or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election Day U.S.A.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Election Day U.S.A. - Page 6

post #201 of 254

 

 

 

Quote:

lol.gif Actually, you're facts are wrong.

 

Currently the popular vote differential is about 3.25M.

 

The electoral balance is 332-206.

 

The electoral balance is that way due to around 400,000 votes.

 

These are facts. I'm sorry if you feel the need to keep dismissing them for some reason.

 

 

Right, grabbed the '08 results by mistake.  Point stands however.  You're "facts" are irrelevant.  I dare say we could do the same thing for most any presidential election, in order to claim the "mandate" was vanishingly slight or far less than the raw numbers might suggest.  So what?  Given our electoral system, it is what it is.  Did you make this claim after either of Bush's wins?  

 

 

 

Quote:
I'm not hand waving anything. I've presented facts. Feel free to show where they are wrong.

 

Not wrong, irrelevant.  Hence, hand waving.  Of course, as a libertarian, I'm sure you have a keenly developed sense of irrelevant, but it doesn't really serve any purpose.

 

 

 

Quote:
Well, perhaps not in so many words. lol.gif You haven't been paying much attention to him since he won the first time have you?

 

Obama is a cautious, centrist pragmatist.  Even that has been radically rebuffed by the most obstructionist Republican Congress in living memory (they're pretty much on record as being about keeping Obama from being able to do anything ever).  Lunatics keep yelling about what a dictator he is.  That's on account of the lunacy.

 

 

 

Quote:
Actually, that's exactly what's doing in his initial rhetoric around the fiscal cliff. It helps if you actually pay attention.

 

Yes, as I mentioned he's been pretty explicit about allowing taxes on people making over $250,000 a year to return to the ostensibly temporary pre-Bush tax cut levels, which will still be historically low.  On this one point, he's pointing out that he explicitly ran on doing exactly that and won.  Hence, "mandate."  Not really some kind of swaggering hubris.  I guess for a libertarian, any tax increase is always an incredible violation of the natural norms and hence championing same is an act of aggression?   Just out of curiosity, what's it like to subscribe to ideology that never has never and probably never will be tested against real world performance, and yet derive from that a preening sense of how the world works?  Infantile, I would imagine.

 

 

post #202 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Obama won the popular vote by at least 3.5 million, likely 4 million.  He won the electoral college 365-173.  About as factual as it gets

 

lol.gif Actually, you're facts are wrong.

 

Currently the popular vote differential is about 3.25M.

 

The electoral balance is 332-206.

 

The electoral balance is that way due to around 400,000 votes.

 

These are facts. I'm sorry if you feel the need to keep dismissing them for some reason.

 

400,000 out of 20 million - you forgot to mention the 20 million part again. Still a 2.1% margin. Focussing on those states does not substantially change the margin from the popular vote, so what, exactly, is the point of the 400,000 way of looking at this?

post #203 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

but I'm surprised to see you peddling that kind of sophistry.
I'm not. This is the same fellow who says evolution isn't science and balks at the idea of the social contract.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #204 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not. This is the same fellow who says evolution isn't science and balks at the idea of the social contract.

 

Says the guy who is now, apparently, joining in denying that what I've presented are actual facts (despite the clear reality that these are actual, indisputable facts) and who cannot scientifically prove the existence of this so-called "social contract" on which he bases so much of his authoritarian worldview while simultaneously (and angrily and profanely) denouncing anyone who believes in God as being unscientific, un-factual and illogical.

 


lol.gif

 

How ironic.

 

How embarrassing for you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #205 of 254

You didn't address the 2.1% margin muppetry mentioned.  You just jumped to attempt to turn the tables on me, instead.  How embarrassing for you.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #206 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You didn't address the 2.1% margin muppetry mentioned.

 

Actually, I have. However he seems determined to ignore, misinterpret or misrepresent what I've said. But don't let that get in your way.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #207 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

You're "facts" are irrelevant.

 

Not wrong, irrelevant.  Hence, hand waving.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Of course, as a libertarian, I'm sure you have a keenly developed sense of irrelevant, but it doesn't really serve any purpose.

 

How cute.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Obama is a cautious, centrist pragmatist.  Even that has been radically rebuffed by the most obstructionist Republican Congress in living memory (they're pretty much on record as being about keeping Obama from being able to do anything ever).

 

Is he? Has he? How interesting. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Just out of curiosity, what's it like to subscribe to ideology that never has never and probably never will be tested against real world performance, and yet derive from that a preening sense of how the world works?  Infantile, I would imagine.

 

How cute.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #208 of 254

Observe the man with no argument in the wild.  When it feels threatened, it responds with empty dismissive platitudes such as "thanks for sharing your opinion" and "how cute", attempting to distract its adversary and make its escape.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #209 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You didn't address the 2.1% margin muppetry mentioned.

 

Actually, I have. However he seems determined to ignore, misinterpret or misrepresent what I've said. But don't let that get in your way.

 

It would be nice if you could justify that accusation, given that I've tried pretty hard to engage in honest discussion with you.

post #210 of 254

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  How cute.  Read my previous posts, of which I have over 7,000.  How interesting.  I already addressed that.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #211 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I cannot see what it could be taken to imply beyond that definition. As to the assumption, since the ballots do not separate the questions (Who do you want as president?  Whose policies do you like best?), there is no alternative to presuming their equivalence, which is exactly the definition of mandate. To do otherwise is to admit the situation that you appear to be proposing - that the election of a President or Government is not an electoral endorsement of their policies, that it says nothing about the wishes of the electorate and that there is no guidance on what policies to try to implement. It may be an attractive argument for the losing party to try to make, but it still makes a mockery of the process.

 

What it is taken to imply beyond that definition is that President Obama and his agenda are allowed to override the mandate given to all the other elected officials who also have a mandate, per official definition, to do their job as well.

 

Mitch McConnell for example was quoted and used for a claim of opposition to President Obama. Knowing that, his constituency returned him to the Senate, obviously with a mandate to continue to act in that manner. Many folks like yourself appear to be making the case that President Obama's mandate somehow overrides the mandate given to Mitch McConnell to carry out the will of those who elected him.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Amazing. You say the above, yet you reject the notion that a pretty fair number of people vote against Obama for no reason except that he's black.

 

It really clear that anyone who rejects the notion that a pretty fair number of people vote for him for no other reason than his is black as well and that number is larger.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Completely agree that few people will like all the policies of their chosen candidate, but short of holding referenda on every individual policy issue there are no viable alternatives. One key element of democracy is the election of representatives whom one trusts to use their judgement on issues that arise. One hopes that policy choices will continue to be informed by public opinion as far as is reasonable, but beyond that it is all a big compromise.

 

The problem remains that if we refuse to accept that the election of a candidate gives him any mandate to proceed with his policies then government has no basis on which to operate.

Even by the standards of the US political system, with its designed emphasis on inertia and viscosity, that would surely be unworkable.

 

Of course President Obama is going to attempt to move forward legislation he believes to be in the interest of the people who elected him. However 57 million people did not elect him and those people still have their interests as well. Those people also elected representatives at the federal level and gave them the mandate as well. Obama hasn't done very well with compromise. What he has basically done across four years is slowly burn off the excess voters and majority margins that were given to him by pursuing an excessively partisan agenda. Here's a number no one in this thread seems to want to discuss because it hasn't been brought up. That number is 69,456,897. That was how many votes President Obama earned in 2008. His unofficial tally this time given in the thread, 61,735,935. That means almost 8 million fewer people gave President Obama their vote than last time.

 

Now we all understand that per the talking class, Republicans must currently be retarded for somehow believing a good number of that missing 8 million might have shown up,

voted for Mitt Romney and change the election outcome. However it would be wise to consider what might happen if he takes this result to mean he should be hyper-partisan

enough to burn through another 8 million supporters.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - I agree with all that, but again, if we are to have a government that is not paralyzed, how else can this work? Gridlock is clearly not a good option when there is consensus that the status quo is not where we want to be.

 

Why would you presume the government shouldn't be paralyzed in taking action? Status quo is not where we want to be with regard to the economy, but where is there proof that people want sweeping action that somehow overrides the checks and balances built into the federal system? Our government has the checks and balances it has for a reason. No one has ever been given a mandate to override them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Negotiation and compromise would be nice, but where two parties stand for quite different approaches in some areas (although I know they seem rather similar from your viewpoint), the election is all there is to go on to divine the majority will of the people. Far from perfect, agreed.

 

I don't doubt that gridlock is a possibility, and (see above) I did not say that it is not an option - I said that it is not a good option.

 

The will of the people is clearly divided as is the country in how the delivered their votes. While the election returned Barack Obama to office, it also largely returned everyone else as well including those who oppose him. Why must he do his job and they must stop doing theirs? I've read no good arguments for that in this thread. You say it is not a good option. I'm curious why you say that. I can think of nothing better than some inaction at this phase.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Now you have moved the goalposts. Your thesis was that the election was much closer than it appeared from the electoral college and the popular vote, and you constructed a scenario with four states that you asserted showed that. I simply pointed out that even in just those states he won by over 2%, which is within a factor of 1.5 of the national popular vote margin. So yes, no interpretation suggests a landslide, but no, your swing state analysis does not suggest a much closer race than the popular vote indicates.

 

His point remains in that the electoral college distorts the outcome. You can't avoid that fact. It is like arguing that Senators don't count because both large and small states get the same number and somehow that isn't fair. Of course it is fair. It is the way the system was designed. The president isn't elected by popular vote but indirectly by electors selected by states. The Senate is not a body that is representative of the popular vote because each state gets two of them regardless of the size of the state. Thus one party might have control of the Senate be no where near representing the majority will of the people.

 

Which body does have every member directly elected by the people in every district, in every state? The House and who got control of that? Republicans. What were those Republicans told to do in 2010 and again in 2012? Slow down and oppose much of what President Obama wants to push forward.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

400,000 out of 20 million - you forgot to mention the 20 million part again. Still a 2.1% margin. Focussing on those states does not substantially change the margin from the popular vote, so what, exactly, is the point of the 400,000 way of looking at this?

 

Is the president now supposed to ignore the will of all the people that didn't elect him? See a House representative can do that to some degree. They were elected by their Congressional district and they are to return services and money to it, sometimes at the expense of other districts. They were elected to represent their slice of people. The president on the other hand has to represent and work for everyone including those who voted against him. He is president of everyone and as such, he must consider and take action even for those who did not elect him and in fact opposed him. He needs to listen to and consider their needs and desires. In other words while a House member can be partisan, the president should not. President Obama was so partisan that he received almost 8 million fewer supporters this cycle than the last cycle. His actions cost his own party the House in 2010 and continued to deny it to them in 2012. He should take steps to make sure they don't lose the Senate and to see that his own party doesn't rely on more than demographic and ethnic claims to avoid losing another 8 million voters in the next cycle.


Edited by trumptman - 11/12/12 at 5:48am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #212 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I cannot see what it could be taken to imply beyond that definition. As to the assumption, since the ballots do not separate the questions (Who do you want as president?  Whose policies do you like best?), there is no alternative to presuming their equivalence, which is exactly the definition of mandate. To do otherwise is to admit the situation that you appear to be proposing - that the election of a President or Government is not an electoral endorsement of their policies, that it says nothing about the wishes of the electorate and that there is no guidance on what policies to try to implement. It may be an attractive argument for the losing party to try to make, but it still makes a mockery of the process.

 

What it is taken to imply beyond that definition is that President Obama and his agenda are allowed to override the mandate given to all the other elected officials who also have a mandate, per official definition, to do their job as well.

 

Mitch McConnell for example was quoted and used for a claim of opposition to President Obama. Knowing that, his constituency returned him to the Senate, obviously with a mandate to continue to act in that manner. Many folks like yourself appear to be making the case that President Obama's mandate somehow overrides the mandate given to Mitch McConnell to carry out the will of those who elected him.

I don't recall seeing anyone imply that; perhaps you mistakenly inferred it. However, I would view Obama's mandate deriving from his victory in the country-wide Presidential election as pertaining to Federal legislation, including taxation, welfare and defense spending. I view the Senate and Representative members' mandates as deriving from state-wide elections and thus pertaining to more restricted issues. Everyone had the chance to vote for Romney or Obama; no one outside Kentucky voted for McConnell.

 

That still does not mean that Obama gets everything he wants, but it does indicate, in my opinion, that on the large issues he has a mandate to proceed in the general direction of his policies.

 

One aspect of this discussion that frustrates me is that before the election, when many conservatives were quite confident that Romney would prevail, they were proclaiming that his victory would be a clear mandate for him to follow his policies and to abandon the path that we were on. Yet now that Obama has won, all we hear from them is that Obama has no mandate.

 

Quote:

It really clear that anyone who rejects the notion that a pretty fair number of people vote for him for no other reason than his is black as well and that number is larger.

If I translated that sentence correctly then my response would be that it would be interesting to know how many people did not vote for him because he is black.

 

Quote:
That means almost 8 million fewer people gave President Obama their vote than last time.

They did, but since Romney also received fewer votes than McCain, what should we conclude? That the election was closer this time? That's not very insightful.

 

Quote:
Why would you presume the government shouldn't be paralyzed in taking action? Status quo is not where we want to be with regard to the economy, but where is there proof that people want sweeping action that somehow overrides the checks and balances built into the federal system? Our government has the checks and balances it has for a reason. No one has ever been given a mandate to override them.

For the very reason that you yourself state - that the economy needs attention. Paralysis will not provide that attention, unless the attention that you would like is for it to crash sufficiently to be able to claim again in four years that Obama's policies (that he would have been blocked from implementing) were a failure. And where is anyone arguing for bypassing the checks and balances? That's a straw man.

 

Quote:
The will of the people is clearly divided as is the country in how the delivered their votes. While the election returned Barack Obama to office, it also largely returned everyone else as well including those who oppose him. Why must he do his job and they must stop doing theirs? I've read no good arguments for that in this thread. You say it is not a good option. I'm curious why you say that. I can think of nothing better than some inaction at this phase.

I cannot see how to reconcile that with your agreement that status quo is not what we want for the economy. Romney was not proposing maintaining the status quo either. No one should stop doing their job, but if the minority leader of the Senate, for example, were to say that his main goal is, instead of compromise, to ensure that the policies of the President, who was elected by a majority of the electorate, are blocked, then I would argue that he is not doing his job.

 

Quote:
His point remains in that the electoral college distorts the outcome. You can't avoid that fact. 

Disagree. His point was an attempt to use selective statistics to make the outcome of the election look closer than it was, which was pointless, because the margin in those states was not far off the popular vote margin.

 

Quote:
Is the president now supposed to ignore the will of all the people that didn't elect him? 

That question makes a mockery of the concept of democracy. No, of course he should not ignore the minority, but, by definition, he should hold more regard for the will of the majority.

post #213 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I don't recall seeing anyone imply that; perhaps you mistakenly inferred it. However, I would view Obama's mandate deriving from his victory in the country-wide Presidential election as pertaining to Federal legislation, including taxation, welfare and defense spending. I view the Senate and Representative members' mandates as deriving from state-wide elections and thus pertaining to more restricted issues. Everyone had the chance to vote for Romney or Obama; no one outside Kentucky voted for McConnell.

 

That still does not mean that Obama gets everything he wants, but it does indicate, in my opinion, that on the large issues he has a mandate to proceed in the general direction of his policies.

 

One aspect of this discussion that frustrates me is that before the election, when many conservatives were quite confident that Romney would prevail, they were proclaiming that his victory would be a clear mandate for him to follow his policies and to abandon the path that we were on. Yet now that Obama has won, all we hear from them is that Obama has no mandate.

 

You appear to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Of course President Obama has the authorization to act as president aka a mandate. However that does not give him a mandate to act outside the bounds of that office or ignore the mandates given to other elected officials. He does have a mandate to proceed in the general direction of his policies in terms of proposing legislation. However that is all he can do. Congress is congress for a reason and they are the branch that has the power to control the purse and pass the laws. That is their mandate. The president administrates and he has his mandate to do that. If he does it wrong expect his party to pay at the next midterm.

 

As for what conservatives were saying, this again related to the colloquial use of mandate to mean that which changes the previous course or that one has political capital larger than their role or office might dictate and that they can spend it to make some large changes. This use relates exactly to what Obama did in his first term. One could argue he burned the political capital in terms of goodwill of the 8 million fewer voters who now support him, the loss of control of the House of Representatives and the loss of near filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Under that colloquial use, folks like myself and others would argue that he does not have a mandate because he does not have the same outsized or excessive support to assure him and his party victory if the loss of support continues. Thus he must take a course that advances his agenda but doesn't bleed his party voters in the next election.

 

Certainly you would say to Republicans they should consider some changes to add to their voter total. Why would you not say the same to someone who lost 8 million supporters but still managed to win?

Quote:
If I translated that sentence correctly then my response would be that it would be interesting to know how many people did not vote for him because he is black.

 

No I contend there are people who voted for him exclusively because he is black.

Quote:

They did, but since Romney also received fewer votes than McCain, what should we conclude? That the election was closer this time? That's not very insightful.

 

First the latest results I have read show Romney with about 300,000 more votes than McCain garnered.

 

Well turnout overall was lower. What we can conclude is exactly what happened. America looked at what had occurred the prior two years and returned almost the exact same result to office. That would either indicate the power of incumbency is something too hard to overcome even in the most dire of times which of course doesn't provide support for Obama's agenda. It could indicate they want gridlock. That doesn't provide much support for Obama's agenda. It certainly doesn't promote the view of a strident and clear direction because the results as a whole show no such thing.

 

If these candidates were two nearly the same size companies one company lost 8 million customers but the other company stayed the same in terms of customers or managed to gain about 300,000 in a stagnant or shrinking market, who would you say has concerns going forward?

Quote:

For the very reason that you yourself state - that the economy needs attention. Paralysis will not provide that attention, unless the attention that you would like is for it to crash sufficiently to be able to claim again in four years that Obama's policies (that he would have been blocked from implementing) were a failure. And where is anyone arguing for bypassing the checks and balances? That's a straw man.

 

If one of the ways the economy needs attention is to stop government manipulation and distortion within it, then gridlock is a very good solution. If you don't think the government needs to be purchasing clunkers, giving bailouts or making loans to companies that turn around and go backrupt, then gridlock is just fine.

 

As for bypassing checks and balances, it isn't a straw man at all. The job of the minority party is to oppose and bring about compromise with their positions. They provide the check and balance. It isn't called balance if one side does whatever they want. As an example Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich. He wants tax cuts for the poor. Republicans wanted tax cuts for all. The compromise was a continuation of the Bush tax cuts passed by the lame duck Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama. When the issue comes up this time they can act and compromise or just let them expire. Both are forms of action.

Quote:
I cannot see how to reconcile that with your agreement that status quo is not what we want for the economy. Romney was not proposing maintaining the status quo either. No one should stop doing their job, but if the minority leader of the Senate, for example, were to say that his main goal is, instead of compromise, to ensure that the policies of the President, who was elected by a majority of the electorate, are blocked, then I would argue that he is not doing his job.

 

If you argue he is not doing his job, then you are arguing wrongly. His job is to be a check and balance. His job is to force the president to propose work with his party in Congress to pass legislation that garners nearly 60% support instead of merely 50% support. His job is to know the minds of his House party members and know that they will not vote for a bill that doesn't garner a certain amount of Republican support in the Senate. It isn't as if Obama is proclaiming compromise in his actions. His legislative agenda has been highly partisan. As for reconciling status quo and economy, it is because people are not purely rational and they want the gain without the pain. If you want to lose weight, you must eat and exercise properly and people claim it but seldom do it as an example. So what people claim and what they do are often in disagreement. Their words and actions often don't match but when having to choose between the two, you pick their actions instead of their words as better predictors of true intent. People don't want any pain associated with the economy re-balancing itself and trying to work through the various excesses that led to recession. They still aren't really getting what needs to be done to fix the problem because it would be more radical than they care to undertake.

 

Most of all, the job of all of these folks is to do what is right. We are from the left all the time about "tyranny of the majority" until they win an election. Then we should stand aside and bow to their wishes. It isn't even about what the majority wants but what all branches of the government will agree upon. As an example Obama ran on health care reform with no mandate. He became president and his party, against his promise, added a mandate but declared it wasn't a tax but a fine. The states sued and the Supreme Court declared it was a mandate, it wasn't a fine but a tax. That means whoever is running under the D moniker in 2016 gets to have all of the Obamacare legislation added as a tax increase to case they have to make for election or reelection. It wasn't because of one person or one branch though. There was opposition in the various branches and it was overcome in different ways in all of them.

 

How does one bring about compromise with a majority party in the legislative branch if not by threatening to without support or by slowing the legislative process? You seem to indicate they should take different actions. Articulate what those should be. Clearly you must understand that for every piece of legislation that manages to clear the House or Senate, that there are dozens of other bills and amendments to them and the bill that passed that die on the vine. Proposing legislation alone isn't the answer so tell me what is the right way to oppose yet bring about compromise. You want it so state how it should be done.

Quote:

Disagree. His point was an attempt to use selective statistics to make the outcome of the election look closer than it was, which was pointless, because the margin in those states was not far off the popular vote margin.

 

The election was close. However the results are clearly distorted by the electoral college. I stated myself that I wasn't voting for Romney because there was no way for him to secure California's electoral votes. We saw very little ad spending or GOTV efforts here as an example. Could the state have yielded more Romney votes? Sure and so could others in each direction people had to use the electoral college to determine their course of action. In almost every instance the electoral college is a winner take all system with regard to awarding electors. When you barely win within a winner take all system, then that is a close election. Bill Clinton as an example never broke 50% and in fact only got 43% of the vote in 1992 yet took 370 electoral votes. Obama took less electoral votes than that while barely crossing 50% and losing 8 million prior supporters.

Quote:
That question makes a mockery of the concept of democracy. No, of course he should not ignore the minority, but, by definition, he should hold more regard for the will of the majority.

 

If his legislation is reasonable and can garner support in the House and Senate, it will pass. His past legislative history doesn't indicate this course. The only thing bipartisan about his prior legislative proposals were opposition to it. No one is saying do not propose legislation that would garner 50+1% of the legislative bodies votes. This is especially true of the House. Instead we've seen his budgets as examples go down 99-0 in the Senate multiple times. President Obama needs to be much more bipartisan than anyone else in any branch of office. He truly must try to represent all of our interests. If he doesn't compromise and include some of my interest in his legislation. I'll let him know it through my representatives that I elected for just this purpose.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #214 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Well thanks for such a detailed post. I agree with virtually everything you wrote, even though much of it was refuting arguments that I have not intended to make, so I have little to respond to.  I absolutely agree that the checks and balances approach to government is important and that the Republicans have a duty to participate in that process. Just a couple of points:

 

Quote:

No I contend there are people who voted for him exclusively because he is black.

 

That is what I thought you meant; my response is that I contend that many voted against him because he is black. It would be interesting to understand the balance, but I doubt that we ever will.

 

Quote:

First the latest results I have read show Romney with about 300,000 more votes than McCain garnered.

 

There appears to be a discrepancy between the NYT results and the Wikipedia results, but I followed the WP link to the official government results publication, so I assume that it is correct. It indicates that Romney received around 1.2M fewer votes than McCain. Either way, I agree that Obama's vote was reduced more than Romney's wrt McCain. And given that Obama has not been able to achieve the economic recovery that he set as a goal, that is neither surprising nor unreasonable.

 

Electoral vote 365 173
States carried 28 + DC + NE-02 22
Popular vote 69,456,897[2] 59,934,814[2]
Percentage 52.9%[2] 45.7%[2]

 

Electoral vote 332 206
States carried 26 + DC 24
Popular vote 62,088,847[2] 58,783,137[2]
Percentage 50.6%[3] 47.9%[3]

 

Quote:
Well turnout overall was lower. What we can conclude is exactly what happened. America looked at what had occurred the prior two years and returned almost the exact same result to office. That would either indicate the power of incumbency is something too hard to overcome even in the most dire of times which of course doesn't provide support for Obama's agenda. It could indicate they want gridlock. That doesn't provide much support for Obama's agenda. It certainly doesn't promote the view of a strident and clear direction because the results as a whole show no such thing.

 

I think you are over-complicating it. Obama's margin in the popular vote was reduced, which certainly sends a message that he should heed, but it is still a majority in support of his agenda.

 

Quote:
If one of the ways the economy needs attention is to stop government manipulation and distortion within it, then gridlock is a very good solution. If you don't think the government needs to be purchasing clunkers, giving bailouts or making loans to companies that turn around and go backrupt, then gridlock is just fine.

 

And the "fiscal cliff"? Just do the lemming thing, which is what gridlock will achieve?

 

Quote:
As an example Obama ran on health care reform with no mandate. He became president and his party, against his promise, added a mandate but declared it wasn't a tax but a fine. The states sued and the Supreme Court declared it was a mandate, it wasn't a fine but a tax.

 

I'm sure the Supreme Court was correct, but it's not your usual kind of tax in that you only pay it if you fail to take insurance. Ideally, no one would pay that "tax". My point is that while some Republicans do gleefully point to that ruling to support their view that Obama increased the tax burden with that measure, and they are technically correct, that is not the intent of the program.

 

Quote:
If he doesn't compromise and include some of my interest in his legislation. I'll let him know it through my representatives that I elected for just this purpose.

 

I fully support that view, but I would emphasize that you (presumably) elected your representative to take a measured view of whatever is proposed and respond accordingly, not to declare up front, as some have done, that they will oppose any and all legislation proposed by Obama.

post #215 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And the "fiscal cliff"? Just do the lemming thing, which is what gridlock will achieve?

 

That's not even a real possibility. They will certainly announce a deal. The establishment (encompassing both sides) has too much to lose without one.

 

The deal won't fix the fundamentals causing the problem but it hardly ever does.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #216 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And the "fiscal cliff"? Just do the lemming thing, which is what gridlock will achieve?

 

That's not even a real possibility. They will certainly announce a deal. The establishment (encompassing both sides) has too much to lose without one.

 

The deal won't fix the fundamentals causing the problem but it hardly ever does.

 

Agreed. It would be a disaster.

post #217 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Well thanks for such a detailed post. I agree with virtually everything you wrote, even though much of it was refuting arguments that I have not intended to make, so I have little to respond to.  I absolutely agree that the checks and balances approach to government is important and that the Republicans have a duty to participate in that process. Just a couple of points:

 

You hear that world? I'm agreeable!! 1tongue.gif

 

 

Quote:

That is what I thought you meant; my response is that I contend that many voted against him because he is black. It would be interesting to understand the balance, but I doubt that we ever will.

 

I think we will and the results are not promising. You look at most blue cities or states and they become increasingly corrupt, bankrupt and hopeless because people stop voting reality and start voting their race, ethnicity or what have you. As an example Jessie Jackson Jr. just coasted to reelection. His district is 62% African-American. He was reelected even while not being able to campaign in any form or fashion due to being treated for what people claim is a bipolar disorder by in my opinion is likely hiding from the feds while waiting to plead guilty and go to prison for some period of time.

 

Regardless, the point is that once that mindset is established, nothing can move someone from it. In this instance being charged and accepting a plea deal won't have helped anyone opposing him for election at the primary or general election level. For a good percentage of Obama supporters, he has clearly made them worse off but they are voting something other than their pocketbook. They are voting for history or ethnicity or something that ignores reality.

 

 

Quote:
Either way, I agree that Obama's vote was reduced more than Romney's wrt McCain. And given that Obama has not been able to achieve the economic recovery that he set as a goal, that is neither surprising nor unreasonable.

 

Yes but we aren't reading the media narrative nor having others parrot it that Obama must engage in some sort of make over or reconsideration of his policies and goals. That meme is a one way street for the Republicans.

Quote:

I think you are over-complicating it. Obama's margin in the popular vote was reduced, which certainly sends a message that he should heed, but it is still a majority in support of his agenda.

 

Consider George W. Bush. He managed to get himself over the line for reelection in 2004. In many ways this election feels very similar. The vote feels more like they picked a known evil for an unknown one. However look at what happened to Bush in the next midterm. His party was wiped out and the fatigue of defending what he had done became too much. For now, some percentage of the electorate is still willing to buy the line (lie in my book) that all this is still the fault of Bush and that 4 years and $5 trillion dollars weren't enough to fix it. Run that out two more years though and another couple trillion dollars and a clear choice might be made instead of stalemate. People aren't supporting the president's agenda. They are fleeing it but didn't embrace the alternative yet. It's sort of like separation without the divorce. They have removed their support. If that support had gone to Romney, then the election would have been handily won by him. Instead it went....well no where. Into the air. It is non-support looking for a choice to make.

Quote:
And the "fiscal cliff"? Just do the lemming thing, which is what gridlock will achieve?

 

Perhaps you haven't read up on it much. What gridlock will achieve is massive tax increases. The fiscal cliff are wave after wave of tax increases and some spending cuts that Republicans have, in my opinion, helped save Democrats from themselves on. I am of the view they shouldn't save them any longer. No action means most of these increases go into play and we get all the revenue from the various "fat cats" and others claimed we need. The estimate is that these taxes, which we are told don't hurt economic growth and instead are just ways for greedy and mean people to keep more than they need, would instead sink the rate of growth to recession level, going from the already anemic 1.8-2% to -.5% growth.

 

Quote:
I'm sure the Supreme Court was correct, but it's not your usual kind of tax in that you only pay it if you fail to take insurance. Ideally, no one would pay that "tax". My point is that while some Republicans do gleefully point to that ruling to support their view that Obama increased the tax burden with that measure, and they are technically correct, that is not the intent of the program.

 

Technically the government provides the health care for those who do not have it and then collects the fine to help pay for it. These say technically correct Republicans have noted that since the cost of the fine is cheaper than most health care plans which are also determined in part by government regulation declaring what and who they must cover, that people will be "dumped" onto the government program and that it is thus, a backdoor path to single payer health care. Plenty of people believe that is the intent of the program.

Quote:
I fully support that view, but I would emphasize that you (presumably) elected your representative to take a measured view of whatever is proposed and respond accordingly, not to declare up front, as some have done, that they will oppose any and all legislation proposed by Obama.

 

Everyone, regardless of political or philosophical affiliation has "poison pills" that they cannot endorse. Obama can certainly propose legislation that garners 60-65% support. Every group has those who will not support the legislation no matter the compromise. However all we have seen Obama do is go right back to making the same demands. He hasn't proposed or done anything different from his prior actions and so I have no qualms in saying that those who oppose him should act no different.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #218 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
And the "fiscal cliff"? Just do the lemming thing, which is what gridlock will achieve?

 

Perhaps you haven't read up on it much. What gridlock will achieve is massive tax increases. The fiscal cliff are wave after wave of tax increases and some spending cuts that Republicans have, in my opinion, helped save Democrats from themselves on. I am of the view they shouldn't save them any longer. No action means most of these increases go into play and we get all the revenue from the various "fat cats" and others claimed we need. The estimate is that these taxes, which we are told don't hurt economic growth and instead are just ways for greedy and mean people to keep more than they need, would instead sink the rate of growth to recession level, going from the already anemic 1.8-2% to -.5% growth.

 

I'm much more concerned about the effects of the sequestration measures than the lapse of the tax cuts. I am unconvinced by the "trickle down" theory; relying on the supply side of the economy to invest tax savings in production before the demand side has recovered does not seem like a good approach.

post #219 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
And the "fiscal cliff"? Just do the lemming thing, which is what gridlock will achieve?

 

Perhaps you haven't read up on it much. What gridlock will achieve is massive tax increases. The fiscal cliff are wave after wave of tax increases and some spending cuts that Republicans have, in my opinion, helped save Democrats from themselves on. I am of the view they shouldn't save them any longer. No action means most of these increases go into play and we get all the revenue from the various "fat cats" and others claimed we need. The estimate is that these taxes, which we are told don't hurt economic growth and instead are just ways for greedy and mean people to keep more than they need, would instead sink the rate of growth to recession level, going from the already anemic 1.8-2% to -.5% growth.

 

I'm much more concerned about the effects of the sequestration measures than the lapse of the tax cuts. I am unconvinced by the "trickle down" theory; relying on the supply side of the economy to invest tax savings in production before the demand side has recovered does not seem like a good approach.

 

Wouldn't those involved with building that production capability have to earn a salary? Many would argue that the problem with the entire last recession is that it was all consumption based and no one was producing much of anything to justify what they consumed. They just borrowed it from their homes thanks to new lending guidelines and GSE purchasing the loans.

 

The point is that of course consumption can't return until we decide we want to make something again. When we make something and get paid for it, then we can spend what we've made on consumption again. We've tried swearing that internet stocks have changed the rules. Then we decided that real estate changed the rules. Our current bubble is a mix of education and government bond/stimulus projects and it will have to go too and when it does, there will be plenty of pain again.

 

There is no free lunch. This is why when I've had discussions with others and they note places like Canada Norway or Denmark, I note that they basically grab every bit of wealth they can out of the ground and sell it to the highest bidder to fund things like universal heath care and we ought to be willing to do the same. However you have to make something. You can't leave all the dirty work to the rest of the world. You can't just say, we're America. We are because we are!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #220 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Wouldn't those involved with building that production capability have to earn a salary?

 

*chirp*

 

*chirp*

 

*chirp*

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #221 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Wouldn't those involved with building that production capability have to earn a salary? Many would argue that the problem with the entire last recession is that it was all consumption based and no one was producing much of anything to justify what they consumed. They just borrowed it from their homes thanks to new lending guidelines and GSE purchasing the loans.

 

The point is that of course consumption can't return until we decide we want to make something again. When we make something and get paid for it, then we can spend what we've made on consumption again. We've tried swearing that internet stocks have changed the rules. Then we decided that real estate changed the rules. Our current bubble is a mix of education and government bond/stimulus projects and it will have to go too and when it does, there will be plenty of pain again.

 

There is no free lunch. This is why when I've had discussions with others and they note places like Canada Norway or Denmark, I note that they basically grab every bit of wealth they can out of the ground and sell it to the highest bidder to fund things like universal heath care and we ought to be willing to do the same. However you have to make something. You can't leave all the dirty work to the rest of the world. You can't just say, we're America. We are because we are!

 

Absolutely correct that building production leads to new jobs and salaries, but I think the problem is the hysteretic nature of the typical supply-demand cycle that arises from the lag between rising income and rising demand. Manufacturers typically do not ramp up supply in the hope that their own investment will generate the wealth to fuel demand for the products they are making, especially in a recessive economy. Consumption cannot return until goods are available, but demand can, and that will encourage production.

 

One other problem that will have to be faced at some point is that of persuading the manufacturing companies not to send all their production overseas, but that is true of any strategy for recovery.

post #222 of 254

Florida efforts at curbing early voting based on suppression, racism.

 

According to the former chair of the Florida GOP!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-laws_n_2192802.html

 

 

 

I guess this guy will now be labelled as not a true Republican or Fox will splash his name with a (D) marker...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #223 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Florida efforts at curbing early voting based on suppression, racism.

According to the former chair of the Florida GOP!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-laws_n_2192802.html



I guess this guy will now be labelled as not a true Republican or Fox will splash his name with a (D) marker...

Are you seriously expecting Fox to report on this at all?
post #224 of 254
Thread Starter 

Election fraud, voter intimidation and voter suppression efforts all go hand in hand. And they are practiced by both sides in the U.S.

 

There is, of course, an easy, sensible compromise that would see voter ID and intimidation laws strengthened nationally in return for nationwide standardized election times/early voting and guaranteed paper-trail ballot counting.

 

But given the tone of the current debate (like the two sarcastic, one-sided posts above), I doubt the next election will be any cleaner than this one.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #225 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Are you seriously expecting Fox to report on this at all?

 

 

 

Brief lapse of judgement.  Sorry!  Sometimes the optimist in me wins out over the realist.

 

1biggrin.gif

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #226 of 254

Really you do not think that Rick Scott is a racist by the actions he tried to pull through this election in his state Suppress voter registration. Why so the minorities will lose .Charlie C never once pulled this crap when he was the governor there.
 

post #227 of 254

Florida succeeded in discouraging almost 50,000 from voting.

 

 

19,000 would have gone Mittens.  The rest for Obama.  The need to disrupt the vote is clear... if you are Republican.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/floridas-long-lines-election-voting_n_2381482.html

 

 

 

 

Hard data.  It will be dismissed as created by a commie liberal un-Amerikan not Americian elite university and reported on by that ghastly entity the Huffington Post and therefore it should be dismissed straight out.

 

And the rest of the country and the world will shake their heads in disbelief.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #228 of 254

LINK

 

GOP SOP

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #229 of 254

The Huffington Post is Liberal so what! The Republicans always have to cry about something and make excuses just because they lost in Florida.A bunch of whiners.
 

post #230 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

LINK

 

GOP SOP

 

SJO SOP.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #231 of 254

Watched some of the ceremonies today on BBC (only channel with live video).

 

Carter is present, as is Clinton.  Is Bush there?  Bush 1 I know is recovering, but Bush 2; I didn't see him?  This is an honest question.  Do former presidents usually attend or not?

 

Mittens?  I read that he is in California and is doubtful that he will watch the inauguration.  How sweet that he continues to show his strong love for the country.

 

This is the inauguration of the duly elected president of the US.  You know, the democratic process that is supposed to set us apart and make us so special.  Doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the POTUS.  He is the POTUS.


Edited by Bergermeister - 1/21/13 at 3:23pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #232 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How sweet that he continues to show his strong love for the country.

Obama is not the country.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #233 of 254

Mittens is to ashamed to attend and so was Bush Jr.Two losers.
 

post #234 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Mittens is to ashamed to attend and so was Bush Jr.Two losers.
 

 

 

I would hope that their professed love of country would drive them to participate (or at least observe) in the primary example of our democracy as George Washington suggested: the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next.  Obama raised this very point in his speech.  

 

Key word: professed.

 

My question still stands: is it common for the former guys (and hopefully someday girls) to show up or not?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #235 of 254
Thread Starter 

So now you're calling people unpatriotic if you don't attend the other party's inauguration. It's incredible how far liberals have fallen.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #236 of 254
Thread Starter 

And remember Berg, this wasn't an inauguration that transferred power to anybody. Haven't you been paying attention?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #237 of 254

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/22/obama-inauguration-speech-republican-compromise

 

Before Obama even became president, the GOP had a senior member pledge that his most important task was to make sure that Obama would only serve one term.  He didn't say serve the people or protect the Constitution.  He said limit the duly elected POTUS.

 

The lack of compromise started back then, and it wasn't O who done it.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #238 of 254
Thread Starter 

You guys are still milking that, eh?

 

I suppose in your world, opposition politicians go around saying that they are working so that the ruling party can serve another term?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #239 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

You guys are still milking that, eh?

I suppose in your world, opposition politicians go around saying that they are working so that the ruling party can serve another term?
No. They go around saying that they will do their best to see that the ruling party serves the country in the best way possible.
post #240 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


No. They go around saying that they will do their best to see that the ruling party serves the country in the best way possible.

 

Yes, I remember now. Eight years of such lofty, inspiring, patriotic and balanced rhetoric by the left during the last Bush administration.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election Day U.S.A.