Indecision 2012

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Indecision 2012

Post by Deacon » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:02 am

So it looks like Obama managed to barely beat out the half-assed Republican ticket. Black people voted for him overwhelmingly, not because he's black but because they really just universally agree with all his in/actions as president and platform for the future. Hispanics voted for him with a large majority not because he promises them free stuff and a continued shadowy existence but because...they can relate to his being half black and growing up in Muslim school before going to Harvard? Not sure. White people voted for him because it's cool or against him because they're racist. It also appears that Democrats are good hearted and cool people with reasonable ideas that are good for everybody while Republicans are angry old white assholes. And Libertarians are laughable, irrelevant quacks.

Texas would secede, but Mexico has quietly won a silent war along the border to reclaim what was once theirs by using our democracy and open arms against us.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by The Cid » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:42 pm

Thanks to the electoral college, I didn't really get a vote for the presidency. Which is fine, because I don't like either candidate and, more shockingly in this day and age, I don't really hate either candidate either. Congress is broken and our political system is pretty broken as well, so let's face it, no president is going to fix anything no matter what they are or were.

Here in Massachusetts, we had a ballot question about physician-assisted suicide. The concept was narrowly killed, which bothers me deeply. We're supposedly entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but we can only choose to waive two of those rights? I don't like to badmouth the religious, as I don't feel I am in any position to do so, but I've never been angrier with the propaganda wing of the Catholic church than I am this morning. I hope some of them live long enough to suffer the same horrible fate to which they've doomed so many Massachusetts residents.

Meanwhile, Senator Scott Brown lost to Elizabeth Warren. What bothers me about this is that Brown is very moderate, and spends a lot of time talking about trying to get everybody back to the negotiating table. I'm not sure I love his politics or even like them, but I respected the guy enough and I felt alright about having him as a senator. Elizabeth Warren, however, is little more than a cheerleader for Howard Dean, President Obama, and the Democratic Party. So rather than having senators, Massachusetts has chosen to give its Senate seats away to representatives of a national party that has no reason to do anything for Massachusetts because we'll give them our electoral votes anyway.

Say what you must about the late Senator Kennedy, but at least we knew that in times of crisis he would make sure the people here got what we needed. I've never felt that way about John Kerry and I certainly don't feel that way about Senator Elect Warren. I really hope I'm wrong about that, but it's hard to see any differently this morning.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
spikegirl7
Redshirt
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Real Name: Natalie
Gender: Female
Location: SW city, MO

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by spikegirl7 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:29 pm

Deacon wrote:So it looks like Obama managed to barely beat out the half-assed Republican ticket. Black people voted for him overwhelmingly, not because he's black but because they really just universally agree with all his in/actions as president and platform for the future. Hispanics voted for him with a large majority not because he promises them free stuff and a continued shadowy existence but because...they can relate to his being half black and growing up in Muslim school before going to Harvard? Not sure. White people voted for him because it's cool or against him because they're racist. It also appears that Democrats are good hearted and cool people with reasonable ideas that are good for everybody while Republicans are angry old white assholes. And Libertarians are laughable, irrelevant quacks.

Texas would secede, but Mexico has quietly won a silent war along the border to reclaim what was once theirs by using our democracy and open arms against us.
This is essentially why I thought he would win about six months ago, but was too polite to say. Plus I thought I was being overly cynical.

I didn't vote. A choice between Romney and Obama was not one I could make. I would feel horrible about my part in giving consent to EITHER of them. Plus I lost my wallet and there's a law in MO that says you need a photo ID to vote. And I can't get a duplicate until next week.
'What is morality?'
'Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.'

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by The Cid » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:57 pm

I don't think this election was about race. I do wonder, though, whether the Republicans could complain about it even if it was, considering that their nominee for president was essentially a stereotype of rich white men as viewed by people who dislike that group on principle. Ask a Cambridge liberal to paint a picture of "the man" that they're always complaining about, and they'll give you a veritable portrait of Mitt Romney.

I'm going to take this opportunity to point out that, for the second election in a row, a Sabermetrician (baseball stat guy) successfully predicted the outcome of the presidential election. Go Nate Silver. Telling you, baseball nerds are going to take over the world.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by ampersand » Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:12 pm

I didn't vote because, well I moved and I couldn't get registered in Oregon until about two weeks ago. After work, I went to a Denny's and while munching on cheddar cheese has browns read through the twitter feed and seeing the liberal orgasms that erupted as the realization of a second Obama term emerged.

On Google Plus, I made this comment a few moments at about 1:00 am :
I find really interesting that the status quo held: no dominating Congress, and a President that people seem to like only in cases of emergency, like Hurricane Sandy.

On the one hand, are we that naive to think the same people who was around when the economy festered will somehow come to a decision? Or do we prefer that nothing change, and hope some outside force (perhaps ourselves?) will turn the economy fully around?
After a long sleep, I've come to the conclusion that I think this election is about the latter is true: we prefer that nothing change and are now just hoping some outside force will solve the economy and every other problem around. Otherwise, we've gotten pretty good at being used to the current terrible conditions we find ourselves in. The voter's mentality is now that of a 20 - 30's aged unemployed guy living with his parents and not really wanting to go find a job.

We're hosed.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by Deacon » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:07 am

My hope is that the Republican party will pull its head out of its ass and use this as a wake-up call that the way they've been doing business and the policies they've been pushing isn't going to win out against a big-tent party that pushes platitudes in place of a platform. They refer to the Reagan years as "the good ol' days" but are unwilling to understand that The Gipper came to office with a mostly Libertarian platform. Not that he can be held up as an icon of libertarianism after joining office, but at least that was most of the attitude that he had at the time.

As much as the fundamentalist Christians may want to control social issues, they're going to have to back off. The abortion debate is over; it's legal, and that won't change. God may hate fags, but the Constitution doesn't; let them get married if they want. And stop pretending gay people can't be effective soldiers. Science is logical and verifiable; nothing about the cosmos seems particularly intelligently designed, so stop pushing that baseless mythology be taught in schools. In fact, make an about-face and champion scientific literacy and competence in the populace, with an emphasis on critical thinking. Marijuana isn't in itself a gateway drug; if it ever fills that role it's because you insist on continuing its prohibition...at least ignore it as an issue. Plus, you're all for tobacco taxes, so let potheads finally carry their fair share. The 10 Commandments are mostly about a deity and his worshipers; stop arguing about bringing any particular god into schools or courtrooms.

Champion more freedom and acknowledge that means that some people will get to do things and be people you don't like so that you get to be free to do things and be people that they don't like. Champion less government control--not just shift who it is being controlled or what that control will look like. After much consideration, take stances even on controversial issues and stick by them throughout the course of the election at least, and be prepared to show concretely why you've decided it's best for America, not just women in Ohio or Mexicans in Arizona. Don't just say no to enabling chronic leeches on society, but offer alternative solutions (teach a man to fish). Come down hard on corporate malfeasance and complex, hollow, high-risk monetary and investment instruments that build a fragile bubble in favor of actual sound fiscal regulations that are simple and largely leave regular business to continue. Drastically simplify the tax code, compromising somewhere between the swiss-cheese maze we have now and a flat tax, showing how the Warren Buffets of the world won't be able to avoid paying "their fare share" if we're all paying equally in proportion to what we're receiving.

Yeah, it may not be an easy sell, and it may take a cycle or two for people to come around, but right now Obama and hideous power-hungry hags like Pelosi have managed to spin you into embarrassing angry old white men, and you're being marginalized as a result. If the Dems would've backed off their own stark-raving anti-freedom positions on gun control, arbitrary environmentalist ideals, and government interference in even the smallest parts of our lives, they probably would've won a lot more House seats than they did and probably a few more Senate seats, too.

And really, please stop putting up the soulless and brainless as primaries with angry wackjobs as VP's. Seriously.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by collegestudent22 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:51 am

The Cid wrote:I'm going to take this opportunity to point out that, for the second election in a row, a Sabermetrician (baseball stat guy) successfully predicted the outcome of the presidential election. Go Nate Silver. Telling you, baseball nerds are going to take over the world.
Is it really a prediction if you leave a possibility the other guy could win? And how on Earth can you put numerical probability on an election? "If we do the 2012 presidential race 10 times from this point, Obama will win 9 of them...."

It's case probability. To consider numbers as accurate and useful is nonsense.
Yeah, it may not be an easy sell, and it may take a cycle or two for people to come around, but right now Obama and hideous power-hungry hags like Pelosi have managed to spin you into embarrassing angry old white men, and you're being marginalized as a result.
The votes are decided by the idiots who vote based on TV ads. Mostly on the basis of whether they are promised "free" shit, paid for by stealing from their neighbors through taxation. That will not change. Which is one reason why democracy is doomed to fail in the long run - it becomes ever more increasingly unviable economically.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

bagheadinc
Bay Harbor Butcher
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:25 pm
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: Male
Location: Fruitland, MD

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by bagheadinc » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:01 am

collegestudent22 wrote:Is it really a prediction if you leave a possibility the other guy could win?
It's a forecast.
collegestudent22 wrote:And how on Earth can you put numerical probability on an election?
Polling data.
Image

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by collegestudent22 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:16 am

bagheadinc wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:Is it really a prediction if you leave a possibility the other guy could win?
It's a forecast.
Which is not numerical. Or if it is, it is based on the same failure to understand probability.
collegestudent22 wrote:And how on Earth can you put numerical probability on an election?
Polling data.
That could tell you that Obama would likely get, say, 52% of the vote (plus or minus some error), if it were to occur today, and some different number if long-term trends hold. To say something like "Obama has an 84.3% chance of winning" is just bad understanding of probability.

Look, it's one thing to say "I think Obama has a high chance of winning the election". But any numerical attachment here is mere metaphor (basically, it is the same thing discussed here with regard to the 1944 election).
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

bagheadinc
Bay Harbor Butcher
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:25 pm
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: Male
Location: Fruitland, MD

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by bagheadinc » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:24 am

collegestudent22 wrote:Which is not really numerical. Or if it is, it is based on the same failure to understand probability.
Yup, not numerical at all. Absolutely no math goes into forecasting.

collegestudent22 wrote:That could tell you that Obama would likely get, say, 52% of the vote (plus or minus some error), if it were to occur today, and some different number if long-term trends hold. To say something like "Obama has an 84.3% chance of winning" is just bad understanding of probability.
It's not about saying "Obama would win 9 times out of 10", it's about predicting what people will do based on existing data. It's the foundation of sabermetrics.
Image

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by collegestudent22 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:19 am

bagheadinc wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:Which is not really numerical. Or if it is, it is based on the same failure to understand probability.
Yup, not numerical at all. Absolutely no math goes into forecasting.
Like I said, if it is, then it is nonsense. Statistics cannot predict percentages of outcomes on unique cases. It makes no sense to do so.
It's not about saying "Obama would win 9 times out of 10", it's about predicting what people will do based on existing data. It's the foundation of sabermetrics.
The "chance of winning" being 85% or whatever is precisely equivalent to saying that 85 out of 100 times, this person would win. Sabermetrics analyzes repeatable phenomenon of a certain class. How many at-bats of Ken Griffey Jr. will be home runs is a class of events - the particulars of each at-bat are unknown. An election is not such a class of events - each one is unique, involving different individuals, different factors, and so on. It makes sense to say that 3 out of 10 times, a hit by A-Rod will be a double, or that 56.4% of times Player X is pitching to a right-handed player, he will get a strikeout. It is nonsense to speak of a presidential candidate having a 80% chance of winning - there is no objective measure of such probability. Numerical probability means, by definition, the number of cases that are expected to result in a given outcome out of the total number of given cases.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Indecision 2012

Post by ampersand » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:37 am

Well, take an election divide by fifty, then divide it again by the number of counties or parishes, and I'd say that's a very repeatable event.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Indecision 2012

Post by Deacon » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:50 am

I just spotted on Facebook the first time people were called selfish for voting their conscience for a 3rd party, as Ohio went to Obama for less than the 3rd party vote. Stupid selfish Libertarians.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
spikegirl7
Redshirt
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Real Name: Natalie
Gender: Female
Location: SW city, MO

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by spikegirl7 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:19 am

It would be nice if the republican party woke up and realized the religious fundamentalist slant is not the one to take, wouldn't it? It would be nice to see them stop obsessing over gay marriage, and intelligent design, and putting big displays of the ten commandments on public land. It would also be nice if every Thursday was free donut day. Not gonna happen.

They're gonna keep going that slant though, because those people give them a lot of money and votes. They're gonna keep giving favors to certain businesses, and over-regulating others. They get a lot of money from all over to keep those regulations going.
'What is morality?'
'Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.'

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Indecision 2012

Post by collegestudent22 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:52 am

ampersand wrote:Well, take an election divide by fifty, then divide it again by the number of counties or parishes, and I'd say that's a very repeatable event.
Only if the states, counties, and parishes are all equivalent cases. This is obviously not so. The election in Texas and the one in California do not have equal likelihood of going to each candidate. They are themselves unique events.
Deacon wrote:I just spotted on Facebook the first time people were called selfish for voting their conscience for a 3rd party, as Ohio went to Obama for less than the 3rd party vote. Stupid selfish Libertarians.
I know, right? How dare they express discontent with the fact that both candidates were for more war, more spending, more inflation, and more government interference "in the bedroom and boardroom".
spikegirl7 wrote:It would be nice if the republican party woke up and realized the religious fundamentalist slant is not the one to take, wouldn't it?
I think part of the reasoning is that successive losses would force them to become more libertarian, or be replaced by the Libertarian party. Of course, this requires people to stop supporting them on the ground that they will lose anyway. And it certainly requires people to stop buying into the dual propaganda of "voting as civic duty" and "voting your conscience is a waste".

Also, Romney didn't really take the fundamentalist slant, either. He took, basically, the Democratic stance, claimed to hate business less and like the military more, and assumed he would win because Obama was just so bad. The problem is that the options the GOP advances are either a "moderate Big Tent" Democrat-lite or "crazy fundamentalist".
Last time I looked, curing the sick and feeding the poor was in the bible, which is what the GOP is totally against.
Is this nonsense still believed? Really?
Bastiat wrote:We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
Very, very few people are against "curing the sick" or "feeding the poor". They are against the use of compulsion to force people to do this in amounts that others deem acceptable. They are further against having government do it because it just isn't economically sound.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 2 guests