings in enough benefit to pay for itself. I admire American military professionalism very much; if I had to pick a team to defend the world against aliens, I'd pretty much sign up the whole US armed forces. What they do is not a game to them. But for the United States as a nation state, I think the American military is a very expensive subscription to the World of Warcraft.

A very sensible point and one might add that US will remain a superpower even after drastic reduction in budget, say if the defense spending was halved it will still be more than twice that of the nearest country china, A very good option will be to engage like minded peace loving countries and ask them to perform leadership role on a local scale, that itself could help a lot, It's not as if US isn't doing that now but it probably needs to increase the efforts, I have never been sure whether US has been positive or negative for the world in general but I am pretty sure a bankrupt US will be very very negative.

 

Anybody think I could get a kickstarter fund for my campaign?

NO.

(sorry )