2012 Election Thread

[theseoafs]

No no no, I was being completely serious.  The wealth of the surrounding area plays directly into the quality of your local school because they get more money from taxes; I doubt Romney played a huge role if his schools are indeed no. 1.

[Chino]

No no no, I was being completely serious.  The wealth of the surrounding area plays directly into the quality of your local school because they get more money from taxes; I doubt Romney played a huge role if his schools are indeed no. 1.

I disagree with that though. I'm proposing that the areas that are ranked best in education are not so because the areas have money to pay for the education, but rather the households with the money continue the education outside of the classroom. If that makes sense. Washington DC has some of the most funds going toward education in the state, and yet the education level is shit.

[Implode]

And kids from higher income families tend to care more about their education than kids from low income families.

[theseoafs]

^Yep.  I'm not saying wealth somehow makes families care more about education, but there's definitely a correlation.

[Super Dude]

The PBS thing really bothered me, especially when Romney made the comment "Don't get me wrong, I love PBS"... yeah. like PBS is really THAT big of an expense compared to all the other shit this government pisses money away on. Lets take away the one thing on TV that still tries to encourage kids to learn and has really awesome shows like NOVA Science Now. Jesus Christ. Absolutely ridiculous that that was even brought up in discussion.  It made me sick.

That's the idea.

[bosk1]

Chino, I fail to see why you feel the incessant need to lace every one of your posts with race issues.  Let me make it clear that racist posts, even ones containing subtle, indirect racism, are against the forum rules.  Please cease such posts immediately.  Consider this your warning.

[Chino]

Chino, I fail to see why you feel the incessant need to lace every one of your posts with race issues.  Let me make it clear that racist posts, even ones containing subtle, indirect racism, are against the forum rules.  Please cease such posts immediately.  Consider this your warning.

Noted. I only brought that up because in my post prior to the one with the chart, I said;

The household is the main factor in determining how a child will perform in school. The more money in a house hold the more likely the kids are to perform well. I look at my state, CT. The areas with the highest incomes have some the highest grades and the areas with the lowest incomes have the lowest grades. There is not a lack of quality teachers in the in cities of my state. If anything, there are more teachers, and of better quality in those areas.

I don't know how this board perceives me now. I feel as though I bring up race very infrequently in my posts. You make it sound like I have been on the verge of racism for a long time and I'm starting to get a little braver with it or something. The fact is, I'm not racist, and I certainly don't want people to think I am. I just thought that because of that library thread, some members on here now view me as such. I thought that some members may have interpreted that last post of me hinting at people of color or ghettos (which wasn't the case) as the reason behind crappy education. I included it in the chart to show that the factor lies in the average household income, and is in no way directly correlated to race or ethnicity, which I feared some may have thought I was implying.

Maybe I just over thought it. My bad.

[Super Dude]

To be fair, I think it's a causal link that starts in the reverse direction. Current ghetto residents wouldn't be living in a ghetto - that is, their areas would not be deeply impoverished - if not for a dismal local public schooling system. The lack of proper education perpetuates a vicious cycle that keeps the area and the people in it in significant poverty. And then the impoverishment of the urban municipality itself, as a direct result of the lack of economic growth, can't afford to improve the schools.

[theseoafs]

On a lighter note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dF3OS-2WPPs

[bosk1]

Chino, I fail to see why you feel the incessant need to lace every one of your posts with race issues.  Let me make it clear that racist posts, even ones containing subtle, indirect racism, are against the forum rules.  Please cease such posts immediately.  Consider this your warning.

Noted. I only brought that up because in my post prior to the one with the chart, I said;

The household is the main factor in determining how a child will perform in school. The more money in a house hold the more likely the kids are to perform well. I look at my state, CT. The areas with the highest incomes have some the highest grades and the areas with the lowest incomes have the lowest grades. There is not a lack of quality teachers in the in cities of my state. If anything, there are more teachers, and of better quality in those areas.

I don't know how this board perceives me now. I feel as though I bring up race very infrequently in my posts. You make it sound like I have been on the verge of racism for a long time and I'm starting to get a little braver with it or something. The fact is, I'm not racist, and I certainly don't want people to think I am. I just thought that because of that library thread, some members on here now view me as such. I thought that some members may have interpreted that last post of me hinting at people of color or ghettos (which wasn't the case) as the reason behind crappy education. I included it in the chart to show that the factor lies in the average household income, and is in no way directly correlated to race or ethnicity, which I feared some may have thought I was implying.

Maybe I just over thought it. My bad.

Don't worry about it.  I was totally kidding because I think any accusations of "racism" based on your recent posts are pretty ridiculous.  Just trying to add a bit of levity.

[Implode]

Don't worry Chino. I don't think you're racist. That's all that counts, right?

[Chino]

To be fair, I think it's a causal link that starts in the reverse direction. Current ghetto residents wouldn't be living in a ghetto - that is, their areas would not be deeply impoverished - if not for a dismal local public schooling system. The lack of proper education perpetuates a vicious cycle that keeps the area and the people in it in significant poverty.

I think the schools are just a small portion of a much greater problem in areas like that. It's the type of entertainment, the parenting situations, the ongoing cycle of family members in and out of jail, accepting in your head from the youngest of ages that you have no chance at making it in life, feeling like there is no point in trying etc... There are so many little problems, the school system being one of them. I'm not sure if it is the lack of a school system that perpetuates the vicious cycle, or if it is the vicious cycle that perpetuates the never improving school systems. I have a hard time putting them both in the same cycle.

I feel as though, even if the school systems were top notch (brand new facilities, up to date technology and books, a 10:1 student teacher ratio, student supply expenses covered, etc), I don't think it would make much a difference on those areas. The students don't have the desire to utilize that stuff because the society reinforces in their heads it's pointless. However, if you could improve the areas, young kids may feel more confident that school could do them good. My best bud manages the events and community service schedules of a few half-way houses and people that are on probation/need community service in the city next to our town. He sees all sides of the equation. He deals with groups of people at a time, driving them as groups to and from events, then participates in whatever activity it is they are doing. He say a lot of the people are eager to open up to him for some reason. He tells me stories about him working with 30 year guys with kids in their teenage years, and how they after school bring their kids out on the streets and show them the ropes of gang activities and ways you can make quick cash. That to me a huge problem, that is the problem. The prison like mentality on the streets is a recipe for disaster. When life becomes more about survival than it is about thriving, one looses all hope to better themselves.

[Cedar redaC]

on another lighter note, enjoy this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQu2SVFF-cU

I don't care who you vote for, you should at least smile once.

[Chino]

Don't worry about it.  I was totally kidding because I think any accusations of "racism" based on your recent posts are pretty ridiculous.  Just trying to add a bit of levity.

  You had me scared there for a minute!

Don't worry Chino. I don't think you're racist. That's all that counts, right?

 

[yeshaberto]

yeah, bosk, you had me going as well.  I was trying to think back to what he said that was racist 

btw, the way you handled what was perceived as a warning was commendable, Chino 

[theseoafs]

I vote that Chino changes his personal title to "DTF's resident racist"

[Tick]

Romney was cool and confident from the start. Obama had an awkward deer in the headlights look. The president looked worn out and weak. That's how I saw it from the first 5 minutes to the finish. I thought as far as debates go, Romney crushed Obama last night.

Agreed, although I wouldn't say he "crushed" Obama.  But Romney clearly came out on top.  There's really no question.  Obama totally phoned it in.  I don't know if maybe he was distracted because yesterday was his 20th wedding anniversary, or maybe he just didn't expect Romney to as meticulously prepared as he was, but a couple of more weak debate performances like this could be damaging to Obama's campaign.  The election is still very close and with razor thin margins like this, every undecided independent is important.

I'm mainly hoping Sigz is right and Obama is just pulling his punches for now.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that theory. No one is going to have an under perform strategy. It makes little sense. You can't bank on a good performance in the future so its seize the day.

Romney was cool and confident from the start. Obama had an awkward deer in the headlights look. The president looked worn out and weak. That's how I saw it from the first 5 minutes to the finish. I thought as far as debates go, Romney crushed Obama last night.

Agreed, although I wouldn't say he "crushed" Obama.  But Romney clearly came out on top.  There's really no question.  Obama totally phoned it in.  I don't know if maybe he was distracted because yesterday was his 20th wedding anniversary, or maybe he just didn't expect Romney to as meticulously prepared as he was, but a couple of more weak debate performances like this could be damaging to Obama's campaign.  The election is still very close and with razor thin margins like this, every undecided independent is important.

Judging by the charismatic standard by which Obama is held to would be the reason I used crushed. I honestly thought he was going to have his way with Romney. That sure was not the case.
Any way you choose to word it, Obama was soundly beaten.

[Scheavo]

No no no, I was being completely serious.  The wealth of the surrounding area plays directly into the quality of your local school because they get more money from taxes; I doubt Romney played a huge role if his schools are indeed no. 1.

I disagree with that though. I'm proposing that the areas that are ranked best in education are not so because the areas have money to pay for the education, but rather the households with the money continue the education outside of the classroom. If that makes sense. Washington DC has some of the most funds going toward education in the state, and yet the education level is shit.

One thing I think that needs to be added to the discussion is that a lot of poor people work long and hard hours for shit pay, and when you work long hours you don't have time to be there for your kids as much. That is probably going to impact education a lot, and it has nothing to do (directly, at least) with race. In the end, I'd say household economics plays a huge role in what we're discussing, and that question is answered in a completely different way.

From the standpoint of what the public wanted to see, yeah, I'd say that Myth won the debate (as much as won and debate actually apply to these things).  However, from my perspective, it made me like Obama and despise Romney even more.  Like I've said, it was a guy doing GOP voiceovers vs a guy talking to people like he was trying to relate to them.  Yeah, he came off sounding insecure, but compared to the phoniness of Romney's speeches, I found that refreshing. 

Ya, one funny thing for me was when the media is talking about not liking the moderation, talking about how poor the speech was executed, etc, they were doing a rather shoddy job of deciding who the winner was based solely upon pose. If this was on radio, I wonder how things would have turned out?

I still don't think Obama will punch that hard - not in the actual debates. He never has, even when McCain called out some straight up bullshit. Seems to me that's a characteristic highly in his favor, especially when the other side tries to claim him for being divisive. Actions speak louder than words.

[snapple]

My wife and I cut out going out to eat as often. Not that it made a huge difference in our budget, but all of the little things certainly do add up. Boohoo. PBS gets shit loads of money from other revenue streams. Making an issue out of this is flat fucking retarded.

/rant

That's the Facebook status I want to post.

[Sigz]

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

Summary

We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.

Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.

Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.

Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.

Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.

Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.

Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.

Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.

Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.

Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said “up to” 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employersponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are “out of work” when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or underemployed. And he again said Obama “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow.

[Chino]

Romney also guaranteed to create a minimum of 12 million jobs. I'd love to know how he plans on doing that, whether or not they are just going to be cashiers and broom pushers, and whether or not they are going to be in this country.   

[theseoafs]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sasha-obama-asks-father-why-he-was-acting-like-suc,29795/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default 

[Sigz]

Sources added that Obama’s youngest daughter then offered to help the president go “look for [his] dick, because apparently it’s gone missing.”

 

[eric42434224]

Romney also guaranteed to create a minimum of 12 million jobs. I'd love to know how he plans on doing that, whether or not they are just going to be cashiers and broom pushers, and whether or not they are going to be in this country.

What I want to know is will he increase the net number of americans working by 12 million over the next 4 years?  That is what is implied, but is it what he really means?  Under his presidency, there will be 12 million jobs created....but how many jobs will be lost, go away, cease to exist...during the same time period?  The net...or simply the net number of americans working...should be the real point here.  I personally think that until that distinction is made clear, it is BS.

EDIT.....funny thing is, that economic analysts have predicted that 12 million jobs will be created in the next 4 years regardless of who the predident is, just because of larger economic trends and cycles.  Lame that Romney is saying his policies will create 12 million like it is all him, yet economists say it will likely happen regardless.  My goD politicians are sooooo lame.

[KevShmev]

Any way you choose to word it, Obama was soundly beaten.

He was, but it is important to remember that incumbents often lose the first debate and then rebound in the following ones.  Bush got trounced by Kerry in the first debate back in 2004, but bounced back and did better in the others, and then was re-elected.  So, Romney's "win" last night won't mean much unless he can capitalize on it and do well in the next two debates.  I suspect he will get a bounce as a result of last night, but if Obama comes back strong in the next two and Romney struggles, last night will have been all for naught.

[rumborak]

The Creator part btw was sooooo shoe-horned in.

[Super Dude]

Romney was cool and confident from the start. Obama had an awkward deer in the headlights look. The president looked worn out and weak. That's how I saw it from the first 5 minutes to the finish. I thought as far as debates go, Romney crushed Obama last night.

Agreed, although I wouldn't say he "crushed" Obama.  But Romney clearly came out on top.  There's really no question.  Obama totally phoned it in.  I don't know if maybe he was distracted because yesterday was his 20th wedding anniversary, or maybe he just didn't expect Romney to as meticulously prepared as he was, but a couple of more weak debate performances like this could be damaging to Obama's campaign.  The election is still very close and with razor thin margins like this, every undecided independent is important.

I'm mainly hoping Sigz is right and Obama is just pulling his punches for now.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that theory. No one is going to have an under perform strategy. It makes little sense. You can't bank on a good performance in the future so its seize the day.

Romney was cool and confident from the start. Obama had an awkward deer in the headlights look. The president looked worn out and weak. That's how I saw it from the first 5 minutes to the finish. I thought as far as debates go, Romney crushed Obama last night.

Agreed, although I wouldn't say he "crushed" Obama.  But Romney clearly came out on top.  There's really no question.  Obama totally phoned it in.  I don't know if maybe he was distracted because yesterday was his 20th wedding anniversary, or maybe he just didn't expect Romney to as meticulously prepared as he was, but a couple of more weak debate performances like this could be damaging to Obama's campaign.  The election is still very close and with razor thin margins like this, every undecided independent is important.

Judging by the charismatic standard by which Obama is held to would be the reason I used crushed. I honestly thought he was going to have his way with Romney. That sure was not the case.
Any way you choose to word it, Obama was soundly beaten.

If you consider having all style and no substance "beating" someone, then yes.

[kirksnosehair]

My wife and I cut out going out to eat as often. Not that it made a huge difference in our budget, but all of the little things certainly do add up. Boohoo. PBS gets shit loads of money from other revenue streams. Making an issue out of this is flat fucking retarded.

/rant

That's the Facebook status I want to post.

PBS’s statement cited a 2011 national survey that found that 69 percent of Americans oppose eliminating government funding for public broadcasting, versus 27 percent who favor it.

Source


Welcome to the overwhelming minority.

[Chino]

The only way the government could create jobs, outside of expanding government agencies, would be to make outsourcing illegal, or to make laws banning the use of robotics in manufacturing plants as well as the ability to shop online.

The government can't just pull jobs out of a job bag that its been hiding for the last 4 years. We have 40 years worth of changes all converging at this point in time. The only way this could have been avoided is if we halted the evolution of technology. I can't stand how people can't understand that there are millions upon millions of jobs that haven't been lost (lost implies they can be found again), but are no longer in existence. The chance to work them again is not an option, even under the best economic conditions. We are in a situation that honestly, I don't think anyone has the slightest clue how to get out of. Every politician in the country is just saying what they think the people would like to hear. You could say look at history for a fix, or predict what courses of action will produce what results, but even that's just a best guess with hope at its heart. A fix to this crisis is not riding on the back of just the United States. It needs a global solution.

Instead of arguing back and forth, I don't get why simple actions aren't being taken. Can anyone in this country honestly say that offering incentives to US companies that outsource is a good thing? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Of course it fucking doesn't! But then arises the problem of how Americans will be able to afford products that are now made in the US. Many families struggle to dress their kids as it is. It's become a world wide problem that (in my opinion) can't be outdone. America is no longer the magical place that everyone thought it was. America is no longer the best at everything. America has fallen victim to change just as so many other countries, nations, groups of people, and species have over time. You know what, that's the reality, shit happens over time. Sure it sucks, but like nature, adaptations don't happen immediately. They take time. They take trial runs. They require success and failures. The world as a whole is being forced to evolve on a scale never seen before, not just America. The world will work itself out. Whether or not it will get America back to where it was remains to be seen. I don't think so. It obviously was a model that may have worked great at one time, but is not good for the world today.

America is like a bad ass dinosaur (not a t-rex, contrary to what Jurassic Park depicted, they were actually just pussy scavengers that happened to be really big). We were big, were strong and we were fearless. Nothing wanted to fuck with us, and we were able to go out and do whatever the fuck we wanted without the worry of getting injured or killed. Then one day a meteor (Technology, globalization, and the internet) hit. All of a sudden we started getting weak because we couldn't sustain our body's (country's) requirements with just the small critters that were left (jobs and ways to generate revenue). Eventually our size got the best of us. We got too big, too quick, and had no back up plan. We failed. 

I don't know where I was trying to go with that, but really epic music was playing in my head as I was coming up with it so I had to keep going 

[Super Dude]

Actually, we do have a big job bag to pull items out of; but because of all the bitching about "job creators," we can never even approach such simple solutions. Remind me to tell you some time of a Harper article about "We Want More Big Government."

[Tick]

Romney was cool and confident from the start. Obama had an awkward deer in the headlights look. The president looked worn out and weak. That's how I saw it from the first 5 minutes to the finish. I thought as far as debates go, Romney crushed Obama last night.

Agreed, although I wouldn't say he "crushed" Obama.  But Romney clearly came out on top.  There's really no question.  Obama totally phoned it in.  I don't know if maybe he was distracted because yesterday was his 20th wedding anniversary, or maybe he just didn't expect Romney to as meticulously prepared as he was, but a couple of more weak debate performances like this could be damaging to Obama's campaign.  The election is still very close and with razor thin margins like this, every undecided independent is important.

I'm mainly hoping Sigz is right and Obama is just pulling his punches for now.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that theory. No one is going to have an under perform strategy. It makes little sense. You can't bank on a good performance in the future so its seize the day.

Romney was cool and confident from the start. Obama had an awkward deer in the headlights look. The president looked worn out and weak. That's how I saw it from the first 5 minutes to the finish. I thought as far as debates go, Romney crushed Obama last night.

Agreed, although I wouldn't say he "crushed" Obama.  But Romney clearly came out on top.  There's really no question.  Obama totally phoned it in.  I don't know if maybe he was distracted because yesterday was his 20th wedding anniversary, or maybe he just didn't expect Romney to as meticulously prepared as he was, but a couple of more weak debate performances like this could be damaging to Obama's campaign.  The election is still very close and with razor thin margins like this, every undecided independent is important.

Judging by the charismatic standard by which Obama is held to would be the reason I used crushed. I honestly thought he was going to have his way with Romney. That sure was not the case.
Any way you choose to word it, Obama was soundly beaten.

If you consider having all style and no substance "beating" someone, then yes.

That's ironic. You just perfectly described Obama.

[theseoafs]

Dude, you just said he was like a deer in headlights.  At least be consistent if you're going to trash Obama.

[Tick]

Any way you choose to word it, Obama was soundly beaten.

He was, but it is important to remember that incumbents often lose the first debate and then rebound in the following ones.  Bush got trounced by Kerry in the first debate back in 2004, but bounced back and did better in the others, and then was re-elected.  So, Romney's "win" last night won't mean much unless he can capitalize on it and do well in the next two debates.  I suspect he will get a bounce as a result of last night, but if Obama comes back strong in the next two and Romney struggles, last night will have been all for naught.

You can't say what will happen. He may beat up Obama worse in the next debates. He may not. Time will tell. The one thing that has been said my more than one person on this board and on Facebook today is maybe Obama was holding back as a strategy. That's just a ridiculous thought. Judging by his performance last night its pretty clear it wasn't by design. He looked weak and worn out. That's what I observed. I was kind of shocked. I didn't think Romney had what I saw  last night in him.

[Super Dude]

Dude, you just said he was like a deer in headlights.  At least be consistent if you're going to trash Obama.

And PolitiFact does favor Obama over Romney in terms of truthfulness. Yes, they both got hit hard, but Romney got hit harder.

[Tick]

Dude, you just said he was like a deer in headlights.  At least be consistent if you're going to trash Obama.

What does that even mean, dude? All style no substance is how I would define Barack Obama in general.