2008 US Election Thread

[mrusse01 0]

This topic really makes me wonder where some of you guys would end up on this scale.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Cool site.

I'm 1.6, -5....I like how none of the international leaders are even in my quadrant, haha. Looks like Trooper and I have more in common than we might think. I would have thought I'd end up a bit further right to be honest.

[Jason Harris 31]

The expectations for Obama are going to be unfairly high and I think it will end up hurting him.

You're right.

[kosydar 0]

Economic Left/Right: 5.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.18

I'm a mix of Thatcher and Stalin.

The expectations for Obama are going to be unfairly high and I think it will end up hurting him.

You're right.

During his acceptance speech when he said something along the lines of "We're a divided country, fighting two wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression" I actually felt bad for him. He is inheriting a lot of shit, and I really don't think he (or McCain for that matter) is capable of handling it all.

I'm usually fairly conservative, but I really didn't know how to go this election. I really think that Obama would have been a good president if he was elected eight years ago, before the wars and the economy hitting the shitter. I was talking to my sister (she says hi Mack) about this, and as a staunch liberal she feels the same way. Like it was mentioned earlier in the thread, I think people are looking at Obama as a savior, and I see no reason to believe that.

[chippa13 1844]

Any bets on what the liberals find to complain about next?

My first thoughts exactly. All I can think of is that they'll complain about the "establishment".

It was my buddy's birthday last night so we went out to get a couple drinks. I've never seen a more granola crowd at a bar before. Everyone was drinking champagne and half the people were crying. People were lighting off fireworks and running in the streets. Definitely not what I'm used to seeing on election night.

First thing to go under the gun is the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine in an effort to kill conservative talk radio.

As for the celebration, a lot of people are treating this election as something far greater than it is. The expectations for Obama are going to be unfairly high and I think it will end up hurting him.

Fellow liberals are already covering Obama's ass, asking for a "honeymoon period".

[GekigangarIII 0]

Economic Left/Right: 1.12

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

[chippa13 1844]

Economic Left/Right: 5.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.18

I'm a mix of Thatcher and Stalin.

The expectations for Obama are going to be unfairly high and I think it will end up hurting him.

You're right.

During his acceptance speech when he said something along the lines of "We're a divided country, fighting two wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression" I actually felt bad for him. He is inheriting a lot of shit, and I really don't think he (or McCain for that matter) is capable of handling it all.

I'm usually fairly conservative, but I really didn't know how to go this election. I really think that Obama would have been a good president if he was elected eight years ago, before the wars and the economy hitting the shitter. I was talking to my sister (she says hi Mack) about this, and as a staunch liberal she feels the same way. Like it was mentioned earlier in the thread, I think people are looking at Obama as a savior, and I see no reason to believe that.

On the "savior" idea. It was funny that watching the celebrations and wrapups last night, one movie quote kept running through my head:

"He returns to Rome a conquering hero, but what has he conquered?"

[wildebeest 0]

I'm not complaining about anything -- Not even the sour grapes crowd!

Take your guns, hoarded food, bibles, Reagan portraits and tin foil hats and go down to your bunkers -- the sane people will handle things from here on in!

Oh, and for the record:

Economic Left/Right: -7.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

[chippa13 1844]

Redo the system? Do you have any idea of how complicated a process that would be? And you're foolish if you think Congress will not vote tax increases. Happens all the time. Remember this famous gaff, "Read my lips, no new taxes." How did that turn out?

So we should keep using the flawed system since it will be hard to redo?

Maybe I am foolish. I'm not saying everything will be shot down, I'm saying a system that will force the wealthy to actually pay their taxes will be shot down.

Like Chadd said, they vote for new taxes and in a roundabout way most likely don't force any rich bastards to pay a penny more, except maybe to their CPA to find new ways out.

This topic really makes me wonder where some of you guys would end up on this scale.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I'm a college student in Michigan, I think that already clearly defines my political affiliations, as much as I hate the pre-determined classification. :lol:

But you've already said that you are against a flat tax. And as has been pointed out, a small percentage of the country pays a huge percentage of the taxes.

Example of what people will do: word out of the baseball meetings is that agents are going to try and work deals with lower average salaries and higher signing bonuses that they want payable before 1/1/09.

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

Let's not derail this topic.

I'm not complaining about anything -- Not even the sour grapes crowd!

Take your guns, hoarded food, bibles, Reagan portraits and tin foil hats and go down to your bunkers -- the sane people will handle things from here on in!

Oh, and for the record:

Economic Left/Right: -7.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

[wildebeest 0]

Didn't say that, but everybody generally earns what they are worth. Why take money from the smart guy who worked his tail off to get his MBA and has skills that others don't? Where would the incentive be for him? Then, where would the jobs be?

Oh please tell me you did NOT just come out with the "worked his tail off for an MBA" angle.

MBA students are the most likely to cheat their way through school!

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4433207

[RadioGaGa 162]

Didn't say that, but everybody generally earns what they are worth. Why take money from the smart guy who worked his tail off to get his MBA and has skills that others don't? Where would the incentive be for him? Then, where would the jobs be?

Oh please tell me you did NOT just come out with the "worked his tail off for an MBA" angle.

MBA students are the most likely to cheat their way through school!

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4433207

What did JR just say about derailing this thread?

[wildebeest 0]

Didn't say that, but everybody generally earns what they are worth. Why take money from the smart guy who worked his tail off to get his MBA and has skills that others don't? Where would the incentive be for him? Then, where would the jobs be?

Oh please tell me you did NOT just come out with the "worked his tail off for an MBA" angle.

MBA students are the most likely to cheat their way through school!

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4433207

What did JR just say about derailing this thread?

His argument is factually faulty.

[Chadd 916]

Any bets on what the liberals find to complain about next?

My first thoughts exactly. All I can think of is that they'll complain about the "establishment".

It was my buddy's birthday last night so we went out to get a couple drinks. I've never seen a more granola crowd at a bar before. Everyone was drinking champagne and half the people were crying. People were lighting off fireworks and running in the streets. Definitely not what I'm used to seeing on election night.

First thing to go under the gun is the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine in an effort to kill conservative talk radio.

As for the celebration, a lot of people are treating this election as something far greater than it is. The expectations for Obama are going to be unfairly high and I think it will end up hurting him.

Fellow liberals are already covering Obama's ass, asking for a "honeymoon period".

Interesting article

http://www.slate.com/id/2203660/

Obama will abandon the habit of walking on water he picked up during the past two years because you can't build a moat around the White House the way you can a presidential campaign.

[Trooper 8]

As Darkstar said, the Republican Party of today is different from just 40 years ago. To my memory, it started with the Reagan Revolution, when the fundamentalists became a far more vocal influence. As a result, candidates have had to be pass the muster of the fundamentalists, who, in an elitist generalization here, are not as educated. (I can't find it readily, but I've seen statistics illustrating areas of our country with heavy evangelical populations having lower education levels.)

Call me an elitist, but I think one of the reasons we mandate education for our citizens is because it leads to more critical thinking, so it's probably fair to assume that less educated citizens, regardless of reason -- poverty, race, religion, gender, whatever -- are less adept at critical thinking. Bringing it back to this topic, I think this lack of critical thinking manifests itself with who has been able to win the Republican nomination in the past 28 years. I don't think we'd classify any of their nominees as overly intelligent men, yet they were able to beat out more intellectually capable men to win the nomination.

It would be one thing if they were on the fringe, like the unions are with the Democrats, but when the fundamentalists wrestled control of the Republican Party, the statistics (based on IQ and educational level of the voters) have shown that it effectively has contributed to a dumbing down of the Republican Party.

Or maybe another way to put it is be an elitist in the Republican Party and you don't stand a chance.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd vehemently refused to look into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it was pushed hard by the Bush administration in 2005, so don't talk about deregulation being a one-way ticket.

Abortion readily embraced? Try not to paint with too wide of a brush.

I never suggested regulation or deregulation was one-sided, but they surely lean more heavily in certain directions.

When women can easily find 20 locations in any of our major cities to have an abortion, that is an example that the private sector has readily embraced the issue, regardless what individual citizens may feel.

Your adherence to these education stats is getting old. You think the poor Democrats are intelligent? You think this nutjob has a clue?

Good god, IQ isn't a test of intelligence. Stats online don't make your argument.

Because you can get abortions means two things, 1- they are legal, 2- someone can make money off of them. No more, no less.

Didn't say that, but everybody generally earns what they are worth. Why take money from the smart guy who worked his tail off to get his MBA and has skills that others don't? Where would the incentive be for him? Then, where would the jobs be?

Oh please tell me you did NOT just come out with the "worked his tail off for an MBA" angle.

MBA students are the most likely to cheat their way through school!

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4433207

What did JR just say about derailing this thread?

His argument is factually faulty.

Sorry, yours is nonsense. I would estimate 90% of the people I know couldn't get through one semester of my program. So therefore, why should whatever money I end up making be redistributed to those who can't do what I do or are too lazy to put forth the effort?

[wildebeest 0]

Sorry, yours is nonsense. I would estimate 90% of the people I know couldn't get through one semester of my program. So therefore, why should whatever money I end up making be redistributed to those who can't do what I do or are too lazy to put forth the effort?

So you're a narcissist with a faulty argument.

[Chadd 916]

Next one with a personal shot gets a warning and a week off.

[mrusse01 0]

Good god, IQ isn't a test of intelligence.

Actually, that's exactly what it is.

Regardless, no matter how hard you work or how great your achievements are, any reasonable person has to admit that a portion of that success was just pure chance.

I generally agree that I don't want the government taking my money and giving it to the less fortunate/poor/lazy/unlucky/whatever you want to call them, but I do think there is a compelling argument to be made that such wealth re-distributions should be made (and are made) on compassionate grounds. To simply suggest, 'well I made this money and I'm going to keep it all, everybody else who makes less is stupid or lazy', well, you just come off sounding like a prick. (hope that doesn't come across as a personal shot...it's not intended as such)

[wildebeest 0]

How is taking printed evidence that somebody is narcissistic and pointing out a flaw in their argument a personal shot?

Fuck it, ban me. Last thing I need to be doing at work is arguing with people who think a $500 ice skate purchase is the highlight of their lives.

[Trooper 8]

Good god, IQ isn't a test of intelligence.

Actually, that's exactly what it is.

Regardless, no matter how hard you work or how great your achievements are, any reasonable person has to admit that a portion of that success was just pure chance.

I generally agree that I don't want the government taking my money and giving it to the less fortunate/poor/lazy/unlucky/whatever you want to call them, but I do think there is a compelling argument to be made that such wealth re-distributions should be made (and are made) on compassionate grounds. To simply suggest, 'well I made this money and I'm going to keep it all, everybody else who makes less is stupid or lazy', well, you just come off sounding like a prick. (hope that doesn't come across as a personal shot...it's not intended as such)

IQ is the result of a test that attempts to measure intelligence, there is much more to it than that.

Nobody is saying that the fortunate shouldn't help the less fortunate, but as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the fortunate few already pay the majority of taxes, and that money is used in may ways to help those who aren't as fortunate.

[Jason Harris 31]

Wait a second, Trooper. You just told us you're in a very demanding discipline, but you're going to make the faulty reach that when I said Republicans are statistically less educated that it means I think all Democrats are intelligent???

No, what it means is I KNOW the Republicans are generally less educated, while I BELIEVE this is due to the influence of the evangelicals over the past 28 years. It doesn't mean I like Republicans more or less, it doesn't mean I like Democrats more or less. It only means that Republicans are generally less educated than Democrats.

Regarding abortions, the private sector could choose not to offer abortions if they were morally opposed, regardless what the laws are.

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

How is taking printed evidence that somebody is narcissistic and pointing out a flaw in their argument a personal shot?

Fuck it, ban me. Last thing I need to be doing at work is arguing with people who think a $500 ice skate purchase is the highlight of their lives.

It's been going all over the thread, you're not being singled out.

Let's keep this peaceful.

[Trooper 8]

Wait a second, Trooper. You just told us you're in a very demanding discipline, but you're going to make the faulty reach that when I said Republicans are statistically less educated that it means I think all Democrats are intelligent???

No, what it means is I KNOW the Republicans are generally less educated, while I BELIEVE this is due to the influence of the evangelicals over the past 28 years. It doesn't mean I like Republicans more or less, it doesn't mean I like Democrats more or less. It only means that Republicans are generally less educated than Democrats.

Regarding abortions, the private sector could choose not to offer abortions if they were morally opposed, regardless what the laws are.

I haven't found any conclusive evidence of the intelligence of one side or the other and I have no idea how you make any correlation with evangelicals and their effect on the intelligence of the party.

I never used the word all Democrats, but in your numerous posts on Republican intelligence, you continually correlate your perception that the Repubs are less intelligent with their choice of candidates, who you don't agree with.

The private sector doesn't act as one. I would imagine the private sector as a whole feels that murder and rape are morally wrong, but that market seems to be pretty healthy.

OK, I'm out, I actually have to do some work (so I can fund the poor and downtrodden... ;) )

[Chadd 916]

Wait a second, Trooper. You just told us you're in a very demanding discipline, but you're going to make the faulty reach that when I said Republicans are statistically less educated that it means I think all Democrats are intelligent???

No, what it means is I KNOW the Republicans are generally less educated, while I BELIEVE this is due to the influence of the evangelicals over the past 28 years. It doesn't mean I like Republicans more or less, it doesn't mean I like Democrats more or less. It only means that Republicans are generally less educated than Democrats.

Regarding abortions, the private sector could choose not to offer abortions if they were morally opposed, regardless what the laws are.

When you believe god is the answer, you stop asking questions. When you stop asking questions, you stop learning. Both parties have their share of "below average" voters, especially in this election. Painting with such a broad brush is rarely productive in discussions, I should know. :P

On the final point, there are people whose morality is determined solely by whatever will bring them income. Otherwise you wouldn't have people selling crack and heroin.

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

OK, I'm out, I actually have to do some work (so I can fund the poor and downtrodden... ;) )

You just insulted my unemployed ass, you get a 20% warning and you're off for a week.

Have fun! :)

[chippa13 1844]

OK, I'm out, I actually have to do some work (so I can fund the poor and downtrodden... ;) )

You just insulted my unemployed ass, you get a 20% warning and you're off for a week.

Have fun!

And we get to see the Fairness Doctrine in action.