• 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.

United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected

Status
Not open for further replies.

Randdalf

Member
I don't understand why they don't use popular vote to decide President. I get the idea that the US is a federal system so each state is voting for their preference for President, but the country has changed so much since its constitution was written that it just doesn't make sense to use that system any more.

In the UK the Prime Minister is actually the leader of the party (or coalition of parties) with the most MPs in the Commons, and so it makes sense to have region-based voting since you don't directly vote for a Prime Minister.
 

R2D4

Banned
I don't understand why they don't use popular vote to decide President. I get the idea that the US is a federal system so each state is voting for their preference for President, but the country has changed so much since its constitution was written that it just doesn't make sense to use that system any more.

In the UK the Prime Minister is actually the leader of the party (or coalition of parties) with the most MPs in the Commons, and so it makes sense to have region-based voting since you don't directly vote for a Prime Minister.

Because only people in the cities would determine who is president.
 

Pre

Member
The Bush tax cuts, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and the prescription drug plan. What do all of these things have in common? They were paid for on our credit card - in other words, they weren't included in the budget. The debt was always there, it just wasn't on the books because 'someone' didn't put it there. That should piss you off, and maybe it does, I don't know. These things didn't appear on the budget until the Obama administration.[

Getting people back to work. What should we do about that? How about giving 'employers' (aka rich people) a bunch of money via tax cuts? Okay great. What about that makes them employ people, exactly? The kindness of their hearts? No. All of the people showing up buying stuff, leading them to have to hire people? No. The lack of customers is what's fucking businesses. Nobody's buying shit, so there's no need to hire people. This fundamental problem doesn't get solved from the top down. There instead needs to be people with actual buying power in place before we can jump start the economy. This includes government employees and even, gasp, welfare and unemployment. That's what gets money straight into the economy. It's like socialism making capitalism stronger in some freaky sort of way.

It's also not unprecedented. It's exactly what made the engine of the middle class that drove the US into prosperity from the 40's to the 70's. We gave people the means to buy shit, and then capitalism took over from there. This worked, until some people started to plot and scheme in the 80's to tip the scales in their own favor. We now live in the aftermath of those schemes, which came to a head in 2008. So is the answer to give those same people the reigns, or to go back to what actually worked for us for so long?

It's popular to harp on the Bush tax cuts, but revenue actually increased after the cuts. The problem was that Bush was a big spender.

And cutting taxes isn't about making the wealthy richer so the money magically trickles down. Anyone making that argument is making the wrong argument. It's about creating an economic climate conducive to investment so that more of the money sheltered overseas and in tax-exempt securities shows up as taxable income. I'd give you the full down with stats and everything but I pulled an all-nighter and I'm tired as hell. Some other time.

Edit: And the "top-down" phrase I've seen a lot (most notably from Obama) is cute because that refers traditionally to centrally-planned economies, not laissez-faire/free-market economics.
 

Talon

Member
I don't understand why they don't use popular vote to decide President. I get the idea that the US is a federal system so each state is voting for their preference for President, but the country has changed so much since its constitution was written that it just doesn't make sense to use that system any more.
Well, as Jefferson said, the Electoral College (and Senate) existed to avoid the effect of the "uneducated masses," but this is a wildly different time from the late 18th century.

Obviously that's an outdated mode of thinking.
 

Wiseblade

Member
I'm white.

That obviously makes me a super-racist for thinking people have the right to be racist even though I personally am not.

Or is the argument going to be that, since I've never been hit with the n-word, I am ignorant to the necessity of locking people up for thoughtcrime?

It's not a thought crime when you're openly broadcasting the opinion that "Someone needs to hang that nigger". That's unambiguously encouraging acts of violence and promoting racial discrimination.
 

DMczaf

Member
imIj0RjHS0iDV.gif
 
I'm white.

That obviously makes me a super-racist for thinking people have the right to be racist even though I personally am not.

Or is the argument going to be that, since I've never been hit with the n-word, I am ignorant to the necessity of locking people up for thoughtcrime?

People should have the right to be racist? WTF?
 

Pre

Member
Yes people should have the right to be racists. They should have the right to think whatever they want. And other should have the right to humiliate them for it.

Hey, I'm right there with you. Racists should be shamed, not punished legally.
 
So is unemployment benefit seriously considered some kind of horrible plague that's going to blow up the country? Seems baffling to me, it's a standard thing here

And yeah, you get layabouts who do nothing and just use the unemployment money to live, but it's not exactly going to let you "live it up" on the government's money, it would give you about 10,000 euros per year. No yachts for the unemployed, I'm afraid.

Because it supports the world view of most conservatives that the democrat base is made up of black welfare queens who are living it up on their hard earned tax money. The same conservatives that would drive 5 miles out of the way to avoid driving through an area that has a majority of the population living with government assistance.
 
Candidate (Party) - Electoral votes - States carried - Popular vote - Pct.

Obama (Democratic) - 303 - 25+DC - 58,537,310 - 50.20%
Romney (Republican) - 206 - 24 - 56,363,885 - 48.34%
Johnson (Libertarian) - 0 - 0 - 1,087,503 - 0.93%
Stein (Green) - 0 - 0 - 368,324 - 0.32%
 
*Freedom man, don't you get it?

Utterly disturbing to think there's any sort of implicated right to being racist.

People should have the right to be racist? WTF?

Free speech etc. There is not, nor should there ever be a law forbidding people from "being racist" or "saying racist things". Hate speech, inciting to violence etc is already covered by laws, you don't need to make extra ones specific to racism. This is that uncomfortable zone where in order to actually be pro-freedom (in the unironic sense) you also have to defend things that are ugly and clearly wrong.
 

Mengy

wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
The Bush tax cuts, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and the prescription drug plan. What do all of these things have in common? They were paid for on our credit card - in other words, they weren't included in the budget. The debt was always there, it just wasn't on the books because 'someone' didn't put it there. That should piss you off, and maybe it does, I don't know. These things didn't appear on the budget (or our debt) until the Obama administration.

Getting people back to work. What should we do about that? How about giving 'employers' (aka rich people) a bunch of money via tax cuts? Okay great. What about that makes them employ people, exactly? The kindness of their hearts? No. All of the people showing up buying stuff, leading them to have to hire people? No. The lack of customers is what's fucking businesses. Nobody's buying shit, so there's no need to hire people. This fundamental problem doesn't get solved from the top down. There instead needs to be people with actual buying power in place before we can jump start the economy. This includes government employees and even, gasp, welfare and unemployment. That's what gets money straight into the economy. It's like socialism making capitalism stronger in some freaky sort of way.

It's also not unprecedented. It's exactly what made the engine of the middle class that drove the US into prosperity from the 40's to the 70's. We gave people the means to buy shit, and then capitalism took over from there. This worked, until some people started to plot and scheme in the 80's to tip the scales in their own favor. We now live in the aftermath of those schemes, which came to a head in 2008. So is the answer to give those same people the reigns, or to go back to what actually worked for us for so long?

Well said. This is what any true fiscal conservative should be admitting, yet most Republicans are simply ignoring or blatantly disagreeing with it. And it's starting to piss me off. And judging from the election last night, I'm not alone in that feeling.
 

The Crimson Kid

what are you waiting for
I seriously doubt that the Republican party will reach much of a consensus on how to deal with their minority and woman issues.

There will be a few voices that see the oncoming storm, but they will probably be drowned out by the vast majority who want to go more conservative. Remember that whoever is put up on the Republican side for elections is ultimately down to Republican voters, who will not understand the immediate need to moderate the party.

It will take until a 2016 loss that they truly realize they need to do some serious reform, and by then, there will be a comfortable Democratic advantage on the Supreme Court that will last for decades. :)
 

lednerg

Member
It's popular to harp on the Bush tax cuts, but revenue actually increased after the cuts. The problem was that Bush was a big spender.

And cutting taxes isn't about making the wealthy richer so the money magically trickles down. Anyone making that argument is making the wrong argument. It's about creating an economic climate conducive to investment so that more of the money sheltered overseas and in tax-exempt securities shows up as taxable income. I'd give you the full down with stats and everything but I pulled an all-nighter and I'm tired as hell. Some other time.

Okay, so you go on and get some sleep and then fill us all in on 1) why none of that worked in the long term, 2) how come it's still a feasible plan, and 3) how it gives anyone the buying power to make a difference outside of the already rich.

Edit: And the "top-down" phrase I've seen a lot (most notably from Obama) is cute because that refers traditionally to centrally-planned economies, not laissez-faire/free-market economics.
Also, Bush Sr. called the whole scheme "Voo-Doo Economics" when running against Reagan. Don't forget that that one.
 

Pre

Member
2012 - Right to be Racist...

I've seen everything now..

It's not specifically a "right to be racist" -- it's an extension of your right to be free in what you believe, even if it's despicable.

Or, as this post says:

Free speech etc. There is not, nor should there ever be a law forbidding people from "being racist" or "saying racist things". Hate speech, inciting to violence etc is already covered by laws, you don't need to make extra ones specific to racism. This is that uncomfortable zone where in order to actually be pro-freedom (in the unironic sense) you also have to defend things that are ugly and clearly wrong.
 
Free speech etc. There is not, nor should there ever be a law forbidding people from "being racist" or "saying racist things". Hate speech, inciting to violence etc is already covered by laws, you don't need to make extra ones specific to racism. This is that uncomfortable zone where in order to actually be pro-freedom (in the unironic sense) you also have to defend things that are ugly and clearly wrong.

As we know, racism is learned pattern; I don't see how shaming anyone that has these hard-lined racist attitudes will do much. Broadcasting on Twitter especially (in the cases I'm thinking of) tells me they don't give a fuck, no shame there. I mean this is the next generation saying these things, that is frightening to me.

I guess I'm torn on the issue, because I don't see shaming them doing much. But inherently, I suppose everyone should have that right to be as fucking dumb/ignorant as one pleases.
 
As we know, racism is learned pattern; I don't see how shaming anyone that has these hard-lined racist attitudes will do much. Broadcasting on Twitter especially (in the cases I'm thinking of) tells me they don't give a fuck, no shame there. I mean this is the next generation saying these things, that is frightening to me.

I guess I'm torn on the issue, because I don't see shaming them doing much. But inherently, I suppose everyone should have that right to be as fucking dumb/ignorant as one pleases.

You can uphold people's right to do something while also supporting an active push to stop it. For example, the government can defend racist's speech rights, but also pursue programmes in education to attempt to reduce racism in the next generation, or affirmative action programmes, or running ad campaigns, or whatever.
 

Izayoi

Banned
Watching Obama's speech now. So goddamn good, love that he mentions the lines - that shit really does need to be fixed.

Today (yesterday?) was a great day. I'm so happy. ;_;
 

~Devil Trigger~

In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Minnesota
November 07, 2012 - 09:25AM ET

U.S. House - District 6 - General
Minnesota - 279 of 280 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Bachmann , Michele (i) GOP 179,653 51%
Graves , Jim Dem 175,716 49%

/NPR
 

Azih

Member
Actually, to expand on that, I'm always a little curious about the fact that there's a significant gap between the vote breakdown for married women and married men. Both groups might lean Republican, but married men appear to do so moreso.
I think the marriage stat is just a reflection of the more fundamental demographic of age and gender. Married men tend to be older males.

The young, the women, and the minorities were firmly in Obama's camp. This really is a demographic and generational shift.
 
While I'm glad Obama took the popular vote as well, part of me was hoping he didn't, if only to see the same talking heads on the right who claimed the popular vote didn't matter in 2000 do a 180 and scream their heads off about how much the popular vote matters.
 

~Devil Trigger~

In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Utah
November 07, 2012 - 09:26AM ET

U.S. House - District 4 - General
Utah - 488 of 488 Precincts Reporting - 100%

Matheson , Jim (i) Dem 108,075 49%
Love , Mia GOP 105,257 48%
Vein , Jim Lib 5,690 3%

So much for rising star...
 

Dash27

Member
Actually, to expand on that, I'm always a little curious about the fact that there's a significant gap between the vote breakdown for married women and married men. Both groups might lean Republican, but married men appear to do so moreso.

How much moreso? But no surprise there, men are smarter than women. Our brains are like 3x the size. That's science.

In all seriousness though, I'd like to see the stats of married people who have kids vrs single parents. I would guess single parents would wildly skew democratic, while married parents would lean republican.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom