# A shout out to the elephants in the forum



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Hoping you guys choose to restore some credibility to US foreign policy come Tuesday.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Hoping you guys choose to restore some credibility to US foreign policy come Tuesday.:icon_smile_wink:


I must confess I haven't been following this at all. Which side is which? Obama's that guy who people claim has reneged on all his promises, right? And the other guy, he's the one who just grins a lot and hopes that people will like him?

Anyway US foreign policy has _always_ been first rate, hasn't it....?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Spiffy hat.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

So you are in support of your government partnering up with ours and going off and shooting stuff? Obama has taken the country away from two wars that the Republicans took us into, and it seems that the Republicans are feeling kind of trigger-happy as they look into the future. 

I don't see where credibility comes into it. Just numbers, figures and death counts.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Stick this on my Lacoste (although I despise logos:biggrin:


----------



## TSWalker (Nov 2, 2011)

Balfour said:


> Stick this on my Lacoste (although I despise logos:biggrin:
> 
> View attachment 5703


If you take that Gator as representing Florida, then that emblem well sums up Gov. Scott's administration.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

You guys are just baiting me... :devil:


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm with the donkeys.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

I thought this was a thread for fat guys.

Let me know when you start one of those.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

zzdocxx said:


> I thought this was a thread for fat guys.
> 
> Let me know when you start one of those.


I actually thought the same thing after just reading the title. :biggrin:
It will only be open to members of the 40/40 club. No, I am not talking about home runs and stolen bases. I am talking about age and waistline!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

zzdocxx said:


> I thought this was a thread for fat guys.
> 
> Let me know when you start one of those.


Touche.:biggrin2:


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

zzdocxx said:


> I thought this was a thread for fat guys.


It will be in 2016 when Christie runs.....


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Here's another one.... this time a handy fight card....


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Hoping you guys choose to restore some credibility to US foreign policy come Tuesday.:icon_smile_wink:


Indeed, because Cameron really needs to score a good few sales in the Middle East this week......


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Choosing a president is like choosing which prison you want to be raped in.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> Choosing a president is like choosing which prison you want to be raped in.


or






*NB Viewer Discretion Advised: Foul Language*


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Exactly


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I have become increasingly apathetic toward our flawed political system. The bicameral only system, the electoral college, unabashed voter fraud, etc.etc. It does not matter which side of the aisle you pledge your allegiance. It is embarrassing.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I really do think the broken two party system has become too polarized. There are aspects that each side brings up which are great, but other aspects which are utter and complete deal breakers. It's no longer a case of who's better but who's worse. That is no way to chose a leader. There's no moderates left in the game.

As for the electoral college, it can definately use some tweaks. I don't know that I want 100% popular vote, but I don't want battleground states. Distribution of EC Votes based on popular votes within a state seems like a reasonable compromise. You get half the pop, you get half the EC votes. This means that red states like TX would give up several EC votes to dems, but so would NY, CA, etc. 

IIRC some states already do this, so it does not require a US constitutional ammendment.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> Choosing a president is like choosing which prison you want to be raped in.


This is a particularly vivid metaphor in what was intended as a lighthearted thread!:icon_pale::wink2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

wrwhiteknight said:


> Obama has taken the country away from two wars that the Republicans took us into....


You don't think 09/11 and AQ took us into Afghanistan??

I'd give you Iraq, except the facts just fail to show it.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress - 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary 
*Question: *On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
 *Vote Number: *[TD="class: contenttext"]237
*Vote Date: *[TD="class: contenttext"]October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
*Required For Majority: *[TD="class: contenttext"]1/2
*Vote Result: *[TD="class: contenttext"]Joint Resolution Passed



*Vote Counts:*
YEAs
77
NAYs
23



Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name 
Akaka (D-HI), *Nay* 
Allard (R-CO), *Yea* 
Allen (R-VA), *Yea* 
Baucus (D-MT), *Yea* 
Bayh (D-IN), *Yea* 
Bennett (R-UT), *Yea* 
*Biden (D-DE), Yea 
*Bingaman (D-NM), *Nay* 
Bond (R-MO), *Yea* 
Boxer (D-CA), *Nay* 
Breaux (D-LA), *Yea* 
Brownback (R-KS), *Yea* 
Bunning (R-KY), *Yea* 
Burns (R-MT), *Yea* 
Byrd (D-WV), *Nay* 
Campbell (R-CO), *Yea* 
Cantwell (D-WA), *Yea* 
Carnahan (D-MO), *Yea* 
Carper (D-DE), *Yea* 
Chafee (R-RI), *Nay* 
Cleland (D-GA), *Yea* 
*Clinton (D-NY), Yea 
*Cochran (R-MS), *Yea* 
Collins (R-ME), *Yea* 
Conrad (D-ND), *Nay* 
Corzine (D-NJ), *Nay* 
Craig (R-ID), *Yea* 
Crapo (R-ID), *Yea* 
Daschle (D-SD), *Yea* 
Dayton (D-MN), *Nay* 
DeWine (R-OH), *Yea* 
Dodd (D-CT), *Yea* 
Domenici (R-NM), *Yea* 
Dorgan (D-ND), *Yea* 
Durbin (D-IL), *Nay* 
Edwards (D-NC), *Yea* 
Ensign (R-NV), *Yea* 
Enzi (R-WY), *Yea* 
Feingold (D-WI), *Nay* 
Feinstein (D-CA), *Yea* 
Fitzgerald (R-IL), *Yea* 
Frist (R-TN), *Yea* 
Graham (D-FL), *Nay* 
Gramm (R-TX), *Yea* 
Grassley (R-IA), *Yea* 
Gregg (R-NH), *Yea* 
Hagel (R-NE), *Yea* 
Harkin (D-IA), *Yea* 
Hatch (R-UT), *Yea* 
Helms (R-NC), *Yea* 
Hollings (D-SC), *Yea* 
Hutchinson (R-AR), *Yea* 
Hutchison (R-TX), *Yea* 
Inhofe (R-OK), *Yea* 
Inouye (D-HI), *Nay* 
Jeffords (I-VT), *Nay* 
Johnson (D-SD), *Yea* 
Kennedy (D-MA), *Nay* 
Kerry (D-MA), *Yea* 
Kohl (D-WI), *Yea* 
Kyl (R-AZ), *Yea* 
Landrieu (D-LA), *Yea* 
Leahy (D-VT), *Nay* 
Levin (D-MI), *Nay* 
Lieberman (D-CT), *Yea* 
Lincoln (D-AR), *Yea* 
Lott (R-MS), *Yea* 
Lugar (R-IN), *Yea* 
McCain (R-AZ), *Yea* 
McConnell (R-KY), *Yea* 
Mikulski (D-MD), *Nay* 
Miller (D-GA), *Yea* 
Murkowski (R-AK), *Yea* 
Murray (D-WA), *Nay* 
Nelson (D-FL), *Yea* 
Nelson (D-NE), *Yea* 
Nickles (R-OK), *Yea* 
Reed (D-RI), *Nay* 
*Reid (D-NV), Yea 
*Roberts (R-KS), *Yea* 
Rockefeller (D-WV), *Yea* 
Santorum (R-PA), *Yea* 
Sarbanes (D-MD), *Nay* 
Schumer (D-NY), *Yea* 
Sessions (R-AL), *Yea* 
Shelby (R-AL), *Yea* 
Smith (R-NH), *Yea* 
Smith (R-OR), *Yea* 
Snowe (R-ME), *Yea* 
Specter (R-PA), *Yea* 
Stabenow (D-MI), *Nay* 
Stevens (R-AK), *Yea* 
Thomas (R-WY), *Yea* 
Thompson (R-TN), *Yea* 
Thurmond (R-SC), *Yea* 
Torricelli (D-NJ), *Yea* 
Voinovich (R-OH), *Yea* 
Warner (R-VA), *Yea* 
Wellstone (D-MN), *Nay* 
Wyden (D-OR), *Nay* 


*That's* bi-partisanship!! What everybody wants, right??


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You don't think 09/11 and AQ took us into Afghanistan??


Joe Biden famously said of Rudy Giuliani, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence, a _noun, a verb, and 9/11_".

For the life of me I can't imagine why that just popped into my head. :redface:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Balfour said:


> This is a particularly vivid metaphor in what was intended as a lighthearted thread!:icon_pale::wink2:


Sorry.. it escalated out of control.....


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You don't think 09/11 and AQ took us into Afghanistan??
> 
> I'd give you Iraq, except the facts just fail to show it.
> 
> ...


I want to know who the hell this Chafee guy from Rhode Island thinks he is..... A Republican voting against war!?!

That's Bi-partisanship.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

Woulda Shoulda: well done on the votes; I won't attempt a riposte on that point. I however do stand by my statement that during Republican presidencies we have by-and-large gone to war, especially in contrast to the periods of Democratic leadership. I simply am against the _types_ of war that we have engaged in since WWII.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

wrwhiteknight said:


> Woulda Shoulda: well done on the votes; I won't attempt a riposte on that point. I however do stand by my statement that during Republican presidencies we have by-and-large gone to war, especially in contrast to the periods of Democratic leadership. I simply am against the _types_ of war that we have engaged in since WWII.


War has changed since WWII. We no longer fight the same kind of wars. It's a product of the times, not the parties.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

Apatheticviews: I should have been more clear. I'm not talking about the way we fight, I'm talking about who we fight and for what reasons.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

wrwhiteknight said:


> Apatheticviews: I should have been more clear. I'm not talking about the way we fight, I'm talking about who we fight and for what reasons.


I concur, but I'm talking about both.

We don't fight Nations anymore.

It's no longer about US vs the German (a Nation), or even US versus the Communists (an ideology). We're fighting a concept. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should be involved in half of these battles either, but many of these are a product of the times.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

Well put.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> I concur, but I'm talking about both.
> 
> We don't fight Nations anymore.
> 
> It's no longer about US vs the German (a Nation), or even US versus the Communists (an ideology). We're fighting a concept. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should be involved in half of these battles either, but many of these are a product of the times.


A _concept_!? If one fights a concept - how does one gauge if victory is achieved?

The notion of war on a 'concept', yet fought with real guns and real bombs, makes me very uncomfortable indeed.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

wrwhiteknight said:


> Woulda Shoulda: well done on the votes; I won't attempt a riposte on that point. I however do stand by my statement that during Republican presidencies we have by-and-large gone to war, especially in contrast to the periods of Democratic leadership. I simply am against the _types_ of war that we have engaged in since WWII.


Have to give you that one. Except for Korea, Vietnam, Libya, and soon, Syria.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> A _concept_!? If one fights a concept - how does one gauge if victory is achieved?
> 
> The notion of war on a 'concept', yet fought with real guns and real bombs, makes me very uncomfortable indeed.


Totally agree with you. But you see it's just so.... what's the word?.... profitable....


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Shaver said:


> A _concept_!? If one fights a concept - how does one gauge if victory is achieved?
> 
> The notion of war on a 'concept', yet fought with real guns and real bombs, makes me very uncomfortable indeed.


That's the trick isn't it. How does one take back the *war time powers* of the executive branch, if we are fighting a concept like Terrorism or Drugs?

A lot of people called Bush an idiot, but that was one of the most savvy political moves I have ever seen, seconded only by the reorganization of the cabinets, with with the DHS being a non-oversight Agency in charge of so many other top tier LEO's (CBP, ICE, USSS).

When fighting an external power it's frightening. When used to fight the American people, it just causes nightmares for guys like me who keep a copy of the constitution on our phones. Look up the NDAA some time. The ability of the President to detain (not arrest) citizens of the US without due process, who are suspected of associating with Terrorist organizations and requires being held by the military vice civilian authorities.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

wrwhiteknight said:


> So you are in support of your government partnering up with ours and going off and shooting stuff? Obama has taken the country away from two wars that the Republicans took us into, and it seems that the *Republicans are feeling kind of trigger-happy* as they look into the future.


B.T.W. I didn't even know who the current Vice President is, I had to look it up.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Joe Biden is awesome. It's great having a politician with no filter, who can make fun of himself. Had he been running for president, I don't think I would have had any trepidation at all. No, he isn't the most polished, but I don't want a fine sheen on a leader. I want rough edges, and scars, and someone who has ridden a train back and forth to work while he was in congress.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

OK V.R., now that was really funny ! ! ! 

:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

You have to admit, Biden is a lovable imbecile.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1.
LOL. ,,,,and if that doesn't prepare one to assume the presidency of this great nation, I just do not know what does(?)!


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You don't think 09/11 and AQ took us into Afghanistan??
> 
> I'd give you Iraq, except the facts just fail to show it.
> 
> ...


Well done sir. 
Anyone truly interested in how the voting went should be looking at the votes at the county level, not simply the state.
I'll have to deal with the election results at this point. I'm glad that I don't live in a highly urban area.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

wrwhiteknight said:


> Woulda Shoulda: well done on the votes; I won't attempt a riposte on that point. I however do stand by my statement that during Republican presidencies we have by-and-large gone to war, especially in contrast to the periods of Democratic leadership. I simply am against the _types_ of war that we have engaged in since WWII.


I suggest you go back and do a thorough study of WW2 (spend a few years on it, study it from all levels - from ground troops through the govts, from all sides), if you study them enough you most likely find that nothing has changed throughout history. Some of us just have a rosy pictures of what we thought happened.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Devestating attack on US by a "Foreign" power leading us to a war on two fronts where one of the enemies was not directly involved in the initial conflict, but was a huge "boogey man." Said war resulting in a major economic upswing after massive deregulation of the country's financial system.

I'm not sure there are any similarities at all......

Next thing you know, you'll be saying we're going to have a series of "police actions" around the world, followed by political unrest at home very similar to those experienced during Korea and Vietnam..... Oh wait. We couldn't possibly draw parallels to the current civil rights movements (LGBT & Occupy) and what happened then...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrp said:


> Well done sir.
> Anyone truly interested in how the voting went should be looking at the votes at the county level, not simply the state.
> I'll have to deal with the election results at this point. I'm glad that I don't live in a highly urban area.


GOP Turnout was said to be 2% or 3 million lower in 2012 than 2008.

So where did they go??

To the graveyard I suspect!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Gary Johnson would be my guess. 1% of the popular vote to a 3rd party candidate, can jack up anyone's campaign. Especially if that's as high as 4% in some states.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

All the stories I'm reading suggest that GOP turnout was what the GOP expected. What changed the dynamic was that Democratic turnout stayed at 2008 levels, rather than regressing to 2000, as Rove, Morris, and others modeled. 

Young people who are social liberals who vote is a growing and serious problem for the GOP's formula of the past 40 years. What has worked well since Nixon and Reagan is unlikely to work going forward. The GOP will have to find a new formula to win at the national level; only gerrymandering let them hang onto the House ().

Fiscal conservatism, America-first foreign policy, de-regulation... all those things will continue to have appeal, IMO. But social conservatism will get you 35% of the vote, but lock you out of 48% of the vote, with the numbers going in opposite directions each year. At least that's the dynamic I see. I hope the GOP sees it too, and acts on it, because then I could actually have a choice each November.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> All the stories I'm reading suggest that GOP turnout was what the GOP expected. What changed the dynamic was that Democratic turnout stayed at 2008 levels, rather than regressing to 2000, as Rove, Morris, and others modeled.


I've read some of those stories too, Cuff, but they are off the mark. The key was inferior GOP turnout. Dem popular vote declined to 61MM from 2008's 69.5MM, but the GOP's 58MM did not even match McCain's 60MM. A modest improvement over the McCain turnout could have landed Romney a victory. Most experts, even those who predicted an Obama win, expected a significant Dem drop off from the extraordinary 2008 contest, but were surprised that Romney did not improve on McCain's performance. Plainly, notwithstanding the passion of partisans, millions of Americans sat this one out, which I think is the real story.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I also think a broadening of the base is a necessity. _Some_ moderation on social and immigration issues, while maintaining core values with respect to our economic and foreign policy, can go a long way to getting the party over the top next election.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

There needs to be a lot more than some moderation. Drop the dead issues. Drop pro-choice/Pro-life with the statement that the issue was decided years ago. Don't cede your stance, just drop the issue. Do the same for any other until it actually becomes an issue again. Bringing up RvW just alienates moderates, as does other issues. 

If you really want to win, state your actual goal. Win Supreme Court seats.


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

I can't vote (Green Card holder), so I don't get too involved, but all I will say is that most people I know have very plainly told me they would vote for the GOP if they simply dropped the religious agenda. They need to face up to the world as it is, not how they insist it should be...


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Plainly, notwithstanding the passion of partisans, millions of Americans sat this one out, which I think is the real story.


Many probably couldn't afford the gasoline to drive to the polling station. Gotta love the New America.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Many probably couldn't afford the gasoline to drive to the polling station. Gotta love the New America.


Indeed. Gosh, if they only had a more fuel efficient vehicle....


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> Indeed. Gosh, if they only had a more fuel efficient vehicle....


Yep, but President O will take care of that. 2008 was Obamaphones. 2012 is Obamacars!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yep, but President O will take care of that. 2008 was Obamaphones. 2012 is Obamacars!


Yes, because it's all his fault....


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> Yes, because it's all his fault....


He ran, he runs, he ruins. Isn't that how you say it?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> He ran, he runs, he ruins. Isn't that how you say it?


I think it's hilarous that one of those entrenching Republican conservative values is personal responsibility, yet when it comes to fuel costs and how they use it it's always someone elses fault. And certainly not the fact that they are by and large addicted to outrageously inefficient automobiles - and have been for years. The logic of how that particular root cause and effect is applied beggers belief.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> I think it's hilarous that one of those entrenching Republican conservative values is personal responsibility, yet when it comes to fuel costs and how they use it it's always someone elses fault. And certainly not the fact that they are by and large addicted to outrageously inefficient automobiles - and have been for years. The logic of how that particular root cause and effect is applied beggers belief.


You took Pentheos's comment (#49) literally? Seriously?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> You took Pentheos's comment (#49) literally? Seriously?


Why? Didn't he?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> Why? Didn't he?


Yes, he made the serious point that gas prices have increased considerably over the last 4 years while making the facetious point that these increases are the reason for the reduced voter turnout. Clear now?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, he made the serious point that gas prices have increased considerably over the last 4 years while making the facetious point that these increases are the reason for the reduced voter turnout. Clear now?


And that's all? Well now. I hardly live in his head, but given the overall context of this thread and the general sentiment here that America for the white male is somehow dead, I read a fair bit more it to it than that. The way people are going on here about the end of America is hardly facetious.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

You people just be glad you get to have an election.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

VictorRomeo said:


> but given the overall context of this thread and the general sentiment here that America for the white male is somehow dead.


Exactly right.....and count many on AAAC as exhibit A of this very idea.

Older, well to do, white, dinosaurs, who refer to the past when segregation and gender inequality were the law of the land - as "the good old days" - slowing coming to the realization that in this current generation - they will become the minorities in this country. And the instead of embracing the idea of this inevitable change - the rail against it like Karl Rove refusing to concede that Romney got his ass beat in Ohio.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> All the stories I'm reading suggest that GOP turnout was what the GOP expected. What changed the dynamic was that Democratic turnout stayed at 2008 levels, rather than regressing to 2000, as Rove, Morris, and others modeled.
> 
> Young people who are social liberals who vote is a growing and serious problem for the GOP's formula of the past 40 years. What has worked well since Nixon and Reagan is unlikely to work going forward. The GOP will have to find a new formula to win at the national level; only gerrymandering let them hang onto the House ().
> 
> Fiscal conservatism, America-first foreign policy, de-regulation... all those things will continue to have appeal, IMO. But social conservatism will get you 35% of the vote, but lock you out of 48% of the vote, with the numbers going in opposite directions each year. At least that's the dynamic I see. I hope the GOP sees it too, and acts on it, because then I could actually have a choice each November.


All those three things are probably incompatible with social liberalism though. I think it's exactly those three things that lost in your recent election... Plus the Christians, of course. Pot and gay marriage in, evangelism out. Interesting...


----------



## CaligulaStyle (Sep 11, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> All those three things are probably incompatible with social liberalism though. I think it's exactly those three things that lost in your recent election... Plus the Christians, of course. Pot and gay marriage in, evangelism out. Interesting...


Quite the opposite-they are very compatible with social liberalism under a general libertarian philosophy. Stay out of my pocketbook AND my bedroom. Pre-religious right conservatism would support pot under personal freedom principles, states rights principles, and strict Constitutionalists principles. Only the fundies corrupting the party oppose it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CaligulaStyle said:


> Quite the opposite-they are very compatible with social liberalism under a general libertarian philosophy. Stay out of my pocketbook AND my bedroom. Pre-religious right conservatism would support pot under personal freedom principles, states rights principles, and strict Constitutionalists principles. Only the fundies corrupting the party oppose it.


Caligula beat me to it. My understanding of the sense social liberalism is used in American politics is very much about personal freedom, and the Government not imposing standards of personal morality. It is very different from the sense social democracy would be used in Europe. Fiscal conservatism, a foreign policy serving the national interest and de-regulation may well be incompatible with social democracy (although may be compatible with national solvency!), but not social liberalism in that sense.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> And that's all? Well now. I hardly live in his head, but given the overall context of this thread and the general sentiment here that America for the white male is somehow dead, I read a fair bit more it to it than that.


Indeed you did. And now you look rather foolish.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Indeed you did. And now you look rather foolish.


Don't be so stupid..... You were whining that 'your' America, the America of the wealther older white male - and rather passive agressivly - is gone and you have a Democrat, somewhat liberal President with a social conscience to blame for it. You know it, everyone knows it. The end.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Don't be so stupid..... You were whining that 'your' America, the America of the wealther older white male - and rather passive agressivly - is gone and you have a Democrat, somewhat liberal President with a social conscience to blame for it. You know it, everyone knows it. The end.


It's news to me that I'm wealthy and old. Oh, and my car gets excellent gas mileage.


----------



## Kelorth (Apr 29, 2009)

TSWalker said:


> If you take that Gator as representing Florida, then that emblem well sums up Gov. Scott's administration.


Do you really think Alex Sink would have been any better? Maybe we should get Micky to run, at least he has created jobs in Florida. lol


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Plainly, notwithstanding the passion of partisans, millions of Americans sat this one out, which I think is the real story.


The story keeps getting refined. Looks increasingly as though most of the drop in turnout was in states that weren't swingers (OH and PA being large exceptions), while battleground states saw steady turnout or even upticks. That's just logical, as voters in many states know well in advance their vote won't make any difference. Mine sure doesn't (although I vote anyway out of sense of civic duty) - at least not for another few years, when the national demographic trends work their influence here. https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/turnout-steady-in-swing-states-and-down-in-others-but-many-votes-remain-uncounted/


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

It's not nice that you comment on my weight! Oh, wait this is not about weight. Confused me with your title. Carry on.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> The story keeps getting refined. Looks increasingly as though most of the drop in turnout was in states that weren't swingers (OH and PA being large exceptions), while battleground states saw steady turnout or even upticks. That's just logical, as voters in many states know well in advance their vote won't make any difference. Mine sure doesn't (although I vote anyway out of sense of civic duty) - at least not for another few years, when the national demographic trends work their influence here. https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/turnout-steady-in-swing-states-and-down-in-others-but-many-votes-remain-uncounted/


Not surprising that people who feel their vote doesn't count don't show up. Yet another reason for the Electoral College to be fixed.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> The story keeps getting refined. Looks increasingly as though most of the drop in turnout was in states that weren't swingers (OH and PA being large exceptions), while battleground states saw steady turnout or even upticks. That's just logical, as voters in many states know well in advance their vote won't make any difference. Mine sure doesn't (although I vote anyway out of sense of civic duty) - at least not for another few years, when the national demographic trends work their influence here. https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/turnout-steady-in-swing-states-and-down-in-others-but-many-votes-remain-uncounted/


Yes, but 2008 had battleground states and assured states as well.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

It did. But non-turnout doesn't seem to have done much to affect the result, at least not at the electoral college level. Greater turnout in states that went GOP anyway wouldn't have made much difference.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Not surprising that people who feel their vote doesn't count don't show up. Yet another reason for the Electoral College to be fixed.


Not so fast; people grumble about the cost of elections. If the EC were eliminated, the cost to run the elections would grow even higher.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not so fast; people grumble about the cost of elections. If the EC were eliminated, the cost to run the elections would grow even higher.


Why is that the case (genuine question, not trying to contradict your post)?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Why is that the case (genuine question, not trying to contradict your post)?


You have to campaign in 50 states not 15.

Republicans don't exert a whole lot of campaign money in NY and Dems follow suit. Why waste money on a state you aren't going to win/lose anyways.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not so fast; people grumble about the cost of elections. If the EC were eliminated, the cost to run the elections would grow even higher.


I didn't say to get rid of the EC. I said to fix it. Without the EC low pop states potentially have no vote at all. I personally like the NH & Nebraska systems. Rather than winner take all, each candidate takes a proportionate amount of the EC and the state winner gets 2 extra.

It would mean that reps would get 40% of CA and dems would get 40% of TX. The EC would still be there but less of a game changer especially in swing states with winner take all.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> You have to campaign in 50 states not 15.
> 
> Republicans don't exert a whole lot of campaign money in NY and Dems follow suit. Why waste money on a state you aren't going to win/lose anyways.


Oh the costs of running in, rather than administering, the elections. Yes, clearly. We have the same issue over here - only a limited proportion of parliamentary seats are marginal and the funding gets channeled there (although I get the impression that our elections finance laws are much more stringent in terms of how much can be spent).


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Oh the costs of running in, rather than administering, the elections. Yes, clearly. We have the same issue over here - only a limited proportion of parliamentary seats are marginal and the funding gets channeled there (although I get the impression that our elections finance laws are much more stringent in terms of how much can be spent).


Honestly, 2 billion is not that bad when you consider 400 million people. That's what $5 a person? For a 4 year job, the cost of "impression" is amazingly reasonable.

The biggest issue is corporate hood. It means that there is no possibility for anyone outside the Rep/Dems to compete in the political arena.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> Honestly, 2 billion is not that bad when you consider 400 million people. That's what $5 a person? For a 4 year job, the cost of "impression" is amazingly reasonable.
> 
> The biggest issue is corporate hood. It means that there is no possibility for anyone outside the Rep/Dems to compete in the political arena.


Maybe not. But over here, as I recall, the political parties have a national limit of just under £20 million in a General Election Campaign. The candidates for election as Members of Parliament can spend about £12,000 campaigning in their constituency elections (the exact amount depends on constituency size, and whether it is urban or rural). Paid political advertising on television is banned (parties get Party Political Broadcast slots free of charge, but very limited in quantity).

This isn't the whole story. The limits only apply in a defined period before the election, so you can spend money at other times in the electoral cycle. And there is some 'soft money' spent by what you would call PACs.

I realise that you will probably look askance at the freedom of speech implications of the regulations we have, but the result is that far less money is spent over here. (I trust you will not be so uncharitable as to remark 'yes, far less on something much less significant'!:icon_smile_wink


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Balfour said:


> I realise that you will probably look askance at the freedom of speech implications of the regulations we have...


As a matter of fact, yes, many of us would!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not so fast; people grumble about the cost of elections. If the EC were eliminated, the cost to run the elections would grow even higher.


Hey, I can make elections really cheap. Let me pick the winner. Wining and dining me for the full 4 years between elections would still be cheaper than capaigning in even one swing state. But that doesn't make it a fair or good system.

BTW, there are plenty of ways to make elections less expensive. Unfortunately, the best options have been foreclosed by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Hey, I can make elections really cheap. Let me pick the winner. Wining and dining me for the full 4 years between elections would still be cheaper than capaigning in even one swing state. But that doesn't make it a fair or good system.
> 
> BTW, there are plenty of ways to make elections less expensive. Unfortunately, the best options have been foreclosed by the Supreme Court.


National lottery. Buy a ticket for the chance to be president!


----------

