It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Obama wins re-election(435 posts)(435 posts)
(435 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
22
23
24
25
26
29
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 09, 2012
YouTube link: The Death of the Republican Party

An excellent analysis and prediction based on numeric projections, narrated in concise language.
Post edited November 09, 2012 by ktchong
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
Lone3wolf: I'd *REALLY* love for all you people who romanticize Ché to actually meet him. He'd have a bullet in your heads before you could say, "Hi, Ché!"

The guy was scum. A terrorist. And really didn't like "liberals".
avatar
timppu: Yeah. Not to mention how Mahatma Gandhi was a known misogynist, or Mother Teresa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
No ones perfect, what do you expect him to be a pure black and white saint?

Almost eveyone at that time was racist, mysoginistic, homophobic, and bigoted fools.

But he is praised for peacfully freeing India from the British Empire and inspiring movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
Krypsyn: Edit: What I suppose I am saying is that I think it would be better if the USA were similar to the European Union, and each state here could be treated similarly to each country in the EU. I would actually rather a somewhat stronger centralized governance in the US than exists in Europe, obviously, but I do like the symmetry of the example.
Given that we roughly started this way but merged into the more federal single unit we are today, do you think there might be real reasons for that that states' rights folks gloss over?

It's an honest question, I ask myself the same thing.

I'm not sure we can allow Kansas to avoid teaching evolution in an internet-connected 2012 without looking like complete idiots. The conservative blogs and websites like National Review have been pumping out messages of "well the takers took over" for the last few days. I think they are fundamentally incapable of even thinking about societies as central units versus individuals, they see this as evil. Can the party truly flex to fit modern times and recognize Kansas can't teach creationism?

It's interesting stuff.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
Telika: what's the deal with florida, already ?
avatar
Telika: No, seriously.
I mean, come on.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
ktchong: Fuck Todd "legitimate rape" Akin. Goodbye and good riddance.

Fuck Richard "rape is a gift from God" Mourdock. Goodbye and good riddance.

Fuck Mitt "47 percent" Romney. Goodbye and good riddance.

Fuck Paul Ayn Rand. Goodbye and good riddance.

Fuck the fundamentalist Christian party. A party of religious extremists should not have a place in US politics.

P.S. I'm so happy that Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren win.
ROTFL -- Best news for months!!!!
Posted November 09, 2012
i heard almost every european politician was hoping for this
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: Something a lot of commentary is missing here (and everywhere):

Obama should have lost.

With the economy what it is, the opinion of his health care law and a general lack of getting anything done he would have normally lost. Romney was a classic US candidate built to appeal broadly. The reason none of this worked out is the demographics.

People are focusing on the slim popular vote victory and the fact less people voted for Obama as a sign it's just about having a better candidate next time. These are falsehoods, because Obama should have lost handily. The fact he won is all rooted in these demographic issues the GOP need to face immediately.

Adapt or die.
avatar
AquaticIdealist: This.

Judging by popular opinion one would believe that Obama would lose. Now, this person would have (I'm working overseas and unfortunately neglected to prepare an absentee ballot) voted for Jill Stein, so it's not like my vote would have "changed the outcome." (Although Orcishgamer gives a good explanation as to why we as voters must vote for the candidate we believe is best for our nation.)

Any other thoughts as to why Obama won? Did Romney really fail to appeal to different demographics? There are other crazies in both parties (moreso among the Republicans of course), but he certainly tried to appeal to everyone. This poster was fearing that Romney would have won. Yes, better Obama but I do believe he is the 'lesser of two evils.'
Disagree all around. The reason so many of us who were very disappointed in Obama's first four years was because he seemed top put too much effort into trying to work with the Right wing (who repeatedly expressed they were going to walk all over him every time he tried such), rather than doing what was right for the country, which was obvious after Bush's regime. But as bad as his naivete was, he still managed to get some sort of improvement to our health care even though he would not reap the political points for that feat until his sixth year as President. And he is managing the damned economy pretty well given what he was left with and the obstruction he faced in trying to fix things. It may have taken excess prodding by Americans but he is finally starting to lean a little Leftward, towards the center (At best where the center used to be before the Right redefined the term to be a synonym for 'Far Right'. At worst where the center is currently thought to be.).

The Republicans never had the 'momentum' they were claiming. The President was never really very unpopular amongst 'Average Joe' Americans. Progressives like me were fed up with him because even we get tired of being thrown under the bus but we are also largely rational people. I knew in the end that I did not want to see my country sink further into an economic and social 19th century bog in my lifetime and the only way to prevent that was to reelect Barrack Obama.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
SkeleTony: The Republicans never had the 'momentum' they were claiming. The President was never really very unpopular amongst 'Average Joe' Americans. Progressives like me were fed up with him because even we get tired of being thrown under the bus but we are also largely rational people. I knew in the end that I did not want to see my country sink further into an economic and social 19th century bog in my lifetime and the only way to prevent that was to reelect Barrack Obama.
You're not disagreeing with me. My point was everything on paper screamed Obama loss. 20 years ago it would have been a blowout. However, he legitimately won. There are a ton of factors related to this the Republicans need to face.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
Lone3wolf: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
That all men are created equal."
-Slave-owner, ethnic cleanser, sexual abuser and bullshit artist, Thomas Jefferson
avatar
StingingVelvet: And we deify him to this day, in schools even. Baffling.
Being a slave 'owner' I will grant you but we all know why that is a mostly bullshit argument to make against Jefferson. For starters this was a different time. It is easy for us to make BS claims about how abolitionist we would have been if we lived in that time but odds are we would not be as progressive as we are today if we were born and raised back then. Secondly, Jefferson owning slaves may have been the most humane thing he could do. Having a relatively progressive minded 'slave owner' may have saved a slave's life or saved him excruciating torment at the hands of a less humane 'master'.

Calling him an "Ethnic cleanser' and 'Bullshit artist' is hilariously silly.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
SkeleTony: Being a slave 'owner' I will grant you but we all know why that is a mostly bullshit argument to make against Jefferson. For starters this was a different time. It is easy for us to make BS claims about how abolitionist we would have been if we lived in that time but odds are we would not be as progressive as we are today if we were born and raised back then. Secondly, Jefferson owning slaves may have been the most humane thing he could do. Having a relatively progressive minded 'slave owner' may have saved a slave's life or saved him excruciating torment at the hands of a less humane 'master'.

Calling him an "Ethnic cleanser' and 'Bullshit artist' is hilariously silly.
Everyone in America during that time was an ethnic cleanser, either through action or inaction. There is no debating that, we took their land and systematically erased their entire population and culture.

As for the slave stuff, it's an epic hypocrisy that we should still be shocked by that Jefferson (and the rest) could write what they did in such romantic language and then own slaves. If you can't acknowledge that you're too indoctrinated to the deification I mentioned. Public schools start that shit young, it's really shameful.

It doesn't hurt modern day America to recognize our history. We were European genocidal conquerors before we were hypocritical slavers before we were horrible systematic racists. The better we acknowledge that, the better we can improve and ensure these things never happen again. Instead we gloss over it and act like these men are pillars of virtue to deify and follow to this day, which is ludicrous.

And yes, "product of the time" is a true thing. It is why I don't judge my grandfather too harshly for being racist. That doesn't mean I take his advice on social matters, however.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
SkeleTony: Well after saying I would not vote this time (for President) a few weeks ago I filled out my absentee ballot and voted for Obama. In 2000 I took a principled stance and voted for Nader to make a point and this lead to our country nearly collapsing in on itself. There were no third party candidates running which would have made a Romney term anything other than a literal horror for 99% of America.
avatar
orcishgamer: And that's your choice, but begrudging someone else the same choice you made in 2000 is deplorable.
I wasn't begrudging anyone of anything. What are you talking about?!
Besides, would Gore having won your state's electoral votes have pushed him to victory? If not then it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
Objection! Relevance...? My point was that I took the principled stance and voted for a guy I knew with 100% certainty could not get elected and I do not at all question my morals and intent for doing so. But I learned the same lesson the rest of America learned: Sometimes what seems like the right thing to do, with all the best of intentions, ends up being something that can cost you. Would I still have voted for Nader even knowing that MY vote would have cost Gore the election? Absolutely! Would not change a thing! The reason being that the choice between Al Gore and George W. Bush was a wash for me. Maybe Gore would not have betrayed American soldiers the way Bush and Cheney did with the whole Haliburton/KBR/etc. thing but he was spewing so much Conservatarded nonsense during his campaign that I cannot honestly say he would have ended up much better than Bush, especially after 9-11 happened.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
SkeleTony: Being a slave 'owner' I will grant you but we all know why that is a mostly bullshit argument to make against Jefferson. For starters this was a different time. It is easy for us to make BS claims about how abolitionist we would have been if we lived in that time but odds are we would not be as progressive as we are today if we were born and raised back then. Secondly, Jefferson owning slaves may have been the most humane thing he could do. Having a relatively progressive minded 'slave owner' may have saved a slave's life or saved him excruciating torment at the hands of a less humane 'master'.

Calling him an "Ethnic cleanser' and 'Bullshit artist' is hilariously silly.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Everyone in America during that time was an ethnic cleanser, either through action or inaction. There is no debating that, we took their land and systematically erased their entire population and culture.

As for the slave stuff, it's an epic hypocrisy that we should still be shocked by that Jefferson (and the rest) could write what they did in such romantic language and then own slaves. If you can't acknowledge that you're too indoctrinated to the deification I mentioned. Public schools start that shit young, it's really shameful.

It doesn't hurt modern day America to recognize our history. We were European genocidal conquerors before we were hypocritical slavers before we were horrible systematic racists. The better we acknowledge that, the better we can improve and ensure these things never happen again. Instead we gloss over it and act like these men are pillars of virtue to deify and follow to this day, which is ludicrous.

And yes, "product of the time" is a true thing. It is why I don't judge my grandfather too harshly for being racist. That doesn't mean I take his advice on social matters, however.
I think we are largely in agreement here on most of your points. However I stand by my points about him being a 'slave owner'. It is incredibly easy for you, being raised in Modern times with modern moral views to say how bad it was for anyone to approach the issue more cautiously back then. But ask yourself what would have been the likely outcome of Jefferson or anyone else in that day to be screaming abolitionist views from the rooftops? Also, by your reasoning ALL men who ever lived are deplorable people who did not good if they were born before the 20th century. Morals evolve. We still have not gotten to Gene Roddenberry's utopian ideal but does that mean that 22nd century historians would be right to say that Gandhi, MLK jr., Florence Nightinggale, etc. were terrible bullshit artists and such?

I agree with you about what America did to the Native nations but I fail to see how you are able to judge them as you do? I mean what is the point?! This was done at a time when the world was still 'new' to us and conquering others is a biological drive that kept us from going extinct, just like rape is. Early male homo sapiens mated with females without any attempt at gaining consent and if they had not done so (and how could we expect such primitive minds to do otherwise?) we would not be around right now to discuss the matter.

I think the same thing basically applies to pre-twentieth century Americans and conquering natives. Should we just hand the country back over to those currently living on reservations? How would that help ANYONE?

Again, you cannot rightly call Jefferson an ethnic cleanser anymore than you can call Ben Franklin's friends 'date rapists' since he was likely to have gotten a girl or two drunk and taken advantage in his day.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
Trilarion: The main question is how much loss of independence on economic and fiscal policy EU member states are willing to accept and how much economic and fiscal solidarity we want to have between the states.
236 years later, and the U.S. is still fighting this battle with each other. The major turning point was the Civil War (or as we call it here in North Carolina, the 'War of Northern Aggression'). That is when I believe the industrialization (i.e. Big Business) plutocrats, like Rothschild and Carnegie), started taking control of the country politically and centralizing their power in Washington D.C. to suit their agenda.

(Slavery was horrible, and I am glad it is gone. I am merely speaking to the political rationale behind the events.)

avatar
StingingVelvet: Given that we roughly started this way but merged into the more federal single unit we are today, do you think there might be real reasons for that that states' rights folks gloss over?
Possibly? I don't know. I do know that everyone tends to express their position with their own set of inherent biases. I am sure state's rights folks might tend to weight some situations and events more heavily than others. The same would go for anyone arguing against them, I suspect.

avatar
StingingVelvet: Can the party truly flex to fit modern times and recognize Kansas can't teach creationism?
Why do they need to? If Kansas wants to teach Creationism, then let them. I really don't see how it is the business of anyone at the federal level.

avatar
StingingVelvet: As for the slave stuff, it's an epic hypocrisy that we should still be shocked by that Jefferson (and the rest) could write what they did in such romantic language and then own slaves. If you can't acknowledge that you're too indoctrinated to the deification I mentioned. Public schools start that shit young, it's really shameful.
My favorite part is when J.T. and the rest decided that a black person should be considered 3/5 of a person for representation purposes. So, we went from 'Taxation without representation' to 'Forced labor with stolen representation'? Lovely.
Post edited November 09, 2012 by Krypsyn
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
Krypsyn: Alternatively, we could go back to the way the system was actually designed. Decentralize the federal government a fair bit and let each state have a greater hand in their own governance, just as our Founding Fathers envisioned. A majority vote wouldn't be as powerful at the Federal level if each of our states had a louder voice to enact reforms or policies on their own.

Just saying that there are other options than copying your system ;). On principle, I don't like systems that automatically assume that we should have a strong central government for everything. Generally, unless it involves national defense/diplomacy or interstate commerce (currency and such), I would rather the federal government kindly butt the heck out.

The USA is big and diverse; what works in European countries may not translate as well to the U.S. situation. I think our country would benefit more with a system of governance that starts locally and regionally with bottom-up policies, rather than a one-size-fits-all federal policy.

(Just as a note, because I have noticed many Europeans don't fully grok how large the continental U.S. is in actuality, I'll make a simple example. If you were to place a map of the U.S. over a map of Europe, such that Seattle, Washington lay over London, England, then Miami, Florida would be within 100km of Baghdad, Iraq. I only note this because every European that I know who has ever visited the States has remarked that it was much bigger than they had imagined.)

Edit: What I suppose I am saying is that I think it would be better if the USA were similar to the European Union, and each state here could be treated similarly to each country in the EU. I would actually rather a somewhat stronger centralized governance in the US than exists in Europe, obviously, but I do like the symmetry of the example.
Honestly, I'm not sure we're in a position where we can go back to the old system as it was originally designed...and to be honest I'm not so sure we fully grasp how it wouldn't work with today's technology and setups. Most states are easier to drive through then they were to walk, and the wilderness really isn't as wild either.

A lot of business is done through the internet, and I believe that would qualify under Federal Jurisdiction (Because I have a hard time trying to decide how to place it against the states). And our disorganized voices on Gay marriage really make us look stupid and bigoted, unable to recognize what a portion of our citizens want, and to be able to push aside arguments that have no place being made in a government that has decreed a separation of church and state.

And as far as each state being it's own country and being treated as a union...I think that could get actually kinda ugly. But in all honesty, I'm not much for politics, and tend to focus on the more practical aspects of things (Hence why I think that some ideas from both sides can be of use, like a degree of regulation when it comes to business for the protection of customers without being, too intrusive). I have to admit however, I'm concerned about all of the anger and animosity that I keep seeing and hearing from people.

But, if I don't stop this, I'm going to get distracted and I'll never leave for the gym, maybe I'll have more later.
Posted November 09, 2012
avatar
TwilightBard: Honestly, I'm not sure we're in a position where we can go back to the old system as it was originally designed...and to be honest I'm not so sure we fully grasp how it wouldn't work with today's technology and setups. Most states are easier to drive through then they were to walk, and the wilderness really isn't as wild either.
You might be right. In fact, I am pretty sure we cannot go back to exactly the way it was before. I just meant that decentralization might be a decent solution to some of our political problems.

avatar
TwilightBard: And as far as each state being it's own country and being treated as a union...I think that could get actually kinda ugly.
Oh, please. You act as if it would start a war or something. That could never happen! ;)

But, seriously, I don't want to repeat the mistakes made in the past. I just have to believe there is a way that U.S. government can be decentralized to better serve the population.
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
22
23
24
25
26
29
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Obama wins re-election(435 posts)(435 posts)
(435 posts)