The General American Politics Thread

[turbojet]

I'm more shocked that Clarence Thomas and Scalia actually agreed with the majority thus making it unanimous.

Troubling times, indeed.

[Solkia]

Saw this on Tumblr. Don't know if it's true. Sorry if it's old news.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Solkia-kun

[VO.SUPER]

*Sigh* A president doesn't make things better, he just prevents things from getting worse, and in this case, I feel things are gonna get worse. You know, I'm surprised Gen X is so conservative, considering the stuff they advocated in the 60s.

[Patticus]

Saw this on Tumblr. Don't know if it's true. Sorry if it's old news.

That looks like a Conservative's wet dream... but that diagram seems far too certain about all those swing states going or staying red (where are the toss-up states?), and it doesn't seem to be backed up by any corroborating data.

This is probably a better map right now, although we may see some surprise swings if the "Solid South" really does have a more nuanced political landscape, due to recent demographic changes, and I can only see that benefiting the incumbent leader.

[Shan Zhu]

Not really a fan of Huffpost analysis either. Personally, I'd stick to Gallup data and personal analysis.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[Patticus]

That might indeed be the better site, but I find the seeming decline in Democratic-leaning states and the rise in Republican-leaning states to be really rather disquieting (and the way the map changes to the GOP leaning data automatically when I select 2011 after 2010 on anything other than the GOP data set is an annoying bug).

What's the word on their 2012 states, if any? I'm only seeing 2009-2011 data there on the map interface.

With Romney caving in to the extremist Tea Party movement and grabbing Paul Ryan as his VP choice, thereby legitimizing the Tea Party movement's takeover of the Republican Party, the prospect of their victory (if they are to win, which is by no means a certainty; I still think Obama is more likely to win) fills me with a deep sense of unease, even dread. Perhaps I have bought into the Democrat propaganda too much, but I just don't see the RR-ticket winning as being anything other than a complete failure of the average American voter's intelligence.

[Shan Zhu]

They update state-by-state data on an annual basis, but you can find current statistics on the overall vote and specific groups (gender, region, age, race, income, education level, etc.) at the 2012 demographics here. It also provides the data for comparison in previous years in the Races and Candidates groups.

This article also covers current state data for Obama's approval rating.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[Stacy]

Saw this on Tumblr. Don't know if it's true. Sorry if it's old news.

I hope that doesn't happen.

Anyway, today's GOP douche baggery comes from Republican Todd Akin who is running for Senate, suffice to say what a arsehole.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/legitimate-rape-politician-urged-bow-104512526.html

What is he George?

[turbojet]

Florida is iffy because the strong Latino vote. Ohio is also a bit iffy because the recession hit hard there. Really, Romney has to gain a lot more for Obama to lose. Obama just needs Florida or Ohio.

[Conando]

I would think a lot of places might be iffy right now, due to me finding it hard to believe the elderly population want someone coming in and screwing with the medicare they need once they retire. Of course, anyone else who needs it would probably be thinking the same but, I guess you never know.

[Patticus]

Florida is iffy because the strong Latino vote. Ohio is also a bit iffy because the recession hit hard there. Really, Romney has to gain a lot more for Obama to lose. Obama just needs Florida or Ohio.

Also: because the Republican governor of this state is a complete tool. Ohio needs to go blue again for a significant amount of time or it's just going to stay screwed. Damn Republicans and their irrational hatred of infrastructure projects...

[Kevin]

Also: because the Republican governor of this state is a complete tool. Ohio needs to go blue again for a significant amount of time or it's just going to stay screwed. Damn Republicans and their irrational hatred of infrastructure projects...

Same with Florida with its governor as well considering the things he's done and the fact that he's the least popular governor in the country.

[Patticus]

Same with Florida with its governor as well considering the things he's done and the fact that he's the least popular governor in the country.

If I recall, that man shut down the state's only Tuberculosis clinic during the worst TB outbreak in a generation, then tried to cover it up. Or something like that. Absolutely horrendous. If he remains past this November, I and many others (probably including yourself) will quite rightly be bitterly disappointed.

Speaking of Florida, here's an actual billboard in Tampa (one of many similar/identical ones throughout the city) which all the GOP delegates heading to the Republican National Convention will very soon be treated to:

http://www.miamihera...convention.html

Epic.

.

Also, the stadium in which their National Convention will loudly proclaim, "We built this"? Yeah... 62% of the funding to construct that place came from the government.

Apparently rejecting a more controversial “You Didn’t Really Get Raped, Pregnant Lady” theme for its 2012 convention, the GOP has announced that its Tuesday night session will be themed “We Built This!” The sentiment serves as both a celebration of American entrepreneurship and an attack on President Obama’s previous comments to business owners. President Obama received criticism over his remark, “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you [business owners] to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

However, the stadium where the GOP will be announcing “We Built This!” was financed primarily by the government. The Tampa Bay Times Forum arena, which houses the Tampa Bay Lightning, was built in 1996 as the “Ice Palace” with 62% government funds. The total budget for the project was $139 million, of which public money accounted for $86 million and team money accounted for $53 million

http://www.thedailyd...vernment-funds/

Amazing scenes. It's almost as if marrying the Tea Party via Ryan's VP pick sliced 50 IQ points off every member of the GOP leadership.

[Conando]

The best part about that is how they still ignore the whole other sentence in what Obama said. You know about, them not building the roads and other such things that are important to many businesses.

[Patticus]

The best part about that is how they still ignore the whole other sentence in what Obama said. You know about, them not building the roads and other such things that are important to many businesses.

Because apparently having a well maintained, up-to-date national transportation infrastructure built with government funding is not a vitally important part of making any business a success.

The Bizzaro World logic that must go into that kind of thinking blows my mind.

[-Robin-]

The 2008 Republican Convention was ravaged by Hurricane Gustav. Hurrican Issaclooks like it's going to cancel the 2012 convention.

I'm guessing God's a Democrat.

[Patticus]

The 2008 Republican Convention was ravaged by Hurricane Gustav. Hurrican Isaac looks like it's going to cancel the 2012 convention.

Rush Limbaugh has an opinion on this, because he's such a massive unhinged far-right dick who wants to believe that literally everything bad somehow involves Obama:

The National Hurricane Center is Obama…The National Weather Service is part of the Commerce Department. It is Obama.

You know what it is in the media, it’s all about the hurricane hitting next week and they’re not talking about Biden,” Limbaugh continued. “They are talking about this Hurricane Isaac thing.

We, who live in south Florida, become experts on it and we don’t need the National Hurricane Center — we don’t need all these weather dolts analyzing this for us.

I can see Obama sending FEMA in in advance of the hurricane hitting Tampa so that the Republican convention is nothing but a bunch of tents in Tampa…A bunch of RVs and stuff. Make it look like a disaster area before the hurricane even hits there.

I wouldn't be surprised if this thing hits in Louisiana someplace, before it’s all said and done, just kidding!

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/08/22/limbaugh-obama-is-hopeful-hurricane-will-hit-ta/189503

What a complete moron.

[Nepenthe]

I really do think Rush Limbaugh doesn't believe most of the shit he says on the radio, but he does it anyway because he's turned this kind of fear-mongering radio into an extremely lucrative business. For better or worse, he's a mere showman; he'll pray upon unfounded, xenophobic fears about Obama to make a quick buck. It's immoral as all hell, but I'm rarely ever concerned about him anymore because he doesn't have direct political power anymore than someone like Rachel Maddow does. But people like Todd Akin- who's absolute pro-life stance involves such logical leaps that he honestly thinks a woman can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape"- do have political power however, and that's the truly scary bit.

[Stacy]

For better or worse, he's a mere showman; he'll pray upon unfounded, xenophobic fears about Obama to make a quick buck.

That sounds a lot like Alex Jones, maybe Rush Limbaugh is Alex Jones in disguise.

[Patticus]

I would say that something equally scary is not the fact that Limbaugh may or may not believe in the bile he pumps from his mouth every day (he most assuredly knows that he is a demagogue like Beck, Palin et al), its the fact that a lot of people of voting age listen to him and take him seriously, Mitt Romney included. He may not believe what he says, but many across the more conservative, red-leaning states do, and that is a scary thing indeed.

[Shan Zhu]

On a side note, no reasonable conservative (i.e. one who's not looking to make trouble/get into a fight) is ever going to say anything in this topic because the tone is... well, kind of abusive of them.

I'm not meaning to insult anyone or go off on a meta-thread argument. I'm just trying to point out a dynamic that might not be obvious to those who are used to this lack of civility when talking about Republicans.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[VO.SUPER]

On a side note, no reasonable conservative (i.e. one who's not looking to make trouble/get into a fight) is ever going to say anything in this topic because the tone is so unbearably hateful :|

I'm not meaning to insult anyone or go off on a meta-thread argument. I'm just trying to point out a dynamic that might not be obvious to those who are used to this lack of civility when talking about Republicans.

Are you one? Because, I'd actually like to read a reasonable conservative's opinion on this matter.

[Shan Zhu]

Are you one? Because, I'd actually like to read a reasonable conservative's opinion on this matter.

^^;; well, which topic specifically.. ? The election in general is a pretty big topic

Edited August 23, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[VO.SUPER]

^^;; well, which topic specifically.. ? The election in general is a pretty big topic

So, I guess I can take that as a yes?

Well, what do you think of the candidates and their decisions over the course of this election.

[Shan Zhu]

I feel a bit awkward posting this after suggesting the tone was a bit abusive ^^;; Wasn't really planning on posting my own views and it didn't occur to me (stupidly) that someone might ask.

So, I guess I can take that as a yes?

It's complicated :3;; I'm not "conservative" in the way the mainstream Republican party is "conservative," and I'm not a libertarian like Ron Paul.

But I do have certain beliefs that are more in line with them than with their Democratic opponents. Um, I guess I'll do my best to explain the most important ones, although it's hard to say briefly, and I apologize if it ends up being a tl;dr sort of dealio x_x

I'm Burkean, which means I'm skeptical about what we supposedly know about how society works. I believe social institutions arise organically in response to survival-obstacles and utility-obstacles and that they thus operate with multifaceted purposes that observing social planners will never be able to fully account for. Because of this, I think revolutionary changes to traditional structures according to a rational or "just" scheme tend to produce highly destructive unintended consequences. Instead, I favor slow reform that respects old institutions, especially familial and civil institutions.

I'm Tocquevillian, which means I think democracy is most effective in the form of local, civil institutions, and that these are destroyed by large central governments, even if those governments form by representative methods. Because of this, I prefer a local approach to a national approach, and I'm very cautious about expanding federal power even for seemingly good causes.

I'm Hayekian, which means I think the free market takes advantage of tacit information not available to social planners, and that because of this markets are much more efficient distributors of wealth and capital than government agencies. Many of my Burkean ideas also come from F.A. Hayek's social philosophy.

Finally, I have a basically Kantian understanding of personal ethics, although I wouldn't use Kantian reasoning necessarily to justify that. What that means is I think people are fundamental moral ends by the fact of their agency (free will). Because of this, I don't think it's appropriate, even for the government, to use other people as mere means to an end.

While I recognize some (Rawlsian) government institutions can behave justly, treating the people as moral ends, my experience is that corruption and misuses are much more common in government than "just" efficiency. Because of this, I think governments have a tendency to behave immorally, and that this tendency grows as the government's power grows, no matter how moral the rulers are.

I also think that, although I don't agree with Republicans on a lot of issues, there's some real brainpower behind them. I defend them largely because I don't think they're the idiots everyone makes them out to be.

Well, what do you think of the candidates and their decisions over the course of this election.

Well, I think both politicians have acted more or less like politicians. That is, they're running very propagandistic campaigns that have very little grounding in any sort of fact or relevance. I understand that; it's not their fault that the important details of the big issues are way too numerous and complex to fit into a speech.

As for their policies, um, there's a lot of stuff, so I'll just cover the highlights. Again, sorry if it's long ^^;;

I think Obama's basic presidency has been destructive. The growth in discretionary spending under his administration is going to be a difficult burden in the long-run, and I'm skeptical of its efficacy in recovery. While some stimulus spending represents government investment, I find all too much of it being directed towards bad investments and political interests--and all of it represents long-term tax burden and

deadweight loss.

As for the ACA, while I think the NHS is a reasonable system, the ACA is nothing like the NHS. Rather than form a single-payer program that complements the private sector, it instead gives a de-facto oligopoly to insurance companies that manage to acquire licensure from whatever regulatory committee; then it applies a penalty to those who don't buy from them. This will tend towards regulatory capture of the kind that will breed deep corruption and inefficiency across the medical payer system. I would prefer to see it dismantled and replaced with something more similar to the NHS, but I'd endure the travesties of an unregulated private sector rather than have the ACA stand.

Also, the passage of the ACA was a mess. At this point, if we believe everyone, it was a (not) tax with(out) a penalty that originated in the Senate (I mention this because all tax bills are required to originate in the House). I understand this kind of thing to be more destructive than most people suppose because it's corrosive of the institutions that determine how laws are passed and maintained. Those are important processes in terms of balancing federal power.

I also think Obama has abused the executive order in order to realize his policy concerns, and that he has further unconstitutionally refused to enforce certain laws that don't meet his approval. While I sympathize with him in some cases (gay marriage laws), I see this unique move in presidential history as very destructive of the balance of power in American government. What would we say, for example, if Congress were to raise upper-bracket tax rates, and Romney refused to prosecute anyone who didn't pay? The executive has way too much power if we don't accept the "faithful execution" clause in the Constitution.

Finally, I was disappointed by Obama's foreign policy, which seem to be basically a continuation of Bush-era "might makes right." The regime under his command has continued to ignore national sovereignties and does much to diminish US influence abroad. The drone assassinations in Pakistan are a perfect example: I think they're illegal, that they undermine US influence in Pakistan, and that it encourages instability in one of the most dangerous nuclear powers in the world.

That said, I'm glad he wants to maintain a major naval presence in the Pacific, and I think his view of gay marriage is more or less the right one. I also approve of what he's done to remove the US military commitment in Iraq. I think the Iraq War was one of the biggest mistakes of the last few decades.

As for Romney, I would expect him to behave basically like Bush, which is to say very, very badly :|

Edited August 24, 2012 by Shan Zhu