Support NeoGAF

[Refrigerator]

So yes, the Freedom and Justice Party certainly isn't the best case for democracy, but at the same time, changes towards liberal politics take time and often necessitate the moderation of the religious segments to bring the appropriate freedoms that the Egyptians strive for. Perhaps then its a good thing that the Muslim Brotherhood have won following an Egyptian revolution - they'll be forced to moderate and recent signs have shown just that.

I think that's the largest part to take away from any movement to democratize the region. As the corrupt, autocratic chains of the previous regimes gives way to democratic rule, the region's culture and politics will finally be able to mature and, eventually, moderate. It won't always be pretty, and it can't compare to what people expect from fully developed Western democracies.

Hell, France couldn't even settle on a final Constitution till 1958.

...when the fabric of the democracy runs a danger of including anti-democratic ideals, or exclusionary laws, then obviously that's a bad thing.

Egypt doesn't have a fabric of democracy. Its people doesn't have a solid political culture, let alone basic political rights.

You're trying to compare what took centuries of incremental reform into a single year. That can't happen, and the absence of Western 'secular' democracy in Egypt wouldn't be a failure, either. That's putting the cart miles in front of the horse.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Well, as I said, it's not the best case for democracy. I don't think such views should have any representation. An extreme example, but should the KKK be allowed to form a political party? Sexism is fucked up and deserves no platform anywhere in the world. Political rhetoric reinforces such views.

It's not that extreme an example, and yes? I don't cite this to hold up the Supreme Court as the arbiter of moral correctness, but hate speech is constitutionally protected, even though most people find it abhorrent.

If an Islamist nation, not a theocracy, could create logical and legal barriers to separate church and state, much as the US and other countries have, then I don't care particularly what the individual citizenry believes - at that point it's just demographics. However, when the fabric of the democracy runs a danger of including anti-democratic ideals, or exclusionary laws, then obviously that's a bad thing. And I actually don't think objectionable views deserve majority representation. We have laws in place to prevent oppression of minorities for good reason. Not that our shit doesn't stink. This election cycle I particular is loaded with language and ideas that were ludicrous before the Bush Jr., Tea Party flag waving cross raising bullshit.

Like I said, I think self-determination is ultimately more important than implementing democracy, even if that leads to things that I find deeply personally objectionable. Obviously I think the rights of minorities should be protected, and while I'm not trying to trot out the standard moral relativism argument, I'm not really sure how you expect to compel many Egyptians feel the same way about gender equality as we do.

The end of this piece really speaks to my last point.

Not so, says Omaima Kamel, who argues these are dangerous stereotypes about Islamist groups.

She is a professor of public health at a university and also ran as a candidate for the Muslim Brotherhood's political party, the Freedom and Justice Party. You can be Islamist and also empowered as a woman, she says. She says the men voted into Parliament can safeguard women's rights through compromise.

"You will find voices against hijab [the headscarf] and voices against bikini," she says. "All the time we accept the diversity, we accept the difference, but who can decide the path of Egypt? The moderates. They can make consensus."

Yet Kamel was placed so far down on her party's electoral list that she probably won't be given a seat in Parliament.

And when asked if a woman should be president? "I don't think so," she answers. "Egypt is a very large country and its problems are very, very deeply rooted. I think it will be difficult for her to carry this responsibility. Let men do the difficult job and we can [provide] support," she says.

I'm not saying that she's right or that she represents a majority of the views of Egyptian women, just that I'm not sure it makes sense to try to think about the Egyptian elections through the lens of American values.

 

[Byakuya769]

Another thing to remember is that Engineering is sometimes called "Applied Science"...as in you take basic concepts and apply them to the problem at hand, and by necessity have to cast off variables that bog down your model.

Sound familar to how LOLbertarians approach anything? All the variables they want to cast off ARE the thing.

DING DING DING! We have a winner.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

It's not that extreme an example, and yes? I don't cite this to hold up the Supreme Court as the arbiter of moral correctness, but hate speech is constitutionally protected, even though most people find it abhorrent.

The Supreme Court is filled with yokels. Living in the UK, I certainly have more respect for the hate speech laws here. And the gun laws too might I add. You can't just defer to the majority for the simple reason that its the majority view. The majority is full of assholes and the government needs to regulate certain aspects of those assholes so they don't shit all over society. In some circumstances, it can be hard to patrol, but in the case of racism and sexism? Do we really need to protect those views? Does society lose anything from their censorship?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Like I said, I think self-determination is ultimately more important than implementing democracy, even if that leads to things that I find deeply personally objectionable. Obviously I think the rights of minorities should be protected, and while I'm not trying to trot out the standard moral relativism argument, I'm not really sure how you expect to compel many Egyptians feel the same way about gender equality as we do.

This post makes me LOL. Human rights is universal. We're all endowed with natural rights. To take that away, then you're sub-human. Fuck nations that oppress equality.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Is there something implicitly wrong with an Islamist government?

Yes. There is also something implicitly wrong with a Christian government or any other government controlled/based off of religion.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

The Supreme Court is filled with yokels.

At least we agree on something.

Living in the UK, I certainly have more respect for the hate speech laws here. And the gun laws too might I add. You can't just defer to the majority for the simple reason that its the majority view. The majority is full of assholes and the government needs to regulate certain aspects of those assholes so they don't shit all over society. In some circumstances, it can be hard to patrol, but in the case of racism and sexism? Do we really need to protect those views? Does society lose anything from their censorship?

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that the majority view needs to be protected because it's just that. But you have to keep in mind whose society we're talking about, and in this case, we are talking about a people who largely do not share values that you and I may see as universal. Furthermore, consider that you said "the government needs to regulate [...] assholes." With what authority? Who is going to impose the recognition of universal human rights on a society that doesn't subscribe to those ideals?

This post makes me LOL. Human rights is universal. We're all endowed with natural rights. To take that away, then you're sub-human. Fuck nations that oppress equality.

Democracy is a human right now?

 

[Refrigerator]

Yes. There is also something implicitly wrong with a Christian government or any other government controlled/based off of religion.

That's a wrongheaded statement. The United States was founded and built atop Protestant/Puritan values and norms.

 

[Particle Physicist]

That's a wrongheaded statement. The United States was founded and built atop Protestant/Puritan values and norms.

The "founding fathers" had a clear goal to create a government based on logic and equality, with a separation of church and state. It's not perfect though, and yes, I have issues with those imperfections.

 

[Snake]

Obama's 3rd year

Obama's Third-Year Average Is Among the Lowest for Elected Presidents

From Gallup:

President Obama's recent job approval ratings look weak compared with those of his predecessors; his 44% third-year average ranks in the lower fourth of all years for which Gallup has data, back to the Truman administration.

Sure sucks for Obama to have numbers closest to Reagan and Clinton.

 

[Tim-E]

Sociology is hard, hard, hard Left.

Like really fucking left.

And I'd think that most Sociologists wouldn't agree with calling Sociology a science because society isn't measurable and the amount of factors in societal events makes a cause = effect statement really hard to prove.

/is about to graduate in Sociology

Oh and although I'm British, I'd argue American sociology tends to go further left than UK stuff.

Welcome, comrade.

 

[KtSlime]

While Austrian economics is certainly unorthodox, I wouldn't say it's anti-research or anti-science. In fact much of the labors of the Austrian school have helped modern researchers understand the problems in mainstream methodology and why macro research can often mislead, and has little predictive powers.

It's not that the adherents to the Austrian school don't believe in empiricism, they just feel that human beings are far too complex for a general prescribed economic theory to apply to entire nations.

Sorry, if something can not be supported by statistical models, it can't even be considered a soft science. So you mean to tell me that economics is not science at all and just a bunch of jackoffs shooting in the dark hoping one of their models works, and if not, maybe it will in a few hundred years or if the planets align?

Sure glad we left the reigns of humanity in their hands.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Sure sucks for Obama to have numbers closest to Reagan and Clinton.

Hey. You're not supposed to read the link.
Yes, but Reagan and Clinton's numbers rose in the 4th year. The only way Obama's numbers go up is if the economy improves.

 

[Meadows]

Welcome, comrade.

we will fight against the imperial pigs comrade

 

[adamsappel]

I initially liked Mike Gravel in 2008 (not as a serious candidate, but similar to voting for Ron Paul).

 

[Vicetrailia]

Sorry, if something can not be supported by statistical models, it can't even be considered a soft science. So you mean to tell me that economics is not science at all and just a bunch of jackoffs shooting in the dark hoping one of their models works, and if not, maybe it will in a few hundred years or if the planets align?

Sure glad we left the reigns of humanity in their hands.

Sheep in a herd, yeah.

 

[The Librarian]

Hey. You're not supposed to read the link.
Yes, but Reagan and Clinton's numbers rose in the 4th year. The only way Obama's numbers go up is if the economy improves.

Uh, you mean just like Reagan's?

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Sorry, if something can not be supported by statistical models, it can't even be considered a soft science. So you mean to tell me that economics is not science at all and just a bunch of jackoffs shooting in the dark hoping one of their models works, and if not, maybe it will in a few hundred years or if the planets align?

Sure glad we left the reigns of humanity in their hands.

Of course economics is a science. But sometimes people act in a highly unpredictable manner which then yields results that we might not expect. Economics is dictated by information and context. We've used both reasonably well in the history of modern capitalism, regulating our economies to cycles, but with historically impressive growth.

As our understanding of economics, sociology and psychology increases, the three will eventually integrate into one field. Isaac Asimov's Foundation series refers to this as psychohistory. This concept in Asimov's set of science fiction novels inspired Paul Krugman, and myself in fact, to jump into the field of economics, which is a very rudimentary version of psychohistory. We're very far off from understanding human behaviour at that level, but this certainly should not stop us from trying.

The recent Western political rhetoric has been alarmingly spiteful towards economists. I say it's alarming because we're letting our failures get in the way of making progress in the field that questions our basic motivations and helps to establish policy that lubricates development. Disregarding such an important science during a time when civilizations are integrating faster than ever is a crucial mistake.

 

[Opiate]

This post makes me LOL. Human rights is universal. We're all endowed with natural rights. To take that away, then you're sub-human. Fuck nations that oppress equality.

So how do you suggest we accomplish this, when a huge section of the country feel this way? And not just most men, but many women, who have tied it to their religious beliefs, given the belief moral significance? Do we go to them, give them a stern finger pointing and say, "stop believing what you believe, or else?"

Or else what? We'll slaughter 2/3 of the country (or more) which holds these sexist views of human rights? Surely then they will see our enlightened ways. Force them against their will to behave like we behave? This has historically caused violent social upheaval in virtually all similar cases, not the least of which was the American Civil War.

 

[Tim-E]

Uh, you mean just like Reagan's?

Shhhhh...Conservatives don't people to know that a miserable recession that had unemployment at nearly 11% at one point happened under the watch of their economic savior, Lord Reagan. It goes against their image.

 

[KtSlime]

Of course economics is a science. But sometimes people act in a highly unpredictable manner which then yields results that we might not expect. Economics is dictated by information and context. We've used both reasonably well in the history of modern capitalism, regulating our economies to cycles, but with historically impressive growth.

Well, then it only stands to reason that some theories that are better supported by the results and are more accurate - and that would mean some theories are less accurate. Whichever theories are most accurate would be the side that economics leans towards. Or is there an important detail I am missing that would make all theories inaccurate.

Opiate: I agree it seems that it would be unreasonable to make them follow something they don't want to follow - however I'd hope that we could not reinstate slavery here in the US with a majority vote.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

So how do you suggest we accomplish this, when a huge section of the country feel this way? And not just most men, but many women, who have tied it to their religious beliefs, given the belief moral significance? Do we go to them, give them a stern finger pointing and say, "stop believing what you believe, or else?"

Or else what? We'll slaughter 2/3 of the country (or more) which holds these sexist views of human rights? Surely then they will see our enlightened ways. Force them against their will to behave like we behave? This has historically caused violent social upheaval in virtually all similar cases, not the least of which was the American Civil War.

Depressingly Realistic

 

[The Librarian]

Shhhhh...Conservatives don't people to know that a miserable recession that had unemployment at nearly 11% at one point happened under the watch of their economic savior, Lord Reagan. It goes against their image.

Didn't Reagan also sign tax increases into law during a recession?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

So how do you suggest we accomplish this, when a huge section of the country feel this way? And not just most men, but many women, who have tied it to their religious beliefs, given the belief moral significance? Do we go to them, give them a stern finger pointing and say, "stop believing what you believe, or else?"

Or else what? We'll slaughter 2/3 of the country (or more) which holds these sexist views of human rights? Surely then they will see our enlightened ways. Force them against their will to behave like we behave? This has historically caused violent social upheaval in virtually all similar cases, not the least of which was the American Civil War.

Enforce something like this.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

[KtSlime]

Enforce something like this.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

It's not enforced here in the US, why should the US enforce it in Egypt? (I really wish we would adopt it here)

 

[Opiate]

Enforce something like this.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

So force them against their will to behave like we behave, then. I'll add that when America entered in to the civil war, we were a 100 year old, well established Democracy, and it still ravaged us, and nearly destroyed us. It cost more American lives than any war before or since.

Let's see how it works out in a country which just shrugged off tyranny 9 months ago and still has never had free elections.

I'm not saying sexism is good. I'm saying it's nearly impossible to ask a country to tackle several huge, culture-wide issues at the same time. You can't expect a country to eliminate sexist beliefs while also reducing religious conflict (which have also been rising in Egypt, if people haven't heard) while also beginning the process of establishing a country with free and fair elections.

Any one of those issues is enough to tear many countries apart -- we cannot reasonably expect any country to handle all three at once.

 

[gutter_trash]

go Newt go!!!
I hope he takes Florida too

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Well, then it only stands to reason that some theories that are better supported by the results and are more accurate - and that would mean some theories are less accurate. Whichever theories are most accurate would be the side that economics leans towards. Or is there an important detail I am missing that would make all theories inaccurate.

The thing about human behaviour is that it is infinitely dynamic and openly conditioned. Think of it in terms of a political model. Different nations function along a range of political ideologies, from American democracy to Chinese authoritarianism with Pollock like splash of European countries in the middle. Different cultures and people adopt different methods. Similarly, there's a free market economy and then there's a planned economy. So any economic theory can work if the suitable conditions exist for it to work.

Economic policy especially is difficult to test in a lab. The most rigorous analysis could prove useless if the assumptions don't meet reality, and our assumptions come from our understanding of complex human behaviour - do we simplify this for the sake of the model? Do we have the statistical methods to test human complexity? It's something we're moving towards but we're not there as yet.

A methodology is only as strong as its assumptions and there is no universal system for human assumptions.

 

[avaya]

Sorry, if something can not be supported by statistical models, it can't even be considered a soft science. So you mean to tell me that economics is not science at all and just a bunch of jackoffs shooting in the dark hoping one of their models works, and if not, maybe it will in a few hundred years or if the planets align?

Sure glad we left the reigns of humanity in their hands.

Economics is not a science, it is pure fuckery masquerading as a science. Economics is equivalent to faith. Austrian school is just one of those faiths.

 

[KtSlime]

The thing about human behaviour is that it is infinitely dynamic and openly conditioned. Think of it in terms of a political model. Different nations function along a range of political ideologies, from American democracy to Chinese authoritarianism with Pollock like splash of European countries in the middle. Different cultures and people adopt different methods. Similarly, there's a free market economy and then there's a planned economy. So any economic theory can work if the suitable conditions exist for it to work.

Economic policy especially is difficult to test in a lab. The most rigorous analysis could prove useless if the assumptions don't meet reality, and our assumptions come from our understanding of complex human behaviour - do we simplify this for the sake of the model? Do we have the statistical methods to test human complexity? It's something we're moving towards but we're not there as yet.

If anthropologists can do it for culture, economists should be able to do it too. And infinitely dynamic is a bit of a stretch - very yes, but certainly not infinitely. If economists do however think it is so dynamic, perhaps that explains why they don't bother validating their models.

Anyway, thank you, I think learned a bit more about the field of economics today.

avaya: Yeah, I think I am beginning to see that.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Newt up big on the first day of our Minnesota poll on the GOP side...we may really be in for a wild ride in the coming months

GO GO GO!

They also say Obama is stomping Romney. Hoping the "MN is a toss-up state!" meme dies forever, since it's complete bullshit.

 

[Opiate]

Economics is not a science, it is pure fuckery masquerading as a science. Economics is equivalent to faith. Austrian school is just one of those faiths.

Many professional economists even use terminology such as "faith in free markets," literally.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/deus-ex-machina
http://www.torenewamerica.com/faith-and-free-markets

Further "the invisible hand" is about as close as one can get to an explicit invocation of faith in a supposedly scientific field. What is this supposed hand, so that I might study it? It's invisible, you can't!

 

[PhoenixDark]

GREENVILLE, South Carolina--Outside Tommy's Ham House here this morning--where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich scheduled back-to-back visits--a boisterous crowd of young, fresh-faced supporters was waving Romney signs and chanting, "MITT! MITT! MITT!"

But this wasn't a grassroots youth movement rooted at the University of South Carolina. No, many of the students cheering on the candidate told BuzzFeed they were actually BYU students and young Mormons from D.C. and Virginia who traveled to the Palmetto State to give their coreligionist's presidential effort a much-needed jolt of energy.

Kat Wardle, a 23-year-old BYU student who is spending the semester in Washington, D.C., said she and several young Latter-Day Saints have been following Romney around the state, playing the role of cheerleaders at various campaign stops.
"I was all over the place at the Lexington rally!" said Wardle, referring to a rainy outdoor event that the campaign has been spinning as an example of growing momentum. Despite the weather, a crowd of several hundred remained for the event and, Romney surrogates like Nikki Haley have pointed out, they were loud and proud.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/byu-students-bus-in-to-south-carolina-to-rally-for

aahahahahahahaha

 

[GhaleonEB]

GO GO GO!

They also say Obama is stomping Romney. Hoping the "MN is a toss-up state!" meme dies forever, since it's complete bullshit.

This primary has had some wonderful twists. That Romney is getting mauled by Newt Gingrich is just delightful. It's as insulting as it is inexplicable. Newt was the last non-Romney standing.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Economics is not a science, it is pure fuckery masquerading as a science. Economics is equivalent to faith. Austrian school is just one of those faiths.

This makes zero sense. What part of economics is "pure fuckery"? The field encompasses so many different types of studies and answers such a wide array of questions that simply labeling economics as useless is a crude attempt at thought.

Do you mean micro economic analysis? Exchange rate valuations? Trade theory? Welfare analysis? The predictive abilities of economics? Disregarding economics is nothing short of conceding your inability to comprehend today's world.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/byu-students-bus-in-to-south-carolina-to-rally-for

aahahahahahahaha

Mormon groupies. Are they hot?

 

[Suikoguy]

Many professional economists even use terminology such as "faith in free markets," literally.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/deus-ex-machina
http://www.torenewamerica.com/faith-and-free-markets

Further "the invisible hand" is about as close as one can get to an explicit invocation of faith in a supposedly scientific field. What is this supposed hand, so that I might study it? It's invisible, you can't!

What's particularly sad is since this is the mentality for so many, the study of economics will slow.

They have a set of facts they have determined, however once you apply all the eccentricities and nuance, they really mean nothing.

It's like scientists giving up, when there are too many variables to attempt to find an answer.

 

[Schattenjäger]

This primary has had some wonderful twists. That Romney is getting mauled by Newt Gingrich is just delightful. It's as insulting as it is inexplicable. Newt was the last non-Romney standing.

Newt was always expected to get South Carolina - its really not that big of a deal

It's still gonna be a toss up btw Mitt and Obama come November

 

[KtSlime]

This makes zero sense. What part of economics is "pure fuckery"? The field encompasses so many different types of studies and answers such a wide array of questions that simply labeling economics as useless is a crude attempt at thought.

Do you mean micro economic analysis? Exchange rate valuations? Trade theory? Welfare analysis? The predictive abilities of economics? Disregarding economics is nothing short of conceding your inability to comprehend today's world.

Be honest. Economics is no more a science than astrology. Unless economists are creating hypotheses and then TESTING these hypotheses, either in experiment or using observed data - it is not science. To call it a science is a great diservice to humanities pursuit of knowledge.

Putting your hands up in the air claiming that humans are unpredictable, so any theory has just as much validity as any other theory is not helpful. It's really no wonder many people think they can reduce taxes on the wealthy and it will cause the wealthy to make more jobs.

 

[The Librarian]

Newt was always expected to get South Carolina - its really not that big of a deal

It's still gonna be a toss up btw Mitt and Obama come November

No he wasn't. Not since his collapse in Iowa.

 

[thekad]

Newt was always expected to get South Carolina

Except for the majority of the time when he wasn't...

 

[WowBaby]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/byu-students-bus-in-to-south-carolina-to-rally-for

aahahahahahahaha

It's Republicans' modus operandi. They bussed about 4000 kids to one of McCain rallies in 2008 which included among them an entire school system. I guess even 4 year old little bodies add to the count.

Also:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/18/gingrich-super-pac-ad-suggests-romney-would-bomb-in-debate-with-obama/

Funny.

 

[gutter_trash]

alright John King!!! guaranteeing a Newt Gingrich win, thank you!

Newt Newt Newt!

 

[Mortrialus]

It's Republicans' modus operandi. They bussed about 4000 kids to one of McCain rallies in 2008 which included among them an entire school system. I guess even 4 year old little bodies add to the count.

Also:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/18/gingrich-super-pac-ad-suggests-romney-would-bomb-in-debate-with-obama/

Funny.

Eww, The Blaze.

Watched the ad, there is quite a bit of truth to it. That said, Republicans don't want a Republican to debate Obama, they want a bully to insult and humiliate him on stage.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Be honest. Economics is no more a science than astrology. Unless economists are creating hypotheses and then TESTING these hypotheses, either in experiment or using observed data - it is not science. To call it a science is a great diservice to humanities pursuit of knowledge.

Putting your hands up in the air claiming that humans are unpredictable, so any theory has just as much validity as any other theory is not helpful. It's really no wonder many people think they can reduce taxes on the wealthy and it will cause the wealthy to make more jobs.

Just because we don't have the tools to be perfectly precise in our analysis does not mean we give up in the pursuit of knowledge. Quantum physics is perplexing to our current understanding of science. Should we then just resign from our attempts of enhancing our abilities of better understanding it? Of course not.

Economists do all of the bolded. But there will always be caution because human beings can be unpredictable. The risk of being strictly married to one line of economic analysis is that you statistically push everything else outside, and these are then known as outliers. And when those outliers behave unpredictably they are known as Black Swans. Black Swans can then go and fuck up everything. So economists have to remain cautious which is not opposed to being scientifically vigilante. Economics is a mix of anthropology, psychology and market context.

 

[outunderthestars]

Eww, The Blaze.

Watched the ad, there is quite a bit of truth to it. That said, Republicans don't want a Republican to debate Obama, they want a bully to insult and humiliate him on stage.

I don't think you can paint the entire Republican Party with a single brush stroke like that. SO far there has only been one primary in a moderate state, and Gingrich bombed in it.

 

[Mortrialus]

Economists do all of the bolded.

Except Austrians.

I don't think you can paint the entire Republican Party with a single brush stroke like that. SO far there has only been one primary in a moderate state, and Gingrich bombed in it.

I am talking generally. Gingrich's strength has definitely been how aggressive he is at debates. I'm not saying that is all they're looking for, just an aspect of Gingrich they really like.

 

[Jackson50]

Because less than 2% of representatives will be women, and the Brotherhood is only pretending to be even remotely liberal to take advantage of the Arab spring. Just as ludicrous is their stated intention to reach out to other parties and viewpoints. Give it a year. It will be just as oppressive as the army, and just as internally corrupt.

There is nothing democratic about squeezing half the population out of the conversation.

While the oppression of women is unfortunate, qualifying Egypt a lost cause is a bit premature. Although, I have been admittedly pessimistic about the prospects of successful democratic governance, so I would concur the future is a bit bleak; however, instead of the undemocratic proclivities of Islamist parties, I think the military constitutes the most immediate threat to a successful transition. Nevertheless, yes, there is nothing democratic about denying women a legitimate opportunity of winning public office. But it is a regrettable vicissitude of a democratic transition. Full liberal democracy is an unreasonable expectation for a state devoid of liberal democratic norms and institutions. Now, while I do not discourage lofty aspirations for Egypt, I think tempered expectations are warranted at this juncture. Presently, free and fair elections and the institution of legitimate civilian rule would be positive developments. Then, if democracy takes root, democratic societal norms hopefully develop.

 

[Byakuya769]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/byu-students-bus-in-to-south-carolina-to-rally-for

aahahahahahahaha

RELEASE the Kra... Mormons!

 

[Opiate]

I still believe that the Republican primaries (which have been more volatile than any in recent history, from the studying I've now done) are indicative of a large group of traditionally conservative voters who are confident that something is wrong, but don't know who to turn to fix it.

I think the country as a whole feels this way, in fact (another example being the OWS movement), but they aren't all necessarily ideologically tied to conservatism -- I think a large portion of America has some vague sense that something is broken, but aren't quite sure what it is exactly. Many just have a sense that something is wrong, but can't pinpoint the cause. I freely admit much of this conjecture loosely created from a few data points.

 

[KingK]

Obama's 3rd year

Obama's Third-Year Average Is Among the Lowest for Elected Presidents

I didn't see this posted.

From Gallup:

Looking just at other elected presidents' third-year averages, Obama's 44% is among the lowest, better than only Jimmy Carter's 37% average in 1979-1980.

Comparing Obama's third-year numbers with all presidential years in Gallup records, Obama's 44% average job approval rating is well below average, ranking 53rd of the 68 presidential years measured.

Obama's 12th quarter ranks as the lowest Gallup has measured in the comparable quarter for all elected presidents.

President Obama's recent job approval ratings look weak compared with those of his predecessors; his 44% third-year average ranks in the lower fourth of all years for which Gallup has data, back to the Truman administration.

It's also important to look at this in the context of the entire US government having record low approval. Obama has actually held up pretty well compared to Congress, and I believe he's still beating all of his potential opponents in the majority of polls (before he has even begun to campaign). I'm not at all convinced that he's in trouble for reelection. Sure, Mitt Romney will have a chance at beating him, but Obama is still the definite favorite as far as I can tell.

Just wanted to remind people of the prediction that I made of Obama steamrolling this election. If Obama gets less electoral votes than he did last time I'll take a 1 week ban.

Boom.

You are going to take a 1 week ban. No way in hell does Obama win Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia again. I will take a 1 week ban if he wins Indiana.