• 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.
Edit: Dude it's Newt Gringrich...why you're even entertaining this to be real is just mindboggling.

Got a question that has been bugging me for a while (and even poligaf hopefully helps out)

So is it true that there is talk about Obama going around the 22nd amendment and allowing 3 presidential terms as the new limit? There was something out about it a few days ago apparently. I like the guy but thats insane if its true

Think about that logically for a second.
Now think about where you heard that from.
Now search the internet to see if this is a trend and other sites are picking up on it.

What I'm about to say isn't directed at you personally.
This is how the republican party is still relevant. Conspiracy theories.
 

Cyan

Banned
Got a question that has been bugging me for a while (and even poligaf hopefully helps out)

So is it true that there is talk about Obama going around the 22nd amendment and allowing 3 presidential terms as the new limit? There was something out about it a few days ago apparently. I like the guy but thats insane if its true

It's true. Remember a few years ago, when Bush got around the 22nd amendment and ran for a 3rd term? Obama's gonna do the same thing.
 
My only point was cutting abused programs and replacing with charities we can choose as most efficient would be more effective. Rife with abuse was a poor choice of words. Apologies.

Uhm...that sounds like it only works for the people that are willing to be charitable. Not the people that need the charity. At least not in the United States.
 

Piecake

Member
Got a question that has been bugging me for a while (and even poligaf hopefully helps out)

So is it true that there is talk about Obama going around the 22nd amendment and allowing 3 presidential terms as the new limit? There was something out about it a few days ago apparently. I like the guy but thats insane if its true

That will never happen. You probably got/heard that info from some fear-mongering right wing crazy site/source
 

Cyan

Banned
Uhm...that sounds like it only works for the people that are willing to be charitable. Not the people that need the charity. At least not in the United States.

And since charities don't actually provide their services to the people giving them money, the free market does not optimize charities for efficiency, but for marketing and appeal.
 

Movement

Member
If Nate Silver's predictions are at 90% Obama why am I so damn nervous guys?! Ahh, and of course I have three tests tomorrow. Stress.
 

Kusagari

Member
Got a question that has been bugging me for a while (and even poligaf hopefully helps out)

So is it true that there is talk about Obama going around the 22nd amendment and allowing 3 presidential terms as the new limit? There was something out about it a few days ago apparently. I like the guy but thats insane if its true

That's not needed. Barry is already a dictator forcing his will on us.

It's why he's letting us vote him out, you know. Because that's what dictators do.
 

Gorillaz

Member
Edit: Dude it's Newt Gringrich...why you're even entertaining this to be real is just mindboggling.



Think about that logically for a second.
Now think about where you heard that from.
Now search the internet to see if this is a trend and other sites are picking up on it.

What I'm about to say isn't directed at you personally.
This is how the republican party is still relevant. Conspiracy theories.

Not really into conspiracy theories tbh, but I just found it kind of interesting that it gained traction in the first place especially on yahoo...but I guess that speaks volumes about yahoo?
 
And since charities don't actually provide their services to the people giving them money, the free market does not optimize charities for efficiency, but for marketing and appeal.

Obama's gonna declare martial law and never leave office.

After one more re-election.

That's what my grandma told me.
 

border

Member
Think about that logically for a second.
Now think about where you heard that from.
Now search the internet to see if this is a trend and other sites are picking up on it.

My girlfriend watched a YouTube video and honestly came away thinking that the result of ObamaCare would be that everyone gets an RFID microchip implanted under their skin, and anyone who refused to get the chip would be denied health care.

I gotta say I walked the same slipperly slope as you here.

"Well, I don't wanna say you are incredibly gullible or anything, but just imagine if this was true. Wouldn't ever major news outlet be reporting on it? Why would you have to learn about it from an obscure YouTube video?"
 

Krowley

Member
If Nate Silver's predictions are at 90% Obama why am I so damn nervous guys?! Ahh, and of course I have three tests tomorrow. Stress.

Assuming Silver's model is solid, a 1 in 10 chance is still a 1 in 10 chance.

If you're an Obama supporter, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic, but, if you roll a 10 sided dice, 10 times, you're going to get a 1 occasionally. 1 in 10 is enough to justify some nervousness, I think.

If if it was 98% or even 95% then being nervous would seem a little silly, but 91% is enough wiggle room for an anomalous result to be within the realm of genuine concern.

10% is not astronomically small or anything.
 

Gorillaz

Member
The same guy who was sure without a doubt that he'd be the Republican nominee for President because he knew the numbers or something.

Looks legit.

Yea it's pretty...interesting lol

Like I said im not one to believe in conspiracy theories and all that shit but it was just one of those out-of-nowhere things.

I let you down Mountain Dew and Dorito Lord Geoff...forgive me
 

Davidion

Member
My only point was cutting abused programs and replacing with charities we can choose as most efficient would be more effective. Rife with abuse was a poor choice of words. Apologies.

Let me just get this out of my system before I go to bed. The only real reason to scuttle a public benefit system, provided that its original purpose is sound and good which something like providing basic nutrition to those who are unable to find jobs is typically considered to be, is if the implementation reaches a sufficiently high level of relative inefficiency and/or benefit abuse. The level where the dismantling of said program will not be 1%, it will not be 10%, it may not even be 20%; almost all organizations and programs in any type of industry or field will have operational inefficiencies, period. I'm having some trouble finding any kind of facts and figures that attributes the level of welfare abuse to more than 1-5%, 5 only because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. That's barely statistically relevant, if it is at all. If you want to provide any kind of a figure that bucks that trend, I'd be more than willing to read.

The idea that private charities would somehow be more efficient as a general safety net is then, even more ridiculously laughable. You're suggesting that charities, which all have to be responsible for their own fundraising, have less scale and reach than the federal government, and more often than not have to target specific niches of causes, can better handle benefits for the unemployed? A nation-wide demographic as vague as it comes? How? Because they're private and somehow that magically translates into increased operational efficiency? Have you engaged in any kind of charity or aid work and taken a look at exactly how inefficient resource distribution can be? Are you not aware of how inefficiencies creeps into nearly every single organization approaching a certain scale and inversely, how nearly impossible it is to have a giant network of smaller uncoordinated organizations working without considerable amounts of poor performances, thereby introducing inefficiencies into the overall system anyhow?

Welfare abuse certainly sucks, but I'd love to read an actually convincing argument against the existence of social welfare that's not just the fabrication of an imagination gone wild.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Assuming Silver's model is solid, a 1 in 10 chance is still just a 1 in 10 chance.

If you're an Obama supporter, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic, but, if you roll a 10 sided dice, 10 times, you're going to get a 1 occasionally. 1 in 10 is enough to justify some nervousness, I think.

If if it was 98% or even 95% then being nervous would seem a little silly, but 91% is enough wiggle room for an anomalous result to be within the realm of genuine concern.

Especially when you add all this talk about election fraud and polling inaccuracies. I don't really think either are happening, but what if they are? What if?
 

Kusagari

Member
Guys I heard Dick Morris, a well-respected pollster who used to work for BILL CLINTON, says Romney is going to win big.

It's not looking good.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
no, the charities with the best PR would thrive

The shiny ideal free market breaks down the instant that we recognize that people are capable of being influenced into making decisions based on advertising and emotional appeal and not necessarily effectiveness, quality, or results. It requires a society of lucid, informed, intelligent agents, which has never existed.
 

hokahey

Member
It's bed time. Thank you to those willing to respectfully provide a counter point. Im always happy to learn and evolve my opinions.

Obama wins tomorrow. Nate Silver knows his stuff. Rest easy Obama supporters. Here's to a 2nd term allowing Obama to move forward with a more liberal social.agenda like better drug policy. Loved seeing the end of DADT.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
The shiny ideal free market breaks down the instant that we recognize that people are capable of being influenced into making decisions based on advertising and emotional appeal and not necessarily effectiveness, quality, or results. It requires a society of ludic, informed, intelligent agents, which has never existed.

Exactly. Expecting everyone in society to do the right amount of research and make the correct decision is completely unrealistic and assumes that organizations in a position to profit won't be spending a large amount of resources bullshitting and obfuscating the facts in order to rake in more money.
 

Dram

Member
My only point was cutting abused programs and replacing with charities we can choose as most efficient would be more effective. Rife with abuse was a poor choice of words. Apologies.

Doesn't seem like they would, when something like this can happen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/soup-kitchen-paul-ryan-photo-donor_n_1980541.html

In the wake of Rep. Paul Ryan's embarrassing soup kitchen photo-op last week, the organization that runs the facility tells The Huffington Post that donors have begun pulling their money out of the Youngstown, Ohio charity.

Ryan may have suffered a few late-night jokes, but the fallout for the soup kitchen appears to be far more bruising. Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, confirmed that donors have begun an exodus in protest over Ryan's embarrassment. The monetary losses have been big. "It appears to be a substantial amount," Antal said. "You can rest assured there has been a substantial backlash."


Antal says he can't give an actual dollar amount. "I can't say how much [in] donations we lost," he said. "Donations are a private matter with our organization."

Antal's charity represents the kind of organization that conservative Republicans might champion. But that was before the Ryan incident went viral a few days ago. According to The Washington Post, Antal said that the moment should never have happened. He told the newspaper that the photo-op was not authorized and that the campaign had “ramrodded their way” inside.

Ryan supporters have now targeted Antal and his soup kitchen, Antal said, including making hundreds of angry phone calls. Some members of Antal's volunteer staff have had to endure the barrage as well, he said. "The sad part is a lot of [the callers] want to hide behind anonymity," he said, adding that if someone leaves their name and number he has tried to return their call. In addition to phone calls, people have posted a few choice words on the charity's Facebook wall, including statements like "I hope you lose your tax [sic] emempt status," Anyone who is thinking about donations to you should think twice" and "Shame on you Brian Antal!"
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
My only point was cutting abused programs and replacing with charities we can choose as most efficient would be more effective. Rife with abuse was a poor choice of words. Apologies.

How are charities efficient when you have charities like the Susan G Kolman Foundation using 80% of the budget on advertisements? Sure you could just donate to a fund that is more efficient, but how are you going to know about them if they are getting drowned out by a marketing machine like that one.
 

DarkFlow

Banned
Guys I heard Dick Morris, a well-respected pollster who used to work for BILL CLINTON, says Romney is going to win big.

It's not looking good.
Yeah and it was on Hannity. Hannity even said he was crazy. I don't see how Romney can get 325 EV like Dick says.
 

hokahey

Member
How are charities efficient when you have charities like the Susan G Kolman Foundation using 80% of the budget on advertisements? Sure you could just donate to a fund that is more efficient, but how are you going to know about them if they are getting drowned out by a marketing machine like that one.

Advertising to try and get the few crumbs we have left to give. ;)
 
The shiny ideal free market breaks down the instant that we recognize that people are capable of being influenced into making decisions based on advertising and emotional appeal and not necessarily effectiveness, quality, or results. It requires a society of lucid, informed, intelligent agents, which has never existed.

If people did that man the Republican party would be in a shitload of trouble.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Advertising to try and get the few crumbs we have left to give. ;)
Okay, I've been trying to engage with you but you do seem to be playing deliberately obtuse with that comment and completely missing the point

If people did that man the Republican party would be in a shitload of trouble.

I mean, the fact that people make emotional decisions certainly isn't a bad thing by any measure, it just is incredibly bad in some specific situations, which are areas where the free market model is fundamentally broken. When it comes to luxury goods its awesome, as the emotions around buying something are often a significant part of the enjoyment itself, which is where value derives from. But when it comes to charities, or healthcare, or welfare...
 

Cyan

Banned
Exactly! They need more of the money the feds take from us!

Given the context, I was thinking more that they need some of the money we give to stuff like the Heifer Project.

Simply having more money to give to charity would not begin to solve the actual problem.
 

border

Member
Yeah and it was on Hannity. Hannity even said he was crazy. I don't see how Romney can get 325 EV like Dick says.

Last time I read Dick Morris' take on the election, a lot of it boiled down to shit like "There's a lot more Romney bumper stickers in Pennsylvania than there are Obama bumper stickers!"
 
Incognito Algorithm Results

animated-siren-gif-animated-siren-gif-animated-siren-gif-drudge-report2.gif


Here it is, folks. Based on the following data points:

Minus is negative for Obama, while Plus is a positive.

  • GDP (1.7%, which is less than 3.5% 2nd quarter GDP needed to be safe) (-)
  • Trial Heat Polls, Pre-Post Labor Day (+)
  • Obama July Approval (Above 40%) (+)
  • Fundraising ($1billion vs $980 million) (+)
  • Facebook Likes (32 million vs 11 million) (+)
  • Twitter Mentions (~75 million vs 24 million) (+)
  • Crowd Sizes (2,300 vs 4,300) (-)
  • Diablos Panic Measure (8 on scale of 10) (-)

Since August 1, my algorithm has run nearly 564,000 simulations and as of midnight cst, it currently projects (95% CFI) Barack Obama to be reelected 44th president of the United States with a popular vote total of 51% while amassing 332 electoral votes.
 

hokahey

Member
Okay, I've been trying to engage with you but you do seem to be playing deliberately obtuse with that comment and completely missing the point

Its obtuse to suggest theyd have to advertise less if charities were the primary method of support for the less fortunate? I dont think so.
 
This conversation on private charities versus public welfare is silly.

Just look at presidential elections. They only happen once every four years, and yet only a tiny sliver of the population is actually informed on the issues and only 60% of the population votes. Is this guy seriously suggesting that these same people will figure out which charities are the most efficient and remember to donate to them on a regular basis? Ha.

And it's unlikely these private charities will have any sort of consistent, comprehensive coverage nation-wide. People having charity to fall back on will be entirely YMMV.

This sounds like the typical ideological argument used against the idea of publicly funded anything, and it's just an excuse for the person to opt out of contributing to society. They don't wanna pay, and thus they advocate that nobody should be forced to pay, hiding behind the idea that charities will magically do it better.
 

rdrr gnr

Member
Wait, people in this thread aren't serious about Dick Morris, right? His opinion can be discounted as he does not maraud on the same plane of existence as us humans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom