Election 2012

[flanzo]

Sept 4, 2012 11:52:11 GMT -5 kikosanchez said:

No, I certainly see and agree with your point and the point in general, I just thought the writer made the same point, but with awful justification. Instead of pointing out specific things Republicans did to increase entitlement spending, he simply linked a weak correlation between a president being in office and something happening. It just seems an obvious case of post hoc ergo propter hoc and for this person to be writing for the WSJ is just sort of sad.

As a point of reference, Eberstadt is one of the most well respected economists in the world.

And I don't see how it's an obvious case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I think you're reading this article as Eberstadt's belief that Republicans are responsible for the growth of entitlement spending, which isn't the case. Eberstadt is saying that the Republicans' war cry of "smaller gov't" is hogwash. They, like the Democrats, have no allegiance to big or small gov't, they have allegiance to doing what it takes to remain in office.

[kikosanchez]

He may be a great economist, but maybe he needs a ghost writer. He doesn't seem to make much use of logic and is happy to present fallacies as needing no further justification. Such as:

"Irrespective of the reputations and the rhetoric of the Democratic and Republican parties today, the empirical correspondence between Republican presidencies and turbocharged entitlement expenditures should underscore the unsettling truth that both political parties have, on the whole, been working together in an often unspoken consensus to fuel the explosion of entitlement spending."

The "empirical correspondence between Republican presidencies and turbocharged entitlement expenditures" is precisely what I mean by his use of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I wouldn't disagree with your point, just his poor reasoning that he passes off as "unsettling truth". That added to the overall "predatory feel" of the article that someone just mentioned makes me very wary. I think maybe he is trying hard to look unbiased while presenting a view very much inline with the rest of the AEI's economic views. We're just a country of moochers it seems and none of this has anything to do with the aging population, living longer, or increased medical costs.


Or to gain a quick glimpse of his basic thesis: the article is "Excerpted from "A Nation of Takers: America's Entitlement Epidemic,"

[awolfthedoor]

Justice Party f yeah.

Stein 95%
Obama 79%
Rocky Anderson (Justice Party f yeah) 78%
Romney 15%

I'm probably voting Stein in November, so good job poll thingy.

edit: but
94% Democratic
84% Green
30% Libertarian
7% Republican

[custeph]

Stein 87%
Obama 85%
Anderson 73%
Romney 17%

SC Voters 54%
US Voters 61%

Dems 94%
Green 87%
Libs 21%
Repubs 4%

I will vote for Obama in November.

[Lowerdeck]

Stein 86
Anderson 76
Obama 68
Johnson 65
Romney 24


Democrat 80
Green 79
Libertarian 56
Republican 21



Ewwww, I'm too high on the Republican/Romney side.

[Katy Mae]

Jill Stein - 92%
Barack Obama - 73%
Rocky Anderson - 68%
Gary Johnson - 58%
Mitt Romney - 9%
Virgil Goode - 1%
American Voters - 57%

94% Democrat
91% Green
27% Libertarian
2% Republican

Dang, I knew I was a liberal, but Quack.

[Lowerdeck]

I might be a little jelly

[kikosanchez]

Political Compass is quite interesting for this year. They plot Obama and Romney as nearly being identical. www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 I ended up -1.95 Econ and -6 Socially, pretty far away from anyone, but closest to Stein. Like if Jill Stein was at Bonnarroo, I'd be in down and to the east in Florida.

On further notice, it seems the site and analysis is done by one of our friends across the Atlantic, so his lens of what is left and right is certainly shaped by this. Nonetheless, he does give a full explanation as to why he plotted Obama so close to Romney and brings up a lot of reasonable points. Then again, I think it too finely glosses over the numerous and important distinctions between the two candidates, such as stating "He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" as if he pushed and wanted it.

[awolfthedoor]

Sept 4, 2012 20:08:19 GMT -5 Katy Mae said:

Dang, I knew I was a liberal, but quack.

Do we get a prize?

[CPK]

Mitt Romney 80%
Barack Obama 70%
Gary Johnson 67%
Jill Stein 58%
Virgil Goode 44%
Rocky Anderson 43%

Republican 82%
Democratic 59%
Green 39%
Libertarian 36%

[kikosanchez]

Thank goodness there's a Republican or conservative on here. It was starting to feel a little GOPish with so little diversity up in here.

[postjack]

Stein 96‰
Obama 92%
Johnson 76%
Romney 4%

[.]

[kikosanchez]

lolreligion news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/democrats-reinstate-god-jerusalem-israel-capital-party-platform-223437220--election.html

[Lowerdeck]

Sept 4, 2012 22:50:17 GMT -5 . said:

I got a Vermin Supreme 2012 bumper sticker in the car, from the man himself. And I know of a few people who actually plan on write in vote for him for president.

[awolfthedoor]

Sept 5, 2012 20:05:00 GMT -5 kikosanchez said:

lolreligion news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/democrats-reinstate-god-jerusalem-israel-capital-party-platform-223437220--election.html

more like lolincrediblypowerfulforeignstate'sdomesticlobbyingabilities

[Lowerdeck]

Oh hey there Liz Warren

[rooter]

Gary Johnson - 98%
Virgil Goode - 83%
Mitt Romney - 77% (This is a joke, since most of Romney's "positions" are manufactured flip flops)
Barack Obama - 28%

[iamthehorn]

Wow Bill.

[Emʘng]

Sept 5, 2012 23:03:42 GMT -5 iamthehorn said:

Wow Bill.

I wonder if Romney even realizes...

SPOILER: Click to show

[LawnGnome]

Sept 5, 2012 23:03:42 GMT -5 iamthehorn said:

Wow Bill.

I came.

[Emʘng]

Best.

[frankthezappa]

how i see it this election

[Emʘng]

^^More accurately:

[EAP]

www.theonion.com/articles/obama-help-us-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of,29478/


The thunderous 45-minute address—during which the president argued for a second term so that he could “finally kill Jesus once and for all, as well as all those who worship him”—was well received by the frenzied, wild-eyed audience, whose piercing chants of “Four more years!” and “Slaughter the believers!” echoed throughout the Time Warner Cable Arena.

[CPK]

I don't think any candidate made any real headway in the conventions. Specifics from both sides were very minimal. The debates will settle this election. I think this is going to be a real close race.

[glennron]

Omg you guys Barack Obama e-mailed me RIGHT after his speech.

In all seriousness it was very strange for about half a second seeing that you have an e-mail from "Barack Obama."

And I'm not sure exactly how close it'll be, CPK. I pretty much take Nate Silver's 538 blog as the gospel, and he's got Obama at 68% to win for his Nowcast and his Nov. 6 forecast has him at 76%.

[katbur2]

As someone living in a state that's in play I am already sick of the political ads. NC went for Obama last time, this time I think it's going to be closer, especially since I expect the Republican candidate For Governor to win. I like 538 but I think Nate is a little more optimistic than is realistic with his leaning states. For Democrats this is a get out the vote issue as the level of excitement is not where it was four years ago and with the voter suppression tools being put in place it may be more difficult than last time.

[iamthehorn]

My feeling is that the election will go like last year, where it's technically close, but it certainly doesn't feel that way. Romney has never lead this thing and eventually the feeling of inevitability is going to catch up to his base.

[Lowerdeck]

The election will essentially come down to Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Maybe Florida, but I see the drunken rednecks and old Tea Party crazies to pull Romney ahead down there.

If you're in any other state, just go on ahead and vote for whoever you want to. Preferably a third party. So, how about that Jill Stein lady?