Presidential Debate(s)

[Pure Method]

Since the house votes for the President in that scenario, why would they, the Republican House, vote for Obama? Why would the Democratic Senate vote for Ryan? No, in the above scenario an Obama-Ryan ticket is not more likely. Surely, the opposite WOULD be true if the house majorities were inverted...but they're not.

am I missing something?

No. I was just engaging in some terrible non sequiturs because this election is starting to bother me.

As an American academic put it on an American academic friend's FB wall: "Why the fuck is Romney's support higher than 10% Where are all these idiots who are going to vote for him?"

Socialism is much more common in academia.

TBH, I cannot wait for the election to be over. That's gonna be a big drinking night, either way, and sadly.

[Hype]

I guess I just felt like all this Romney support came out of the woodwork for no other reason then that finally there was a polished intelligent white guy alternative to the black guy in the white house ("Not our President!" or something...)

[LJF]

I guess I just felt like all this Romney support came out of the woodwork for no other reason then that finally there was a polished intelligent white guy alternative to the black guy in the white house ("Not our President!" or something...)

That's an interesting theory, but remember Obama is just as white as he is black. Saying it is racism is I think is lazy and misses the point. Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job and it has nothing to do with him being half black and half white. But what do I know I just an idiot that is voting for Romney.

[Hype]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

I don't think anyone *just* thinks anything. People think things for reasons, even if sometimes they aren't aware of those reasons. The thing that really makes it seem like racism is that all the data points to President Obama doing quite an adequate, and sometimes excellent, job in virtually every category "Romney-voters" say they care about. But they don't seem to believe the data. That is kind of idiotic, and the only reason I can think of for otherwise reasonable people to be idiotic in that way is if they just don't want that guy in power -- but there isn't really any good reason (that's what "just don't think [he's] done a good job" means... it means you don't have a good reason... you JUST don't think he has...) not to want him in power except not liking black people.

[Pure Method]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

I don't think anyone *just* thinks anything. People think things for reasons, even if sometimes they aren't aware of those reasons. The thing that really makes it seem like racism is that all the data points to President Obama doing quite an adequate, and sometimes excellent, job in virtually every category "Romney-voters" say they care about. But they don't seem to believe the data. That is kind of idiotic, and the only reason I can think of for otherwise reasonable people to be idiotic in that way is if they just don't want that guy in power -- but there isn't really any good reason (that's what "just don't think [he's] done a good job" means... it means you don't have a good reason... you JUST don't think he has...) not to want him in power except not liking black people.

there are people who, and I think LJF likely falls into this category (correct me if I'm wrong), that do have basic philosophical differences with Obama's campaign rhetoric, particularly on economic issues and policy. Some people don't want to pay higher taxes, and may under Obama's plan. Some people are incredulous about ObamaCare, and since it doesn't kick in until January, there is no empirical data on it (though there exist imperfectly analogous data). I mean, I'm an Obama supporter, but I think it is good that there is SOME disagreement. Its extent and tone may be less valuable, but some plurality of opinion is inevitable and may (theoretically) keep all sides honest. Unfortunately, and I think some of this is due to our electoral system, we have a badly miseducated voting public and campaigns chock full of one liners, but no substance. This election, they say, will be decided by 127,000 voters in key counties in key states. The candidates pander to them, not to the rest of us. It's a bummer and I don't think it is truly befitting of the grandest empire ever, but whatever, no one really asked me.

[Pandemonium]

I guess I just felt like all this Romney support came out of the woodwork for no other reason then that finally there was a polished intelligent white guy alternative to the black guy in the white house ("Not our President!" or something...)

My opinion is this perceived closeness of this race is being pushed by the media. I might be as crazy as Larry on 12/20/12 at 11:59pm, but I firmly believe Obama will win the election by 10+ points minimum.

[Hype]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

I don't think anyone *just* thinks anything. People think things for reasons, even if sometimes they aren't aware of those reasons. The thing that really makes it seem like racism is that all the data points to President Obama doing quite an adequate, and sometimes excellent, job in virtually every category "Romney-voters" say they care about. But they don't seem to believe the data. That is kind of idiotic, and the only reason I can think of for otherwise reasonable people to be idiotic in that way is if they just don't want that guy in power -- but there isn't really any good reason (that's what "just don't think [he's] done a good job" means... it means you don't have a good reason... you JUST don't think he has...) not to want him in power except not liking black people.

there are people who, and I think LJF likely falls into this category (correct me if I'm wrong), that do have basic philosophical differences with Obama's campaign rhetoric, particularly on economic issues and policy. Some people don't want to pay higher taxes, and may under Obama's plan. Some people are incredulous about ObamaCare, and since it doesn't kick in until January, there is no empirical data on it (though there exist imperfectly analogous data). I mean, I'm an Obama supporter, but I think it is good that there is SOME disagreement. Its extent and tone may be less valuable, but some plurality of opinion is inevitable and may (theoretically) keep all sides honest. Unfortunately, and I think some of this is due to our electoral system, we have a badly miseducated voting public and campaigns chock full of one liners, but no substance. This election, they say, will be decided by 127,000 voters in key counties in key states. The candidates pander to them, not to the rest of us. It's a bummer and I don't think it is truly befitting of the grandest empire ever, but whatever, no one really asked me.

You're right. I agree with all of that, but I was specifically referring to LJF's claim about what Obama has actually done already. I don't care if he has "basic philosophical differences", even economically. Libertarians (and here I mean Nozick and Hayek, not their misled followers) do this constantly. They follow the ideology rather than the data. It's not intellectually respectable, and in some cases it results in evil that could have been avoided (trickle-down economics just IS the causing of suffering and sometimes death and lifetimes of greater hardship for a great number of people -- that's what the data shows. The converse data shows the opposite -- minimum income policies have produced amazing benefits, but because of anti-taxation ideology, and the legacy of anti-Russian sentiment, people refuse to even look at the data.

[Pure Method]

yes, yes, this is why I drink.

question: who would be in favor of a straight popular vote for the election of the american president?

I'd like a parliamentary system myself, but I don't think it maps on well with the two party system (i.e. there would be minimal change, though perhaps factions would have more i.e. some incentive to split off)

[Hype]

yes, yes, this is why I drink.

question: who would be in favor of a straight popular vote for the election of the american president?

I'd like a parliamentary system myself, but I don't think it maps on well with the two party system (i.e. there would be minimal change, though perhaps factions would have more i.e. some incentive to split off)

In the parliamentary system, the "loyal opposition" wields considerable power. I'm not sure if it's more or less power than an opposition controlled House or Senate (though we have these too, sort of).

Frankly, it's the "First Past The Post" voting method that is the biggest hindrance to accurate representation. One of the reasons the United States hasn't switched to a STV or MMP system is that it's probably unwieldy as hell to implement on a national scale with 150 million+ voters. It's easier to just count up the votes and declare winners and then use the Electoral College to try to map/track representation to actual population. You're right to point out that it causes this problem. Directly voting for the President is a bit odd too. You'd think people could just vote for a local representative who would then vote for the President (who would, you'd think, be the "leader" of their party). That's how we do it up here. At the very least at least there'd be more of an incentive to think your vote matters, since you could literally go talk to the guy you voted for.

[Romeo]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

yea, he's done nothing in 4 years.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... 035755.php

So tell me, who did you vote for in 2004?? Because that idiot did nothing but get us into a whole mess that would never take a mere 4 years to get out of

[tvrec]

Nice quip from Bill Maher on the third debate:

Mitt's entire debate strategy: What he just said, but from a white guy

https://twitter.com/billmaher/statuses/ ... 2153010177

[LJF]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

yea, he's done nothing in 4 years.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... 035755.php

So tell me, who did you vote for in 2004?? Because that idiot did nothing but get us into a whole mess that would never take a mere 4 years to get out of

Nice try, but there are two problems with what you said:

1. I voted for Kerry
2. I didn't say he's done NOTHING, I said people don't think he has done a GOOD JOB, big difference.

[tvrec]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

yea, he's done nothing in 4 years.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... 035755.php

So tell me, who did you vote for in 2004?? Because that idiot did nothing but get us into a whole mess that would never take a mere 4 years to get out of

Nice try, but there are two problems with what you said:

1. I voted for Kerry
2. I didn't say he's done NOTHING, I said people don't think he has done a GOOD JOB, big difference.

It should also be said again that there are people sharply critical of Obama from the right and the left. My perception, and this is not a wholly original one by any means, is that much of the apathy about Obama on the left is the result of his center-right positioning after the election when they thought they were voting for something different in terms of a public option for health care, the closing of Gitmo, ramping down of drone attacks, greater transparency in the political process, restoration of civil liberties infringed on by the patriot act, and so on.

[Romeo]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

yea, he's done nothing in 4 years.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... 035755.php

So tell me, who did you vote for in 2004?? Because that idiot did nothing but get us into a whole mess that would never take a mere 4 years to get out of

Nice try, but there are two problems with what you said:

1. I voted for Kerry
2. I didn't say he's done NOTHING, I said people don't think he has done a GOOD JOB, big difference.

you voted for Kerry, and the Democratic platform of that election was a "growing a strong healthy economy" "a strong American community" "standing up for the middle class" "strong healthy families"

Nothing of which Rmoney stands for. Yet you're voting for the guy who thinks Iran needs to go through Syria to get to the sea. Passed Romneycare in MA but opposes and pledges to overturn it's sister Obamacare which is the same thing. And has a proven record of outsourcing jobs overseas while in the private sector

[LJF]

Maybe us idiots just don't think Obama has done a good job

yea, he's done nothing in 4 years.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... 035755.php

So tell me, who did you vote for in 2004?? Because that idiot did nothing but get us into a whole mess that would never take a mere 4 years to get out of

Nice try, but there are two problems with what you said:

1. I voted for Kerry
2. I didn't say he's done NOTHING, I said people don't think he has done a GOOD JOB, big difference.

you voted for Kerry, and the Democratic platform of that election was a "growing a strong healthy economy" "a strong American community" "standing up for the middle class" "strong healthy families"

Nothing of which Rmoney stands for. Yet you're voting for the guy who thinks Iran needs to go through Syria to get to the sea. Passed Romneycare in MA but opposes and pledges to overturn it's sister Obamacare which is the same thing. And has a proven record of outsourcing jobs overseas while in the private sector

My vote for Kerry was more of a vote against W and no I don't think Romney will steal W's playbook or that he is exactly like W.

[chaos]

so...is trump going to swing the election with his big obama announcement? i really hate that guy.

http://www.boston.com/news/source/2012/ ... _on_y.html

Donald Trump goes on YouTube, makes President Obama an offer
Posted by Jack Pickell October 24, 2012 12:14 PM

Donald Trump has released a video on YouTube in which he offers to donate $5 million to the charity of President Obama's choice if the president will release his college applications and records as well as his passport applications and records.

He has given the president an October 31 deadline to take him up on his offer.

[farrellgirl99]

i was so disappointed in this. it didnt even produce fun gossip. epic fail

[LJF]

i was so disappointed in this. it didnt even produce fun gossip. epic fail

But for The Donald it isn't an epic fail, because he got all of that air time. He loves being in the news and talked about, so it is a win for him. It's all about The Donald.

[creep]

so...is trump going to swing the election with his big obama announcement? i really hate that guy.

http://www.boston.com/news/source/2012/ ... _on_y.html

Donald Trump goes on YouTube, makes President Obama an offer
Posted by Jack Pickell October 24, 2012 12:14 PM

Donald Trump has released a video on YouTube in which he offers to donate $5 million to the charity of President Obama's choice if the president will release his college applications and records as well as his passport applications and records.

He has given the president an October 31 deadline to take him up on his offer.

that's it???? he knows that obama isn't going to play his games and release that even if he has it. trump needs to stay out of politics.

[Essence_Smith]

Forgive me if you feel differently, but my 30 some odd years on this planet have proven to me that if you're black man doing ANYTHING...people tend to consciously and subconsciously look at you as a BLACK guy doing something...the standards we are held to are just different in the eyes of most imo...even when people say they don't do it, they do...so when a lot of people look at the job Obama's doing I think it definitely plays into it on some level...I'm not saying anyone here is doing so, but I think it bears being stated...people look at us as black first and all the stereotypes etc work their way into it...

[farrellgirl99]

and in the day of attention whores, now sarah palin has inserted herself in the libya discussion by using the term "shuck and jive" to describe obama's actions.

some people are (i believe understandably) not too happy with her terminology.

As I mentioned on “On the Record” last night, there is breaking news that just two hours after the September 11th attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, the White House and State Department knew that an Islamic terrorist group with ties to al Qaeda claimed credit for the attack. We now know that the State Department sent an email to the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI and others in the intelligence community about this Islamist group claiming responsibility. And yet for days afterwards the White House and State Department led everyone to believe that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over an obscure YouTube video that had been uploaded months prior. Anywhere from 300 to 400 people from the administration and our intelligence community would have seen that email. Why the lies? Why the cover up? Why the dissembling about the cause of the murder of our ambassador on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil? We deserve answers to this. President Obama's shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end.



- Sarah Palin

[Romeo]

Forgive me if you feel differently, but my 30 some odd years on this planet have proven to me that if you're black man doing ANYTHING...people tend to consciously and subconsciously look at you as a BLACK guy doing something...the standards we are held to are just different in the eyes of most imo...even when people say they don't do it, they do...so when a lot of people look at the job Obama's doing I think it definitely plays into it on some level...I'm not saying anyone here is doing so, but I think it bears being stated...people look at us as black first and all the stereotypes etc work their way into it...

why wasn't anyone questioning Bush's academic record because I seriously doubt he ever graduated college and if he did he barely cleared John Blutarsky's grade point average.

And isn't your passport application property of the US State Dept?

Trump is a buffoon. I hope he chokes on the aerosol from all the hairspray he uses to hold down that comb over

[Hype]

See, this is why I said what I said. The undertone of illegitimacy or inauthenticity that has tagged along with President Obama's administration. While Clinton was painted as a slick womanizer (because he literally was) and Bush as kind of an idiot (because he literally was), Obama is, in lieu of outright racism, subtly treated not as guilty of particular faults which may be extrapolations (however unfairly) from actual things he has done, but is treated systematically as illegitimate and hiding something and just plain not the right guy for the job. And as far as I can tell, there isn't any good reason for it other than racism.

The criticisms of his economic views don't hold water, not because I disagree with the objectors ideologically, but because Obama isn't guilty of what he's been accused of by that side. He is, in fact, guilty of pandering to conservatives far too much (but we know why -- Clinton had to in his first term as well, though Obama did it when he didn't have to). If anything, libertarians and independents should be voting for Obama precisely because he's not an ideologue. And yet... here we are... hence my flippant: "Racist." comments. It's worth thinking about.

[creep]

Forgive me if you feel differently, but my 30 some odd years on this planet have proven to me that if you're black man doing ANYTHING...people tend to consciously and subconsciously look at you as a BLACK guy doing something...the standards we are held to are just different in the eyes of most imo...even when people say they don't do it, they do...so when a lot of people look at the job Obama's doing I think it definitely plays into it on some level...I'm not saying anyone here is doing so, but I think it bears being stated...people look at us as black first and all the stereotypes etc work their way into it...

why wasn't anyone questioning Bush's academic record because I seriously doubt he ever graduated college and if he did he barely cleared John Blutarsky's grade point average.

to be fair everyone was saying all the shit about bush the last election. it's no different. the stuff that gets crazy and racist is when people call his a muslim and stuff like that.

[Essence_Smith]

Forgive me if you feel differently, but my 30 some odd years on this planet have proven to me that if you're black man doing ANYTHING...people tend to consciously and subconsciously look at you as a BLACK guy doing something...the standards we are held to are just different in the eyes of most imo...even when people say they don't do it, they do...so when a lot of people look at the job Obama's doing I think it definitely plays into it on some level...I'm not saying anyone here is doing so, but I think it bears being stated...people look at us as black first and all the stereotypes etc work their way into it...

why wasn't anyone questioning Bush's academic record because I seriously doubt he ever graduated college and if he did he barely cleared John Blutarsky's grade point average.

to be fair everyone was saying all the shit about bush the last election. it's no different. the stuff that gets crazy and racist is when people call his a muslim and stuff like that.

I don't think its the same thing dude...and I'm not looking at this with my black guy glasses on either...I don't think Obama's judged the same way, I don't think most are like LJF and thing of him as "biracial", I think the fact that he's a person of color and the president is highly offensive to some...Romney is only a contender because he's not as dumb as Bush and he's white...if Obama was a white guy, NO ONE would be saying this is gonna be close...true story...