Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

A lot of the country that hates Republicans hates Democrats too and won't turn out. If I had to guess the "pox on both your houses" people tend to be more liberal. Republicans who have reservations with their party vote anyway.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Bullshit.
England is significantly more conservative than Scotland

Ok?

Wyoming is more conservative than California. Does that mean that Wyoming has the right to succeed. There can be differences within a country politically, I don't see how that has any bearing on succession.

and the scots are getting fucked repeatedly by both parties, their interests are not being served by Westminsters who quite honestly have a different vision for the country than the majority of scots.

Ok? Minorities regions don't always get what they want. Its how democracy works. They are equal citizens with equal rights (I'd argue the scots have more rights). I don't know why scotland should be special besides people going back 400 years and saying they were different because they had a different feudal lord. This logic applied to other places would lead to anarchy and the division of most states back to feudal divisions.

The scotts aren't being oppressed or denied rights. They're 5 million people, they don't have the power to force the rest of the 60 million to accede to their demands.

If done right, Scotland can be a prosperous social democracy.

This is what the entire referendum is about, its the left wanting to stick it to conservatives, its not based on anything beyond that and being ticked off they can't win elections . Its the same logic as perry's succession comments. People pissed their not winning elections deciding "screw everybody else, we're leaving"

Even if the 'no' vote win (and I think it will) Scotland would achieve a whole lot from that referendum.

Also, what's undemocratic about that?

I'm in favor of a federated union in the UK and a written constitution. I just think them desiring to dividing a country because they can't win elections is a slap in the face to democracy and the rights of the rest of the UK.

If it was based on real nationalism (like ireland or how scotland is viewed by some) and a real difference of peoples it would be different but independence movements shouldn't be based on pure party politics.

Let's not forget how Thatcher destroyed their economy. It was the ultimate signal of which part of the Great Britain they really cared about.

So Obama not drilling in Alaska or killing coal in Appalachia is reason for them to leave the US because the president doesn't care about them?

Decisions are made in countries which favor certain regions over others.

This thread is very comfortable bashing the senate for saying 'land votes' I don't know why they wouldn't look down upon Scotland doing the same sort of thing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I support self-determination. Just reading the thread on here and Slamond's speeches I just don't see a people desiring to be 'free' or govern themselves. I see left-leaning voters thinking independence is a shortcut to a social democratic utopia.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I know this is a dick move, but it's "secede" and "secession." (Could be an autocorrect issue, but that's one of my many grammar pet peeves.)

I think nations should provide for the orderly secession of sufficiently large subnational populations. I don't know what the terms of such provision would entail, but I think this sort of thing should be planned out ahead of time. Especially in the United States, which was birthed by secession.

 

[benjipwns]

Ok?

Wyoming is more conservative than California. Does that mean that Wyoming has the right to succeed. There can be differences within a country politically, I don't see how that has any bearing on succession.

Ok? Minorities regions don't always get what they want. Its how democracy works. They are equal citizens with equal rights (I'd argue the scots have more rights). I don't know why scotland should be special besides people going back 400 years and saying they were different because they had a different feudal lord. This logic applied to other places would lead to anarchy and the division of most states back to feudal divisions.

The scotts aren't being oppressed or denied rights. They're 5 million people, they don't have the power to force the rest of the 60 million to accede to their demands.

Croatia is more Croatian than Serbia. Does that mean that Croatia has the right to secede?

I don't know why Bosnia should be special besides people going back 400 years.

et al

 

[zero shift]

Wyoming is more conservative than most of America. Does that mean that Wyoming has the right to succeed.

I assume you meant this, and by that yes.

Stuff

So by your logic it is never okay for a state to leave a union ever, unless there is like genocide or something occurring.

So Obama not drilling in Alaska or killing coal in Appalachia is reason for them to leave the US because the president doesn't care about them?

That isn't comparable to what Thatcher did.

 

[benjipwns]

So by your logic it is never okay for a state to leave a union ever, unless there is like genocide or something occurring.

What right do you have to dissolve the holdings of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine just because you don't like their politics?

 

[thepotatoman]

I support self-determination. Just reading the thread on here and Slamond's speeches I just don't see a people desiring to be 'free' or govern themselves. I see left-leaning voters thinking independence is a shortcut to a social democratic utopia.

It seems to me both are the same exact thing, they want the freedom to govern themselves into a democratic utopia.

What's wrong with that? There's obviously a ton of details that have to be covered to create a new government, but it seems to me that they're prepared for that. Most of the details left uncovered are only that way because it requires a two way communication with Britain and the EU which won't be able to start until the secession happens.

And I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare it to the US. I'm no expert on European politics, but I'm sure there's tons of things making it a different situation. I mean, the simple fact of the UK government explicitly giving Scotland the right to vote on secession is evidence of that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I assume you meant this, and by that yes.


So by your logic it is never okay for a state to leave a union ever, unless there is like genocide or something occurring.


That isn't comparable to what Thatcher did.

I'm generally not in favor of countries just leaving because they didn't like the last few elections.

Croatia is more Croatian than Serbia. Does that mean that Croatia has the right to secede?

I don't know why Bosnia should be special besides people going back 400 years.

et al

Oppression and general disenfranchisement are great reasons for independence, as are language and cultural differences.

Don't see that with scotland and the people in the yes camp.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It seems to me both are the same exact thing, they want the freedom to govern themselves into a democratic utopia.

What's wrong with that? There's obviously a ton of details that have to be covered to create a new government, but it seems to me that they're prepared for that. Most of the details left uncovered are only that way because it requires a two way communication with Britain and the EU which won't be able to start until the secession happens.

And I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare it to the US. I'm no expert on European politics, but I'm sure there's tons of things making it a different situation. I mean, the simple fact of the UK government explicitly giving Scotland the right to vote on secession is evidence of that.

I don't think political opposition should be the basis for nationhood.

Like I said if there was real nationalism I think its a different story. Otherwise I think its dangerous for people to gather up enough people in a geographic region that have a certain politics and loosely tie it with a historical claim and make a new country.

6 months ago I understood. But what I've seen from the campaign has just turned me off so much.

 

[benjipwns]

Oppression and general disenfranchisement are great reasons for independence, as are language and cultural differences.

Don't see that with scotland and the people in the yes camp.

I think they probably disagree.

I don't think political opposition should be the basis for nationhood.

Like I said if there was real nationalism I think its a different story. Otherwise I think its dangerous for people to gather up enough people in a geographic region that have a certain politics and loosely tie it with a historical claim and make a new country.

This is basically every nation state founded ever.

I can think of one nation in particular that was deliberately founded on political opposition. Opposition to the same Parliament in fact.

 

[Chichikov]

Ok?

Wyoming is more conservative than California. Does that mean that Wyoming has the right to succeed. There can be differences within a country politically, I don't see how that has any bearing on succession.

Ok? Minorities regions don't always get what they want. Its how democracy works. They are equal citizens with equal rights (I'd argue the scots have more rights). I don't know why scotland should be special besides people going back 400 years and saying they were different because they had a different feudal lord. This logic applied to other places would lead to anarchy and the division of most states back to feudal divisions.

The scotts aren't being oppressed or denied rights. They're 5 million people, they don't have the power to force the rest of the 60 million to accede to their demands.

This is what the entire referendum is about, its the left wanting to stick it to conservatives, its not based on anything beyond that and being ticked off they can't win elections . Its the same logic as perry's succession comments. People pissed their not winning elections deciding "screw everybody else, we're leaving"


I'm in favor of a federated union in the UK and a written constitution. I just think them desiring to dividing a country because they can't win elections is a slap in the face to democracy and the rights of the rest of the UK.

If it was based on real nationalism (like ireland or how scotland is viewed by some) and a real difference of peoples it would be different but independence movements shouldn't be based on pure party politics.


So Obama not drilling in Alaska or killing coal in Appalachia is reason for them to leave the US because the president doesn't care about them?

Decisions are made in countries which favor certain regions over others.

This thread is very comfortable bashing the senate for saying 'land votes' I don't know why they wouldn't look down upon Scotland doing the same sort of thing.

First of all, you really really can't compare the national identity of Scottish people with that of any state, not even Texas, it's a ridiculous analogy that doesn't help you with understanding of the situation, at all.

Also, England fucked Scotland for years and years, forget ancient history, they screwed their heavy industry, they took the oil but instead of starting an oil fund like Norway they chose to make giant oil companies super rich, they dump their nuclear waste there and repeatedly got into wars that are extremely unpopular in Scotland.
It boils down to just having very different vision for the country -
England is conservative, militaristic and super capitalist, Scotland want to be a northern-Europe like social Democracy.

Now it's true, in a democracy no everyone can get what they want, but if you have a situation where you can divide by reasonable and historical lines to better align the goal of a country with that of its people, I'm all for it.

p.s.
I find this whole talk about devo-max or federal union to be a bit funny, Scotland wanted such things for years and it was only able to get any traction on this front with period threats of independence.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I can think of one nation in particular that was deliberately founded on political opposition. Opposition to the same Parliament in fact.

The same country that said this?

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Don't see how that applies to Scotland today. The US's opposition was that they weren't allowed any self governance, had no say in parliament, and were occupied militarily with out rights.

Its not the same thing, the comparisons are silly.

First of all, you really really can't compare the national identity of Scottish people with that of any state, not even Texas, it's a ridiculous analogy that doesn't help you with understanding of the situation, at all.

Also, England fucked Scotland for years and years, forget ancient history, they screwed their heavy industry, they took the oil but instead of starting an oil fund like Norway they chose to make giant oil companies super rich, they dump their nuclear waste there and repeatedly got into wars that are extremely unpopular in Scotland.
It boils down to just having very different vision for the country -
England is conservative, militaristic and super capitalist, Scotland want to be a northern-Europe like social Democracy.

Now it's true, in a democracy no everyone can get what they want, but if you have a situation where you can divide by reasonable and historical lines to better align the goal of a country with that of its people, I'm all for it.

p.s.
I find this whole talk about devo-max or federal union to be a bit funny, Scotland wanted such things for years and it was only able to get any traction on this front with period threats of independence.

you're right its different but I can't really see Scottish identity beyond the difference between US regions beside digging into at least 200 year old history. It has a longer history but today, I just don't see scottish identity being that big in any objective way.

And again if that played a bigger part I'd have less of an issue, but I don't even see Salmond talking about that and the vote is for anyone living in Scotland, that would include, the english, welsh and irish there, no? The fact that its too difficult for them to determine 'who is Scottish' is pretty revealing.

Also, England fucked Scotland for years and years, forget ancient history, they screwed their heavy industry, they took the oil but instead of starting an oil fund like Norway they chose to make giant oil companies super rich, they dump their nuclear waste there and repeatedly got into wars that are extremely unpopular in Scotland.
It boils down to just having very different vision for the country -
England is conservative, militaristic and super capitalist, Scotland want to be a northern-Europe like social Democracy.

This argument would fly for dividing the US into red and blue states. The Jesusland vs US image that was popular in 2005. having different visions isn't reason enough for independence.

Land doesn't vote, which is what you're arguing, and like I explained above I'm not seeing in this campaign any argument about peoples and cultures which would have my support as I would supported decolonization.

 

[Chichikov]

you're right its different but I can't really see Scottish identity beyond the difference between US regions beside digging into at least 200 year old history. It has a longer history but today, I just don't see scottish identity being that big in any objective way.

Having lived in both the US and Scotland, I think you're really really wrong.

And again if that played a bigger part I'd have less of an issue, but I don't even see Salmond talking about that and the vote is for anyone living in Scotland, that would include, the english, welsh and irish there, no? The fact that its too difficult for them to determine 'who is Scottish' is pretty revealing.

You think that they let everyone vote is a bad thing?
I'm confused.
Also, identifying who is Jewish can be very difficult in some cases, you think that's revealing as well?
(And for the record, Scottish has a much stronger and more coherent national identity than Jewish).

 

[benjipwns]

The same country that said this?


Don't see how that applies to Scotland today. The US's opposition was that they weren't allowed any self governance, had no say in parliament, and were occupied militarily with out rights.

Its not the same thing, the comparisons are silly.

The long train of abuses and usurpations are in the eye of the beholder. (As Chichikov illustrates and you reject.) It seems reasonable to let the people decide when it has reached Despotism rather than the despots.

The precautionary principle precludes itself.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You think that they let everyone vote is a bad thing?
I'm confused.

I think its betraying what the vote is

 

[pigeon]

As an American, I'm proud to not have an opinion on the actions of Great Britain. Although it's going to be pretty awkward if they can't call themselves Great Britain any more.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Oppression and general disenfranchisement are great reasons for independence, as are language . . . differences.

Don't see that with scotland and the people in the yes camp.

Have you seen Peter Capaldi as Dr. Who? I'm fairly confident he's not speaking English.

 

[Chichikov]

I think its betraying what the vote is

It's the best available option, I mean, do you reject the very idea of a vote for independence?

 

[benjipwns]

The Welsh are even more unintelligible.

As an American, I'm proud to not have an opinion on the actions of Great Britain. Although it's going to be pretty awkward if they can't call themselves Great Britain any more.

Ahem, that's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland buddy.

That isn't comparable to what Thatcher did.

Which makes it amusing that she fully supported Scottish self-determination.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The Welsh are even more unintelligible.

If I had to guess the name of the language spoken by Peter Capaldi, I'd guess it's called "Haggish."

 

[Chichikov]

Which makes it amusing that she fully supported Scottish self-determination.

Thatcher didn't support Scottish independence, she was in fact against it, what she said that if they choose to go independent, England allow them to do so, which has been the tory party line in an effort to win some scots back.

Didn't quite work though.

 

[benjipwns]

I think the U.S. as an inverse comparison is interesting because it's now somewhat commonly accepted that a third or even less of American colonists supported the Revolution, even fewer were represented at any of the Congresses or Conventions. Rhode Island and New York rather infamously ratified the Constitution by only two and three votes in their legislatures respectively. And both after the Constitution was already established (and Rhode Island after the Constitution was in effect) for the signatory states. A few other states only ratified with slight majorities.

The Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate wasn't some "debate" like we have now, that shit was serious. It would be quite interesting to be able to somehow have a daily tracking poll of that era.

Although maybe the Czech/Slovak split was a more reasonable inverse comparison.

Thatcher didn't support Scottish independence, she was in fact against it, what she said that if they choose to go independent, England allow them to do so, which has been the tory party line in an effort to win some scots back.

I think the stance of allowing and accepting the choice is more important than her opinion on the choice. I consider it like you saying you want to eat and me suggesting somewhere. You can ignore my recommendation and I'll still support your decision to eat.

 

[Chichikov]

I think the stance of allowing and accepting the choice is more important than her opinion on the choice. I consider it like you saying you want to eat and me suggesting somewhere. You can ignore my recommendation and I'll still support your decision to eat.

She did shit and all to support that idea while she was in office, in fact, she fought against devolution.

Years later in her memoirs she had a throwaway paragraph about how she thinks that if Scotland would make the unfortunate decision to go independent, England shouldn't force them to stay in the union (which again, was a tactical party line position for the Tory at the time) and now it's being paraded by anti-independence supporters in hope to leverage Thatcher hate into 'no' votes.

 

[benjipwns]

Hey, some of us try to look on the bright side of life pal!

 

[Chichikov]

Hey, some of us try to look on the bright side of life pal!

You're right.
We should focus on the fact that the bitch is still dead.

Ding dong motherfuckers.

 

[thepotatoman]

I don't think political opposition should be the basis for nationhood.

Like I said if there was real nationalism I think its a different story. Otherwise I think its dangerous for people to gather up enough people in a geographic region that have a certain politics and loosely tie it with a historical claim and make a new country.

6 months ago I understood. But what I've seen from the campaign has just turned me off so much.

Sure on neogaf it's about making scotland more liberal, but every single campaign ad I've seen is exclusively focused on nationalism. I don't know what you're seeing.

 

[neurosisxeno]

A friend linked me to an article. It has largely to do with Economics as a whole but it describes how by fostering an impulsive society we have also crafted an entirely dysfunctional political environment. It's very lengthy but a good read.

 

[benjipwns]

But shouldn’t we at least retain the prerogative to choose the sort of capitalism we want? Or to demand that our capitalism produce things of real value and be capable of sustaining a society that is equitable and deliberate?

Uh, the latter is capitalism.

Regarding the former what you meant to write is "shouldn't me and people like me at least retain the prerogative to choose for others what we want?"

Worse, our political system, the traditional arbiter between public and private interests, has been colonized by the same bottom-line impulse. Political parties boil their philosophies down into extreme brands designed to provoke target audiences and score quick wins. Voters are encouraged to see politics as another venue for personalized consumption. We’ve lost the idea that politics is the means to build consensus and an opportunity to participate in something larger than ourselves.

We know the result: a national political culture more divided and dysfunctional than any in living memory. All but gone are centrist statesmen capable of bipartisan compromise. A democracy once capable of ambitious, historic ventures can barely keep government open and seems powerless to deal with challenges like debt reduction or immigration, which Washington should be grappling with but isn’t.

lol

This book sounds like exactly what a baby boomer hitting their 50s with limited historical knowledge that predates their birth and a utopian view of a fantasy past would write.

 

[Vahagn]

Uh, the latter is capitalism.

Regarding the former what you meant to write is "shouldn't me and people like me at least retain the prerogative to choose for others what we want?"


lol

This book sounds like exactly what a baby boomer hitting their 50s with limited historical knowledge that predates their birth and a utopian view of a fantasy past would write.

There's a lot of hyperbole and obviously there have been times in history where the division was stronger, and yea, once Obama leaves office and Republicans stop absolutely loathing to work with a Democratic President because that new one will be...uhh...not-black, things will improve.

It's still shitty as hell that the last 4 years have produced practically nothing of any value though. We had a moderate tax increase on the wealthy and some sequester spending cuts. Nothing else happened. Practically everything of any value happened in his first 2 years.

It would have been great to tackle long term deficit spending or immigration or climate change. These 4 years (and most likely the next two as well) will ultimately be a gigantic waste.

 

[benjipwns]

It would have been great to tackle long term deficit spending or immigration or climate change.

This wouldn't happen with 80 Democratic Senators and 395 Democratic Representatives.

 

[Chichikov]

There's a lot of hyperbole and obviously there have been times in history where the division was stronger, and yea, once Obama leaves office and Republicans stop absolutely loathing to work with a Democratic President because that new one will be...uhh...not-black, things will improve.

You think they'll hate Hillary less?
I'll take people who don't remember the 90s for $200.

 

[Wilsongt]

BENGHAZI!!! hearing is going on today with strange hair Gawdy.

Edit:

Good job, South Carolina! Always electing those winners into Congress.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) thinks that the speech in which President Barack Obama laid out his strategy for combating the Islamic State may have contained the “single dumbest thing an American President has ever said.”

Duncan was referring to Obama’s remark that “ISIL is not Islamic.” Obama then went on to say that “no religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”

"'The Islamic State is not Islamic' might just be single dumbest thing an American President has ever said,” Duncan wrote on his Facebook page on Sept. 11, the day after Obama's speech. “I was disappointed in the President's remarks and disheartened that he took an issue that could have generated strong bipartisan agreement but instead presented us with a plan that raises many concerns. In my opinion, the President's speech on combating ISIS was 'JV' at best.”

I can think of many, many, many other idiotic things Presidents have said over the last few years, and Obama actually being accurate on describing ISIS is not one of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/jeff-duncan-obama-isis_n_5829054.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

 

[HylianTom]

You think they'll hate Hillary less?
I'll take people who don't remember the 90s for $200.

I think it'll be a different flavor of hate. A fascinating flavor, some spices coming from old Clinton-vs-GOP history, some from realizations of growing electoral irrelevance, and some from poorly-disguised sexism.

 

[Crisco]

BENGHAZI!!! hearing is going on today with strange hair Gawdy.

Edit:

Good job, South Carolina! Always electing those winners into Congress.



I can think of many, many, many other idiotic things Presidents have said over the last few years, and Obama actually being accurate on describing ISIS is not one of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/jeff-duncan-obama-isis_n_5829054.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

The thing these idiots don't understand is that message wasn't meant for them, it was meant for Arab peninsula countries so their leaders won't get lynched for helping the USA fight ISIL (i'm calling it that if he is). If Obama comes out and declares this is a war against "Islamic extremism", not some ambiguous "ideology", then we would literally be going it alone. Not even Turkey would help.

 

[Tamanon]

BENGHAZI!!! hearing is going on today with strange hair Gawdy.

Edit:

Good job, South Carolina! Always electing those winners into Congress.



I can think of many, many, many other idiotic things Presidents have said over the last few years, and Obama actually being accurate on describing ISIS is not one of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/jeff-duncan-obama-isis_n_5829054.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Someone should just ask him if Westboro Baptist Church is Baptist.

 

[Vahagn]

BENGHAZI!!! hearing is going on today with strange hair Gawdy.

Edit:

Good job, South Carolina! Always electing those winners into Congress.



I can think of many, many, many other idiotic things Presidents have said over the last few years, and Obama actually being accurate on describing ISIS is not one of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/jeff-duncan-obama-isis_n_5829054.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Anyone who thought what he said was wrong has a low IQ, that's the only way to sum it up. "Men who beat their wives aren't men, they're cowards." - that's the equivalent of what he said. Republicans are increasingly and hopelessly dumb.

And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the Islamic State.

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

You think they'll hate Hillary less?
I'll take people who don't remember the 90s for $200.

Lol. You've got to be kidding me.
I'll take people who wish to pretend racism doesn't exist in the Republican base for $200.00.

They spent the first 2 years convinced he was a Kenyan born Muslim socialist bent on bringing America to it's knees and facilitating a Muslim Brotherhood like takeover of our Government. You really want to pretend that's something Hilary would face? The Tea Party was a purely racist reactionary response, way before they were talking about debt and deficit they were talking about Birth Certificates, Acorn, and Islam.

Beyond anecdotally, we're talking about the least productive Congress since practically forever and a hate filled rage towards manifesting itself in successful Primary challenges for other Republicans who have a 95% conservative rating but who committed the fatal sin of shaking hands with him or saying something nice about him. This is unprecedented, and it's not unexpected.

 

[Jack Remington]

The only way I can see myself voting Democrat in the next decade is if Bernie Sanders is next to the D.

Are you in a safe state, James in Claire?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Nerd fight

 

[Wilsongt]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Nerd fight

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Nerd fight

Who got North Dakota and Montana right though

 

[Jack Remington]

GOP Senators unveil National Labor Relations Board overhaul

Man, Republicans really are doing anything they can to basically kill off the Labor Relations Board.

Makes no sense. Should presidential elections have no bearing on the make up of courts and federal agency leadership? See also the conservative crying about how Obama's appointments to the DC Circuit ruined the "balance" of the court (which had previously been split 4-4 between Dem and GOP appointees).

 

[PhoenixDark]

Someone is going to be very wrong on election day. I wouldn't bet against Silver.

btw

The Quinnipiac University survey showed Ernst, a state senator, leading Braley by 6 points, 50-44 percent among likely voters. The poll also showed her leading among independents, a key voting bloc.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ni-ernst-pulls-ahead-dem-in-iowa-senate-poll/

 

[Vahagn]

Muslim Guy WANTS to shoot US Troops? Front page complete with portrait.

White Guy ACTUALLY shoots and kills US Troops? 5th item in a cluttered screen.

I'm not a Muslim, but if I was, I'd be annoyed.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Someone is going to be very wrong on election day. I wouldn't bet against Silver.

btw

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ni-ernst-pulls-ahead-dem-in-iowa-senate-poll/

Right now, control by either party wouldn't count as "very wrong" for either one of them.

There's a very good chance they after election day, both will be able to claim victory regardless of outcome.

 

[Crisco]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Nerd fight

Silver's model is showing essentially a tossup right now, 53/47. I really think the closer we get to election day, reality will start to set in for the GOP. You can't win elections while alienating such massive voting blocs. As poorly as Obama is perceived these days, the GOP is still the party that hates minorities and women. They've done nothing to fix that, and it will cost them what should have been a big day in November. 1998 all over again.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Muslim Guy WANTS to shoot US Troops? Front page complete with portrait.

White Guy ACTUALLY shoots and kills US Troops? 5th item in a cluttered screen.

I'm not a Muslim, but if I was, I'd be annoyed.

War drums. It's amazing what some youtube videos can do these days. A local organization that poses no threat to the US is now poised to make us waste 10b a year fighting them. And training their replacements.

 

[The Librarian]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Nerd fight

lol Nate Silver

 

[Aaron Strife]

Someone is going to be very wrong on election day. I wouldn't bet against Silver.

Why, you had no problem doing it in 2012

btw

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ni-ernst-pulls-ahead-dem-in-iowa-senate-poll/

Quinnipiac's latest polls have been all sorts of crazy today, like the CO gov losing by 10. I'm not putting much stock into it. If other polls start showing the same thing I'll start to worry.

 

[jamesinclair]

You all need to step back and appreciate how right Somedude was.

All he ever said was secession soon.

It's your amerocentrisism that blinded you to the real secession story.