You lost me there. I agree with you except with this. Not only is it a gross exaggeration(oh hey the US will die off in 60 years) but you shouldn't mix religion and politics. I know everyone does, but that's why i dislike most politicians. Too much religion. Has nothing to do with whats wrong with America. Don't want to get into an argument of what is right and wrong or moral or whatever though.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
2012 USA Election Thread: Obama projected winner
- Thread starter THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
- Start date
- Status
I was just as surprised as you were Deck Knight when I found out that the Republicans took the majority of the House like they did back in 2010 when the Democrats should have taken the House and the Republicans should of gotten control of the Senate for a more bipartisan Congress but that never occurred.
It was because we had Republican Senators saying stupid comments on Abortion and Women's Rights that cost the GOP a majority in the Senate. Look I'm not trying to sound crazy, but that's just the way things have been turning out in this Election and as I've been paying attention to this for most of the year I knew it was going to end very badly for the Republicans despite that I had small hopes for the Romney/Ryan ticket.
I could discuss more on my stance against Gay Marriage but then again that's just an opinion and that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to agree with it. I just don't feel like it's well "normal" cause I grew up in a society where most of America was straight until now but then again there are people in this country that have gender disorders and I got nothing against them at all.
It was because we had Republican Senators saying stupid comments on Abortion and Women's Rights that cost the GOP a majority in the Senate. Look I'm not trying to sound crazy, but that's just the way things have been turning out in this Election and as I've been paying attention to this for most of the year I knew it was going to end very badly for the Republicans despite that I had small hopes for the Romney/Ryan ticket.
You're right I shouldn't mix religion and politics, isn't that why we have separation of church and state? Some people will argue that religion might play a role in what's wrong with America and it can be a very slippery slope but I get what you're saying though. ;)
I could discuss more on my stance against Gay Marriage but then again that's just an opinion and that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to agree with it. I just don't feel like it's well "normal" cause I grew up in a society where most of America was straight until now but then again there are people in this country that have gender disorders and I got nothing against them at all.
My guess is that Tim Kaine's organization was better than George Allen's, and that Virginia has added a TON of federal employees in Fairfax County over the last four years to massively pump up the Obama vote there. It's basically a truism that if you get government assistance or are on the government payroll you vote Democrat.
Btw. How is Stephen Harper doing up in Canada? Those Conservatives never stood a chance right?
Nah, they stood a near guaranteed chance at grabbing at least a minority and a good chance at a majority (which is what they got). They've been doing very well ever since the two right-wing parties joined up to stop splitting the vote. Now it's the left that splits votes between the Liberals and NDP.
I would try to understand your own country's politics before tackling others!
I would try to understand your own country's politics before tackling others!
god i can't wait to work for all of the new dems that deck knight thought could never get elected:
liz warren
tim kaine
claire mccaskill
tom donnelly
and that's just in the senate!!
[02:22] <evan> i just sent this text to my mother
[02:25] <evan> "I know it's late but i'm beyond happy that common sense has been rewarded tonight. Respect for science has been rewarded. Respect for mathematics has been rewarded. Respect for the middle class has been rewarded. But above all respect for the intelligence of americans has been rewarded. We have rejected vague and illogical plans in favor of the concrete. We have supported the rights of women over their own bodies over the patriarchy. We have supported cautious diplomacy in a powder keg of a region. And we have supported equal rights for all Americans no matter their sexual prefernece. I am very proud of America tonight."
liz warren
tim kaine
claire mccaskill
tom donnelly
and that's just in the senate!!
[02:22] <evan> i just sent this text to my mother
[02:25] <evan> "I know it's late but i'm beyond happy that common sense has been rewarded tonight. Respect for science has been rewarded. Respect for mathematics has been rewarded. Respect for the middle class has been rewarded. But above all respect for the intelligence of americans has been rewarded. We have rejected vague and illogical plans in favor of the concrete. We have supported the rights of women over their own bodies over the patriarchy. We have supported cautious diplomacy in a powder keg of a region. And we have supported equal rights for all Americans no matter their sexual prefernece. I am very proud of America tonight."
Sore winner much Firestorm? I have a very solid grasp of American political theory, thank you.
In theory, what happened shouldn't have. But just like socialism is different in theory (utopia) than in practice (tyranny), my theory didn't hold up in this election - and all explanations for it rest on the premise that voting is not an entirely rational action, which is a valid premise I was not using in my original model. I had thought the most important election in decades would compel completely rational voting patterns, such that ticket splitting would be minimized. Instead, there was a massive amount of ticket splitting only explainable by motives that require an irrational basis, in both cases overestimating the singular power of the president or the notion of a right to a two-term presidency.
Incidentally one of the ballot questions in MA was on legalizing medical marijuana. I voted YES (for it) since I guarantee some guy will start growing plants in his back yard claiming it's for a medical reason, get investigated, sue, and that will finally be the catalyst for full legalization / taxation (something the MA Legislature is always happy to do). It's going to happen eventually anyway, might as well get the ball rolling. They approved a ballot initiative a few cycles ago that legalized carrying a small amount of marijuana.
I figure we might as well get it over with now. I've no intention of ever smoking the plant, and I'd rather the police focus on murderers, rapists, and arsonists, not recreational pot users and growers.
Fishy
tits McGee (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)
perhaps you should stop treating the entire country of america as a system of cogs and wheels, and remember that it is full of individually thinking human beings that oh, I don't know, have an opinion differing from yours? it is absolutely stupid to claim that america as a majority voted "irrationally" when in reality they only voted "differently" than everything you expected. it is not irrational to disagree, least of all with you. how difficult is it to swallow your pride and accept that the man you disliked won re-election? the fact that you conjectured people wanting to re-elect obama only because it would be racist not to is a perfect example of why racism still exists in humanity in the first place. fucking skeptics like you who figure hey, even if I'M not the racist one, I'm sure loads of other people are, so you know, might as well keep recognizing its presence as a sad reality that can never, ever be abolished. because that is completely progressive thinking. I'm sure you think about the health of the country before you go to sleep every night, except somewhere you spell "health" with a dollar sign.
as a woman, I probably would have been devastated if romney won this election. I would have been floored to learn that the majority of the country would rather worry about (RATHER being the key word) fiscal policies and economic healing than human rights and equality, if the main topics could be split so plainly. I would have been disgusted to know that the figure head of my country is one that blatantly disrespects women and their place in this country (hint: not an inch away from anywhere a man can stand) and would prefer to boost the rich to getting richer and the poor to doing whatever the fuck. since he doesn't care.
I'm so very relieved and happy (and honestly, not all that surprised) that america decided that it favored the health of humanity over the health of our country, which wouldn't exist if it had no people able to prosper within its borders.
would I call people that voted for romney irrational? no, not at all. both my parents voted romney, as did most of my family. i suppose romney's goal were in line with theirs, goals more suited to fixing a country's economy and nation-wide issues rather than delving into the problems that affect each person as individuals. my family is also mostly religious, so you know, there's that.
money may make the world go round, but it sure as fuck isn't important if it can't be spent to pay women equally, allow gay couples to plan the weddings of their dreams, and afford children excellent education, uninhibited by books with cult followings, and no citations.
if you're going to judge an entire country as a whole as irrational, please, move the fuck away so you can get a clearer picture of what the hell you're even talking about.
Actually I haven't been practicing this since I was six, which is what I would have needed to do for the word "decades" to be applicable. Maybe you should take your own advice and learn math (or perhaps English so that you don't use the plural of decade). Like say the $1,000,000 unfunded liabilities floating over each and every American's head that Democrats have no plan to address, that you will invariably have to pay for.
When you want to show up with an actual argument instead of childish laughter Kristoph, I'm all ears. Until then I continue to find it fascinating that the folks who should be celebrating tonight (often for an election they couldn't even vote in) are throwing insults my way instead. If launching hatred at your enemies is your way of celebrating, I feel pity for you. I truly, truly do.
I'm sorry, but "correct opinions?" The fuck? Look, I don't necessarily agree with what many people say, and definitely don't always agree with what Deck Knight says, but can people as a whole on these forums stop straight up attacking someone who thinks differently than you? You don't have to agree with what he says, but he has the right and ability to say it. Disagree with his points, don't attack the man behind the points. This kind of bullshit behavior is what turns me, and probably others, from most serious discussions here.
Exactly. I never really post here, either, but why would anyone try to have a serious conversation about anything when you have complete assholes that simply call you a fucktard and that's it. If you don't agree with what Deck Knight, or any one else, has to say, refute his points and move on with your life. There's no reason to belittle the guy just because he doesn't share your viewpoints.
Sorry. As hard as it might be, you should try reading one of Deck Knight's posts. They are posts of an incredibly delusional character who loads every paragraph he writes with under the breath insults, then cries mommy when they backfire. "Correct opinions" might be the wrong statement to use. I think a better request is to ask Deck Knight to educate himself and make opinions based on facts instead of what comes out of his ass after eating a spicy burrito made by a new citizen of the United States of 'MERICA.
First Fishy, thank you for the first serious response.
But that is what happened. I'm not claiming that the people making the vote are irrational people (because they voted against what I'd prefer), I am claiming the mechanism by which they selected to vote that way is irrational given the arguments presented to them by the opposing campaigns. Had the Obama campaign made the argument that he could work with a Republican Congress better than Romney could, the decision to vote for Obama and a Republican Congressman would have been rational under the arguments presented by the campaigns.
As far as the racism thing MSNBC's programming for months had Chris Matthews (among others) call everything from "golf" to "Chicago" racist Republican dog-whistles. I was watching Fox News tonight and even Bill O'Reilly was talking about how much "white vote" turned out, and the fact that it was only 72% was part of the reason Obama was victorious. Hell, your fellow traveler Gabe was all about hating on old, white people because they've benefited too much from the supposed establishment. It is extremely common for leftist sympathizers to lay a racist motive on Republicans and conservatives. Despite the fact we oppose race-based policies like Affirmative Action. But that's a separate issue, I have much more of your post to respond to.
More to the point, Mitt Romney has spent a huge percentage of his own money in charity to the poor. This is a man whose charitable giving is measured in millions of dollars annually. Mitt Romney gives more money to charity annually than most upper class two-income families make in gross income annually.
Really, Fishy, I honestly want to know: How can you claim Romney "doesn't care about the poor." Is it because he spent 2 million of his own cash on the poor instead of setting up a government program to tax 2 million dollars from the pockets of a bunch of working single mothers to then redistribute it back to their pockets in TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), WIC (Women Infants and Children), or Food Stamps? Because that is what Joe Biden does. He gives jacksquat to charity but he sure loves taxing single mothers to pay for TANF, WIC, and Food Stamps. And he's a good Catholic too.
Second, it has never been illegal for homosexuals to throw extravagant privately catered parties celebrating their relationship, and if they find some kind of liberal protestant church I'm sure they can get a minister for their "wedding."
There are several workable solutions to the civic benefits associated with marriage, but that requires actual dialogue and seriousness about the issues of marriage and public policy, not preening over who is a homophobe and who has "correct opinions." Church adoption services should not be sued for not adopting children out to homosexual couples because their criteria requires the child be raised in a household with a mother and father. By the same token various benefits usually associated with marriage could easily be broken out to the individual level, such as hospital visitation rights and inheritance. This is already the case in some states, but again, it requires a serious discussion, not moral preening.
I can't find a legitimate compelling interest claim for the government to provide specific benefits to gay couples (read: any two people who show up claiming to be a couple) simply for having a relationship. I can find a legitimate compelling interest claim for heterosexual couples in the same situation - namely the implied creation of new taxpayers growing up in an environment with high social and financial stability. When your government has social safety policies predicated on more young people being available to pay into systems designed to care for the elderly, a compelling interest in creating new taxpayers is found.
It is not rational at all to vote for a Republican Congressman and a Democratic President, when the entire argument of that Democratic President was that the Republican Congress' obstruction was impeding his agenda, while the Republican candidate's argument was that only the removal of Obama would end partisan gridlock.
But that is what happened. I'm not claiming that the people making the vote are irrational people (because they voted against what I'd prefer), I am claiming the mechanism by which they selected to vote that way is irrational given the arguments presented to them by the opposing campaigns. Had the Obama campaign made the argument that he could work with a Republican Congress better than Romney could, the decision to vote for Obama and a Republican Congressman would have been rational under the arguments presented by the campaigns.
First, at no point have I claimed Obama won re-election in nefarious ways. What I have tried to do is explain why my Presidential prediction went up in smoke, and for the most part until your post I just got snide remarks and mockery for it.
As far as the racism thing MSNBC's programming for months had Chris Matthews (among others) call everything from "golf" to "Chicago" racist Republican dog-whistles. I was watching Fox News tonight and even Bill O'Reilly was talking about how much "white vote" turned out, and the fact that it was only 72% was part of the reason Obama was victorious. Hell, your fellow traveler Gabe was all about hating on old, white people because they've benefited too much from the supposed establishment. It is extremely common for leftist sympathizers to lay a racist motive on Republicans and conservatives. Despite the fact we oppose race-based policies like Affirmative Action. But that's a separate issue, I have much more of your post to respond to.
Actually your entire post from here to below is what fills me with dread. You REALLY think that it is possible a President Romney could ban abortion and birth control. That is an absurd fear. Not only did Romney himself denounce it when George Stephanopoulus asked him about it in a Republican Primary debate, even if Romney DID want to make access to contraception more difficult he would have to shut down every Rite Aid, CVS Pharmacy, Walmart, and Stop and Shop in the nation (without even going into the private clinics or the Medicaid clinics) to do it - and he'd need to create a massive government regulatory policy of the kind you think a "severe conservative" like Mitt Romney would oppose on ideological grounds.
More to the point, Mitt Romney has spent a huge percentage of his own money in charity to the poor. This is a man whose charitable giving is measured in millions of dollars annually. Mitt Romney gives more money to charity annually than most upper class two-income families make in gross income annually.
Really, Fishy, I honestly want to know: How can you claim Romney "doesn't care about the poor." Is it because he spent 2 million of his own cash on the poor instead of setting up a government program to tax 2 million dollars from the pockets of a bunch of working single mothers to then redistribute it back to their pockets in TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), WIC (Women Infants and Children), or Food Stamps? Because that is what Joe Biden does. He gives jacksquat to charity but he sure loves taxing single mothers to pay for TANF, WIC, and Food Stamps. And he's a good Catholic too.
Who has been prospering within our borders the past four years? All of the reduction in unemployment has come from the fact they are literally shrinking the universe of jobs, such that the 7.8% unemployment rate Obama started with at a 65% participation rate is now 7.8% unemployment at a 63% participation rate. This means that more absolute numbers of people are unemployed, but the rate is the same because the number of all jobs available has shrunk. Government assistance is up all over the nation. There are more people living in poverty now than at any time since the Depression, and Obama's entire argument is that "in theory, it could have been worse." Neither the health of humanity nor the health of the country have been aided by this.
I addressed this earlier. I was calling the voting pattern irrational because it was in conflict with the specific arguments of the campaigns. I was not calling the people voting irrational.
First, the Equal Pay Act has been in existence for 60 years. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) exists with the purpose to prosecute legitimate discrimination claims. It has been illegal to pay men and women working the same job, the same hours, with the same level of experience a different amount for decades now. What the Lilly Ledbetter Act did was extend the statute of limitations on lawsuits and subjected employers to a review when they hired a female employee to ensure the entire company was in compliance. If you are an employer you would have to factor that compliance cost into a new hiring decision, and would thus favor a similarly situated male over a female because they would not come under bureacratic scrutiny.
Second, it has never been illegal for homosexuals to throw extravagant privately catered parties celebrating their relationship, and if they find some kind of liberal protestant church I'm sure they can get a minister for their "wedding."
There are several workable solutions to the civic benefits associated with marriage, but that requires actual dialogue and seriousness about the issues of marriage and public policy, not preening over who is a homophobe and who has "correct opinions." Church adoption services should not be sued for not adopting children out to homosexual couples because their criteria requires the child be raised in a household with a mother and father. By the same token various benefits usually associated with marriage could easily be broken out to the individual level, such as hospital visitation rights and inheritance. This is already the case in some states, but again, it requires a serious discussion, not moral preening.
I can't find a legitimate compelling interest claim for the government to provide specific benefits to gay couples (read: any two people who show up claiming to be a couple) simply for having a relationship. I can find a legitimate compelling interest claim for heterosexual couples in the same situation - namely the implied creation of new taxpayers growing up in an environment with high social and financial stability. When your government has social safety policies predicated on more young people being available to pay into systems designed to care for the elderly, a compelling interest in creating new taxpayers is found.
I doubt I need to move away for you to get a clearer picture, but I'm happy to engage in dialogue. Hopefully you are willing to listen back.
yeah not really keen on having 'intelligent discussion' with an amateur 'forum rhetorician' with zero substance who intentionally misleads people, and also is notoriously sexist, homophobic, and intolerant all around
probably the most useful and educational way to deal with that kind of person is to simply point out their obvious and comedic wrongness and move on, I've found!
for example, when someone makes a humorously terrible election forecast that flies in the face of every serious mathematical model, and then blames his incredible wrongness on voter stupidity, probably it's a not-so-good idea to seriously engage such a wildly unpredictable, clownish sort of person.
probably it's better to just point out the obvious wrongness and then laugh with everyone and then maybe go study some statistics or something.
in conclusion, not every idea merits 'discussion!' yikes.
He'd posted very early in the thread, but to quote one of the best replies in this thread:
People often reply seriously to Deck Knight. Those people are usually very new to this board. The rest of us have been here long enough to know how seriously to take his posts.
You'd think some of you would have been here long enough to realize the stuff that flies out of his ass is what he truly believes in. I realize he's posted in this thread before, but you're literally pulling the tail of the beast, so to speak, when you call him out. He'd probably provoke you people far less if it wasn't encouraged, and it isn't any better of people to attack him or insult his intelligence..
Anyway, on the topic of the election, I'm actually quite surprised with my state. Obama won a lot more of it than I thought he would. The Democratic Party won a good many of the counties, including all of the counties occupied by major cities (excluding Cobb). Course, the day Georgia turns blue is the day hell freezes over, but it really looks like the Republican trends are changing here.
Anyway, on the topic of the election, I'm actually quite surprised with my state. Obama won a lot more of it than I thought he would. The Democratic Party won a good many of the counties, including all of the counties occupied by major cities (excluding Cobb). Course, the day Georgia turns blue is the day hell freezes over, but it really looks like the Republican trends are changing here.
I could patiently debate with you about how Obama walked into a situation of rising unemployment, a credit crunch, a housing market that had just imploded, and that a series of public sector job cuts (the result of the government spending cuts championed by fiscal conservatives) have slowed the drop in unemployment (see chart below), and that how despite this private sector jobs are being added to the economy at a reasonable but not amazing rate.
But I'm just going to let the numbers speak for themselves, hopefully you've already learned something from arguing against numbers during this election.
I'll willingly admit to being politically not very savvy (plus I'm British so there's an added layer of ignorance here), but even with these handicaps in mind it isn't very difficult to see that DK's arguments are full of holes:
Lastly, though it seems that Firestorm and some of the other older members have legitimate grounds to be fed up with you based on previous experience, the derogatory and contemptuous responses of some people here have been completely uncalled for, so I apologise for them - even if your beliefs are sometimes difficult to comprehend, I get that you're at least trying to maintain a civil argument and aren't just a troll.
I shouldn't really need to point out how blatantly hypocritical and contradictory these two views are, which remarkably come from the same post.
Surely this argument is predictated on the belief that voters only vote based on the campaign arguments of each candidate? Again, you're denying them the capacity to make their own choices and hold their own beliefs independent of political rhetoric. Maybe many normally republican voters just didn't like Romney for whatever reason (there are plenty to go around) and so voted for Obama while voting republican in every other area. Your argument relies on the logical flaw of restricting the possible explanations to just the ones you put forward, when in fact there could be literally thousands of separate reasons from person to person.
Yeah, but it's not true gay marriage, is it? Until it's enshrined in law, it still counts as a deprivation of what is bafflingly still not a fundamental right for many Americans. Moreover, Romney isn't just standing for Romney in this campaign: he represents the entire republican party, certain members of which have repeatedly objected to gay marriage, abortion and birth control because of stupid, outdated and usually religiously-grounded beliefs. Even if Romney did have a superior economic policy (which I honestly know very little about, though the sketchiness of his five point plan isn't a very convincing argument), the ridiculously conservative and actively harmful beliefs purported by him and his party, regardless of whether he would have been able to implement them in reality, made him a very undesirable candidate in terms of social progression and (what ought to be) basic human rights.
Lastly, though it seems that Firestorm and some of the other older members have legitimate grounds to be fed up with you based on previous experience, the derogatory and contemptuous responses of some people here have been completely uncalled for, so I apologise for them - even if your beliefs are sometimes difficult to comprehend, I get that you're at least trying to maintain a civil argument and aren't just a troll.
It could be beating a dead horse (or just a case of I told you so) but I would love for someone to tell me how my vote would have counted in this election, had I submitted one. I would have voted for Mitt Romney. Obama won the election before Virginia's votes were considered while Romney had the majority of the popular vote (this was reversed later) so I'm stumped in producing a reason that I should have gone out of my way to register to vote and send an absentee balot
This is the problem with many right-winged people. Thinking that "charity" is even remotely comparable to "welfare". As if the little payment my mother gives me is comparable to salary.
Wanna know what's the difference? Charity, the little payment of your parent, etc. are just acts of benevolence. They are not forced to give those to you, and should they decide for whatever reason to stop doing so, you have no right to ask them. On the contrary, if I have a regular contract of work, or if I live in welfare state, I have a right to get the salary/assistance the system grants me. If I don't get the salary I deserve, I can pursue the employer and get it back (often with interests).
What liberal, left-winged people want for the poor is not "charity". They want a system that recognize their right to a decent standard of life. Liberal, left-winged people don't want Romney to make "charity". They want a system that taxes 40%+ of his earnings every year (compared to the current 14%) and uses that money to finance a true welfare system.
As a closing parenthesis, you American guys are right in claiming your finance is out of control. 10% deficit/GDP is ludicrous, 100%+ debt/GDP is too (especially with that kind of deficit), and you certainly need to cut expenses to fix it (not that raising taxes is necessarily a bad thing either, though, as long as you keep the fiscal pressure around 40% or so). However, where to cut is as important of a decision as whether to cut. And this is likely where I will probably never agree with a right-winged colleague.
EDIT: As a closing note, allow me to say that, as an European, your voting system is majorly flawed, excessively aristocratic, and other stuff. There are better ways to take into account federal weights and timezones while not renouncing to direct democratic vote, IMO (if only America weren't as conservative about its laws as England, if not more).
Individually, it doesn't, unless you're in a battleground state.
On the whole, if a decent percentage of eligible voters who don't vote were to start voting, it could swing more than a few elections. So, basically, that attitude is sheer laziness. "I won't have an impact regardless, so I might as well do nothing" ignores the fact that if other people ALSO do something, then things could change.
Deck Knight: Due to gerrymandering, I don't view the ratio of Democratic representatives, to be comparable to the amount of people who voted for the Predident. Get back to me about voting for Republican Representitive/Democratic President when we can see what the vote total is for all House races combined compared to the vote total for the presidency.
- Status