StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Views that are "far outside the mainstream" find surprisingly large hold in the American public when not worded in a way that media's trained them to immediately discredit. Remember how in the days before the ACA passed, support for single-payer healthcare went anywhere from a small minority to a large majority depending on how it was worded? Not many people are going to identify with the Green party personally, but they like the idea of social democracy and strong environmental protections. There aren't many registered Libertarians, but the idea of small government is pretty big in America. And 2007-era Huckabee style conservative populism combined with a strong social safety net isn't a fringe movement, either; it's just not going to get support from either of the major two parties and so it doesn't get many votes.

America's Chief Wizard. Nate Silver proves once again that math trumps partisan hysteria.

God Nate Silver did it.

Good, Chris Mathews has apologized on his show for his brainfart at 3am Eastern when he said he was glad we got hit by Sandy. Like literally in the last 30 seconds of a superb job by all of the anchors on MSNBC as well as the production staffs and operators. I don't live in an area hit by Sandy but if I did I think I'd accept the apology.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Views that are "far outside the mainstream" find surprisingly large hold in the American public when not worded in a way that media's trained them to immediately discredit. Remember how in the days before the ACA passed, support for single-payer healthcare went anywhere from a small minority to a large majority depending on how it was worded? Not many people are going to identify with the Green party personally, but they like the idea of social democracy and strong environmental protections. There aren't many registered Libertarians, but the idea of small government is pretty big in America. And 2007-era Huckabee style conservative populism combined with a strong social safety net isn't a fringe movement, either; it's just not going to get support from either of the major two parties and so it doesn't get many votes.

Single Payer Healthcare has long been a goal of the Democrat party. Social democracy and environmental protection are also very mainstream ideas that are very in tune with the democrat party. Small government was always considered a core Republican ideal. There are elements from every third party that exist in the two major parties. But Its the extra baggage, often driven by unrealistic ideology that third parties bring upon themselves that drags them down.

TheHammer wrote:Single Payer Healthcare has long been a goal of the Democrat party. Social democracy and environmental protection are also very mainstream ideas that are very in tune with the democrat party. Small government was always considered a core Republican ideal.

Funny enough, but the Democrats usually fail environmental protection, while Republicans utterly fail at "small government" - they can cut down the taxes but cannot reign in expenses and their crazy wars, so the budget hole explodes.

So both major parties routinely fail their major goals. I guess that's why it's good to have reserve parties with the same ideas, you know.

Are "crazy wars" considered "big government". Governing is different from waging war and I'm pretty sure Republicans have always said "Small Government, Strong Military".
I mean, I get your overall point, but I just don't think you can mash the two together so easily.

Dalton wrote:America's Chief Wizard. Nate Silver proves once again that math trumps partisan hysteria.

http://isnatesilverawitch.com/

A vital resource.

I can't believe (yes I can) that Republicans are blaming a large portion of the loss on Sandy. Did it have the effect of reminding people that the President is presidential looking and he handles these things pretty well, sure, but the idea that the last week of TV coverage lost to Sandy was what was going to put them over the top is fucking silly.

On, the other hand, does this means that GAWD wanted Obama to stay President?

Havok wrote:I can't believe (yes I can) that Republicans are blaming a large portion of the loss on Sandy. Did it have the effect of reminding people that the President is presidential looking and he handles these things pretty well, sure, but the idea that the last week of TV coverage lost to Sandy was what was going to put them over the top is fucking silly.

On, the other hand, does this means that GAWD wanted Obama to stay President?

I think that they're blaming Sandy for overriding their bullshit coverage of the Benghazi "issue." They were pretty certain that it would be Obama's downfall.

Clearly.

I'm not sure they realize just what massive hateful assholes they appear to be, or maybe they don't care. But the GOP offers nothing to minorities that I can see, and not much to poor or middle class whites either.

You can't run a country on hate. Well not for long.

Havok wrote:Are "crazy wars" considered "big government". Governing is different from waging war and I'm pretty sure Republicans have always said "Small Government, Strong Military". I mean, I get your overall point, but I just don't think you can mash the two together so easily.

You need a massively massive army to wage war. You need an even more massively huge and expensive high-tech army to wage war on the other side of the world. Saying you are "for a small government" while at the same time saying "I will go to war" which means a massively huge war expenditure which will not be covered by tax revenues which you intend to reduce - that's bullfuckery of the worst kind. I'm glad you see my first point.

Moreover, every war ever waged has seen a tightening of civilian surveillance laws, greater police strictness, spy hunts and repression. They don't say "I'm for a dictatorial, but minarchist government a-la Pinochettio", since this is bad PR. They just say "small government". And that's point two.

The third point is that any war which is waged spawns an enormous government bureaucracy and generally halts the process of firing people from the government. In fact, a war creates so many government jobs that any so-called "public works" project the pale and withering American left can ever devise will pale in comparison! FDR struggled to keep the anemic economy going throughout the entire 1930s. Just four years of war created so many jobs that Hoover cried in his grave "Oh if I only had this war happen to me before!" And that's point three.

Being pro-war and anti-government is a lie. Just like the cake. Congrats to all with your new neutral evil technocrat president- Obama the Great. Peace and love!

In what way is Obama a technocrat, Stas?

The breathless, hysterical right wing nutbags are as usual sulking in predictions of gloom and doom, calling the US a "European welfare state" and the like. Such melodrama.

JLTucker wrote:In what way is Obama a technocrat, Stas?

In a great many ways. What's his position on education? Oh right - education and technology moves society. Not "blood". Not "soil". Not "clinging to our forefathers' values". And he actually does things to this effect. He's not afraid of saying "America's education sucks in many ways, but we have a great intellectual capability", not just endlessly go on about how great the star-spangled banner is.

Technology and education determine the future. Obama has done more to break the anti-intellectualist tripe which we constantly get from American politicians than anyone in a decade. Oh wait, that's because the reign of that imbecile Bush lasted almost a decade, I forgot. Nevermind.

Who's behind Obama? The liberal voter. The educated person, usually from the secondary or tertiary sector working in the highest of the high technology establishments. Silicon Valley votes Obama. Did you ever hear about class politics? There you go. There's a class behind everyone; Obama's class are the new bourgeois, the high-tech elite, the Valve workers. Are they the most progressive force in America right now? Well have a look at the landscape; I bet you'll come to the same conclusion.

To say that they're way more progressive than oiligarch dinosaurs and land rentiers from Florida is to say nothing. The difference is that of a Dark Age clergyman asking about angels and needle pins and Richard Dawkins.

Obama is for secularism, progress and sanity - the last few things which are valuable in America. He's an imperialist, he's evil, blah blah, that's all true and Obama should be relentlessly criticized as such. However, his inevitable triumph is not bad news; it's good news since the alternative to Obama was madness, the irrational choice of the "gut", an old-fashioned oligarch warmonger stuck in the 80's, if not the 50's.

Long live Obama.

Stas Bush wrote:Obama is for secularism, progress and sanity - the last few things which are valuable in America. He's an imperialist, he's evil, blah blah, that's all true and Obama should be relentlessly criticized as such. However, his inevitable triumph is not bad news; it's good news since the alternative to Obama was madness, the irrational choice of the "gut", an old-fashioned oligarch warmonger stuck in the 80's, if not the 50's.

Long live Obama.

Amen.

Flagg wrote:I don't live in an area hit by Sandy but if I did I think I'd accept the apology.

I DO live in an area affected by Sandy. I lost power for 8 days, it's fucking freezing, I have to wait 4 hours to get gas, the trains are packed, and many people I know have lost their homes or have major property damage.

But I understand Chris Matthews' sentiment. If Sandy helped Obama get re-elected, well - I'm not afraid to call that a major silver lining.

Dalton wrote:The breathless, hysterical right wing nutbags are as usual sulking in predictions of gloom and doom, calling the US a "European welfare state" and the like. Such melodrama.

Four years ago they went around screaming Obama would "kill America" and turn us into a "muslim state" Christianity would be banned and we would be a Communist Atheist Fascist state... Four years later, we get the same level of Hysterics except more so...

Of all the gloom and doom, the following is perhaps one of the best comments I have seen thus far:

Well, American voters gave up their last chance to put America back on the road of return to the Constitution and the rule of law...all in favor of Obamaphones, food stamps, Section 8 housing, and all the other Government subsidies. With four more years to further his agenda of making Americans more and more dependent on the Government, and thusly Democrats...there will never be another Republican president and soon the Republicans will begin to steadily disappear from Congress as more "Gimme" voters put in the Democrat "Free Stuff" candidates.

In fact, I believe America may have seen its LAST presidental election as Obama extends his dictatorial control of America via the flood of executive orders...there is a great potential we will see a "president for life" just as in any other third world country such as we saw in Haiti and see in so many other countries. For the first time in my life, I am deeply afraid not just for our country but for my very life.

It is absolutely incredible that half the United States is so extraordinarily clueless about who they voted for in the guise of Obama, a socialist, communist, racist, all of the above. As Lenin infamously said, "we will hang the West and they will sell us the rope." We sold the rope to Obama in '08 and and the noose in '12. When the electorate learns in a democracy (or republic through reps) it can vote its own largess from the public treasury, it signals the end of America itself.

So there you have... Obama is a Commi Muslim Atheist who will become Supreme Dictator for life apparently and somehow bribe americans with food stamps to vote for Democrats forever... The sad thing is, many on the right were making these SAME predictions shortly after Obama won the first time around... I talked to a right wing "Friend" of mine and asked him about the fact that America has NOT become a Commi Muslim Dictatorship, and his response was:
"OH! but it has, IT HAS!"

*looks at flag*

Nope, not red or emblazoned with a Hammer&Sickle

*looks at top religions*

Not Muslim either.
********

Sadly, I've had people say the same things. What idiocy...

Channel72 wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Obama is for secularism, progress and sanity - the last few things which are valuable in America. He's an imperialist, he's evil, blah blah, that's all true and Obama should be relentlessly criticized as such. However, his inevitable triumph is not bad news; it's good news since the alternative to Obama was madness, the irrational choice of the "gut", an old-fashioned oligarch warmonger stuck in the 80's, if not the 50's.

Long live Obama.

Amen.

Flagg wrote:I don't live in an area hit by Sandy but if I did I think I'd accept the apology.

I DO live in an area affected by Sandy. I lost power for 8 days, it's fucking freezing, I have to wait 4 hours to get gas, the trains are packed, and many people I know have lost their homes or have major property damage.

But I understand Chris Matthews' sentiment. If Sandy helped Obama get re-elected, well - I'm not afraid to call that a major silver lining.

I was without power for 6 days after Francis and 13 days after Jean back in 2004, and it was 90 degrees out and I'd have been fucking livid if some asshole on TV said he was glad we got hit. So I get the sentiment.

Blayne wrote:

Edi, while I am quite sure this is just an honest slip of the tongue calling the state legislatures parliaments could seem ignorant and may make some people not want to listen whether you are making a good point or not.

'State Legislature'/'National Assembly'/'parliament' I'm pretty sure all trace their political-linguistic origins to the french 'parlement' and is frequently I've seen and heard the term used by Europeans for the American legislatures. It isn't what its called sure but its not exactly without reasoning. I'm vaguely certain Churchill also called it a parliament as well.

While most thinking people (granted, a smaller proportion of humanity than we'd like) will figure out what Edi meant, the technically correct term in the US is "state legislature" and that's the one used by Americans. If the Europeans speak of US state parliaments, well, I can understand why they'd do that but it's a linguistic difference that can cause confusion.

This doesn't follow; America's representative democracy is handled through Congress, that's whats makes it republic. The Electoral College is a historical anachronism due to logistical limitations and nothing to do with the US being a republic.

It also has to do with now outdated view that the US states were, in fact, sovereign entities that were electing the PotUS rather than the people electing the PotUS.

What the hell is an Obamaphone?

NBC still has not called Florida; the candidates are currently 0.6% apart; an automatic recount triggers at 0.5%.

Losonti Tokash wrote:What the hell is an Obamaphone?

There was a program under the Bush administration to provide free or low-cost cellular phone service to those who could not afford it. Naturally, this was picked up by various right-wing trash-talk sites as "free stuff" from Obama.

Sadly it comes from the following Youtube clip. Apparently one weird lady in Ohio stated that "Obama gave us all phones, everyone in Cleveland got an Obamaphone"
Which the right has taken to mean Obama has paid off and bribed everyone in Ohio to steal the election.. It just goes back into their belief that the Democratic party does nothing but spoon feed poor people ot be "dependent" on them.

More specifically what is an "Obamaphone": someone qualified (basically, being on foodstamps or disability would work) could receive from the government a basic cellphone with both voice and text capability and a set number of minutes per month. Should the person desire, more minutes can be purchased. A third party can also purchase additional minutes for the recipient.

The rationale is that it's very hard to get a job these days if you have no phone number, and quite a few jobs require you have a phone (when I worked for the Census we were required to have cellphones. Anyone without one was instructed on how to get an "Obamaphone" or other low-cost option). It was intended to help the poor hunt for work, and for disabled people to make phone calls to various care providers and/or caregivers.

To repeat - these are basic cellphones, not some high-end iPhone or whatever.

Also, as previously stated, these were available before Obama's first term. I guess "Shrubphone" doesn't have the same ring.

That's actually a pretty brilliant idea. And it started under Bush? But I guess you can't play the small government card if you take credit for it.