• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can someone explain this sentence in pigeons post: "If trends continue, I'm starting to wonder whether the constant Silicon Valley conflict between liberalism and libertarianism represents the future of American politics."

I'm not too familiar with silicon valley.

Many programmers tend to be libertarian whereas many social media pioneers tend to be liberal. Both groups may sympathize with certain views on the left and right, but both tend to be socially liberal. It's hard to see many republican candidates convincing the more libertarian types to give them money, considering their anti-gay positions.

I think Rand Paul is going to raise a shit ton of money from them regardless though...
 

KingK

Member
I should note, that same libertarian streak found in the programming profession is also extremely prevalent in engineers (based on my anecdotal evidence from going to one of the largest engineering colleges in the country).
 

pigeon

Banned
Can someone explain this sentence in pigeons post: "If trends continue, I'm starting to wonder whether the constant Silicon Valley conflict between liberalism and libertarianism represents the future of American politics."

Other people have addressed this, but basically, Silicon Valley is relatively consistently socially liberal (although not without its problems with racism and sexism), and pretty consistently anti-war as well, but in terms of the appropriate role of government it's pretty significantly split. There are plenty of people around here who really do believe that the government has too much centralized power and that (with appropriate technology and product management, of course) the free market could really handle most problems we look to public services for.

I think that most of these people are way too privileged, which is unsurprising given that they work in Silicon Valley, but many of them are more or less genuine in their belief. An America driven by that conflict wouldn't be too consistent about providing government services (which is bad), but would probably be pretty solidly in favor of social liberalism and in opposition to war, which would at least be good. They probably wouldn't be huge fans of banks, either.
 
Thanks, Pidgeotto.

US Orders More Steps to Curb Stiff Drug Sentences
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday expanded its effort to curtail severe penalties for low-level federal drug offenses, ordering prosecutors to refile charges against defendants in pending cases and strip out any references to specific quantities of illicit substances that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
Related

The move, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at a speech before the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, builds on a major policy change he unveiled last month to avoid mandatory minimum sentencing laws in future low-level cases.

“By reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety,” Mr. Holder said. “We can increase our focus on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation. And we can do so while making our expenditures smarter and more productive.”

The policy applies to defendants who meet four criteria: their offense did not involve violence, the use of a weapon, or selling drugs to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or drug trafficking organizations; and they have no significant criminal histories.

On Thursday, the Justice Department ordered prosecutors to apply the new policy retroactively to defendants who are already in the system but have not yet been sentenced. It was not immediately clear how many pending federal drug cases would be affected.

In cases where a defendant has been charged but guilt has not yet been determined, prosecutors will be directed to file replacement criminal complaints to eliminate references to specific quantities of drugs that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence were the defendant to be convicted, according to a three-page Justice Department memorandum from Mr. Holder to federal prosecutors.​
Great to hear!
 

bonercop

Member
I think that most of these people are way too privileged, which is unsurprising given that they work in Silicon Valley, but many of them are more or less genuine in their belief. An America driven by that conflict wouldn't be too consistent about providing government services (which is bad), but would probably be pretty solidly in favor of social liberalism and in opposition to war, which would at least be good. They probably wouldn't be huge fans of banks, either.

How relevant are privileged white guys going to be in a couple years, though? America will become a majority-minority nation in a not-too distant future, and the bulk of the Republican vote, the angry white working class, is on board with them primarily because of the social issues.

I don't foresee these folks going libertarian when the "cultural war" is decisively won by liberals.

Great to hear!
That is great to hear.
 

teiresias

Member
I must have missed a big news story since I have no idea why they were asking me about the age distribution of a population and which country it was. That's the one I got wrong.
 

Karakand

Member
The demographic spread on the DJIA question in the survey bonercop linked... :cry:

It's kind of sad that academic achievement and knowledge of
Egypt's
location correlate.
 
I should note, that same libertarian streak found in the programming profession is also extremely prevalent in engineers (based on my anecdotal evidence from going to one of the largest engineering colleges in the country).
Oh, most definitely.
Goes well with the STEM is the solution to everything notion.
 
Molly Redden
Republicans are letting on their fears that the race to replace Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss could end in disaster for them. The cast of GOP primary characters, which The Hill has ruled a “clown car,” features the likes of Rep. Phil Gingrey—briefly infamous for saying Rep. Todd Akin was “partially right” about rape and pregnancy—and Rep. Paul Broun—who seems to utter “a gaffe every other day,” in the words of Georgia political operative Joel McElhannon. My colleague Nate Cohn has called the general election, where Democrats will likely run Michelle Nunn, Democrats’ best shot for picking up a Senate seat in 2014.

Today, Manu Raju of Politico reports that in a bid to avoid “Todd Akin 2.0,” Republicans are considering substantial primary ad buys against Broun. Establishmentarians are right to focus their fears on him: The first legislation he introduced to Congress was a personhood bill defining life as beginning at conception, he’s a goldbug, and he voted for Allen West as speaker this Congress, even though West was no longer a member. And his over-the-top rhetoric makes fertile territory for the next “legitimate rape.” See his contribution to the debate over the 2009 stimulus bill:
“This non-stimulus bill is the road to socialism. It will give us a journey that includes bureaucratic controls, high taxes, government intervention, Cuba-style medicine, and economic collapse of America. This steamroller of socialism is being shoved down our throats, and it will strangle our economy. This porkulous bill has a few decent provisions in it, but it's mostly filled with mystery meat. Rancid meat.”​
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Molly Redden
Republicans are letting on their fears that the race to replace Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss could end in disaster for them. The cast of GOP primary characters, which The Hill has ruled a “clown car,” features the likes of Rep. Phil Gingrey—briefly infamous for saying Rep. Todd Akin was “partially right” about rape and pregnancy—and Rep. Paul Broun—who seems to utter “a gaffe every other day,” in the words of Georgia political operative Joel McElhannon. My colleague Nate Cohn has called the general election, where Democrats will likely run Michelle Nunn, Democrats’ best shot for picking up a Senate seat in 2014.

Today, Manu Raju of Politico reports that in a bid to avoid “Todd Akin 2.0,” Republicans are considering substantial primary ad buys against Broun. Establishmentarians are right to focus their fears on him: The first legislation he introduced to Congress was a personhood bill defining life as beginning at conception, he’s a goldbug, and he voted for Allen West as speaker this Congress, even though West was no longer a member. And his over-the-top rhetoric makes fertile territory for the next “legitimate rape.” See his contribution to the debate over the 2009 stimulus bill:
“This non-stimulus bill is the road to socialism. It will give us a journey that includes bureaucratic controls, high taxes, government intervention, Cuba-style medicine, and economic collapse of America. This steamroller of socialism is being shoved down our throats, and it will strangle our economy. This porkulous bill has a few decent provisions in it, but it's mostly filled with mystery meat. Rancid meat.”​

And here to think I had applied for a job at CNN down there a while back. Ahh well, guess I'll have to get my laughs from a safe distance, wrapped in the loving embrace of the jolly blue giant.

EDIT: Good god that food stamps thread is disgusting...
 
total non-sequitur and all that, but completing this test was depressing.

9/13, better than 75%.

Didn't know how the stock market's been doing (though I do know it's been going up recently).
Confused Julian Assange for Edward Snowden.
Never seen that population graph
Don't pay too much attention to the Supreme Court.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
I got 13/13 on that quiz. What the hell have you people done to me? I used to be blissfully unaware of this shit.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I missed only two. The one about the percentage of wimminfolk in congress and the states that legalized gay marriage (thought it was states that had higher minimum wages than the federal).

The Nigeria question was really wtf (even though I got it right).

I missed only the Supreme Court question.

How'd you get that wrong?!
 
12/13; I got the women in Congress question wrong, I guessed 30%. Couldn't remember how thick those binders were. Being a Bio major and having lots of classes in population dynamics and ecology (I've seen literally those exact pyramid graphs in at least 3 textbooks; I'm guessing it's a cheap stock image or something) made the Nigeria question a breeze, but it's kinda WTF if you don't have a fairly specific education; I can't imagine the population distribution of third-world countries gets brought up too much on the news.
 
Why are so many are getting the women in Congress question wrong?!

I have let you all down, it seems.

I knew that it was below half; I just couldn't remember if it was 20 or 30% and took a stab in the dark.

(My state also had 2 female senators for most of my formative years so that may have skewed my perception)
 
So PPP is now bad?
No, the two Nates are being little prats. Accusing them of fudging their numbers to get closer to the average, which is complete bullshit when you compare their results to the aggregates, which severely lowballed Romney's support.

At issue is the fact that PPP deletes respondents from their samples in order to produce what they feel is more representative - which, incidentally, is something every pollster does.

If they want to go after any pollster, they should be going after clowns like Rasmussen who do sloppy work and consistently produce shit results. Or Gallup (what the fuck, how do they keep getting a free pass). But apparently Silver trusts them now more than PPP, because he feels their methodology is better, regardless of their accuracy.
 

Sibylus

Banned
11/13, "You scored better than 91% of the public, below 4% and the same as 5%."

So the moral of the story is, I could hollow out one of your citizens at random and slip into your society unawares.

If I wanted to.

democrat congressman crying about republicans

this guy is more annoying than the Republicans, with his constant insistence that there needs to be entitlement reform. Guys like this really need to get purged from the party at some point.
Caught my own Prime Minister out of the corner of my eye on the article, and lo and behold, he's gone to the UN to make us look like unreasonable jackasses. Again. Fuck you, Harper. I'm glad you're getting hay tossed at you from multiple angles.
 

Videoneon

Member
Got 12/13. Fucked up the DJIA one. Life sucks. =(

Caught my own Prime Minister out of the corner of my eye on the article, and lo and behold, he's gone to the UN to make us look like unreasonable jackasses. Again. Fuck you, Harper. I'm glad you're getting hay tossed at you from multiple angles.

What seems to be up with Harper now? I don't follow Canadian politics much at all but IIRC he had been maintaining his position due to divide amongst the Left parties/unification of the Right, and the usual various scapegoating/fearmongering. IIRC his election happened because of something similar to Australia just now--were people "disenchanted" with the Liberal Party there?


That was too easy. And depressing.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Here's a really good article that covers a lot about generational politics that we've been talking about. Some of it was new to me, other old, but seeing it all together in one place at once is something else. It makes a decent case against both Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton as popular candidates for Millennials, though I'm sure the data is cherrypicked to hell.

In 2001, just as the first Millennials were entering the workforce, the United States fell into recession. By 2007 the unemployment rate had still not returned to its pre-recession level. Then the financial crisis hit. By 2012, data showed how economically bleak the Millennials’ first decade of adulthood had been. Between 1989 and 2000, when younger members of the Reagan-Clinton generation were entering the job market, inflation-adjusted wages for recent college graduates rose almost 11 percent, and wages for recent high school graduates rose 12 percent. Between 2000 and 2012, it was the reverse. Inflation-adjusted wages dropped 13 percent among recent high school graduates and 8 percent among recent graduates of college.

The percentage of recent college graduates with employer-provided health care, for instance, dropped by half between 1989 and 2011.

By 2009, the net worth of households headed by someone over 65 was 47 times the net worth of households headed by someone under 35, almost five times the margin that existed in 1984.

I guess we all knew entering the market is hard today, but one thing we don't pay attention to is

As the Economic Policy Institute has pointed out, younger Americans are less likely than their elders to qualify for unemployment insurance, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Not to mention Medicare and Social Security.)

In 2012, according to The New York Times, state and local spending per college student hit a 25-year low. As government has cut back, universities have passed on the (ever-increasing) costs of college to students.

how little any of the stimulus really focused on younger people.

Lisa Kahn found that even 17 years later, people who had entered the workforce during a recession still earned 10 percent less than those who entered when the economy was strong.

This last stat is pretty depressing. I never thought about that before but it does make sense. You don't just magically get the years back wasted not advancing your career. Those years are lost forever. But at least Millennials are ready for some political change.

Unlike older Americans, who favor capitalism over socialism by roughly 25 points, Millennials, narrowly, favor socialism.

I guess if you call everything that's good socialism, people are going to like socialism.

In his 2010 Senate race, Rubio fared worse among young voters than any other age group. The same goes for Rand Paul in his Senate race that year in Kentucky

So Rand Paul isn't actually popular with young people. Only young republicans.

In the 2008 Iowa caucuses, youth turnout rose 30 percent and among voters under the age of 30, Obama beat Hillary by 46 points.

Obviously overall it wasn't extreme as that, but it was commonly known that Obama was the young person's candidate for that primary. I don't know how Hilary can avoid even more of the "more of the same" criticisms after how these last 5 years, and the new voters born 1990-1998 aren't likely to be any more interested in a Clinton.

Could easily be a lot more interesting primary than most people think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom