U.S. Politics Thread

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's by design. That's why America doesn't have compulsory voting; both sides are afraid that they aren't the real majority, and that if everyone votes they would lose.

They don't want swing voters to matter. That would require moderation of policies.

I think it's just human nature. Once someone's voted for a certain side, it's difficult for them to decide they were wrong and vote for the other side. At most, they can give up on their own side and just stay home.

As a result, swing voters are few and, more importantly, diverse. There is no one group of swing voters you can sway with a particular promise or set of promises, so they're not really worth fighting for.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Well, none of this matters, as long as they draw districts to their advantage.

GOP: OMG! That area has minorities. Let's draw around it.

Gerrymandering is harder on the Senatorial level since each state only gets two senators

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Defending conservatism, Rubio says 'we don't need a new idea'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ed-a-new-idea/
Missing the obvious once again...

Frankly it is becoming increasingly hard to justify opposition to same sex marriage as not being bigoted. Most of the country supports it, and everyone knows that if the matter comes to the supreme court full faith and credit is going to be cited, as well as how the court previously ruled on laws against interracial marriage. The GOP is just mindlessly appealing to an aging ultra religious segment of their voting base that isn't going to be as substantial 20-30 years from now.


And while I find abortion distasteful, I don't see Roe V. Wade getting overturned anytime soon. If you're concerned about the ethics of abortion from a humanist scientific standpoint, the best thing to do is DRASTICALLY increase the availability and knowledge of how to properly use contraceptives. However, the segment of the GOP who is most prolife also seems to have equal hatred to contraceptives to. Rubio needs to remember that there was quite a bit gnashing of teeth from certain prominent conservatives when it came to female contraceptives being mandated to be provided through medicare. And THAT objection is by no means scientific.


Still. Rubio being willing to say that the vast majority of Americans are hard workers is certainly is an improvement over the last campaign. Where the driving narrative was an increasing number of "takers" starting to outnumber the "makers", and how 47% of the country were listless government dependent sponges whose Romney's job was to ignore since they'd never vote for him anyway.


Really. That's what did Romney in during 2012. That 47% that Romney cited as being moochers because they got government aid? THAT'S a significant part of the Republican base! There are tons of lower class people who are eligible for food stamps or some other kind of government aid who still vote republican. Romney was essentially spitting in the face of allot of his own supporters. Is it any surprise that many of them in important states weren't motivated to come out to vote for him?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I think it's just human nature. Once someone's voted for a certain side, it's difficult for them to decide they were wrong and vote for the other side. At most, they can give up on their own side and just stay home.

As a result, swing voters are few and, more importantly, diverse. There is no one group of swing voters you can sway with a particular promise or set of promises, so they're not really worth fighting for.

You missed what I said. I am not saying swing voters are not worth fighting for; I am saying it is actually backwards. Swing voters are made as irrelevant as possible politically in order to make it easier to ignore them.

It is hard to please swing voters, so the American system is to discourage them as much as possible via policy.

Swing voters have been ignored politically for so long that they are dangerous. They ruin everybody's carefully laid campaign strategy.

I consider all non-voters potential swing voters. Because if they don't feel strongly to support either side, they are really a type of discouraged potential swing voter.

[MrTerrorist]

US Republican Senator Rob Portman favours gay unions

Influential Republican Senator Rob Portman has renounced his opposition to gay marriage.

The Ohio senator said he began to change his mind in 2011 after his son, Will, revealed he was gay.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

US Republican Senator Rob Portman favours gay unions

Why didn't he lock his son up.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Why didn't he lock his son up.

To me, this is a key problem that permeates the GOP. Lack of ability to project or lack of empathy. He could have cared less about other families but suddenly the light goes on when it smacks him in the face personally. The same goes for medical care, education, joblessness, foreclosures, you name it. It is "fuck everyone else" until it happens to them.

His change of view is all the more obnoxious because of the reason it changed.

[sikvod00]

Yep, his motives for suddenly supporting gay unions are lame, but beggars can't be choosers. At least this means one less anti-gay marriage vote in Congress. Progress is slow in this country...

[Kyuu]

The Senator can do one thing to satisfy the anti-gay people:

Spoiler:

By disowning his son

And OK America...

(MoneyWatch) If partisanship has divided the country and brought Washington to a virtual standstill, the left and right are increasingly making common cause on one issue: Big banks remain a grave danger to the financial system, and it's about time something was done.

To say that liberal Democrats and some hardcore Republicans are united on the risks posed by "too big to fail" banks isn't to say that there is a consensus in Congress on the matter.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_1...-new-scrutiny/

Let's get United on this issue -- until things get fixed, rectified, and people held accountable. Then we can go back to the divided country over abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc.

Too Big to Jail is a very very large threat to this Democracy.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You missed what I said. I am not saying swing voters are not worth fighting for; I am saying it is actually backwards. Swing voters are made as irrelevant as possible politically in order to make it easier to ignore them.

No, I got it. I just disagree. My own point is the opposite of yours: there's no conspiracy, the swing voters really are insignificant. It's the old monkey brain, up to its old tricks. The same thing that turns rational adults into screaming homophobes because two dozen guys are running after a ball turns politics into "us vs them" rather than a serious question of policy. Once you've picked a side, it's hard not be stuck with it, emotionally speaking. It's hard to vote against it. (As opposed to staying home - that's easy.) So swing voters are a tiny group to start with. It's compounded by...

It is hard to please swing voters, so the American system is to discourage them as much as possible via policy.

... the fact I lied. They're not a group at all. They're at best several very different groups. Any campaign promise that pleases one half will piss off the other.

Swing voters have been ignored politically for so long that they are dangerous. They ruin everybody's carefully laid campaign strategy.

They've never swung an election one way or the other. That's why they're ignored.

I consider all non-voters potential swing voters. Because if they don't feel strongly to support either side, they are really a type of discouraged potential swing voter.

To me, swing voters are people who regularly vote, but may do so for any party. Not the guys who've voted for a different party once in twenty years, or the people who think they carefully chose for each election (unlike the sheeple!) but somehow always end up supporting the same party.

The only thing they've got for them is that they make for a nicer story in the election race. They're an intuitive concept, and it's easy to write stories of possible big upsets with them. But if the general public was just a little more into sci-fi, the media would be reporting about mind controlling lizard people, and be about as relevant.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Too Big to Jail is a very very large threat to this Democracy.

Again, aside from knee-jerk reactions, disagree .. I've already stated why -- that said I believe they should be de-risked and heavily regulated. There's a reason financial institutions the world over generally have scale ..

I said it before and I'll say it again there needs to be an alignment of economic and policy issues alongside the appropriate regulatory framework. I sat down and had a long conversation about this with a lawyer and 2 experienced finance industry veterans for over an hour a week or so ago. It took a long time but it was a fruitful discussion grounded in years/decades of experience and understanding. Put your pitchforks down people ..

Images

Is this how people see me?

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Vexx

To me, this is a key problem that permeates the GOP. Lack of ability to project or lack of empathy. He could have cared less about other families but suddenly the light goes on when it smacks him in the face personally. The same goes for medical care, education, joblessness, foreclosures, you name it. It is "fuck everyone else" until it happens to them.

His change of view is all the more obnoxious because of the reason it changed.

I agree completely with your point, but it could be worse. At least he came to support and accept his son because that is not always the case in this situation (disowning, trying to 'cure' them, etc.)

Originally Posted by willx

Again, aside from knee-jerk reactions, disagree .. I've already stated why -- that said I believe they should be de-risked and heavily regulated. There's a reason financial institutions the world over generally have scale ..

I said it before and I'll say it again there needs to be an alignment of economic and policy issues alongside the appropriate regulatory framework. I sat down and had a long conversation about this with a lawyer and 2 experienced finance industry veterans for over an hour a week or so ago. It took a long time but it was a fruitful discussion grounded in years/decades of experience and understanding. Put your pitchforks down people ..

Images

Is this how people see me?

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I think there's truth to your viewpoint and the anti-bailout viewpoint. There are obvious issues that arise from a system that will bail out inefficient businesses indefinitely. There are also obvious issues to a financial system that is deregulated to the point of being fundamentally dysfunctional. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive ideas.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by willx

Again, aside from knee-jerk reactions, disagree .. I've already stated why -- that said I believe they should be de-risked and heavily regulated. There's a reason financial institutions the world over generally have scale ..

I said it before and I'll say it again there needs to be an alignment of economic and policy issues alongside the appropriate regulatory framework. I sat down and had a long conversation about this with a lawyer and 2 experienced finance industry veterans for over an hour a week or so ago. It took a long time but it was a fruitful discussion grounded in years/decades of experience and understanding. Put your pitchforks down people ..

Images

Is this how people see me?

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I don't think you're wrong about the need for better, more homogeneous regulations. But even so, no one should be "too big to jail". If the institutions need to be big, then it's time to build bigger jails to go along with it.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

To me, this is a key problem that permeates the GOP. Lack of ability to project or lack of empathy. He could have cared less about other families but suddenly the light goes on when it smacks him in the face personally. The same goes for medical care, education, joblessness, foreclosures, you name it. It is "fuck everyone else" until it happens to them.

His change of view is all the more obnoxious because of the reason it changed.

I agree with ChainLegacy that the guy deserves some credit for his willingness to change his views at all, but you're spot on. It's a weird thing, too. These people are supposed to be making decisions that are for everyone's best interest, but they seem to have a very hard time connecting with most people's struggles even though they're out there talking with citizens on the campaign trail, going into shelters and areas of poverty for their photo opportunities, and likely receiving many communications from average people. Obviously there's a limit to how much you can connect with someone when you haven't experienced what they have, but it's amazing how so many of these politicians do a complete 180 or close to it once their own life circumstances change.

I don't limit those statement to the Republicans, either. The Democrats do a better job of projecting empathy, but I think they're just as bad.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't limit those statement to the Republicans, either. The Democrats do a better job of projecting empathy, but I think they're just as bad.

... therefore I think it is a good time to remember this quote "Every country has the government it deserves".

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by willx

Again, aside from knee-jerk reactions, disagree .. I've already stated why -- that said I believe they should be de-risked and heavily regulated. There's a reason financial institutions the world over generally have scale ..

People wouldn't buy your financial products and advice if they are that heavily regulated and de-risked; brings up cost and reduces returns.

These kind of things are a two way street - a friend of mine who left his bank before the subprime crisis put it this way : the reason why I have so much money is because there are way too many people who don't think about the stuff they buy. If everyone else has one, they want one too.

He was wallowing in guilt after my other friend, working as a financial forecaster in a foreign firm, told him about the impending crisis and told him to "pull the ejection lever", but he picked himself up and made that sarcastic comment when we convinced him that "if he knew it, he wouldn't have worked so hard in selling that kind of stuff".

As Jesse Livermore put it aptly :

The game of speculation is the most uniformly fascinating game in the world. But it is not a game for the stupid, the mentally lazy, the person of inferior emotional balance, or the get-rich-quick adventurer. They will die poor.

Try this book. After reading that most likely you won't be able to stop laughing at yourself.

[ArchmageXin]

Really. That's what did Romney in during 2012. That 47% that Romney cited as being moochers because they got government aid? THAT'S a significant part of the Republican base! There are tons of lower class people who are eligible for food stamps or some other kind of government aid who still vote republican. Romney was essentially spitting in the face of allot of his own supporters. Is it any surprise that many of them in important states weren't motivated to come out to vote for him?

You know who are there the biggest moochers in the 47%?

U.S Combat troops who were in "active" combat during the tax year. Just because they were willing to take a bullet for Uncle Sam, does not exempt them from the IRS there 40,000 a year salary damn it!

[willx]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

People wouldn't buy your financial products and advice if they are that heavily regulated and de-risked; brings up cost and reduces returns.

These kind of things are a two way street - a friend of mine who left his bank before the subprime crisis put it this way : the reason why I have so much money is because there are way too many people who don't think about the stuff they buy. If everyone else has one, they want one too.

None of that applies to me.. I work in corporate advisory. The people that hire me are corporations that have mucked themselves up too badly. I'm okay with lower returns in the financial syst-.. *gets dragged away and strangled*

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by willx

None of that applies to me.. I work in corporate advisory. The people that hire me are corporations that have mucked themselves up too badly. I'm okay with lower returns in the financial syst-.. *gets dragged away and strangled*

You dirty Chinese Communist! Polluting the great capitalist system by resisting growth! Traitorious sheningan!

[Kyuu]

Semi-random thought about Libertarians. OK, they're against market regulation. However, how do they feel about law in general? "De-regulate" that too? 'cause the thing is -- I hope they understand why regulation exists in the first place.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Semi-random thought about Libertarians. OK, they're against market regulation. However, how do they feel about law in general? "De-regulate" that too? 'cause the thing is -- I hope they understand why regulation exists in the first place.

Speaking of which, I'm gonna miss Jon Stewart for a while, especially when he's doing sketches like these when he's mocking the likes of Glenn Beck who are speaking ill of any form of regulation:

Who's doing the lying? ARIANS!!! ARIANS!!! Holy *beep*!!!