The Proper 2012 US Election Result Thread
Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Where I will either go "Ah, good on that then, nice to see we did the right thing, even though it was quite obvious" or "So my dearest and most lovely Canadian and English friends, tell me about the job prospects in your fair and illustrious countries!"
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
This makes no sense on multiple levels, most prominently that "want" speaks to desire while "because" speaks to some sort of rationality. "I don't want to vote" or "Because both are losers, I'm not going to vote" both make more sense.Yaya wrote:And if I don't want to vote because both are losers?
And aside from that, I would also have to ask what you mean by "losers." What game are they playing? One guy is black and has somehow become President of the US. The other guy was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. In the strict definition of the term, neither one of these guys are losers.
Finally - and growing out of that last point - not voting because of some pervasive disillusionment with the possibility of reversing the institutional decay of our government, because money has corrupted politics, because you're in X state and you're voting for Y candidate (but you're in Florida, Yaya. Tell me I've FINALLY got that right.)....all of those things make sense. I wouldn't necessarily agree with you, but I can understand where you're coming from. But not voting because "both are losers" indicates that you have simply decided to not invest your intellect in creating an informed perspective because "you don't want to."
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
You say my words more pretty than my own self did spoke it.Shanti418 wrote:Finally - and growing out of that last point - not voting because of some pervasive disillusionment with the possibility of reversing the institutional decay of our government, because money has corrupted politics, because you're in X state and you're voting for Y candidate (but you're in Florida, Yaya. Tell me I've FINALLY got that right.)....all of those things make sense.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
bumblemusprime
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2370
- Joined:Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location:GoboTron
Looks like he did it without you, Yaya.
Best First wrote:I didn't like it. They don't have mums, or dads, or children. And they turn into stuff. And they don't eat Monster Munch or watch Xena: Warrior Princess. Or do one big poo in the morning and another one in the afternoon. I bet they weren't even excited by and then subsequently disappointed by Star Wars Prequels. Or have a glass full of spare change near their beds. That they don't have.
I voted for Obama for several reasons. For one Romney was going to cut funding to NPR, PBS and other associations like that. I'm also tired of my rights as a woman being used as cannon fodder for the political war. While I would never consider abortion as a first option in an unwanted pregnancy, I feel that it up to each woman to decide what is right for them. I also think that birth control is one of those things that should be readily available because it will decrease unwanted pregnancies and thus the need for abortions. I agree and disagree with both Romney and Obama on separate points, but I agreed more strongly with a few more of Obama's stances.
I also understand not voting in this election though. I was very close to not voting myself, but a discussion in my History class reminded me that, while the system is corrupt, and it's easy to think "my vote doesn't matter because my state is xyz," if enough people vote abc in a state, then it will change the state's electoral votes.
I also understand not voting in this election though. I was very close to not voting myself, but a discussion in my History class reminded me that, while the system is corrupt, and it's easy to think "my vote doesn't matter because my state is xyz," if enough people vote abc in a state, then it will change the state's electoral votes.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
Good for you then!
Also, it's my belief that the United States electoral subconscious DOES know on some level that things are FUBAR and we have lost the ability to effectively make things better. That's why we sent Barack Obama to the White House, (Bay's) Armageddon style. Barack Obama is the "oh ****, we never prepared for this metaphorical asteroid, we'd better send one last shot at avoiding the iceberg." Because at the very least, we KNOW that this brown skinned guy from Hawaii who went to college on loans and worked as a community organizer IS an outsider within. We can't fix the structural decay in our system, so we did the most radical thing we could possibly think of that we could effect and that people could coalesce around: electing a black president.
Now, from where I sit, Obama's first term says to me, "Yeah, that's nice and all, but structure/institutions are totally pwning hopes for asteroid/iceberg avoidance." Not just in terms of Tea Party racism or partisan bickering but also in the ways the ROLE of the President demands things of whatever body is inhabiting said role: see foreign policy. Ending wars is nice and all, but "Drone them 'till they're dead" still relies on a narrative of American exceptionalism that is both untenable and exactly what the American body politic demands. But Obama can't turns swords into plowshares or actually address institutional racism in meaningful ways, and I believe that has more to do with his position and what we demand out of our politicians-as-products than any imperialistic or color-blind ideology he holds.
In terms of this second term: I'm optimistic that he will continue to improve the country in meaningful ways, but I'm pessimistic that Joe America will be able to deal with the structural economic issues that are leading to a declining middle class, a neoliberal job market, and the birth of a plutocracy. Americans can NOT fundamentally accept the idea that we're not King of the Castle any more in any sense. Most Empires have that same problem, and it usually doesn't end well.
They make sense, but I don't agree with them. At the very least, you have to vote if you want to complain.Yaya wrote:You say my words more pretty than my own self did spoke it.Shanti418 wrote:Finally - and growing out of that last point - not voting because of some pervasive disillusionment with the possibility of reversing the institutional decay of our government, because money has corrupted politics, because you're in X state and you're voting for Y candidate (but you're in Florida, Yaya. Tell me I've FINALLY got that right.)....all of those things make sense.
Also, it's my belief that the United States electoral subconscious DOES know on some level that things are FUBAR and we have lost the ability to effectively make things better. That's why we sent Barack Obama to the White House, (Bay's) Armageddon style. Barack Obama is the "oh ****, we never prepared for this metaphorical asteroid, we'd better send one last shot at avoiding the iceberg." Because at the very least, we KNOW that this brown skinned guy from Hawaii who went to college on loans and worked as a community organizer IS an outsider within. We can't fix the structural decay in our system, so we did the most radical thing we could possibly think of that we could effect and that people could coalesce around: electing a black president.
Now, from where I sit, Obama's first term says to me, "Yeah, that's nice and all, but structure/institutions are totally pwning hopes for asteroid/iceberg avoidance." Not just in terms of Tea Party racism or partisan bickering but also in the ways the ROLE of the President demands things of whatever body is inhabiting said role: see foreign policy. Ending wars is nice and all, but "Drone them 'till they're dead" still relies on a narrative of American exceptionalism that is both untenable and exactly what the American body politic demands. But Obama can't turns swords into plowshares or actually address institutional racism in meaningful ways, and I believe that has more to do with his position and what we demand out of our politicians-as-products than any imperialistic or color-blind ideology he holds.
In terms of this second term: I'm optimistic that he will continue to improve the country in meaningful ways, but I'm pessimistic that Joe America will be able to deal with the structural economic issues that are leading to a declining middle class, a neoliberal job market, and the birth of a plutocracy. Americans can NOT fundamentally accept the idea that we're not King of the Castle any more in any sense. Most Empires have that same problem, and it usually doesn't end well.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
It's over! For another four years, it's finally over! And I can't believe I'm so breathlessly happy about it!
Discussing this election with people was ****ing impossible. Trying to have a rational conversation was like trying to squeeze a handfull of water. I'm not terribly interested in arguing about politics. But I do enjoy following and discussing it. And, by the by, I'd rather be proven wrong so that I can be right going foward. But so many people (not all, by a long shot, but many) do not seem to share this...ideal? I guess.
This is a pretty accurate amalgamation of actual discussions I've had with family members and aquaintances.
Them: I hate Obama! I can't wait for Romney to kick his ass to the curb!
Me: Why's that?
Them: Obama is such an elitist. It's like, he thinks he's so much better than everybody else!
Me: Obama is the child of a single white mother and an African visitor in the 1960's. He was bounced around all through his mother's disasterous relationships. Through hard work, he put himself through school, became a best selling author, entered politics and became the President of the United States. That is something that only four other living people can claim. Which is the definition of ELITE.
Romney, on the other hand, was born into a very wealthy family. He has shown, on numerous occassions, that he does not understand what it's like to NOT be extremely wealthy. When he tries to pretend, he winds up coming off as even more condescending than he did before. He insulted NASCAR fans for their rain ponchos. He said that since college is so important, students should "borrow money from their parents if they have to," which assumes that all parents have an extra 30-80k stashed away. He doesn't think of people who make 200,000 dollars a year as "upper class" even though that's more than 90% of the American population makes. His father was, himself, a presidential candidate.
So, even if you feel that Obama is an elitist, it'd be nearly impossible to say that Mitt Romney is less so.
Them: Yeah, but Obama is terrible for business. His regulations have been costing people jobs. Romney wants to deregulate everything so that companies can start hiring again. We need to get our jobs back from China.
Me: Corporate profits are up 77% since Obama took office. Those "regulations" are things like "don't have lethal chemicals in products sold at retail" and "don't destroy drinking water supplies with factory run-off." Job creation is better than it was before Obama took office. And, if you're upset about jobs being sent to China, you need to be made aware that Mitt Romney is personally responsible for shutting down businesses, shipping jobs over to China, putting Americans out of work, and making himself even wealthier in the process.
Them: But Romney is going to provide tax incentives to get businesses hiring Americans again.
Me: He's going to give them tax incentives and pay for them by getting rid of the tax dedictions that YOU use. Things like the home owner credit. YOU will pay more in taxes so that companies (that have been making record profits (see above) can make even MORE money.
Them: But Obama is going to clamp down on our freedoms and take away our guns!
Me: Obama loosened firearms restrictions during his time in office. He made it legal to carry weapons into places where, previously, you couldn't. Romeny signed an assault weapons ban. That's where those two stand on gun rights.
Them: But Obama is a threat to the Christian values that this country was founded on.
Me: *vein pops in head* Obama is a church-going CHRISTIAN. Remember his pastor that everyone tried to make a big deal about? He goes to church. He's a Christian. There is nothing that even approaches evidence to the contrary.
Romney, on the other hand, is a devout Mormon. A group that most Christian organizations consider a CULT. This is the "black people carry the mark of Caine and came from Africa because God stuck them there because he doesn't like them." This is the "walks around cemetaries baptizing the deceased into the Mormon faith" guy. If you ask anybody with any authority in nearly any Christian church, they will be happy to tell you that.
Then there's the smaller stuff. Like how he "won" the first debate. Swept under the rug was that he flat-out lied 38 times in the 45 minutes he was speaking. It's easy to win a debate when you just say whatever crazy **** pops into your head.
It was exhausting. And I don't have to do it again for another four years. That's a change I can get behind.
Discussing this election with people was ****ing impossible. Trying to have a rational conversation was like trying to squeeze a handfull of water. I'm not terribly interested in arguing about politics. But I do enjoy following and discussing it. And, by the by, I'd rather be proven wrong so that I can be right going foward. But so many people (not all, by a long shot, but many) do not seem to share this...ideal? I guess.
This is a pretty accurate amalgamation of actual discussions I've had with family members and aquaintances.
Them: I hate Obama! I can't wait for Romney to kick his ass to the curb!
Me: Why's that?
Them: Obama is such an elitist. It's like, he thinks he's so much better than everybody else!
Me: Obama is the child of a single white mother and an African visitor in the 1960's. He was bounced around all through his mother's disasterous relationships. Through hard work, he put himself through school, became a best selling author, entered politics and became the President of the United States. That is something that only four other living people can claim. Which is the definition of ELITE.
Romney, on the other hand, was born into a very wealthy family. He has shown, on numerous occassions, that he does not understand what it's like to NOT be extremely wealthy. When he tries to pretend, he winds up coming off as even more condescending than he did before. He insulted NASCAR fans for their rain ponchos. He said that since college is so important, students should "borrow money from their parents if they have to," which assumes that all parents have an extra 30-80k stashed away. He doesn't think of people who make 200,000 dollars a year as "upper class" even though that's more than 90% of the American population makes. His father was, himself, a presidential candidate.
So, even if you feel that Obama is an elitist, it'd be nearly impossible to say that Mitt Romney is less so.
Them: Yeah, but Obama is terrible for business. His regulations have been costing people jobs. Romney wants to deregulate everything so that companies can start hiring again. We need to get our jobs back from China.
Me: Corporate profits are up 77% since Obama took office. Those "regulations" are things like "don't have lethal chemicals in products sold at retail" and "don't destroy drinking water supplies with factory run-off." Job creation is better than it was before Obama took office. And, if you're upset about jobs being sent to China, you need to be made aware that Mitt Romney is personally responsible for shutting down businesses, shipping jobs over to China, putting Americans out of work, and making himself even wealthier in the process.
Them: But Romney is going to provide tax incentives to get businesses hiring Americans again.
Me: He's going to give them tax incentives and pay for them by getting rid of the tax dedictions that YOU use. Things like the home owner credit. YOU will pay more in taxes so that companies (that have been making record profits (see above) can make even MORE money.
Them: But Obama is going to clamp down on our freedoms and take away our guns!
Me: Obama loosened firearms restrictions during his time in office. He made it legal to carry weapons into places where, previously, you couldn't. Romeny signed an assault weapons ban. That's where those two stand on gun rights.
Them: But Obama is a threat to the Christian values that this country was founded on.
Me: *vein pops in head* Obama is a church-going CHRISTIAN. Remember his pastor that everyone tried to make a big deal about? He goes to church. He's a Christian. There is nothing that even approaches evidence to the contrary.
Romney, on the other hand, is a devout Mormon. A group that most Christian organizations consider a CULT. This is the "black people carry the mark of Caine and came from Africa because God stuck them there because he doesn't like them." This is the "walks around cemetaries baptizing the deceased into the Mormon faith" guy. If you ask anybody with any authority in nearly any Christian church, they will be happy to tell you that.
Then there's the smaller stuff. Like how he "won" the first debate. Swept under the rug was that he flat-out lied 38 times in the 45 minutes he was speaking. It's easy to win a debate when you just say whatever crazy **** pops into your head.
It was exhausting. And I don't have to do it again for another four years. That's a change I can get behind.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
Arguing with Republicans is nigh impossible and futile. They try so hard to come up with other reasons why Obama isn't good for the country, when everyone full well knows many don't like him cause he's black. Racism is in full affect in the US. That's pretty much what I've learned over the past year in America.
Essentially, the political parties are now divided by race rather than issues. Republicans=white guys, Democrats=everyone else. Everyone else is now winning.
The most fun I had this whole election was watching Fox News. Carl Rove went full-on nutso. The guy was unwilling to concede defeat hours after the election, so much so that even the Fox anchors were looking at each other with embarassment.
Essentially, the political parties are now divided by race rather than issues. Republicans=white guys, Democrats=everyone else. Everyone else is now winning.
The most fun I had this whole election was watching Fox News. Carl Rove went full-on nutso. The guy was unwilling to concede defeat hours after the election, so much so that even the Fox anchors were looking at each other with embarassment.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
I don't want to generalize Republican (or Democrats) but some of the **** I had to listen to (thanks, Facebook!) this election cycle was obscene.
One old friend of mine, during the debate, was criticizing Obama saying "that he supports science but gutted NASA."
To which I could only mention that while Obama did cut funding to NASA's manned space program, a lot of private sector companies have picked that up quite well. Obama has also supported plenty of other scientific advances (especially in terms of medical science).
Not that it matters that much since Obama's opponent's party denies science as basic as the Earth being more than 6,000 years old, and embriology as "being straight from the pits of Hell". You may also recall the gentleman that said that "if a woman is legitimately raped, her body will 'shut that whole thing down' so she won't get pregnant."
If you are a supporter of science, then the Republican ticket was absolutely not for you.
Now that it's over, I'm really enjoying being able to, well, enjoy some of the more insane things that have come out about the campaigns. Now, it's funny. Rather than being "funny until you realize that these people might have their fingers on some really important buttons in the near future."
Things like Romney taking longer to concede the race because he didn't write a concession speech in advance. Or about Romney cancelling the campaign credit cards for his staff members IMMEDIATELY after conceeding the race (leaving them unable to pay for their taxi rides home). Or about how Romney's campaign staff counted unanswered phones and doors as Romney supporters.
Somebody on FARK put it better than I can. "If he ran an entire billion dollar campaign completely isolated from facts, just imagine the bubble he could have sealed himself in as president."
Anybody else hear that Romney has a transition website up (complete with pictures "of the President elect hard at work with his transition team) which allows him to lie well after the campaign is over?
Or how about the fireworks display he payed for and then cancelled once he (surprise, surprise) lost?
And then there's FOX news. I am convinced that their entire business model was based on reading only the first 2/3rds of the Emperor's New Clothes. Telling people what they want to hear is a great way to get them throw wadsw of cash your way.
Oh, Fox News. Only you could get away with saying that the mainstream media has a major liberal bias...and that you are by far the most watched news station in the same segment.
One old friend of mine, during the debate, was criticizing Obama saying "that he supports science but gutted NASA."
To which I could only mention that while Obama did cut funding to NASA's manned space program, a lot of private sector companies have picked that up quite well. Obama has also supported plenty of other scientific advances (especially in terms of medical science).
Not that it matters that much since Obama's opponent's party denies science as basic as the Earth being more than 6,000 years old, and embriology as "being straight from the pits of Hell". You may also recall the gentleman that said that "if a woman is legitimately raped, her body will 'shut that whole thing down' so she won't get pregnant."
If you are a supporter of science, then the Republican ticket was absolutely not for you.
Now that it's over, I'm really enjoying being able to, well, enjoy some of the more insane things that have come out about the campaigns. Now, it's funny. Rather than being "funny until you realize that these people might have their fingers on some really important buttons in the near future."
Things like Romney taking longer to concede the race because he didn't write a concession speech in advance. Or about Romney cancelling the campaign credit cards for his staff members IMMEDIATELY after conceeding the race (leaving them unable to pay for their taxi rides home). Or about how Romney's campaign staff counted unanswered phones and doors as Romney supporters.
Somebody on FARK put it better than I can. "If he ran an entire billion dollar campaign completely isolated from facts, just imagine the bubble he could have sealed himself in as president."
Anybody else hear that Romney has a transition website up (complete with pictures "of the President elect hard at work with his transition team) which allows him to lie well after the campaign is over?
Or how about the fireworks display he payed for and then cancelled once he (surprise, surprise) lost?
And then there's FOX news. I am convinced that their entire business model was based on reading only the first 2/3rds of the Emperor's New Clothes. Telling people what they want to hear is a great way to get them throw wadsw of cash your way.
Oh, Fox News. Only you could get away with saying that the mainstream media has a major liberal bias...and that you are by far the most watched news station in the same segment.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
I found out my father is a Tea Party conspiracy theorist when my fiance and I went over to dinner. We both lean more towards the democrats. We got to hear about this ad that he saw on Fox news. The conversation went somewhat like this.
Dad: You know what that ******* n-word did now? He's got an ad on the television with another old n-word lady saying how she will kill all the rich white people if Oh-BAH-MAH loses.
Me: Are you sure that you saw that on TV? Or have you been talking to Charles (his cousin who started him in all of this tea party stuff)
Dad: No it's real, It was on FOX. NEWS.
Phil: I'm pretty sure they don't show things like that on public television.
Dad: It was on Fox. they bleeped out all the F-words."
It continued on in that fashion, but I've learned not to really speak up unless asked a direct question, and at that tread carefully because we apparently have a much larger Tea Party base than I really imagined before this election cycle. I've also noticed that there are many people my age who vote whichever direction just because their parents have always voted that way.
Dad: You know what that ******* n-word did now? He's got an ad on the television with another old n-word lady saying how she will kill all the rich white people if Oh-BAH-MAH loses.
Me: Are you sure that you saw that on TV? Or have you been talking to Charles (his cousin who started him in all of this tea party stuff)
Dad: No it's real, It was on FOX. NEWS.
Phil: I'm pretty sure they don't show things like that on public television.
Dad: It was on Fox. they bleeped out all the F-words."
It continued on in that fashion, but I've learned not to really speak up unless asked a direct question, and at that tread carefully because we apparently have a much larger Tea Party base than I really imagined before this election cycle. I've also noticed that there are many people my age who vote whichever direction just because their parents have always voted that way.
-
Optimus Prime Rib
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2215
- Joined:Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location:College Station, TX
- Contact:
-
Optimus Prime Rib
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2215
- Joined:Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location:College Station, TX
- Contact:
Dangit phone
Last edited by Optimus Prime Rib on Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Shanti418 wrote:
Whoa. You know they're going to make Panthro play bass.
For once, we agree on something. Hilarious watching the fallout on Fox. These people are crazy. Like real crazy. Now that I've seen their reaction and the way they've handled this loss, it's scary to think what might have come had Romney actually won.Professor Smooth wrote:Now that it's over, I'm really enjoying being able to, well, enjoy some of the more insane things that have come out about the campaigns. Now, it's funny. Rather than being "funny until you realize that these people might have their fingers on some really important buttons in the near future."
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
bumblemusprime
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2370
- Joined:Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location:GoboTron
I also hang around a bit on the website newordermormon.org, a place for unorthodox-to-ex Mormons.
They are reporting some of the choice batsh*t crazy material in their Facebook feeds. Here's a few samples:
"People didn't realize that voting for Obama in 2012 was voting for Jesus in 2016"
"Watching the democrats dancing remind me of the children of Israel worshipping idols while Moses was on the mountain talking to God. I so don't trust the process."
What is the take home message from this election? People prepare yourselves for the Second Coming. It is near. The re-election of obama is a clear sign to me as the end is near and that America is on the verge of being driven to absolute shambles. It’s sad to me that people are cheering and welcoming more unemployment, greater national debt, and the likely downfall of a (former) world power."
"Well we can kiss our 2nd amendment Goodbye. I foresee breaches in our national security and safety of this country. Good bye to our military strength, economy and nuclear arsenal which has been a huge deterrent for countries to trifle with us. One day America will look back and say "what the hell were we thinking" by that time it'll be too late."
"God is still in charge. Satan may be laughing his head off at this victory-- but we all know the eventual outcome. The ship of our nation is being tossed in stormy seas, and we are headed towards the eye of the storm. But, we know the Almighty Father will cause the waters to be still and the storms to cease when He sees fit. The tempests are raging--but He will still hold us in His hand like the sparrow. Know that even what may seem like our darkest hour, He loves us and this is still HIS plan. I take comfort in this and know it to be true with every fiber of my being."
"I cried myself to sleep last night... I can't believe that the America I love is about to be torn to shreds. Those of you who say, "All is well in Zion", "We will survive this", "It's not the end of the world"... I understand your desire for optimism. I would love to be optimistic. But right now, I can't. I feel incredibly sad for you. You didn't wake up. And it may soon be the end of the world. Or, at least the end of America as we know it. Prepare for our fiscal cliff. Prepare for world-wide gun control through the United Nations, and a global tax, and anti-blasphemy laws. Prepare to have your conservative voices... those of you who DID speak out, squelched. Prepare for ultra-liberal supreme court justice appointments. Prepare for tyranny and oppression."
This is just me sampling the first page of a four-page thread.
They are reporting some of the choice batsh*t crazy material in their Facebook feeds. Here's a few samples:
"People didn't realize that voting for Obama in 2012 was voting for Jesus in 2016"
"Watching the democrats dancing remind me of the children of Israel worshipping idols while Moses was on the mountain talking to God. I so don't trust the process."
What is the take home message from this election? People prepare yourselves for the Second Coming. It is near. The re-election of obama is a clear sign to me as the end is near and that America is on the verge of being driven to absolute shambles. It’s sad to me that people are cheering and welcoming more unemployment, greater national debt, and the likely downfall of a (former) world power."
"Well we can kiss our 2nd amendment Goodbye. I foresee breaches in our national security and safety of this country. Good bye to our military strength, economy and nuclear arsenal which has been a huge deterrent for countries to trifle with us. One day America will look back and say "what the hell were we thinking" by that time it'll be too late."
"God is still in charge. Satan may be laughing his head off at this victory-- but we all know the eventual outcome. The ship of our nation is being tossed in stormy seas, and we are headed towards the eye of the storm. But, we know the Almighty Father will cause the waters to be still and the storms to cease when He sees fit. The tempests are raging--but He will still hold us in His hand like the sparrow. Know that even what may seem like our darkest hour, He loves us and this is still HIS plan. I take comfort in this and know it to be true with every fiber of my being."
"I cried myself to sleep last night... I can't believe that the America I love is about to be torn to shreds. Those of you who say, "All is well in Zion", "We will survive this", "It's not the end of the world"... I understand your desire for optimism. I would love to be optimistic. But right now, I can't. I feel incredibly sad for you. You didn't wake up. And it may soon be the end of the world. Or, at least the end of America as we know it. Prepare for our fiscal cliff. Prepare for world-wide gun control through the United Nations, and a global tax, and anti-blasphemy laws. Prepare to have your conservative voices... those of you who DID speak out, squelched. Prepare for ultra-liberal supreme court justice appointments. Prepare for tyranny and oppression."
This is just me sampling the first page of a four-page thread.
Best First wrote:I didn't like it. They don't have mums, or dads, or children. And they turn into stuff. And they don't eat Monster Munch or watch Xena: Warrior Princess. Or do one big poo in the morning and another one in the afternoon. I bet they weren't even excited by and then subsequently disappointed by Star Wars Prequels. Or have a glass full of spare change near their beds. That they don't have.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
How about this fun little nugget? FOX News has made the case that, as upset as Republicans are now, Democrats were more upset 8 years ago, when Bush was re-elected.
Since they've already opened the door, by all means, let's compare the two situations. Because, you know what? I was REALLY pissed off eight years ago when Bush was re-elected. And I'd like to explain WHY.
First off, Bush wasn't re-elected. He was elected for the first time. He lost the popular vote in 2000 and may have only taken Florida through...questionable means. But, what happened, happened, and he was the President.
He was the President who took the US from a budget surplus to a budget deficit (something that no Republican leader felt was a problem until a Democrat took office). The biggest intelligence failure in US history led to a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people (while modern Republicans want to impeach the Democrat because of a tragedy that killed 4 Americans). He used the political capital from that terrible attack to send the US military into two unnecessary wars (one of which has become the longest war in US history) at the cost of thousands of military and possibly hundreds of thousands of civillian lives. All the while, those wars were kept "off the books" and taxes were slashed on the wealthy, further burying the country in debt.
Yes, after all that, I was pretty upset that the guy was rewarded with another four years (which he would use to further decimate the country's economy and watch as the city of New Orleans was left to rot because FEMA was being headed by the President's friend, rather than somebody who could do the job.
Those were, at least in my humble opinion, valid reasons to be upset about the President's re-election. Contrast that to reasons people are upset about Obama's re-election and... Well, I'm not entirely sure where the problems come in. Other than easily disprovable claims of his being a socialist, communist, Marxist, homosexual, Kenyan secret Muslim Manchurian candidate, the only thing that I can see people being legitimately upset about is that he didn't fix the mess left by the last administration fast enough.
Since they've already opened the door, by all means, let's compare the two situations. Because, you know what? I was REALLY pissed off eight years ago when Bush was re-elected. And I'd like to explain WHY.
First off, Bush wasn't re-elected. He was elected for the first time. He lost the popular vote in 2000 and may have only taken Florida through...questionable means. But, what happened, happened, and he was the President.
He was the President who took the US from a budget surplus to a budget deficit (something that no Republican leader felt was a problem until a Democrat took office). The biggest intelligence failure in US history led to a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people (while modern Republicans want to impeach the Democrat because of a tragedy that killed 4 Americans). He used the political capital from that terrible attack to send the US military into two unnecessary wars (one of which has become the longest war in US history) at the cost of thousands of military and possibly hundreds of thousands of civillian lives. All the while, those wars were kept "off the books" and taxes were slashed on the wealthy, further burying the country in debt.
Yes, after all that, I was pretty upset that the guy was rewarded with another four years (which he would use to further decimate the country's economy and watch as the city of New Orleans was left to rot because FEMA was being headed by the President's friend, rather than somebody who could do the job.
Those were, at least in my humble opinion, valid reasons to be upset about the President's re-election. Contrast that to reasons people are upset about Obama's re-election and... Well, I'm not entirely sure where the problems come in. Other than easily disprovable claims of his being a socialist, communist, Marxist, homosexual, Kenyan secret Muslim Manchurian candidate, the only thing that I can see people being legitimately upset about is that he didn't fix the mess left by the last administration fast enough.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Optimus Prime Rib
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2215
- Joined:Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location:College Station, TX
- Contact:
So by that logic Romney won this time?Professor Smooth wrote:
First off, Bush wasn't re-elected. He was elected for the first time. He lost the popular vote in 2000
We all know the electoral college is a joke, but we only choose to defend/ignore it when it benefits the candidate we want to win.
Shanti418 wrote:
Whoa. You know they're going to make Panthro play bass.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
I'd be interested in hearing what sources are reporting that Romney won the popular vote. He was ahead for most of election night, but the final numbers show Obama winning both the electoral and popular votes.Optimus Prime Rib wrote:So by that logic Romney won this time?Professor Smooth wrote:
First off, Bush wasn't re-elected. He was elected for the first time. He lost the popular vote in 2000
We all know the electoral college is a joke, but we only choose to defend/ignore it when it benefits the candidate we want to win.
Also, you kinda only quoted the first part of my sentence...
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
The electoral college itself was a really interesting talking point over the last few days. When it looked like Mr. Romney would win the popular vote, even if he lost the electoral college votes, my FB wall filled up with comments about how the electoral college is a joke and should be done away with. When I mentioned the 2000 Presidential election, my comments were either ignored or deleted.
After a bit of thought, I have come to think that maybe a lot of people just don't understand how politics is (at least, ideally) different from other interests.
It's not a sport. You can't just root for your team and ignore everything else. If Chicago Cubs fans want to think that their team might have some chance and winning the World Series from year to year, then that's no problem for anybody, really. Fans (and the team itself) can ignore everything that shows that they will, like every other year in living memory, suck. By all means, surround yourself with like-minded fans and give yourselves hope that your team will prevail.
The same goes with things like movies, or comics, or little plastic robots. When I go online to discuss these things, I want to surround myself in a bubble of people who like the stuff I like. To the point where, at least, they seem to enjoy it more than they despise it. Nothing ruins my internet buzz faster than reading a hundred rapid-fire comments about how the TV show I just spent 22 minutes watching was crap and the piece of plastic I just spent 3,000 yen on is somehow morally worse than Hitler (seriously). I want to be in that bubble. And killjoys who say (rightly or not) that my time and money could be better spent elsewhere, are free to stay the hell away from my bubble.
The same is not true of politics. You can't surround yourself with people who will agree based only on party identification. That's where you wind up with people publicly defending the guys who defend goddamn RAPE. Or you get yourself worried that one candidate is the anti-christ. That guy Nate Silver got personally attacked because his numbers predicted a Democratic victory. He wasn't, personally, in any way partison. He was a numbers guy. He predicted the outcome of the 2010 elections almost 100% with his models. But he didn't fit in the bubble, so he had to be put down by people in that bubble.
I'll have to look for it, but there is a VERY long list of so-called "conspiritors" that have been accused (directly or indirectly) of working against the Republicans this election cycle.
Off to find that list...
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Community Organizers
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Climatologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Little Green Footballs
Video Games
The Bible
CBO
Bruce Springsteen
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity
Comedy Central
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is
Small Business Owners
Math
CPAC
Navy SEALs
The Economist
The Muppets
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets
Breast Cancer Screenings
Chrysler
Clint Eastwood.
Robert Deniro
Tom Hanks
Glenn Frey
Norman Rockwell
James Cameron
Dr. Seus
Nuns
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Jonathan Krohn at age 17
After a bit of thought, I have come to think that maybe a lot of people just don't understand how politics is (at least, ideally) different from other interests.
It's not a sport. You can't just root for your team and ignore everything else. If Chicago Cubs fans want to think that their team might have some chance and winning the World Series from year to year, then that's no problem for anybody, really. Fans (and the team itself) can ignore everything that shows that they will, like every other year in living memory, suck. By all means, surround yourself with like-minded fans and give yourselves hope that your team will prevail.
The same goes with things like movies, or comics, or little plastic robots. When I go online to discuss these things, I want to surround myself in a bubble of people who like the stuff I like. To the point where, at least, they seem to enjoy it more than they despise it. Nothing ruins my internet buzz faster than reading a hundred rapid-fire comments about how the TV show I just spent 22 minutes watching was crap and the piece of plastic I just spent 3,000 yen on is somehow morally worse than Hitler (seriously). I want to be in that bubble. And killjoys who say (rightly or not) that my time and money could be better spent elsewhere, are free to stay the hell away from my bubble.
The same is not true of politics. You can't surround yourself with people who will agree based only on party identification. That's where you wind up with people publicly defending the guys who defend goddamn RAPE. Or you get yourself worried that one candidate is the anti-christ. That guy Nate Silver got personally attacked because his numbers predicted a Democratic victory. He wasn't, personally, in any way partison. He was a numbers guy. He predicted the outcome of the 2010 elections almost 100% with his models. But he didn't fit in the bubble, so he had to be put down by people in that bubble.
I'll have to look for it, but there is a VERY long list of so-called "conspiritors" that have been accused (directly or indirectly) of working against the Republicans this election cycle.
Off to find that list...
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Community Organizers
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Climatologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Little Green Footballs
Video Games
The Bible
CBO
Bruce Springsteen
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity
Comedy Central
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is
Small Business Owners
Math
CPAC
Navy SEALs
The Economist
The Muppets
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets
Breast Cancer Screenings
Chrysler
Clint Eastwood.
Robert Deniro
Tom Hanks
Glenn Frey
Norman Rockwell
James Cameron
Dr. Seus
Nuns
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Jonathan Krohn at age 17
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Optimus Prime Rib
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2215
- Joined:Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location:College Station, TX
- Contact:
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
I'm not saying Obama is perfect, but there was CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR differences between the two.
RE: Electoral college: the reason it's there is essentially because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses with the final say. If Romney had won the popular, they would have had a point. But the Founding Fathers also thought that party politics would be a bane on the political system, so their plans have already gone way off the rails.
RE: Electoral college: the reason it's there is essentially because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses with the final say. If Romney had won the popular, they would have had a point. But the Founding Fathers also thought that party politics would be a bane on the political system, so their plans have already gone way off the rails.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
Apparently some fat whore tweeted something along the lines of
"4 more years of this N*****, hopefully somebody will assassinate him this time"
She was sacked.
Didn't think that there was a problem with what she said - Said she wasn't racist...
Saw her interviewed, the interviewee pointed out that she did tweet "N*****", didn't it follow that a logical expectation would be people who saw her tweet might think she was racist
This *sort of* registered with her, but she still didn't get it.
Mad bitch.
"4 more years of this N*****, hopefully somebody will assassinate him this time"
She was sacked.
Didn't think that there was a problem with what she said - Said she wasn't racist...
Saw her interviewed, the interviewee pointed out that she did tweet "N*****", didn't it follow that a logical expectation would be people who saw her tweet might think she was racist
This *sort of* registered with her, but she still didn't get it.
Mad bitch.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
It's true. Right now, the common thinking around race and racism in America can be summed up thusly: "Do I think non-white people are biologically inferior to white people? No way! Thus, I can make stereotypes and use racial epithets at liberty, because clearly I'm not racist!" SEE: Daniel Tosh or anything Seth McFarlene has even done.snarl wrote:Apparently some fat whore tweeted something along the lines of
"4 more years of this N*****, hopefully somebody will assassinate him this time"
She was sacked.
Didn't think that there was a problem with what she said - Said she wasn't racist...
Saw her interviewed, the interviewee pointed out that she did tweet "N*****", didn't it follow that a logical expectation would be people who saw her tweet might think she was racist
This *sort of* registered with her, but she still didn't get it.
Mad bitch.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Optimus Prime Rib
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2215
- Joined:Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location:College Station, TX
- Contact:
One could argue that the electoral college was set up to keep the masses from having a true vote. Im more of the opinion that it was more practical before the technology existed to count each vote individually with any kind of precision and speed.
Shanti418 wrote:
Whoa. You know they're going to make Panthro play bass.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
One COULD argue that...if one had no idea what one was talking about and couldn't be arsed to look it up.Optimus Prime Rib wrote:One could argue that the electoral college was set up to keep the masses from having a true vote. Im more of the opinion that it was more practical before the technology existed to count each vote individually with any kind of precision and speed.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
-
Professor Smooth
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:3132
- Joined:Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:00 pm
- ::Hobby Drifter
- Location:Tokyo, Japan
- Contact:
I came across an interesting theory (at least, I guess you could call it a theory. Idle speculation, maybe, works better) about something regarding modern American conservatives.
Basically, a lot of conservatives (or, let's face it, Republicans) make up their minds and then seek out reinforcement for those ideas. Rather that coming to a conclusion based on available data.
I like this theory because it doesn't label conservatives as ignorant or malicious. It just comes down to how they form and then support their ideas.
Of course, that methodology is incredibly flawed and almost unspeakably dangerous. Especially since it's easily exploited. If people with money and power (and more money) want data to support their ideas, and none exists, others will happily manufacture that data. Just look at Nate Silver vs Unskewed Polls and Dick Morris. Nate Silver used math. And he did in such a way that, when all was said and done, his predictions were something like 99.9% accurate. But those numbers showed that the Republican was going to lose, and that's bad for morale. So Dick Morris (and others) manufactured polls by cherry picking data from different sources (which, again, you'll probably recognize as INTENTIONALLY SKEWING supposedly UNSKEWED polls).
Looking back to the Iraq War. I really don't want to believe that Bush/Cheney started the whole thing just so their friends could profit. But let's say that they REALLY thought, in their guts, that Iraq had WMDs. All of the available intelligence, though, points to Iraq either NOT having those weapons, or being inconclusive. Well, then the studies showing NO weapons must be errors. So, toss those. Let's look at the ones that show a MAYBE. What are they showing that Iraq MAY have? Let's look into that. Because MAYBE is much closer to what they believe.
They may have thought that the "maybe" studies were on to something, but but the NO studies were flawed for one reason or another. Add on layers of people willing to go along with this idea for financial reasons (FOX, I'm looking at you here) and you wind up in a self-sustaining bubble based on a hunch and cherry picked studies.
And tens of thousands of people died.
Basically, a lot of conservatives (or, let's face it, Republicans) make up their minds and then seek out reinforcement for those ideas. Rather that coming to a conclusion based on available data.
I like this theory because it doesn't label conservatives as ignorant or malicious. It just comes down to how they form and then support their ideas.
Of course, that methodology is incredibly flawed and almost unspeakably dangerous. Especially since it's easily exploited. If people with money and power (and more money) want data to support their ideas, and none exists, others will happily manufacture that data. Just look at Nate Silver vs Unskewed Polls and Dick Morris. Nate Silver used math. And he did in such a way that, when all was said and done, his predictions were something like 99.9% accurate. But those numbers showed that the Republican was going to lose, and that's bad for morale. So Dick Morris (and others) manufactured polls by cherry picking data from different sources (which, again, you'll probably recognize as INTENTIONALLY SKEWING supposedly UNSKEWED polls).
Looking back to the Iraq War. I really don't want to believe that Bush/Cheney started the whole thing just so their friends could profit. But let's say that they REALLY thought, in their guts, that Iraq had WMDs. All of the available intelligence, though, points to Iraq either NOT having those weapons, or being inconclusive. Well, then the studies showing NO weapons must be errors. So, toss those. Let's look at the ones that show a MAYBE. What are they showing that Iraq MAY have? Let's look into that. Because MAYBE is much closer to what they believe.
They may have thought that the "maybe" studies were on to something, but but the NO studies were flawed for one reason or another. Add on layers of people willing to go along with this idea for financial reasons (FOX, I'm looking at you here) and you wind up in a self-sustaining bubble based on a hunch and cherry picked studies.
And tens of thousands of people died.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.