2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:31 pm UTC

Eventually, should one carry out that experiment long enough, painful screams will be heard. Perhaps whoever has the loudest painful scream gets to be President?

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:31 pm UTC

Excellent page-topper.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Aren't both Romney and Obama against sequestration? Is Obama's budget for the military vastly less than what the military wants for its budget?
Romney wants to increase the military budget by $2 trillion at least based on his position prior to when the debates started, I don't think Obama has been specific about it. Yes they are both against sequestration though, probably because the cuts involved in that are projected to send us into another recession.

Beltayn
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Beltayn » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:00 pm UTC

When discussing Aircraft Carriers, it is very important to note the impact of the Joint Strike Fighter.

With the addition of the Short-Take-Off/Vertical-Landing JSF to the fleet, every single US Amphibious Ship (of which we have 33) is turned into a light Aircraft Carrier. That also contains several thousand Marines and their tanks.

This has VAST ramifications on our strategic capabilities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Aren't both Romney and Obama against sequestration? Is Obama's budget for the military vastly less than what the military wants for its budget?


That is correct. Though it is noteworthy that Sequestration is a result of legislation put in place by Romney's running-mate, which makes Romney attributing those possible cuts to Obama kind of hypocritical. Obama had nothing to do with it. He offered a $3 of cuts to $1 of increased revenue deal to Congress, which would have left the military largely untouched in any meaningful way, and House Republicans rejected it.

The comparison between the two candidates' military budgets boils down to this:

Obama: Keep Defense funding at static levels with what they are currently, rising only at the level of inflation.
-This results in higher absolute dollars spent over time, due to inflation, but static purchasing power.
-Regardless, he is still spending more than Bush spent on the base Defense budget, even AFTER cuts and manpower drawdowns.
-We will still have a larger military than we did pre-9/11

Romney: As we withdraw from Afghanistan, take the money we WERE spending on Afghanistan operations and add it to the base Defense Budget, ending with a Defense Budget tied to 4% of GDP.
-He has tried to portray this as not increasing Defense Spending, because it is money we are already spending on "Defense", even though it's not part of the Defense Budget, but rather Overseas Contingency Operations.
-The $2 Trillion/10 years number is the increase this would effectively amount to, not counting inflation. Counting inflation (which is what you should do, to properly compare to Obama's budget), it is something like a $1.4 Trillion increase
-It is unclear whether this 4% of GDP number is just a target, or whether he would actually tie Defense Spending to it (which by any measure would be silly, since strategic requirements do not depend on the fluctuations of the economy). The key litmus test is whether he would decrease Defense Spending if the economy declined and GDP decreased?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Spoiler: large chart of aircraft carriers
Spoiler:
Image


This chart is actually outdated. Most of our allies navies have declined. The UK, for example, has ZERO carriers.

China currently has ONE. They bought an antiquated soviet carrier second-hand from the Russians, and refurbished it. It is not publicly known whether it has adequate capabilities to be taken seriously, or is just for show. No doubt our intelligence agencies know, but all we can do is speculate with incomplete data.

Chinese 5th-generation aircraft are a similar story. They have trumpeted two new 5th generation aircraft that were seemingly deliberately designed to mimic certain attributes of our Raptors and Lightnings, but it is unclear whether their true capabilities are even in the same league. Since we are not read in to classified reports the senior military planners get, all we can do is guess.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Discussing Aircraft Carriers also needs to be put in the context that the trend in warfare is probably AWAY from them.

Supercarriers are very much an all-your-eggs-in-one-basket strategy when it comes to war with a relative peer-competitor (in other words, another modern military).
They are impossible to hide, difficult to protect, extremely vulnerable to ship-killing missiles, and you have lost a huge investment and a significant chunk of your forces if one is destroyed.

Carriers are valuable in other roles, such as:
-projecting air support ashore onto rough terrain, provided potential threats such as missile platforms have already been eliminated
-humanitarian presence and reaction to natural disasters or sudden flare-ups (every carrier contains a large hospital, and the ability to act as an electrical power plant for a small city)
-projecting air power over a much wider range of ocean than alternatives, due to their longevity and self-sufficiency. This is particularly good for the Pacific, where we need to cast a very wide umbrella, or in cases like Iran, where we might need to sit in static presence nearby for an extended length of time.

But overall, the age of the carrier is declining.
The future Navy is going to be far more dispersed power, utilizing a wide synthesis of platforms. Drone motherships, and amphibious craft are the trend of the future.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It also didn't make sense. We have submarines and carriers now, so we need fewer ships? Shouldn't expanding the Navy to cover the air and submarine theaters require more ships? You know, ones that can go underwater and stuff?


No. Despite those platforms traveling through the air and undersea, the plane of friction is still the surface.

Your logic implies that, because artillery fires rounds indirectly, through the air, we now need a much larger Army because the battlespace in which they are fighting has been cubed (3 dimensions instead of just 2). It hasn't. There is still a single plane of friction: the ground.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I see a lot of people talking about "what the military does/doesn't want", from both sides. That's really just inaccurate.

It's important to distinguish that the military does not pick sides in discussions like this. The military answers to the civilian leadership.

The civilian leadership determines what the proper mission of the military is.
The military then will say what they feel is adequate resources in order to do a good job accomplishing that mission.

It is not the military's place to say "We should have the capability to fight a war on X fronts simultaneously", verses "we only need to be able to fight a war on X-1 fronts".

There are also no real absolutes here. The military can always find ways to use more money, if you decide to give it to us. There is no upper bound to "defend BETTER".

Security, any security, including in the broader definition, is a risk-benefit calculation. This applies to things like network security too, which you guys here will probably be more familiar with. You can ALWAYS make the network *more* secure, if you are willing to pay the price and jump through the hoops. And no matter WHAT you do, no security system is impossible to crack.

The big advantage we have here is that no potential foe (short of "and suddenly...ALIENS") can really surprise us. As mentioned before, ships take a long time to build. But that holds true for our enemies, just as much as it holds true for us. Right now, our potential enemies have forces a tiny fraction of our own. If they try to ramp that up, we will know, and have plenty of time to react in turn. Outnumbering China 10 carriers to 1, and pretty much everybody else 10 carriers to 0, is a pretty decent buffer.

The piece Romney leaves out of his fearmongering is that the size of the Navy has been declining ever since Reagan, and there is a simple reason for that. The Cold War is over. We didn't have to match the Soviets in capabilities any more, because most of the Soviet capability we were matching is now sitting in skeletal remains in dry docks, being salvaged for scrap metal.

Military capabilities ONLY matter in terms of two things:
-capabilities of your foes
-scope of their mission

Historical context is totally meaningless if those parameters have changed, relative to when you are comparing.
Last edited by Beltayn on Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:36 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:33 pm UTC

Soralin wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Again, this is not really what we're discussing. Nobody has suggested we do that. In 2007, we had 12 carriers. By the end of this year, we'll have 10. 9 of those carriers were in service in 2007. We are, right now, decreasing combat force in this area directly. It's not a case of modernization making numbers irrelevant. This is the case WITHOUT sequestration.

If you're comparing those numbers to 1917, that's exactly what you're doing.


The 1917 line was also pointless and poorly chosen, but clearly part of the overall message of "the navy needs more ships". Ignoring the overall message and focusing on the fluffery is like...well, much like the rest of the debates.

With sequestration, things look much bleaker indeed. The current docket for Ford class carriers is...three. That is pretty obviously insufficient to replace the ten current carriers when you consider that we're looking at an essentially identical hull.

So it'll take a bit longer to replace older aircraft carriers? Eh, I think we'll do fine:
*Big, inaccurate picture


Er, according to that picture, our number of active carriers is 24. Given that the number is currently 11, decreasing to 10 shortly...something's pretty terribly off. What are you counting, decommissioned ships that are museums?

Also, it has other blatant inaccuracies, like the fact that spain has two aircraft carriers, not one, China isn't even listed, Italy has two, not one.... yeah, let's just say that this isn't a very good way to determine need for carriers either.

Frankly, I'd like our military spending to be cut back to what it was a decade or two ago, if not more. Which would mean cutting it back to less than half of what it is now, and saving $400 billion/year (or $4 trillion / 10 years, since everyone seems to be giving numbers in terms of 10 year spans for some reason now), which would still put it at more than double the spending of the next nearest country.


And what trade-offs would be necessary to accomplish this? I'm not against cost cutting in general,

sardia wrote:Aren't both Romney and Obama against sequestration? Is Obama's budget for the military vastly less than what the military wants for its budget?


In theory, yes. Also, Obama's requested budget would cut military spending about 5%. There are also cuts in other areas of defense spending, but the military budget proper garners the most attention here.Traditionally, the budgets a president requests, especially the last one before the election(2013 request in this case), are used to extrapolate his priorities. In this case, his requests for the budget in total represent a bit over a 17% increase from the entacted 2012 budget, so yes, it's quite clear that his priorities lie elsewhere than defense.

In contrast, Romney would significantly increase military spending, if his claims are to be believed.

It should be noted that currently, operational/maint costs for the current wars make up a rather larger chunk of defense spending. So, over the long term, a policy involving less wars could save money without chopping troops or gear, but this seems unlikely with either candidate, neither of whom is particularly isolationist.

Actual budgets need to take into account the actions of congress, but sequestration is kind of a big hammer, so agreement *should* happen faster next time around. Still, it's unlikely that either candidate will get everything they demand, so the actual effects will probably be somewhat moderated.

Jave D wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nah. It's called derision. He didn't answer Romney. He made fun of Romney. That isn't debating. It's more of the old system of determining the leader of the tribe based on which one thumps his chest louder.


I'm pretty sure no tribe ever has determined leaders based on who thumps his chest the loudest. So that's a mischaracterization of tribal peoples as well as of the candidate(s).


More of a reference to apes. Perhaps I should have made the comparison more explicit. In any case, the complaint is that everyone is worried about who 'wins' and how much each candidate appears to be dominating, instead of which plan is more logical. It's behavior that really does hearken back to the jungle.

Beltayn wrote:When discussing Aircraft Carriers, it is very important to note the impact of the Joint Strike Fighter.

With the addition of the Short-Take-Off/Vertical-Landing JSF to the fleet, every single US Amphibious Ship (of which we have 33) is turned into a light Aircraft Carrier. That also contains several thousand Marines and their tanks.

This has VAST ramifications on our strategic capabilities.


We already have helicopters and vtol aircraft, so this really isn't a new development, but an evolutionary advancement of capabilities. This is exactly what amphibious ships already do. We can explore the composition of the amphibious fleet as well, but it's not really a replacement for full on carriers, nor is it intended as such.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby yoni45 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It was not the only argument presented. Consider "The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me. I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy."

The "our navy has less ships than they said they need" is obviously the important concept being conveyed here, and the implication that it's likely to go lower is also pretty fair(very probable even without sequestration, in fact). Obama did not produce any reasons for why the needs of today did not match the navy's estimate.


Except that "concept" doesn't convey anything. "Our" navy has less ships than they need for what? Where are they lacking ships? What kind of ships are they lacking? Which "mission"? Did he establish that the number of ships that was supposedly needed wasn't addressed by alternative means, such as different quality ships, different methods for addressing the relevant missions, adjusting the mission parameters, etc.?

No. The only real argument made was for the absolute number of ships, and that argument was properly ridiculed.

Tyndmyr wrote:Except the context is comparing to 1916, not to 1920. And no, war surplus is not the same as issued to troops, so from a very pedantic standpoint, Obama's comment is outright false.


His statement was about how many they had, not how many are issued to troops. I'll cede this one as "i-just-don't-have-a-clue-and-don't-care-about-how-many-bayonets-they-had-back-then", but I'm going to stick by my earlier point that the simple existence of bayonets today does not in itself put into question Obama's statement.

Either way, beside the point.

Tyndmyr wrote:Nah. It's called derision...


The two are not mutually exclusive.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Beltayn
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Beltayn » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:24 am UTC

Er, according to that picture, our number of active carriers is 24. Given that the number is currently 11, decreasing to 10 shortly...something's pretty terribly off. What are you counting, decommissioned ships that are museums?

Also, it has other blatant inaccuracies, like the fact that spain has two aircraft carriers, not one, China isn't even listed, Italy has two, not one.... yeah, let's just say that this isn't a very good way to determine need for carriers either.


See my edit above.

To clarify, the picture is including any seaborne platform capable of launching a STVL jet.

We already have helicopters and vtol aircraft, so this really isn't a new development, but an evolutionary advancement of capabilities. This is exactly what amphibious ships already do. We can explore the composition of the amphibious fleet as well, but it's not really a replacement for full on carriers, nor is it intended as such.


We already have Harriers. Harriers are very limited in mission scope. They are not an air superiority platform. They are incapable of fulfilling the role carrier-based aircraft wings fulfill.

So yes, this is an evolutionary advancement in capabilities. Not the development of STVL (which has existed for decades), but the incorporation of STVL technology into a multi-purpose air superiority platform.
And yes, it is a BIG DEAL.

It should be noted that currently, operational/maint costs for the current wars make up a rather larger chunk of defense spending. So, over the long term, a policy involving less wars could save money without chopping troops or gear, but this seems unlikely with either candidate, neither of whom is particularly isolationist.


This is totally incorrect.
Overseas Contingency Operations funding is totally independent of the base Defense Budget.

All comparisons relate only to the Defense Budget alone. Both candidates assume Overseas Contingency Operations funding will taper off.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Soralin » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:34 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The 1917 line was also pointless and poorly chosen, but clearly part of the overall message of "the navy needs more ships". Ignoring the overall message and focusing on the fluffery is like...well, much like the rest of the debates.

Yes, the message was that the navy needs more ships. Why does it need more ships? Well.. because more is better than less, right?

Tyndmyr wrote:Er, according to that picture, our number of active carriers is 24. Given that the number is currently 11, decreasing to 10 shortly...something's pretty terribly off. What are you counting, decommissioned ships that are museums?

According to what I can find, the ones on the left are Tarawa-class, and Wasp-class ships. Technically, they're classified as amphibious assault ships, even though they're bigger than many of the ships labeled as aircraft carriers from other nations. They seem to make use of VTOL aircraft, same as many of the ships labeled as aircraft carriers outside the US seem to.

Tyndmyr wrote:Also, it has other blatant inaccuracies, like the fact that spain has two aircraft carriers, not one, China isn't even listed, Italy has two, not one.... yeah, let's just say that this isn't a very good way to determine need for carriers either.

Looks like there's a slightly updated version here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rriers.htm with links if you click on the ships to what their class is. Looks like it includes ships that carry aircraft, and not just what is technically labeled as aircraft carriers.

Tyndmyr wrote:
Soralin wrote:Frankly, I'd like our military spending to be cut back to what it was a decade or two ago, if not more. Which would mean cutting it back to less than half of what it is now, and saving $400 billion/year (or $4 trillion / 10 years, since everyone seems to be giving numbers in terms of 10 year spans for some reason now), which would still put it at more than double the spending of the next nearest country.

And what trade-offs would be necessary to accomplish this? I'm not against cost cutting in general,

Presumably it would mean scaling back to what we had a decade or two ago. Although probably with a different focus, given different primary threats now as compared to then. I don't see that it would have much of a functional difference other than limiting our ability to attack other nations a bit, if the cuts are properly focused, which strikes me as win-win.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:26 am UTC

Beltayn wrote:
Er, according to that picture, our number of active carriers is 24. Given that the number is currently 11, decreasing to 10 shortly...something's pretty terribly off. What are you counting, decommissioned ships that are museums?

Also, it has other blatant inaccuracies, like the fact that spain has two aircraft carriers, not one, China isn't even listed, Italy has two, not one.... yeah, let's just say that this isn't a very good way to determine need for carriers either.


See my edit above.

To clarify, the picture is including any seaborne platform capable of launching a STVL jet.


Gotcha. The updated link mentioned later is in fact more accurate, taking that into account. I could quibble a bit over the definition of what constitutes "capable of launching an STVL jet"...but regardless, nobody is proposing that country X is going to outdo us in a naval battle. Carriers project power, and historically have quite often engaged land-based aircraft.

Can we cut the number of carriers and still keep the US from being invaded? Absolutely. Can we cut the number of carriers, and still expect the same roles to be filled? Not so much. Something has to give.

We already have helicopters and vtol aircraft, so this really isn't a new development, but an evolutionary advancement of capabilities. This is exactly what amphibious ships already do. We can explore the composition of the amphibious fleet as well, but it's not really a replacement for full on carriers, nor is it intended as such.


We already have Harriers. Harriers are very limited in mission scope. They are not an air superiority platform. They are incapable of fulfilling the role carrier-based aircraft wings fulfill.


Harriers can obviously fill air superiority roles. They dominated at it in the Falklands, for instance. The F35 does it better, true, but technology marches on, it's a incremental difference, not a difference in kind. However, I will caveat this by saying that the Harrier is indeed aging. The first ones were made in '67, which puts them at almost half a century old now. The harrier does need a replacement. However, it did perform this role pretty great in it's heyday.

It should be noted that currently, operational/maint costs for the current wars make up a rather larger chunk of defense spending. So, over the long term, a policy involving less wars could save money without chopping troops or gear, but this seems unlikely with either candidate, neither of whom is particularly isolationist.


This is totally incorrect.
Overseas Contingency Operations funding is totally independent of the base Defense Budget.

All comparisons relate only to the Defense Budget alone. Both candidates assume Overseas Contingency Operations funding will taper off.


When you say Defense budget, clearly, you're referring to the DoD budget. Defense is larger than simply DoD, but in particular, Overseas Contingency Operations is strongly linked to DoD. The money mostly goes to them, and they spend it on military expenses.

That said, Operational/maint costs are not necessarily accounted for perfectly. Wear and tear adds up even if things don't break, wounded soldiers need VA expenses, etc, etc...the list just keeps going on. Wars are bloody expensive. If you reduce the wars, you can absolutely reduce spending on defense. It's one of the primary benefits to isolationist policy...but that's well out of fashion currently.

I see a lot of people talking about "what the military does/doesn't want", from both sides. That's really just inaccurate.

It's important to distinguish that the military does not pick sides in discussions like this. The military answers to the civilian leadership.

The civilian leadership determines what the proper mission of the military is.
The military then will say what they feel is adequate resources in order to do a good job accomplishing that mission.

It is not the military's place to say "We should have the capability to fight a war on X fronts simultaneously", verses "we only need to be able to fight a war on X-1 fronts".


I do not mean to imply that the military wants to fight more battles. The navy's estimates of ships needed(and the same for other forces) is indeed based on what they're being asked to do. You can ask them to do less(and pay correspondingly less), or you can support the role adequately. Or, you can always ask for the moon and decrease the pay, but this is likely to have bad side effects. Aging aircraft, ships, etc are frequently less reliable, need more maint, and are more accident prone, and of course, cutting manning to minimums tend to increase the likelihood of things going catastrophically wrong. There's simply less room for redundancy.

Typically, things like carriers are among the things the mil wants to cut last, though. Oilers, small craft, harbor ships...all the various support roles tend to be earlier to go(they have shorter lead times than carriers and stuff generally). This doesn't mean they're unimportant, though. Adequate supply and support is huge for winning wars effectively.

yoni45 wrote:Except that "concept" doesn't convey anything. "Our" navy has less ships than they need for what? Where are they lacking ships? What kind of ships are they lacking? Which "mission"? Did he establish that the number of ships that was supposedly needed wasn't addressed by alternative means, such as different quality ships, different methods for addressing the relevant missions, adjusting the mission parameters, etc.?


His point was simply that the Navy was being forced to reduce ships below what they felt they needed for budgetary concerns. They aren't being addressed by alternative means like different quality ships, because you simply cannot swap out fleets on that scale over that kind of timeframe. We didn't suddenly have a different fleet develop over the last administration. Plus, the person you should be expecting to defend the cuts is Obama. Seriously, you can't be expecting his opponent to defend his policies.

Soralin wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Soralin wrote:Frankly, I'd like our military spending to be cut back to what it was a decade or two ago, if not more. Which would mean cutting it back to less than half of what it is now, and saving $400 billion/year (or $4 trillion / 10 years, since everyone seems to be giving numbers in terms of 10 year spans for some reason now), which would still put it at more than double the spending of the next nearest country.

And what trade-offs would be necessary to accomplish this? I'm not against cost cutting in general,

Presumably it would mean scaling back to what we had a decade or two ago. Although probably with a different focus, given different primary threats now as compared to then. I don't see that it would have much of a functional difference other than limiting our ability to attack other nations a bit, if the cuts are properly focused, which strikes me as win-win.


Scaling back to spending the same dollars as in 2002 will not buy us the same military as in 2002. For one thing, inflation is a bitch. That means, in real money, a ridiculous spending cut. For another, technology is marching onward for others as well. Plenty of other nations are running better gear than they were a decade ago.

Cutting >50% of the military budget would absolutely gut our military capabilities, and you're dramatically underestimating the impact of this.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby yoni45 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:33 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:His point was simply that the Navy was being forced to reduce ships below what they felt they needed for budgetary concerns. They aren't being addressed by alternative means like different quality ships, because you simply cannot swap out fleets on that scale over that kind of timeframe. We didn't suddenly have a different fleet develop over the last administration. Plus, the person you should be expecting to defend the cuts is Obama. Seriously, you can't be expecting his opponent to defend his policies.


His "point" was not even about the Navy, for one. But what I can expect of him is to make his point, whatever it may be, with something a little less ridiculous than "dur, we need moar ships" -- did he even provide anything close to what can be considered a citation? Where did this claim even come from? Obama's response was perfectly on point given what he was addressing.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby folkhero » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:19 am UTC

If you want to see a debate that isn't controlled by the Republican/Democratic duopoly, the third party debate was held earlier tonight. You can see it here. Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode, and Gary Johnson participated with Larry King moderating.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:49 am UTC

In more third debate related talk, this made me laugh:
Image
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10187
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby addams » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:52 am UTC

Homeland Securty ate the DOD.

War toys? The debate was about war toys?

The Us needs nurses,doctors,social workers,mental health proffesionals,food programs,teachers,shelter for rapidly growing homeless population. The US that I see looks like a nation that has lost a war with its self.

We don't need a boat. We need help with 2nd and 3rd world problems.

We have lost our poetry. Many of my people can not read in their only language. Few can read well.

The people are working too hard. The poor in my nation are facing another winter. Many will not see the spring.
We don't nerd another boat. A boat is a hole in the water to throw money in.

What do we want to do with war toys?
Protect our lifstyles? Nah.

Keep the rich rich? Humans!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:22 pm UTC

addams wrote:Homeland Securty ate the DOD.


Homeland Security is also considered to be part of the defense budget...but it's not over the DoD, nor is it larger than the DoD. It's a smaller, also cabinet level agency. I can't see a reasonable way to describe them as eating the DoD.

War toys? The debate was about war toys?


It was about foreign policy, so yes, war and the equipment used to fight that was discussed. The debate was not simply about this, though.

The Us needs nurses,doctors,social workers,mental health proffesionals,food programs,teachers,shelter for rapidly growing homeless population. The US that I see looks like a nation that has lost a war with its self.


Between 2009 and 2011, despite a pretty crappy economy, homelessness declined by 1%. I'm not sure what America you're looking at, and all these things are good, but we kind of have those already. This is not a post-war nation, that's hyperbole.

We don't need a boat. We need help with 2nd and 3rd world problems.


Yeah, the problems America faces don't generally look like third world problems. Starvation is not an issue, for instance. We're far more likely to be overweight. We have problems, true, but they're very much first world problems.

We have lost our poetry. Many of my people can not read in their only language. Few can read well.


Are you possibly not from the US? Literacy isn't a huge concern here.

The people are working too hard. The poor in my nation are facing another winter. Many will not see the spring.
We don't nerd another boat. A boat is a hole in the water to throw money in.


Nobody is saying that starving countries need to buy more boats, and that's not really what the debate was about. It was about US foreign policy.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby The Reaper » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:31 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:If you want to see a debate that isn't controlled by the Republican/Democratic duopoly, the third party debate was held earlier tonight. You can see it here. Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode, and Gary Johnson participated with Larry King moderating.

Video for those that missed it: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ThirdPartyPresid

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11115
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

The Third Party Debate I started watching wasn't a debate. So I stopped watching it.

(For those who don't get why
Spoiler:
Image
is hilarious, Romney stated that Syria is Iran's route to the sea in the debate. Now, if I was feeling charitable, I'd say that this was an idiomatic expression about Syria being Iran's method of harassing Israel, and thus building credibility on the Arab street, sort of a route-to-the-sea. But am I feeling charitable punk? Am I?)
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:48 pm UTC

No, making fun of him for such sloppy word usage(at best) is entirely fair. That image is hilarious, and if Romney wanted to make a reference about Iran being a threat to Israel via Syria, there's no reason he couldn't state that much more plainly.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:50 pm UTC

We have lost our poetry. Many of my people can not read in their only language. Few can read well.

Are you possibly not from the US? Literacy isn't a huge concern here.


I don't believe addam's is from the US. From his posting habits I don't have an inkling where he is from. With that said, I do believe literacy is a fairly large issue here, depending on your definition of literacy.

~It is not a presidential issue though because no one tackles it at all.

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby faranim » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:18 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:The Third Party Debate I started watching wasn't a debate. So I stopped watching it.


I was disappointed with it as well. They forgot to let the candidates give opening statements, and then there was some awkward moments. And each candidate essentially just recited their previous speeches (from prior conventions, etc) over again. Yes Gary, I already know you were elected Gov. of New Mexico in a state that's 2 to 1 democrat.

And for many of the questions, all of the 3rd party candidates agreed, which kind of defeats the point of a debate.

I'm still voting 3rd party though - I just hope that 3rd parties can get enough of the overall popular vote to gather mainstream media attention. Even just 3% of the popular vote for the Green or Libertarian party would give them the national attention they need.

Derek
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Derek » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:02 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:In more third debate related talk, this made me laugh:
Spoiler:
Image

To be fair, the Caspian is more of a lake. :)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10187
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby addams » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

TOP POST due to hardware limitations.)
I have been hearing "You are not from here." Most of my life.
I am unimpressed.

I disagree with you. Not only the common people on the street have difficulty with adult level reading and writing. Some of our law makers can't read beyond a fifth grade level. I know. I have met some. I have given it some thought. These people were chosen for the gift of being unincumbered by the process of thought.

The U S DOES! have 2nd and 3rd world problems!

What Ivory Tower or Gated Community do you live in?

We don't need a boat!!

We do have a lovely and large land.

Not all the people are hungry, poor and without hope. Too fucking many are!
We nerd a more generous food stamp program. We need medical care without threat of financial disaster.
We need the boat money to provide for the care and feeding of the people.
The Daddies want a boat?!Do not give those men a boat! They do not need a boat!

Hey. There is a fat woman we need help with. She is carrying extra weight. She also gets hungry, everyday.

We have people dieing off in the bushes along our roads. They die from exposure and starvation.

Our people die of neglect. We need tools to kill their people?

Don't fuck with us. We might like it and it might make more of us!
[guote="kiklion"]
We have lost our poetry. Many of my people can not read in their only language. Few can read well.

Are you possibly not from the US? Literacy isn't a huge concern here.


I don't believe addam's is from the US. From his posting habits I don't have an inkling where he is from. With that said, I do believe literacy is a fairly large issue here, depending on your definition of literacy.

~It is not a presidential issue though because no one tackles it at all.[/quote]
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

addams wrote:TOP POST due to hardware limitations.)
I have been hearing "You are not from here." Most of my life.
I am unimpressed.


Well, your claims are not matching up with reality. I don't care where you came from, but this is a distinctly American election, and it's going to center on American issues.So, if your claims don't match up with reality in America, they don't matter.

I disagree with you. Not only the common people on the street have difficulty with adult level reading and writing. Some of our law makers can't read beyond a fifth grade level. I know. I have met some. I have given it some thought. These people were chosen for the gift of being unincumbered by the process of thought.


The average person on the street is decently literate. Sure, you have some functional illiteracy, but it's mostly a regional thing, and while it absolutely is a problem, as another poster noted, neither candidate is really focusing on that. If it were to become an issue, I'm sure they'd both blather very similar policies about being against it. Hurray.

Lawmakers who have difficulty reading is not something I've encountered. Lawmakers who don't read enough of the right stuff...sure. But it's not usually a question of ability, but rather ideology.

The U S DOES! have 2nd and 3rd world problems!

What Ivory Tower or Gated Community do you live in?


I currently live in an apartment building in MD. It is not gated, nor is particularly tower-like. My neighbors trend toward working class, with a substantial percentage of military. I do not see evidence of homelessness, illiteracy, or starvation running rampant. It isn't very much like a third world country at all. I grew up in the midwest. That, while a different culture, was also not much like a third world country.

Not all the people are hungry, poor and without hope. Too fucking many are!
We nerd a more generous food stamp program. We need medical care without threat of financial disaster.
We need the boat money to provide for the care and feeding of the people.
The Daddies want a boat?!Do not give those men a boat! They do not need a boat!


Why is a more generous food stamp program the answer? Simply throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily make it go away. Instead of looking at merely the overall size of welfare systems, consider looking at the implementation. The welfare cliff, for instance, is something that's a problem. It's also not one that's fixed by increasing the size of the benefit.

Hey. There is a fat woman we need help with. She is carrying extra weight. She also gets hungry, everyday.


This is very much not a third world problem. It's a problem, sure, but this is an excellent example of how our problems differ from the third world.

We have people dieing off in the bushes along our roads. They die from exposure and starvation.


In America? Exposure and starvation are not common causes of death. Nutritional deficiencies constitute less than 1% of deaths in America, which is pretty damned far down the list. Note that nutritional deficiencies includes rather a lot in addition to simple starvation. Exposure doesn't even rate inclusion because it's so incredibly rare.

Our people die of neglect. We need tools to kill their people?


No, our people die of heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc.

Don't fuck with us. We might like it and it might make more of us!


I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about now.

User avatar
Whammy
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:34 pm UTC
Location: Southern United States

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Whammy » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:25 am UTC

faranim wrote:
Yakk wrote:The Third Party Debate I started watching wasn't a debate. So I stopped watching it.


I was disappointed with it as well. They forgot to let the candidates give opening statements, and then there was some awkward moments. And each candidate essentially just recited their previous speeches (from prior conventions, etc) over again. Yes Gary, I already know you were elected Gov. of New Mexico in a state that's 2 to 1 democrat.

And for many of the questions, all of the 3rd party candidates agreed, which kind of defeats the point of a debate.

I'm still voting 3rd party though - I just hope that 3rd parties can get enough of the overall popular vote to gather mainstream media attention. Even just 3% of the popular vote for the Green or Libertarian party would give them the national attention they need.


Eh, I don't think it was that bad after that first third of so; I think the question regarding legalization of marijuana would have been a bit better though if Virgil Goode actually explained why he was against it =P. Seriously, that guy liked one-sentence responses way too much. And Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson...okay they just kept agreeing way to much that I saw on his facebook page someone actually asking what the difference was between them.

...okay, maybe it could have done better ^_^""". At least Anderson and Goode got some exposure; anytime I actually see 3rd party people mentioned they get kind of snubbed.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Jave D » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:30 am UTC

Here's an interesting article from the Department of the Navy's Information Technology Magazine. Written by Secretary of the Navy Mabus, April 20th 2012.

And speaking of history, history is important here. On September 11th, 2001, our fleet stood at 316 ships, and we had more than 377,000 Sailors. Yet, when I was sworn in as secretary less than eight years later, those numbers had declined by 33 ships and almost 49,000 Sailors. So during the time of one of the largest defense buildups in our nation’s history, our fleet got smaller and we lost Sailors. And the numbers were headed in the wrong direction. In 2008, for example, the Navy built only three ships.

At the start of this Administration, I made shipbuilding a priority and, now, in spite of a much tougher fiscal environment, in spite of having to defer some ships or decommission some early in order to meet the numbers of the Budget Control Act, the fleet-size numbers are moving in the right direction. I want to give you two facts, two numbers that are very important. At the end of this five-year budget, this FYDP, we will have at least as many ships in the fleet as we do today. But that fleet of 2017 will have many more, more capable ships.

And we are on track, as the 30-year shipbuilding plan we submitted to Congress recently shows, to reach a fleet of 300 ships by 2019 and keep it there. Given the circumstances, both current and historic, these two facts that I’ve just given you were considered improbable, at best, just a short time ago.

Getting to these numbers has not been easy, and some other factors made getting to this point harder still. When I took office, too many of our shipbuilding programs were, and there is no other way to put this, a mess. Ships were being designed while they were being built and the costs of too many of our ships were out of control. Let me give you some examples of what was the case and what has been done to correct the situation.

First, the LCS program in the early summer of 2009 had two ships in the water and two were being built. The first ships were still being designed while they were being built. And that is no way to build a ship.

When we bid out three more that summer, the bids came back astoundingly and unsustainably high. I made the decision to get the builders of the two variants to compete in a down-select to only one variant based mainly on price. This was in spite of the fact that the Navy wanted and had uses for both variants. The resulting competition came in almost 40 percent below the initial bids. And I want to brag on the two shipbuilders that did that.

So instead of buying 10 from the winner and then nine of the same type from the second shipyard we went back to Congress, we got permission to buy 10 of each variant. So, the Navy gets 20 ships instead of 19, and the Navy saves $2.9 billion in addition. Today, they're being built under fixed price contracts, and the 10th ship of each class, is going to cost significantly less than the first ship.

Next, the restart of the DDG 51 line. We have only two shipyards building these ships and we need them both, but we also needed competition in this class of ships or we wouldn't be able to afford the ones we needed. When we bid out the next three ships of these destroyers last year, the solicitation said that each yard would get one ship but the low bidder would get the third ship and the difference between the low bid and the high bid would be weighed against the high bidder’s fee. We got the three ships we needed, and we saved $300 million in that solicitation.

Finally, the new carrier, CVN 78. It’s a program that is still giving us some issues, but here, one more time, history is important. Or, put another way, as I said in my last round of budget hearings in Congress, I used the punch line of an old joke, that bed was already on fire when I got in.

When the Navy first started in the late ‘90s to plan a new carrier to follow the Nimitz class, the technology for this ship was to be phased in over three ships. But in 2002, the then-Secretary of Defense decided to put it all on one, which sent the risk absolutely through the roof.

It's a brand new ship. It has all new interior arrangements, a new island, a new arresting gear, new launch system, new propulsion system, new electrical system, new combat system. It’s a brand new ship. When the contract was signed in 2008, and it had been delayed by two years, the ship was only 30 percent designed. That is no way to build a ship. It has created cost overruns that continue to this day.

We've taken action to get it back on course. We've recouped fee from the shipbuilder and capped the amount we are going to pay so it’s not an open checkbook. The biggest thing we can do, though, is to make sure we capture the lessons learned from this ship and apply them to CVN 79, to make sure it comes in on budget.

So, we've stabilized our shipbuilding program and we’ve stabilized the fleet and we will grow the fleet to 300 by 2019. Since December 2010, we have placed an additional 38 ships, soon to be 40, under contract — most of these competed — all of these fixed price contracts. This compares to the three ships built in the year before I took office. I’m not sure this qualifies as a miracle, but I know it is a significant accomplishment for the Navy.

We have all heard the point that this is the smallest fleet the Navy’s had since 1917. But comparing our fleet today to the one in 1917 is like comparing the telegraph to the smart phone. They’re just not comparable. The technology that we have today, the ability to use our fleet today is astoundingly different from what it was 100 years ago, but also what it was 20 years ago.


I believe that last paragraph is essentially what Obama was saying in the debate a few days ago, because Romney himself did compare the fleet by numbers alone to the fleet of WWI. It would have been better still if Obama had also reported on shipbuilding during his administration too, especially compared to the rate of ships built in the last year of the "war president" Bush's administration.

Of course, none of this really matters, when some people are too busy actually counting the numbers of bayonets in use now compared to then. Missing the fucking point entirely.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:07 am UTC

Jave D wrote:some people are too busy actually counting the numbers of bayonets in use now compared to then

Which in itself is a failure in pedantry, considering that Obama said "horses and bayonets".

An interesting thing happened on intrade the other day:
At several points on Tuesday and early Wednesday, what appeared to be a single trader bought a large number of Mr. Romney’s shares at Intrade, at one point boosting Mr. Romney’s chances to about 49 percent from 41 percent over the span of a few minutes. The betting patterns echo similar ones in the pricing of John McCain and Mr. Obama’s stock at Intrade late in the 2008 cycle.

It is not necessarily safe to conclude that represents an effort to manipulate the market, or public perceptions about Mr. Romney’s chances. Instead, it could just be someone who thinks Mr. Romney is a good bet relative to the price being offered.

Which makes me wonder - would some advertising money be better spent pumping the market to make it look like your candidate was the favourite? The shift in numbers would be practically guaranteed airtime, and it would likely be cheaper than some of these multi-million dollar buys we're seeing.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:25 am UTC

Clearly it is Mitt Romney making more investments. I can't wait until he gets majority control of himself, restructures himself, lays off unprofitable organs, and then jettisons before Mitt Romney has to file for Chapter 11 life support.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

As I recall it, the large McCain plays on InTrade last time around were ruled to be a rational hedging strategy by the individual who did it, even though they obviously didn't reveal that person's confidentiality. To give a situation from this year, someone working at the White House right now might have an interest in buying into a 2:1 bet of Mitt Romney winning as a form of unemployment insurance even if they thought that it was merely a fair price.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:45 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Jave D wrote:some people are too busy actually counting the numbers of bayonets in use now compared to then

Which in itself is a failure in pedantry, considering that Obama said "horses and bayonets".


We have 116 horses. While mostly for ceremony, we did do cavalry charges during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, as weird as that sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
Jave D wrote:some people are too busy actually counting the numbers of bayonets in use now compared to then

Which in itself is a failure in pedantry, considering that Obama said "horses and bayonets".


We have 116 horses. While mostly for ceremony, we did do cavalry charges during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, as weird as that sounds.


If we wanted to be very, very pedantic, the total number of horses + bayonets issued in 1916 is still lower than the number of horses + bayonets issued today.

That said, the only way I can think of to make that relevant would be to postulate that Obama's historical military knowledge might be lacking. Even so, it's still a little on the meaningless trivia side of things.

Also, bayonet training for me was something I barely took seriously. I was in the air force, as a coder. I figured, if I ever had to resort to using a bayonet, something had gone terribly, terribly wrong.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
If we wanted to be very, very pedantic, the total number of horses + bayonets issued in 1916 is still lower than the number of horses + bayonets issued today.

That's not pedantic, that's misinterpreting the meaning of "and".

You're continually missing the point, here. Obama came out with the line about horses and bayonets because Romney constructed a completely empty argument based on a cherry-picked statistic. It was all meaningless because Romney chose to make a meaningless attack. Obama came back with his response because he found out in the first debate the price of allowing it to appear that Romney won. I don't know why you're insisting on making it some big point. It was a rhetorical altercation, and that's all. Enjoy the joke and move on. There's no need to derail the entire thread over it.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
If we wanted to be very, very pedantic, the total number of horses + bayonets issued in 1916 is still lower than the number of horses + bayonets issued today.

That's not pedantic, that's misinterpreting the meaning of "and".


Either interpretation results in the Obama quote being wrong. If they're two separate comparisons, he's correct on horses, incorrect on bayonets. If it's one large comparison, it's still incorrect overall. However, yeah, delving into such things is definitely pedantry.

You're continually missing the point, here. Obama came out with the line about horses and bayonets because Romney constructed a completely empty argument based on a cherry-picked statistic. It was all meaningless because Romney chose to make a meaningless attack. Obama came back with his response because he found out in the first debate the price of allowing it to appear that Romney won. I don't know why you're insisting on making it some big point. It was a rhetorical altercation, and that's all. Enjoy the joke and move on. There's no need to derail the entire thread over it.


I am fully aware that while wrong, it's meaningless. It's just a side discussion. You'll note that I'd already observed earlier that both parties went pretty off the rails as far as responding to the question, so we're not really disagreeing here.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Garm » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

Nate Silver has Obama over 70% to win again.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/

And looks like someone is trying to influence InTrade again (this sort of thing happened in 2008 as well).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/economy/a-brief-betting-surge-for-romney-on-intrade.html?_r=0
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Wnderer » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:30 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Nate Silver has Obama over 70% to win again.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/

And looks like someone is trying to influence InTrade again (this sort of thing happened in 2008 as well).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/economy/a-brief-betting-surge-for-romney-on-intrade.html?_r=0


Obama has a big advantage in the electoral college. I read last week somewhere that Obama has 60% chance of winning the electoral college but only a 50/50 chance of winning the popular vote. So if you hate the electoral college and don't live in a battleground state you should vote for Romney and try to get some Republicans against it.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:39 pm UTC

Wnderer wrote:
Garm wrote:Nate Silver has Obama over 70% to win again.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/

And looks like someone is trying to influence InTrade again (this sort of thing happened in 2008 as well).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/economy/a-brief-betting-surge-for-romney-on-intrade.html?_r=0


Obama has a big advantage in the electoral college. I read last week somewhere that Obama has 60% chance of winning the electoral college but only a 50/50 chance of winning the popular vote. So if you hate the electoral college and don't live in a battleground state you should vote for Romney and try to get some Republicans against it.

Why would anyone be against it? With a popular vote you either win or lose. With the current set up you might lose but get the chance to whine because you would have won the popular vote. Since Dem wins + Rep wins= 100% => Dem wins +Rep wins + chances to whine > 100%. So on average it give a better result! Q.E.D!
(Okay I consider it a fairly horrible system, but I don't live in the USA so whatever.)
Last edited by PeteP on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3988
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:43 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:Why would anyone be against it? With a popular vote you either win or lose. With the current set up you might lose but get the chance to whine because you would have one the popular vote. Since Dem wins + Rep wins= 100% => Dem wins +Rep wins + chances to whine > 100%. So on average it give a better result! Q.E.D!
(Okay I consider it a fairly horrible system, but I don't live in the USA so whatever.)


I think you're pretty much spot on why it won't be changed. Even if you lose the contest it still has the potential to award bonus points in the next round.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:45 pm UTC

Wnderer wrote:Obama has a big advantage in the electoral college. I read last week somewhere that Obama has 60% chance of winning the electoral college but only a 50/50 chance of winning the popular vote. So if you hate the electoral college and don't live in a battleground state you should vote for Romney and try to get some Republicans against it.


Ugh. Then I get to hear four(or so) more years of the same whining I heard post-gore. Honestly, I get my fill of election rage in the already-lengthy election cycle. I don't need to hear more of this afterward.

I'd rather have a clear victory one way or t'other.

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:09 pm UTC

People were upset about the 2000 election because it was so obvious that the majority of voters not only in the U.S. as a whole but also in Florida preferred Gore. But through a whole series of fuckups - a butterfly ballot in one county that led to an estimated 17,000 votes for Buchannan instead of Gore, Katherine Harris "mistakenly" stripping thousands of minority voters from the voter registry because they had the same or similar names as disenfranchised criminals, etc, up to the blatantly political ruling to STOP THE COUNTING OF VOTES by the conservatives on the Supreme Court - the will of the voters was thwarted. Think that needs to be pointed out when someone talks about "whining" about the results of that election.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:11 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:(Okay I consider it a fairly horrible system, but I don't live in the USA so whatever.)


Well, you wouldn't have a pan-European election to select the President of the EU for nearly the exact same reasons that the united states (lower case) aren't going to surrender their sovereignty and local control over electoral policy (except in a few high-profile cases like universal suffrage and civil rights guarantees). Ideally, there would have been some point in history when the US redrafted the Consitution to codify that federalist hegemony is no basis for a system of government, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:19 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:People were upset about the 2000 election because it was so obvious that the majority of voters not only in the U.S. as a whole but also in Florida preferred Gore. But through a whole series of fuckups - a butterfly ballot in one county that led to an estimated 17,000 votes for Buchannan instead of Gore, Katherine Harris "mistakenly" stripping thousands of minority voters from the voter registry because they had the same or similar names as disenfranchised criminals, etc, up to the blatantly political ruling to STOP THE COUNTING OF VOTES by the conservatives on the Supreme Court - the will of the voters was thwarted. Think that needs to be pointed out when someone talks about "whining" about the results of that election.


Nah. Had it come down that narrowly on the other side post-recounts, there would have been every been as much whining by the other side.

When the margin of error collides with the margin of victory, people are gonna get unhappy. This is especially true when popular vote doesn't match victory conditions.

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Nah. Had it come down that narrowly on the other side post-recounts, there would have been every been as much whining by the other side.



Really. Because you can point to examples of thousands of people in Republican-leaning demographics being illegally disenfranchised by the Secretary of State who also happened to be the head of Bush's Florida campaign? So it's all even? Please, share that data with us.

The very use of the term "whining" is in my opinion a rather vile insult to all those whose vote was denied to them in that election. But hey, if you're a well off white guy who's never faced voter suppression in any form, I suspect it's easy to be so casual about it when it happens to others. Who cares about "democracy" or "will of the people" as long as you personally are cool with the results.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests