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: 474
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

Either blacks are fraudulent bastards, or Maine has a serious problem keeping tabs on its negroes!

Edit: I don't always get page-toppers, but when I do, I make it COUNT!

For accidental douchebag prevention:
Well, there are reports of voter fraud. For example, the GOP chair in Maine is alleging that blacks voted in rural areas: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... f=politics
Last edited by iamspen on Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:40 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

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 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

Might want to stick a quote in that page-topper.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Роберт » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:43 pm UTC

[N]obody in town knows anybody that's black -- how did that happen? I don't know. We're going to find out.

Taken out of context, it sounds like he's discussing a serious problem.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

kiklion
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:Deciding that a graceful concession speech was a bit over the top, Romney has kicked into sore loser mode, and blamed his loss on Obama's "gifts" to his constituents.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... voters/?hp


Its funny how he used to term "gifts" for "policies people want implemented". Its like saying "rich Republicans voted for Romney because of the "gifts" he gave them". Its true, but it sounds pretty dumb.


I'm going to defend the guy because it seems no one likes him. (I don't).

He may be talking about ideology. He is claiming that Democrats only won because people realized they could 'vote themselves money', not because people actually want social justice. Essentially, that if some of the people voting Democrat had more money, they would have voted republican because they would have not been getting the 'gifts' and instead would have been paying for them.

I also think he is trying to take the moral high ground (would need to check numbers of <$250,000 earners who voted for Romney) saying that people voted for him not just because it benefited them (it doesn't if you aren't rich) but because they truly believe it is best for the country. Essentially, that those who voted for him were willing to sacrifice for the good of the country and are morally superior.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:40 pm UTC

And so it comes back to the fact that he really believes his own 47% comments. I understand you're essentially playing devil's advocate, but it really bugs me that the GOP views everyone who votes against them as so cynical.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby philsov » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

(it doesn't if you aren't rich)


Or military. At least in general (Rebs vs Dems), I'm not very versed on the specifics on Obama v Romney on who wanted a bigger military budget.

Similarly NASA engineers/techs (ex-NASA, at this point) due to recent budget cuts and Obama's decision to shut down the space shuttle program.

So... what Chen said, I think.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:48 pm UTC

Military depends on what part you're working for. If you're a defense contractor or help make weapons, then you want republicans. But if you're a soldier, you want a democrat protecting your social services. Of course, most military members themselves are republicans, so w/e.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:13 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Diadem wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Then we should add 4 more states to put stars in those corners. I suggest annexing Cuba, South Korea, Holland, and Belgium.

Just Holland, or the entire country?

Why not all of BeNeLux? They're all so small you might as well get the family pack.

Also, sugar may have been king around Hawaii's heyday, but not anymore. Hence I downvote Cuba as a possible state.


If we're doing the trifecta, I vote we add Liechtenstein as well. I love that place.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

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 Nov 15, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Since we're talking about willy nilly annexing random countries, why not just seize the whole world? Surely Obama must be thinking, "By the time he was my age, Alexander the Great had already been dead for eight years."

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:46 pm UTC

The countries are random though, we're talking about finding the diamonds in the rough that is the rest of the world.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Malice » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:27 am UTC

kiklion wrote:
Chen wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:Deciding that a graceful concession speech was a bit over the top, Romney has kicked into sore loser mode, and blamed his loss on Obama's "gifts" to his constituents.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... voters/?hp


Its funny how he used to term "gifts" for "policies people want implemented". Its like saying "rich Republicans voted for Romney because of the "gifts" he gave them". Its true, but it sounds pretty dumb.


I'm going to defend the guy because it seems no one likes him. (I don't).

He may be talking about ideology. He is claiming that Democrats only won because people realized they could 'vote themselves money', not because people actually want social justice. Essentially, that if some of the people voting Democrat had more money, they would have voted republican because they would have not been getting the 'gifts' and instead would have been paying for them.

I also think he is trying to take the moral high ground (would need to check numbers of <$250,000 earners who voted for Romney) saying that people voted for him not just because it benefited them (it doesn't if you aren't rich) but because they truly believe it is best for the country. Essentially, that those who voted for him were willing to sacrifice for the good of the country and are morally superior.


But the reason it's bullshit is that both sides want "stuff". Why vote for a politician who isn't going to serve your interest? Obama voters may have wanted to vote themselves money in the form of handouts, but then Romney voters may have wanted to vote themselves money in the form of tax cuts. Romney is playing the same game he did before--my side's desires are more morally correct than your side's desires--with an added bit of sour grapes at all the immoral bastards who refused to vote for him no matter how much he insulted, pandered, or lied to them.

It's all a toxic by-product of the Republicans' obsession with winning and ideological purity. A good politician looks at the people who didn't vote for him and says, "I will work to get your vote." A bad politician calls them bad people and keeps on keepin' on the way he always has.
Image

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

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Beltayn » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:43 am UTC

The whole "people voted for Obama because they just wanted to vote themselves money" argument would hold a LOT more water if most of the rich states hadn't voted Democrat and most of the poor states hadn't voted Republican.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:25 am UTC

Beltayn wrote:The whole "people voted for Obama because they just wanted to vote themselves money" argument would hold a LOT more water if most of the rich states hadn't voted Democrat and most of the poor states hadn't voted Republican.

You can explain that by viewing the it through the lens of the Civil war. I should dig up the book that went that tact. It went something like: South use to be rich, but the policies implemented after they lost the civil war transferred a lot of wealth into the northern states. Or was it inflation? I could never remember. Actually, you can explain a lot about the US through the lens of the civil war.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Crissa » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:47 am UTC

sardia wrote:You can explain that by viewing the it through the lens of the Civil war. I should dig up the book that went that tact. It went something like: South use to be rich, but the policies implemented after they lost the civil war transferred a lot of wealth into the northern states. Or was it inflation? I could never remember. Actually, you can explain a lot about the US through the lens of the civil war.

..Or you could explain it that agrarian economies were already poor and getting poorer as the world changed from an agrarian to an industrialized society. Absolutely unconnected to the Civil War, as that was actually a symptom of the change, not a cause.

-Crissa

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:16 am UTC

That doesn't explain how poor states feel like the government is taking their money and giving it to the undeserved. They are the ones who get the bulk of federal largess yet they feel like their money is being taken unfairly. My explanation is a bit weak, but explains it better. They use to be the ones that gave out more than they received but that feeling stayed even though the economic situation has reversed.
Man, now I gotta google where I read this crap.

User avatar
Obby
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Obby » Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:03 pm UTC

My understanding of why they used to be rich was because they used slaves to do a lot of the labor of the textiles and farming markets (markets that only made people rich because labor was almost free). As Crissa pointed out, once industrialization took hold these markets started to diminish, and be replaced by things like mining, forging, machining, technology... markets that required iron, coal, and other minerals, which the more northern states had in abundance but the southern states had very little of. This was also one of the causes of why civil war technology heavily favored the north, since they could produce things like guns and cannons at a much faster rate than the south could due to the availability of resources.

However, that also doesn't explain the poorer states taking in more money than they give yet feeling like they're being unfairly taxed. It's been a while since I studied anything relating to the civil war or its after-effects, so these might not be the best explanations, but it's what is jumping to my mind.
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
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 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:44 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
sardia wrote:You can explain that by viewing the it through the lens of the Civil war. I should dig up the book that went that tact. It went something like: South use to be rich, but the policies implemented after they lost the civil war transferred a lot of wealth into the northern states. Or was it inflation? I could never remember. Actually, you can explain a lot about the US through the lens of the civil war.

..Or you could explain it that agrarian economies were already poor and getting poorer as the world changed from an agrarian to an industrialized society. Absolutely unconnected to the Civil War, as that was actually a symptom of the change, not a cause.

-Crissa


Industrialization and the abolishing of slavery are certainly the real reasons for the long-term shift of wealth from "south" to "north", but you have to realize that when you're talking about elections you're not always dealing with reality... hell you're probably never dealing with reality, you're dealing with perception. The idea that 'northerners' are 'carpetbaggers' is still quite popular in many parts of the former confederate states and is integral to the myth there would be a vibrant confederacy if the union had lost the civil war.

"The Government" (ie: the federal government) fits quite nicely in to the role of the latter-day carpetbaggers, northerners going in to the former confederacy to steal money in the name of the public good.
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.

kiklion
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:38 pm UTC

Beltayn wrote:The whole "people voted for Obama because they just wanted to vote themselves money" argument would hold a LOT more water if most of the rich states hadn't voted Democrat and most of the poor states hadn't voted Republican.


First off, what is a 'rich state'. I would argue California was one of the largest reasons why the democrats won. They are an 'all or nothing' state that gave Obama 55 electoral votes. They are also one of the 'poorest' states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#State_finances they have 12% of the countries population but almost 1/3rd of the countries welfare recipients as well as being in debt 265 billion as of January 2011.

Secondly, you are arguing on a state by state basis which is irrelevant. I would assume you consider New York to be a 'rich state', yet we also have a very large poor/middle class population as well. Being that voting is anonymous, probably the best we could do is compare voting records of a town to it's economic status if such records exist.

Finally, poor people voting for him doesn't detract from his statement. It reinforces that poor republicans are not voting for handouts, but for what they believe is best for their country.

Obby wrote:However, that also doesn't explain the poorer states taking in more money than they give yet feeling like they're being unfairly taxed. It's been a while since I studied anything relating to the civil war or its after-effects, so these might not be the best explanations, but it's what is jumping to my mind.


How do these poor states take in more federal money? I've seen the reports in the past but don't know where I saw them so I can't look it up now. If they received more federal money through more federal jobs or social security etc, then they feel they 'earned it' through working or paying into the system. They are against direct hand outs such as housing subsidies, welfare, food stamps etc. If they receive more federal money through those direct hand outs, then I have no clue.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:07 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:First off, what is a 'rich state'. I would argue California was one of the largest reasons why the democrats won. They are an 'all or nothing' state that gave Obama 55 electoral votes. They are also one of the 'poorest' states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#State_finances they have 12% of the countries population but almost 1/3rd of the countries welfare recipients as well as being in debt 265 billion as of January 2011.
California, by almost any normal measure, isn't a poor state.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Darryl » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:16 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:
Beltayn wrote:The whole "people voted for Obama because they just wanted to vote themselves money" argument would hold a LOT more water if most of the rich states hadn't voted Democrat and most of the poor states hadn't voted Republican.


First off, what is a 'rich state'. I would argue California was one of the largest reasons why the democrats won. They are an 'all or nothing' state that gave Obama 55 electoral votes. They are also one of the 'poorest' states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#State_finances they have 12% of the countries population but almost 1/3rd of the countries welfare recipients as well as being in debt 265 billion as of January 2011.

Secondly, you are arguing on a state by state basis which is irrelevant. I would assume you consider New York to be a 'rich state', yet we also have a very large poor/middle class population as well. Being that voting is anonymous, probably the best we could do is compare voting records of a town to it's economic status if such records exist.

Finally, poor people voting for him doesn't detract from his statement. It reinforces that poor republicans are not voting for handouts, but for what they believe is best for their country.

Obby wrote:However, that also doesn't explain the poorer states taking in more money than they give yet feeling like they're being unfairly taxed. It's been a while since I studied anything relating to the civil war or its after-effects, so these might not be the best explanations, but it's what is jumping to my mind.


How do these poor states take in more federal money? I've seen the reports in the past but don't know where I saw them so I can't look it up now. If they received more federal money through more federal jobs or social security etc, then they feel they 'earned it' through working or paying into the system. They are against direct hand outs such as housing subsidies, welfare, food stamps etc. If they receive more federal money through those direct hand outs, then I have no clue.

Well, the state that receives the most net federal money (that is, inflow minus outflow via income taxes, etc.) per capita is Alaska, with a net 15k per person.

Down at the bottom of the graphic here is a list of states in order of dollar received per dollar spent. The first solid red state on that list is Texas, at 94 cents received per dollar spent. Swing states are fairly spread out, and the most intaking blue state is Hawaii, at 1.44 dollars received per dollar spent. Going through the list, red states basically fill the bottom of the list, and blue states the top.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11092
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

California has less than a 100$ budget deficit per capita. California has a balance of payments surplus with the Federal government of 1400$ per capita. If the Feds would stop transferring money from the hard-working states like California to welfare states like Alaska (7k in federal largess per capita!) and Utah, California would not only have a balanced budget without its citizens being taxed an iota more, but would be posting enough surplus to clear its accumulated debt within a decade or two.

Meanwhile, Alaska's state budget of 2.8 billion dollars is dwarfed by the 5 billion dollars of net Federal largess the state gets. (9.5 billion dollars in Federal spending, 4.5 billion dollars in Federal taxes). Alaska is a true welfare state, with its citizens getting 2$ in total government services for every 1$ they pay in taxes.
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.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:53 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Alaska is a true welfare state, with its citizens getting 2$ in total government services for every 1$ they pay in taxes.

The federal government manages 240 million acres of land in Alaska. It gets the most money per capita and the least money per square mile. Both metrics are worthless in this case.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11092
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

Yes, it gets lots of federally managed land. The slacker bum state that it is, it doesn't even pay to manage its own territory, while benefiting hugely from the natural resources.

It should step up and start paying its fair share.
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.

kiklion
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
kiklion wrote:First off, what is a 'rich state'. I would argue California was one of the largest reasons why the democrats won. They are an 'all or nothing' state that gave Obama 55 electoral votes. They are also one of the 'poorest' states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#State_finances they have 12% of the countries population but almost 1/3rd of the countries welfare recipients as well as being in debt 265 billion as of January 2011.
California, by almost any normal measure, isn't a poor state.


http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/28/476452 ... rises.html

Largest debt in the nation and up there in per capita debt. I see 4 states with more and 5 that are equal (can't see Alaska/Hawaii on this map.)

Well, the state that receives the most net federal money (that is, inflow minus outflow via income taxes, etc.) per capita is Alaska, with a net 15k per person.

Down at the bottom of the graphic here is a list of states in order of dollar received per dollar spent. The first solid red state on that list is Texas, at 94 cents received per dollar spent. Swing states are fairly spread out, and the most intaking blue state is Hawaii, at 1.44 dollars received per dollar spent. Going through the list, red states basically fill the bottom of the list, and blue states the top.


Well, that is kind of my point. The republicans who are talking about being unfairly taxed and are against hand outs, may be talking about direct handouts such as welfare, unemployment, housing subsidies etc. That sounds like it includes all federal money spent in that state. If you work for the government, it doesn't mean the government is handing out money. You earned it through a service, preferably the government viewed your service as worth more than what they paid for it. I apologize if this chart was only about money handed out directly to people and not for services rendered, taxfoundation.org is a pretty big site to search thoroughly and to try to find what data/reports the chart was based off of.

Heisenberg wrote:
Yakk wrote:Alaska is a true welfare state, with its citizens getting 2$ in total government services for every 1$ they pay in taxes.

The federal government manages 240 million acres of land in Alaska. It gets the most money per capita and the least money per square mile. Both metrics are worthless in this case.


Why does the government manage so much land? This is old but was the best I found, http://nrm.salrm.uaf.edu/~stodd/AlaskaP ... rship.html the state only owns 24% of the land in Alaska. Unfortunately, I don't understand all of the terminology on this page. Do people live on Public Domain Lands that are federally owned? What about Private Land? I vaguely remember prior campaigns to remove those National Parks to allow for oil drilling. If that was supported by Alaskans it would be in poor spirit to claim them to be slackers if we don't even allow them to use their land as they want. If the Federal Government is forcing them to not utilize their land, then the Federal Government should pay for it. Which is one more reason to only look at direct handouts such as Welfare, Unemployment etc.

~Edit, Hell, if the Federal Government still owns so much of the Alaskan land, why even cal it part of the Alaskan state? It seems there is enough land there to create a 51st state and call it Federalia!
~Edit 2: It seems odd that you can deduct state taxes from your federal income tax. Here, a state with 0% income tax would be paying more of their income as tax to the federal government than a state with 10% income tax. So by having increase state tax levels, you can prevent the government from getting the money in the first place so you don't need to receive it back. So this further dilutes the importance of the report that detailed money given to the federal government vs money received. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_ ... ted_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax The first link here should be read with a grain of salt, while Alaska may have the highest tax per capita, it also has no sales tax nor income tax. So all of the tax it does get seems to be come corporations and it's per capita is so high because it doesn't have a lot of people.
Last edited by kiklion on Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:23 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:the state only owns 24% of the land in Alaska. Unfortunately, I don't understand all of the terminology on this page. Do people live on Public Domain Lands that are federally owned? What about Private Land?

According to Wikipedia:
The BLM owns 87 million acres
NFS owns 22 million acres
ANWR is 16 million acres
Natives are allotted 44 million acres
The State owns 101 million acres
And 1% of the land is owned by private citizens.

Really the only folks who live on public lands are park rangers and Natives (who the federal government gives a bunch of money to in the form of special programs, as well).

kiklion
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:35 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
kiklion wrote:the state only owns 24% of the land in Alaska. Unfortunately, I don't understand all of the terminology on this page. Do people live on Public Domain Lands that are federally owned? What about Private Land?

According to Wikipedia:
The BLM owns 87 million acres
NFS owns 22 million acres
ANWR is 16 million acres
Natives are allotted 44 million acres
The State owns 101 million acres
And 1% of the land is owned by private citizens.

Really the only folks who live on public lands are park rangers and Natives (who the federal government gives a bunch of money to in the form of special programs, as well).


Ok, so if you are a resident of Alaska your house is in that 1%, and is NOT in the state owned land? Just want to make sure I am understanding this. Also, it seems the state owns 28% of the land now, up from 24% previously (assuming 83 million acres is 23.8% of the state) from my link.

Derek
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Derek » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:38 pm UTC

kiklion wrote:Do people live on Public Domain Lands that are federally owned?

This happens in some parts of the country. I don't know all the details, and I certainly don't know anything specific about Alaska, but for example I've seen private houses in a national forest. I think this can happen when the federal government buys up land to create a new park, and part of the deal is that current residents won't be evicted (but usually no new private residences are allowed).

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-0 ... rowth.html

Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. They include Republican strongholds like King County, Texas, which in 2008 backed Republican John McCain by 92.6 percent, his largest share in the nation; and fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

kiklion
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:03 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. They include Republican strongholds like King County, Texas, which in 2008 backed Republican John McCain by 92.6 percent, his largest share in the nation; and fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado.


Time to continue playing devil's advocate. (since I am advocating for Romney, does that make him the Devil?)

Thanks for finding more evidence supporting Romney's claim. Obviously since the Democrats are filled with slackers and leeches they were already on food stamps. That article only goes to show how Obama's policies have devastated the middle class that is the back bone of the Republican party and has forced them to have to take some hand outs. It also gives evidence from a reputable source in Nicholas Colas supporting the notion that some people will vote for Obama to extend benefits (voting themselves money) even if they think that it will give us a slower recovery from this recession.

While Michael Franc shows us that some true Republicans will continue to vote for Romney despite Obama attempting to purchase their votes with the food stamp program expansion because they are willing to sacrifice a little if it is for the good of the country.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby IcedT » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Beltayn wrote:The whole "people voted for Obama because they just wanted to vote themselves money" argument would hold a LOT more water if most of the rich states hadn't voted Democrat and most of the poor states hadn't voted Republican.

You can explain that by viewing the it through the lens of the Civil war. I should dig up the book that went that tact. It went something like: South use to be rich, but the policies implemented after they lost the civil war transferred a lot of wealth into the northern states. Or was it inflation? I could never remember. Actually, you can explain a lot about the US through the lens of the civil war.

The antebellum South had more wealth per capita than the North did, but (1) less total wealth due to a much smaller population and (2) a much larger disparity in wealth, since almost all the money was concentrated in the hands of planters. They were basically suffering from what we'd call the resource curse today, since their entire economy was built around exporting cash crops and wealth only flowed to the handful of people directly involved in that sector. Once slavery was abolished and Europe started importing cotton from Egypt, they were done for.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby lutzj » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:58 am UTC

IcedT wrote:
sardia wrote:
Beltayn wrote:The whole "people voted for Obama because they just wanted to vote themselves money" argument would hold a LOT more water if most of the rich states hadn't voted Democrat and most of the poor states hadn't voted Republican.

You can explain that by viewing the it through the lens of the Civil war. I should dig up the book that went that tact. It went something like: South use to be rich, but the policies implemented after they lost the civil war transferred a lot of wealth into the northern states. Or was it inflation? I could never remember. Actually, you can explain a lot about the US through the lens of the civil war.

The antebellum South had more wealth per capita than the North did, but (1) less total wealth due to a much smaller population and (2) a much larger disparity in wealth, since almost all the money was concentrated in the hands of planters. They were basically suffering from what we'd call the resource curse today, since their entire economy was built around exporting cash crops and wealth only flowed to the handful of people directly involved in that sector. Once slavery was abolished and Europe started importing cotton from Egypt, they were done for.



The southern economy also took a body blow after the Civil War because, for the past century, smart money in the South was invested in slaves. All that capital disappeared with emancipation, so that the wealthy planter class (which, as you mention, controlled most of the economy) was devastated overnight. The sharecropping/tenant system that followed wasn't much better, because it encouraged planters to idle on their land while binding everyone else in desperate poverty. Investors in northern states, on the other hand, tended towards shipyards, factories, canals, railroads, etc., which produced lasting returns. It helped that that northern industrial capital was largely untouched by the Civil War.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby addams » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

Back to the 'Here and Now'.

Twenty states want to 'run away from home'.

What a wonderful idea. That is real Freedom!

I'd like to see that map. I think I would like to be in one of the thirty United States.

Not perfect. Yet; There is some uniform government stuff I like.

If I am in the wrong color state for my value system, then how long do I have to cross the border, before the borders close?

Will the UN send in observers? Will we be allowed to leave? Accedent of time and location?
How awlful. Those borders could cla
mp shut in a matter of hours. Guarded on both sides.
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.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:53 pm UTC

Beltayn wrote:The whole "people voted for Obama because they just wanted to vote themselves money" argument would hold a LOT more water if most of the rich states hadn't voted Democrat and most of the poor states hadn't voted Republican.

Was i just selectively hearing him or was he essentially just listing off groups of people who aren't older white males and how the government might help them*? Heavens Above! The government could work for some people and help make their lives better?
Socialism.

*regardless of whether the things he said were true cause i think some of them really weren't
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:40 am UTC

Not that he didn't want to buy off the votes of his rich friends or religious institutions (via increased exemptions) either....lol! Sore loser is sore, and nothing has been more satisfying in my political life than watching his concession speech and the realization that he can't buy his way through whatever he wants. Maybe governorship, but certainly not the presidency.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:05 pm UTC


Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

The "news" aspect of this story is that someone, or someones claiming to be THE anonymous, alleges that they prevented a hacking of the vote in 3 states.
You guys, they found THE anonymous!!!!

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 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:40 pm UTC

Yes, yes, we know how the free moniker that anyone can use works.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
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 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:40 pm UTC

Does anyone have a good link to an article about the Republican Party's response to the election?

I recall just after the election there was a lot of commentary and/or punditry that the Republican Party was going to have to do some soul searching about their platform and how they'll need to change to keep up with changing demographics. Then it was last week (I think) That the Rep. Party officially said something to the effect that there's nothing wrong with any of their platform, they're going to stand firm to their principles with some minor changes to appeal to Latinos and youth demographics or somesuch.

I never got the chance to read an article on the matter, and the soundbite I heard was not terribly long on specifics so I wonder if anyone's got some better sources on the topic.
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.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:31 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Does anyone have a good link to an article about the Republican Party's response to the election?

I recall just after the election there was a lot of commentary and/or punditry that the Republican Party was going to have to do some soul searching about their platform and how they'll need to change to keep up with changing demographics. Then it was last week (I think) That the Rep. Party officially said something to the effect that there's nothing wrong with any of their platform, they're going to stand firm to their principles with some minor changes to appeal to Latinos and youth demographics or somesuch.

I never got the chance to read an article on the matter, and the soundbite I heard was not terribly long on specifics so I wonder if anyone's got some better sources on the topic.

Think about the election and you'll understand why. The republicans ran in 3 areas, House, senate, and executive. They only lost some senate races, and the executive. All those people in the House are sitting pretty, wondering why they need to change anything when they easily won their seats. The ones who lost the senate learned the valuable lesson that you shouldn't say "rape is god's work" in front of a microphone. You could easily say GOP could have won if he wasn't Romney, and run next year with a smaller field, more popular and more conservative.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby lutzj » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Dauric wrote:Does anyone have a good link to an article about the Republican Party's response to the election?

I recall just after the election there was a lot of commentary and/or punditry that the Republican Party was going to have to do some soul searching about their platform and how they'll need to change to keep up with changing demographics. Then it was last week (I think) That the Rep. Party officially said something to the effect that there's nothing wrong with any of their platform, they're going to stand firm to their principles with some minor changes to appeal to Latinos and youth demographics or somesuch.

I never got the chance to read an article on the matter, and the soundbite I heard was not terribly long on specifics so I wonder if anyone's got some better sources on the topic.

Think about the election and you'll understand why. The republicans ran in 3 areas, House, senate, and executive. They only lost some senate races, and the executive. All those people in the House are sitting pretty, wondering why they need to change anything when they easily won their seats. The ones who lost the senate learned the valuable lesson that you shouldn't say "rape is god's work" in front of a microphone. You could easily say GOP could have won if he wasn't Romney, and run next year with a smaller field, more popular and more conservative.


Indeed, there are plenty of (misguided) people who feel the GOP needs to double down on conservatism.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests