U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Fuzzzie]

Are they really open forums then...
*philosoraptor*

No. Ultimately they're not. People who claim free speech on a private forum are foolish. What I meant was, we aren't to discuss actions against other users in public.

[Catta]

No. Ultimately they're not. People who claim free speech on a private forum are foolish. What I meant was, we aren't to discuss actions against other users in public.

But you just said they were open. *gasp*

Okay - I'll stop now :P

[Grizzly Willy]

Sometimes people see a mod and then edit what they said, which works if you no one reported you before you edited it.

Considering the fact that you complain about people reporting you, I'm not entirely sure you're one to trust. You only get a notification if you've been infracted, so how you know when people are reporting you is beyond me.

[oblivionx]

Considering the fact that you bemoan people who report you, I'm not entirely sure you're one to trust. You only get a notification if you've been infracted, so how you know when people are reporting you is beyond me.

Well, infer is a powerful tool.

I mean if every single infraction you get is related to one person, you can probably say you know. It's not like the infraction doesn't have the quote you were infracted for.

[Fuzzzie]

Sometimes people see a mod and then edit what they said, which works if no one reported you before you edited it.

Past edits aren't invisible to us. If we need to find out what was said before an edit. it can be done.

[Grizzly Willy]

Well, infer is a powerful tool.

I mean if every single infraction you get is related to one person, you can probably say you know. It's not like the infraction doesn't have the quote you were infracted for.

Infractions aren't reports, though. If you meant you know who gets you infracted, I can believe that. Reports don't give the user a notification unless a moderator decides to act on it.

At any rate, I'll bow out here. If you want to continue this conversation we can do so in a PM about it. Not doing this because I'm trying to be rude, just don't want to clutter the thread up more than it already has been with this discussion.

[Dacien]

You're well aware that the "government support voter" is largely a red state, phenomenon, right?

I've seen that before and it's very interesting. I still understand completely what oblivionx was saying, but that chart is disconcerting nonetheless.

[belfpala]

I've seen that before and it's very interesting. I still understand completely what oblivionx was saying, but that chart is disconcerting nonetheless.

Daily show did a thing about it a few days ago. They ended up firing Wyoming.

What was oblivionx saying, btw? To me it just seemed like he was upset Spectral's chart was color coded.

[Grizzly Willy]

OblivionX wasn't saying anything, Dacien. At least nothing to discredit what Spectral's point was.

Here's an image from the article that Oblivion got his chart from:



It proves the exact point that Spectral was making: red states take in more money from the federal government than they put back in, while blue states contribute more that they take. Spectral was right on this.

[Tastyfish]

It proves the exact point that Spectral was making: red states take in more money from the federal government than they put back in, while blue states contribute more that they take..

The Question I have is, why do the states that need more help seek to prevent themselves from getting it more often than not? Know what I mean? It makes not sense for people who need OUR support to say FUCK you to the things being built to support them. I Just don't understand.


On a side note. PITCH IN! BETTY WHITE AT THE DNC!
https://www.facebook.com/BettyWhiteDNC?ref=nf

[starlord]

The Question I have is, why do the states that need more help seek to prevent themselves from getting it more often than not? Know what I mean? It makes not sense for people who need OUR support to say FUCK you to the things being built to support them. I Just don't understand.


On a side note. PITCH IN! BETTY WHITE AT THE DNC!
https://www.facebook.com/BettyWhiteDNC?ref=nf

because they think they dont need help, theyre just having a rough spot while waiting for trickle down economics to work. damn demmycrats keep interfering.

[KingHorse]

The issue with that chart is that it uses the raw numbers which tell almost none of the reason behind the numbers.

How much does it cost to build 100 miles of highway, all with federal dollars? I don't know, but I do know that it costs the same in a red state as a blue state.

Population density is important. That chart completely ignores it with political intent.

[eriseis]

The issue with that chart is that it uses the raw numbers which tell almost none of the reason behind the numbers.

How much does it cost to build 100 miles of highway, all with federal dollars? I don't know, but I do know that it costs the same in a red state as a blue state.

Population density is important. That chart completely ignores it with political intent.

TBH, that's true with any chart or factoid. But of course people ignore that when it is an inconvenience to their own point.

[cubby]

The issue with that chart is that it uses the raw numbers which tell almost none of the reason behind the numbers.

How much does it cost to build 100 miles of highway, all with federal dollars? I don't know, but I do know that it costs the same in a red state as a blue state.

Population density is important. That chart completely ignores it with political intent.

But the chart stands alone because those factors aren't irrespective of the Fed $$ coming in and going out. Population density doesn't matter in this case, because it's only examining states that are purportedly "against" government spending and those that are "ok" with it vs how much government spending they accept.

I'm not saying that other factors aren't important, and don't come into play in this obviously complicated matter - but this chart is VERY demonstrative of the hypocrisy of the GOP voters.

p.s. love your avatar KingHorse

[KingHorse]

But the chart stands alone because those factors aren't irrespective of the Fed $$ coming in and going out. Population density doesn't matter in this case, because it's only examining states that are purportedly "against" government spending and those that are "ok" with it vs how much government spending they accept.

States aren't against government spending. States aren't people. Politicians claim to be against government spending, but most aren't. And you don't really accept federal spending in your state, nobody asks individuals if they want money spent, the fed sends the money to the states and the politicians either spend it (%99 of the time) or turn it down to score political points with the crazies.

I'm not saying that other factors aren't important, and don't come into play in this obviously complicated matter - but this chart is VERY demonstrative of the hypocrisy of the GOP voters.

This chart is demonstrative of someone wanting to use a specific set of numbers that intentionally exclude the context with the intention of making someone say "LOLREUPBLICANSRDUM!" and it worked. Because people like eating the shit their party feeds them. Stop eating it.

p.s. love your avatar KingHorse

It works on so many levels!

[eriseis]

It works on so many levels!

It's exponential progress from your previous one :P

[KingHorse]

It's exponential progress from your previous one :P

The last one was just me being an asshole. Not sure if this one is any different, or other people just share in my asshole attitude on this subject more than the last one =)

[oblivionx]

The Question I have is, why do the states that need more help seek to prevent themselves from getting it more often than not? Know what I mean? It makes not sense for people who need OUR support to say FUCK you to the things being built to support them. I Just don't understand.


On a side note. PITCH IN! BETTY WHITE AT THE DNC!
https://www.facebook.com/BettyWhiteDNC?ref=nf

When this issue is mostly settled in the other thread, switch to this thread and try and pretend it's still an issue?

[ati87]

The whole argument about the fact that the chart doesn't have context would have hold more merit if the differences wasn't as big. You could argue that state A has XXXX and thats why they need more money but how can you argue that every single state has s special reason.

Republican controlled states love to cut taxes because which benefit the rich mostly because they argue that lowering taxes increases wealth for everybody (this isn''t true with businesses and goes against basic supply and demand economics)

Of course when they reduce taxes they will cut stuff but their is so much you can cut and cutting back on spending rarely has immediate effect because their are agreements to be uphold.

[Grizzly Willy]

Was pointed to an interview between John Cusack and Jonathan Turley discussing Obama's handling of civil liberties. Kind of cements why I don't want him in office anymore, considering the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act and the increased use of drones to take out potential threats.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/03...ies-and-obama/

For the record, the article isn't solely condemning Obama. Everyone who allowed this to pass without objection has a bit of blood on their hands, and Romney has stated that he would have signed the bill as well.

So what Obama’s doing is to rewrite the most fundamental principle of the US Constitution. The whole point of the Holder speech was that we’re really good guys who take this seriously, and you can trust us. That’s exactly the argument the framers rejected, the “trust me” principle of government. You’ll notice when Romney was asked about this, he said, “I would’ve signed the same law, because I trust Obama to do the right thing.” They’re both using the very argument that the framers warned citizens never to accept from their government.

The full interview, and it is a rather lengthy one, can be found here: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/03...ies-and-obama/